There’s Nothing “Apolitical” About Trump’s Sentencing Delay

On September 6, Judge Merchan from Manhattan delayed sentencing for former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial. The sentencing was initially scheduled for September 18, but the date was changed to November 26, three weeks after election day. 

Judge Merchan’s reasoning for this delay was that the court is a “fair, impartial and apolitical institution,” and this decision will keep sentencing “free from distraction and distortion.” 

Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying records last May. Trump falsified records to cover up a sex scandal with Stormy Daniels that may have impacted his 2016 presidential campaign. 

At face value, delaying this sentencing until after the election might appear to keep politics out of the courtroom. But upon further contemplation, it’s clear that even considering the election as a critical factor doesn’t make this sentencing “apolitical.” It makes it VERY political. 

Understandably, Judge Merchan had to make a high-stakes decision, one that, when coupled with death threats received by himself and his family, puts a lot of pressure on one person. This pressure is heightened when considering that this is the first time a former president has been convicted of a felony, let alone 34. History and your family’s safety are a lot to put on one person’s plate. 

That said, this case should continue regardless of the election. For the courtroom to remain “apolitical,” political issues should not interfere with justice; the election is no exception. Furthermore, courtrooms have a set schedule, and that schedule should be followed and not altered for the sake of a work event for the defendant.  

Although it is easy to air grievances only with Judge Merchan, this decision is more complex than the whims and opinions of one judge. Trump requested the delay in sentencing, and rather than challenge that request, prosecutors under the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, took neutral positions and left the decision to Judge Merchan. 

The action of not having an opinion or staying neutral is an opinion in and of itself. The district attorney prosecutors are, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with Trump’s request, which left Judge Merchan in a tricky position. When the defense makes a request, and the prosecution doesn’t challenge it, the judge isn’t faced with a real reason to deny such a request, hence Judge Merchan’s decision. 

So, although I disagree with Judge Merchan’s decision, I can also understand the enormity of the situation and the many components that factored in this decision. If anything, I’m disappointed in district attorney Alvin L. Bragg and the prosecutors employed under him for their lack of a stance over the matter. Also, if Trump’s sentencing gets delayed once, what’s to stop it from being delayed again? Would the sentencing still be delayed if Trump weren’t a political figure or financially privileged?

Trump’s lawyers can argue that this sentencing delay benefits the mechanics of the justice system, but it benefits no one but Trump himself.