(Washington) Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg asked the United States Supreme Court on Thursday to reject Donald Trump’s appeal against his sentencing scheduled for Friday in New York.
Donald Trump was convicted on May 30 in this case of concealed payments of US$130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels of “aggravated accounting falsification to conceal a conspiracy to pervert the 2016 election.”
His sentencing, postponed several times, was finally set for January 3 by Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, for Friday at 9:30 a.m. local time (9:30 a.m. Eastern time).
After several unsuccessful appeals, the lawyers of the president-elect, who will take office on January 20, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday to ask it to urgently suspend the procedure to “prevent a serious injustice and an attack on the presidential institution and the functioning of the federal government.
In his response, Attorney Bragg argues that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to intervene in a state court proceeding when all appeals before it have not been exhausted.
Basically, he asserts that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the need for such an “exceptional” decision, emphasizing that he does not yet benefit from the legal protections granted to a sitting president.
“The defendant makes the unprecedented argument that his future temporary presidential immunity would fully immunize him now, weeks before he even takes office, from any state-level criminal proceedings,” writes Alvin Bragg.
“There is a major public interest in the sentencing taking place,” he adds, recalling that Judge Merchan has “taken exceptional measures to minimize the burden on the defendant”, including by announcing that he would not sentence him to prison.
Donald Trump “has not provided any factual evidence to support his assertion that his duties as president-elect would virtually prevent him from attending a hearing that will likely last no more than an hour,” notes – he elsewhere.
The person concerned can appear in person or remotely by video during this historic but essentially symbolic hearing, the judge having not only ruled out his incarceration, but also a fine.
