Legal Expert Explains Why Trump Effort to Squash Sentencing Is BS

Arguments from lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump in a legal filing made public Monday amounted to "nonsense," said longtime legal analyst Norm Eisen, as the Republican leader attempts to avoid a sentencing that would cement his status later this month as the first convicted felon to serve as president of the United States.

Trump's attorneys filed a "notice of automatic stay" three days after New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan upheld the president-elect's criminal conviction of 34 counts of falsifying business documents. The case—one of four pending criminal cases against Trump while he ran for president last year—pertains to a $130,000 hush-money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before Trump's 2016 electoral victory.

In upholding the conviction, Merchan rejected Trump's motion to vacate a New York jury's guilty verdict last May and scheduled his sentencing for January 10.

On Monday, lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove—who are also Trump's nominees for deputy attorney general and assistant to the deputy attorney general—claimed the case should be paused because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer which gave presidents broad immunity for "official acts" they take.

"I call BS," said Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explaining on the social media platform X that presidential immunity "does not apply here" because the case pertains to events that took place before Trump was first elected president.

Trump's claim that he should enjoy "sitting-president immunity" is also "nonsense," said Eisen, as he has not been the sitting president since January 2021 and won't be again until January 20, 10 days after the scheduled sentencing.

"His claim that sitting-president immunity extends into the transitional period while he is 'president-elect' is nonsense," said Eisen. "There's no such doctrine in American law. He's making this up."

Blanche and Bove demanded that Merchan indicate by 2:00 pm on Monday whether he would block the sentencing.

"Lawyers don't impose deadlines on judges; it's the other way around," said MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg. "But that didn't stop Trump's lawyers from giving Judge Merchan a deadline of TODAY at 2:00 pm to say whether he'll proceed with 1/10 sentencing, or else they will file an emergency appeal."

A spokesperson for the district attorney's office told The Washington Post that the judge was expected to file a response Monday.

In the filing, Eisen said, "Trump argues that 'further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law.'"

"Wrong again!" he wrote. "There is no automatic stay. He's making this shit up as he goes along."

"Hasn't Trump delayed accountability long enough?" said Eisen. "You know if he gets this stay, his sentencing will never occur. I strongly oppose a stay—and so does the interest of justice."