Did Judge Merchan Make the Right Decision By Delaying Trump's Sentence? Steven Beschloss Sep 7 I’m a strong believer in the idea that justice delayed is justice denied. It’s been maddening to watch Donald Trump evade justice in nearly every one of his court cases, aided and abetted by a Supreme Court that dragged out its decision on presidential immunity for months and then rendered a decision that has compelled judges to grapple with the question of whether the alleged criminality constituted “official acts” of a president. Then there’s pro-Trump Judge Aileen Cannon, of course, who was determined from the beginning to end the classified documents case, credible legal reasoning be damned. The case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, in which a 12-member jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony charges in May for falsifying business records to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, felt different. He was on track to sentence the convicted felon well before the November election. But yesterday the judge decided to delay his sentencing for a second time, first from July to September 18 after the Supreme Court ruling and now until November 26, three weeks after the election. In his explanation, Merchan bends over backwards to insist that he wanted to avoid giving the appearance that his decision was a political act. “The imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance—however unwarranted—that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate,” Merchan wrote in his four-page decision. “The Court is a fair, impartial and apolitical institution.” Merchan also noted that he recognized "the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in" and sought to ensure that the jury’s verdict is “addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election.” He also took pains to insist that his decision to delay "should dispel any suggestion" that his sentencing decision could be construed as support for "any political party or any candidate for any office." Sounds reasonable, except this delay is exactly the outcome Trump and his legal team wanted. In fact, the convicted felon was quick to exploit the sentencing delay to restate his grievances and innocence. "The Manhattan D.A. Witch Hunt has been postponed because everyone realizes that there was NO CASE, I DID NOTHING WRONG!" Trump posted on his Truth Social site. "It is a political attack against me." On the other hand, without a sentencing decision that could (and should) include prison time, Trump no longer has the same opportunity to insist he is the victim of political persecution. But let’s not doubt that Trump’s personal stake in the upcoming election is now higher—and that he’s even more certain to assert he’s won the election, whatever the actual results, so that he can avoid criminal accountability. Meanwhile, Judge Tanya Chutkan offers a counterpoint to Merchan’s delay. Chutkan has reiterated her steadfast commitment to proceed now with hearings on whether the four-count indictment involving election subversion is affected by the high court’s immunity ruling. As Chutkan put it at a first hearing on Thursday, “This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule.” So what do you think? Did Judge Merchan make the right decision by delaying Trump’s sentence? Does his decision successfully avoid appearing partisan? Does it benefit Trump or, in turn, does it take this issue off the table and help Kamala Harris keep the spotlight on her plans for America’s future? Should she bring up Trump’s myriad criminal cases during the debate? And finally, does Judge Chutkan’s decision to proceed undercut Judge Merchan’s reasons for delay? As always, I look forward to reading your observations and the opportunity for this community to learn from each other. Please do be respectful in your comments. Trolling will not be tolerated.