Subject: Re: Judge Merchan sentences Trump
Merchan gave us his reason for his decision to delay

You mean this one?:

“Adjourning decision on the motion and sentencing, if such is required, should dispel any suggestion that the Court will have issued any decision or imposed sentence either to give an advantage to, or to create a disadvantage for, any political party and or any candidate for any office,” Merchan wrote.

Basically, he's being a chicken shit.

Trump has been found guilty. That SHOULD have an affect on his candidacy. Likewise, if he is immune or there was evidence presented that should not have been presented, that information SHOULD affect his candidacy.

What he's doing is a disservice to the public, no matter what his decision - whether for or against Trump. We're left in a limbo where the facts and legal decisions are unknown when they easily could be known.

There is simply no reason for Merchan to avoid making the decision, especially when he has all the information he's asked for in order to make the decision, and he's had plenty of time to study the information and arguments.

Wouldn't Trump really want to know the decision if it were in favor of immunity or at least a retrial without the inadmissible evidence? Either one would remove the guilty verdict and, at worst, cause a retrial. If he's so convinced of his immunity, get the judge to move it along and announce his decision.

And even if the decision is against Trump, he can get his appeal filed and moving, and it will give him one more thing to whine about on the campaign trail, bringing in more campaign donations.

We've been down this road before. Eight years ago, Comey thought he could thread the needle and re-open an investigation on the thinnest of evidence while trying to sound neutral. That failed spectacularly. Just a few days ago, Judge Chutkan had the balls to do the right thing. She chose to keep her case moving forward, saying that she was going to pay no attention to the election. She's got a trial to conduct, and she's going to conduct it like she would for any other defendant. Some random drug pusher would get the same treatment - she wouldn't let him delay the trial so he could go to a job interview. (Well, maybe for a day, but not for multiple weeks.)

--Peter