Trump reacts to sentencing delay in Bragg case, says case 'should be dead'

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump reacted to Judge Juan Merchan’s decision to delay sentencing in New York v. Trump until after Election Day, telling Fox News Digital he "did nothing wrong" and that the case "should be dead." 

Trump spoke exclusively with Fox News Digital after Merchan granted the former president’s request to have his sentencing delayed until after the presidential election in November. 

Trump's sentencing date is now scheduled for Nov. 26. The original sentencing date was Sept. 18.

"The case was delayed because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong," Trump told Fox News Digital. "It is a case that should never have been brought." 

Trump said "the public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it." 

"I greatly respect the words ‘if necessary’ being used in this decision because there should be no, ‘if necessary,’" Trump said. "The case should be dead."

Trump was referring to a section of Merchan's letter Friday, in which he notifies Trump attorneys of the delay, and says that "the sentencing on this matter, if necessary, if adjourned to November 26, 2024 at 10am." 

Merchan also said Friday the "public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion."

"Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute," Merchan said. Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adjournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the [motion] and 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." 

TRUMP ASKS FEDERAL COURT TO TAKE OVER BRAGG CASE WEEKS BEFORE SENTENCING

Trump was found guilty in an unprecedented criminal trial on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree after a six-week trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. 

Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesperson, told Fox News Digital, "There should be no sentencing in the Manhattan DA’s election interference witch hunt. As mandated by the United States Supreme Court, this case, along with all of the other Harris-Biden hoaxes, should be dismissed."

'ELECTION INTERFERENCE': TRUMP LAWYERS CALL FOR DELAYED SENTENCING IN BRAGG CASE

Trump's initial sentencing was scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention, where he was formally nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential nominee, but Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay it until Sept. 18. 

Trump lawyers then requested his sentencing be delayed until after the November presidential election, citing "naked election-interference objectives." 

Trump has appealed the verdict after pleading not guilty to all charges. Trump attorney Todd Blanche said the verdict should be overturned based on the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. 

Blanche also pointed to Merchan’s daughter’s work at Authentic Campaigns, which represents top Democratic candidates. 

In his arguments for dismissal, Blanche argued that Bragg offered official acts as evidence during the unprecedented six-week criminal trial. Blanche said that included official White House communications with staffers like Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout and others. 

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office but not for unofficial acts. The high court said Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts" but left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line between official and unofficial is.