1 of 2 | Former President Donald Trump’s (seen at July’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee) original July 11 sentencing date for his New York criminal trial had previously been postponed by the judge to Sept. 18 in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. Photo by Matt Marton/UPI | License Photo
Aug. 15 (UPI) — Former President Donald Trump‘s attorneys have asked the judge overseeing his New York criminal case to again delay sentencing until after November’s election.
In a letter dated Wednesday to Judge Juan Merchan, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that Trump’s sentencing should be delayed until after the presidential election in November is over, contending that such a move is necessary in order to resolve ongoing legal disputes related to the conviction.
They also noted the current Sept. 18 sentencing date will arrive after early voting gets underway in some states.
“By adjourning the sentencing until after that election…the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings,” Blanche and Bove wrote.
Trump’s original July 11 sentencing date had previously been postponed by Merchan to Sept.18 in the aftermath of the Supreme Court‘s ruling on presidential immunity.
“There is no valid countervailing reason for the Court to keep the current sentencing date on the calendar,” the two Trump lawyers said in the letter.
At the end of May, Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers in New York on all 34 counts of falsifying Trump Organization business records to conceal what was legally criminal conduct to hide his alleged extramarital sexual encounter with adult film actress Stormy Daniels from the public in order to win the 2016 presidential election.
Trump has been seeking to overturn the conviction, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, along with other legal maneuvers to slow down the process leading to his conviction in May, pending sentencing date and in his three other remaining cases in other jurisdictions.
Merchan has said that he will rule on the immunity motion on Sept. 6.
Trump’s legal defense team has grabbed onto the employment of Merchan’s daughter, who works at a digital agency that works with Democrat candidates, to claim it is a conflict of interests for him to preside over the case.
On Wednesday, the judge rejected a third effort by Trump’s lawyers to force Merchan’s recusal.
Blanche and Bove stated their belief that the requested delay would prevent Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg from filing a sentencing submission while Merchan was still actively considering Trump’s motion in the case related to presidential immunity, and would allow extra time for them to plan for an appeal to a possible rejection of the effort to overturn the case.
Meanwhile, Bragg’s office declined to comment on Wednesday’s letter by Trump’s legal team.
“The requested adjournment is also necessary to allow President Trump adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options in response to any adverse ruling,” the letter read.
Wednesday’s letter arrived two days after the Republican presidential nominee’s wide-ranging 2-hour long “talk” on the social media platform X with its billionaire owner Elon Musk, who has endorsed Trump’s third White House bid, after it got off to a rocky start due to technical issues.
“The Zambian party informed the Congolese party that the border will be reopened, to allow the free movement of people and goods between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Zambia,”… Read More
Susan Wojcicki, former YouTube CEO, and instrumental figure in Google’s acquisition of YouTube’s video platform, has passed away aged 56. Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, a central figure in developing Google’s AdSense advertising platform who later became CEO of YouTube, has died at the age of 56… Read More
Liverpool will almost certainly break off talks with Real Sociedad after their ‘brutal dig’ over Martin Zubimendi, but they do have a ‘transfer trick’. Hey Macarena. Eh? The Anthony Gordon well dried up about a month ago but defeat appears to have finally been declared in terms of certain outlets pretending he might join … Read More
In the Perseus Cluster lies the galaxy MCG+07-07-072, a barred spiral with an unusual near-circular structure. Its classification as an SBc(r) galaxy reveals the complexity of galactic forms. The subject of this mesmerizing circular Hubble Space Telescope image is situated in the Perseus Cluster, also known as Abell 426… Read More
What some took to be a show of solidarity between neighbouring countries may end up landing someone in trouble. A video posted on TikTok account The SG Daily on Saturday (Aug 10) shows two flags — one of Singapore and the other of Malaysia — hanging side by side outside a ground-floor flat in an Read More
FX Gain: Otedola Backs FG on 70% Windfall Tax from Banks Nigerian Billionaire, Femi Otedola, has supported the 70 per cent windfall tax proposed by the Federal Government on foreign exchange gains of banks. In a statement he issued on Wednesday, Otedola, who is the chairman of FBN Holdings… Read More
International humanitarian law violations should not be normalised, ICRC warns, noting 120 global conflicts as it marks Geneva Conventions’ 75th anniversary.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has called on the world to respect the Geneva Conventions as the international treaties setting out the rules of war mark their 75th anniversary.
The rule book for the conduct of war is under strain and often disregarded, ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric said on Monday. Conduct in conflicts such as in Gaza, Ukraine, Syria and Myanmar illustrate that the conventions are being largely ignored and a new commitment to international humanitarian law is needed, advocates say.
The Geneva Conventions, which mark out rules on the protection of civilians, detainees and wounded soldiers, were adopted by most of the world after they were finalised in 1949.
“The world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death,” Spoljaric told reporters at ICRC headquarters in Geneva.
Today we mark the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. Since Aug. 12th, 1949, they have safeguarded human dignity in the darkest times. 📜
States and non-state armed groups must ensure these rules continue to save lives. pic.twitter.com/DRnukK09IX
“Today we mark the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions,” the ICRC wrote on X. “They have safeguarded human dignity in the darkest times. States and non-state armed groups must ensure these rules continue to save lives.”
The conventions ban torture and sexual violence, require humane treatment of detainees and mandate searches for missing people.
They “reflect a global consensus that all wars have limits”, Spoljaric said. “The dehumanisation of both enemy fighters and civilian populations is a path to ruin and disaster.”
The Red Cross said the rule book is needed now more than ever. More than 120 active conflicts persist around the world, it pointed out, a six-fold increase from the half-century anniversary of the conventions in 1999.
Modern armed conflicts have become more dangerous since the 20th century due to new technologies, the urbanisation of warfare and “the deliberate dehumanisation of the enemy through labels such as ‘terrorist’”, it went on to say.
The Red Cross stated that violations – including firing on hospitals, schools and ambulances and the killing of aid workers and civilians – should not become the norm.
When international humanitarian law “violations are committed with impunity, this fuels further cycles of violence often resulting in protracted armed conflicts that span decades”, the organisation said.
Actors in many conflicts today are accused of violating the conventions, from Gaza to Ukraine.
The United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory has accused Israel of violating three of the five acts listed under the UN Genocide Conventions during its war in Gaza.
South Africa has also taken Israel to the International Court of Justice, accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza – with 12 other countries backing the case.
Russia’s actions in Ukraine, meanwhile, should be investigated as war crimes, organisations like Human Rights Watch have said.
Meek Mill shared some kind and confusing words about Donald Trump, but he insists that he isn’t “endorsing anybody.” On Wednesday (Aug. 14), the Philadelphia emcee took to social media to express his views on the former President and the assassination attempt on his life.
Meek insisted that he was impressed by the way Trump carried himself after almost being killed and then continuing his campaign. The rant began with the MMG rapper explaining how he may be getting “programmed” to see more of Trump during this election cycle and used Stormy Daniels as an example.
“When I was locked up TV programming taught me every detail about ‘Stormy Daniels’ that was when I learned the art of programming,” he began on X/Twitter. “My X has turned back to Trump life again…I never did a history check on Trump, he even been to my hood with OT7 mobbing!”
He got shot at basically put his middle finger up after a bang out got hit in the head nobody ran ….hope you get well too we get shot at a lot! Got indicted still running for president! Who is this guy trump fr I know some wild guys but wtf lol just my thoughts!
“He got shot at basically put his middle finger up after a bang out, got hit in the head, nobody ran,” he said of the assassination attempt. “Hope you get well too we get shot at a lot! Got indicted still running for President! Who is this guy Trump fr I know some wild guys but wtf lol just my thoughts!”
Meek immediately clarified his posts, explaining that he isn’t “endorsing anybody” and was merely impressed with the controversial figure. He quote-tweeted a fan asserting that the 37-year-old wasn’t co-signing any politician but just speaking his mind as a “free thinker.”
I’m not endorsing anybody I know nothing about politics …he was owning building I was living in north Philly in poverty getting shot at seeing death going to jail for environmental shit … all I see on phones and tvs is trump , it’s like tf is this guy ? https://t.co/Jm9K6HyRIC
“I’m not endorsing anybody I know nothing about politics…He was owning building I was living in north Philly in poverty getting shot at seeing death going to jail for environmental sh*t … all I see on phones and TVs is Trump, it’s like tf is this guy,” Meek added.
The rapper then ended his political stream of consciousness with a request for Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s 2024 election opponent. Meek revealed that he had a couple of questions for Harris to clear up things regarding “Black and brown men going to prison and her views.”
I wanna ask Kamala Harris questions about her past as a da, even if she had to be tough…. All I hear is rumors of her … I would ask her 3 questions about black and brown men going to prison and her views and try to help her understand from a survival standpoint point she may…
Police officers clash with pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of California at Irvine on May 15, 2024.(Qian Weizhong / VCG via Getty Images)
Last spring, students at colleges and universities around the country erected tent encampments on their campuses to protest the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and calling for divestment in companies supplying arms to Israel. In a few cases, university administrators negotiated with the protesters and agreed to reconsider those investments, but in most they called on the police to clear the encampments and arrest the protesters. Hundreds of students were arrested at Columbia, Northeastern, Washington University, USC, UCLA, UMass Amherst, UNC Chapel Hill, UT Austin, and many others—resulting in as many as 3,200 student arrests, according to one estimate.
Although most of those arrests occurred in a relatively peaceful manner, with students surrendering in a nonviolent manner, some reportedly involved excessive violence on the part of the police. At UMass Amherst, for example, police reportedly beat protesters, zip-tied them, and detained them for many hours in unventilated enclosures. Police also used pepper spray to clear student protests at several campuses, including George Washington University and UT Austin. So far as I can tell, however, no firearms were employed in these encounters and protesters were never threatened with lethal force. Nor was the National Guard called up to supplement police units in quelling the protests, as occurred at Kent State University in 1970, when soldiers from the Ohio National Guard fired on anti–Vietnam War protesters, killing four of them. More significantly, President Biden specifically ruled out the use of Guard forces to suppress this spring’s campus demonstrations, saying “no” when asked by a reporter on May 2 if he thought the National Guard should “intervene” in the protests.
Now, take a deep breath, and ask yourself: What would Donald Trump do in response to protests like these if elected to a second term as president?
This question deserves our close attention, because it is almost certain that the policies he would implement on day one in the White House will provoke protests of one sort or another in cities and at campuses across the United States. Many observers have noted that members of his entourage, in close association with right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Renewing America, have prepared detailed plans for immediate action on such issues as immigration, education, abortion, climate change, and trans people’s rights—all bound to provoke strong and immediate opposition from various sectors of civil society.
Recall, for example, Trump’s Executive Order 13769 (aka the “Muslim Travel Ban”) of January 27, 2017, restricting entry into the United States of citizens from seven Muslim-majority nations for 90 days, which provoked mass anti-Trump protests at airports in the United States and around the world. When confronted with the travel ban protests in January 2017, Trump was new to the Oval Office and largely unprepared to address mass public discord on this scale. But that will not be the case in January 2025, should he secure a second term. Not only have his allies prepared detailed plans for suppressing dissent, but Trump himself became more familiar with the tools of repression during his four years in office and is clearly primed to employ them.
In particular, Trump has become an ardent student of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the president to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits the use of federal forces in domestic law enforcement) and to employ the National Guard or active-duty troops in suppressing a domestic rebellion if requested by state officials or, in some cases, without state authorization. The act has been invoked rarely, given the nation’s historic aversion to excessive executive. power—methodically embedded in the Constitution—but Trump has expressed a strong inclination to use it against mass public protests.
Current Issue
The George Floyd Protests and Trump’s Response
To best understand Trump’s thinking on the Insurrection Act and mass protests, consider his response to the George Floyd protests of late May 2020 and the subsequent events at Lafayette Square in Washington, DC. When it was learned that Floyd, a 46-year-old unarmed Black man was murdered by Minneapolis police on May 25, protests erupted in cities across the United States, with Black Lives Matter the unifying theme. Most of these protests were peaceful, but some were accompanied by looting, vandalism, and other acts of violence. In some cities, police battled protesters night after night, until National Guard troops were called in to suppress the unrest; as many as 32,000 people were arrested in the ten days following Floyd’s killing.
Like other large American cities, Washington experienced large-scale protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. On May 29, protesters stormed Lafayette Square, the small parklike quadrangle opposite the White House, leading to furious clashes with the US Park Police (responsible for law enforcement at national parks, including Lafayette Square) and the Secret Service. Protests continued around the square the next day—most of them peaceful, but some turning violent, with arsonists setting fire to the parish house of Saint John’s Episcopal Church, directly across from the White House. That evening, and into the next morning, DC and Park Police used tear gas, rubber bullets, and other harsh riot-control methods to clear the area.
On the morning of June 1, Donald Trump summoned his two top military leaders—Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley—to the Oval Office to discuss his desired response to the DC protests. As recounted by Esper in his memoir, A Sacred Oath, Trump told them that he wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act and order “ten thousand troops in Washington to get control of the streets.” When Esper and Milley demurred, saying the unrest was best handled by civil law enforcement and the DC National Guard, Trump threw a tantrum, calling them “losers” and repeating his desire to send active-duty troops into the city. “Can’t you just shoot them?” he asked Milley, the nation’s highest-ranked uniformed officer. “Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
According to Esper, Trump finally calmed down after he was promised that Washington would be flooded with 10,000 civilian law enforcement personnel (FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel, etc.) and National Guard troops to protect federal property and assist in riot control, thereby satisfying Trump’s obsession with that number of personnel. Esper indicates, however, that it was only in this manner that he and Milley dissuaded Trump from invoking the Insurrection Act and ordering thousands of active-duty troops into Washington—a step that both officials feared would incite further violence and ensnare the regular military in domestic clashes they were wholly unprepared for.
Trump then cajoled both men into accompanying him on his famous stroll across Lafayette Square to St. John’s Church (with squads of police and secret service providing a safe cordon on all sides), where he held up a Bible and posed for a photo-op with his top lieutenants. (Esper and Milley later expressed regret for their involvement in the photo-op, saying it misleadingly gave the impression of military backing for a purely political ploy.)
For most Americans watching the news, this was the most vivid expression of Trump’s response to the disturbances. For Esper and Milley, however, it was his determination to invoke the Insurrection Act and send troops into Washington. Indeed, even after the crisis in Washington subsided, Trump proposed invoking the act and sending troops into other cities—Chicago, Seattle, and Portland—as Black Lives Matters demonstrations there gained momentum. In each case, Esper, Milley, and Attorney General William Barr managed to talk him out of it. Choosing to make his stance public, Esper told reporters at the Pentagon on June 3, “The option to use active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.” (Trump reportedly was so furious at Esper over this statement that he was ready to fire him at that moment, but was dissuaded from doing so by senior aides.)
These events are instructive not only because of their window into Trump’s thinking on the Insurrection Act and the use of deadly force to suppress public protest, but, perhaps even more importantly, on the role of senior officials—especially in the military—in resisting his intent to do so. Confronted by Esper’s and Milley’s strong opposition, Trump was repeatedly stymied in his efforts to send armed troops into American cities. He is unlikely to allow that obstruction to occur again, if ensconced in the Oval Office a second time.
The Fire Next Time
According to numerous sources, much effort has been devoted by Trump’s advisers and close allies at right-wing think tanks to plan for the rapid implementation of Trumpian policies from the very beginning of a new administration, to avoid the chaos and amateurism that accompanied the onset of his first presidential reign. Although supposedly rebuffed by Trump, Project 2025—the much-discussed policy blueprint compiled by the staff and associates of the Heritage Foundation—articulates many of the defense-related measures he would likely implement, including diminished US military aid for Ukraine and increased aid for Israel and Taiwan. It also calls for banning transgender troops from military service and revoking the Veterans Administration’s ability to provide abortion-related care to veterans, among other steps sought by social conservatives. No doubt this agenda would receive Trump’s approval at the onset of another stint at the White House, but that will not be his primary consideration. Rather, his overarching objective will be to elevate generals and Pentagon officials who pledge to say “Yes, sir” when ordered to send troops into American cities, and eliminate any who might say “No.”
“We have to get political correctness out of the military,” Trump said at a March 2022 political rally in South Carolina. “The woke generals should be fired immediately.”
Accordingly, we should not expect this to be like 2017, when the White House reeled in response to the protests over the Muslim travel ban, nor like 2020, when senior military officials resisted Trump’s wish to deploy active-duty troops in Washington, DC, and other American cities. According to a November 2023 report in The Washington Post, allies of the former president have drafted plans to invoke the Insurrection Act at the very onset of a second term, enabling him to send active-duty troops into American cities or onto American campuses at the first outbreaks of anti-government dissent.
Popular
“swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe →
We, the American people, have so much to fear from a second Trump presidency, whether it be the loss of reproductive rights, the acceleration of climate chaos, diminished voting rights for African Americans and other minorities, increased fear and violence in immigrant communities, and much more. But if our ability to defend our rights and resist these injustices vanishes on day one should Trump invoke the Insurrection Act and order US soldiers to employ lethal force in suppressing peaceful protest, democracy will likely die—as history well attests.
The stakes in this election couldn’t be higher.
Can we count on you?
In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.
We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.
Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.
Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.
Michael T. Klare, The Nation’s defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. Most recently, he is the author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.
