当选总统唐纳德·特朗普案的法官刑事封口费案周一在纽约，特朗普要求停止该案的判决，目前定于周五。
这一命令是在特朗普对曼哈顿地方检察官·阿尔文·布拉格和法官胡安·梅尔科姆提起诉讼，指控法官拒绝了他的总统豁免权动议。
特朗普的律师在纽约上诉庭第一部门提起了诉讼，称为第78条动议。
特朗普的律师在诉讼中辩称，法官马科姆在上周的裁决中否认了特朗普的总统豁免权主张，并命令特朗普出庭接受宣判他在5月份被定罪后，于1月10日亲自或通过虚拟方式。
特朗普是被判有罪5月份，他伪造了与封口费支付给成人电影女演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯有关的商业记录，以提高他在2016年总统大选中的选举前景。
在拒绝特朗普停止判决的请求时，Merchan写道，“本法院考虑了被告支持其动议的论点，并发现它们在很大程度上是他过去多次提出的论点的重复。”
“此外，本法院发现，被告在即时动议中所依赖的权威在很大程度上与实际记录在事实上是不同的，或者在法律上是不适用的，”Merchan写道。
特朗普的律师在要求商人推迟判决时辩称，商人“将缺乏进行判决的权力”，因为特朗普仍在上诉商人早些时候的裁决，即最高法院的总统豁免权决定不适用于纽约州封口费案。
辩护律师托德·布兰奇(Todd Blanche)和埃米尔·博韦(Emil Bove)写道:“在上诉法院仍在努力解决他的豁免权主张的同时，强迫总统继续为刑事案件辩护——可能通过审判，或者在这里更引人注目的是，通过判刑和判决——事实上，这将迫使总统在他的豁免权主张得到最终裁决之前‘为他在法庭上的行为负责’。”。
Merchan最初将判决安排在7月11日，然后推迟，以权衡特朗普的定罪是否受到最高法院7月份裁决的影响，该裁决禁止起诉总统在任期间的官方行为。Merchan随后裁定，特朗普的定罪与“完全属于非官方行为“而且”不会对行政部门的权力和职能构成侵犯的危险。"
曼哈顿地区检察官办公室敦促Merchan拒绝特朗普的请求，在周一的一份文件中称，法院已经“竭尽全力”允许特朗普提出他的总统豁免权主张。
布拉格拒绝了特朗普的论点，即他悬而未决的上诉意味着Merchan没有权力前进。
“被告将向上诉庭提交的上诉通知不会剥夺本法院的管辖权，也不会自动中止本法院的诉讼程序，”布拉格在他的申请中辩称。
检察官认为，特朗普的律师未能按照他们的要求，做出证明整个案件延期审理合理所需的“非凡表现”，认为这种拖延在很大程度上是特朗普自己造成的。
“目前的时间表完全是由于被告一再要求推迟原定于2024年7月11日的宣判日期;他现在不应该抱怨他造成的延误造成的伤害，”文件称。
地区检察官表示，1月10日对特朗普的判决不会影响特朗普履行公务，因为这些是“他在2025年1月20日之前不拥有的职责”。
“根据定义，当选总统还不是总统。因此，当选总统不履行宪法第二条规定的任何职能，也没有第二条规定的职能会受到涉及当选总统的普通刑事诉讼的负担，”文件说。
梅尔曼上周表示，他将判处特朗普无条件出院——这实际上是特朗普记录上的一个污点——称这在总统的职责和陪审团裁决的神圣性之间取得了平衡。
特朗普的律师在周一提交的文件中表示，这无关紧要。
“法院从未表示过打算判处无条件释放。辩方在周一的文件中说，尽管无可争议的是，在这个毫无根据的案件中，捏造的指控本来就不应该被提起，而且在这一点上，不可能有比这更严厉的判决，但基于大量的法律错误，没有任何判决是合适的，包括与特朗普总统将在即将到来的上诉中解决的总统豁免权直接相关的法律错误。
特朗普将于1月20日就职，他已经还争论道这一判决将扰乱他的总统过渡，并“威胁到联邦政府的运作。”
Judge denies Trump's request to halt sentencing in his criminal hush money case
The judge in President-elect Donald Trump'scriminal hush money casein New York on Monday denied a request by Trump to halt the sentencing in the case, currently scheduled for Friday.
The order came as Trump filed suit against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan over the judge's denial of his presidential immunity motions.
Trump's lawyers filed the lawsuit -- called an Article 78 motion -- in New York's Appellate Division First Department.
Trump's attorneys argued in the suit that Judge Merchan exceeded his jurisdiction when he denied Trump's claim of presidential immunity in his ruling last week and ordered Trump toappear for sentencing, either in person or virtually, on Jan. 10 following his May conviction.
Trump wasfound guiltyin May of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
In denying Trump's request to halt the sentencing, Merchan wrote, "This Court has considered Defendant's arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past."
"Further, this Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the instant motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable," Merchan wrote.
In asking Merchan to stay the sentencing, Trump's attorneys had argued that Merchan "will lack authority to proceed with sentencing" because Trump is still appealing Merchan's earlier ruling that the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision does not apply to the New York hush money case.
"Forcing a President to continue to defend a criminal case -- potentially through trial or, even more dramatically here, through sentencing and judgment -- while the appellate courts are still grappling with his claim of immunity would, in fact, force that President 'to answer for his conduct in court' before his claim of immunity is finally adjudicated," defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.
Merchan initially scheduled the sentencing for July 11 before pushing it back in order to weigh if Trump's conviction was impacted by the Supreme Court's July ruling prohibiting the prosecution of a president for official acts undertaken while in office. Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."
The Manhattan district attorney's office urged Merchan to reject Trump's request, arguing in a filing on Monday that the court has already "bent over backwards" to allow Trump to raise his claims of presidential immunity.
Bragg rejected Trump's argument that his pending appeals mean Merchan does not have the authority to go forward.
"The notices of appeal that defendant will file with the Appellate Division do not divest this Court of jurisdiction or otherwise automatically stay proceedings in this Court," Bragg argued in his filing.
Prosecutors argued that Trump's lawyers failed to make the "extraordinary showing" needed to justify a stay of the entire case as they requested, arguing that the delay is largely a product of Trump's own doing.
"The current schedule is entirely a function of defendant's repeated requests to adjourn a sentencing date that was originally set for July 11, 2024; he should not now be heard to complain of harm from delays he caused," the filing said.
The district attorney said sentencing Trump on Jan. 10 would not impair the discharge of Trump's official duties because they are "duties he does not possess before January 20, 2025."
"The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President. The President elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President elect," the filing said.
Merchan last week indicated that he would sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge -- effectively a blemish on Trump's record -- saying it struck a balance between the duties of president and the sanctity of the jury's verdict.
Trump's attorneys, in their Monday filing, said it did not matter.
"It is of no moment that the Court has suggested an intention to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge. While it is indisputable that the fabricated charges in this meritless case should have never been brought, and at this point could not possibly justify a sentence more onerous than that, no sentence at all is appropriate based on numerous legal errors -- including legal errors directly relating to Presidential immunity that President Trump will address in the forthcoming appeals," the defense said in Monday's filing.
Trump, who is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, hasalso arguedthat the sentencing would disrupt his presidential transition and "threatens the functioning of the federal government."
