Trump legal team seeks postponement of sentence in Bragg election interference case.

The lawyers of the former President Trump are seeking to postpone his sentencing hearing in the New York v. Trump case until after the November presidential election, stating "bare election interference objectives."

An unprecedented criminal trial found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, following a six-week trial initiated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump has decided to challenge his criminal conviction in the Manhattan case following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that a former president enjoys significant immunity for actions committed while in office.

Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay his initial sentencing of the individual, originally set for July 11, until Sept. 18, just days before the Republican National Convention where he was to be formally nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential nominee.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche on Thursday moved to further delay that sentencing hearing.

Blanche wrote to Merchan that the Court should not proceed with any sentencing in this case, as dismissal and vacatur of the jury's verdicts are necessary based on Presidential immunity, until after the 2024 Presidential election.

Blanche contended that the case should be dismissed, citing Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's incorrect reference to the case in a public speech.

Blanche mentioned Merchan's daughter's work at Authentic Campaigns, which supports top Democratic candidates.

"The Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings by adjourning sentencing until after the election, which is of paramount importance to the entire nation, including tens of millions of people who do not share the views of Authentic, its executives, and its clients."

Blanche stressed that there is no need "to rush."

"Blanche wrote that there is no valid reason for the Court to keep the current sentencing date on the calendar, as setting aside naked election-interference objectives is not a countervailing reason to rush."

He stated, "We kindly request that any sentencing be postponed until after the Presidential election."

Blanche contended that Bragg presented evidence of official acts during the unprecedented six-week trial, which included communications from the White House with staffers such as 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.