It's been a while since we heard any new updates from Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan, the Manhattan power couple that orchestrated Donald Trump's convictions in a highly dubious trial earlier this year. There was one fairly recent update, however, and it potentially carries some good news for the former President. Trump's attorneys had been pushing to delay his sentencing in the case, currently scheduled for September 18. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling on limited presidential immunity while performing official acts of his office, Bragg sent a letter to Judge Merchan stating that it would be "prudent" to postpone the sentencing, likely until after the election. Bragg is apparently leaving the final decision up to the judge, but such a move could eliminate another thorn in Trump's side as he races toward the finish line. (National Review)

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg has conceded that it would be prudent for the state court to postpone the sentencing of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, which is currently scheduled to occur on September 18.

In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, which was docketed by the court on Monday (though it is dated the prior Friday), Bragg acknowledged that some of the evidence introduced by his prosecutors at last spring’s trial was improperly admitted under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in United States v. Trump.

Fox News provided some additional details from the letter. Bragg still isn't admitting that his "novel legal theories" were invalid, but he does appear to be giving a nod to a couple of glaring realities surrounding this case. Now that Trump's attorneys have officially moved to have his appeal heard at the federal level, the DA is admitting that "a small subset of the trial evidence" entered against Trump might have been "improperly admitted" if the evidence spoke to actions that would fall under the President's official duties. He further notes that a ruling denying the postponement could be "immediately appealable" at the federal level and that an adjournment could "allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question."

Both Bragg and Merchan have yet to respond to accusations by Trump's legal team that scheduling the sentencing barely seven weeks before voters go to the polls would amount to flagrant election interference. This is also completely in conflict with the normal rules of order when conducting such legal matters. Both the courts and our legislative bodies have long shied away from any significant actions involving prominent political figures for a period of time leading up to an election. They do this specifically to avoid the specter of allegations of election interference, but neither Alvin Bragg nor Juan Merchan give a flying fig about that. They've been intentionally engaging in attempted election interference from the beginning and have made little to no effort to disguise this fact.

With Trump's classified documents case in Florida having been put on ice for the foreseeable future and the case in Manhattan likely heading for a significant pause, that only leaves two other case to be decided and they aren't looking very healthy at the moment. Neither is expected to see any significant movement before November 5. But what comes after that? Let's posit for a moment that Donald Trump wins a second term. He wouldn't be sworn in until January. If it's determined that some of the evidence entered against him violated the SCOTUS decision, they can't simply delete that evidence from the record and move forward with sentencing. They would have to start the trial all over again. Would Bragg and Merchan really have the nerve to try that while Trump is waiting to be inaugurated? If none of the evidence is struck down, would they try to lock him up while his appeal is being heard? There may be plenty more drama to come in Manhattan, so stay tuned.