
Trump’s Sentencing Delay Sucks but Is Probably the Right Call
About this episode
OA1068
We begin with a quick review of some of the stranger legal issues raised in this week’s Presidential debate, including such mysteries as whether it is legal to murder babies upon delivery and the factual guilt of the Central Park Five 22 years after they were exonerated by DNA evidence and a third-party confession. In our main story, we review the chaos that the Supreme Court’s legalization of Presidential crime is already causing in Donald Trump’s hush-money case and discuss the relative merits of pushing his sentencing back until after the November election. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to explain an overlooked legal story in this week’s news involving a remarkably rare grant of a common defense motion.
-
SDNY Judge Hellerstein’s order denying Trump’s notice of removal (9/3/24)
-
Justice Merchan’s order continuing Trump’s sentencing hearing to November 26, 2024 (9/6/24)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Get every episode summarized
Each time Opening Arguments publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Opening Arguments

Most Lindsay Clancy Coverage Has the Law All Wrong
Opening Arguments

ICE Went Undercover To Expose a Vast Antifa "Conspiracy"
Opening Arguments

Supreme Court Says Why Prevent Trump Violating the Constitution Before It Even H...
Opening Arguments

Meta Must Pay, Bannon's Judge Pushes Back, and a Dolly Parton Shoutout from the...
Opening Arguments