Michael Popok of Legal AF recently reported on a significant development in the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump, specifically regarding his sentencing in the Manhattan case. Trump, facing 34 felony counts, has been attempting to delay his sentencing indefinitely, a maneuver his legal team hoped would buy him more time. However, the Manhattan District Attorney (DA) has employed a brilliant counter-strategy, utilizing what can be described as reverse psychology.

Trump’s defense team sought to postpone the sentencing by raising an appeal related to his immunity as a former president. They argued that some of the evidence used against him during the trial, particularly testimony from former White House aides like Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, related to his time in office. Trump’s lawyers contended that this evidence was protected by presidential immunity, referencing a July 1 Supreme Court ruling that stated official conduct involving a president cannot be used in non-related prosecutions.

This legal argument sought to claim that certain aspects of the case violated Trump’s immunity, despite the bulk of the charges not being tied to his presidential role. The defense argued that testimony involving events during Trump’s presidency, such as the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, should not have been allowed. Trump’s legal team hoped that this technicality would warrant a stay on his sentencing, set for September 18.

The Manhattan DA’s office, however, took an unexpected approach in response. Instead of pushing back aggressively and insisting that the sentencing move forward on schedule, they adopted a more nuanced position. The DA acknowledged that the decision to delay sentencing ultimately rested with the judge, and subtly pointed out that Trump’s argument regarding immunity was weak. They stated that while Trump could file an appeal, the evidence in question constituted only a “sliver” of the overall case. The DA emphasized that the vast majority of the evidence was related to Trump’s personal conduct and business dealings, not his presidency.

This reverse psychology tactic essentially calls Trump’s bluff. The DA’s position implies that they are confident in their case, but they are also willing to let Trump pursue his appeal, knowing that the appellate courts are unlikely to issue a stay based on such a minor argument. By giving the judge the freedom to consider all options, including allowing Trump to file his appeal without delaying the sentencing, the DA defuses the urgency of Trump’s defense.

Popok applauded the DA’s strategy, noting that it prevents Trump from using stalling tactics to avoid sentencing. The Manhattan DA also reminded the court that the immunity appeal doesn’t divest the court of its jurisdiction, further weakening Trump’s position. The DA also suggested that if Trump were to appeal, the appellate courts could decide to stay the case if they found any merit—an outcome the DA likely considers improbable.

This approach highlights a larger legal strategy. By not directly opposing Trump’s request for a delay, the DA avoids playing into Trump’s hands and prolonging the case unnecessarily. If Trump moves forward with his appeal and fails, as he has in numerous other cases, the sentencing will proceed as scheduled.

Popok predicts that the judge overseeing the case will likely follow this line of reasoning. He believes the judge will rule that the evidence in question does not fundamentally alter the outcome of Trump’s conviction. As a result, the judge may proceed with sentencing on September 18, ensuring Trump faces justice without further delay.

This case also reflects the broader legal difficulties Trump faces as he navigates multiple legal challenges. The Manhattan DA’s tactic of reverse psychology is emblematic of the smart, calculated strategies being employed to counter Trump’s efforts to delay or avoid legal consequences. With sentencing likely to go ahead on schedule, Trump could face not only legal penalties but also potential jail time.