Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office have opted not to oppose the postponement of Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money case, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling that conferred immunity for certain presidential actions in a separate election interference case. This stance was articulated in a letter addressed to New York Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the proceedings related to Trump's involvement in falsifying business records concerning a payment made by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment, allegedly aimed at silencing allegations of an affair just before the 2016 presidential election, has been consistently denied by Trump.

Originally scheduled for July 11, Trump's sentencing hearing is now expected to be deferred until after the Republican National Convention, which commences on July 15. This decision follows a pre-motion letter from Trump's legal team, seeking a delay based on the recent Supreme Court determination regarding presidential immunity.

In response, Manhattan prosecutors, led by assistant district attorneys Joshua Steinglass, Matthew Colangelo, Christopher Conroy, Susan Hoffinger, and Becky Mangold, expressed their position in the letter to Judge Merchan. While they maintain that Trump's arguments for postponement lack merit, they have chosen not to oppose his request to file for an adjournment pending resolution of his motion concerning immunity.

The prosecutors specified their expectation for Trump's legal team to formally request the adjournment of the sentencing hearing by July 24, a timeline set two weeks after the initially proposed deadline.

Following the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on Trump's immunity appeal in the federal election interference case, which acknowledged immunity for specific official actions while leaving open questions regarding unofficial actions, Trump's legal counsel swiftly indicated their intent to brief Judge Merchan on how this immunity ruling might influence the hush money case. Their objective appears to be challenging or overturning Trump's conviction.

It's worth noting that numerous events pivotal to the hush money trial transpired prior to Trump assuming office in 2017. The implications of the immunity ruling are anticipated to further delay proceedings in both federal and Georgia election interference cases linked to Trump.

Reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling, James Singer, spokesperson for President Biden's campaign, emphasized its lack of relevance to Trump's hush money conviction. Singer underscored that Trump's status as a convicted felon, resulting from actions he undertook believing himself above the law, underscores the significance of holding him accountable.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal maneuvers surrounding Trump's hush money case underscore intricate interactions involving presidential privileges, legal precedents, and the pursuit of justice. This complex scenario sets the stage for continued legal battles as Trump and his legal team endeavor to contest his conviction.