'Fundamentally flawed': Hush money prosecutor slaps back at Trump demand in new filing

The Manhattan district attorney will defer to the judge on whether to delay Donald Trump's sentencing for his conviction in the hush money case.

Prosecutors from District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office disputed many of the former president's argument for delaying sentencing until after Election Day, but said they would leave the decision up to New York Justice Juan Merchan, who has scheduled sentencing for Sept. 18.

“The people defer to the court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time [for Trump to challenge the conviction] while also pronouncing sentence without unreasonable delay,” prosecutors wrote in a filing dated Aug. 16 but released Monday.

Trump has asked the judge to toss out his conviction on 34 counts of business fraud related to his hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels after the U.S. Supreme Court granted him broad immunity, but prosecutors noted that his request to delay sentencing was not based on that issue but was instead about evidentiary issues.

ALSO READ: Mike Lindell is Chicago — and he still has his mustache

Merchan has signaled he would rule on the immunity issue by Sept. 16, but Trump's lawyers argued in a filing last week that the existing timeline would not give them enough time to pursue an appeal before sentencing if the judge rejects the motion to dismiss, and prosecutors did not object to the court pausing the sentencing.

"Given the defense's newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question," prosecutors said. "The People are prepared to appear for sentencing on any future date the Court sets."

However, the district attorney's office smacked down the ex-president's other arguments about his felony convictions.

"None of defendant's remaining arguments merit any consideration," prosecutors wrote. "First, although couched as a scheduling request, defendant re-raises for the fourth time a recusal grievance based on false claims of a potential conflict that have already been rejected over and over by this Court, the First Department, and the Advisory Committee. Defendant's ostensibly new argument about the Court's family member's co-worker's tweets is bizarre and has nothing to do with the post-trial schedule."

Trump's attorneys expressed concern about the possible public release of a pre-sentencing memorandum based on an interview with a probation officer, but prosecutors described that worry as "misplaced."

"Any pre-sentence memorandum the People submit would be sealed," they wrote. "The only way the memorandum would become public is if the Court orders otherwise or the defendant unlawfully discloses it. Finally, defendant's apparent insinuation that state prosecutors are incapable of applying federal constitutional law is fundamentally flawed, given that the People and this Court protect and apply federal constitutional rights every day."