Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) office said Tuesday it won’t oppose delaying former President Trump’s July 11 sentencing even as they disagree with his new attempt to set aside his hush money verdict on immunity grounds. 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision carving out criminal immunity for former presidents, Trump on Monday sent a letter to his judge insisting prosecutors at the trial introduced evidence that is precluded under the Supreme Court’s test.

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass responded in a letter filed Tuesday. 

Trump’s sentencing is currently scheduled for July 11, just days before he is set to officially accept the Republican presidential nomination at the party’s convention the following week. But the prosecutors’ response raises a strong possibility it will be pushed for at least a few weeks.

The former president’s lawyers have asked for a July 10 deadline to file their written brief explaining their immunity arguments. Their schedule, if accepted, would likely necessitate a delay. 

Steinglass requested prosecutors be provided two additional weeks to respond, agreeing to delay the sentencing in the meantime. That would mean Trump’s sentencing wouldn’t take place until at least July 24 — after the convention. 

Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records for disguising reimbursements to his then-fixer, Michael Cohen. Cohen had paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election to stay quiet about an alleged affair with Trump, an affair he denies. 

Unlike his three criminal cases that have not yet gone to trial, where Trump argues his actual charges must be tossed because of presidential immunity, he has not claimed immunity from the hush money charges themselves. 

Instead, Trump asserts some of prosecutors’ trial evidence was official conduct that is immunized and could not be shown to the jury. The evidence, among other things, includes tweets Trump sent during his presidency. 

“[T]his official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, the former president’s attorneys, wrote in their Monday letter. 

Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the recent trial, previously ruled that Trump waited too long to raise a presidential immunity defense.