[[link removed]]

A JUDGE FINALLY FACED DOWN DONALD TRUMP’S DISDAIN FOR THE LEGAL
SYSTEM  
[[link removed]]


 

Andrea Bernstein
January 10, 2025
Slate
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ This is not the outcome Trump wanted. With Merchan’s action
Friday, Trump’s criminal case has concluded, and he will enter
office—10 days from his sentencing—a convicted felon. _

Donald Trump appears virtually for sentencing at Manhattan Criminal
Court, screen grab

 

_[For the full text of Judge Juan Merchan's sentencing statement, see
below -- moderator]_

In less than 40 minutes, it was over. After an investigation that
spanned more than seven years, two Manhattan district attorneys, three
criminal cases, and innumerable appellate-level judges and
justices—including several touches by the United States Supreme
Court—the district court trial _People of the State of New York v.
Donald J. Trump_ came to an end Friday with a sentence of
“unconditional discharge.” There will be no jail time, home
confinement, probation, or even a fine. There will be no conditions
whatsoever, as the name implies, for convictions on 34 felony counts
of falsifying business records and covering that up to affect the
outcome of the 2016 election.

A U.S. president, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan
explained, is protected from legal action in the way ordinary citizens
are not—especially since the SCOTUS’s decision on presidential
immunity in _Trump v. U.S._ “Donald Trump the ordinary citizen,
Donald Trump the criminal defendant, would not be subject to such
considerable protections,” Merchan said in handing down his
sentence. “No,” he added, “it is the _office_ of the president
that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder.”
Merchan leaned into the word _office_.

Despite having sentenced, in this very courtroom, Trump’s former
chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to six months in jail
following a guilty plea for felony fraud while working at the Trump
Organization, despite having fined Trump’s company $1.6 million
after a jury convicted Trump corporate entities for that same fraud,
despite having taken testimony from the key witness in this case,
former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen—who himself received a
three-year sentence in federal court in part for some of the very same
conduct at issue in Trump’s case—despite all this, Merchan gave
Trump nothing.

And yet.

This is not the outcome Trump wanted. When Trump was convicted, seven
and a half months ago, on a spring day as balmy and verdant as Friday
was frigid, after the jury foreman, a salt-and-pepper-haired immigrant
from Ireland, said _guilty_ 34 times, Trump rose and turned, looking
stricken, his face uncharacteristically crumpled, reaching out to
grasp the hand of his son Eric. I watched this, sitting two rows
behind Trump, as he turned and walked out to face the cameras and
assail the process that had brought him there.

Trump fought all the way to the Supreme Court to try to stop the
sentencing from happening. It wasn’t until Thursday evening that we
knew, for sure, that sentencing would take place.

“I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong,” the unrepentant
president-elect told the court Friday via video link from Mar-a-Lago,
sitting in front of an array of American flags next to his attorney
Todd Blanche, who is set to become the second-highest-ranking person
in Trump’s Justice Department. “This case should not have been
brought,” Blanche told the court. Trump will appeal.

With Merchan’s action Friday, Trump’s criminal case has concluded,
and he will enter office—10 days from his sentencing—a convicted
felon.

For a case nearly frozen in time, Room 1530 of the Criminal Courts
building in lower Manhattan was, appropriately, freezing Friday
morning. (Trump complained about the temperature several times over
the course of the trial, with the judge indicating that there was
nothing that could be done.) The area was emptier now; just a single
Trump attorney, Emil Bove, sat in the room, at the defense table.
(Bove has also been nominated by Trump for a prominent DOJ perch).

This time, there was no phalanx of family members, friends, and
supporters
[[link removed]]:
like Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, or incoming
Vice President J.D. Vance, or other members of Trump’s incoming team
who showed up in Merchan’s courtroom in April and May. (That earlier
group also included Doug Burgum, Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Waltz, Susie
Wiles, and Sebastian Gorka, to name just a few more).

There was no mystery either: In an order earlier this month, Merchan
noted his intention to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge.
From September 2019, the time that former Manhattan District Attorney
Cyrus Vance Jr. made public his investigation of Trump, through the
conclusion of this trial, it remained unclear whether Trump would be
indicted, tried, or convicted, would run for president again, win the
nomination, win the presidency, or be sentenced for anything, ever.
But as of Friday, we know: _Yes_ to everything, except _no_ to any
jail time.

And yet, Merchan made clear, in his Jan. 3 order
[[link removed]],
that the sentence did not _really_ fit the crime. “Seriousness and
harm are not measured solely by the level of violence inflicted or the
extent of financial harm. Seriousness can be gauged by considering the
significance of the act under the unique circumstances of the case, as
well as by the harm to society as a whole,” Merchan wrote.

He continued: “Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of
34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud,
which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote
a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premeditated and
continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the
gravamen of this offense.”

Merchan also went out of his way in that order to chide Trump and his
team for attacking the court system, the justice included. Citing
Chief Justice John Roberts, Merchan wrote: “Public officials, too,
regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for
example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings
without a credible basis for such allegations.”

Merchan also called out Trump’s legal team, members of which will
likely soon hold the second and third top positions in the DOJ, for
coming “dangerously close to crossing the line of zealous
representation and the professional advocacy one would expect from
members of the bar and officers of the court” and resorting “to
language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings.”
These offenses included calling the judge’s and prosecutors’ acts
“unlawful,” a word with a specific legal meaning, Merchan noted:
“criminally punishable.”

On Friday, Merchan left all that up to Assistant District Attorney
Josh Steinglass, who sat at the prosecutors’ table among the usual
assembly of ADAs, all wearing the same black suits and hairstyles,
even, that we saw during the trial. Alvin Bragg, the DA, sat
unmovingly two rows behind them.

“Instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our
constitutionally established system of criminal justice, the
defendant, once and future president of the United States, has engaged
in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy,” Steinglass
said. “Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal
conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial
institutions and the rule of law.”

Trump, in his own brief statement to the court, continued to display
that very disdain. The incoming president called the prosecution an
“injustice of justice.” Of his illegally mislabeling a payoff to
Stormy Daniels as a “legal reimbursement” in business records
prior to the 2016 election to cover up an alleged affair, he said,
“Everyone should be so accurate.”

Blanche, the incoming deputy attorney general, responded by once again
attacking the process that brought us here. “American voters got a
chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of
case that should have been brought,” he said from Florida. “And
they decided. And that’s why, in 10 days, President Trump is going
to assume the office of the president of the United States.”

In his own way, Merchan did not refute that. Rather, he acknowledged
that the nomination and the election had changed his calculations.

“It is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching
protections to the office holder,” Merchan said, addressing
Trump’s video image. “And it was the citizenry of this nation that
recently decided that you should once again see the benefits of those
protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause
and presidential immunity.”

During the trial, Merchan distinguished himself by visibly considering
both sides of an argument before coming to a decision. This is a
quality that has become especially rare in this polarized age, when
everyone’s opinion of everything appears preformed. Merchan thought
in front of us.

Almost palpably agonized, Merchan on Friday told Trump: “This court
has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a
judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in
the land is an unconditional discharge.” That is, he had no choice.
Trump had been an ordinary defendant, but by virtue of winning the
election, he was no longer.

Merchan had opened his remarks by saying: “The imposition of
sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that
any criminal court judge is called upon to make.”

He ended with this: “Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your
second term in office.”

He might have wished that to all of us in the courtroom, and everyone
beyond it. Godspeed.

_ANDREA BERNSTEIN is a journalist, author, and the co-host of the
podcasts We Don’t Talk About Leonard, Will Be Wild, and Trump,
Inc. Her book, American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the
Marriage of Money and Power, was an NPR Book of the Year._

_Slate [[link removed]] is an online magazine of news, politics,
technology, and culture. Combines humor and insight in thoughtful
analyses of current events and political news. Choose the newsletters
you want [[link removed]] to get the Slatest_

Judge Juan Merchan Sentencing Statement from the Bench
January 10, 2025

[link removed]…
[[link removed]]

Mr. Trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this
criminal proceeding by the imposition of sentence. Although I have
taken the unusual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations
before imposing sentence, I believe it is important for you as well as
those observing these proceedings to understand my reasoning for the
sentence I am about to impose.

The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and
significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to
make. Our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence,
but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion
to a verdict of guilty. A court is vested with broad discretion in
determining what sources or evidence you may consider to arrive at an
appropriate sentence. In doing so, the court must consider the facts
of the case, along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In my time on the bench, I've been called upon to grapple with this
weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found
guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from
nonviolent, class-E felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including
homicides, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse. The task is always
difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence
be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life.

However, never before has this court been presented with such a unique
and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly
that this has been a truly extraordinary case. There was unprecedented
media attention, public interest, and heightened security involving
various agencies. And yet, the trial was a bit of a paradox, because
once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more
special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials
that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time.

Jury selection was conducted. The same rules of evidence were
followed. Opening statements were made, witnesses called and
cross-examined, evidence presented, summations delivered. The same
burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens
delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of
procedure and guided by the law. Of course, part of what made it feel
somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and
professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters,
security personnel, and the entire staff of this building who did
their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial.

So, while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects
somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances
surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you
once occupied and which you will soon occupy again. To be sure, it is
the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the
United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office.
The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal
prosecution afforded to the Office of the President, have been laid
out by our founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted
by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump v. The
United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to
consider any and all aggravating or mitigating factors to inform my
decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been
articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my
recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they
need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable, indeed
extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the Chief
Executive is a factor that overrides all others.

To be clear, the protections afforded to the office of the president
are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the
crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections are,
however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this
court must respect and follow. However, despite the extraordinary
breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is a power
to erase a jury verdict.

It is clear from legal precedent -- which until July 1st was scarce --
that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal
defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm
referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the
average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice
system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal
protections. It is the Office of the President that bestows those
far-reaching protections to the office holder, and it was the
citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once
again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among
other things, the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity. It is
through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a
lawful sentence.

After careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant
to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful
sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without
encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional
discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a
lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business
records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.

Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.
Thank you.

* Juan Merchan
[[link removed]]
* hush money indictment
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]