New York Judge Juan Merchan set President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing for the criminal hush money case for January 10, ten days before the inauguration.
Finding no legal impediment to sentencing and recognizing that Presidential immunity will likely attach once Defendant takes his Oath of Office, it is incumbent upon this Court to set this matter down for the imposition of sentence prior to January 20, 2025. It is this Court’s firm belief that only by bringing finality to this matter will all three interests be served. A jury heard evidence for nearly seven weeks and pronounced its verdict; Defendant and the People were given every opportunity to address intervening decisions, to exhaust every possible motion in support of and in opposition to, their respective position in what is an unprecedented, and likely never to be repeated legal scenario. This Court must sentence Defendant within a reasonable time following verdict; and Defendant must be permitted to ava:l himself of every available appeal, a path he has made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing.
Merchan said it’s “proper at this juncture” to let everyone know that it’s the “Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation.”
“As such; in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options,” Merchan added.
In New York, an unconditional discharge means the court found someone committed the crime, but thinks a punishment doesn’t serve a purpose.
That means Trump won’t serve prison time, fine, or probation supervision.
However, it means Trump will be a felon.
Merchan did not dismiss the indictment, dismissing Trump’s claim he had “President-elect immunity.” He also dismissed Trump’s suggestion the Court do something akin to a ‘retroactive’ form of Presidential immunity, thus giving a defendant the ability to nullify verdicts lawfully rendered prior to a defendant being elected President by virtue of being elected President.”
The judge described accepting these arguments as an “abuse of discretion.”
“The Defendant has presented no valid argument to convince this Court otherwise,” wrte Merchan. “Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming President, retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts nor does it grant blanket President-elect immunity.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY