Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Donald Trump has been given unconditional discharge in the hush money case by Judge Juan Merchan. This ruling allows the president-elect to be released “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision.”
“The only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment or conviction without encroaching upon the highest office of the land is an unconditional discharge,” Merchan said during the sentencing.
Trump, who is set to officially assume the presidency in 10 days, become the first US president – former or sitting – to face a criminal trial, let alone a guilty verdict and subsequent sentencing.
Trump had made a last-minute attempt to halt his sentencing after Merchan announced last week that it would proceed, but his appeals were rejected by the US Supreme Court.
Merchan handed down his sentence, noting that it is influenced by Trump’s recent presidential election victory:
“It was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that once again you should have 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.”
“This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction, without encroaching on the highest office of the land is unconditional discharge. Therefore, at this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts,” he added.
Merchan concluded with, “Sir, I wish you godspeed as you assume your second term in office.”
Trump was found guilty on May 30 of falsifying business records with the intent to commit a secondary crime.
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued that Trump falsely documented reimbursements to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for paying $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels. This payment was reportedly made to ensure Daniels remained silent about an alleged sexual encounter with the then-presidential candidate. Trump classified these repayments to Cohen as “legal expenses” on financial records.
State prosecutors argued during the trial that these falsifications aimed to conceal Trump’s violation of New York election law, which prohibits promoting a candidate through unlawful means. They contended that the payment to Daniels constituted such an unlawful means, framing it as an illegal campaign contribution.
The prosecution claimed the payment was a pre-emptive measure to protect Trump’s campaign amidst growing allegations of misconduct, as damaging reports about his treatment of women surfaced just weeks before election day. The $130,000 payout far exceeded the legal individual campaign contribution limit of $2,700.
Witnesses for the prosecution testified about Trump’s alleged collusion with tabloid executive David Pecker and then-lawyer Cohen in a scheme to suppress stories about his alleged affairs with Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. They suggested Trump became particularly concerned about Daniels’ account following the release of the infamous Access Hollywood hot mic recording in October 2016, where he made lewd remarks about women.
On the recording, Trump boasted that he could grab women “by the pussy” without consent because he was a star. Witnesses claimed Trump feared his attempts to dismiss the tape as mere “locker-room talk” would fail if further allegations, such as a sexual encounter with a porn star, became public.
As Trump’s trial unfolded, he consistently denounced the proceedings, portraying himself as the target of a politically motivated witch hunt. His public statements frequently violated Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, which prohibited commentary about witnesses and jurors.
Although Trump was fined and held in contempt for these infractions, Merchan’s reluctance to impose harsher penalties, such as jail time, hinted at the leniency Trump would later experience in post-trial developments.
Trump’s sentencing was initially slated for 11 July. However, the landscape shifted dramatically following a 1 July ruling by the US Supreme Court, which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
In light of this ruling, Merchan agreed to delay sentencing until 18 September to consider its implications on the guilty verdict. He later pushed the date back to 26 November, citing a desire to avoid any perception—however unfounded—that the proceedings were influencing or being influenced by the approaching presidential election, in which Trump was a candidate. The judge also delayed issuing a decision on the applicability of presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal strategy of appealing and delaying proved effective. After his election victory, his legal team intensified efforts to have the case dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, arguing that such protection extended to the president-elect and that sentencing would hinder the transition of power.
On 3 January, Merchan ruled that there was “no legal impediment” to sentencing and declined to dismiss the case. He rescheduled Trump’s sentencing for 10 January.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
