Trump Sentenced to “Unconditional Discharge” in NY Bookkeeping Case.

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to refuse Trump’s request to stay his sentencing in the New York “bookkeeping case” (some call it the “business records” case while others — mostly his detractors– call it the “hush-money” case), Judge Juan Merchan sentenced him to an “Unconditional Discharge.” Effectively this means he stands convicted of the 34 counts of bookkeeping entries or recordkeeping discrepancies, but that he will pay no fine nor serve any jail time. This was a very divisive case: Leftists said he was guilty as sin, while conservatives called the case a sham and a witch-hunt. It was one of a series of cases against Trump brought by liberal politicians to attempt to derail his re-election as President. Though he left the presidency in January 2021 (upon Biden’s Inauguration) , none of the cases (collectively called “Lawfare”) began until Trump formally announced that he would seek the nomination for a second term as President.

Trump appeared in court today via a Zoom call, and he addressed the court prior to sentencing.

Trump said he got indicted “so that I’d lose the election and obviously that didn’t work.” He called the trial “a disgrace to the [legal] system.” He added, “I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talk about business records and the business records were extremely accurately counted. I had nothing to do with them … that was done by an accountant and a bookkeeper.” The entire statement (audio only) can be heard here:

Following the sentencing, Mr. Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

As expected, the liberal media immediately began referring to the President-Elect as
“Felon Trump” (MSNBC: “Felon Trump finally sentenced after losing appeal”). The New York Times headlined its story, “The President-Elect Is a Felon.” Expect to see reporting on Inauguration Day that is headlined, “For the first time in its history, the United States has inaugurated a convicted felon as its President.” There are not too many places — and certainly none are in the mainstream media — where the headlines read, “An innocent man was convicted today,” or “A politically partisan witch-hunt trial wrongfully convicts much admired man,” or even, “The leading political opposition candidate was tried and convicted in a politically motivated trial.”

Certainly, Mr. Trump has announced that he will be appealing. This presents an interesting legal quagmire, because it allows a state court system to retain jurisdiction over a sitting President.

The sentencing occurred on the same day that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mr. Trump’s efforts to enjoin Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing his Final Report. Mr. Smith was forced to dismiss his cases against Trump upon Trump’s election, but though he was unable to make his allegations against Mr. Trump in a courtroom, where witness testimony would be subject to cross-examination, he will now release his scathing allegations in his Final Report, where Smith will be immune from a defamation lawsuit. See our reporting on that issue here.

PREVIOUS REPORTING:

Supreme Court Refuses to Stop NY Court from Imposing Sentence on Trump.

SCOTUS denied Trump’s Stay Request in a brief Order, not even addressing any of the constitutional issues, such as the Supremacy Clause or even whether the NY Court had jurisdiction.

With Amy Coney Barrett holding the swing vote and voting against Trump, the Supreme Court has denied Trump’s request that his sentencing be stayed. The Court provided the following reasons for its decision. “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh voted to grant Trump’s application. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both joining the three liberal justices.

Trump had nominated Barrett to the Court and praised her highly during her confirmation process. Her action today must have struck him like a dagger. At all times, there was little doubt the three liberals would vote against Mr. Trump. The Chief Justice frequently disappoints conservatives by siding with the liberals on a regular basis. But Barrett was not expected to vote with the liberals to harm Mr. Trump.

No matter what her view on the merits of his request for a stay, she could have simply asked for more time to consider the merits and to do some research, and then allowed him to be inaugurated without the liberal television and print media being able to headline their story, “U.S. for first time in history inaugurates a convicted felon as its President.” She did not have to do this. There were solid equities on Trump’s side, as evidenced by the votes of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. This was a 5-4 decision, and Barrett’s vote was controlling. Had she voted with Trump, who had arranged her elevation to the Supreme Court, the outcome would have been different. Perhaps the liberals will think of her as a good judge — until she votes against them on something, at which point she will again be called “Trump’s Justice” — but to conservatives, who placed so much hope in her, her actions are surely seen as a vicious, uncalled for attack on Trump.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Trump posted this on Truth Social:

Previous Article:

NY Judge Eager to Sentence Trump so that He May be Called a Convicted Felon Upon His Inauguration.

Trump was convicted of 34 near-identical counts of bookkeeping irregularities. Trump always maintained his innocence and repeatedly called the prosecution a political, partisan, witch-hunt, in which he was charged for no reason other than as an attempt to deny him from regaining the presidency.

New York Judge Juan Merchan and D.A. Alvin Bragg are dead-set in their determination to sentence Mr. Trump before he takes the presidential oath of office on January 20th, and Trump’s sentencing has been scheduled for January 10th. Until he is sentenced, he is not officially a “convicted felon” under New York law, and the Democrat-partisan law system in New York insists on placing that moniker on him before he becomes the 47th President.

Mr. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, essentially having improper entries in his bookkeeping. Trump argued that the records were correct and that there were no false entries. He also argued that the bookkeeping records were compiled by bookkeepers and accountants and not by him. Merchan refused to allow the jury to hear many of Trump’s defenses, but allowed virtually all the prosecutor’s case to be considered, much of which was strongly objected to by Trump’s counsel. The case was widely seen by conservatives as a sham proceeding, a kangaroo court run by extremely partisan political interests, hell-bent on destroying Mr. Trump’s efforts to reassume the presidency. Some conservative commentators claim that Trump’s victory in the November elections demonstrates that the American people have rejected the findings in Merchan’s courtroom. Mr. Trump has labelled the case against him as “lawfare.”

Mr. Trump’s appeal of Merchan’s scheduling order, reflecting Merchan’s dogged determination to press forward just days before Mr. Trump assumes the presidency, was denied by the New York Court of Appeals, also a very partisan court.

His lawyers have now filed in the United States Supreme Court, asserting presidential immunity and potential of “harm to the Presidency.”

Read Mr. Trump’s Emergency Request.

In an Emergency Request filed in the Supreme Court by attorney John Sauer, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue that the sentencing could cause “grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government.” Mr. Sauer, who practices law with the firm of James Otis Law Group, LLC, in St. Louis, Missouri, has been chosen by Mr. Trump to become the U.S. Solicitor General.

The Emergency Request asks the Supreme Court to “enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government. The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (“Trump”), and related case law. This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit. In the meantime, the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump—or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him—until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”

The Emergency Request continues, “As discussed herein, this Court should order an immediate stay of criminal proceedings against President Trump in the New York trial court, including but not limited to the criminal sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. If necessary, the Court should also enter a temporary administrative stay of those proceedings while it considers this stay application.”

The Emergency Request is a 51-page filing. It concludes by arguing: “Most fundamentally, forcing President Trump to defend a criminal case and appear for a criminal sentencing hearing at the apex of the Presidential transition creates a constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and America’s vital interests. By contrast, the State of New York’s asserted interest in proceeding with the criminal sentencing of the President-Elect of the United States on politically motivated charges at breakneck speed at the apex of a Presidential transition should be accorded no weight.”

On Thursday, January 9, 2025, District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed his response, saying: “Donald J. Trump is the defendant in a criminal action in Supreme Court, New York County. While he was a private citizen, defendant was charged, tried, and convicted for conduct that he concedes is wholly unofficial, and for which ‘there is no [presidential] immunity.’ Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 615 (2024). On May 30, 2024, a jury found defendant guilty of all 34 felony counts charged in the indictment. The only step remaining before entry of final judgment—which has already been postponed six months at defendant’s requests—is the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025.”

Mr. Bragg told the High Court that it “lacks jurisdiction” to intervene in a New York State case where there has been no final judgment. Bragg continues, “defendant claims that his recent election as President immediately entitled him to the same immunity from prosecution as the sitting President and thus exempts him from the January 10 sentencing. See Application 28. That is, defendant makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office, from all state-court criminal process. This extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court. It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time.”

Read NY’s Opposition to Application for a Stay

It seems to us, given Bragg’s concession that at the moment Trump raises his right hand and takes the oath, that Trump will thereupon become immune from further prosecution by New York State, that the only thing the Supreme Court has to do is to put a stay in place for the Justices to consider the filings, and then not rule on the stay for two weeks, at which point they can state that the case has been mooted by the Inauguration of President Trump.

We should point out that former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Professor Steven Calabresi have filed an amicus brief supporting Mr. Trump’s request for a stay. “This continued prosecution of President Trump violates core constitutional principles long recognized by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which issues opinions on behalf of the Attorney General that are the formal legal position of the Federal Government and binding on the Executive Branch. OLC has issued three opinions—in 1972, 2000, and 2024—on prosecuting a sitting President of the United States. And, under OLC’s consistent view, given President Trump’s imminent return to the White House, presidential immunity requires that the prosecution brought against him in New York County by District Attorney Alvin Bragg be dismissed and the jury verdict vacated. President Trump’s request for a stay is therefore well-grounded.”

The amicus brief adds, “there are fifty states with roughly 2,300 county prosecutors, some of them quite partisan. This Court should not allow such a prosecutor to impair the President’s or congressionally certified President-Elect’s ability to perform his duties.” “It is intolerable that one county prosecutor in one State could besmirch a President’s reputation and reduce his effectiveness in carrying out his extensive duties at this time.” “New York’s interest is dwarfed by the interests of the United States as a whole in a President who is not distracted by an ongoing prosecution.”

Read the Meese and Calabresi Amicus Brief.