Trump
avoids punishment for hush-money conviction and calls case ‘terrible
experience’
President-elect,
who was found guilty of committing 34 felonies, sentenced to unconditional
discharge in New York
Victoria
Bekiempis in New York and Joan E Greve
Fri 10 Jan
2025 11.26 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/10/trump-hush-money-sentencing-new-york
Donald Trump
will avoid jail time for his felony conviction in the New York hush-money case,
a judge determined on Friday, marking both a dramatic and anti-climactic
development in the historic criminal proceedings weeks before he returns to the
White House.
The judge
who presided over Trump’s criminal trial, Juan Merchan, issued a sentence of
“unconditional discharge”, meaning the president-elect will be released without
fine, imprisonment or probation supervision for his conviction on 34 felony
counts of falsifying business records. While the sentence makes Trump a
convicted felon, he will face no penalty other than this legal designation.
Trump, whose
presidential inauguration is scheduled for 20 January, is the first US
president – former or sitting – to face a criminal trial, let alone a guilty
verdict and subsequent sentencing.
Addressing
the court via video shortly before receiving his sentence, Trump called the
case “a very terrible experience”, an “injustice” and a “political witch-hunt”.
“This has
been a very terrible experience. I think it’s been a tremendous setback for New
York, the New York court system,” he said, appearing next to his lawyer, Todd
Blanche. “I get indicted for business records? Everybody should be so accurate.
It’s been a political witch hunt ... to damage my reputation so that I’d lose
the election. Obviously that didn’t work.”
After the
sentencing hearing concluded, Trump continued his screed on social media,
writing on Truth Social, “The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by
Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential
Elections in History.”
But as he
delivered the sentenced, Merchan emphasized that Trump’s victory in the
presidential race did not “reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its
commission in any way”, even though it had to be taken into account.
“The
protections [of the presidency] 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
the power to erase a jury verdict,” Merchan said.
“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.”
Merchan, who
was subject to intense criticism and threats as he oversaw Trump’s case, then
told the president-elect: “Sir, I wish you godspeed as you assume your second
term in office.”
Trump was
found guilty on 30 May 2024 of falsifying business records with the intent to
commit a second crime.
The office
of Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, argued that Trump falsely recorded
reimbursements he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen for paying $130,000
to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, so she would keep quiet about an alleged
sexual liaison with the then candidate. Trump marked these repayments to Cohen
as “legal expenses” on financial documents.
State
prosecutors contended at trial that these falsifications were intended to hide
Trump’s violation of New York election law, which forbids promoting any person
to office through unlawful means. They said that the unlawful means were the
payoff to Daniels, as they cast it as an illegal campaign contribution.
Outside the
courthouse at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan, Trump supporters and anti-Trump
protesters gathered to offer their thoughts on the proceedings. Some protesters
held signs reading “Trump is guilty”, “fraud” and “34 felony convictions” while
supporters displayed a banner reading “stop partisan conspiracy; stop political
witch hunt”.
One of the
anti-Trump protesters, Paul Rabin, told the Guardian before the sentencing
hearing: “It’s been proven in a court of law that he’s broken the law, and yet
he’s been able to evade justice, and unfortunately, in our society, he has
money, wealth, status and power, and that’s what gets you justice – or the
opposite of justice.”
As Trump’s
trial progressed, he repeatedly railed against the proceedings, casting himself
as the victim of a politicized witch-hunt. Trump’s invectives repeatedly
violated Merchan’s gag order that barred him from speaking about witnesses and
jurors.
While Trump
was fined and held in contempt for these violations, Merchan’s failure to
impose meaningful punishment, such as jail, foreshadowed the many post-trial
developments that fell in his favor.
Trump was
originally scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July. Then came the 1 July US
supreme court ruling that imbued presidents with broad immunity from criminal
prosecution for official acts.
Merchan
agreed to postpone sentencing until 18 September so he could weigh whether this
decision affected the guilty verdict. The jurist subsequently pushed back
sentencing until 26 November “to avoid any appearance – however unwarranted –
that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching
presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate”. He also postponed
issuing his immunity decision.
Trump’s
appeal-and-delay legal strategy worked. Following Trump’s win, his team
intensified their attempt to thwart the case on presidential immunity grounds,
saying this protection applied to the president-elect and that sentencing would
impede the smooth transition of power.
Merchan on 3
January ultimately decided not to toss Trump’s case, saying there was “no legal
impediment” to sentencing. Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for 10 January.
“It is this
Court’s firm belief that only by bringing finality to this matter will all
three interests be served,” Merchan wrote in this ruling. “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 positions in what is an unprecedented, and likely never to be
repeated legal scenario.”
In his
decision, however, Merchan all but said that jail was off the table. Merchan
said that in weighing all the factors and concerns about presidential immunity,
a sentence of “unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution”.
Additional
reporting by Anna Betts
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário