Trump faces sentence in hush money case as he races to escape ‘unconditional discharge’
United States President-Elect Donald Trump is set to appear in court on 10th January, 2025, over his New Year criminal Hush Money case.
Judge in charge of the case, Judge Juan Merchan have issued an order that President-elect should appear before in on January 10.
In the statement, the judge, on Friday, noted that his intention is to sentence the incoming president to an “unconditional discharge” due to regards for the presidential immunity doctrine.
Judge Juan Merchan has placed an order that Trump should appear, either by proxy or in person, for hearing on 10th January, 2025, which happens to be ten days before Trump’s presidential inauguration.
Merchant, in his judgement on Friday, cited an unconditional discharge the “most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”
If found to be on the wrong side of the law, Trump might be sentenced to four-year imprisonment, though being convicted to an unconditional discharge means he could avoid jail, probation or fines.
Trump Faces Sentence In Hush Money Case
Trump’s counsels are expected to fight against the January 10 sentencing, as disclosed by sources close to his legal team.
His legal team is pushing to ask an intermediate New York appellate court for intervention in a bid to stop the sentencing from progressing, according to the source.
According to Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, he described Merchan’s ruling “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence.”
“President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any remnants of the Witch Hunts. There should be no sentencing,” the statement read.
Should Merchan not be able to sentence Trump on January 10, he suggested that he would plot to delay the sentencing until Trump completes his “presidency term.”
The judge noted that delaying Trump’s sentencing is the least option, but immediate sentencing is “most desirable” and the only viable option should the sentencing fails as initially planned.
It should be recalled that the Manhattan district attorney’s office secured the conviction against Trump.
The counts read that the President-elect was found culpable in May 2024 on 34 felony counts bordering on doctoring business records in regard to a hush money payment made to an adult film address Stormy Daniels as means to strengthen his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Merchan, in his order, called Trump’s conduct “premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.”
Trump Faces Sentence In Hush Money Case
“To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law,” the ruling said.
Though, Merchan argued that he had no power to determine Trump’s sentence without from Trump and other involved in the case.
He then proposed his plan to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge, which would enable Trump avoid serious punishment but his conviction record would remain on his record.
Trump’s counsels have been trying everything within their might to deter the sentencing, which they already did three times following the Supreme Court’s staggering verdict on presidential immunity and a heated presidential campaign.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling prompted Merchan to reschedule the sentence from July 11 to September 18.
In order to ascertain if Supreme Court’s July verdict had impacts on Trump’s conviction, deterring the prosecution of a president for an official acts carried out while in office.
Merchan’s subsequent ruling stated Trump’s sentence related “entirely to unofficial act” and “poses no danger of intrusion of the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
The Judge noted that an unconditional discharge would safeguard the holistic approach of the jury’s verdict−which he described as “a bedrock principle in our nation’s jurisprudence”−and the principle of presidential immunity.
Trump Faces Sentence In Hush Money Case
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known 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,” the ruling said.
“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 wrote.
Judge Merchan, in his verdict, critiqued Trump’s initial application to dismiss the jury’s ruling outright, citing that Trump’s request would “undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways.”
By pronouncing unconditional discharge sentence on Trump−making his record without imprisonment, fine or probation−Merchan said he hopes to come up with a balancing act of opposing interests.
“In so doing, this Court recognizes the importance of considering and balancing the seemingly competing factors before it: ensuring that the Executive Branch is free to fully dispense the duties of the President and safeguard the interests of the Nation, unencumbered by pending criminal proceedings; to ensure that the Supreme Court’s ruling and the citizenry’s expectation be honored that all are equal and no one is above the law; and the importance of protecting the sanctity of a jury verdict,” Merchan wrote.
The jury’s verdict criticised Trump and his counsels−most of whom Trump has installed in top positions at the Department of Justice in his incoming administration−for using rhetoric which “has no place in legal pleadings.”
According to Merchan’s written ruling: “Dangerous rhetoric is not a welcome form of argument and will have no impact on how the Court renders this or any other Decision.”
Trump was also criticised for his disregard for the judiciary.
“Defendant’s disdain for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record.
“Indeed, Defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole,” according to the ruling.
Trump Faces Sentence In Hush Money Case
In the written ruling, Merchan weighed Trump’s criticisms of the integrity of the proceedings because Trump’s counsels asked him to consider Trump’s acts and “contributions to this City and the nation [that] are too numerous to count.”
“This Court agrees that Defendant served his country as President and will do so again in a matter of weeks. However, that service is but one of the considerations to weigh under this factor,” in Merchan’s writing.
The last summer jury’s verdict has made Trump the first United States president−current or former−to be criminally convicted.
Trump Faces Sentence In Hush Money Case
