A Judge Finally Faced Down Donald Trump’s Disdain for the Legal System

Donald Trump appears virtually for sentencing at Manhattan Criminal Court, screen grab

[For the full text of Judge Juan Merchan's sentencing statement, see below -- moderator]

In less than 40 minutes, it was over. After an investigation that spanned more than seven years, two Manhattan district attorneys, three criminal cases, and innumerable appellate-level judges and justices—including several touches by the United States Supreme Court—the district court trial People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump came to an end Friday with a sentence of “unconditional discharge.” There will be no jail time, home confinement, probation, or even a fine. There will be no conditions whatsoever, as the name implies, for convictions on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and covering that up to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

A U.S. president, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan explained, is protected from legal action in the way ordinary citizens are not—especially since the SCOTUS’s decision on presidential immunity in Trump v. U.S. “Donald Trump the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant, would not be subject to such considerable protections,” Merchan said in handing down his sentence. “No,” he added, “it is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder.” Merchan leaned into the word office.

Despite having sentenced, in this very courtroom, Trump’s former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to six months in jail following a guilty plea for felony fraud while working at the Trump Organization, despite having fined Trump’s company $1.6 million after a jury convicted Trump corporate entities for that same fraud, despite having taken testimony from the key witness in this case, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen—who himself received a three-year sentence in federal court in part for some of the very same conduct at issue in Trump’s case—despite all this, Merchan gave Trump nothing.

And yet.

This is not the outcome Trump wanted. When Trump was convicted, seven and a half months ago, on a spring day as balmy and verdant as Friday was frigid, after the jury foreman, a salt-and-pepper-haired immigrant from Ireland, said guilty 34 times, Trump rose and turned, looking stricken, his face uncharacteristically crumpled, reaching out to grasp the hand of his son Eric. I watched this, sitting two rows behind Trump, as he turned and walked out to face the cameras and assail the process that had brought him there.

Trump fought all the way to the Supreme Court to try to stop the sentencing from happening. It wasn’t until Thursday evening that we knew, for sure, that sentencing would take place.

“I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong,” the unrepentant president-elect told the court Friday via video link from Mar-a-Lago, sitting in front of an array of American flags next to his attorney Todd Blanche, who is set to become the second-highest-ranking person in Trump’s Justice Department. “This case should not have been brought,” Blanche told the court. Trump will appeal.

With Merchan’s action Friday, Trump’s criminal case has concluded, and he will enter office—10 days from his sentencing—a convicted felon.

For a case nearly frozen in time, Room 1530 of the Criminal Courts building in lower Manhattan was, appropriately, freezing Friday morning. (Trump complained about the temperature several times over the course of the trial, with the judge indicating that there was nothing that could be done.) The area was emptier now; just a single Trump attorney, Emil Bove, sat in the room, at the defense table. (Bove has also been nominated by Trump for a prominent DOJ perch).

This time, there was no phalanx of family members, friends, and supporters: like Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, or incoming Vice President J.D. Vance, or other members of Trump’s incoming team who showed up in Merchan’s courtroom in April and May. (That earlier group also included Doug Burgum, Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Waltz, Susie Wiles, and Sebastian Gorka, to name just a few more).

There was no mystery either: In an order earlier this month, Merchan noted his intention to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge. From September 2019, the time that former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. made public his investigation of Trump, through the conclusion of this trial, it remained unclear whether Trump would be indicted, tried, or convicted, would run for president again, win the nomination, win the presidency, or be sentenced for anything, ever. But as of Friday, we know: Yes to everything, except no to any jail time.

And yet, Merchan made clear, in his Jan. 3 order, that the sentence did not really fit the crime. “Seriousness and harm are not measured solely by the level of violence inflicted or the extent of financial harm. Seriousness can be gauged by considering the significance of the act under the unique circumstances of the case, as well as by the harm to society as a whole,” Merchan wrote.

He continued: “Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense.”

Merchan also went out of his way in that order to chide Trump and his team for attacking the court system, the justice included. Citing Chief Justice John Roberts, Merchan wrote: “Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.”

Merchan also called out Trump’s legal team, members of which will likely soon hold the second and third top positions in the DOJ, for coming “dangerously close to crossing the line of zealous representation and the professional advocacy one would expect from members of the bar and officers of the court” and resorting “to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings.” These offenses included calling the judge’s and prosecutors’ acts “unlawful,” a word with a specific legal meaning, Merchan noted: “criminally punishable.”

On Friday, Merchan left all that up to Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass, who sat at the prosecutors’ table among the usual assembly of ADAs, all wearing the same black suits and hairstyles, even, that we saw during the trial. Alvin Bragg, the DA, sat unmovingly two rows behind them.

“Instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our constitutionally established system of criminal justice, the defendant, once and future president of the United States, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy,” Steinglass said. “Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law.”

Trump, in his own brief statement to the court, continued to display that very disdain. The incoming president called the prosecution an “injustice of justice.” Of his illegally mislabeling a payoff to Stormy Daniels as a “legal reimbursement” in business records prior to the 2016 election to cover up an alleged affair, he said, “Everyone should be so accurate.”

Blanche, the incoming deputy attorney general, responded by once again attacking the process that brought us here. “American voters got a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of case that should have been brought,” he said from Florida. “And they decided. And that’s why, in 10 days, President Trump is going to assume the office of the president of the United States.”

In his own way, Merchan did not refute that. Rather, he acknowledged that the nomination and the election had changed his calculations.

“It is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder,” Merchan said, addressing Trump’s video image. “And it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again see the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity.”

During the trial, Merchan distinguished himself by visibly considering both sides of an argument before coming to a decision. This is a quality that has become especially rare in this polarized age, when everyone’s opinion of everything appears preformed. Merchan thought in front of us.

Almost palpably agonized, Merchan on Friday told Trump: “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge.” That is, he had no choice. Trump had been an ordinary defendant, but by virtue of winning the election, he was no longer.

Merchan had opened his remarks by saying: “The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to make.”

He ended with this: “Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.”

He might have wished that to all of us in the courtroom, and everyone beyond it. Godspeed.

Andrea Bernstein is a journalist, author, and the co-host of the podcasts We Don’t Talk About Leonard, Will Be Wild, and Trump, Inc. Her book, American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power, was an NPR Book of the Year.

Slate is an online magazine of news, politics, technology, and culture. Combines humor and insight in thoughtful analyses of current events and political news. Choose the newsletters you want to get the Slatest

Judge Juan Merchan Sentencing Statement from the Bench
January 10, 2025

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-sentencing-transcript-listen-trumps-ent…

Mr. Trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the imposition of sentence. Although I have taken the unusual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations before imposing sentence, I believe it is important for you as well as those observing these proceedings to understand my reasoning for the sentence I am about to impose.

The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to make. Our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence, but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion to a verdict of guilty. A court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sources or evidence you may consider to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case, along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In my time on the bench, I've been called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from nonviolent, class-E felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including homicides, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse. The task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life.

However, never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case. There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security involving various agencies. And yet, the trial was a bit of a paradox, because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time.

Jury selection was conducted. The same rules of evidence were followed. Opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined, evidence presented, summations delivered. The same burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law. Of course, part of what made it feel somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel, and the entire staff of this building who did their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial.

So, while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you once occupied and which you will soon occupy again. To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the Office of the President, have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump v. The United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating or mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others.

To be clear, the protections afforded to the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections 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 a power to erase a jury verdict.

It is clear from legal precedent -- which until July 1st was scarce -- that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the Office of the President that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder, and it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive 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.

After careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.

Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.

Portside

We need to say ‘NO’ from day one to dictatorial ambition and repressive actions. Please click to help Portside to inform, analyze and mobilize in the year ahead.

A Judge Finally Faced Down Donald Trump’s Disdain for the Legal System

This is not the outcome Trump wanted. With Merchan’s action Friday, Trump’s criminal case has concluded, and he will enter office—10 days from his sentencing—a convicted felon.

Woody and Pete on Fascism

Ecuador Hands Over Galapagos Islands To Build U.S. Military Base

Universities and the Coming Storm

Today, As in the Past, Germany Claims the Authority To Define Who Is a Jew

We Need To Talk About Trader Joe’s