#trump unconditional discharge

[unitednews05]

Trump gets no jail time or penalties in sentence for hush money conviction.....

[rejectingrepublicans]

[republicansaretheproblem]

Still a convicted felon but no punishment, not even a fine.

🐂💩

[tanoraqui]

Key article quotes, bolding mine:

Merchan added that his goal is "bringing finality" to the case.

Merchan said an "unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution," so that Trump could pursue his appeals. Under New York law that means a sentence without incarceration, fine or probation.

A felony conviction, if not overturned on appeal, still has consequences, Zauderer [lawyer consulted for the article] said. Trump would not be allowed to vote, own a firearm or sit on a jury in New York state, Zauderer said.

[entirely paraphrasing: Trump’s lawyer still says the whole case is wrong because Trump is protected by the Supreme Court ruling that Presidents can’t be convicted for any criminal acts they do as part of their office. The Manhattan District Attorney says falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to a porn star isn’t a “presidential act of office” and also shut the fuck up and get out of his city]

[saywhat-politics]

Trump received a sentence of unconditional discharge — or effectively no punishment — and the 47th president of the United States will be a convicted felon.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

He keeps the title of convicted felon but receives no punishment, not even a fine. Teflon Don strikes again and the two tier justice system fails us again. I knew he would get off the hook but was expecting at least some token punishment of a fine or community service. He was allowed to speak and called it an unfair hoax to keep him from becoming president.

☹️

[socialjusticeinamerica]

🤬🤬🤬

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

Donald Trump is officially an adjudicated convicted felon, after a judge in New York on Friday sentenced him Friday morning for the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records Trump was found guilty of in May. While Trump has already been convicted, his sentencing formalizes his criminal conviction. Trump, however, will face no jail time or any fines for his crimes of trying to cover up hush money payments he made to a Playboy model and a porn actress during the 2016 campaign, with Judge Juan Merchan sentencing him to "unconditional discharge." Merchan said it was the "only lawful sentence" he could impose after Trump won the election in November. Trump  spoke at his sentencing hearing, which he attended virtually, in which he whined about the case and took no responsibility for his actions. “This has been a very terrible experience,” Trump said. The fact that Trump is escaping pretty much unscathed from the legal jeopardy he found himself in is a miscarriage of justice. He was able to escape accountability both because of an unprecedented decision by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court, which dragged its feet before ultimately ruling in July that Trump was immune from anything deemed an “official act” in office. 

10 days before he returns to the White House, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan handed down a sentence that permits felon-elect Donald Trump skip any penalties such as fines or jail time regarding his business records falsification crime as to his election interference payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016.

However, Trump will still have the words “convicted felon” attached to his name forever.

See Also:

The Guardian: Trump avoids punishment for hush-money conviction and calls case ‘terrible experience’

HuffPost: Donald Trump Sentenced In Historic New York Hush Money Trial

NBC News: Trump sentenced to penalty-free 'unconditional discharge' in hush money case

AP: Trump gets no-penalty sentence in his hush money case, while calling it ‘despicable’

[projectreclaim]

Fun Fact: Felons get sent to prison

Trump got an unconditional discharge - no jail & no probation

That means he’s not an actual felon - he’s a victim of political persecution

Judge Merchan just wanted to label Trump a “felon” to make his corrupt Democrat friends happy

This will be overturned on appeal, but I hope Trump uses this frustration as fuel to absolutely destroy these evil Marxists.

[mariacallous]

Trump Bemoans the Injustice of No Consequences

This morning, I headed to chilly lower Manhattan to witness the criminal sentencing of Donald Trump. As I walked alone in the post-dawn quiet through Foley Square, where the borough’s courthouses are clustered, I read the inscription above the entrance to the New York State Supreme Court building: “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.” It’s a line lifted from one of George Washington’s letters. Just up the block, in a courtroom on the fifteenth floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, this sentiment was about to be put through an extreme, absurd, test.

What’s a fitting punishment for a President who breaks the law? America has never been quite sure. Last spring, when Trump sat through a weeks-long trial in Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom, it almost seemed like the rules would, finally, apply to him. Yes, he was the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, and, yes, the trial was held under oppressively tight security restrictions, and, yes, Merchan gave Trump leeway to viciously bash the court, the prosecutors, the witnesses, and the jury in ways not typically tolerated from criminal defendants. But inside the courtroom the proceedings proceeded. Testimony was heard, evidence was introduced, a verdict was reached: guilty on all thirty-four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, as part of a scheme to suppress damaging evidence from becoming public during his first Presidential campaign. That was the unanimous decision of twelve of Trump’s peers on May 30th.

Much has happened since. The sentencing in the hush-money case, which Merchan postponed several times during the election season, was like a bit of unfinished business from a time when the true administration of justice was the firmest pillar of good government. It had always been thought unlikely that this case would end with jail time, or some other serious consequence, for Trump. The November results insured it. Merchan was put in a bind: How to resolve the case that had resulted in a guilty verdict without impinging on Trump’s ability to be President? A potential solution presented itself in the idea of an “unconditional discharge,” wherein Trump’s conviction would stand, but the matter would be left there.

The hearing began at 9:30 A.M. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors were in the courtroom. Trump, with Merchan’s permission, appeared virtually, via Microsoft Teams. (Among other things, the Trump sentencing may be remembered as the apex of the W.F.H. era in this country.) He was sitting next to his lawyer, Todd Blanche, whom he has nominated to serve as Deputy Attorney General in his second term. Trump’s face appeared on screens mounted on the courtroom walls.

Joshua Steinglass, an Assistant District Attorney, spoke first. He excoriated Trump, accusing him of breeding “disdain” for the rule of law, and of putting those involved in the trial in “harm’s way.” “This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal-justice system,” Steinglass said. Still, he acknowledged, the defendant was about to become the President. As such, the District Attorney was seeking a sentence of unconditional discharge.

Blanche went next. “I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case,” he said. He reiterated arguments Trump’s defense team had made before, about the timing and the motivations underlying the case. He suggested that the votes of tens of millions of citizens should outweigh the verdict of twelve jurors. It was a “sad” day for Trump, Blanche said, and for the country. Nevertheless, he, too, requested that Merchan issue an unconditional discharge.

Then it was Trump’s turn. While Blanche was speaking, Trump was mostly frowning, and looking off camera. Occasionally, he leaned and his face went partially out of view, like a doddering grandfather during a family Zoom. During the trial, he had not testified in his own defense, and in the courtroom he’d stayed mostly silent, save for the occasional outburst of muttering or sighing, for which Merchan repeatedly admonished him. Now he had the floor. “This has been a very terrible experience,” he said. “The fact is, I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.” He referred obliquely to Michael Cohen, his former lawyer who became one of the prosecution’s star witnesses in the trial. “He was allowed to talk as if he were George Washington,” Trump said. “But he’s not George Washington.”

Merchan, sitting on the bench, looked impassively on through all of this. When it finally came time to render judgment, he began by thanking the court clerks, officers, and staff. Then he acknowledged his bind. Because Trump was about to become President, he explained, the “only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction” was an unconditional discharge. “Sir, I wish you godspeed as you assume a second term in office,” Merchan said. Then, the unpleasant task finished, he quickly left the courtroom. The live-stream screens went blank, and the prosecutors filed out. The first criminal trial of a former and future President was over.

[my-voice-my-resistance]

President-elect Trump sentenced to an unconditional discharge in hush mo...

A national disgrace

[silly-shark-surfer]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-sentencing-01-10-25/index.html

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Almost-president Trump is off to a good start... Today's cartoon by Paolo Lombardi.

* * * * *

The sentencing and conviction of defendant Donald J. Trump.

January 11, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Transcript of proceedings in Department 59 of the New York County Supreme Court on January 10, 2025, in the matter of People v. Donald J. Trump.

Judge Juan Merchan: Let's impose a sentence, please.

Clerk: Donald Trump, you are before the court for sentence following your conviction by trial to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Before being sentenced, the court will allow you, your attorney and assistant district attorney, an opportunity to address the court with any matters relevant to sentencing. [Who is appearing] for the people?

Assistant Manhattan DA Joshua Steinglass: The defendant in this case, as you know, stands convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all Class-E felonies. Each carries a range of authorized sentencing options from much as one-an-a-third to four years in state prison to a variety of non-incarceratory sentences.

In this court's January 3rd decision on the defendant's Clayton motion, Your Honor indicated an inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. Under all the circumstances of this case, its unique posture, and the defendant's status as president-elect, The People recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge.

In finding the defendant guilty in this case, the jury necessarily found unanimously that the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own election by unlawful means.

Having presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conduct, its seriousness, and the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. I'm certainly not going to rehash that now.

In last week's decision on January 3rd, this court referred to the gravamen of the defendant's conduct, his criminal conduct in this case, as constituting "premeditated and continuous deception."

The verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using an extensive questionnaire based on suggestions from both parties and after thorough questioning of the prospective jurors by both sides.

The verdict in this case was unanimous and decisive, and it must be respected.

As this court has observed, quote," the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence." The defendant's conduct before, during, and after this trial also merits consideration. Instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our constitutionally-established system of criminal justice, the defendant -- the once and future president of the United States -- has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy.

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. And he's done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful. He has characterized these proceedings as "corrupt," "rigged," a "witch hunt," or a "sham" too many times to tabulate.

The defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since this court's rulings on his motions to dismiss. He has been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon this court and its family, individual prosecutors, and their families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice system as a whole.

The defendant has not only been held in contempt by other jurists in other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for ten distinct violations of the order restricting extrajudicial speech. In his legal filings, the defendant has used dangerous rhetoric and leveling accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution.

As this court has noted, the defendant's conduct "constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law itself. "

Moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have sought to hold him accountable in this and other matters and the courts who have endeavored to fairly and faithfully adjudicate these matters. Such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to intimidate those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws in the hopes that they will ignore the defendant's transgressions because they fear that he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the rest of us.

In his 2024 end of year report, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts warned of the dangers of such conduct. "public officials, too, regrettably, have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges.

For example, suggesting political bias and the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations." Chief Justice Roberts continued, "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges, may prompt dangerous reactions by others."

Chief Justice Roberts also spoke of the dangers of disinformation, which are "magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information."

Put simply, this defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way.

In the probation report which we just received this morning, the author -- having interviewed the defendant -- noted that the defendant sees himself as above the law and won't accept responsibility for his actions. And that's certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen.

Now, in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence. But in this case, we must be respectful of the office of the presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in ten days.

Any undischarged portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. As a practical matter, the most sensible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge. The court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because, in the court's words, "The most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options" is to proceed to sentence.

As you know in New York, an unconditional discharge is authorized by the penal law "if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character, and condition of the defendant is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate."

An unconditional discharge is authorized if a conditional discharge is authorized and if "The court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release."

Because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action.

The American public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence-related obligations, but imposing this sentence ensures that finality. Sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue, and it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern.

People, therefore, recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you.

[Trump then delivers remarks that insult the court, the American people, and the rule of law.]

Judge Juan M. Merchan, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court: Thank you, Mr. Trump.

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 the 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 officeholder, 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.

Concluding Thoughts

The outcome of this case pleased no one. If Trump had not been re-elected and did not have a fabricated presidential immunity, he would have likely been sentenced to a jail term. But we would not have arrived at this point without the careful judicial management of Judge Juan Merchan and the civic dedication of twelve jurors and a courageous district attorney. We owe each of them an enormous debt of gratitude.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[boricuacherry-blog]

"I broke the law that day, period. Black and white," Pamela Hemphill told NPR's All Things Considered of the role she regrets playing at the Capitol that day. "I'm not a victim, I'm a volunteer."

"I was contributing to their false propaganda that they continue to gaslight the nation and everyone, that it was a peaceful protest."

In May, Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records. He was given an unconditional discharge 10 days before he was inaugurated as president, which means he didn't face prison time, fines or other penalties.

[undergroundusa]

"In an extraordinary turn, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan Friday set President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money criminal case for Jan. 10 — little over a week before he’s due to return to the White House…

"Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, signaled in a written decision that he’d sentence the former and future president to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, in which a conviction stands but the case is closed without jail time, a fine or probation…"

It can't be said often or loudly enough. Merchan needs to be disciplined and/or prosecuted and removed from the bench for gross judicial misconduct.

This is not an act of political retribution. It is holding to account an individual who not only has abused his power for political purposes but stands unqualified to hold his position.

That the New York judicial system has allowed this farce to go on is a black mark on its history equalling that of abstaining from the vote for independence in 1776.

Merchan #Trump #Politics #Court #Judiciary #Persecution

[saywhat-politics]

Jan. 27, 2025, 2:28 PM MST

By Ken Dilanian and Ryan J. Reilly

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Monday that it fired several career lawyers involved in prosecuting Donald Trump, escalating the president's campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies.

The employees worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation that led to now-dismissed indictments against Trump over his handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump," a Justice Department official told NBC News. "In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda. This action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government."

Among those let go, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News, were career prosecutors Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara and Mary Dohrmann.

Smith resigned earlier this month ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump's re-election effectively ended the federal criminal cases against him due to the Justice Department's long-standing policies against prosecuting a sitting president.

Trump's New York hush money case, brought by Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg, is the sole case criminal case against Trump to lead to a conviction. Trump was sentenced earlier this month to penalty-free unconditional discharge, making him the first convicted felon to assume the presidency.