newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
In what appears to be an attempt to ensure this President-elect Trump After arriving to office as an officially convicted felon, Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump's post-trial requests and suggested he be sentenced next Friday, January 10.
The bait that prompts Trump to agree to this is that Judge Merchan indicates that the ruling will be A Conditional discharge – This means that the president-elect will not face any prison sentence or post-sentence supervision (such as probation). Moreover, because imposition of sentence and entry of judgment would end the proceedings in the trial court, Trump would be free to begin his appeal of what would constitute 34 criminal convictions for falsifying business records.
I don't think Trump would agree to that; Instead, I suspect he will seek an immediate appeal of the immunity claims that Merchant flatly rejected in today's 18-page lawsuit Opinion and order. Not surprisingly, Merchan denied Trump's immunity claims; He had already ruled against Trump on this point in a fatwa issued on December 16.
New York judge sets days to sentence Trump before his inauguration
In previous proceedings, the progressive Democratic district attorney-elect of Manhattan, Alvin BraggHe appears to acknowledge that Trump will likely have the right to appeal his immunity ruling before he is sentenced. That's why, rather than push for a sentencing date, prosecutors in the Bragg case proposed freezing the case — which had been pending while Trump served his four-year presidential term. In this scenario, the case would theoretically resume in 2029 (when Trump will be 82) with final arraignment rulings, sentence and guilty verdict entered, and appeal.
In the ruling issued Friday afternoon, Merchan rejected that proposal, claiming that he had a responsibility to sentence Trump before his inauguration, for fear of undermining what the judge considered an important public interest in carrying out the ruling.
It is not clear to me that there is any such public interest. Instead, there appears to be an interest in Merchan, a Democratic activist, who contributed Joe Biden 2020 campaign against Trump in violation of state judicial ethics rules — to ensure that Trump is designated a convicted felon while there is still a chance, before the inauguration, to do so.
However, Merchan seems to acknowledge that Trump still has cards to play. The opinion states, for example:
“This court must sentence defendant within a reasonable time after judgment; defendant must be allowed the benefit of every available appeal, a course which he has made clear he intends to follow but which only becomes Completely Available upon judgment. (Emphasis added.)
Put aside how important it is for this clearly hostile judge to express his deep concerns about defending Trump's rights on appeal. Merchan should interject the word “entirely” because while Trump can only file his full appeal based on all allegations of error arising from the post-judgment proceedings alone, He should be able to file a partial appeal now targeting only Merchan's immunity ruling.
Merchan then goes on to address Bragg's proposal to suspend the case for four years: “(i) If the court is unable to impose the penalty before the defendant takes the constitutional oath (On January 20), this may become the only viable option.”
Once again, Merchan is clearly aware that Trump may be allowed to appeal the immunity portion of the ruling immediately. If that happened, Merchan would effectively be “unable to enforce governance” before Inauguration Day — in which case Trump would no longer be a convicted felon upon entering the presidency.
What I find most striking in all of this is Merchan's description of Trump's malfeasance:
“Here, 12 jurors unanimously found the defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with intent to defraud, Which included the intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote the presidential election by illegal means. It is the deliberate and persistent deception by the leader of the free world that constitutes the seriousness of this crime. (Emphasis added.) Reversing this judgment on the grounds that the charges are not sufficiently serious given the position previously held by the defendant, and which he is about to hold again (i.e. the presidency), would constitute a disproportionate result and cause irreparable harm. It can be measured to citizens. Trust in the rule of law.”
Here, Merchan swallows Bragg's depiction of the issue whole: We're not just talking about falsifying business records; Trump conspired to steal the 2016 elections – a conspiracy that succeeded!
Click here for more Fox News opinions
Now, let's put aside that that's not what the indictment charged. Let's put aside that it's a ridiculous claim — for example, even if we assume for the sake of argument, as Bragg claimed, that Trump's $130,000 NDA payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign expense that had to be reported to House of Representatives. Federal Election Commission (It wasn't), and it didn't have to be reported until after the election – meaning: it wasn't hidden from voters illegally. And let's put that aside, since Merchan (in violation of due process) did not ask for a unanimous verdict for the crime that Trump was supposed to cover up by falsifying his business records, it cannot be fairly said – as the judge claims – that the 12 jurors unanimously found that Conspiring to steal the election.
Ignoring all that, if one truly believes, as Merchan says, that Trump has been proven to have conspired to steal the presidential election – exploiting his position, as the judge adds alarmingly, as “leader of the free world” – then How could a responsible, conscientious judge rule that Trump should not be imprisoned or supervised? As Merchan described it, this was a heinous crime for the ages.
Of course, Merchan doesn't really think so. How can he do that? This was, at most, a frivolous, time-barred misdemeanor crime of record-keeping in connection with a legal transaction (non-disclosure agreements are legal and common). Bragg — with enormous help from Merchan — made up 34 felony counts by allegedly enforcing federal campaign finance laws that a state prosecutor didn't have. The authority to implement it (which the relevant federal authorities concluded that Trump had not violated).
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Not only have the American people just elected President Donald Trump Electoral College majority But by the popular vote. The audience did so knowing full well Bragg's ridiculous criminal case in Manhattan.
There is clearly no public outcry demanding that Trump be impeached before he takes the highest office in the land. Instead, there is a rancorous progressive Democratic interest in New York in branding the Republican president-elect as a convicted felon.
