January 10, 2025
Donald J. Trump, who is to become the 47th President of the United States has finally been sentenced by Judge Merchan in his 34 felony conviction counts as he falsified business records with the intent to defraud and the intent to commit and conceal his own conspiracy in order to promote the 2020 election by unlawful means.
The decision of guilt was unanimous and Trump was charged in all counts in the first degree. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers in July of 2024. But he now skates out of any punishment ONLY because he was re-elected as president of the United States, and will assume office in just 10 days. It was an unmistakable win over Vice-President Kamala Harris for president, as he soundly beat her in the election. He won the electoral vote along with the popular vote. He won on lies he made throughout the presidential race that he could undoubtedly fix the U.S. economy. The American people bought into that lie. The presidential win is the only thing keeping him out of jail, at least for now. In 4 more years, all bets are off, and he may be up on other charges in 2028 that he skated away from as a coward while running for his second presidential term. What a disgusting human being.
Only a disgusting human being such as Donald J. Trump is above the law, now with presidential immunity while in his second term, will own such a distinction. He has NO SHAME or remorse for his actions.
He promised he will be a dictator on day one, which I’m hoping will just be another lie. No past president in history has shown such a distain for justice, more than Donald J. Trump. He is a disgrace to the office of President. Anyone else that would be found guilty of the crimes he was sentenced for would be in jail for a minimum of 4 to 5 years for each count.
Let’s also get another thing clear. Trump showed attendance at his sentencing hearing by phone, as he proved he was a coward to face the judge and his accusers in real time. He called in to the hearing from his Mar-a-lago residence in Florida with his attorney Todd Blanche. One favor deserves another I guess. Todd Blanche will become Trumps #2 man in the justice department, behind Pam Bundi who is Trump’s pick for Attorney General. She still is up for Senate confirmation hearings that will take place soon. Still Trump has earned the distinction of becoming the very first convicted felon to EVER assume office of the president of the United States after conviction. He is a disgrace to the Executive Office and will forever be branded as a felon and a weak president, and I will not not hold back on my writings concerning this fact. I will never give him the respect as my president just because he fooled the American people with his false promises, all in attempt to stay out of jail. He never fooled me. Also, if anyone who reads this article thinks that Donald Trump will fix the economy, they are totally blind. To be honest, the United States has the strongest economy in the world, certainly much better than when Trump was in office the first time. But people have short memories and they forget. Recently after his presidential win, Trump all but admitted that the economy may not be fixable, even after that was one of his campaign promises. Now, he doesn’t care what he says, or which supporters he hurts because he’s never going to run for re-election. Now, the American people must put up with his hell for at least the next two years until 2026, when Trump becomes a lame duck president after the mid-terms.
Judge Merchan posed the sentence of ‘Unconditional Discharge’ which means that Donald Trump will not serve any jail time ever for the felonies that he committed and found guilty for. He escaped because it would not be proper for the jail sentence to be given as Trump needs to assume office of the President of the United States with nothing in his way to govern.
Attached immediately below is a ‘LEGALAF’ video which is explained by Michael Popok from MeidasTouch what went down in the courtroom today during the sentencing. Only the audio from the sentencing can be heard, as there was no video released from the courtroom.
Also attached is the script from the audio that is contained below in its entirety. The authors of the audio in the court proceeding are the prosecuting attorney Joshua Steinglass who gave a summary of Trump’s crimes in the courtroom and defense attorney Todd Blanche who spoke on Trump’s behalf after the prosecution attorney, and finally Trump himself spoke in his own behalf by telephone. Then to Trump’s dismay, Judge Merchan handed down his sentence.
Prosecuting Attorney Joshua Steinglass makes the following statement…
The defendant Trump, 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 for as much as one and a third to four years in state prison to a variety of non incarceratory sentences. In this Court’s January 3 decision on the defendant’s motion, Your Honor, indicated an inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. Under all the circumstances of this case, its unique posture and the defendant 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 weeks decision on January 3, this court referred to the bravamen 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 ratched up since this Court’s ruling on his motions to dismiss, he has been unrelenting in these 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 and other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for 10 distinct violations of the order restricting extra judicial speech. In his legal filings, the defendant has used dangerous rhetoric in leveling accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution, as this Court also 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 defendants 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, regrettable, have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges, for example suggesting political bias in the judges adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations.” Chief Justice Rovers continued “Attempts to intimidate judges for their wounds 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 in temperance 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 cause enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harms way in the probational court, 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 sense, 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 10 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 the defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed to sentence. As you know, kin New York, a conditional discharge is authorized by 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 on 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 it is recommended that this Court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you. Thank you.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche response…
Thank you, your Honor. I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump’s conduct fighting this case from before it was indicated to why he was indicted, to the jury’s verdict, and even to this day, what the government just said presupposes something that we disagree with very much, which was that this was an appropriate case to be brought.
This case, without a doubt, knowing everything we know about the timing of the investigation, the fact that multiple prosecutors looked at the facts of this case, including prosecutors within the District Attorney’s Office in New York County, and made a decision not to bring charges, as the court knows, shortly after President Trump announced his intention to run for re-election. This case was started for what amounted fo a third time, which brings us ultimately to where we are today, A lot of what the government just said presupposes that this case is legally appropriate, and that the charges that were brought by the people were consistent with the laws of New York. gain, we very much disagree with that, and as everybody has been noted, because it’s true, we certainly intend an appealing that. And it’s not, byu the way, just counsel and President Trump that feels that way. There’s many, many, many legal experts that share the same views that I just said, which is that legally, this case should not have been brought both based on the facts that were established at trila and also on the legal basis for which they were brought. But it’s also not just the legal experts, ot just counsel and not just President Trump, but the majority of the American people also agree that this case should not have been brought. The interesting thing about the fact that there was a trial, for the first time in our history a criminal trial during an election season is that the American voters got a chancce to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of case that should have been brought, and they decided, and that’s why, in 10 days, President TGrump was going to assume the office of the President of the United States. And certainly we’re here for the court to sentence President Trump to an unconditional discharge, and for that, it’s a very sad day. It’s a sad day for President Trump and his family and friends, but it’s also, in counsel’s view, a sad day for the country, because this was a case without a doubt that was brought by a district attorney who said and I quote,” and I know that President Trump shares his view that this will never happen again in this country. And so we will certainly understand where we are today. We very much intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict and what happened during this investigational And we certainly believe that the only appropriate sentence, if one’s to be imposed at all, which we very much believe it shouldn’t be and that the case should be dismissed is a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you.
Judge Merchan invites Trump to speak.
Thank you. Would your client like to be heard?
Todd Blanche….. Yes
Donald Trump speaks on his behalf…
Thank you, your Honor. This has been a very terrible experience. I think it’s been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system. This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was, from what I read and from what I hear, that inappropriately handled before he got there, a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney, And that gentleman, from what I heard, was criminal, or almost criminal, in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was a somebody involved with my political opponent, part of the records that we’re taling about is saying, I just noticed where he said was falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as they said, was calling a legal expense in the books, where everybody could see them, a legal expense. In other words, that legal fees or legal expense were putr down as legal expense by accountants. They weren’t put down by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn’t call them constrution, concrete work. I didn’t call them electrical work. I didn’t call them they called a legal fee or legal expense, a legal expense, and for this, I got indicted. It’s incredible, actually. Now, if you look my attorney alluded to it, the top legal scholars and legal pundits in this country, the ones that are quoted all the time on television that are making their views felt and highly respect people, have said everyone, virtually everyone that I know haven’t seen any to the contrary. No one, and no one of these people are not exactly friends of mine, to put it mildly, but they all said, this is a case that should have never been brought. It’s an injusticec of justice. Very respected Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Judge David Rifkin, a wonderful man just passed away. By the way, Greg Jarrett, Ellie Honig from CNN, of all places, CNN said that Paul and Gracia, Alan Dershowitz, they all said, this is not a case that should be brought. It’s not think about legal expense are down as legal expenses and I get indicted for business records. Everybody should be so accurate. It’s been a political withc hunt. It was done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election. And obviously that didn’t work, and the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand, and then they voted, and I won, and got the largest number of votes by far of an Republican candidate in history. And won, as you iknow, all seven swing steates, and won the popularity, the popular vote by millions and millions of votes, and they’ve been watching your trial so they understood it. I wasn’t allowed to use the lawyer client privilege or the reliance on counsel. I had a lawyer that made this deal and he admitted that, and he was also a totally discredited person. We weren’t allowed to use this information from the southern district that totally discredited him, but wasn’t allowed to be put in, and that was terrible, unbelievable. And this is a man who’s got no standing. He’s been disbarred on other matters inrelated, and he was allowed to talk as though he were George Washington. But he’s not George Washington. He shouldn’t have been allowed. The Southern District did a book of approximately 28 pages where they, I’ve neve seen anything lik it. Thy excoriated, if you wouldn’t let if put in evidence, so he was able to testify as a witness, and I think it’s a disgrace to the system. I was under a gag order. Im the first president in history that was under a gag order where I couldn’t ask about aspects of the case that are very important. I guess I’m still under so probably I won’t do it now, I assume I’m still under a gag order, but the fact is that I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted. I had nothing to do with a minute that was done by an accountant or bookeeper who I think gave very credible testimony and was erraarated by everybody that was asked, and with all that’s happening in our country today, with a city that’s burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground, with the wars that are uncontrolablly going on, with all the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on. I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense. A legal expense was called a legal expense. I just want to say I think it’s an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. I believe that this and other cases that were brought, as you know, the DOJ is very much involved in this case. It’s because that’s the political opponent they’re talking about. The DOJ is very involved. You have a gentleman sitting right there from the DOJ who was from the DOJ office. He was also involved with the New York State Attorney General’s case, and he went from there o here, he went around and did what he had to do. Got them to move on me, but in the meantime, I won the election in a massive landslide. And the people of this country understand what’s gone on. This has been a weaponization of government. They call it warfare. Never happened to any extent like this, but never happened in our country before. And I just like to explain that I was treated, very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much.
Judge Merchan….
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
Judge Merchan… Makes a statement and poses sentence…
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 i on 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 is 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 it may consider to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In doing do, the court must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In my time on the bench, IJ’ve been called upon to grapple with this weighted responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from non vbiolent, class youth 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, or 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 oncce 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 versus the United States, which was decided on July 1, 2024 as with every other defendant in your position, it sis my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision, so of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decision on December 16 and January 3. Thus they not, 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 the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness, 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 breath of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. It is clear from legal president, which, until July 1, 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 a 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 judgement 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 courts, sir. I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.