New York judge sentences Trump in hush money case January 10 | Donald Trump News

United States President-elect Donald Trump is expected to face his sentencing hearing in New York, a few days before he is sworn in for a second term in the White House.

On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan issued an 18-page written order ordering Trump to appear, in person or virtually, on January 10 for his sentencing.

Merchan also denied Trump’s request to overturn his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment made during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump had pushed for the sentence to be commuted, due to his successful bid for re-election in November’s presidential election. His coronation ceremony is scheduled for January 20, which is only 10 days after the hearing.

“Finding that there are no legal impediments to sentencing and considering that Presidential immunity will attach once the Defendant is sworn in, it is incumbent upon the Court to set this matter for sentencing before January 20, 2025,” Judge Merchan wrote. .

He added that he does not intend to impose a prison sentence in this case.

Instead, he stated that he was considering the sentence of “unconditional release” as “the most effective solution to ensure the end”. Such a sentence can avoid the imposition of a penalty, including imprisonment or a fine.

A series of legal cases

Trump has been arrested on numerous legal charges since his first term in office ended in January 2021.

Among them were four criminal charges: concealing classified documents while out of office, two for attempting to subvert the 2020 election and the fourth for paying money to Bush.

The hush money case centered on $130,000 paid to former movie star Stormy Daniels after she alleged that she and Trump had an affair.

Prosecutors successfully argued that Trump tried to cover up the payment, made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen, to avoid damaging the media during the 2016 election.

Election communications increase legal risk: Typically, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but it can be a felony if “intent to defraud” is linked to other potential crimes.

Trump ended up winning the 2016 race. In May, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. The case of boring money is the only one among the four who were charged, tried and convicted.

As Trump is set to take office again, the fate of the charges against him is increasingly uncertain.

Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to lead the two Trump-related cases, asked the judges involved to drop the charges in November.

He also explained that his decision “is not based on the merits or strength of the case” but is based on Trump’s return to the White House.

Come January 20, Trump will be in charge of the Justice Department, the legal agency that appointed Smith. The special counsel said he would resign before then.

The federal criminal justice system in Georgia, meanwhile, is still riddled with complaints and roadblocks. In December, an appeals court ruled that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis could no longer lead the case, adding another level of uncertainty to its future.

Dismissal proposals

More trouble emerged in July, when the constitutionally dependent Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling on presidential immunity. While the court rejected Trump’s claim of “absolute” immunity, it expanded the notion of presidential immunity beyond the constitutional mandate of the role.

Anything that could be considered a “legitimate” act by the president fell under “prejudicial immunity”, the Supreme Court declared.

But the court left it unclear what a “lawful” act would be. That issue has come up in the defense team’s decision to dismiss the New York money case.

Judge Merchan clarified that ambiguity in Friday’s ruling.

“The critical issue before this Court is: whether the President-elect should be afforded the same protection from federal prosecution as the sitting President? This matter, in the opinion of the Court, is baseless,” Merchan wrote.

But in the end, Merchan ruled that presidential immunity did not extend to actions taken outside of office.

“This Court finds that the President’s immunity from criminal proceedings for a sitting president does not extend to the President-elect,” he wrote. “The Constitution stipulates that only the President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Executive Council, the elected President does not have it.”

Merchan also said that he considered the defense argument that the president should be free to “protect the interests of the Nation, not focus on the trial of criminal cases”.

He said he weighed that argument against other “competing factors” including the idea that “no one is above the law” and “the importance of protecting the sanctity of the judge’s decision”.

“This Court is not swayed by the prima facie case at this stage of the trial,” Merchan wrote at the sentencing hearing.