Before his return to the White House, President-elect Donald Trump will face sentencing in a New York court for his conviction in the “hush money” case. Justice Juan Merchan ruled on Friday that the sentencing will occur on January 10, just ten days before Trump’s inauguration, marking an unprecedented moment in U.S. history.
Trump’s conviction stems from a $130,000 payment made by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was intended to secure Daniels’ silence about an alleged affair with Trump. The case and the subsequent conviction have placed Trump in the unique position of being the first former president in American history to be criminally convicted.
The decision concludes two months of speculation over the case following Trump’s narrow election victory on November 5. Despite the legal cloud, Trump’s supporters propelled him back into office, making him the first individual to win the presidency after being convicted of a crime.
Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the conviction, citing the demands of his new role as president-elect. They argued that his election victory necessitated the dismissal of the charges. However, Justice Merchan dismissed these claims in his Friday ruling, stating, “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, or the Supremacy Clause.”
While sentencing options included incarceration, Merchan indicated that Trump would not serve time behind bars. He also suggested that Trump could attend the sentencing virtually. “It seems proper at this juncture to make known the court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration,” Merchan wrote, adding that prosecutors concurred with this approach.
Merchan’s ruling highlighted the constitutional limits of presidential immunity, noting that even Trump’s motion to dismiss acknowledged the lack of immunity for a president-elect. “Undoubtedly, the transition period between election and the taking of the presidential oath is one filled with enormous responsibility,” Merchan wrote. “Yet, even (the) defendant in his motion refers to presidential immunity as one relating specifically to a sitting president no fewer than 33 times.”
Despite the conviction’s potential for up to four years of jail time, Merchan’s ruling opened the door to alternatives like probation or fines. Trump’s legal team shifted their tone following the election, adopting what Merchan described as rhetoric “dangerously close to crossing the line.” He criticized their language, stating, “Counsel has resorted to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, proposed several unconventional measures to address the unprecedented situation. These included postponing proceedings until after Trump’s presidency or terminating the case with an acknowledgment of the unresolved verdict. Bragg’s team argued for creative solutions to balance the justice system’s integrity with the demands of Trump’s presidency.
Outside the courtroom, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, condemned the case as a politically motivated attack. He labeled the proceedings a “witch hunt” and described Merchan as “deeply conflicted,” stating, “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”
Trump’s trial, which began in March 2023 with his indictment, captivated the nation. The seven-week trial, coinciding with the Republican presidential primaries, saw a jury deliver a unanimous guilty verdict in May. Inside the courtroom, Trump often appeared disengaged, at times leaning back with his eyes closed or seemingly dozing off. Outside, he continued to campaign, surrounded by Republican allies, attorneys, and Secret Service agents.
The trial revealed intricate schemes involving Trump, Cohen, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Prosecutors presented evidence of efforts to suppress damaging stories about Trump’s 2016 campaign through hush money payments and nondisclosure agreements. Pecker testified about three such arrangements, including the $130,000 payment to Daniels.
Cohen detailed how he was covertly reimbursed for the payment through falsified business records. Prosecutors argued that Trump authorized the scheme while in office, resulting in 34 falsified records disguised as payments for legal services. These records, in reality, covered Cohen’s reimbursements.
Witnesses recounted Trump’s relief that Daniels’ story remained hidden before the election. The jury deliberated for less than two days before delivering their verdict. When the foreperson read the 34 guilty counts, Trump, who had frequently stared at the jury during the trial, avoided eye contact.
Justice Merchan reprimanded Trump’s team for violating a gag order prohibiting public statements about jurors and witnesses, holding him in contempt ten times during the trial. Merchan also referenced concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s chief justice about political leaders undermining judicial institutions, warning that Trump’s attorneys’ arguments could have a chilling effect on the judiciary.
After the sentencing date was set, Trump’s reaction was defiant. Emerging from the courtroom, he grasped his son Eric’s hand, addressed the cameras, and declared his innocence. He described the proceedings as unjust and resumed his presidential campaign.
As January 10 approaches, Trump’s legal troubles and his return to the White House promise to make his sentencing a historic moment. The case not only underscores the challenges of balancing justice with political realities but also marks a pivotal chapter in America’s legal and political history.