Judge upholds Trump's Hush Money sentence, but announces no prison time

A New York judge on Friday upheld President-elect Donald J. Trump's felony conviction but indicated he was inclined to spare him any punishment, a striking development in a case that had highlighted a series of acts criminals and jeopardized the freedom of the former and future president. .

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, indicated that he favored a so-called unconditional release from Mr. Trump's sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to prison or probation. He set the sentencing date for January 10 and ordered Mr. Trump to appear in person or virtually.

An unconditional release would solidify Mr. Trump's criminal status just weeks before his inauguration. He would be the first to carry this dubious designation to the presidency, even if it would lessen the consequences of his crimes.

Unlike a parole, which allows defendants to go free if they meet certain conditions, such as maintaining a job or paying restitution, an absolute release would be granted without conditions.

This sentence, Judge Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision, appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appeal options.

Mr. Trump, who could ask an appeals court to intervene and delay sentencing, faced up to four years in prison. A Manhattan jury convicted him in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records, finding that he sought to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign.

Judge Merchan on Friday refused to overturn the jury's verdict, rejecting Mr. Trump's claim that his election victory should overturn his conviction.

And last month, the same judge rejected another argument Mr. Trump made in hopes of getting the case thrown out: that his conviction violated a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity for their official actions.

Together, Judge Merchan's two rulings picked apart Mr. Trump's legal maneuvers, upholding the first criminal conviction of a U.S. president and denying him the chance to clear his record before returning to the White House.

Dismissing the indictment and overturning the jury verdict would not address the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in its handful of cases involving presidential immunity nor would it serve the rule of law, Justice Merchan wrote in Friday's decision.

To the contrary, such a decision would undermine the rule of law in immeasurable ways, the judge wrote, adding that the sanctity of the jury's verdict is a fundamental principle of our nation's jurisprudence.

The judges' decision does not guarantee that Mr. Trump will be sentenced on January 10. In the coming days, his lawyers could ask an appeals court to grant an emergency stay of sentencing. The court of appeal could then rule within a few hours.

Alternatively, the president-elect could decide not to object to the conviction, now that he knows the judge probably won't send him to prison.

There are some advantages to Mr. Trump choosing this path. Once convicted, he is free to appeal his conviction and launch a lengthy legal battle throughout his second presidential term.

Although New York's appeals courts may resist his efforts, he may ultimately fare better on the Supreme Court, where the 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Mr. Trump appointed during his first term.

In a statement released Friday, a spokesperson for Mr. Trump did not say whether the president-elect would seek to suspend the proceedings, while suggesting that the conviction could become a distraction.

President Trump must be allowed to continue the presidential transition process and carry out the vital functions of the presidency, unencumbered by the remnants of this or any other vestige of the witch hunt, the President said. spokesperson, Steven Cheung, in the statement. There should be no convictions, and President Trump will continue to fight these hoaxes until they are all dead.

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Mr. Trump, declined to comment.

If sentencing proceeds as planned, an unconditional release would mark a highly unusual conclusion to this historic case.

A New York Times review of 30 false convictions in Manhattan since 2014 found that no other defendants have received an absolute release. Instead, they were sentenced to prison, probation, parole, community service, or fines.

The lenient sentence handed down to Mr. Trump would reflect the practical impossibility of imprisoning an elected or sitting president or even threatening imprisonment over his head while in office.

It would also cap a stunning turnaround for Mr. Trump, who last year faced four criminal cases in four different jurisdictions, each facing years in prison. Now he's about to avoid spending even a day behind bars, thanks to the election that brought him back to the White House.

The federal special prosecutor who brought two of those cases, one in Washington, D.C. and the other in Florida, recently dismissed them, yielding to a Justice Department policy barring federal prosecutions of presidents in exercise.

And in Georgia, where Mr. Trump is accused of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, an appeals court disqualified the local prosecutor who brought the case, throwing it into disarray.

In New York, legal experts predicted that Mr. Trump would have spent no more than a few weeks or months behind bars even if he had lost the election. Judge Merchan had already suspended his sentencing to take into account his presidential campaign and, later, his efforts to overturn the verdict following his victory.

Days after the November election, Mr. Trump's lawyers also asked Manhattan prosecutors to drop the case.

But District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, a career prosecutor and elected Democrat, rejected the request, which his office called extreme. His prosecutors argued that expunging the conviction would harm both public confidence in the criminal justice system and the fundamental role of the jury.

In turn, Mr. Trump's lawyers invoked a 1963 law that enshrines the importance of a smooth transition to the presidency. They also cited the Justice Department's long-standing policy that a sitting president cannot be subject to federal criminal prosecution, in part because the criminal proceeding would impose charges on the sitting president that would directly and substantially the executive power.

As such, the defense argued, Judge Merchan had to dismiss the case to avoid unconstitutional and unacceptable diversions and distractions from President Trump's efforts to lead the nation.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also noted that federal special counsel Jack Smith respected that policy by dropping his charges against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Smith, in consultation with Justice Department officials, concluded that this policy applied even if Mr. Trump had been indicted before taking office for the second time.

But unlike Mr. Smith, whose federal cases were mired by delays, Manhattan prosecutors had already secured a conviction. And even Mr. Smith dropped the charges without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the charges could be repeated after Mr. Trump leaves office.

It is also unclear whether the federal policy against prosecuting sitting presidents applies to local prosecutors in the District Attorneys' Office or to a defendant like Mr. Trump who was not a sitting president at the time of his conviction. .

In detailing the policy against prosecuting sitting presidents decades ago, the Justice Department described it as a temporary immunity, suggesting it did not apply before or after the president's term.

The binding precedent does not provide that an individual, once he becomes president, can retroactively revoke or nullify prior criminal acts, nor does it grant blanket immunity to elected presidential officials, Judge Merchan wrote Friday.

It was the second time the judge upheld the verdict. On December 16, Judge Merchan rejected Mr. Trump's argument that the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting former presidents immunity for official acts should invalidate the conviction.

Although the New York case centers on a personal and political scandal that predates Mr. Trump's presidency, the high court's ruling barred prosecutors from introducing evidence about the president's official actions, even in a case private misconduct.

Mr. Trump's lawyers had argued that trial testimony from former White House employees crossed the line of official records and contaminated the verdict.

But Judge Merchan concluded that the testimony focused on Mr. Trump’s unofficial conduct. And even if the evidence were admitted in error, such an error would be harmless, he wrote, pointing to the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial.

This December decision to preserve the jury's verdict left a key question unanswered: How can a president-elect be convicted?

Mr. Braggs's attorneys had previously raised the prospect of a four-year freeze so that Mr. Trump would not be convicted before he left office. They said the freeze would be a time-limited accommodation, but Mr. Trump's lawyers rejected the idea as unconstitutional.

Prosecutors also noted that the judge could instead sentence Mr. Trump to an absolute discharge. Judge Merchan indicated that he preferred this approach, but noted that if Mr. Trump is not convicted before his inauguration, an indefinite sentencing freeze could become the only viable option.

The case against Mr. Trump stems from a secret deal struck in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign with porn star Stormy Daniels, who threatened to go public with her account of a sexual affair with Mr. Trump.

Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time, struck a $130,000 deal with Ms. Daniels to suppress that story. And then, prosecutors say, Mr. Trump concealed his reimbursement from Mr. Cohen with payments falsely characterized as ordinary legal fees.

In May, after a seven-week trial, a jury of 12 New Yorkers found Mr. Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Moments after the verdict was announced, Mr. Trump called the jury's decision a disgrace.

He then spoke about election day and declared: The real verdict will be on November 5, by the people.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos