Furthermore, the defendant has made public threats of retaliation against the prosecutors who have attempted to hold him accountable in various cases, as well as against the courts that have worked to fairly and impartially resolve these matters. These threats are intended to create a chilling effect, intimidating those responsible for upholding the law in the hopes that they will overlook the defendant’s wrongdoings due to fear of his perceived power and influence.
In his end-of-year report for 2024, Chief Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court cautioned against such behavior, highlighting instances where public officials have sought to intimidate judges by insinuating bias and questioning their rulings without valid grounds. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that while public officials have the right to critique judicial decisions, they should exercise restraint in their remarks to prevent inciting harmful reactions.
Chief Justice Roberts also raised concerns about the impact of disinformation, particularly its rapid dissemination through social media platforms, which can distort public perception and undermine the integrity of the justice system.
The defendant’s actions have eroded trust in the criminal justice system and endangered legal professionals. A recent probation report, based on an interview with the defendant, revealed his belief that he is above the law and refuses to acknowledge his culpability, aligning with prior observations.
Considering the nature of the offenses and the aggravating circumstances, a typical case would warrant a specific sentencing approach. However, given the imminent presidential inauguration of the defendant in ten days, any remaining sentence could disrupt his official duties. Therefore, the most prudent course of action prior to the inauguration is an unconditional discharge to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue appellate options.
In New York, a conditional discharge may be granted if imprisonment would not serve the public interest or the interests of justice, and probationary supervision is deemed inappropriate based on the offense and the defendant’s background. An unconditional discharge may be granted in cases where imposing conditions on the defendant’s release would serve no purpose.
As these crimes are felonies, the court is required to document the rationale behind its decision.
It is essential for the American public to have a presidency free from legal entanglements, and imposing this sentence guarantees closure. Sentencing the defendant will enable the court to fulfill its duties effectively.
In order to finalize the defendant’s status as a convicted felon while awaiting potential appeals, it is suggested that the court grant an unconditional discharge, respecting the jury’s verdict while upholding the defendant’s ability to govern. Thank you.
Judge Merchan: Thank you. Counsel?
Defense attorney Todd Blanche: Thank you, Your Honor. I strongly disagree with much of the government’s assertions regarding this case, the trial proceedings, and President Trump’s actions in response. The premise that this case was rightly pursued is disputed, considering the circumstances surrounding the investigation and the decisions made by multiple prosecutors prior to its initiation. The timing of this case, particularly in relation to President Trump’s reelection announcement, raises significant concerns about its validity.
The government’s argument assumes the legal appropriateness of this case and the charges brought forth, a stance we vehemently oppose. We fully intend to appeal this decision, a sentiment shared by numerous legal experts and the American public. The trial, occurring during an election season, provided voters with the opportunity to assess the merit of the case, leading to President Trump’s subsequent election. It is our firm belief that this case should not have been pursued, both on factual and legal grounds.
Today marks a somber occasion for President Trump, his loved ones, and the nation. The prosecution’s pursuit of this case, driven by campaign promises, reflects a concerning precedent that we hope to avoid in the future. Our plea for an unconditional discharge for President Trump is rooted in the belief that justice has not been served in this instance. We trust that President Trump shares our commitment to preventing similar injustices in the future.
We are currently in a position where we fully intend to appeal the verdict and the conduct of the investigation. We strongly believe that the only suitable outcome, if any sentence is deemed necessary—which we firmly believe it should not be, and the case should be dismissed—is an unconditional discharge. Thank you.
Judge Merchan: Thank you. Would your client like to speak?
President-elect Donald Trump: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. This has been a very distressing ordeal. I see it as a significant setback for New York and its court system. Alvin Bragg did not wish to pursue this case. It appears that the situation was mishandled before his involvement. A lawyer from a law firm took on the role of a district attorney and his actions, as I understand it, were highly questionable. This individual had ties to my political opponent.
Regarding the allegations of falsifying business records, I must clarify that the entries in question were made by accountants, not by me. They were accurately recorded as legal expenses, not misrepresented as something else. It is absurd that I have been charged for this. Furthermore, prominent legal experts in the country, who are not necessarily my supporters, have unanimously condemned the prosecution of this case. They have proclaimed it as an unwarranted injustice. This has been a politically motivated attack on my reputation, aimed at influencing the election outcome, which clearly failed. The people of this nation witnessed the proceedings in your courtroom and then cast their votes, leading to my victory. I was not granted the protection of attorney-client privilege or the right to rely on legal advice.
In conclusion, this has been a politically driven agenda to discredit me. The people saw through this scheme and supported me, resulting in a resounding win in the election. The case against me has no merit and should not have been pursued.
The individual in question was not credible and had been discredited, yet the information revealing this was not allowed to be used in the case. This individual, who lacked credibility and had a tarnished reputation, was permitted to testify despite being disbarred on unrelated matters. The Southern District issued a scathing report about him, but it was not entered into evidence, allowing him to present himself as someone he was not. The speaker expressed frustration at being under a gag order and emphasized their innocence in the matter. They criticized the legal proceedings and expressed their belief that they were treated unfairly. The court session concluded with the judge preparing to impose a sentence, highlighting the gravity of the decision and the judge’s discretion in determining a just outcome.
In considering a case, the court must review the relevant facts and any factors that may aggravate or mitigate the situation. Throughout my time as a judge, I have faced the weighty task of sentencing numerous defendants found guilty of various crimes, from nonviolent offenses to severe acts such as homicides, sex trafficking, and child abuse. Each decision requires thorough deliberation, whether it results in probation or a lengthy prison term.
However, the current case before the court presents a distinct and exceptional set of circumstances. It has garnered unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security measures involving multiple agencies. Nevertheless, once the trial proceedings began behind closed doors, it became evident that the legal proceedings were similar to the other criminal trials concurrently taking place in the courthouse.
The trial followed standard procedures with jury selection, presentation of evidence, witness testimonies, and closing arguments, all adhering to established legal guidelines. The court staff, including clerks, officers, reporters, and security personnel, demonstrated exceptional professionalism and dedication, making the process run smoothly.
While the trial itself may have seemed ordinary in many aspects, the unique nature of this sentencing lies in the extraordinary legal protections associated with the Office of the President. These protections, outlined by the Constitution and clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Trump v. The United States, play a significant role in shaping the decision-making process.
As with any defendant, I must consider all aggravating and mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence. While certain aggravating factors have been previously addressed, the unparalleled legal safeguards granted to the President’s office hold particular weight in this case. It is crucial to acknowledge that these protections do not diminish the severity of the crime committed but rather serve as a legal obligation that must be considered in the sentencing process.
As per the rule of law, this court must adhere to and uphold the principles it dictates. Despite the extensive protections provided, one authority it does not bestow is the ability to overturn a jury’s decision. Legal precedent, albeit limited until July 1st, makes it evident that Donald Trump, as an average citizen or a criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such extensive protections. These safeguards surpass those typically granted to individuals navigating the criminal justice system daily. Ordinary citizens do not enjoy such legal privileges. It is the position of the President that confers these far-reaching protections upon the office holder. Recently, the nation’s populace determined that Trump should once again benefit from these safeguards, which encompass the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity. It is with this perspective in mind that the court must determine an appropriate sentence in accordance with the law.
Following a thorough examination in compliance with prevailing directives and the rule of law, the court has concluded that the sole lawful sentence compatible with convicting without impeding upon the highest office in the country is an unconditional discharge. This course of action is deemed lawful and acceptable for the offense of falsifying business records in the first degree by the New York State Legislature. Consequently, I hereby pronounce this sentence to encompass all 34 charges.
As you embark on your second term in office, I extend my best wishes to you. Thank you.
(Source: abcnews.go.com)
