Trump Issues Furious Response To Sentencing Date In Manhattan Case

Trump Issues Furious Response To Sentencing Date In Manhattan Case

President-elect Donald Trump is furious that a sentencing date has been announced for his Manhattan “hush money” case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg just ahead of his inauguration.

The case centered around payments made to adult movie star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election and is one that many legal experts believe will be crushed on appeal.

The sentencing date was announced for 10 days before Trump’s inauguration and he issued a fiery response to it on his TruthSocial account.

“Every Legal Scholar and Pundit, including the highly respected, and sadly recently passed, David Rivkin, as well as Jonathan Turley, Elie Honig, Andy McCarthy, Alan Dershowitz, Gregg Jarrett, Elizabeth Price Foley, Katie and Andy Cherkasky, Paul Ingrassia, and many others, have unequivocally stated that the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt is a nonexistent case, which is not only barred by the Statute of Limitations but, on the merits, should never have been brought,” the president-elect said after the announcement by Judge Juan Merchan.

“This illegitimate political attack is nothing but a Rigged Charade. ‘Acting’ Justice Merchan, who is a radical partisan, just issued another order that is knowingly unlawful, goes against our Constitution and, if allowed to stand, would be the end of the Presidency as we know it,” he said.

“Merchan has so little respect for the Constitution that he is keeping in place an illegal gag order on me, your President and President Elect, just so I cannot expose his and his family’s disqualifying and illegal conflicts. I am the only Political Opponent in American History not allowed to defend myself – A despicable First Amendment Violation!” he said.

But in what was good news for the president-elect, the judge indicated that no jail time, fines, or penalties would be imposed, though Trump will still be saddled with the label of “convicted felon” — for now.

Merchan rejected the Trump team’s request to dismiss the conviction but signaled that he would give him what is called an unconditional discharge where the conviction stands, but the case is closed, and the defendant is not given jail time, a fine, or probation.

“Indeed, 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 judge said in his announcement.

“The Constitution dictates that only a President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive, a President-elect does not. Accordingly, a President-elect is not permitted to avail himself of the protections afforded to the individual occupying that Office. … Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming President, can retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts, nor does it grant blanket Presidential-elect immunity,” he said.

“Any claim Defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of Defendant’s victory in the Presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous. Defendant has always pronounced, since the inception of this case, confidence and indeed the expectation that he would prevail in the 2024 Election — confidence that has proven well-founded. That he would become the ‘President-elect’ and be required to assume all the responsibilities that come with the transition were entirely anticipated. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office,” Merchan added.

“Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense. To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule,” he said.

Subscribe to Lib Fails

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe