Judge Sets Trump’s Sentencing for Jan. 10, Signals He Won’t Be Jailed
On January 3, 2025, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan issued a ruling rejecting an effort by President-Elect Donald Trump's legal team to have his business records case dismissed. The legal team had argued that the Presidential Transition Act, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and presidential immunity should be invoked to void the jury's verdict or dismiss the charges. Justice Merchan, while expressing reservations about imposing a prison sentence, acknowledged the complexities of presidential immunity and suggested that an unconditional discharge might be the best course of action. This would allow Trump to pursue appellate options while ensuring legal finality. The court has scheduled sentencing for January 10, 2025.
In May, a jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts, raising the possibility of prison time. Experts have pointed to the Supremacy Clause as a potential barrier to Trump serving a sentence. In response to Merchan’s ruling, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung condemned the decision as a violation of Supreme Court precedent regarding presidential immunity. Cheung also criticized the case as part of a broader, ongoing effort to undermine Trump, calling it a "witch hunt."
https://www.profitablecpmrate.com/hqd9j5dsgm?key=f0d55a7b2a2fa7b77fa12149de9ced50
Merchan’s ruling follows the dismissal of federal cases against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith in Florida and Washington, as well as a decision from an appeals court in Georgia, which found that prosecutor Fani Willis should be disqualified. In addition, a recent appeals court upheld a verdict finding Trump liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. The timing of Merchan's decision, just weeks before the presidential inauguration on January 20, 2025, has raised questions about the extent of protections afforded to president-elects. Justice Merchan noted that Trump had proposed a novel theory of immunity for president-elects, but emphasized that existing legal precedents did not warrant the dismissal of the case. see more
No comments