NEW YORK – President-elect Donald Trump is set to be sentenced this week regarding his hush money case, following a judge’s ruling on Monday that denied his plea to halt the proceedings during his appeal.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan confirmed that the sentencing would move forward as planned on Friday, just over a week away from Trump’s inauguration. The judge dismissed Trump’s legal team’s request to postpone the sentencing indefinitely while they seek an appeal to a state court to challenge last week’s decision that upheld his conviction. Trump is poised to become the first president to assume office while having a criminal conviction.
Although Trump’s legal team has options to request the appeals court to delay the sentencing or ask for intervention from another court, they have stated that Trump would participate in the sentencing via video due to the obligations of the presidential transition.
The judge rejected Trump’s earlier attempts to dismiss the case entirely, pointing out that he does not intend to impose any jail time or severe punishment for the 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records. Following the ruling, Trump expressed on his Truth Social platform that allowing the conviction to stand would severely damage the presidency as it is currently understood.
Trump’s lawyers have also challenged the judge’s previous refusal to dismiss the case based on claims of presidential immunity, filing appealing documents in the state appellate court without any scheduled arguments. A spokesperson for Trump labeled the actions taken against him as an unlawful pursuit by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, insisting that established legal precedents demand the case’s immediate dismissal.
In a different filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the ongoing appeal should automatically postpone sentencing. They suggested that if this did not happen, the judge should intervene—a request the judge declined. Meanwhile, the prosecutors argued for moving forward with the sentencing to serve the public interest and finalize the criminal process, noting that Trump was responsible for the delay through his repeated requests for postponement.
Prosecutors asserted that any delay could jeopardize the closure of this matter before Trump takes office on January 20. Legal analysts suggest that if sentencing does not occur before he is sworn in again, the complexity of the case might necessitate waiting until he leaves office, which could be as long as 2029.
If the sentencing proceeds as planned, Trump’s legal team emphasized that he would face appeals while serving in office and might endure prolonged criminal proceedings. They presented a scenario where, if Trump succeeds in his appeal, he could find himself facing another trial while in office. The judge maintained that justice would be better served by concluding this matter, recommending an unconditional discharge, which would terminate the case without imposing any penalties.
The defense rebutted the notion of merits in the case, outlining several legal inconsistencies, and pointing out that prior rulings seemingly contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court’s stance on presidential immunity.
Judge Merchan also indicated that Trump will have the chance to speak during the sentencing, along with his legal team and the prosecution. While Trump can only appeal the conviction after the sentencing date, the charges revolved around an alleged scheme to conceal a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the final weeks of the 2016 election, which Trump denies, asserting that her accusations are untrue and that he has committed no wrongdoing.
At the heart of this legal matter is how Trump documented the reimbursement to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who initially made the payment to Daniels. The potential penalties for the conviction range from fines or probation to a maximum of four years in prison. Cohen, who has been a significant witness for the prosecution and has previously called for Trump to face imprisonment, remarked that the judge’s decision to impose a sentence without punishment is prudent and reasonable.
Originally set for July, Trump’s sentencing has experienced multiple delays, primarily requested by the defense, including postponements made in light of the election results.
