NEW YORK — In a historic event in American politics, President-elect Donald Trump is set to be sentenced on Friday following his conviction related to hush money payments in New York, after the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the case. The proceedings, expected to take place in a modest Manhattan courtroom, reflect a political landscape that seemed inconceivable just a few years ago, with the former president facing the repercussions of felonies established by a jury.
With just ten days remaining before his inauguration, Judge Juan M. Merchan has suggested he may opt for a no-penalty sentence, known as an unconditional discharge, which prosecutors do not oppose. This ruling would imply that Trump would avoid jail time, probation, or fines, although the final decision will come after Friday’s court session.
Regardless of the outcome, this situation will mark Trump as the first individual convicted of a felony to assume the presidency. Trump is anticipated to participate in the proceedings via video link from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida and will be allowed to address the court. He has consistently criticized this case, which stands out as the only one of his four criminal indictments to reach trial, and this could potentially be the only one that does.
The judge appears to lean toward an unconditional discharge—an uncommon resolution in felony cases—largely to avert constitutional dilemmas that might emerge if he were to impose a penalty concurrent with Trump’s presidency. This hush money case alleges that Trump manipulated his business records to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was made late in Trump’s 2016 campaign to keep public knowledge of an alleged sexual encounter he maintains never occurred from damaging his political chances. He argues that his political rivals manufactured the prosecution to undermine him.
“I never falsified business records. It is a fake, made-up charge,” Trump asserted last week on his Truth Social platform. The charges were pressed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat.
In a court document filed on Monday, Bragg’s office emphasized that Trump committed significant offenses detrimental to the electoral process and the integrity of New York’s financial market. While the specific charges revolved around checks and accounting entries, the broader allegations are closely tied to Trump’s rise in politics. Prosecutors indicated that the payment to Daniels, executed through his former attorney Michael Cohen, was part of a broader strategy to prevent the electorate from learning about Trump’s purported extramarital affairs.
Trump continues to deny the alleged incidents occurred, asserting that he aimed to silence the rumors for the benefit of his family rather than his campaign. Prosecutors claim that Cohen’s reimbursements for the payment to Daniels were dishonestly recorded as legal expenses, but Trump maintains that they were legitimate expenses.
“There was nothing else it could have been called,” he stated on Truth Social last week, insisting, “I was hiding nothing.” Trump’s legal team made multiple attempts to delay the trial and subsequently their conviction on 34 counts of business record falsification, utilizing all available legal avenues to seek a dismissal of the case or a postponement of sentencing.
Their arguments have been presented to Judge Merchan, state appellate judges, and federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The defense heavily relied on claims of presidential immunity from prosecution and received encouragement from a Supreme Court ruling in July that afforded significant protections to former presidents.
At the time of the hush money payment in 2016, Trump was a private citizen and presidential candidate. He was in office when the reimbursements to Cohen were made and subsequently documented the following year. Trump’s defense claimed that this immunity should have led to jurors not being exposed to certain evidence, including discussions with Hope Hicks, the then-White House communications director.
Following Trump’s victory in the presidential election last November, his legal team argued the case should be dismissed to avert interference with his transition to the presidency. Judge Merchan, a Democrat, has postponed the sentencing several times, originally slated for July, but last week emphasized the need for “finality”, aiming to balance Trump’s governance responsibilities, the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity, jury respect, and public expectation of accountability.
In the lead-up to the sentencing, Trump’s legal representatives tried a series of last-ditch maneuvers to prevent the proceedings, only to see their final opportunity dissipate with a Supreme Court ruling that rejected a request to delay. Meanwhile, other criminal cases that previously posed challenges for Trump have either concluded or stalled as they await trial.
Following Trump’s election, special counsel Jack Smith wrapped up federal cases regarding the handling of classified documents and efforts to contest his 2020 election loss. Additionally, a state-level investigation in Georgia concerning election interference has become mired in uncertainty after the lead prosecutor was removed from the case.
