newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
In what appears to be an attempt to ensure that President-elect Trump officially takes office as a convicted felon, Judge Juan Machan has rejected Trump's post-trial motions and announced that he will be sentenced next Friday. He recommends sentencing on January 10th.
The bait for Trump to agree to this is that Judge Marchan has indicated that the sentence will be a conditional release, meaning that the president-elect will not be subject to any prison time or post-sentence supervision (such as probation). That's true. Additionally, the sentencing would end the trial court process, leaving Mr. Trump free to begin appealing his 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records.
I don't think Mr. Trump would agree to this. Instead, I suspect that Mr. Marchand will seek immediate appeal of the immunity claims that he ultimately rejected in today's 18-page opinion and order. It's no surprise that Marchan rejected Trump's immunity claims. He had already ruled against Trump on this point in a December 16 opinion.
New York judge sentences President Trump days before Inauguration Day
In previous legal proceedings, Manhattan's progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg, would likely have the right to appeal his immunity verdict before President Trump is sentenced. It seems that he recognized it. That's no doubt why Mr. Bragg's prosecutors proposed freezing the case for the remainder of Mr. Trump's four-year term as president, rather than pushing for a sentencing date. In that scenario, the case could theoretically be resumed in 2029 (when Trump is 82), with a final verdict, sentencing and conviction, and an appeal.
In Friday afternoon's ruling, Marchan argued that judges have a responsibility to sentence Trump before he takes office to ensure that important public interests are not compromised in sentencing. rejected the proposal.
I don't know if there is such a public interest. Rather, it is in the interests of Mr. Murchan, a Democratic activist who contributed to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign against Trump in violation of state judicial ethics rules, to convict Mr. Trump while he still has a chance before he takes office. It seems that the purpose is to ensure that the stigma of the serious crime that has been committed is firmly stamped on him. , to make it happen.
Nevertheless, Marchan seems to acknowledge that Trump still has cards to play. For example, the opinion states:
“This court must sentence the defendant within a reasonable time after the verdict, and the defendant must be allowed to take advantage of any available appeals. However, it is only after sentencing that it becomes fully available.'' (Emphasis added)
Regardless of how valuable it would be for this clearly hostile judge to express deep-seated concerns about the legitimacy of Trump's appellate rights. Mr. Machan needs to interject the word “completely.” Trump could only file a full appeal based on all claims of error arising from the proceedings only after the verdict, whereas now he should be able to file a partial appeal only targeting Marchand's immunity ruling. That's why.
President Trump slams Democrats: 'I just want to see if I can get a pound of meat' as case fails
Machan went on to say that regarding Bragg's proposal to put the case on hold for four years, “If the court is unable to impose a sentence before the defendant takes the oath of office (January 20), this is the only viable option.” It might be a good idea.” option. ”
Again, Marchand clearly recognizes that President Trump may be allowed to immediately appeal the immunity portion of the ruling. If that were to happen, Mr. Marchand would certainly be “unable to adjudicate” by Inauguration Day — in which case Mr. Trump would not be a convicted felon when he took office.
What I find most notable about all of this is Marchan's explanation of Trump's crimes.
“Here, 12 jurors unanimously found defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with intent to defraud, including conspiring to promote a presidential election by unlawful means or There was also an intent to conceal it. This was a prior and ongoing deception by the court.'' (Emphasis added) The leader of the free world, the perpetrator of this crime. To revoke this judgment on account of the offence. Given the position the defendant has previously held and is seeking to assume again (i.e., the Presidency), the outcome would be disproportionate and incalculable damage to public confidence in the rule of law. ”
Marchan here swallows Bragg's description of the incident. We're not just talking about falsifying business records. Trump plotted to steal the 2016 election, and that plot was successful.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Now, let's set aside the fact that this is not what the indictment charges. Let's set aside the fact that it's a ridiculous claim — that the $130,000 non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that Trump paid Stormy Daniels, as Bragg claimed, did not affect the federal election. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it was a campaign expense that must be reported. The commission (which it wasn't) still shouldn't have had to report until after the election. That means it was not illegally hidden from voters. And because Marchand (in violation of due process) did not request a unanimous verdict on the crimes that President Trump allegedly sought to cover up by falsifying business records, as the judges contended. Let's set aside the fact that it cannot be fairly said that the 12 jurors unanimously found guilty. That he conspired to steal the election.
Ignoring all of this, if we really believed, as Marchan says he believes, that Trump was proven to have conspired to abuse his position to steal the presidential election, then the justices would say, “The free world leader,'' he added, unscrupulously. Could a responsible and conscientious judge sentence Mr. Trump to neither prison nor probation? As Machan explained, this has been a heinous crime for many years.
Of course, Marchan doesn't really believe that. How could he? This is, at best, a trivial, time-limited misdemeanor of record-keeping regarding legal transactions (non-disclosure agreements are legal and common), and Bragg, with much cooperation from Merchan, has been involved in federal campaign finance enforcement. He committed 34 felonies under the pretense of execution. A law that state prosecutors have no authority to enforce (and that relevant federal authorities have concluded President Trump did not violate).
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The American people just elected President Donald Trump not only by a majority of the electoral college, but also by a margin of the popular vote. The public did so with full knowledge of Bragg's absurd criminal case in Manhattan.
Clearly, there is no public voice demanding that Trump be sentenced before assuming the nation's highest office. Instead, there's the interest of the spiteful New York Progressive Democrats in trying to brand the Republican president-elect as a convicted felon.
Click here to read more about Andrew McCarthy
