Today, New York Judge Juan Merchan condemned Donald Trump for his conviction for thirty-four heads of state of crime to make false commercial files. Merchan imposed an unconditional release sentence. The unusual sentence means that the conviction is on the books, but there are no other conditions: no incarceration, no probation supervision, no community service, no fines-nothing beyond the stigmatization of the conviction itself. Merchan had pointed out that it would be the probable sentence, and during the hearing of determination of the sentence today, the DA also recommended it.
This result does not satisfy almost anyone – not the allies of Trump, who believe that the whole affair was a witch hunt that should never have been brought, and certainly not its detractors, who believe that this wrist tap is hardly a sufficient punishment. But given the decision of the Immunity of the Supreme Court last summer and the re -election of Trump, it was probably the best possible result that remained. This allowed Merchan to impose a sentence that would not be involved in Trump’s presidential functions, as the Supreme Court apparently requires. And he brings the finality to the case and cement the status of Trump as a condemned criminal.
In this case, at least, Trump was unable to fold the legal system to his will and to avoid responsibility for his criminal acts. It is a small victory for those who still believe in the justice system and that no one is – or at least should be – above the law.
Merchan judge deserves a lot of credit here. He did a masterful job, both during the trial and in all post-conviction maneuvers, to finally obtain the case at this stage. His prior signal that he would condemn Trump to unconditional release was essential to convince the Supreme Court not to intervene. And he did it all in the face of Trump’s repeated personal attacks and insults. He is a real judge.
Trump with white Todd lawyer appearing at a distance during today’s conviction
At the request of Trump, Merchan had postponed the conviction, originally for July, until after the elections. After Trump won the elections, he sought to prevent the conviction to take place, arguing that the Immunity decision of the Supreme Court, the errors during his trial, and his electoral victory and his functions as elected president demanded that the case be completely rejected.
Merchan rejected these arguments and provided for the conviction for today. The New York Appeal Division followed by the New York Court of Appeal (the Supreme State Court) confirmed this decision. Trump then asked for an emergency suspension from the United States Supreme Court.
Thursday evening, in a brief prescription, the court rejected its request. The vote was 5-4, with the Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh judges saying that they would have given the stay. Chief judge Roberts and judge Amy CONEY BARRETT joined the three liberals to reject Trump’s request.
The good news is that the court refused to intervene. The bad news is that the vote was 5-4. Even if we assume that Alito and Thomas are lost causes, it should have been 7-2. There was no reason in principle for the court to intervene in this legal proceedings of state involving events which took place before Trump was president. This vote actually confirms that four judges are ready to reject the basic legal principles to give Trump almost everything he wants. It is a discouraging sign for the future.
As a secondary note, judge Barrett continues to be very interesting. Of the three people named from Trump to the Court, she is the conservative most based on principles. Unlike Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, Barrett refused to comply with the Trump agenda. She and the chief judge saw Trump’s legal allegations by the fracture to postpone the conviction and were not willing to welcome him.
In the Presidential immunity decisionAlthough Barrett voted in favor of immunity, she wrote a distinct opinion criticizing the majority to go too far. And in FISCHER c. UNITED STATES,, The case last June limiting the scope of the status of obstruction of the justice used to charge hundreds of retarders of January 6 (and Trump himself), Barrett wrote a convincing dissent, joined by the Liberals Kagan and Sotomayor, accusing the majority of ignoring the simple language of the law.
Republican president Dwight Eisenhower would have declared once he had made two mistakes as president and the two were seated at the Supreme Court. He referred to Earl Warren and William Brennan, who were placed on the court by the Conservative Eisenhower and then became two of the greatest liberal judges of the 20th century. Barrett may be unlikely to become Count Warren of Trump, but she must be a great disappointment for him. I do not expect her to be invited to festivals from Mar-A-Lago to soon.
Now that Trump has been sentenced, he can appeal his convictions through the state judicial system like any other accused. The calls will be made largely by his lawyers, they will therefore not impose on his functions as president – one of the main concerns of the presidential immunity decision.
Trump will claim that certain evidence admitted to his trial have been prohibited by presidential immunity, that there were other errors in the conduct of the trial and that the accusations against him were legally wrong. I think the last of these offers him the best chance. Like me Written beforeI am not sure that the State can show the intention required to defraud according to these internal files of a private company which has never been shown to a government agency (or to someone else). We will see what New York courts have to say.
If he failed in the courts of New York State, Trump will almost certainly ask the Supreme Court to throw his sentences. This argument would be based mainly on presidential immunity; The Supreme Court should not weigh on issues of interpretation of New York State law.
This call process will probably take 1 to 2 years or more. It will take place largely in the background while Trump is serving his second term. If a court should reverse the convictions and order a new trial, this trial could only take place once Trump was out of power. It seems unlikely that there is an appetite to try again what would be a case of twelve years.
You will hear some say that this sentence is largely devoid of meaning. Trump has not undergone any real consequences and received a favorable treatment to which no other defendant would be entitled. It shows once again, they will say, that it is above the law.
(Like another apart, it is not completely true that conviction has no practical consequences. As a condemned criminal, Trump cannot have a firearm. This can affect his right to vote in Florida. A more fun point: This website Enumerates countries that may not allow you to enter if you have a crime conviction. The list includes Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom-although we can assume that a country would make an exception for the American president. Canada also prohibits entry by criminals in certain circumstances, which can make these negotiations on the fact of becoming the 51st somewhat clumsy state.)
But as I wrote here in The Atlantic Last November, he was still important for this conviction. Regarding Trump, New York was in a way the last stand of the rule of law.
Special lawyer Jack Smith rejected his two federal proceedings, on the basis of the Trump election and the DOJ policy that an exercise president cannot be prosecuted. The only battle remaining now, which will take place in the coming days, is whether its reports on its surveys will be published publicly. Trump fights to keep them secret.
The continuation of the state of Georgia has been derailed by the Georgia Court of Appeal judging that Da Bani Willis must be disqualified for a conflict of interest. It appeals to this decision at the Supreme Court of Georgia. But even if it wins this call and the heavy affair is really tried one day, it will be without the main defendant Donald Trump. Even if Georgia puts its fourteen co-accused remaining in judgment for having plotted to cancel the presidential election of the State in 2020, it will not be authorized to include the president in office in this prosecution.
But in New York, despite all his frantic legal maneuvers, Trump was ultimately unable to avoid something at least approaching justice. The case has not been rejected or postponed indefinitely. He is concluded, and he is a condemned criminal.
The best answer to an affirmation that this sentence did not make sense is to see how much Trump had trouble preventing this from happening. It was clearly not meaningless for him. Whatever the real sentence, the legal status of the “condemned criminal” is always important. It has an meaning in the justice system and for those of us who respect this system. It is important for history, where he will never be recorded as the first criminal sentenced to assume the office of the presidency. And it’s important for Trump, who worries about his image above all.
Today has shown that Trump’s power is not unlimited. In this case, at least, the legal system has resisted its assaults and reached a final determination of its criminal guilt. In the end, he could not prevent it from happening.
For those who still believe in the rule of law, it can be a small victory – but it is not nothing.
