On Friday, in a surprising turn of events, Donald Trump received a sentence that amounted to absolutely nothing, leaving him visibly furious and frustrated with the outcome. This decision came after Trump successfully delayed the court proceedings three times, including a notable postponement in September, which he argued was necessary to avoid “political interference” while voting was taking place. However, following the court’s decision, he quickly changed his stance, asserting that sentencing a president-elect during a transition period would also constitute “political interference.”
His legal team, comprising John Sauer, who is anticipated to become the future solicitor general, and Todd Blanche, expected to be the future deputy attorney general, introduced unusual claims of a nonexistent “president-elect privilege” that they argued should be recognized during the transition phase. They contended that this privilege would protect Trump from any legal repercussions while he prepared to assume his role as the President of the United States.
The immunity typically afforded to a sitting president should extend into the brief transition period where the president-elect readies himself to take on the Executive Power of the United States. Consequently, the courts should not have the authority to adjudicate any criminal allegations against him during this time.
In their pursuit of justice for Trump, his attorneys sought an immediate stay to appeal the denial of their motion to overturn the verdict, claiming it was achieved using evidence from official acts. Over the past week, they have been scrambling from one court to another, striving to prevent their client from facing any form of accountability for his actions. Their frantic efforts were evident as they attempted to block any consequences stemming from the legal proceedings against Trump.
However, they were ultimately outsmarted by Justice Juan Merchan, who crafted a sentencing outcome that was so un-burdensome that the defense had little grounds for complaint. The anticipated punishment of unconditional release, combined with the permission for Trump to attend the proceedings virtually, undermined their argument that even minimal disruption during the transition could jeopardize national security. This outcome left them scrambling to adjust their narrative.
Proceeding with sentencing during a president’s transition period can create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and essential interests of America.” The trial court’s decision to allow President Trump to appear virtually, along with its indication of no incarceration, suggests a consensus on the existence of such risks. However, allowing the sentencing to take place establishes a precedent that accepting these risks is permissible.
In response to the ruling, Trump filed emergency motions with both the First Judicial Department and the New York Court of Appeals. Ultimately, he found himself at the steps of One First Street, pleading for his allies to come to his aid. Yet, this time, the response was a resounding “no,” albeit with some hesitance.
The application for a stay presented to Justice Sotomayor, who subsequently referred it to the Court, has been denied for various reasons. Firstly, any alleged violations related to evidence during President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed through the usual appeal process. Secondly, the impact of sentencing on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively minor, particularly given the trial court’s stated aim to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” following a brief virtual hearing. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh indicated they would have granted the application.
(Was there a hint of personal attention from Justice Kavanaugh towards the president-elect, or was it just Alito who received it?)
And so, during the sentencing hearing, the once and future president expressed his grievances, lamenting that all the legal experts on Fox News acknowledged the charges against him were baseless and asserting that no one had endured treatment as harsh as his. It was a classic case of the “WITCH HUNT!” narrative re-emerging.
View the original article to see embedded media.
After the hearing, the former President, often referred to as Crimetime, sought solace among the Republican governors who flocked to Mar-a-Lago to pay their respects and seek his approval.
Liz Dye resides in Baltimore, where she curates the Law and Chaos substack as well as a podcast.
Stay informed on the latest trends in litigation, regulation, financial services, and deals by subscribing to Finance Docket, a collaborative effort between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
