"Totally exonerated"

I think it would be more accurate to say he was already formally convicted, and he has now been sentenced.  Whatever.  There's no practical difference.

"An injustice of justice."

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 11:00 am:

In some distant future, Mark.  In some distant future.

Donald Trump decried that his hush money trial was a “witch hunt” during his sentencing hearing Friday, but he saved his biggest fireworks for a post-hearing rant on Truth Social.

“After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over 6 years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris Department of Injustice in lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th President, ME, I was given an UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE,” he wrote in part.

Trump’s sentence of unconditional discharge means he will face no prison time, fines, or probation. However, he will carry the distinction of being the first president in U.S. history to be a felon when he’s sworn in on Jan. 20.

  Daily Beast

Big deal. He's also the first president to incite an insurrection in order to try to stay in office. He's the first president to refuse to divest in, and instead use for profit owing to his position, his money-making properties. He's the first to graft and grift his way through his term. He's the first in a lot of things, and he'll be the first in a lot more and more horrible things in the next term.

[H]e was not a silent participant like he was when he attend hearings in New York.

He said “this has been a very terrible experience” and that his conviction was a “tremendous setback” for the New York court system.

He added that the trial was a “political witch hunt,” brought forward to damage his reputation and electoral chances ahead of the 2024 election. He added that he was “totally innocent.”

“I was treated very, very unfairly, and I thank you very much,” Trump said, closing his comments.

"I thank you very much." ??

Trump was less rational in a Truth Social post shortly after the hearing.

“The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential Elections in History,” he wrote. “As the American People have seen, this ‘case’ had no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no Law, only a highly conflicted Judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal Election Interference. Today’s event was a despicable charade.”

No crime? No proof? No facts? No law?

Friday’s sentence is likely not the end to this years-long saga. Trump and his attorneys have indicated they will appeal the conviction.

“Now that it is over, we will appeal this Hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans in our once great System of Justice,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

UPDATE 01/11/2025:

Joyce Vance is a law professor and former federal prosecutor.  If she did explain it this way, I assume it was still speculation, and not because she knows it for a certainty.  Sounds very plausible, though.  Such a corrupt court.

Judge Juan Merchan's ruling spares Trump any jail time, fines or probation supervision for his conviction, though the sentence cements his status as the first convicted felon to hold the White House.

[...]

The president-elect was convicted in May on charges he falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal threatening to break during his first presidential campaign in 2016.

A jury found him guilty on all 34 counts.

[...]

The incoming president appeared remotely during the hearing with his lawyer on TV screens in the courtroom. Taking his opportunity to address the court, Trump maintained his innocence and said the case was a "tremendous setback" for the justice system.

"I'm totally innocent, I did nothing wrong," said Trump.

[...]

Under New York law, a judge can choose an unconditional discharge if they don't see prison time or probation as being in the public's best interest.

"An unconditional discharge is virtually nothing in terms of punishment," David Dorfman, a law professor at Pace University in New York, told CBC News in an interview Friday.

"You are now known forever as a felon, but basically there's no direct consequence to the 34 convictions. The former and soon-to-be-president owes nothing to the courts."

  CBC Canada

Or the American people.

With sentencing over, Trump is now free to formally appeal the jury's verdict. He cannot pardon himself because those presidential powers only apply to federal crimes, not those brought at the state level.

It will never end.

Canada is among dozens of countries in the world to refuse entry to felons. It will likely fall upon Canada's immigration minister to grant Trump special status to make him legally admissible for entry into the country moving forward.

Trump's remedy is to threaten to take over Canada.

Sentencing will commence

UPDATE 01/10/2025:

Next up: SCOTUS

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06:29 pm:  He did, and he voted to block sentencing.  Surprise.

Yeah, a convicted felon who got off scot free.

Only because he doesn't have to appear in person.

I hope Judge Merchan has extra protection tonight.  

And, of course Trump is grifting off the decision.

This was the email he sent out: “Today is your last day to activate this special deal. Sign my petition to DROP ALL CHARGES, and donate any amount before my sentencing day TOMORROW! Once you do this, I’ll throw your name in the hat for the drawing!”

  Meidas Touch

Pretty sure you can't petition the court for that.  Not that his willing dupes will know.

UPDATE 01/10/2025:

The clock is ticking

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01:51 pm:

He means to get use out of his judges

Donald Trump is a former president who is set to become president again on January 20 despite having faced four felony prosecutions from three different prosecutors — one of which led to conviction — relating to actions he took when seeking the presidency, while president, and after leaving the presidency.

Sam Alito is a justice who, in addition to his flag issues, held private interviews with two conservative figures for glowing narrative-setting opinion columns — including with a lawyer who had a key case before the court — in which they wrote that it is Alito’s view that Congress has no authority to pass legislation relating to judicial ethics.

Now, they’ve teamed up for everyone’s favorite new nihilistic buddy comedy, sketched out by Alito himself on Wednesday, as first reported by ABC News:

  Lawdork

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke to President-elect Donald Trump by phone Tuesday to recommend one of his former law clerks for a job in the new administration, ABC News has learned. "William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position," Justice Alito confirmed to ABC News Wednesday. "I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon."

  ABC News

It's a cozy clique.

"We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed," Alito said.

That's funny. Everybody else in the world knew it would be.

"We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect."

Define "discuss".

On Wednesday, Trump asked the justices to immediately halt all criminal proceedings against him in New York, including Friday's sentencing, warning that failing to do so during a presidential transition would "damage" the presidency and disrupt "national security and America's vital interests."

[...]

Late last month, Trump waded into a momentous case over the future of the video-sharing app TikTok, asking the justices to delay an impending ban on the extraordinary grounds that he "alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government."

[...]

The Supreme Court has asked for a response from prosecutors in New York by Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. It's expected to weigh in on Trump's request by Friday morning.

Sentencing is scheduled for Friday.

It is not unusual for a sitting justice to offer a job recommendation for a former clerk, but it is rare, court analysts said, for a justice to have such a conversation directly with a sitting president or president-elect, especially one with an active stake in business pending before the court.

It's a new day in America.

"The justices of the Supreme Court are, among other things, employers to their law clerks," said ABC News contributor Kate Shaw, who clerked for former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. "So providing a reference for a former employee is not atypical, whatever job a former clerk may be applying for -- an academic job, private sector job, or even a government job."

[...]

Levi is being considered for various legal jobs in the incoming administration, including general counsel of the Department of Defense, sources said. Levi, who clerked for Justice Alito from 2011-2012, served in the first Trump administration as chief of staff to then-Attorney General Bill Barr.

So then, there was no need for a reference or recommendation from Alito.*  

All bullshit, all corruption, all the fucking time.

UPDATE 01/09/2025:  And, another thing...

 Jesus Christ, this guy.  

I'll be interested in what SCOTUS does on this, and Trump's request to have the sentencing in his Stormy Daniels/falsification of records lawsuit in Manhattan set aside.**

UPDATE 01/09/2025 01:51 pm:

UPDATE 01/10/2025: 

* Apparently, the problem was precisely that Levi had worked for Bill Barr....

Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation.

[...]

In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

  NYT

**SCOTUS denied the request 5-4.  

Denied - Part 2

Last Friday, Justice Juan Merchan rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss his criminal case. Barring intervention from a higher court, the president-elect will be sentenced on January 10 for 34 felony counts of creating a false business record.

[...]

Trump’s [ensuing] Truth Social meltdown continued through last weekend. But in fact Justice Merchan’s opinion is just as great a rebuke to Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative brethren as it is to Trump himself.

[...]

In December, Justice Merchan rejected Trump’s immunity claims, finding that, if the underlying hush money scheme was personal conduct, then discussing it with his presidential aides was also unofficial. That leaves only the sentencing, which Trump is desperate to avoid. He successfully postponed it three times, including in September because it would appear “political” to pronounce judgment on the eve of the election. Then in November, Trump demanded that the verdict be vacated and sentencing canceled entirely, thanks to his status as president-elect.

[...]

Justice Merchan had little patience for these histrionics.

“Indeed, one of Defendant's most frequent arguments is that this Court should defer to the will of the citizenry who recently re-elected him to the Office of the Executive, notwithstanding an actual guilty verdict in this case,” he wrote. “Thus, whatever stigma that might have existed, will most certainly not interfere with Defendant's ability to carry out his duties — both as President-elect and as the sitting President.”

[...]

“[Trump's] Counsel has resorted to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings” he scolded. “For example, countless times in their Motion to Dismiss, counsel accuses the prosecution and this Court of engaging in ‘unlawful’ and ‘unconstitutional’ conduct.”

[...]

These ad hominem attacks are a blatant attempt to intimidate the court, backed up by Trump’s constant raving on social media, and the judge was right to call them out: “Dangerous rhetoric is not a welcome form of argument and will have no impact on how the Court renders this or any other Decision.”

In one sense, Justice Merchan was playing it straight when he quoted Chief Justice John Roberts’s end of year report decrying “intimidation” of the judiciary.

“Disappointed litigants rage at judicial decisions on the Internet, urging readers to send a message to the judge. They falsely claim that the judge had it in for them because of the judge’s race, gender, or ethnicity — or the political party of the President who appointed the judge,” Roberts lectured, adding that “public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges — for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.”

But Roberts’s report is a shockingly craven document, likening legitimate criticism of the Court to intimidation. [...] Meanwhile, the chief justice blithely ignores the once and future president, who levels shocking abuse at judges, doxxes their family members, and ensures a torrent of death threats for judges, court staff, and prosecutors.

[...]

Indeed, the only jurist Roberts could muster explicit sympathy for was Trump sycophant Judge Aileen Cannon, “whose decisions in a high-profile case” — dismissing the entirety of the stolen documents case on the novel and ahistorical theory that special counsels are un-legal — “prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment.”

[...]

And so it’s impossible to read Justice Merchan’s “complete agreement with Chief Justice Roberts's views on this subject” as anything other than a subtweet of the person who has done the most to empower Trump, the greatest intimidator of the American judiciary in history.

[...]

Merchan worked hard to Trump-proof his ruling. He telegraphed in advance that the sentence will be functionally nothing, with no jail time to impair the presidency or the presidential transition.

[...]

Trump is also allowed appear remotely for Friday’s hearing, so any disruption or inconvenience will be minimal.

[...]

Justice Merchan denied the stay, after which they filed a marginally less incendiary petition with the New York’s Appellate Division. During a hearing Tuesday afternoon, Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer tossed the bid for emergency relief, observing to Blanche and Bove that the timing here is entirely a result of “a series of motions made by your client.”

  Public Notice

Trump's bleats are embedded in the article if you feel like punishing yourself.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Denied

Next stop NY Supreme Court.  Place your bets on whether SCOTUS will take on the case.  They only have two days to do it, and one of those is going to be used up by the NY Supreme Court.  Shadow docket? 

UPDATE 01/08/2025:  Or...straight to SCOTUS...

That didn't work, try this

Going through the alphabet of possibilities...

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Judge Merchan ruling

A judge on Monday rejected Donald J. Trump’s argument that a recent Supreme Court ruling had nullified his criminal case in New York, upholding the former and future president’s felony conviction for falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.

The judge’s ruling preserves, at least for now, the stain of Mr. Trump’s criminal conviction. And if the decision withstands an appeal, Mr. Trump could become the first felon to serve as president.

[...]

Trump’s lawyers seized on a particularly contentious portion of the high court’s ruling, which prohibited prosecutors from introducing evidence involving a president’s official acts even in a case about private misconduct. They argued that testimony from former White House employees had contaminated the verdict.

  NYT

He will remain the first felon to serve as president. A jury found him guilty. Nullifying it because of some misguided Supreme Court chicanery doesn't change that any more than a Catholic priest nullifying your marriage means you weren't married.

“The People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch,” the judge, Juan M. Merchan, wrote in a 41-page decision.

And even if the evidence was “admitted in error, such error was harmless,” he added, noting the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” introduced at trial.

Nice to see a judge refusing to buckle - like seemingly everyone around us - even while under death threats from Trump's lickspittle supporters.

Now, Trump will appeal to New York's supreme court, and, if they don't buckle, from there to the US Supreme Court. Those slimebuckets will probably let him have his way.

[P]rosecutors have signaled a willingness to freeze the case for four years while Mr. Trump holds office, a move that would indefinitely postpone his sentencing.

“This type of time-limited accommodation is far more appropriate than the sweeping relief that defendant requests here, which would render the indictment and jury verdict in this case a nullity and eliminate his accountability for the crimes that a jury of his peers found he committed by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the prosecutors wrote in a recent court filing.

Justice Merchan [...] has already paused the sentencing several times. Mr. Trump faces up to four years in prison, but he is unlikely to receive more than a few weeks or months behind bars in New York, according to legal experts.

Likely not even that.

Mr. Trump cannot be sent to jail while he is president, and the judge can choose to hold off on sentencing him until after his term ends. If Justice Merchan decides instead to address the matter now, he could choose to uphold the conviction but impose no jail time or any other punishment.

If Mr. Trump manages to avoid all punishment whatsoever in his only criminal case to make it to trial, it would complete a stunning turnabout from earlier this year, when he faced four indictments in four different jurisdictions.

The federal special counsel who brought two of those cases, one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Florida, recently shut down both of them, bowing to the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents federally.

In Georgia, where a local prosecutor accused Mr. Trump of trying to subvert the state’s 2020 election results, Mr. Trump has already managed to delay the case indefinitely.

A mockery of justice.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 12/18/2024:  Someone is not happy.

There is no justice

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Trump will not be held accountable for any of his crimes

Aside from the money he's already had to pay E Jean Carroll.  And he'll be wanting that back.

He IS above the law, and we ARE going back.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04:26 pm:

document here

Neither fear nor favor.

Winding down to wind up

Tuesday in Manhattan, Judge Juan Merchan is expected to rule on whether the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision impacts Trump’s conviction in the New York case. If the convictions survive, and they should, or at least some of them, expect a rocket of an appellate case going off, as Trump tries to avoid being sentenced later this month. He may succeed given the politics of the moment, but legally, there is no reason he can’t be sentenced, although, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I expect that even if he receives a custodial sentence, he will not serve it because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It’s an entirely unsatisfactory conclusion to one of the worst-ever violations of American democratic principles.

[...]

We haven’t begun to fight yet, but as we get over the shock of the election, we can begin to get ready.

  Joyce Vance

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09:06 am:

The Manhattan DA is chickenshit.

For F#ck's Sake

Thirty-four counts. He's been found guilty. He needs to be sentenced.

Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the seven-week trial, was set to sentence Trump on Sept. 18. But he granted the delay after Trump contended one was necessary for several reasons, including that he would first appeal if Merchan doesn’t toss the 34-count conviction on presidential immunity grounds.

In his ruling, Merchan emphasized that by pushing back the sentencing, it would ensure that the presidential election in November is not affected by his judgment, and vice versa.

[...]

Trump made relentless efforts to delay his hush money trial, but they failed. Last month, he tried for a second time to remove his case to federal court — a last-ditch move that was swiftly rejected by a federal judge, who said the former president failed to show “good cause.”

Ever since the Supreme Court carved out presidential immunity, however, Trump has experienced newfound success.

  The Hill

I honestly didn't think Merchan would do it.  Perhaps he was concerned for the safety of his daughter, who Trump has been badmouthing.

Jesus.  We're living under threat of a dictator-wannabe who isn't even in office yet.

Please!  He's not a politician.  He's supposed to be considering the law, not the appearance of anything.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 05:19 pm:

UPDATE 06:45 pm:

Prosecutors with Bragg’s office argued their case involved Trump’s personal conduct, not official acts, so there was no reason to overturn the verdict.

But they took no position on Trump’s request to delay sentencing, saying in a 16 August filing they deferred to Merchan on the question. The prosecutors said an appellate court could delay the sentencing anyway to give itself time to consider Trump’s arguments, a move they said would be “disruptive”.

[...]

“Judge Merchan should have sentenced Trump on 9/18 and then allowed him to remain out of custody while his appeals are pending,” said the MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang in reaction to the ruling. “This delay only serves to embolden Trump and fuels the narrative that there was something afoul in this case.”

  Guardian

Ok.  I'm reluctantly with Merchan if indeed this keeps the case from going to the Supreme Court before the election.  I've seen it said that it means Merchan plans on giving Trump jail time.  Not sure that follows for a certainty, but I can see some logic in thinking that.