Immediately after President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday was criminally sentenced on 34 felonies in a New York City courthouse, the reaction to his rare and lenient sentence reflected a familiar political divide.
Critics of Mr. Trump scoffed at his light sentence that spared him jail or probation. His supporters slammed the case as persecution and an embarrassment.
“This lawfare against President Trump is toxic to our republic and is a tremendous setback for the American court system,” said Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a Republican.
A conservative commentator, Benny Johnson, denounced the felony conviction and sentencing as the “last-dying gasp of a regime,” referring to the several criminal cases brought against Mr. Trump by local and federal prosecutors. The New York prosecution was the only one to result in punishment for the president-elect, even if only symbolic.
Adam S. Cohen, a lawyer in New York and a critic of Mr. Trump, said that Mr. Trump’s lenient sentence of unconditional discharge proved that he was right when he said in 2016 that he could shoot someone and not lose voters.
“Sentencing Trump to an unconditional discharge means that yes, he can basically shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it,” Mr. Cohen, who serves on the board of Lawyers for Good Government, wrote on Bluesky. “It means that — if you’re rich and powerful enough — you can get away with anything.”
Outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse, supporters and opponents of Mr. Trump held dueling rallies. Critics held signs that read “morally bankrupt,” while one supporter of Mr. Trump carried a poster that said, “ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH.”
During the hearing on Friday, a lead prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, said that Mr. Trump had “caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system.” Still, Mr. Steinglass said, prosecutors had recommended a sentence of unconditional discharge because of the complexities of jailing a soon-to-be sitting president.
Erik Uebelacker on Bluesky put together a transcript of the particulars you can read here. An excerpt of Judge Merchan handing sentencing to Donald Trump:
As with every other defendant in your position, you It is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd.
Thus they not need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable Indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the Office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others. To be clear, the protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness, seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way.
The protections are, however, a legal mandate, which pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. However, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. It is clear from legal president, which until July 1st was scarce, that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protection.
I’m referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the office of the president that bestows those far reaching protections to the office holder.
And it was the citizenry of this nation. that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity. It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence.
After careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates, And pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York state legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Therefore, At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.
This conviction is gonna remain a thorn in his side. A burr in his saddle. A boil which festers.
That’s probably the best punishment.Report
I, too, believe that the court system ought be used to punish as well as rehabilitate.
We should discuss this more at some time in the future.Report
How did we let the courts transform the office of president to that of king?Report
First Samuel, Chapter Eight.Report
Formatting issue with the second blockquote.Report
In Italian, the word furbo means that one is clever and wily, able to bypass rules and cynically advance one’s self-interest. Italians are said to admire furbizzia, albeit in kind of a low-key way. (Silvio Berlusconi’s face appears in the Italian dictionary’s definition of furbo.) The rough opposite of furbo is fesso, which isn’t quite an insult, but is usually used as a condescension. Un fessi is naïve, credulous, a rule-follower. Generally, though, il fessi is generous and good-intentioned; a mensch. Most people are not all the way one or the other, of course. You can be fessi today but furbo tomorrow.
Stories often reduce to il furbo taking advantage of il fesso in some way. Certainly, we’re to feel sorry for il fesso who inevitably gets the shit end of the deal, but we’re also to admire il furbo for having gli coglione (the balls) to have done it at all, and also being entertained by the cleverness shown in the transaction.
I’m coming around to the idea that I, and other people who like me bought into the concepts of the rule of law, the importance of democracy, rejection of autocracy, and the Cincinattic model of citizens only holding power temporarily, are a bunch of fessi and we need to get wise about things.Report
Parli italiano? No lo sapevo.Report
Si, lo parlo! Anche se mi chiamo Norvegese, sono Italiano da parte di madre.Report
Sounds like a judge realizing he is likely to be reversed and trying to minimize that possibility by making the case as inconsequential as possible.
I stand by my predictions on the Trump criminal lawsuits from the outset, which was the prosecutors better have the goods because the tendency of all the Nixon lawsuits was the expansion of executive power, even in cases Nixon lost. The Nixon lawsuits legitimized the executive privilege analysis for one thing. They also provided immunity from civil suits and exposed the need for FISA courts to guard against searches and seizures purported to be for national security. The one limitation in the Trump immunity case is that it involves a fairly lengthy, complex analysis of what a President does that might discourages prosecutions, but lacks the degree of certainty of a blanket rule that would make the POTUS reckless.Report
Unfortunately, it appears we will never know what the goods were in the prosecutions’ cases because they’re all going to be buttoned down and effectively permanently hidden from the public’s view in less than 240 hours.Report