The judge in the state judge presiding over the Donald Trump legal case in New York ordered the president-elect’s sentencing to begin on January 10, 2025. The judge accidentally admitted that the accusation of Trump on 34-felony matters was real lawfare by setting punishment a mere 10 days before his inauguration and signaling his intention to grant him an absolute discharge.
Judge Juan Merchan issued an 18-page attempt on Friday, denying Trump’s request to overturn the jury conviction and ignore the legal fees that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought against him with the assistance of some Biden-connected attorneys. Trump’s legal team argued that enough is enough when President Biden used the phrase in pardoning Hunter for any acts his brother committed over the course of more than a decade. ” This case, which should never have been brought, must now be dismissed”.
Of course, Trump’s legal group is right: The event was a fake from the start. However, Judge Merchan, who had a presumptive interest in the case, refused to grant Trump’s movement to dismiss, disregarding everything from his own conflicts of interest, including his daughter’s ownership interest in a company that produced millions of dollars for Democrats, including Kamala Harris, to the DA’s inappropriate use of evidence in court and at trial regarding formal acts Trump performed while president, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
Judge Merchan subsequently questioned the necessity of sending Trump to court before the opening after refusing to overturn the jury conviction or dismiss the case against Trump.  ,
When the president-elect takes his Oath of Office, Merchan explained, political immunity will probably tie, preventing the court from punishment Trump. Therefore, Judge Merchan reasoned that “it is former upon this Court to set this matter over for the implementation of sentence prior to January 20, 2025” in order to, in his own words, bring certainty to the issue and protect the interests of justice.
However, Judge Merchan’s position is irrelevant.
After noting that” as a matter of law” he “must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard”, Judge Merchan stated that” the Court’s inclination]is ] to not impose any sentence of incarceration”. Instead, the judge at the Manhattan state prosecution looked at his desire to impose” a word of an unconditional discharge.”
An absolute release equates to a get-out-of-jail free cards: By act, the Defendant is “released with respect to the judgment for which the word is imposed , without prison, good, or probation , supervision”.
The court has the authority to impose an unconditional discharge as the sentence where” the court, taking into account the nature, circumstances of the offense, as well as the history, character, and condition of the defendant,” is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment would serve neither the public interest nor the ends of justice, and that probation supervision is inappropriate, and where” no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.”
Courts typically impose an unconditional discharge sentence on Defendants where the crime is insignificant, often a misdemeanor, or less serious felonies, where there are also other extenuating circumstances. A court might decide to grant an unconditional discharge for a defendant who is a young adult or has had substance abuse or mental health issues.
For Judge Merchan to now suggest an unconditional discharge would be the most appropriate sentence to enter given” the nature and circumstances” of the 34 felony counts of conviction and” the history, character and condition” of Trump is laughable.  ,
Americans were told for four years that Donald Trump posed a threat to democracy, that he was to blame for an insurrection, that his business committed civil fraud, that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll, and that he had committed numerous felonies in Georgia and additional federal felonies as charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Because Judge Merchan needs to find a way forward, the lawfare the Democrats unleashed against Trump appears to mean nothing. And this is where I concur with former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who wrote at Fox News that there is no public interest in seeing Trump serve before his inauguration:” There is, instead, a spiteful New York progressive Democratic interest in branding the Republican president-elect a convicted felon.”
However, as McCarthy notes, Trump is likely to seek an immediate appeal from Judge Merchan’s Friday order, wherein the Mahattan judge denied the president-elect’s challenge to his criminal convictions based on immunity.  ,
While many of the other issues Trump raised in his motion cannot be contested until after a sentence has been imposed, immunity issues can be contested right away. That reality adds to the hubris of Judge Merchan’s order that the sentencing of the president-elect shall proceed on Friday.
Given the weight of Trump’s challenge to the conviction based on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, it seems unlikely that the appellate court will allow Judge Merchan to sentence him.  ,
After Trump’s crushing defeat of Harris, there are likely many Democrats hoping the appellate court puts an end to the farce because their lawfare has only helped Trump politically. Democrats cannot afford any more backlash because Trump is scheduled to reclaim the White House with a mandate and because Republicans are in charge of Congress.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge. Cleveland was a full-time faculty member before switching to a teaching adjunct position. Additionally, Cleveland serves as a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is a follower of her greatest accomplishments, her dear husband and dear son, on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. Cleveland’s views are those expressed here in her personal capacity.
