In a move raising eyebrows, Judge Juan Merchan has denied President-elect Trump's post-trial motions and scheduled his sentencing for January 10th, just days before his inauguration. While signaling an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail time or probation, the timing suggests a deliberate attempt to label Trump a convicted felon before he re-enters office.
This offer presents a dilemma for Trump. Accepting it allows him to begin appealing the 34 felony convictions for business-records falsification. However, it also solidifies his status as a convicted felon. It's anticipated Trump will instead pursue an immediate appeal on the rejected immunity claims, a point Merchan ruled against previously.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg previously seemed to acknowledge Trump's right to appeal the immunity ruling before sentencing, proposing the case be paused during Trump's presidential term. This would effectively postpone proceedings until 2029. Merchan rejected this, citing a public interest in swift sentencing.
This perceived rush to sentence, coupled with Merchan's past political contributions to Biden's campaign, casts doubt on the impartiality of the proceedings. Merchan's own words highlight this potential conflict, acknowledging Trump's intention to appeal while simultaneously pushing for a pre-inauguration sentencing.
Merchan's characterization of Trump's offenses as a premeditated deception by the "leader of the free world" aimed at influencing the 2016 election further fuels concerns. This narrative, echoing Bragg's perspective, amplifies the severity of the charges beyond simple business record falsification.
This raises a critical question: if Merchan genuinely believes Trump conspired to steal the election, why propose a sentence with no prison time? Such a lenient sentence seems incongruous with the gravity of the alleged crime. This discrepancy suggests a potential disconnect between the narrative presented and the actual legal merits of the case.
The American public re-elected Trump despite this ongoing case. This suggests a lack of public urgency for a pre-inauguration sentencing. The push for a swift conviction appears driven more by political motivations than genuine public interest.
