Drawn-out hush money case ends
A mere 10 days before the inauguration, Donald Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge on January 10 following his highly publicized and lengthy trial. The initial ruling by the court was handed down in May 2024 when Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts relating to hush money payments to pornography actor Stormy Daniels. These payments were under scrutiny, as they were classified as legal fees when reimbursed by Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen.
With the case having been drawn out substantially by Trump’s lawyers, involving the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times in their challenges, the delayed sentencing came at a unique time. As the U.S. Constitution outlines, the Supreme Court “has never considered a case addressing whether a sitting president could be prosecuted” because the consensus has been that they enjoy immunity, but in this instance, the question was how to apply that logic of “absolute immunity” to an incoming president.
In the end, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan gave Trump “a sentence of unconditional discharge, which includes neither jail time nor any other restriction that might impede Trump after his inauguration.”
Notre Dame students who followed the lead-up to the election and its tumultuous aftermath shared their thoughts on the sentencing with the Rover. Sophomore Kevin Andrews expressed, “While I appreciate setting the precedent of finishing a case through, the hush money case was a reflection of Manhattan [District Attorney] Alvin Bragg’s political motivation from its inception.”
Bragg was present for the sentencing “in the gallery,” and has been accused by many of having political motivations, including by fellow Democrats. Former New York governor Andrew Cuomo said, “If his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn’t running for president—I’m the former AG [Attorney General] of New York—I’m telling you that case never would’ve been brought.”
Andrews continued, saying “Merchan’s sentencing of an unconditional discharge only allows for Trump’s adversaries to have a sound bite. … Ultimately, the handling does not bring unity to a deeply divided nation.” Judge Merchan felt differently and emphasized that “it was the premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense,” and that the case was far from an overreaction to the alleged crimes.
Freshman Rodrigo Osorio commented, “Laws should apply equally to everyone, but it’s a weird situation because [Trump is] going to be the president so realistically he can’t be in jail.” Osorio stressed the importance of laws applying to “people in power” because “what does that say to everyone else if the leaders aren’t following the laws?”
Judge Merchan took this into account in his deliberations but came to the conclusion that the “citizenry of this nation … decided that [Trump] should once again receive the benefits of … the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity.” In this way, Merchan felt he was honoring a mandate by the people.
Freshman Chandler Davis expressed, “It’s alarming how the evangelical Christian church is so quick to support a man who has 34 felonies, most of which are in relation to him having relations with an adult film star.” This comment was directed toward the fact that “about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christian voters” cast their ballots for Trump in the 2024 election.
Freshman Paul Masaka remarked that “since [Trump] has been elected, the people think he is capable of performing his job as president, but his charges should be sorted out after his presidency.” Additionally, “[Trump] shouldn’t be serving to get out of the charges.”
While Masaka mentioned that the sentencing should have been postponed until after Trump’s presidency, the sentencing was nearly blocked altogether by the Supreme Court on January 9. Trump’s legal team, in a last ditch effort, appealed to the Supreme Court to stop the sentencing process but was denied “in a narrow 5–4 ruling.”
The deciding vote was Notre Dame alumnus Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “[who] cast the deciding vote along with the court’s liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts.” As a Trump appointee, the decision came as a shock to many, yet Trump responded with praise. In a Truth Social post, Trump said, “I appreciate the time and effort of the United States Supreme Court in trying to remedy the great injustice done to me by the highly conflicted ‘Acting Justice,’” referring to Judge Merchan.
Freshman Harry Durgin says unconditional discharge was “a great decision by the judge.” He agreed “with the decision to not pursue anything further because the office of the president is sacred, and the president shouldn’t be prosecuted like that.”
President Trump also emphasized at multiple points during the trial that it was “a political witch hunt … done to damage [his] reputation so that [he’d] lost the election.” To avoid “encroaching on the highest office in the land” as Merchan put it, inaction was the best action.
Colin Heil is a freshman studying political science from McLean, Virginia. In his free time he enjoys reading up on current events and can be found leaving the Rock/Duncan each night at closing time. He can be reached at cheil@nd.edu.
Photo credit: rawpixel
Subscribe to the Irish Rover here.
Donate to the Irish Rover here.