Here's a narrative script based on the recent court trials involving Donald Trump:
In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's criminal sentencing to proceed in New York. On January 9, 2025, the court issued a brief unsigned order rejecting Trump's plea to halt the sentencing proceeding in his hush money case. Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The trial judge in New York, Juan Merchan, has indicated that he does not intend to sentence Trump to jail time and will allow Trump to appear by video at the sentencing hearing. However, Trump sought to have the sentencing put off, arguing that as the president-elect, he is entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings. He also claimed that prosecutors improperly relied on evidence of his official acts, such as his posts on the social-media platform X, then known as Twitter, to obtain his convictions.
Merchan declined to put Trump's sentencing on hold, contending that Trump himself was responsible for the delays in sentencing. Trump should not now be able to avoid sentencing, Merchan wrote, by asserting that the hearing will take place too close to the inauguration.
After a New York appeals court judge also rejected Trump's request to block his sentencing, Trump came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asking the justices to intervene. Citing the Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, in which a majority of the justices held that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their conduct while in office, Trump contended that requiring him to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case while he is preparing to lead the free world as President of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable, unconstitutional burden on him.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Trump's complaints regarding the use of evidence of his allegedly official acts could be addressed on appeal. The court also noted that the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of 'unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing.
Notably, four of the court's conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would have granted Trump's request. This development has sparked controversy, particularly after it was reported that Trump spoke with Justice Samuel Alito about one of Alito's former law clerks, William Levi, who is seeking a job in the new administration, shortly before his request to block his sentencing proceeding was filed. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has called on Alito to recuse himself, citing the need for impartial justice under the Constitution.
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
