At sentencing, Trump lied and got less than a slap on the wrist
President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing hearing Friday in his business records falsification case was one for the history books. It ended not with a bang, but a whimper.
Trump knew in advance of the hearing that Judge Juan Merchan was not going to impose any penalty at all. It was this factor that influenced five justices of the Supreme Court to allow the sentencing to proceed. In its brief order, the court noted that “the alleged evidentiary violations ... can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.”
It is amazing that four justices wanted to stay the sentencing until some future time after Trump is sworn in. Had a majority of the justices done so, it would have damaged the credibility of the Supreme Court and the rule of law beyond recognition.
When a defendant is sentenced, he is entitled to address the court, stating why the judge should go easy on him. If he plans to appeal, he may not want to admit his guilt for fear of influencing the appellate court. But he will try to avoid the severest sentence by stating mitigating factors, usually expressing some remorse over what he has done.
Not so with Trump. He had characterized the entire proceeding as “corrupt,” “rigged,” a “witch hunt” and a “sham,” over and over again.
Trump’s offenses were particularly aggravated, and the evidence was overwhelming. He repeatedly expressed disdain for the tribunal and the rule of law. He trashed Judge Merchan and his family, individual prosecutors and their families, the witnesses, the jury and the entire justice system. He told the court’s probation department that he refuses to accept any responsibility for what he has done.
Had Trump not been reelected president, it is a virtual certainty that he would have been sentenced to a prison term on the 34 felony counts of falsification of business records on which the unanimous jury found him guilty. Each count carries sentencing options between 15 months to four years in the slammer.
Trump’s statements at the hearing were riddled with lies and irrelevancies. His only bit of remorse was saying that “this has been a very terrible experience.” For him or for the country?
As the trial judge stated at the hearing, “The trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time. ... The same rules of evidence were followed. Opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined, evidence presented, summations delivered. The same burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law.”
Trump tried to turn the sentencing hearing into a political rally. He knew he was really addressing his hardcore base.
He lamented that District Attorney Alvin Bragg did not want to bring the case. This was untrue. Bragg declined to bring another financial misconduct case involving false statements that Trump rendered to banks in order to get loans. He never declined on the hush money case. Bragg brought this case and won it.
Trump claimed that Bragg brought in a “gentleman from a law firm ... somebody involved with my political opponent ... criminal or almost criminal in what he did.” This ostensible reference to Mark Pomerantz, brought in by Bragg’s predecessor Cyrus Vance to investigate Trump, was another lie. Pomerantz had been working on the financial misconduct case. He left the prosecutor’s office in protest over a year before the Daniels indictment because Bragg had declined on that other case.
Pomerantz is a prominent attorney known for his work in white-collar criminal law and public corruption cases. There is no evidence or public record indicating that he was involved in any professional or political capacity with President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. And who says that only Republicans can prosecute Republicans, or Democrats only Democrats?
Then came the biggest lie of all. Trump said there was no crime of falsification, because the payoff was put down in the books as a “legal expense,” since the payment went to attorney Michael Cohen. He said he didn’t call the payoff “construction concrete” or “electrical work.” “I got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense.”
Rubbish. He knew it was no legal expense. The truth or falsity of the characterization is measured by its purpose. The purpose was not to compensate Cohen for legal services. Cohen rendered no legal services. The purpose was to disguise the payment for what it was: a hush-money payment to a porn actress with whom Trump allegedly had a sexual relationship. And the jury so found.
As Judge Merchan said in denying Trump’s motion to delay the sentencing, “the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation’s jurisprudence.”
Then, Trump got to the meat of his argument: “I got the largest number of votes by far of any Republican candidate in history” — a claim that his election entitled him to an acquittal. In fact, while Trump won the highest raw vote count for any Republican candidate in history, it was not the largest victory margin. Trump’s popular vote margin was about 2.5 million votes, smaller than margins in several past elections. Biden won the 2020 election with a margin of more than 7 million votes, and 4 million more votes than Trump received in 2024.
Finally, Trump pointed to the problems of the country — a city burning to the ground, wars that are uncontrollably going on and the difficulties of inflation. More irrelevancies.
Whatever the merits of Trump’s defense, they were drowned out Friday in lies and obfuscation. But even though the sentence was less than a slap on the wrist for a serious crime, the rule of law prevailed that day in an American courtroom.
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York’s Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.