Excerpts from the judge’s ruling to go ahead with Trump sentencing

NEW YORK — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York dealt with a host of weighty, unprecedented questions before deciding Friday that the president-elect should be sentenced later this month for the crime of falsifying business records. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office.” The conviction should not be dismissed ‘in the interests of justice’ “Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law.” Trump has engaged in ‘unrelenting and unsubstantiated attacks’ on the legal system “Defendant’s disdain for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record. Indeed, Defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole.” The jury’s verdict should not be disregarded “This Court recognizes the importance of considering and balancing the seemingly competing factors before it: ensuring that the Executive Branch is free to fully dispense the duties of the President and safeguard the interests of the Nation, unencumbered by pending criminal proceedings; to ensure that the Supreme Court’s ruling and the citizenry’s expectation be honored that all are equal and no one is above the Iaw; and the importance of protecting the sanctity of a jury verdict. On the contrary, such decision would undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways.” Trump likely won’t go to jail “While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation.