BREAKING: State of New York urges Supreme Court to allow Trump to be sentenced in hush money case

On Thursday, the state of New York filed its response to President-elect Donald Trump appealing to the Supreme Court to block his Friday sentencing in the falsified records case. DA Alvin Bragg said that Trump’s step was "extraordinary" and that "there is no basis for such intervention."

The filing noted that Judge Juan Merchan has indicated that he will impose a sentence of unconditional discharge, which is a sentence "without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision" or any other "condition upon the defendant’s release," and that the people "do not oppose" such a sentence. "Once sentenced, defendant may appeal every preserved argument in the ordinary course," the filing stated.

Bragg wrote that the Supreme Court "lacks jurisdiction over a state court’s management of an ongoing criminal trial when defendant has not exhausted his state-law remedies" and there has not been a final judgment or decree from the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has since denied Trump’s request to halt his sentencing, per ABC News. 

"Lack of jurisdiction aside, defendant has not satisfied the stringent standards necessary to support the 'extraordinary remedy' of a stay," the filing stated. "His assertion that any invocation of presidential immunity automatically entitles him to a stay pending appeal is incorrect; this Court must instead consider whether a stay is appropriate for the particular claims of immunity that defendant has raised. Here, neither of defendant’s specific claims comes close to justifying a stay of the forthcoming sentencing."
 

"First, defendant claims that his recent election as President immediately entitled him to the same immunity from prosecution as the sitting President and thus exempts him from the January 10 sentencing," the filing stated. "That is, defendant makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office, from all state-court criminal process."

The filing later added, "Second, defendant claims that the state trial court improperly admitted evidence of defendant’s official acts during trial (Application 19-20) in violation of this Court’s holding in Trump that certain 'testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing [an] official act' are inadmissible at trial. 

"But this type of claim, although ostensibly based on immunity, does not support an interlocutory appeal or an automatic stay pending appeal because it is not an argument that defendant is immune from suit on the underlying criminal charges, which here are concededly based on defendant’s unofficial conduct having no connection to any presidential function."

The filing stated that Trump has "engaged in extensive motion practice to divest the trial court of jurisdiction and to dismiss the criminal charges against him" throughout the course of the criminal proceedings, noting the multiple filings across all levels of state and federal courts and the multiple rescheduled sentencing dates.

The state argued that Trump has "failed to exhaust his state-court remedies," and stated that "any stay here risks delaying the sentencing until after January 20, when defendant is inaugurated and his status as the sitting President will pose much more severe and potentially insuperable obstacles to sentencing and finality," and that a stay would risk delaying the sentencing "for years."

Judge Juan Merchan ordered that Trump appear for sentencing in the case on January 10. Merchan said that Trump could appear virturally, and wrote, "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."

"As such, in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options."

Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in May and was originally set to be sentenced in July. His sentencing date was delayed multiple times after the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts, but not for unofficial ones.

Trump wrote in response to the sentencing order, "Every Legal Scholar and Pundit, including the highly respected, and sadly recently passed, David Rivkin, as well as Jonathan Turley, Elie Honig, Andy McCarthy, Alan Dershowitz, Gregg Jarrett, Elizabeth Price Foley, Katie and Andy Cherkasky, Paul Ingrassia, and many others, have unequivocally stated that the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt is a nonexistent case, which is not only barred by the Statute of Limitations but, on the merits, should never have been brought." 

The Supreme Court previously ruled against delaying sentencing in the case, writing in a brief order in response to a case brought forth by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in August, when Trump's sentencing was still set for September, "Missouri’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied, and its motion for preliminary relief or a stay is dismissed as moot. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief."

This is a breaking story. Please refresh the page for updates.

New York Response Trump SCOTUS appeal by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd