his book 99% perspiration, a new working history of the american way of life, argues hard work is not enough to obtain the american dream. he said a view by author by alyssa court. watch every day on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online apple .org. witness democracy unfiltered with c-span. experience history as it unfolds with c-span's live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th president of the united states on january 20. two in for our live coverage of the presidential inauguration as donald trump takes oath of office, becoming president of the united states. stay with c-span this month for comprehensive live unfiltered coverage of the 119 congress and the presidential inauguration.

c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> president elect donald trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge. in the new york state hush money case in which he was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. the sentence leaves intact the manhattan jury's guilty verdict while shielding the president elect from any punishment in the case. it left open his option to appeal, which is hoping to pursue. the president elect spoke during the hearing, saying the prosecution was politically motivated. the coverage with audio only as cameras were not allowed in the courtroom. all rise, 159 now in session. >> calling part 59 calendar,

calendar number one. donald trump indictment 71543 of 23. good morning. the people joshua steinglass, chriopher conroy, susan hoffinger, matthew angela, and catherine ellis. >> -- for president trump. he's colocatewith my partner. >> good morning. good morning m trump. >> good morning. >> altugh he has already alluded to it, i want to make ear mr. blanche is appearing virtually with mr. trump. you are currently in florida, correct? >> yes, correct youhonor. >> mr. trump's other attorney is with us in the courtroom. esumed to this court decision january 3, 2025. mr. trump was given the option

of appearing virtually. subsequently, a counsel informed mr. trump elected to waive personal appearance and appear virtually. the decision sentence in th matter is permitted in new york. i derrk your attention to the matter of 72 selenium's, 13 2021. before turning to the matter of ntencing, i want to confirm the people and defense counsel have received copies of the provision court. -- you have not? let the record reflect the people are being handed a copy now. why don't you take some time to look at it?

while the parties look at the provision report, mr. blanche, i want to confirm you received a new copy of the report? >> yes your honor, there is a copy in front of me. judge mehan: is there anything you would like to put on the record? mr. blanche: nothing but some of the facts and procedural history, especially involving other cases, are not up-to-date because of what has happened since the date of the report. otherwise, and given what we pect was happening today, nothing. judge merchan: thank you.

was there anything about the provision report you would like to put on the record? >> no, judge -- judge merchan: you need more time?

mr. steinglass: thank you judge. i don't think there is anything that we need -- judge merchan: thank you.

>> donald trump, you are before the court for sentence on your conviction by trial to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. before being sentenced, the court will allow you, your attorney, and assistant district attorney an opportunity to address the court with any matters relevantoentencing. >> where is the preferred place for me to stand? judge merchan: wherever you feel comfortable. mr. steinglass: the defendant in this case, as you know, stands convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree all css three felonies. each carries a range of authorized sentencing options for as muc as one and a third to four years in state prison to a variety of non-incarrated or he sentences. in this court's january 3 decision on the defendan's motion, indicated an inclination to impe an unconditional discharge.

under all the circumstances of this case, its unique posture and the defendant' status as president elect, and ople recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge. in finding the defendant guilty in this cas the jury necessarily foundnanimously the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intense to commit -- intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promoteis own election by unlawful means. havi presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conducand seriousness and the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. i'm certainly not going to rehash thanow. last week'decision on january 3, this court referred to the defendt's conduct, criminal conduct in this casas constitutingpremeditated and

continuous deception. the verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using extensive questionnai based on suggestions from both paies. after though questioning of the prosctive jurors by both sides. the verdict in this case was animous and decisive and must be respected. as this court has observed, "the sanctity of a jury verdict and e deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nations jurispdence." the defendant's conduct before, during, and after the trial also meri consideration. instead of preserving, , andefending our constitutionally established system of criminal justice, defendant, the once and future president of the unitedtates, has engaged in a coordinated

campaign to undermine its legitimacy. far from expressing any kind of rerse for his criminal conduct , the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law. he has done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to rect the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful. he's characterized these proceedings as corrupt, rigged, a witch hunt, or a sham tomany times to tabulate. the defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since the courts rulings on his motions to dismiss. he's been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon this court, fami, individual prosecutors and thr families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice syst as a whole.

e defendant has not only been held in contempt by arthur jurists in other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contact -- contempt for 10 dtit violations of the order restricting extra just -- extrajudicial speech. in his legal fings, the defendant has ed dangerous rhetoric and leveled accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution. as this court has noted, the defendt's conduct "constitutes a direct attack on e rule of law itself. moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have soppe to hold him accountable in this and other mters, and the courts who have endeavored to faly and faithfully adjudicate these tters. such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to

intimidate those who have the respsibility to enforce our laws in the hopes they will ignore the defendant's transgressions because they fear he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the st of us. in his 2024 end of year report, the u.s. supreme court chief justiceoberts warned of the ngers of such conduct. "public officials, too, regrettably, have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate dges. for example, suggesting political bias in the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations. -- allegations." chief justice roberts continued, "attempt to intimidate judges for their rulings are inappropriate and should be gorously opposed. public officials certainly have

a right to criticize the work of the judiciary. but they shod be mindful tt in temperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others. chief justice roberts also spoke of the dangers of disinformation , which are "magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to instantly sprea rumor and false information. put simply, this defendant has caed enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way. in the pvisional court which we just received this morning the author had interewed the defendant and noted the defendant es himself as above the law. and he won't accept responsibility for his actions. it is certainly consistent with

everything else we have en. in a typical case, both the fense conduct and other exasperatingactors would impact the appropriate sentence. but ithis case, we must be respectf of the office othe presidency and mindful of the fact the defendant will be inaugurated as president in 10 days. any undischarged porti of his sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. as a practical matter, the most sensible sentence is an unconditional discharge. the court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because in the court's words the most viable solution to ensure finality andllow him toursue his appellate options is to preed.

as you know in new york, a conditiol discharge is authorized by penal law if the court having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and history of the defendant is that public interest nor the justice would be served and that probation supervision is not approprie. an unconditional discharge if the court is of e opinion that no proper purpose would be served bimposing any condition on the defendant's release. the american public has a rig to a presidency unencumbered by impending court proceedings or ongoing sentence related obligations.

imposing this sentence ensures that finality. sentencing the defendantermits this court to enter judgment, to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon, while he pursues whatever appeals he tends to pursue. it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preservinghe defendant's ability to govern. the people therefore recommend that the court propose an uncondional discharge. thank you. >> thank you, your honor. i veryvery much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the gitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about president trump's conduct fighting this case from

before it was indicted to whil it was indicted tohe jury's verdict and even to this day. with the government just said presposes something that we disagree with very much, which was that this was an appropriate case to be brought it was not. this case without a doubt knowing everything we know about the timing of thenvtigation, the fact that multiple prosecutors looked at the facts of the case iluding within the district attorney's office and made a decision not to bring the case. shortly after president trump announced his intention to run reelection, this case was

started for third time, which brings us to where we are today. a lot of what the government just said presupposes that this case is legally approprte and that the charges that were brought by the people were consiste with the laws of new york. again, we very much disagree with that and as has been noted, we certainly intend on appealing that. it is not, by the way, just council and president trump that feels that way. there are many, many, many legal experts that share the same views i just said, which is th legally this case should not have been ought based on the facts established at trialnd also on the legal basis for which they were brought. it is not just the legal experts, counsel, and president trump, but the majority of the

american people also agree that this case shouldot have been brought. the teresting thing about the fact that there was a trial for the firstime in our history, a crimal trial during an election season is that the amican voters got a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of se that should have been brought. and they decid. and that is why in 10 days president trump will assumehe office of the president of the united states. certainly, we are here for the court to sentence president trump to an unconditional dischargand for that it is a very sad day, it is a sad day for president trump his family and friends. buit is also in counsel's view a sad day for this country because this was the case witht a doubt that was brought by a district attorney who

promised that he would go after president trump if elected and felt like he had to go through with that promise. so that is sad. i hope and i know president trump shares this view that this will never happen again in this country. ando we certainly understand where we are today. we very much intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict. and what hapned during this investigation. we certainly believe that the ly appropriate sennce if one is to be impos at a which we very much believe it shouldn't be and that the case should be dismissed is a sentence of an unconditional discharge. thank you. judge merchan: thank you. would your clienlike to be heard? >> yes, thank you, your honor. this has been a very terrible experience. i think it has been a tremendous

setback for new york and the new york court system. this is a case that alvin bragg did not want to bring. he thought it was, from what i read and what i hear a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney and that gentleman from what i heard , it was very inappropriate, somebody involved with my political opponent. part of the records we are talking about, i just noticed where i was falsifying business records. the falsification of business records, as they say, it was a legal expense in the book so everyone could see them. legal fees or legal expense were put down by legal expense by

accountants. they weren't put down by me, they were put down by accountants. i didn't call them construction, concrete work. i didn't call them electrical work. they were called a legal fee or legal expense a legal expense and for this i got indicted. it is incredible actually. now, if you look, my attorney alluded to it, the top legal scholars and legal pundits in this country, the ones that are quotedll the time on television that are making their views felt and highly respected people have said everyone, virtually everyone that i know of, i hav't seen any to the contrary, notne and these people are not exactly friends ofine to put it mildly, but they all said this is a case that should never have been brought. it is an injustice ojustice. very respected. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy,

judge david rifkin, a wonderful man who just passed away bthe way. greg jarrett. kelly hoehn egg from cnn of all places. cnn. paul ingrassia, alan dershowitz. th said this is not a case that should be brought. legal expenses are down as legal expenses and i get indicted r business records. everybody should be so accurate. it has been a political witch hunt. it was done to damage my reputation so that i would lose the election and obviously that didn't work and the people of our country got to see this firsthand cause they watch the case in your courtroom. and then they voted and i won and got the largestumber of votes by far of any republic candidate in histor and won as you know all seven swing states. won conclusively all seven swing

states. and won the popular vote by millions and millions of votes. and they have been watching your trial, so they understood it. wasn't allowed to use the lawyer-client privilege or the relian on counsel. had a lawyer that made this a deal and he admitted that and he was a totally discredited person. we weren't allowed to use this information that was putn. that was terrible. this is a man who has no standing, he has bn disbarred on other matters unrelated. he was alled to talk as though he were george washington, but he is not georgeashington. the southern district did a book of approximately 28 pages where i've never seen anything like it, they excoriated him.

you aren't allowed to be put into evidence so he was able to testify as a witness and i think it is a disgrace to the system. i was the first president in history under a gag order where i couldn't talk about aspects of the case very important i guess i'm still under, i assume i'm still under a gag order. the fact is that i'm totally innocent. i did nothing wrong. they talk about business records and the business records were extrely accurately counted. that wasone by an accountant or bookkeeper w i think gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked. and with all that is happening in our cntry today, with a city burning to the ground, one of our largest most important citi burning to the ground with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of the problems ofnflation

and attacks on countries and all the horrible things going on, i got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense. i just wan to say i think it is an embarrassment to new york and new york has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. i believe this in other cases that were brought, as you know the doj is very much involved in these cases because that is the political opponent they are talking about. the doj is very involved. you have a gentleman sitting there from the doj who was from the doj's office and was involved with the new york state attorney general's case and he went from there to here. he went around and did what he had to do. he got them move on me. but in the meantime, i won the election in a massive landslide and the people of the country understa what has gone on. this has never happened to any

extent like this, never happened in our country before. i would just like to explain th i was treated very, very unfair and i thank you very much. judge merchan: thank you, mr. trump. mr. trump, you appear before this crt today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the disposition ofentence. although i have taken the usual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations, before imposing sentence i believe it is important for you as well as those obseing these proceedings to understanmy reasoning for the sentence at i'm about to impose. the imposition of sentence is one of the most diffult and significant decisions that any crimal court judges called upon to make. our legislature sets the parameters, but is a judge you must decide what constitutes a just conclusion.

the court has broad discretion in determining how to arrive at an appropria sentence. in doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case along with any activating or mitigating circumstances. in my time on the bench, i have been called upon to grapple with this weity responsibity for countless defendants w have been found guilt after trial for an asstment offfenses ranging from nviolent felonies to homicides, sex trafficking, and chd sexual abuse. the task is always diffilt and deserving ocareful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life. however, never before has ts

court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of rcstances. itan be viewed fairly. this has been a truly extraordinary case. there was unprecedented media attention, pliinterest, and heightened security involving various agencies and yet the try was a bit of a paradox because once the court room doors were closed, the trial is no more special, unique, or extraordinary then e her trials that took place at this time. jury selectionas conducted, the me rules of evidence were followed, opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined the same burden of proof was applied and ordinary citizens

delivered a verdt. it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure d guided by the law. of course part of what de it feel somewhat ordinary with the outsnding work, preparation, and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel, anthe entire staff of this building who didheir jobs as they would with any other crimin trial. so, while one can argue the trial itself was in many respects, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing. that is because of the office he once occupied and which you will soon occupy again. to be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to th office of the president of the united states that are extraordinary. not the occupant of the office.

the legal protections especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the office of the president have been laid out by our founders, the constitution, and most recently interpreted by the united states supreme court i the matter of trump versus unitedtates, which was decided on july 1, 2024. as with every other dendant in your position, it is my obligationo consider all aggravating and mitigating circa -- factors. some have already been articulated in my sandoval ruling at the beginning of the trial and my recent written decisions on december 16 and january 3. thus, they need not be repeated at this time. however, the considerable

indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive is a factor that oveides all others. to be clearthe protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. they do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. the protections are however a legal mandate which pursuant to the rule of law this court must respect and follow. however, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections one power they do not provides the power to erase a jury verdict. it is clear from legal precedent which until july 1 was scarce that donald trump the ordiny

citizen, donald trump the criminal defendant would n be entitled to such considerable protections. i'm referring to protectio that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. no, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. it is the office of the president that btows those far-reaching protections to the officeholder and it was the citizenrof this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include among other things the supremacy clause in presidenal immunity. it is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence. after carel analysis and

obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court h determined that the only lawful sentence that peits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is annconditional discharge, which the new york ste legislature has dermined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree. therefore, at this time i impose that sentence covering all 34 cots. sir, i wish you godspeed as you assume your second term in office. thank you. >> [indiscernible]

[captions copyright national cable sateitcorp. 2025] [captioning performed by the nationalaponing institute, which is responsible for its caption content d curacy. visit ncicap.org] >> president-elect dond ump has been sentenced to unconditional discharge in hush money trial to stormy daniels ahead of the 2016 election. the sentence cesess than two weeks before the president-elect iset to take the oath of office as the 47th presintf the united states. the unconditional scrge sentence means the president-elecwi remain a convicted felon, but faced no jail time for the 34 counts he was found guilty of by a jury in may. on truth social, the esent-elect said he plans to appeal the sentence,alling it a despicable charade that has no merit. the statement also reads in part, the real jury, the american people, have spok by

reelecting me with an overwhelming mandate in one of the most consequenti ections in history. as the american people have seen, this case had no crime, no damages,o oof, noacts, no law, only hily conflicted judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced serial perjurer, and criminal election interference. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern in the lead up to inauguration day, american history tv looks back at famous inaugural speeches. this weekend, speeches by jimmy carter in 1977, ronald reagan in 1981. and george h w bush in 1989. on lectures in history, hillsdale college professor richard gamble on how american nationalism