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, christopher conr, susan hoffinger, matthew angela, and catherine ellis. >> -for president trump. he's colocated with my paner. >> good morning. good morning mr. trump. >> good morning. >> although he haslready alluded to it, i want to make clear mr. blanche is appearing virtually with mr. trump. you are currently in florida, correct? >> yes, correct your honor. >> mr. trump's other attorney is th us in the courtroom. presumed to is court decision january 3, 2025. mr. trump wasiven the option of appearing virtually. bsequently, a counsel informed mr. trump elected to waive

peonal appearance and appear virtually. the decision sentence in this matter is permitted in new york. i derrick your atttion to the matter of 72 selenium's, 1133 2021. before turng to the matter of sentencing, want to confirm the people and defense counsel have received copieof 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 port, 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 merchan: is there anything you would like to put on the record mr. blanche: nothing butome of the facts and procedural history, especially involving othe cases, are not up-to-date because of what has happened since the date of the report. herwise, and given what we expect was happening today, nothing. judge merchan: thank you.

was there anything about the provision report you would lik 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 relevant to sentencing. >> where is the preferred place for me to and? judge merchan: wherever you feel comfortable. mr. steinglass: the defendant in this case, as you know, stands nvicted of 34 counts of falsifyi business records in the first degree all class three felonies. each carries a range of authorized sentencing options for as much as one and a third to four years in state prin to a variety of non-incarcerated or he sentences. this court's january 3 decision on the defendant's motion, indicated an inclination to impose an uncontional discharge. under althe circumstances of this case, its unique posture and the defendant's status as

president elect, and people recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge. in finding the defendant guilty in ts case, the jury necessarily found unanimously the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business cords wh the intent to defraud, which included an intense to commit -- intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own eleion by unlawful means. having presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conduct and serioness and the overwhelming evidence to support thjury's verdict. i'm certainly not going to rehash that now. last week's decision on january 3, this court referred to the defendant's conduct, criminal conduct this case as constituting "premeditat and continuous deception. the veict was delivered by a jury tt was carefully csen

using extensive questionnaire based on suggestions from both parties. after thorough questioning of the prospective juro by both sides. the verdict in this case was unanimous an decisive and must be respected. as this court has observed, "the sanctity of a juryerdict and the deferencthat must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nations jurisprudence." the defendant's conduct before, during, and after the trial also merits consideraon. instead of preserving, protecting, and defending r constitutionally established system of criminal justice, defendant, the once and future prident of the united states, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. far om expressing any kind of

remorse for hicriminal cduct , 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 reject the ju verdict tha he finds so distasteful. he's cracterized these proceedings as corrupt, rigged, a witch hunt, or a sham too many times to tabulate. the defendant's rhetoric has ly ratcheted up since the courts rulings on his motions to dismiss. he's been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon th court, family, individual prosecutors and their families, e witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice system as a whol the defendan has not only been held in contempt by arthu jurists in other matters, but

this court alone fou the defendant in contact -- contempt for 10 distinct violatio of the order restricting extra just -- extrajudicial speech. his legal filings, the defendant has used dangero rhetoric and leveled accusations of intentionally unlawful and uncotitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecion. as this court has noted, the defendant's conduct "constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law itself. moreover, the defendant has blicly threatened to retalia against the prosecutors who have soppe to hold him accountable i this and other matters, and e courts who havendeavored to fairly and faithfully adjudicate these matters. such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to intimidate those who have the responsibility to enforce our

laws in the hopes they will ignore the defendant's transgreions because they fear he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the rest of us. in his 2024 end of year report, the u.s. supreme court chief justice roberts warned of the dangers of sh conduct. "public officials, too, regrettably, have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges. for example, suggesting political bias in the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations. -- allegations." chief justice rober continued, "attempt to intimidate judges forheir rulings are inappropriate and should be vigorously oosed. public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary. but they should be mindf that

in temperance in their statemen 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 mea, which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information. put simply, this defendant has caused endurin damage to public percepti of the criminal justice syem and has placed officers of the court in harm's way. in the provisional crt which we just received this morning, the author had interviewed the defendant and noted the defendant sees himself as above the law. and he won't accept responsibility for his actions. it is certaiy consistent with everything else we have seen. in a typical case, both the

offense conduct and other exasperating factors wou impact the appropriate sentence. but in this case, we must be respectful of the ofce of the presidency and mindful of the fact the defendant will be inaugurated as president in 10 days. any undischarged portion of his sentence h the potential to terfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. as a practical matter, the most sensible sentence is an unconditional discharge. the cou has expressed an inclinatioto do exactly that because in the court's words the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow him to pursue his appellate options is to proceed. as you know in nework, a conditional dischargis authorized by penal law if the

court having regard to the nare and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and history of the defendant that public interest nor the justice would be serd and that probation survision is not appropriate. an unconditional discharge if the court is of the opinion at no proper purpose would be served by imposing a condition on the defendant's release. the american public has a right to a presidency unencumbered by imnding court proceedings or ongoing sentence related obligations. imposing this sentence ensures that finality. sentencing the defendant permits

this court to enter judgment, to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon, while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to psue. it gives full effect and rpect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern. the people therefore recommend that the court propose an unconditional discrge. thank you. >> thank you, your honor. i very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy owhat happened in this courtroom during the trial and about president trump's couct fighting this case from before it was indicted to while it was indicted to the jury's

verdict and even to this day. with t government just said presupposes sething 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 knoabout the timing of the investigation, the fact that multiple prosecutors looked at the facts of the case including within the district attorney's office and made a decision not to bring the case. shortly after president trump announced his intention to run for 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 appropriate and that the charges that were brought by the people were consistent with the laws of new york. again, we very much disagree with tha and as has been noted, weertainly 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 exrts that share the same views i just said, which is that legally this case should not have been brought base on the facts established at trial and also on the legal basis for which they were brought. it is not just the legal experts, counsel, and president trump, t the majority of the american people also agree that this case should not have been brought.

the interesting ing about the fact that there was a trial for the first time in our history, a criminal trial ding an election seasois that the american votergot a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of case that should have been brought. and they decided. and that is why in 10 days president trump will assume the office of the president of the united states. certainly, we are here for the court toentence president trump to an unconditional discharge and for that it is a very sad day, it is a sad day for esident trump his family and friends. but it is also in counsel's view a sad day for this country because this was the case without aoubt 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 pe and i know president ump shares this view that this will never happen again in this country. and so we certaly understand where we are today. we very mu intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict. and what happened duringhis investigation. we certainly believe that the only approprte sentence if one is to be imposed at all which we very much believe it shouldn't be and that the case should be dismissed is a sentence of an unconditional discharge. thanyou. judge merchan: thank you. would your client like 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 count, the ones that are quoted all the time on television that are making their vis felt and highly respected people have said everyone, virtually everyone that i know of, i haven't seen any to the contrary, not one and the people are not exactly friends of mine to putt mildly, b they all said this is a case that should never have been brought. it is an injustice of justice. very respected. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy, judge david rifkin, a wonderful man who just passed away by the way.

greg jarrett. kelly hoehn egg from cnn of all places. cnn. paul ingrassia, alan dershowitz. they said this is not a case that should be brought. legal expenses are down as legal expenses and i get indicted for business records. everybody should be so accate. it has been a political witch hunt. it was done to damage my reputation so at i would lose the election and obviously that didn't work. and the people of our country got to see this firsthand because theyatch the case in your courtroom. anthen they voted and i won and got the largest number of votes by far of any republican candidate in history. and won as you know alleven swing states. won conclusively all seven swing states. and won the popular vote by millions andillions of votes.

and they have been watching your trial, so they understood it. i wasn't allowed to use the lawyer-client privilege or the reliance on counsel. i 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 put in. that was terrible. this is a man whoas no standing, he has been disbarred on other matters unrelated. he was allowed to talk as though he were george washington, but he is not george washington. the southern district did a book of approximately 28 pages where i've never seen anything like it, ey 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 theirst 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 der a gag order. the fact is that i'm totally innocent. i did nothing wrong. theyalk about business records and the business records were extremely accuraly counted. that was done by an countant or bookkeeper who i think gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked. and with all that is happening in our country today, with a city burning to the ground, one of our largest most important cities burning to the ground with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all

the horrible things going on, i got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense. i just want to say i think it is an embarrassment to new york and new york has a lot of problems, but this is a eat 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 involv with the new york state attorney general's case and he went from there toere. he went around and did what he had to do. he got them to move on m but in the meantime, i won the election in a massive ldslide and the people of the country understand what has ne on. this has never happened to any extent like this, never happened in our country before. i would just like to explain that i was treed very, very

unfairly and i tha you very much. judge merchan: thank y, mr. trump. mr. trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the disposition of sentence. although i have taken the unusual stepf informing you in advance of my inclinations, before imposing sentence i believe it is important for you as well as those observing these proceedings to understand my reasoning for the sentence that i'm about to impose. the imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decions that any criminal court judges called upon to make. our legislature sets the parameters, but it is a judg you must decide what constutes a just conclusion. the court has broad discretion in determining how to arrive at

an appropriate sentence. in doing so, the courtust consider the facts of the case along with any activating or tigating circumstances. in my time on the bench, i have be called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from nonviolent felonies to homicides, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse. the task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the seence be an unconditional dischae or incarceration of 25 years to life. however, never before has this urt been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances.

it can be view fairly. this has been a truly extraoinary case. there was unprecedented media attention, public-interest, d heightened security involving various agencies and yet the try was bit of a paradox because once the court room doors were closed, the trial is more special, unique, or extraordinary then the other trials that took place at this time. jury selection was conducted, the same rules of evidence wer followed, opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined. the same burden of proof was applied and ordinary citizens delivered a verdict. it was all conducted pursut to the rules of procedure and guided by the law.

of course part of what made it feel somewhat ordinary with the outstanding work, preparation, and ofessionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel, and the entire staff of this building who did their jobs as th would with any other criminal 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 oupy again. to be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the office of the president of the ited states that are extraordinary. not the occupant of the office. the legal protectns especially within the context of a criminal

prosecution afforded to the office of the president have been laid out by our founders, theonstitution, and most recely interpreted by the united states supreme court in the matter of trump versus united states, whi was decided on july 1, 2024. as with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to considerll aggravating and mitigating circa -- facto. some have already been articulated in my sandoval rulingt the beginning of the trial and my recent written decions on december 16 and january 3. thus, they need not be repeated at this time. however, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal prections afforded by the office othe chief executive is

a factor that overrides all others. to be clear, the protecons afforded the office of the president are not aitigating factor. theyo not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify itcommission 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 provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. it is clear from legal precedent which until july 1 was scarce that donald trump the ordinary citizen, donald trump the criminal defendant would not be entitled to such considerable

protections. i'm referring to protections that extend well bend those afforded the average defendant who wds 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 bestows those far-reaching protections to the officeholder and it s the citizenry of 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 presidential immunity. it is through that lens and that reality that this court must deteine a lawful sentence. after careful analysis and edience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that

the only lawful sentence that permits entry a judgment of nviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an uncondition discharge, which the new york state legislate has determined is a lawful and permissible senten for the crime of falsifying business records in e first degree. therefore, at this time i impose that sentence covering all 34 counts. sir, i wish you godspeed as you assume your second term in offi. thank you. >> [indiscernible]