via a monitor. >> this is all happening before the judge gives his sentence and his reasoning for this sentence. it will be the first time we hear from judge merchan later this morning. >> right. >> after a case in which we saw the former president, soon to be president again, attacked the judge, prosecution, and judicial system. let's get over to nbc's vaughn hillyard whose outside the courthouse in new york. and also joining us right now, kristen gibbons feden. >> right. the president elect, just ten days from going to washington, d.c, and being sworn in to be inaugurated as the next president is virtually appearing from his mar-a-lago estate in

palm beach, florida. here, speaking virtually transmitted inside of this lower manhattan courtroom, where he appeared over the course of seven weeks and was found guilty on 34 felony counts unanimously by that jury and in real time. he continues to address the court after the prosecution. matthew steinglass, as well as josh steinglass, as well as his own attorney, todd blanche, first spoke in front of the courtroom. we are awaiting the actual sentencing to come down, but the president elect in real time will be addressing the court continues to litigate the very basis of the charges that were brought against him, and defends the decision to ultimately labeo stormy daniels as legal expenses on the ledger, as was outlined by prosecutors. of course, as we are looking at this in real time and i'm going to follow what our team inside is transmitting to us, that he is essentially in sort of a campaign type of a

way, is continuing to elaborate that he won the election. people rejected what it was a political witch hunt, in his words, against him. and we are seeing here in real time that trump, the president elect, just finished speaking and we are told that judge merchan is beginning to address this courtroom as he is preparing to issue this sentence in real time to note the prosecutors in this case, they presented to the court their recommendation for unconditional discharge, which, of course, is what judge merchan indicated. that would be the sentence that he would present and give donald trump, which would amount to no prison time, no probation, no fine. judge merchan is saying, quote, it is a judge that must decide what is just conclusion with a verdict of guilty. and we are now waiting for judge merchan to hand down his sentence here in lower manhattan, guys. >> and so, vaughn, as we do that, let's quote what judge chang is saying right now. he indeed just finished saying it

is the judge's decision that must decide what is a just conclusion with a verdict of guilty. but he's adding, right now our legislature sets the parameters. the court has broad discretion of sources and evidence to what to consider, and must consider the facts in the case, along with aggravating and mitigating circumstances. i have had countless defendants, from nonviolent felonies to homicide, sex trafficking, child sex abuse, and the task is always difficult and needs serious consideration. never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable, a truly extraordinary case with heightened security. and yet the trial was a bit of a paradox, because once the doors closed, it was not unique in many ways. >> and merchan also saying ahead of delivering his sentence, although i have taken the unusual step in advance of telling you the sentence, i feel i need to tell you the reasoning for the sentence. i'm about to impose a significant decision is what he called it. again, we are

reading from notes coming from the courtroom, so it may not be a direct quote i should note. we will hear all of the audio from this hearing immediately following, as soon as we can kind of turn it around. the court made the condition that we could have reporters in the courtroom during the live sentencing as it happens, but that they would allow for us to have audio and be able to broadcast that to you following this sentencing. and i do want to call your attention to this, this picture. we have trump and his attorney who are both appearing virtually this morning, but judge merchan saying never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable, a truly extraordinary case. >> and i think what you just said, you know, which is so important that we all stay tuned, because what is happening in this courtroom and we are telling you exactly what is occurring inside that courtroom. we're going to be able to listen

to the complete courtroom exchange. moments after the judge closes this case. >> let's bring in our legal analysts who are here with us as they are watching and reading from the documents we have as well. and, kristen, this seems to be moving very quickly. >> what stands out to you very quickly? and actually what stands out to me is while i am legally shocked, but i'm personally not surprised, i'm surprised that donald trump exercised his right of allocution. the right of allocution is a right that is promised to every single criminal defendant, right before they are sentenced by a judge to offer some type of self-advocacy, contrition, something to say, hey, i'm remorseful for what i did. >> it doesn't sound like that's what happened today. not at all. >> and again, most defendants who have made clear that they intend to appeal any conviction don't really exercise that right of allocution. and here donald trump did. the reason why i'm legally shocked is because he really didn't need to judge. merchan already stated that he intended to not really give him a sentence, that unconditional discharge, which means you have

the conviction, but you have no jail time, you have no parole, you have no probation, you have no fine. you essentially get to walk home, unlike most other criminal defendants. >> and we're just wondering, because he mentions this at the beginning of his allocution, he says, although i have taken the unusual step in advance of telling you the sentence, i feel i need to tell you the reasoning for the sentence i am about to impose. how unusual of it of a step is it for the judge to in advance tell people about the sentence? >> not as unusual as he's making it out to be. there are many times where a judge will say, this is your promise sentence, but one of those things on a promise sentence is you have to go to the department of probation, even if you're not getting probation, to sort of explain what happened. and if you lie and if you misrepresent and if you don't take responsibility, especially after a jury convicted you, then i may not hold you to that sentence. but here donald trump is a free shot so he can say what he wants because he knows he's not going to be incarcerated. but in terms of explaining why, normally a

judge doesn't have to do that, but for an unconditional sentence or non discharge, that's not having a piece to it that he has to comply with. the law requires that judge merchan explain that reasoning on a felony. so that's why he's taking these steps. that's unusual because it's atypical. but in terms of that promise sentence that happens now, the judge here, judge merchan, is discussing some of that reasoning as we speak, and he is making a point to say they're dealing with a defendant unlike any other, somebody who is about to assume the office of the presidency. >> again, such a historic moment here, he says, to be clear, the protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. do not reduce the seriousness of the crime. this court must respect the law. however, despite the protection, it is clear from legal precedent which is scarce. donald trump, the citizen, is not entitled to those protections. but he also notes that the fact that he's about to be president is a factor in the sentence he's

about to deliver that overrides all others, he says, i think that this is an important day. >> it's a historic day, but it's also a day in which we see the rule of law enforced. it's a day in which we see that he's treated as a criminal defendant like every other. >> and i'm sorry to interrupt you, but the sentence is now just being read again. the judg, as we speak, saying careful analysis in this course, determined that the only lawful sentence that we could, with sentence without encroaching in the highest office of the land, is an unconditional discharge for the crime of falsifying business records. and it is therefore at this time that that unconditional discharge is carried through for all of the felony cases, in this case, all 34 counts. >> so in this way, i think it's actually not so atypical. first time criminal offender class e felony anyway, would not see jail time in new york city. in a

typical case, this is not a typical case. typically you would have conditions of discharge. and this judge is, i think, doing a good job of balancing the fact that, yes, he's about to be president. yes, it's atypical while still respecting the rule of law. so this is a this is over. >> this this is over. guys, i just wanted to mention sean's already off the bench. we were told as soon as he said at this time, i imposed that sentence to cover all 34 counts. i wish you godspeed for your second term in office. thank you. and donald trump, president elect hangs up the video call. so all told, this is what, 30 something minutes. >> yeah, not not shocking. this doesn't need to be a whole played out in front of the tv cameras. judge sean is doing his job. i mean, this is almost like the ghost of jack smith not yet biting donald trump on the behind. and you know what? at the end of the day, incarceration or not, you are a felon. no matter what he says, no matter how many times he jumps up and down, he has a right to appeal. and ultimately that will be decided. donald

trump is a felon with a capital f period and no punishment. >> but we did hear the prosecution go pretty hard at donald trump even knowing that no punishment was coming. they in fact, recommended unconditional release when the prosecution took its turn before judge merchan gave his sentence. and i wonder, kristen, your thoughts on how the prosecution approached this moment today, the end of their case. and obviously it may not be the very end of the line. so how much of that was lingering in their mind in terms of what they said today? >> i think it's important to think about the criminal justice system not only in the form of punishment, but more importantly in the form of accountability. and quite frankly, the fact that d.a. bragg set out and has openly stated repeatedly this is about accountability, this is about accountability. and then in his petition papers in response to donald trump trying to push away or dismiss the case, right, to try to stretch that presidential immunity, a da

bragg made very clear that his intention was accountability. and that's why he said, listen, if they're going to argue that this needs to be dismissed in the interest of public interest because of the fact that it's going to hinder his ability to really follow through and be a president, then give him unconditional discharge, still allow him to be accountable, to be saddled with that felony conviction, those felony convictions, i should say 34 of them, but let him know that this type of misconduct cannot go forward. >> so, adam, talk to us about unconditional discharge, what it means, and what does that carry? >> so normally, a felony sentence, even without prison time, you'd be checking in with the probation department. you'd be subject to drug and alcohol testing. you'd be subject to fines. each felony conviction would have up to a maximum of $5,000 fine times 34. here, an unconditional discharge is really done. you live with the stigma of the felony, and you do have certain collateral

consequences. a trump had had a gun permit. i believe that the nypd has now rescinded his gun permit. there are certain collateral consequences, but basically he is done. yet he lives as a felon. he goes into office as a convicted felon. >> can i just get your thoughts on, again, the unprecedented moment that we are living in now? this is going to be the only president in the history of this country to have been sentenced on criminal felony charges. >> it is unprecedented. it is historic. it is different. but i come back to it's the same as every single day in america. criminals are convicted for their crimes and go and move forward with their lives. carrying that stigma of a felony conviction. >> so jeremy now clearly and blanche said that in the beginning of his comments that this was all going to be grounds for some kind of legal maneuvering going forward to appeal. i'm just wondering when

he talks about. the collateral consequences, what are the collateral consequences for a felon, regardless of the fact that he's going to be entering the white house in ten days? just what are some of those, you know, collateral consequences? >> well, as adam just pointed out, there are certain things for the firearm, for example. i mean, you can still vote. he couldn't run for office on the state level in new york, though i don't expect him to pursue the governorship or anything like that, but any other person would not be able to do so. the big the big issue is, as i said before, this doesn't go away. there's no expungement in new york. there is sealing and a felony does seal as a matter of law in eight years. so it will seal to the public within reason. but this is a public process, especially the most public process we've ever seen. so it's not going away and he's not running away from it. i can't stress enough. i think the big take home here is not about the lack of punishment to what you said moments ago. it's about the word of law and

accountability. because no matter what you do or say, you have that right to appeal and that takes time. but in barring that appeal, being successful forever, you will be not just an asterisk, but in big, bold letters, a felon. and who here would ever say it's only a felony, right? i'm not going to jail. big deal. nobody would say that. and none of us would have that. this job in any capacity if we were convicted felons. >> but he could have received up to four years behind one and a third to one, and a third to four would have received up to $5,000 in a fine per each count. he didn't get any of that. so if you're looking at this as a layman and you're saying if this person weren't donald j. trump, who is going to be president, would that unconditional discharge have been the outcome here? and are are the people who might be thinking like, oh, i guess presidents really do play by a different set of rules. what's your answer to them? >> within reason? that's a reasonable response, because yes, he's being treated

differently, though one might argue that he would never have been prosecuted in the first place if he wasn't the president or, you know, someone who served as president in that capacity. but we've seen in new york and states across the board have seen legislators on county, state and federal level get prosecuted for crimes. and we hold our elected officials to a higher standard, not a higher legal standard, but a higher moral standard. so this is fair. it is what it is. he's convicted. that's justice. >> that's justice in prison. what are your thoughts? >> i agree, i agree. i think there's two things here, right. there's that accountability. but then there's also the fact that the judges upheld the ability for this case not to be dismissed. right. and i think that that is really important because not only is it justice, it is justice. it is the criminal justice system playing itself out, not allowing, not allowing donald trump to utilize his position of importance to just allow things to just go away. it is allowing him to be held accountable. it is showing

that the rule of law will prevail if allowed to. and i think that is such an important message to tell to the public. yes, you're absolutely right. it is difficult if i am if i was a convicted felon and i was convicted of the same exact crimes that donald trump was, and i got a heightened sentence just because i'm not donald trump. yes, that is hard to digest. but at the end of the day, i think one thing that is very important is that every criminal defendant has the right to have various factors be weighed in their sentencing, and it to be applied appropriately. >> let's go back to the courthouse. our vaughn hillyard is there. i'm curious. vaughn, what's happening there? now that this is over and talk to us more about judge marchand's closing message in this case. >> right. the courtroom is beginning to clear out, and the court is officially adjourned after seven weeks of trial. and then ultimately, today's sentencing here and the judge merchan ended by giving him the unconditional discharge sentence and saying, quote, at this time, i impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. but his parting

line to the incoming president was, quote, i wish you godspeed for your second term in office. thank you. and i think to the point that you guys were making here, this is quite a moment coming. ten days before inauguration, the supreme court had the opportunity to step in last night in order to issue a stay. donald trump has argued that presidential immunity should extend to this transition process. but then the case should have been entirely dismissed. that's what his attorneys argued in not only to judge merchan, but also the appellate division. and, of course, they will have the opportunity to appeal this verdict and are going to argue that some of the material evidence that was presented to this jury should have been protected under the supreme court's immunity decision over the summer. but i think what is so striking about this current moment, we don't know what is to come for president elect trump, and in no way should we suggest that he intends to break the law again. but at the same time,

it's not just about president elect trump and his term in office, but it's also a clear message that has been sent by this court here in new york to all future presidents, that the immunity decision that was handed down by the supreme court does not protect the individual who served as president of the united states in that office from all of their acts. and in this case, on the heels of that supreme court decision, donald trump had to appear virtually today. and while there is no actual substantive consequence for him, there is a key indicator that if it weren't for him entering office, that potentially he may have faced prison time or something, that was unconditional discharge. and while there is a conversation to be had about the difference between the incoming president and any other citizen who may have been found guilty of these charges to any future president of united states, at least there is now one court case on the record, on the books in the united states that found a

former president, an incoming president, guilty of a crime. and i don't think in any small way, coming off of that supreme court decision granting presidential immunity for official acts, should it be misunderstood that there are repercussions, potentially for some actions by an individual who has either previously held the office of the presidency or was in the office of the presidency, as donald trump was when he was making those payment checks to reimburse michael cohen and somebody that is coming into office. i don't think that that should be a misstated or underscored enough here coming out of this courtroom today. >> and remember, this was all from before donald trump's last election and victory in which he was elected to president, stemming from before he got into office to begin with back in 2016. fast forward almost a decade now, and this case has come to a conclusion. in a

hearing that lasted a little more than half an hour today, a sentencing hearing donald j. trump sentenced to unconditional discharge on 34 felony counts. our lisa rubin was there inside the courthouse as this all unfolded. lisa, what was that like? >> anna, you know, in some respects, this was a disappointing end to the trial in the sense that donald trump was convicted of 34 felony counts and received an unconditional discharge today. but judging by his behavior and his lawyer's behavior today in court, it was a very different donald trump. he understood that even though the unconditional discharge imposes no penalty on him, it definitely had a psychological impact. and he was a more respectful donald trump in court today, as was his lawyer, todd blanche, whose rhetoric in his filings and certainly during the trial had

increasingly amped up both against the judge himself and against the prosecutors. that's not to say that they indicated their happiness with what happened today, but that having been said, it was definitely a more sober blanche and trump than i've seen in recent memory. >> and i should remind everybody that we are expecting audio from the courtroom. we will play it in its entirety for you to hear. we just we were able to discuss what was said, but you will hear it in their own words, in their own voices. everybody from what the prosecutor said to donald trump himself and ultimately judge mershon, who closed it out with his sentence and his reasoning for that sentence. so as soon as we can get that audio turned around, we'll bring that to you at home. >> we want to bring in retired new york state judge diane kiesel. dan, thank you for being with us. just what kind of considerations do you think went into mccann deciding what he decided today? >> i think the judge needed to do. thank you for having me, by

the way. i think the judge needed to balance, as he did, the interests of signaling to the world that donald trump needed to be treated like any other defendant in a felony case after conviction, while at the same time recognizing that this man is ten days away from becoming president of the united states. and i think the unconditional discharge, while i'm sure will be criticized by some, was judge marchand's way of doing that. remember, as some of your correspondents have said earlier today, this isn't really just a slap on the wrist. this is a man who is going to go to his grave unless an appellate court reverses as a convicted felon, and he certainly the only president in history that's going to walk into that white house with a conviction over his head. that's that's serious. >> and, judge, we expect donald trump and his team to appeal the conviction. that's what they

said they intended to do. donald trump said it himself. we heard todd blanch during this hearing say a couple of times this will be appealed. do you think that there is any strength to that argument, and especially when you look at the way judge merchan handled this case, were there any vulnerabilities or cracks along the way? >> well, if he's successful on appeal, it will be because of the united states supreme court decision earlier this year on presidential immunity. if you are just looking at the way judge merchan handled this case, i don't think there are any grounds in that avenue for which he can successfully appeal. the judge was fair. he was impartial. despite what mr. trump said all along the way. from my observations, this case was handled just like it would have been handled if this were donald j. smith on trial for a series of felonies. >> i do wonder, given how much

trump went after this judge right up to the end. i mean, in statements last night, he he said his family, his family, which then was subject to the gag order, the family part was which donald trump has complained about, mentioned it over again. but, i mean, judge merchan had to endure a lot of attacks on his character, his integrity, his professionalism, and he never backed down. what do you make of that, judge kiesel? >> well, i think the judge gets an a plus for the way he has handled this case. he. well, mind you, now, judges always need to be fair and impartial, and they need to stand apart from any of the noise, either from the public or the press. but i don't know another judge who ever has been subject to this kind of constant harassment and criticism. and yet he put his head down. he did his work.

he was fair. he kept his cool throughout the entire weeks of that trial. i think he was amazing and really deserves to go down in history as having done a fine job. >> and that job will be actually be able to hear part of that job that judge merchan, as well as blanch, the prosecutors and the president elect who this case just wrapped up, we're going to be actually able to hear it for the first time. yeah. >> any minute now and again, as soon as we are able to bring that to you. stay with us. we will bring that to you. judge kissel, i wanted to ask you about how things will go moving forward. right. you brought up the supreme court, and we know that donald trump has the ability to appeal. so how is that going to play out, especially with him in office? >> well, you know, appeals don't happen overnight in the great state of new york. first, he's going to have to appeal up to state court level, which means it goes to the appellate division and then to the court of appeals. and then perhaps he

can move over into a federal court via a habeas petition citing this constitutional argument. whatever happens and my crystal ball isn't polished, i don't know what's going to happen, but whatever happens, it's going to take a while and could consume some part of mr. trump's second term in office. >> and let's go to yasmin. judge, if you would stand by yasmin vossoughian, who is outside the court house, and, yasmin, we're about to listen to these proceedings, something that we haven't been able to do in the past. >> yeah, i think it's pretty unprecedented that we're going to be hearing from president elect donald trump within these proceedings. if you guys remember, throughout the entire trial in the spring, we never actually heard from donald trump inside the courtroom, right? we had seen at times his expressions and the way in which he would speak to his defense team. but he never he never actually spoke inside that courtroom. instead, he would

convene in the hallway outside his courtroom, outside that courtroom, to relay to the audience, along with the folks that were watching and the reporters that were outside, per his, you know, feelings as to what happened inside that courtroom. this is the first time that we actually heard from him inside that courtroom. and i spoke to fallon gallagher, who was inside the courtroom, and she told me essentially that this was a much more reserved donald trump. in fact, it seemed as if he respected the fact that he was speaking inside the courtroom versus the individual, the man that we heard in the hallway, despite the fact that it was still kind of this campaign rally speech in which he said it was a witch hunt and he was innocent, and they were going after him. and this was all political. it was the same rhetoric, but it was in a much more reserved tone, it seems, as you were speaking to the appeals process, because i think there's one more thing that we should keep in mind and that, yes, there is the appeals process that he's going to take when it comes to the legal avenues. but there's also the appeals process

that we all know donald trump will take to his public persona. and i imagine going forward, former president doesn't like donald trump, who will be inaugurated in just ten days time from now as a convicted felon, the next president of the united states, an unprecedented moment in that he will be appealing this thing on a public level to his supporters on the national stage as the president of the united states, guys, he has been standby for us, please. >> kristen, as we get ready to hear this audio, what will you be listening for? >> i want to hear the exact reasons why judge mershon issued the unconditional discharge. we know it. we can all speculate. we all know it's because he's going because donald trump is going to be president. but i think based on the conscientious nature of all of judge marshawn's rulings, i am anticipating that he is going to explain that just because i'm giving you an unconditional discharge doesn't mean that what you did was not impactful. he's already did it. in some of his

issued opinions, including the most recently issued one that was 18 pages that made clear. listen, the fact that you are about to be president makes this conduct even more egregious. and he's also made it very clear that even though we're talking about business, the business, a falsification of business records, this is huge because it really interfered with the election. and that's really the resounding voice that the jury heard. so i'm going to be listening to the reasons why judge mershon gave the unconditional discharge separate and distinct from the obvious, which is that he's going to be president. >> we heard from the prosecutor before judge mershon handed down that sentence, that this verdict was unanimous and it must be respected. that was a point they wanted to drive home. >> yeah. and you know, the defense clearly driving home the opposite point, including blanche saying this is a case brought by a da who promised he would go after trump if elected and had to carry through on his promises. there is the political politicization of the justice

system by trump and his defense team. >> you know, he can say that all he wants, and i understand why he says that. but let's follow this through sort of this in like a lion, out like a lamb. we go to the appellate division, we lose. we go to the court of appeals, we lose. we go to the supreme court of the united states. we lose, if anything, a somber of a day. this should be because whether you're red or blue, you should not be exalting and excited that you're former and current, soon to be current president is a convicted felon. but you should be proud because the supreme court, you had comey, coney barrett, and you had judge roberts. you had republican appointees who stood by the rule of law. they didn't come out and bail out the president because this was some sham prosecution. >> they stood by the rule of law, but they weren't commenting on the merits of the case. >> no, but they could have certainly made the effort to stop it from happening and stop the sentence. so they had the ability. look at you had clarence thomas and that team, if you're, for lack of a better term, trying to do just that.

but you had people who stood up on the supreme court and did what appears to be the right thing, and that's justice. and then take the appeal. and if the appeal is successful, it's successful. >> i mean, that was kind of their bottom line, which was it was a54 decision, mind you, as we are pointing out, it wasn't unanimous. they didn't all say, yeah, let's let the sentencing move forward. and mr. president, you can eventually, you know, appeal the conviction itself. but that is what the majority said. right. >> i think if anybody wanted the supreme court yesterday, it was justice mershon. justice mershon did something very successful, which is he signaled in advance. no prison time, no conditions. i'm not going to impose on the presidency this burden you think that made a difference with? i think it made a big difference. the supreme court said in their brief ruling, quote, the burden that sentencing will impose on the president elect's responsibility is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge in light of the trial court stated intent, justice mershon wisely

told the world, told the defense and told the supreme court effectively what his plan was, that it would not impose a burden. and i think that carried the day. carried the day to your point, it got to otherwise conservative votes. chief justice roberts and justice barrett barrett, being a trump appointee who voted for the rule of law, who voted to let the sentencing go forward if anyone wanted the supreme court, i think mershon comes out the winner. he gets his sentencing to go forward. the rule of law wins the day. >> very briefly. i will say it's sort of full circle here and sort of inside baseball. but justice sotomayor, she was a former manhattan prosecutor. oh, wow. under morgenthau, that's true. come full circle. >> so it's she's the one handing down. >> look where it starts and look where it ends. >> this is also a reminder to me that the supreme court can act very quickly when they want to after, you know, i'm thinking back to earlier this year and the election interference case and how we waited and waited and waited for a decision on that

and for them to hear it. and this is a 180 in that respect, from what we've seen of this court, does this decision, this five four decision that they gave, allowing the sentencing to proceed and give you any clue as to how they could decide a case should it come back into the supreme court on appeal of the conviction itself? >> well, i think, as keisha was saying earlier, the two main things that donald trump is really going to focus on in the appeal, right, is going to be the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and all of those evidentiary rulings that donald trump did. the defense team didn't agree with. but i think the other thing that they're really going to focus on is the presidential immunity. and i think that given the presidential immunity decision, looking at it in parallel to the five four decision here, where you have from the presidential immunity decision, you have chief justice roberts, as well as justice coney barrett coming over and saying, hey, we didn't intend for the presidential

immunity to be stretched as far as to include a former president or a president elect, and we didn't intend for it to include private misconduct. it kind of tells me that they most likely will rule the same way if that issue comes up on appeal. >> i mean, the unconditional discharge is indeed a rare sentence for someone convicted of a felony, even a low level felony. right? sure, absolutely. >> normally you'd have conditions. you'd have a penalty in at least a fine. you'd be checking with probation, probably drug and alcohol testing. this is rare. >> you know, i was just looking at that. says we, by the way, we're waiting to get that that audio to share it with all of us listening to it at the same time in real time. but just a point of back to your collateral consequences. i don't know how much of this is true, but i'm seeing that, for example, in canada, which has been in the headlines now because the president elect has been talking a lot about canada, any u.s.

citizen or permanent resident that has a felony conviction on their criminal record may be deemed inadmissible to enter. >> and that's also true here. somebody who has a felony is inadmissible to the united states as an immigration matter. normally somebody from england or from france comes to the us. they show up. they don't seek a visa in advance. they just land and do their business or do their tourism. somebody has been convicted abroad of a felony, cannot simply enter like everybody else, however they can prearrange to be, to enter. and you can be sure that canada will permit. >> trump still got to be mentioned though. >> okay guys, i think we have the audio. we have the audio ready to play back from the hearing that just ended again inside this manhattan courtroom. stand by. it's almost ready. not quite. we're really close though, so stay with us. we will get you there as soon as possible. i do i want to pick up though on the rarity, the, you know, this unconditional

discharge because we were all preparing for today looking at, you know, the context of this moment and what has come before and what could come after. the new york times had done an analysis since 2014. they found a third of defendants convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree in manhattan, were sentenced to jail time of less than a year. other defendants did receive prison time that was more than a year, and that others were sentenced to probation, conditional discharge, and community service or fines. none of the other defendants in the cases examined again by the new york times since 2014, same type of conviction had received an unconditional discharge. could the president elect and former president have received a conditional discharge? and jeremy, are you surprised that that wasn't the route that the prosecutors would pursue or judge mershon would end on? >> well, first of all, to adam's point, judge mershon was smart and sort of saw this coming, not sort of, in fact, saw this coming. that's why we had the

unconditional discharge to take the wind out of the sails of that argument, that it was an impact, his ability to transition and serve as president. i've been practicing for 25 years. i was a prosecutor in manhattan for seven of those years. i don't think i ever, to my recollection, made an offer of a sentence, of an unconditional discharge. and to my recollection as a defense attorney, it's few and far between where i received an unconditional discharge for a client. because a conditional discharge can be as simple as don't get rearrested. that's the condition of your sentence, you're done. so there's no burden on you. just be a regular, responsible citizen. so, you know, it is very rare, but to the point that you just mentioned about those falsifying business record analysis by the new york times, though, i'd be curious because are those pleas to top counts for falsifying business records, or are they offers to maybe a larceny of multiple millions of dollars and someone pleaded to something less? so it's a little bit deceiving, not intentionally. so you really have to dig into those statistics, but an unconditional discharge based on my own history, in terms of dealing in the court of law is incredibly rare, and i can't

think of a time as a prosecutor, i did that. >> do you think there's any reason, adam, for judge mershon to be worried about retaliation? i mean, he's a state judge, not in the federal department of justice system at all. but we know that donald trump was very unhappy here. he made no uncertain terms about how he felt about judge mershon. >> i think it's right that he made made it very clear how he felt even up until the last moment of sentencing. normally, defendants at sentencing are conciliatory. apologize, try to take a somber tone, or at least say nothing at all. here, he says, i did nothing wrong. so i do think that there's concern. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but now we do have the audio. let's go right to it. >> please be seated. falling apart 29 calendar. >> calendar number one, donald trump indicted a71543 of 23

appearances, please. >> good morning people. adas joshua steinglass, christopher conroy, susan hoffman, becky mangold, matthew colangelo, catherine ellis. good morning peter. amy coney barrett, president trump, hearing from your teams. he's co-located with my partner tyler. >> hi. good morning. good morning, mr. branch. good morning, mr. trump. >> good morning. >> although mr. bowie has already alluded to it. just for the record, i want to be clear. that mr. branch is appearing virtually with mr. trump. and you're currently in florida. is that correct? yes, that's correct, your honor. okay. mr. trump's other attorneys are always with us in the court roo. pursuant to this court's decision and order dated january 3rd, 2025, mr. trump was given the option of appearing

virtually. and subsequently, counsel for mr. trump informed this court that mr. trump had elected to waive personal appearance and appear virtually positioned. sentence in this matter is permitted in new york, and i direct your attention to the matter of people v vegas 72. miscellaneous third 1133 2021. before turning to the sentencing, i want to confirm that the people and defense counsel have both received copies of the probation report. we have no. thank you. let the record reflect that. people are being handed a copy now. this is being handed a copy. why don't you take some time to look at it? okay. thank you.

mr. while the parties look at the probation report, mr. branch would like to confirm that you received a copy of the report. yes, your honor, we received a copy this morning, and i have it in front of me. is there anything about that report that you would like to put on the record? nothing on the fact that it was that some of the facts and procedural history, especially involving other cases, are not up to date because of what's happened since the date of the report. otherwise, given what we expect is happening today, nothing. okay. thank you.

people, is there anything about the probation report that you would like to put in the record? no, judge. i just need a couple more. >> okay. the reason you're hearing a pause right now is because this is when the judge handed them, handed all the lawyers who were in the courtroom, the pre-sentencing report, donald trump and his lawyer in mar-a-lago also received it virtually. but i should note donald trump did have a lawyer representing him in the courtroom today. so they're reading this

pre-sentencing report that the judge gave them, and he's asking them to just make sure that they understand and that everything is sort of i's dotted, t's crossed, and the todd blanche in mar-a-lago, along with the president elect, said he just received this morning the report. so that's why we're waiting for them to respond to the judge before. we will then hear first from the district attorney's office, followed by todd blanche, donald trump's representative, then trump himself. before we hear from judge merchan in the sentence. >> and i think this is the first time that in this court case that we have followed so diligently for so long, i don't recall, is this the first time we're hearing one voice? >> i think so, i believe so, unless you're standing in that courtroom. >> yeah, we've we've heard from donald trump's team. we've heard from the district attorney's team at times along the way. obviously, district attorney alvin bragg himself, even recently, as recent as yesterday, had talked about what this moment was going to mean.

okay. let's listen back in. >> the court for sentence following the 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 for the people. >> thank you. judge. where's the preferred place for me to stand or wherever you feel comfortable? okay. the defendant in this case, as you know, stands convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. all class e felonies. each carries a range of authorized sentencing options. hated in inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. under all the circumstances of this case, it's unique posture and the defendant's status as president elect. the people recommend a

sentence of an unconditional discharge in finding the defendant guilty. in this case, the jury necessarily found unanimously that the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own election by unlawful means. having presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conduct, its seriousness and the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. i'm certainly not going to rehash that. now. in last week's decision on january 3rd, this court referred to the gravamen of the defendant's conduct, his criminal conduct in this case as constituting, quote, premeditated and continuous deception. the verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using an extensive questionnaire based

on suggestions from both parties and after thorough questioning of the prospective jurors by both sides. the verdict in this case was unanimous and decisive, and it must be respected. as this court has observed, quote, the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence. the defendant's conduct before, during and after this trial also merits consideration. instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our constitutionally established system of criminal justice, the defendant, the once and future president of the united states, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has

purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law. and he's done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful. he has characterized these proceedings as corrupt, rigged witch hunt, or a sham too many times to tabulate. the defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since this court's rulings on his motions to dismiss, he has been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon this court and its family, individual prosecutors and their families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice system as a whole. the defendant has not only been held in contempt by other jurists and other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for ten

distinct violations of the order restricting extrajudicial speech. in his legal filings, the defendant has used dangerous rhetoric and leveling accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution, as this court has noted, the defendant's conduct, quote, constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law itself. moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have sought to hold him accountable in this and other matters, and the courts, who have endeavored 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 that they

will ignore the defendant's transgressions, because they fear that 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, united states supreme court chief justice roberts warned of the dangers of such conduct, quote, 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. end quote chief justice roberts continued, quote, attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance 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, quote, magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information. put simply, this defendant has caused enduring damage to the public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way. in the probation report, which we just received this morning, the author, having interviewed the defendant, noted that the defendant sees himself as above the law and won't accept responsibility for his actions. that's certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen. now, in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would

impact the appropriate sentence. but in this case, we must be respectful of the office of the presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in ten days, any undischarged portion of the 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 prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge. the court has an has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because, in the court's words, quote, the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed to sentence. as you know, in new york, a conditional discharge is authorized by penal law. quote, if the court, having

regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and condition of the defendant, is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment, and that probation supervision is not appropriate. an unconditional discharge is authorized if a conditional discharge is authorized, and, quote, if the court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release. because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action. the american public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence related obligations. but 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 pursue, and it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern. people therefore recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. thank you. thank you. counsel. >> thank you, your honor. i very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about president trump's conduct fighting this case from before he was indicted. while it was indicted to the jury's verdict. and even to this day,

what the government just said presupposes 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 the investigation, the fact that multiple prosecutors looked at the facts of this case, including prosecutors within the district attorney's office in new york county, and made a decision to bring charges, as the court knows, shortly after president trump announced his intention to run for reelection. this case was started for what amounted to a third time. which brings us ultimately 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 that. and as everybody has been noted, because it's true, we certainly intend on appealing that. and it's not, by the way, just counsel and president trump that feels that way. there's many, many, many legal experts that share the same views that i just said, which is that legally, this case should not have been brought forth based on the facts that were established at trial and also on the legal basis for which they were brought. but it's also not just the legal experts, not just counsel, and not just president trump, but the majority of the american people also agree that this case should not have been proper. i mean, the interesting thing about the fact that there was a trial for the first time in our

history, a criminal trial during an election season is that the american voters got 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's why in ten days, president trump is going to assume the office of the president of the united states. and certainly we're here for the court to sentence president trump to an unconditional discharge. and for that, it's a very sad day. it's a sad day for president trump and his family and friends. but it's also, in counsel's view, a sad day for this country because this was a case, without 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. and so that's sad. and i hope and i know that president

trump shares this view that this will never happen again in this country. and so we certainly understand where we are today. we very much intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict. and, and, and what happened during this investigation. and we certainly believe that the only appropriate 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 unconditional discharge. thank you. >> thank you. would you like to be heard? >> yes. thank you, your honor. this has been a very terrible experience. i think it's 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, and he

thought it was one i read. and from what i hear, that inappropriately handled before he got there, a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney. and that gentleman, from what i heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. it was very inappropriate. it was a somebody involved with my political opponent. part of the records that we're talking about, they're saying, i just noticed where he said i was falsifying business records. well, the falsification of business records, as they say, it was going illegal expense in the books where everybody could see them. a legal expense, in other words, legal fees or legal expense were put down as 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. i didn't call them. they called a legal fee or a legal expense, a legal expense. and for this i got indicted. it's 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 quoted all the time on television that are making their views felt and highly respected. people have said everyone, virtually everyone that i know, i haven't seen any. to the contrary, not one. and none of these people are not exactly friends of mine, to put it mildly. but they all said this is a case that should have never been brought. it's an injustice of justice. very respected jonathan turley, andrew mccarthy, judge david rifkin, a wonderful man who just passed away, by the way, gregg jarrett,

elie honig from cnn, of all places, cnn said that paul ingrassia, alan dershowitz, they all said this is not a case that should be brought. it's not think about it. legal expenses are down as legal expenses. and i get indicted for business records. everybody should be so accurate. it's 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 because they watched the case in your courtroom. they got to see this firsthand. and then 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, all seven swing states won conclusively, all seven swing states and won the popularity, the popular vote by millions and millions of votes. and they've been watching your trial,