On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan from New York made a significant decision regarding Donald Trump’s hush money trial. Instead of dismissing the indictment and overturning the jury verdict, the judge decided to move forward with sentencing the president-elect as a convicted felon. This decision comes after Trump’s motion for a stay was denied on Monday. The sentencing is scheduled for January 10.
During his journey, he strongly criticized our future president and served as a significant reminder to all of us that in a democratic nation, even the most influential individuals cannot simply erase their history. The New York Times reported that Merchan’s ruling prevents the president-elect from expunging his past prior to his return to the White House.
Merchan wrote that dismissing the indictment and overturning the jury verdict would not align with the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in its limited number of cases regarding presidential immunity. Furthermore, it would not uphold the rule of law.
Merchan’s demonstration of resistance during the brink of a potential second Trump presidency serves as a powerful example. His ruling is crucial as our nation enters a phase where the President seeks to exert influence over judges and individuals, and where loyalty to him becomes the benchmark against which government officials, journalists, and others are evaluated.
Trump received the message, but he was not pleased with it. He criticized the legal proceedings that led to his conviction and expressed his displeasure with Merchan.
According to Trump, every major legal pundit has strongly stated that there was no case, there is no case, and this was just a witch hunt.
Then, shifting his focus to Merchan, he launched a scathing attack. Trump boldly asserted, without providing any evidence, that the judge was the most conflicted judge in the history of jurisprudence. According to Trump, the judge manufactured a case out of thin air because he had a vested interest in seeing Trump’s political opponent emerge victorious.
The president, unsurprisingly, asserted, “This is a disgrace. Nobody has ever gone through what I go through.”
Merchan’s ruling is far from being a disgrace. In fact, his statement and the timing of the sentencing date, just days before Trump’s return to power, serve as a stark reminder of the disgrace that awaits him in the White House.
Let’s delve deeper into Merchan’s decision, but before we do, it’s important to understand the significance of history and memory in a democratic society.
In 2019, Jeffries Martin emphasized the significance of respecting and learning from the past in a democratic society. According to Martin, historical work has always played a crucial role in strengthening democratic republics. While he acknowledged that historical research alone cannot preserve our democracy, he believed that when approached with a critical and democratic mindset, it becomes an essential component of a culture that promotes resistance and liberty.
In a democracy, we can have debates about the meaning of history and which aspects of the past should be honored or not, as evidenced by the controversies surrounding monuments. However, it is important to note that nobody has the authority to completely rewrite history or erase collective memory for their own convenience or political agendas. In contrast, in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, those in power control the narrative of history. It is a common practice to rewrite and sanitize the past, whether it pertains to a nation or its leaders. As Jason Stanley explains, authoritarians manipulate history to disconnect us from our own historical roots, ultimately leaving us disoriented, resentful, and bewildered.
In a society that values freedom, history and memory hold great significance. They serve as valuable reminders of our identity and our past actions. This holds true not only for individual stories but also for the broader social and political histories.
In a free country, history has the ability to express itself openly. It offers both generous and harsh judgments, with the intention of being heard. This holds true regardless of the social status, whether one is poor or powerful, heroic or infamous.
Facing his and America’s past is a deeply painful and challenging task for the man set to become the forty-seventh president of this country. According to Susan Glaser from the New Yorker, rewriting history and sometimes even completely distorting it has become a defining characteristic of Trumpism.
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s early actions included an attempt to rewrite history in order to align with Trump’s version of events. This endeavor is seen as crucial in determining whether Trump can successfully overcome the stigma of a criminal conviction. Glaser highlights that Johnson has supportive allies in this endeavor.
Johnson’s House Republican majority took the extraordinary step of forbidding any mention of Trump’s trial. They even went so far as to have references to “Trump’s various criminal cases… taken down” and removed from the official record.
Merchan refused to do what Trump and his lawyers asked: erase his past.
Throughout Merchan’s 18-page opinion, the judge displays a deep respect for the past. He acknowledges the significance of past judicial opinions and even references Trump’s New York criminal trial. In fact, on the third page, he emphasizes the undeniable truth about Trump’s history, a truth that cannot be erased.
In straightforward and simple language, he emphasizes that the defendant has been found guilty on 34 felony counts. This unanimous jury verdict, according to Merchan, holds immense significance that cannot be emphasized enough.
Respecting that verdict is rightly referred to as a fundamental principle in our Nation’s jurisprudence.
When examining Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity necessitates the overturning of the verdict, Merchan conducted a meticulous analysis of relevant legal precedents. He demonstrated that judges are constrained by the law and cannot simply disregard precedents they disagree with or erase past decisions.
Merchan came to the conclusion that disregarding the charges and disregarding the jury’s decision “would not address the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in its few cases dealing with Presidential immunity, nor would it uphold the Rule of Law.”
Merchan demonstrated his loyalty to the past that Trump sought to erase by emphasizing that “A jury diligently reviewed the evidence for almost seven weeks and delivered its verdict…”
Merchan points out that Trump’s strong loyalty is the reason behind his contempt for the Third Branch of government. He consistently seizes every chance, like on the Fox Digital Network, to openly display his lack of regard for judges, juries, grand juries, and the justice system in its entirety.
The judge took one additional action that greatly angered Trump. He made it clear that he intended to schedule the sentencing before January 20, 2025.
Marchan has clarified that he has no intention of imprisoning the president-elect. However, his action serves as a reminder that before Trump takes his oath to uphold the Constitution, he will come to realize that he cannot erase the past or avoid its consequences. This lesson, delivered by Judge Marchan, is a valuable one for all of us.