Nothing in Trump’s Sentencing Matters

There was a lot of hue and cry about Donald Trump being sentenced today in state criminal court in lower Manhattan. But there was little practical effect: Trump showed up only by video and was given no sentence at all. In the end, none of it matters.

Now, that doesn’t mean that there was no wrong done to Trump. I’ve argued many times that the case against Trump for lying to his own checkbook was nonsensical, grounded in conspiracy theories, abusively handled, flatly barred by New York law in some ways and a perversion of it in others, and riddled with judicial bias and the trampling of Trump’s constitutional rights. It brings shame on everyone involved in bringing the case, permitting it to be tried, or publicly defending the prosecution. Moreover, as Andy McCarthy has covered exhaustively, there were serious new reasons to throw the case out after the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, given that the prosecution introduced evidence of presidential acts within the heart of the Court’s immunity doctrine and then told the jury in closing arguments that this evidence was “devastating” and essential to its proof on core elements of the offense.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

There was a lot of hue and cry about Donald Trump being sentenced today in state criminal court in lower Manhattan. But there was little practical effect: Trump showed up only by video and was given no sentence at all. In the end, none of it matters.

Now, that doesn’t mean that there was no wrong done to Trump. I’ve argued many times that the case against Trump for lying to his own checkbook was nonsensical, grounded in conspiracy theories, abusively handled, flatly barred by New York law in some ways and a perversion of it in others, and riddled with judicial bias and the trampling of Trump’s constitutional rights. It brings shame on everyone involved in bringing the case, permitting it to be tried, or publicly defending the prosecution. Moreover, as Andy McCarthy has covered exhaustively, there were serious new reasons to throw the case out after the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, given that the prosecution introduced evidence of presidential acts within the heart of the Court’s immunity doctrine and then told the jury in closing arguments that this evidence was “devastating” and essential to its proof on core elements of the offense.