Update (1002ET): President Trump will not see jail or pay any fines over his criminal conviction in his hush money trial, a judge ruled on Friday.

Days before his inauguration, a New York prosecutor recommended no jail time for US President-elect Donald Trump at his Friday sentencing in his ‘hush money’ trial.

As the session began, Trump, wearing a red tie with white stripes, sat silently and did not respond when Merchan greeted him, Reuters reports.

Merchan sentenced Trump, 78, to unconditional discharge, which places a judgement of guilt on Trump’s permanent record – without any other legal penalties.

“I’m totally innocent, I did nothing wrong,” said Trump before sentencing.

“It’s been a political witch hunt,” he continued. “It was done to damage my reputation so I would lose the election and obviously that didn’t work.”

*  *  *

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump to go forward today. The bare majority was secured when Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with their liberal colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, part of the rationale for the decision was that Acting New York Justice Juan Merchan indicated that he was going to issue an unconditional discharge without any jail or probation. The question is whether Merchan could pull a bait-and-switch and decide to impose punishment. It is highly unlikely but intriguing.

President-elect Donald Trump struck the right note and declined to criticize the Court. He simply stated that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.”

Some of us predicted this result and specifically noted that Chief Justice Roberts would not want to issue a stay. Roberts prefers regular order and, like many jurists, prefers for cases to be finalized to allow for a complete appellate review. They tend to oppose interlocutory appeals for that reason.

In his earlier order, Merchan discussed various options and only said “an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”

That is where some of us said that this case would land after the conviction. After the election, such a sentence became all but certain. It is the only option that would avoid the constitutional problems — and likely reversal — for Merchan.

The majority took that as a done deal and noted that the President-elect would not have to attend in person and would not face any punishment. The Court may believe that it has sealed Merchan’s suggestion in legal amber.  There is little likelihood that Merchan will depart from the course, but could he?

The answer is probably yes. The Supreme Court did not issue a conditional order that the sentencing is allowed if it is unconditional.

That makes this notably informal. Defendants are allowed to address the court before sentencing and no sentence is finalized until the sentencing hearing. What if Trump came in and expressed open contempt for Merchan and mocked the case? Some judges might take such an allocution moment to increase punishment.  Merchan could threaten contempt but that increasing punishment would go against the operating assumption of the Court’s 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court decision itself does not order Merchan to issue an unconditional discharge. It simply treats it as a done deal.

It is not as a legal matter, but it is as a practical matter.

Today, we will see the ignoble end to a raw form of lawfare by one of its most committed warriors. After millions in costs and years of litigation, it will result in no punishment. What the left will get is the labeling of Trump as a convicted felon, a fact that will then be repeated like a mantra by the media. Merchan can be expected to add to that rhetoric with punishment soundbites, as he has in the past.

However, the result shows how this case was more inflated by the Goodyear blimp. It will be punishment by soundbite in a case based on a ridiculous criminal theory. He will be sentenced without our even knowing what jurors concluded happened in the case since Merchan did not require them to agree on the specific motivation or purpose of underlying acts.

The benefit for President Trump is that he can finally appeal this case. While expectations are low for the New York court system which failed to prevent the political weaponization of its criminal justice system, it can now be reviewed in its totality and eventually go back the United States Supreme Court.