美国最高法院以微弱优势驳回了唐纳德·特朗普推迟上诉的请求罪犯封口费宣判，为当选总统周五早上在纽约被宣判扫清了道路。
九名法官中的四名——克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托、尼尔·戈萨奇和布雷特·卡瓦诺——表示他们会同意特朗普停止对他判刑的请求。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)和特朗普任命的大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特(Amy Coney Barrett)与法院的三名自由派大法官一起拒绝了特朗普寻求的救济。
根据法庭文件，特朗普打算从他的Mar-a-Lago庄园参加宣判，法官胡安·马科姆已经表示他计划实施一项无条件放电-实际上是特朗普记录上的一个污点，没有监狱，罚款或缓刑-以尊重特朗普的过渡努力和总统豁免权的原则。
特朗普在2016年大选前伪造商业记录以掩盖封口费付款的34项重罪罪名成立后，面临长达四年的监禁。法官马科姆将特朗普的行为描述为“自由世界领导人有预谋的持续欺骗”。
在过去的一周，当选总统发起了四次不成功的努力来阻止判决，认为他应该作为当选总统免受起诉。他的上诉被Merchan、纽约上诉庭、纽约上诉法院以及现在的美国最高法院驳回。
在周四晚些时候提交给最高法院的一份简报中，特朗普的律师重申了他们的立场，即特朗普作为当选总统有权享有豁免权。
特朗普的律师d·约翰·绍尔(D. John Sauer)写道，“特朗普总统、宪法结构和国家都受到了不可挽回的伤害，因为判决继续进行，而维持判决没有什么坏处，”特朗普已提名他担任新政府的副检察长。
绍尔写道，允许判决继续进行将损害特朗普的过渡努力，并允许刑事案件在他上任后继续存在，他认为当选总统将不得不“在他当选总统后免受刑事诉讼或有权对判决提起上诉之间做出选择。”
特朗普是被判有罪今年5月，他面临34项伪造商业记录的重罪指控，这些记录与封口费向成人电影女演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付的款项有关，以提高他在2016年总统大选中的选举前景。
曼哈顿地方检察官·阿尔文·布拉格的办公室赢得了对特朗普的定罪，周四下午，他在等待最高法院可能的裁决时，表达了哲学观点。
布拉格在一次新闻发布会上说:“这就是我们的现状。”。“我们认为陪审团裁决的神圣性必须放在首位，”他说。"陪审团的声音不能被抹杀。"
布拉格办公室的检察官在周四上午提交给纽约法院的一份文件中辩称，在法院做出裁决之前，特朗普推迟对他判刑的理由是基于“毫无根据”的当选总统豁免权概念，因为当选总统不会受益于为现任总统保留的豁免权。
“根据定义，当选总统还不是总统，”文件中说。“因此，当选总统不履行《宪法》规定的任何第二条职能，也没有任何第二条职能会受到涉及当选总统的普通刑事诉讼的负担。”
布拉格周四还敦促美国最高法院驳回特朗普阻止对他判刑的请求，理由是该国最高法院干预“没有依据”。
“被告现在请求本法庭采取特别措施，干预一项悬而未决的州刑事审判，以防止预定的判决发生——在审判法庭作出最终判决之前，以及在对被告的定罪进行任何直接上诉审查之前。这种干预是没有根据的，”布拉格在法庭上写道。
检察官辩称，特朗普不享有总统豁免权，他要到1月20日才就职。
布拉格说:“一个时代只有一位总统，这是不言自明的。“司法部没有任何司法裁决或指导承认现任总统的独特临时豁免权延伸至当选总统。”
地区检察官办公室警告说，推迟特朗普的判决只会让事情变得更糟，认为“任何在这里的停留都有可能将判决推迟到1月20日之后，届时被告将宣誓就职，他作为现任总统的身份将对判决和终局性构成更严重、潜在的不可逾越的障碍。”
检察官告诉纽约上诉法院，特朗普审判中的陪审团看到了特朗普有罪的“压倒性”证据。该文件还批评了当选总统在法庭上的行为。
“尽管被告过去和即将担任总统，但他的历史，性格和条件——特别是他对司法系统的公开漠视——不支持解雇，”文件说。
检察官批评特朗普一再推迟判决——导致1月10日的判决日期——并夸大了如果判决按计划进行他将面临的伤害。
Supreme Court narrowly rejects Trump's last-ditch bid to avoid hush money sentencing
The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly denied Donald Trump's request to delay hiscriminal hush moneysentencing, clearing the way for the president-elect to be sentenced Friday morning in New York.
Four of the nine justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- indicated they would have granted Trump's request to halt his sentencing.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberal justices to deny Trump the relief he sought.
Trump intends to attend the sentencing virtually from his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to court filings, and Judge Juan Merchan has signaled his plan to impose anunconditional discharge-- effectively a blemish on Trump's record, without prison, fines or probation -- in order to respect Trump's transition efforts and the principle of presidential immunity.
Trump had faced up to four years in prison after his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 election. Judge Merchan described Trump's actions as a "premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world."
Over the last week, the president-elect launched four unsuccessful efforts to block the sentencing, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as president-elect. His appeal had been denied by Merchan, New York's Appellate Division, New York's Court of Appeals, and now the Supreme Court of the United States.
In a brief filed to the Supreme Court late Thursday, Trump's lawyers reiterated their position that Trump is entitled to immunity as president-elect.
"President Trump, the constitutional structure, and the nation are irreparably harmed by letting the sentencing go forward while there are no little to no harms in staying it," wrote Trump attorney D. John Sauer, who Trump has nominated for solicitor general under his new administration.
Sauer wrote that allowing the sentencing to proceed would damage Trump's transition effort and allow the criminal case to linger as he enters office, arguing that the president-elect would have to "choose between his immunity from criminal process once he is President or his right to appeal his sentence."
Trump wasfound guiltyin May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office won the conviction against Trump, took a philosophical view Thursday afternoon as he awaited word of a possible Supreme Court ruling.
"It's where we are," Bragg said during a news conference. "We believe the sanctity of the jury verdict must be given primacy," he said. "The jury's voice must not be rubbed out."
Prosecutors in Bragg's office argued in a Thursday morning filing to the New York court, before the court made its ruling, that Trump's argument to delay his sentencing rests on an "utterly baseless" concept of president-elect immunity, because a president-elect does not benefit from the immunity reserved for the sitting president.
"The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President," the filing said. "The President-elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President-elect."
Bragg also urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to reject Trump's request to block his sentencing, on the grounds that "there is no basis" for the country's highest court to intervene.
"Defendant now asks this Court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place -- before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant's conviction. There is no basis for such intervention," Bragg wrote to the court.
Prosecutors argued that presidential immunity does not extend to Trump, who does not take office until Jan. 20.
"It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time," Bragg said. "No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect."
The district attorney's office warned that delaying Trump's sentencing would only make things worse, arguing "any stay here risks delaying the sentencing until after January 20, when defendant is inaugurated and his status as the sitting President will pose much more severe and potentially insuperable obstacles to sentencing and finality."
Prosecutors told the New York Court of Appeals that the jury in Trump's trial saw "overwhelming" evidence of Trump's guilt. The filing also criticized the president-elect's conduct in court.
"And notwithstanding defendant's past and upcoming service as President, his history, character, and condition -- and especially his open disregard for the justice system -- do not support dismissal," the filing said.
Prosecutors criticized Trump for repeatedly delaying the sentencing -- leading to the Jan. 10 sentencing date -- and exaggerating the harm he would face if the sentencing continued as planned.
