In a move that surprises absolutely no one, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s latest attempt to delay his sentencing in the so-called ‘hush money’ case. The sentencing is now firmly scheduled for January 10, 2025, a mere ten days before Trump is set to retake the oath of office.

One might wonder if the judge has a flair for dramatic timing. Trump’s legal team had argued, with a straight face, that the sentencing should be postponed indefinitely while they appeal the conviction. They cited ‘presidential immunity’ and the pressing demands of preparing for a second term.

However, Judge Merchan, displaying the patience of a saint, noted that these arguments were largely a ‘repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.’ In other words: we’ve heard this tune before, and it’s still off-key. The case in question involves allegations that Trump orchestrated a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign to ensure her silence about an alleged affair—a claim Trump has consistently denied.

The payment was reportedly funneled through his former attorney, Michael Cohen, and disguised as legal expenses. This creative accounting led to Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. It’s worth noting that while the judge has scheduled the sentencing, he has also indicated that he is ‘not inclined to sentence Trump to prison.’ Instead, an ‘unconditional discharge’ is on the table, which means a guilty verdict without additional penalties.

So, for those keeping score at home: convicted felon, but no jail time, fines, or probation. Just a historical footnote as he steps back into the Oval Office. Trump’s legal team, never ones to shy away from a courtroom drama, have vowed to appeal the verdict. They argue that the trial was ‘tainted’ and have previously claimed that Trump’s actions fell under ‘presidential immunity.’

However, the judge and prosecutors have pointed out that covering up a payment to a porn star doesn’t exactly qualify as an ‘official act’ of the president. Unless there’s a new chapter in the Constitution we’ve all missed. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, has maintained that the case is about upholding the integrity of the justice system.

They’ve argued that no one, not even a president, is above the law. A noble sentiment, though some might say the timing of these proceedings—coinciding with Trump’s re-entry into the White House—adds a layer of political theater to the legal process. Trump’s supporters view the case as a politically motivated attempt to derail his presidency.

They argue that the charges are a desperate move by opponents who couldn’t defeat him at the ballot box. On the other hand, critics see the proceedings as a long-overdue reckoning for a man they believe has skirted legal and ethical boundaries for years.

As the January 10 sentencing date approaches, the nation watches with bated breath—or perhaps weary resignation. Will Trump appear in person, or opt for a virtual appearance? Will the ‘unconditional discharge’ stand, allowing him to assume the presidency without the shadow of incarceration? And most importantly, will this saga ever end, or are we doomed to an endless loop of legal wrangling and political posturing?

In the end, this case serves as a reminder of the deep divisions in American society. For some, it’s a vindication of the principle that no one is above the law. For others, it’s proof of a system weaponized against a leader who dared to challenge the status quo. And for the rest of us, it’s just another day in the ongoing reality show that is American politics.