Wayne Unger, Quinnipiac University

Donald Trump is set to become the first president of the United States with a felony conviction.

On May 30, 2024, a New York County jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. That constituted a Class E felony in the state of New York, when the falsification is committed with an intent to defraud, commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime.

Class E felonies carry a potential penalty of up to four years in prison and a fine up to $5,000 for each count. Trial courts reserve discretion, however, to impose a sentence that accounts for other factors, such as the defendant’s criminal history.

Trump is set to be sentenced on Jan. 10, 2025. In recent court filings, Trump has sought to get his guilty verdict thrown out, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity in criminal prosecutions means he can’t be found guilty.

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution provides “absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions within his … constitutional authority.” The court also concluded that presidents hold “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts” and “no immunity for unofficial acts.”

To be clear, Trump was convicted of unlawful conduct that occurred before his first term as president. And while it appears that the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling applies to both state and federal criminal prosecution, as the court held, there is no immunity for unofficial acts, which the falsification of business records undoubtedly is.

On Jan. 3, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the New York trial, rejected Trump’s argument regarding presidential immunity because the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is not applicable in Trump’s New York case. And on Jan. 9, 2025, New York’s highest court declined to block Trump’s sentencing.

But Merchan has expressed little willingness to impose prison time for the president-elect. In the same order rejecting Trump’s presidential immunity argument, Merchan said, “It seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration.”

Even if Merchan imposed prison time, many constitutional law scholars, including myself, argue that Trump’s sentence would, at minimum, be deferred until after his next term in the Oval Office.

Rather, Merchan has hinted that he may impose “unconditional discharge” as a sentence. That means there would be no penalties or conditions imposed on Trump, such as prison time or parole.

Serving the public interest, not time

According to New York law, a court “may impose a sentence of unconditional discharge … if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and condition of the defendant, is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate.”

Regarding Trump’s case specifically, Merchan continued, “A sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow (Trump) to pursue his appellate options.”

Put simply, it appears Merchan, having considered the totality of the circumstances, including Trump’s election to a second term as president, concluded, as is his right as a judge, that it is in the best interest of the public not to imprison Trump.

Generally, trial courts reserve a tremendous amount of discretion when it comes to imposing sentences. Legislatures can, and often do, set sentencing guidelines, prescribing what penalties trial judges can impose. It is clear in this case that the New York State Legislature allows trial judges to, at their discretion, deliver “unconditional discharge” as a sentence.

Accordingly, if Merchan follows through on his Jan. 3 comment, an unconditional discharge sentence would be legally proper.

Uniquely, Trump has sought dismissal of his guilty verdict before his sentencing. Normally, criminal defendants do not have a legal right to appeal their verdicts until a final judgment is entered against them. In criminal law, a final judgment must include the defendant’s sentence.

But, of course, this is not your ordinary criminal case. As Merchan hinted, moving forward with the sentencing would favor Trump because it would result in a final judgment being entered against him, thus enabling him to properly appeal his guilty verdict.

Wayne Unger, Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Colleen E. Reid, University of Colorado Boulder

When wildfires spread into neighborhoods, they burn all kinds of materials found in cars and houses and everything around them – electronics, paint, plastics, furniture.

Research shows that the mix of chemicals released when human-made materials like these burn is different from what is emitted during a vegetation fire and is potentially more toxic. The smoke and ash can blow under doors and around windows in nearby homes, bringing in chemicals that are absorbed into furniture, walls and other indoor surfaces and continue off-gassing for weeks to months.

As people return to smoke-damaged homes after a wildfire, there are several steps they can take to protect their health before starting to clean.

Elevated levels of metals and VOCs

In 2021, after the Marshall Fire swept through neighborhoods near Boulder, Colorado, my colleagues and I at Colorado universities and labs heard from many residents who were worried about the ash and lingering smells inside their homes that had otherwise survived the flames.

In homes that my colleagues were able to quickly test, they found elevated levels of metals and PAHs – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – in the ash. We also found elevated VOCs – volatile organic compounds – in airborne samples. Some VOCs, such as dioxins, benzene, formaldehyde and PAHs, can be toxic to humans. Benzene is a known carcinogen.

At the time, we could find no information about physical health implications for people who have returned to smoke-damaged homes after a wildfire. So, to look for patterns, we surveyed residents affected by the fire six months, one year and two years after the fire.

Even six months after the fire, we found that many people were reporting symptoms that aligned with health risks related to smoke and ash from fires.

More than half (55%) reported that they were experiencing at least one symptom six months after the blaze that they attributed to the Marshall Fire. The most common symptoms reported were itchy or watery eyes (33%), headache (30%), dry cough (27%), sneezing (26%) and sore throat (23%).

All of these symptoms, as well as having a strange taste in one’s mouth, were associated with people reporting that their home smelled differently when they returned to it one week after the fire.

Many survey respondents said that the smells decreased over time. Most attributed the improvement in smell to the passage of time, cleaning surfaces and air ducts, replacing furnace filters, and removing carpet, textiles and furniture from the home. Despite this, many still had symptoms.

We also found that living near a large number of burned structures was associated with these health symptoms. We found that for every 10 additional destroyed buildings within 820 feet (250 meters) of a person’s home, there was an associated 21% increase in headaches and a 26% increase in having a strange taste in their mouth.

These symptoms align with what could be expected from exposure to the chemicals that we found in the ash and measured in the air inside the few smoke-damaged homes that we were able to study in depth.

Lingering symptoms and questions

There are a still a lot of unanswered questions about the health risks from smoke- and ash-damaged homes.

For example, we don’t yet know what long-term health implications might look like for people living with lingering gases from wildfire smoke and ash in a home. We found a significant decline in the number of people reporting symptoms one year after the fire. However, 33% percent of the people whose homes were affected and responded to a later survey still reported at least one symptom that they attributed to the fire. About the same percentage also reported at least one symptom two years after the fire.

We also could not measure the level of VOCs or metals that each person was exposed to. But we do think that reports of a change in the smell of a person’s home one week after the fire demonstrates the likely presence of VOCs in the home. That likely has health implications for people whose homes are exposed to smoke or ash from a wildfire.

Tips to protect yourself after wildfires

Wildfires are increasingly burning homes and other structures as more people move into the wildland-urban interface, temperatures rise and fire seasons lengthen.

If your home survives a wildfire nearby, here are some of the steps to think about before starting to clean:

• When you’re ready to clean your home, start by protecting yourself. Wear at least an N95 (or KN95) mask and gloves, goggles and clothing that covers your skin. Cleaning can send some of those gases and ash into the air again.

• Keep people with heart or lung diseases, older adults, pregnant women, children and pets away from cleanup activities.

• Vacuum floors, drapes and furniture. A recent scientific study documents how cleaning all surfaces within a home can reduce reservoirs of VOCs and lower indoor air concentrations of VOCs. Once the air outside has cleared, open windows to let clean air in.

• Avoid harsh chemical cleaners because they can react with the chemicals in the ash.

• Clean your HVAC filter and ducts to avoid spreading ash further, and change filters monthly until the smell is gone. Portable air cleaners with carbon filters can help remove VOCs and particles.

• If your car smells of smoke, consider changing the cabin air filter.

This is an update to an article first published Dec. 23, 2024.

Colleen E. Reid, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sylvia Taschka, Wayne State University

Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2024, the German state-owned news service Deutsche Welle published an article with the headline “Trump’s election victory is a nightmare for Germany.”

A few hours later, Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, announced that his three-party political coalition had collapsed. Disagreements about how to help strengthen Germany’s weak economy were a major factor, but Scholz mentioned that the U.S. election outcome also fueled the coalition breaking up.

One month later, Scholz lost a confidence vote, ending the government he has led since 2021. Germany will have federal elections on Feb. 23, 2025.

Germany is considered one of the United States’ closest allies in Western Europe, partnering on everything from economic trade to military defense.

But this might change with Trump returning to office. As Angela Merkel, the longtime former chancellor of Germany, said in November 2024, the looming second Trump presidency “is a challenge to the world, especially for multilateralism.” Indeed, Trump’s U.S.-centric approach to international affairs runs counter to multilateralism, which is the idea that different countries working together helps everyone involved.

As someone who researches German-American relations in the 20th century, I share German politicians’ worries that the incoming Trump administration poses a serious threat to the relationship.

The German concerns include Trump potentially launching a tariff-induced trade war, as well as the possibility of the president-elect withdrawing financial and military support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. Both scenarios would further hurt the weak German economy – especially since, following the U.S. and the European Union, Germany is the third-largest donor to Ukraine and would be required to shoulder even more of this financial support if the U.S. stopped giving Ukraine money.

German politicians also remain dumbfounded by Trump’s particular style of politics, despite the fact that he already served as president.

Merkel wrote in her 2024 memoir “Freedom: Memoirs 1954-2021” that when she first met Trump in 2017, she acted as though she were having a conversation with “someone completely normal.” Merkel quickly realized, though, that Trump was not like other American politicians. She observed that Trump seemed to think all countries competed and the success of one meant the failure of another.

A long-lasting alliance

That was not the type of American president Merkel and other Germans were used to. Merkel was born in 1954, when Germany was split into two countries: communist, Soviet-aligned East Germany, where Merkel grew up, and capitalist West Germany, which was formed out of the three western sectors controlled by France, the U.S. and the United Kingdom at the end of World War II and was aligned with the U.S.

The U.S. embraced West Germany as an important ally shortly after the war. This alliance helped the U.S. make sure that Germany, not too long ago an enemy of the U.S. during World War II, would never again become a threat to world peace.

West Germany also served as an important front line in Europe as the U.S. navigated the Cold War with the Soviet Union starting in 1947.

West Germany, meanwhile, appreciated the power of having an American überpartner during the Cold War, especially since West Germany flourished economically during most of the conflict. East Germany’s economy, on the other hand, was relatively weak throughout the Cold War.

Perhaps the most visible symbol of Germany’s division was the Berlin Wall, a 96-mile partition that cut through Berlin. East German authorities built the wall in 1961 in order to prevent East Germans from fleeing to West Germany.

It was only after the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, symbolizing the looming end of the Cold War that year and opening up the possibility for German unification, that Merkel entered politics.

Unified Germany and the United States

As a politician in the 1990s, Merkel witnessed how then-President George H.W. Bush convinced France and the United Kingdom to put aside their fears about a new German dominance over Europe and allow their former World War II enemy to unify and gain full sovereignty.

The four main Allied powers of World War II in Europe – the United Kingdom, U.S., Soviet Union and France – had initially denied Germany the right to sovereignty after the end of the war.

But in 1990, the four Allies signed the Two Plus Four Treaty – an international agreement that allowed Germany to unify as a fully sovereign state in October 1990.

Immediately afterward, Bush praised the transatlantic alliance between the U.S. and Germany. The American president emphasized the two countries’ common “love of freedom” and expressed his hope that they become “partners in leadership.”

Bush’s words signaled an important turnaround in the international expectations of Germany, and the need for it to become a more influential political and military player in world politics. It was a turnaround, however, that many Germans did not necessarily welcome. Germans felt reluctant to step into the powerful leadership role that the U.S. expected of the country.

At the time, there was a common belief in Germany that military restraint had finally made their country a stable and prosperous one, following two devastating wars.

In fact, in almost all the global crises since 1990 – from the war in Bosnia in 1992 to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 – Germany has shown a reluctance to take the lead. Instead, Germany prefers a secondary role in navigating international conflicts, primarily through its membership with the military coalition NATO and the United Nations.

Germany’s international position today

After Russia launched a full invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Germany’s approach to international conflicts dramatically changed, and it finally stepped into the leadership role envisioned by Bush in 1990. In a historic speech on Feb. 27, 2022, Scholz called the attack a “Zeitenwende”, meaning “a watershed era” in German, and announced a significant increase in military spending.

The U.S. and other Western allies have welcomed this shift.

While NATO members had already agreed to invest a minimum of 2% of their gross domestic product in defense spending in 2006, Germany – like other European countries – did not meet this commitment for many years.

It was only in February 2024 that Germany finally achieved its 2% spending target for the first time in the wake of the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine.

That it did so was not just a result of that conflict.

Pressure by American presidents, above all Trump, also played a major role. Trump’s continuous threat throughout his first presidency to “pay your bills or we leave NATO” had apparently paid off.

It will be up to the new German government to remind Trump of the history of German-American relations and the many benefits of the transatlantic alliance between the two powers since 1945.

Sylvia Taschka, Professor of Teaching of History, Wayne State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.