r/moderatepolitics • u/notapersonaltrainer • 2d ago
NYC judge orders Trump to appear for sentencing in Stormy Daniels hush-money case, signals no jail time News Article
https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/01/03/nyc-judge-orders-trump-to-appear-next-week-for-sentencing-in-stormy-daniels-hush-money-case/30
u/LegoFamilyTX 1d ago
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on January 20.
69
u/sporksable 2d ago
I think most reasonable legal observers were saying this was expected. Jail time for a nonviolet, first time offender would have been wildly unusual.
25
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
And for a 78 year old man, even if there wasn't the complication of Secret Service protection in prison.
14
u/KentuckyFriedChingon 1d ago
Yeah but imagine his commissary budget. He could be a king in there.
5
u/sporksable 1d ago
"I have the best ramen. Only the very best."
6
u/KentuckyFriedChingon 1d ago
"The people... they've never seen toilet hooch like this. They're coming to me and saying, 'Wow. Only a very smart and powerful man could have made this hooch'. They're saying it may be the best of all time."
-9
u/Opening-Citron2733 1d ago
Idk, isn't this the 34 felony counts? IANAL but I feel like there's not many instances where someone is convicted of so many felonies and does not get jail time
20
u/sporksable 1d ago
Quality, not quantity.
Go search online for what real, nonpartisan legal experts were saying. Jail was pretty far out of the scope.of possibility given the crimes.
1
u/NekoNaNiMe 7h ago
Regardless, don't you think it's particularly unusual to be given zero punishment? We can disagree about the severity of the crime but a crime was, according to the jury, indeed committed. It is incredibly toothless to give not even so much as probation or a fine when it's all said and done. It's clearly two-tier justice in action. Even if this was 34 misdemeanors, it still warrants more than a 'don't do it again' and a finger wag.
-1
u/SurvivorFanatic236 23h ago
What about given the contempt of court? Merchan straight up gave him special treatment on that because of who he is. Anyone else would be in jail
1
u/NekoNaNiMe 7h ago
Nah. We wouldn't want his bright future to be ruined just because of one tiny little mistake of lying about campaign funds. /s
122
u/Lur7z666 2d ago
Asking in good faith, what incentive does Trump have to attend this and do anything other than give Merchan the (metaphorical) middle finger? He's spent the entirely of his campaign calling this nothing more than trumped up lawfare, and what's the state of NY going to do, act against the sitting president elect?
128
u/Bunny_Stats 2d ago
The judge already granted Trump permission to "attend via counsel," (i.e. just send his lawyers). There would be no penalty for not attending.
-14
u/LycheeRoutine3959 2d ago
it would give his political opponents free talking points and use up some of Trump's political capital.
129
u/Imanmar Catholic Centrist 2d ago
Would it though? His opponents spent the whole election talking about his conviction and lost the election. I don't think anyone that doesn't already despise him, cares.
64
u/Thomas_Eric Moderate 2d ago
Yeah, as an outsider, I don't see it either. In fact, the whole lawfare against Trump (either it being justified or not I'll leave to your own discretion) has made him MORE popular than not. It's a huge part of "fighting the swamp" his followers believe.
22
u/No_Figure_232 2d ago
Just a tiny point, if it is justified then it wouldn't be lawfare by definition. Calling it lawfare implies it isn't justified.
15
u/ThenaCykez 2d ago
I'm not sure you can say that it's not lawfare "by definition". Most people agree that Hunter Biden's prosecution was 100% justified, it's just that his crimes would never have been noticed and a prosecutor would not be as interested if the spotlight wasn't on the Biden family. Similarly it's possible for Trump to simultaneously be guilty as a matter of law, but unfairly targeted, and I'd argue that would still be "lawfare".
2
-16
u/No_Figure_232 2d ago
Right, which would mean he had a disproportionate sentence, but that isn't synonymous with lawfare, which is the use of legal systems to harm or hinder an "opponent". The legal system that prosecuted Hunter Biden was not viewing him as an opponent, or trying to use the system to harm or hinder him. They had explicit evidence of crimes, and on top of that it was high profile.
Give prosecutors a high profile case with explicit evidence and they will generally take it. It isn't personnel.
2
u/SaladShooter1 1d ago
This was lying on Form 4473. The federal government investigates as many as 12 of these cases in a calendar year. 99.9% of F4473 violations are handled at the local or state level with the vast majority of them being local. It was handled at that level and they refused to prosecute, probably because of who he was. You might not like it, but that’s the way it is when you can afford expensive lawyers. That’s normally the end of it.
Fast forward and Hunter finds himself in domestics. His ex, wanting more child support, tells them he has secret income. While investigating that, the prosecutors circled back to this case. That’s not normal. That’s identifying an individual and going searching for crimes. It’s not supposed to work like that in the U.S. They are supposed to investigate a crime and find the individual responsible. How many people can you name had a hearing at domestics that turned into a federal investigation with more resources thrown at it than they throw at the mob?
48
u/TiberiusDrexelus WHO CHANGED THIS SUB'S FONT?? 2d ago
They've been screeching that he's a felon for a year now, what's the difference?
0
u/BabyJesus246 1d ago
I mean I'm not sure if I'd say an accurate description of him being a felon is "screeching". People just expected that lack of respect for the laws and institutions would be a bigger deal. Apparently that is not the case.
26
u/quantum-mechanic 1d ago
The tenor of the discussion in the public discourse (through all sorts of media channels combined) is absolutely fairly characterized as "screeching". It also hasn't worked at all, given Trump was elected again, resoundingly so.
4
u/thbb 1d ago
For me, this reaction of rejection of the establishment is similar to the popular support for Luigi Mangione: many would rather have a pussy-grabbing buffoon at the head of the State to ridicule the political class rather than someone who actually sets a direction for the nation.
To quote Douglas Adams:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
1
u/BabyJesus246 1d ago
I don't really buy the white washing of republican support on trump. He has republican support because he is the person republicans want him to be. There's a reason he talks like a fox news host and why that rhetoric has gotten such a rabid following. If anything the primary issue the base has with "RINOs" is that they only paid lip service to the more extreme rhetoric while Trump embraces it. Just look at people like Liz Cheney. She's as conservative as they come yet was ousted since she didn't want to take that extra step.
2
u/thbb 1d ago
Lindsey Graham foresaw it in 2016: "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it."
The dignified, respectable conservative political class has been destroyed. The future of politics belongs to the likes of Trump, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green and - who knows - maybe a come back from George Santos?
-1
u/BabyJesus246 1d ago edited 1d ago
Man if your view concern over blatant law breaking (particularly the ones related to his capacity as president) as screeching I can only imagine the level of condemnation you have for the whole Biden Laptop saga. Thing was a complete dud yet Republicans spoke on it endlessly despite Republican led investigations leading to squat.
4
2
u/Popeholden 2d ago
what planet do you live on?!
0
u/LycheeRoutine3959 1d ago
..earth, but i have no insights into the proper planetary naming in the system from the intergalactic council.
42
u/Own_Hat2959 2d ago
It is all irrelevant, the last 8 years have destroyed the legitimacy of the US Justice system and the government. It don't matter what side you are on, D or R, why respect the law? It certainly isn't because anyone thinks the system is fair or impartial or deserves to be respected, it is because you are afraid of the conseqences, and your own moral code.
It is all a joke, do your robbing and raping and pillaging and embezzlement and 10 for the big guy and CEO slaying, because the law is now nothing more than a farcical, hypocritical joke of a kangaroo court. It is all on the table, just don't get caught and if you do, make sure you have the power and guns and influence to thumb your nose at it. The government certainly don't have any legitimacy anymore.
-1
u/AngledLuffa Man Woman Person Camera TV 1d ago
... and CEO slaying ...
hey wait a minute, the whole point is to avoid consequences for the people in power
9
u/Own_Hat2959 1d ago
It is just the real start of the breakdown of US Democracy, and it only gets worse from here.
The social contract is in tatters, and I have no idea how it can be repaired.
0
u/Saephon 19h ago
The social contract is in tatters, and I have no idea how it can be repaired.
Depose the people who have broken it, and establish a new contract with those willing to come to the table in good faith.
As has been said many times before, peaceful protest is the "compromise". An alternative will be utilized if absolutely necessary.
1
u/Own_Hat2959 13h ago
Good luck getting any sort of consensus in regards to who caused the situation we are in. Not going to weigh in on the validity of various accusations here, but you would have fingers point to many of the top figures in R/D politics, various state and federal prosecuters and Judges, Jan 6th committee, Jan 6th Capitol defendents, a significant chunk of the first Trump administration, etc.
The thing is, it don't matter who is right and who is wrong and who did what, the arbiter of right and wrong has lost its legitimacy. The constitution has been wadded up and the government wiped its ass with it and laughed.
44
u/azriel777 2d ago edited 4h ago
The same judge that refused to recuse himself after it was found out that his daughter ran an advocacy group whose clients were for the Biden/Harris campaign, that gave them millions of dollars and his wife worked for Latisha James for three years, right up to the point where miss James was working on a case against Donald Trump. Any judge with character would have recused themselves and had it go to another court as there is an obvious conflict of interest. The fact that he didn't, and he is doing this 10 days before Trump takes over is a clear sign this is a political attack on Trump, probably just so they can slap the Felon label on him and would not be surprised if they try some silly "punishment" like house arrest or community service as a finale attack on trump before he goes to the white house. Which I am fairly certain the supreme court already ruled that presidents are immune to criminal prosecutions, but even not, he can simply pardon himself, which would be funny and fit with everything else going on. Besides that, this will not hurt trump at all and actually help him and add to the image of him being unfairly prosecuted.
19
u/CommissionCharacter8 2d ago
Both the judicial ethics committee in NY and even Trump's own attorney (Tacopina) said there was no appearance of bias. It's wild that conservatives complain about Merchan but have no problem with way more overt bias, like say a certain Florida judge or certain SCOTUS justices?
SCOTUS did not rule presidents are immune from all criminal prosecutions. And he cannot pardon himself, this is a state crime.
Anyway, Trump was found guilty by a jury, not the judge.
10
u/Opening-Citron2733 1d ago
Trump was found guilty by a jury, not the judge
A jury that was severely coached by the judge to go a certain direction...
-8
u/CommissionCharacter8 1d ago edited 1d ago
They absolutely were not.
Edit: what exactly are we suggesting here? Jury instructions are inappropriate now? Or a judge controlling their courtroom when a party and his counsel is being bombastic? Please do point out a single credible source that thinks the judge was inappropriate here.
0
6
u/BreadfruitNo357 1d ago
Trump will get zero jail time and people still think he's being treated unfairly. The epitome of privilege.
-1
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9h ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
•
u/SerendipitySue 4h ago
i do think the judge possibly made some legal errors. i am not a lawyer. Just speculation, That is what will determine the appeals court decision. if the appeals court accepts the appeal. As the case offer novel legal issues, i would expect the appeals court to accept it.
-22
u/favors-for-parties 2d ago
Did he commit a crime? Yes. Do we punish people for committing crime? Yes.
Try to look past your idolatry of him and think of him like any other person. You and I would both be sentenced for this crime.
28
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
Judge Merchan took his lawfare mission seriously, but the plan failed. Trump won, bigly. No shame in admitting defeat. He'd be better off just tossing the conviction given that Trump will win on appeal, but that may be more than a hardened partisan can stomach. Ultimately, no one will remember him.
-4
u/qlippothvi 2d ago edited 1d ago
On what grounds do you think he can win an appeal? Trump was quickly found guilty by the jury. Having your coconspirators to the crime testify against you, a recording of his agreement to the amount and illegal means, and having the terms and method of falsification written on Trump Org letterhead in Weisenberg’s own hand made it an open and shut case.
For some reason I can't reply to the below comment, so am including my response here:
All of these crimes were detailed in Cohen’s 2018 charging documents. Including Trump’s crimes. A grand jury wanted to indict Trump WITH Cohen even while he was president. This was all over the news for days. Maybe your were a child back then? Jump to page 15: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1088966/dl “MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 15 Case 1:18-cr-00602-WHP Document 2 Filed 08/21/18 Page 16 of 22 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. 36. As a result of the payments solicited and made by MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election. 37. In or about January 2017, MICHAEL COHEN, the defendant, in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional "$50,000." The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for "tech services," which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company "grossed up" for tax purposes COHEN's requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000”
To clarify how this law is written and Trump’s crimes: The jury had to agree Trump had intent to conceal one of three “unlawful means”, they don’t have to agree on which one because the intent element of the law says that only falsification with intent in aid, conceal, etc a crime is a felony. So if Trump falsified the business records because he intended to conceal the FECA violation, that is concealment of another crime and meets the requirements of the crime. If Trump falsified the business records because he intended to conceal the tax fraud, that is concealment of another crime and meets the requirements of the crime. If Trump falsified the business records because he intended to conceal the bank records for the LLC, that is concealment of another crime and meets the requirements of the crime. See how ANY of the three makes the first degree crime fulfilled?
25
u/WlmWilberforce 2d ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that the judge decides the law and the Jury decides the facts. I think the appeal would be more based on incorrect legal decisions (versus factual findings).
-7
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
Correct, the findings of the jury are typically not questioned, as that is their job and a later judge wouldn’t have been involved in the process. Appeals are almost entirely based on errors of procedure.
The misapplication of the law, not an issue here, it was otherwise a very boring case. The law having been successfully prosecuted hundreds of times before.
The hiding of evidence is another, but all of the evidence used was clearly probative and supported the charges to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. I certainly can’t see writing down your crimes and recording the details and agreement to the crime on tape to be misinterpreted.
Merchan did more to protect Trump’s avenues of appeal than his defense. He had to deride the defense to object more often or objected for them to preserve those possible grounds for appeal.
13
u/LycheeRoutine3959 1d ago
The misapplication of the law, not an issue here, it was otherwise a very boring case.
lol. I think you consume a very limited set of news if you actually believe, legally speaking, this is a boring case. Lawyers from the most independent youtube channels to CNN have called out the unique and novel nature of the prosecution. Legally speaking its actually an exciting case.
44
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
This alleged bookkeeping error was elevated to a felony x 34 because it was intended to influence an election. Payment was made in October 2016. Campaign finance reports for that quarter would have been due January 2017. The election was November 2016.
In other words, if Trump had done as the prosecution claims he should have done, the payment would not have been publicly disclosed until two months after the election.
How does public disclosure of that payment affect the election any which way when the election already happened? Does the court have a time machine?
It was a garbage case from day one. The media at the time admitted this.
-8
u/qlippothvi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Cohen committed a crime to influence an election, that is a legal fact as found by a judge, Cohen did not object or argue, this fact was exposed in 2018 in Cohen’s case.
The falsification was specifically to cover up Cogen’s crime solely for Trump’s benefit. That is what made them felonious acts (Falsification of Business Records in the first degree. See my previous statement above about the recording both audio and written.
Who would have known what due to election finance reporting is irrelevant, the concern was about leaks of the payment to the public before the election results. This fact was proven because testimony was that Trump wanted to delay payment entirely until after the election at which time he would not pay at all.
At least get your facts straight before making your arguments.
36
u/Coleman013 2d ago
Cohen took a plea deal and was never tried and convicted in court of illegally influencing an election. Someone taking a plea deal for something doesn’t establish precedence in the court.
12
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
A confession is a legal fact, and was found by a judge to be so in a court of law, Cohen did not argue that fact. Cohen confessed that the sole reason he made the illegal payments were to influence the election. This is all old, from 2018. Trump could not be charged in that crime because he was president and immune from all charges, the reasoning for which is convoluted and untested (federal, state, etc).
The reason Cohen was ready to testify against Trump was that he had been convicted of those crimes for Trump’s benefit, and Trump could have pardoned or commuted his sentence, which he did not do, but left Cohen into dry. Further, when Cohen was free Trump illegally threw him into solitary confinement just for asking about a fact he wanted to include in his book.
See my other comments for more detail.
25
u/Coleman013 2d ago
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Cohen didn’t make the payments. The part that hasn’t really been tested in court is whether or not those payments were actually illegal payments. NDAs are not illegal and not everything that could impact an election is not considered a campaign expense. Do you actually think that Trump should have used his campaign funds to pay for the Stormy Daniel’s NDA instead of him paying for it with his money?
11
u/qlippothvi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Cohen’s crime is a legal fact from a court of law. Trump did not assist Cohen to prove there was a retainer, and Trump could not prove there was a retainer in his case, either.
Trump could have legally paid for the NDA’s out of his own pocket as long as he reported them, but he did not because he was concerned about leaks to the press from anyone involved in recording those payments.
Only Trump could falsify his business documents, and it was established that Trump will question every payment until he understand what it is about or decides to just not pay it because it’s cheaper to defend against a lawsuit, as is his life-long pattern.
That Cohen made an illegal payment is legal fact. I’m not sure why you don’t get this.
14
u/Coleman013 2d ago
I’ll ask it a different way. Do you think it would have been an issue if he would have used his campaign funds for the NDA?
10
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
I’m not clear on the law, but as long as he reported it it should have not been an issue. The issue is he didn’t report it and entered into a criminal conspiracy rather than just doing the normal reporting. It was a dumb crime, but a premeditated crime. This crime has been prosecuted thousands of times since it was enacted, other than the defendant this was a boring case.
→ More replies-7
u/danester1 2d ago
If Cohen making the payments wasn’t illegal then what the hell did he go to prison for?
19
u/Coleman013 2d ago
He went to prison for tax evasion and bank fraud. Those were the primary charges, they just didn’t get the attention because the media wanted to make it all about Trump. If you look at the maximum penalties for the bank fraud and tax evasion, you can see why he’d agree to whatever the prosecutor gave him for a plea deal
7
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
Cohen pled guilty because he was facing 30+ years for tax schemes involving taxi medallions that had nothing to do with Trump. He got a sweetheart deal as long as would implicate Trump in some way. Cohen had robust legal defenses for that accusation but didn't use them.
-3
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
I'm glad Michael Cohen went to jail. This is irrelevant to the Trump case which has to stand on its own merits, which is a challenge it can't meet until someone produces a time machine.
17
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
Cohen’s crimes were committed for the benefit of Trump with his approval (as noted in the evidence I cited). This case was purely about Trump’s acts in support of and to conceal Cohen’s crimes. They are two sides of the same crime. These are all legal facts. An appeal is about procedural error, the facts are facts.
17
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
So does Michael Cohen's conviction somehow transfer to Donald Trump or are these cases tried separately? How does the justice system work in the United States?
14
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
If I hire you to murder my boss and you are caught and confess that I hired you, I am tried for my part in the crime. We will both face consequences for all of our acts in the furtherance of that murder, which may include other crimes. There are crimes on the books for even starting the acts to commit the murder even if no one attempts the murder at all.
Trump hired Cohen to commit the crime, and his part of the crimes were to hide the illegal payments made by falsifying business documents, which is the whole of the case against Trump. Trump isn’t even charged with anything else.
11
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
So where's the time machine?
14
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
No Time Machine needed, there was an agreement to commit a crime by Cohen, for which he was caught and sentenced.
Trump agreed to hide the crime of the payment by committing his own crimes using his business records. The law broken was falsification of business records in the first degree (a straight felony, which crime has been successfully prosecuted hundreds of times in the last decade). New York is very strict because it is the finance capitol of the country, most people aren’t stupid enough to commit this crimes (thought clearly thousands do).
He’ll, Trump could probably of dodged the whole thing if he’d just pardoned Cohen, which Cohen probably expected. Instead Trump had Cohen illegally thrown into solitary confinement, and by the grace of God this fact was found by a judge who was able to find him and have him released. Oddly there is no restitution for a president doing this and Trump could not be disciplined in any way. This would be one of many exhibits that support Trump being an autocratic thug.
→ More replies-6
u/Saguna_Brahman 2d ago
This alleged bookkeeping error was elevated to a felony x 34 because it was intended to influence an election.
It was elevated to a felony because the payment was covered up in furtherance of another crime. In any case, what you're describing wouldn't be a basis for an appeal. You have to argue some kind of procedural fault, not an issue of the facts. That would be an argument for the jury, who convicted Trump.
25
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
What was the other crime? If the judge was found to have issued bad instructions to the jury, would that matter on appeal?
-9
u/Saguna_Brahman 2d ago
What was the other crime?
The DA argued the business records were falsified with the intention to further a few other crimes. One was tax related crime (filing it as a business expense to lower his tax liability), one was campaign finance laws, and one was the illegal influence of an election that you referenced.
However, as you've probably heard, the jury does not need to agree on what crime Trump intended to further by falsifying the records, and it isn't a question the jury has to answer.
If the judge was found to have issued bad instructions to the jury, would that matter on appeal?
It would matter, but the appellate court would have to conclude that the error rose to the level of denying Trump a fair trial. However, it's possible they would not be able to appeal on the basis of the jury instructions of Trump's defense attorneys did not raise the issue at the time.
I'd be surprised if this was overturned due to the jury instructions. Most of what has been said publicly about the jury instructions from the right has been misinformed.
22
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
the jury does not need to agree
This is a big problem when the United States standard of justice is unanimous verdict in criminal cases. It would seem President Trump has a strong argument here.
Do you think Trump would have paid more or less in taxes if he booked this payment as a campaign expense?
-12
u/Saguna_Brahman 2d ago
This is a big problem when the United States standard of justice is unanimous verdict in criminal cases.
The verdict was unanimous. All the jury needs to be unanimous on is the elements of the crime as laid out by statute. How they reach their conclusions does not need to be unanimous.
For instance, in a murder case, all the jury needs to agree on is that the defendant intentionally caused the death of another person. This doesn't require the jurors to agree on how the victim died or what the defendant did to kill them. So long as they all agreed he "caused the death" of that person, that is a unanimous verdict.
Do you think Trump would have paid more or less in taxes if he booked this payment as a campaign expense?
This isn't my forte, but my understanding is that campaign expenses are not deductible unless they are "ordinary and necessary" whereas personal expenses are not. I am not sure whether a hush money payment, if filed as a campaign expense, would qualify as an ordinary/necessary expense. My gut is that it wouldn't.
22
u/CORN_POP_RISING 2d ago
A unanimous verdict predicated on garbage isn't worth much. It ought to be hard to get a murder (or any) conviction if the DA fails to explain how it happened.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the victim may have been pushed off a bridge, may have been shot in the face, might have consumed poison or could have been bludgeoned to death by the accused, but the accused most definitely killed him."
Is that a serious case? No, not remotely.
3
u/Saguna_Brahman 2d ago
A unanimous verdict predicated on garbage isn't worth much. It ought to be hard to get a murder (or any) conviction if the DA fails to explain how it happened.
Well, that's up to the jury. That's not really an argument for an appellate court. The jurors were satisfied that Trump really did commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the victim may have been pushed off a bridge, may have been shot in the face, might have consumed poison or could have been bludgeoned to death by the accused, but the accused most definitely killed him."
Is that a serious case? No, not remotely.
That's not usually how it would play out. The Casey Anthony case is a good example of this. Medical examination of her daughter's body resulted in "death by undetermined means."
Casey was ultimately acquitted of course, but her defense team made the argument that Casey wasn't involved in Caylee's death, not that the uncertainty around the cause of death was exculpatory unto itself.
→ More replies13
u/_L5_ Make the Moon America Again 1d ago edited 1d ago
The DA argued the business records were falsified with the intention to further a few other crimes. One was tax related crime (filing it as a business expense to lower his tax liability), one was campaign finance laws, and one was the illegal influence of an election that you referenced.
Trump has not been tried, let alone convicted of any of these. He hasn't even been charged with most of them. The DA speculating in closing arguments about potential other crimes that might underpin elevating this business fraud charge to a felony (and so circumvent the misdemeanor statute of limitations) without actually charging Trump with any of them could be argued to be a serious 6th Amendment violation.
You have a right to know the charges of the crimes you've been accused of so you can properly prepare a defense. The prosecution doesn't get to just scattershot hypothetical charges at the end of a trial, that's ridiculous.
Edit: Obligatory
0
u/Saguna_Brahman 1d ago
Trump has not been tried, let alone convicted of any of these. He hasn't even been charged with most of them.
This is true, but it's not required by NY statute. Moreover, the law doesn't even require that Trump actually committed any of these crimes, as it's a crime of intent. If the jury believed he falsified business records with the intent to further a crime, regardless of whether he committed that crime, that would be enough to convict him.
You have a right to know the charges of the crimes you've been accused of so you can properly prepare a defense.
Yes, he was accused of falsifying business records.
4
u/_L5_ Make the Moon America Again 1d ago
This is true, but it's not required by NY statute. Moreover, the law doesn't even require that Trump actually committed any of these crimes, as it's a crime of intent. If the jury believed he falsified business records with the intent to further a crime, regardless of whether he committed that crime, that would be enough to convict him.
That's exactly why it may be a 6th Amendment violation. The prosecution didn't have to prove intent to further a crime or even specify what crime specifically Trump might have wanted to further. He just had to gesticulate in Trump's general direction, list a few possibilities, and assert that Trump must be guilty of at least one of them.
The assertion that Trump must be guilty of an unspecified something, anything, is the only reason this was able to make it to trial. How exactly could a defendant be expected to mount a defense consistent with his right to a fair trial if the prosecution doesn't have to specify that reason?
The letter of the NY statute might allow for it to be used in this way, but doing so may well be unconstitutional.
Yes, he was accused of falsifying business records.
Which is a misdemeanor unless it's for covering up some other crime. What other crime did New York charge him with?
-2
u/Saguna_Brahman 1d ago
That's exactly why it may be a 6th Amendment violation. The prosecution didn't have to prove intent to further a crime or even specify what crime specifically Trump might have wanted to further. He just had to gesticulate in Trump's general direction, list a few possibilities, and assert that Trump must be guilty of at least one of them.
Trump doesn't actually need to be guilty of any of them though. They just have to assert that Trump intended to commit one of them. It could be that he never actually committed -- say -- tax fraud, but that he falsified business records with the intent to do so.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
The letter of the NY statute might allow for it to be used in this way, but doing so may well be unconstitutional.
I'd be surprised if that ended up being the case, but I was also surprised when Aileen Cannon ruled that the very concept of appointing special prosecutors is unconstitutional, so who knows.
Which is a misdemeanor unless it's for covering up some other crime. What other crime did New York charge him with?
Concealing a crime is one of three options. The others are an intent to commit another crime, or an intent to aid the commission of another crime. If I falsified business records so that I could evade taxes but I get caught before I file the taxes (as an example), I couldn't be charged with a tax related crime, but they could determine that I falsified the records in order to evade taxes on my next filing, which would make it a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
→ More replies7
u/Texasduckhunter 1d ago
FYI, you have the tax theory wrong. The tax fraud alleged is that Trump actually falsely increased his tax liability. Whether that’s a crime is going to be an appellate issue, along with whether the New York false entry in business records statute includes federal campaign finance violations as an offense that can elevate it to a felony.
1
u/Saguna_Brahman 1d ago
Whether that’s a crime is going to be an appellate issue
Likely not, since the crime doesn't require the jury to specify what crime they believe Trump committed.
1
u/Texasduckhunter 1d ago
Which is also an appellate issue.
2
u/Saguna_Brahman 1d ago
I mean, only insofar as everything is an appellate issue if one wants it to be. But there's a difference between saying "legally a lawyer could make this argument because lawyers can put whatever they want in an appellate brief" and saying "there is a material chance that -- upon appellate review -- this is found to be problematic."
→ More replies30
u/CantFindBlinkerFluid 2d ago
Here is my comment from before.
Personally, I believe a succesful appeal is near-guaranteed. You have huge violations of the 1st, 5th, and 6th... not to mention all the other ethical concerns with the case. Law students will study this case as an example of what not to do.
5
u/CommissionCharacter8 2d ago
I would be absolutely shocked if it was overturned on any of those grounds. Number 2 is especially dubious and I am not aware of a single serious legal scholar who has agreed that was an issue. And Im not sure how you get a conviction overturned based on ancillary matter like a lopsided gag order. That doesn't seem like the right remedy. They seem quite far fetched, except perhaps exclusion of witnesses, though I havent studied the details of the particular exclusions and it seems to me the exclusions were likely harmless even if in error.
I think if it was overturned on appeal, it'd likely be based on evidence admitted that shouldn't have been (the subject of the immunity ruling) or some off application of the NY statute. And I'm not commenting on the likelihood of a successful appeal..
16
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
Are you kidding? This is the most appealable case I have ever seen. The business record thing happened. But there are issues whether it meets the requirement of "intent to defraud", whether you can use federal law to bump it up to felony, and issues of the statute of limitations.
1) The law requires an intent to defraud. Who was defrauded here? Trump, Cohen, and Daniels all knew what the money was for and agreed to it. When pressed on this question, DA Bragg eventually said the voting public was defrauded. But that doesn't make sense - voters don't have any inherent right to know about a candidate's sex life.
2) To bump it up to a felony, Bragg said it was committed in the course of another crime - in this case federal campaign finance laws, on the theory that paying off Daniels was a campaign expense. There's no precedent for that theory (prosecutors tried that theory in the John Edwards case, but the jury rejected that charge), but even if that was the case, the feds never charged Trump. And NY doesn't have jurisdiction over federal laws.
3) If you can't involve the "other crime" then it's only a misdemeanor, and expired so the charges couldn't be brought in the first place.
7
u/notapersonaltrainer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Donald Trump’s legal saga takes another turn as Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan upheld his conviction on the Stormy Daniels hush-money scheme. Despite Trump’s claim that the charges jeopardize his ability to govern, Merchan insisted overturning the jury’s unanimous verdict would cause “immeasurable damage” to public faith in the rule of law. The sentence as an unconditional discharge ensures Trump avoids jail time.
It seems like Democrats get their conviction but not the satisfaction of jail time. For Republicans, it’s a win in avoiding harsher consequences, but the felony conviction still hangs over Trump’s presidency. This outcome feels like a middle ground that leaves neither side fully satisfied—raising the question of whether justice or politics played the bigger role in the result.
Does this conviction with no jail time strengthen or weaken the principle that no one is above the law?
25
u/Bunny_Stats 2d ago
Does this conviction with no jail time strengthen or weaken the principle that no one is above the law?
A suspended sentence (i.e. no jail time unless you commit another crime) is the norm for a non-violent class-e felony where the convict doesn't have a criminal history (the other cases Trump has lost are civil, not criminal cases), so I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a chance Merchan may have given Trump a harsher sentence because of Trump's antics with the lack of remorse and insulting the court, but it was always a small chance.
We'll also need to see whether the conviction is overturned on appeal because of the immunity ruling. While Trump's business fraud was committed as a private citizen for which he isn't immune, some of the evidence presented to prove it came from the testimony of White House staffers from when Trump was President, and the Supreme Court's immunity ruling means you aren't allowed to use any testimony from White House advisors as evidence of a crime. Merchan ruled that he didn't think this particular testimony was decisive in the verdict so upheld the conviction, but we'll need to see how the higher courts feel about it.
12
u/Sneekypete28 2d ago
While we're on the subject of overturning verdicts that would upset the public...I think.....I think Biden is the all time leader with his recent ones. Dudes like an all time hits record of bad pardons.
34
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
I think this was an obvious political prosecution and that a fair appeals process would result in over-turning the verdict.
The documents case and the "find me the votes" stuff were stronger cases (although with the documents one could argue by the same token that Clinton and Powell before her should have been prosecuted too...maybe Biden as well)
18
u/fingerpaintx 2d ago
Trump was on tape discussing classified documents with civilians after lying about returning them multiple times to the point that the only way of getting them back was an fbi raid.
This was a different tier than Clilton/Biden/Pence.
33
u/Mr_Tyzic 2d ago
Maybe not quite the same tier, but it did come out in the Hur report that Biden knowingly retained classified documents when out of office. In 2017 Biden told his ghostwriter that he still had classified documents regarding Afghanistan. Those documents were not turned over for another 5 years.
47
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
I think Clinton purposefully using her own email server to get around transparency laws and then "losing" those emails during the investigation is pretty damning.
I say this as a Clinton voter who'd do it again if I had to go back in time.
17
u/Semper-Veritas 2d ago
It blows my mind to this day that people hand waive this away… Regardless of whether others before her did the same thing, Hillary Clinton without doubt skirted the spirit of the law in how she handled the storage of those emails (which via FOIA belong to the public), but the fact that she the servers destroyed and the aide that did it was granted immunity but plead the 5th after the fact does not convince any intellectually honest person that there was nothing to see there…
I have plenty of family who had top secret clearances, they would at best be forever exiled from the defense industry if not in jail for accidentally mishandling classified documents, intent wouldn’t have mattered in their situation. Comey was doing what he thought was a political favor when he let her off the hook, anyone not well connected would have not been so lucky and seen some term in club fed.
5
u/CCWaterBug 2d ago
Like, with a cloth?
We still use that around the office fairly frequently. (We have strict record keeping requirements at work) and we're not politically connected so we actually abide by the rules.
0
u/fingerpaintx 2d ago
The deletion of what she claimed to be her personal emails was investigated and the findings concluded no malicious intent etc.
Trump's case was thrown in the trash by a judge using fringe legal theory while earning herself a SCOTUS seat.
20
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
The deletion of what she claimed to be her personal emails was investigated and the findings concluded no malicious intent etc.
Doubtful. The only reason to run the private server was to get around transparency.
It's ok, lots of politicians are duplicitous and interested in power above other things.
while earning herself a SCOTUS seat
Doubtful.
4
3
u/Apprehensive-Act-315 15h ago
Clinton emailed secret documents to her maid and had her print them.
She also removed classification markings.
Hillary Clinton today defended a 2011 e-mail instructing her staffer at the State Department, Jacob Sullivan, to remove a document’s classified marking and send it over an unsecured line.
Of course Jake Sullivan is now Biden’s National Security Advisor.
6
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
That's misleading. He's on tape boasting he had classified docs (although later he said he declassified them). He's not on tape discussing classified information.
3
u/notapersonaltrainer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Clinton and Powell before her should have been prosecuted too
This was a different tier
So? A different tier of crime is still crime.
Manslaughter 1st and 2nd degree are different tiers. We don't not prosecute 2nd degree crimes because your political opponent else may do 1st a few years into the future, lol.
I find this ex post defense so strange.
-1
u/Bunny_Stats 2d ago
The documents case and the "find me the votes" stuff were stronger cases (although with the documents one could argue by the same token that Clinton and Powell before her should have been prosecuted too...maybe Biden as well)
Did you read the indictment? I'd highly recommend reading it yourself rather than relying on what others tell you about it, as it makes a strong case for why Trump's actions were different to any of the other cases (spoiler: it was because Trump deliberately tried to mislead the government after they'd asked him to return the documents).
36
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
spoiler: it was because Trump deliberately tried to mislead the government after they'd asked him to return the documents
Yea, and Clinton deliberately ran her own servers to get around transparency laws and then destroyed the evidence. As I've said before in this thread, I voted for Clinton and I'd do it again but I really think her documents case and Trump's are equivalently bad.
-11
u/Bunny_Stats 2d ago
Did you read the indictment?
23
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
Yep
-7
u/Bunny_Stats 2d ago
And you think dozens of boxes of the most sensitive documents in the US arsenal are equivalent to some emails that had been vetted by a team of lawyers?
15
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
I think keeping a private server to get around transparency and then deleting evidence of wrongdoing is pretty bad
Arguably, worse than anything Trump did because he literally could have declassified it before he left office and there'd be no crime - Biden's docs were taken when he was VP
Personally I think we over-classify stuff anyway and that most of this should be accessible to the public regardless.
2
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
I think keeping a private server to get around transparency and then deleting evidence of wrongdoing is pretty bad
Setting aside the point that half the leadership in both parties have used private email servers for decades (including the incoming Trump admin), why is it "pretty bad?" It makes Freedom of Information requests harder, for which those who maintain private servers should be criticised, but it's not criminal as long as you hand over the relevant emails afterwards, which Hillary's lawyers did.
As for "deleting evidence of wrongdoing," what wrongdoing? Her lawyers handed over all the government related emails and then her personal communications as a private citizen were deleted. Maybe you think those deleted emails had something incriminating on them, but what evidence of you have of that?
Arguably, worse than anything Trump did because he literally could have declassified it before he left office and there'd be no crime - Biden's docs were taken when he was VP
This makes me wonder whether you truly read the indictment, because if you had you'd know that whether or not the documents were declassified makes zero difference to the charges against Trump. Trump was charged with obstruction of justice for attempting to mislead the FBI and multiple charges of concealing government documents. Whether or not these documents are still classified is immaterial, they're government documents that had to be returned and knowingly withholding them is a crime.
Personally I think we over-classify stuff anyway and that most of this should be accessible to the public regardless.
Absolutely, there's a massive over-classification problem. See for example Hillary's emails, one of which was just "let's keep an eye on this story," with a link to a New York Times article about US counter-terrorism actions in Africa. This was retroactively classified as "Top Secret" by the FBI because officially the government hadn't confirmed the counter-terrorism actions that was reported in the article, and so any mention of the newspaper article now became Top Secret. It's absurd.
This is why initially I thought the story about Trump's classified docs was a "nothingburger," as every former President is going to have a few documents that are officially classified but don't actually have anything sensitive in them. They'll just be like "Happy birthday Mr President, from <head of a foreign state>," but as that's a message from a foreign government official to a US government official, it's got to be classified. They'll have the lawyers do a search, hand over what's pertinent, and case closed. But then we got the MAL raid and the indictment, and it became clear these weren't just minor documents, there were documents that are never meant to be outside of a secure facility and he'd made a concerted effort to lie and hide them. This is what made it a big deal.
0
u/andthedevilissix 1d ago
and it became clear these weren't just minor documents, there were documents that are never meant to be outside of a secure facility and he'd made a concerted effort to lie and hide them.
I mean, Clinton did the same thing - she made a concerted effort to hide her communications and then destroyed evidence and never handed over all her emails.
Personally, I think its a little naive to assume the lawyers and Clinton only deleted strictly personal emails. Politicians lie, it's really part of the job, and Clinton obviously had reasons to make sure lots of emails never saw the light of day.
→ More replies5
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
And the other cases were bad in other ways. Clinton literally tried to erase the evidence. Biden kept docs from decades, some as far back as the 70s, documents he had no business having in the first place.
2
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
Tried to erase what evidence? A team of lawyers went through her emails, sent back the government ones, and then deleted the rest.
Biden had some old docs from when he was VP and senator, which every single politician does. What's different with Trump is that he tried to hide them when he found them.
6
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
Tried to erase what evidence? A team of lawyers went through her emails, sent back the government ones, and then deleted the rest.
And some of those deleted emails had classified information. We know this because they were recovered from other places like Anthony Weiner's laptop.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/state-department-releases-emails-from-clinton-aide
Biden had some old docs from when he was VP and senator, which every single politician does
They don't take them home!
What's different with Trump is that he tried to hide them when he found them.
Which is what Clinton did. And probably Biden too, because I just find it hard to believe no one noticed these documents after so many decades.
4
u/Bunny_Stats 1d ago
And some of those deleted emails had classified information. We know this because they were recovered from other places like Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Did you look at the emails? There's around a thousand "print pls" with a link to some news article, but because the news article is talking about US government programs, a link to the media is retroactively labelled "classified."
They don't take them home!
Actually they do, it's common practice.
Which is what Clinton did. And probably Biden too, because I just find it hard to believe no one noticed these documents after so many decades.
Let me try and explain how this stuff works. When you work high up in the government, your work becomes your life, you're expected to be on-call at all times of the day and you take work home so that you can look through it in the evening. We aren't talking blueprints for nuclear submarines, but say a summary of coalition casualties in Afghanistan that week. Further to that, everything you write is typically going to be retroactively labelled as classified because you're important and so your messages are important. If you send an email to another dept, "hey, let's rearrange our meeting to 4pm instead of 3pm," technically that's "Top Secret" communication because it's involving heads of depts. Where it gets ridiculous is these "Top Secret" labels get thrown around long after they were relevant. Years after you had that meeting, that original email asking to reschedule it is still "Top Secret."
While you're working in the government, you're in a bubble, everything around you is likely classified. It just becomes normal to you. Over your career, you build up boxes of old printed out emails (because old folk tend to prefer reading a printed out version), a mix of stuff you meant to go back to with stuff that's no longer relevant. You're a busy person, and there's a constant inflow of new documents, so you don't go through the old ones.
Eventually you retire, and you've got all these old documents in multiple boxes. You've got a mix of your personal emails and work emails, your tax expenses and internal government reports. How do you tell what needs to go back and what doesn't? Most of this stuff won't be conveniently labelled "classified," it'll just be print outs of emails, like that old "let's reschedule our meeting" email from 10 years ago. So you leave it in the box of random documents because it doesn't seem important, and you might want to use them to help you remember things for your memoir which will talk about how "great and important" you were.
Typically these old documents sit for years in some old storage room, nobody really cares, the FBI is not worried about your 10-year old "reschedule our meeting" email and it's a waste of their time to deal with it. Every single intel commitee senator and cabinet head from both parties are guilty of this. It's not a big deal until the press decides to make it a big deal. If it becomes a political issue, all of a sudden your print out of your meeting 10 years ago is a "classified document!" with rampant speculation it could be anything from the nuclear launch codes to the blueprints of a secret military moon base.
This is why it wasn't initially a big deal that Trump had boxes of documents at Mar-a-largo. It happens all the time. The lawyers eventually look through it, find what needs to be sent back, and do so. What makes Trump different is that he told his lawyers to lie and pretend they hadn't found anything. That's what got the interest of the FBI, not that he had these documents, but that he was lying about having them, and what's what he got charged with. If you read the indictment, none of the charges are about the documents being classified, the charges are about how he attempted to conceal them and lied to the FBI about it.
1
u/GoldenEagle828677 10h ago
Did you look at the emails? There's around a thousand "print pls" with a link to some news article, but because the news article is talking about US government programs, a link to the media is retroactively labelled "classified."
And there was still classified info.
Actually they do, it's common practice.
Show me. Normally Congress people will look at the classified info in a secure location, read it there, and leave it there, not take it home. That's what got David Petreaus in trouble.
It's illegal to take it home without a secure facility to lock it up, or courier orders allowing a person to travel with it. But those are for a specific time frame and they have to keep the classified info on their person.
0
u/Bunny_Stats 10h ago
See, this is the problem when we're talking about classified documents, because those documents range from "top secret intel from our most top-ranking spies that can only be read in a secure facility" to an "hey, let's rearrange our golf game to 4pm tomorrow" email where because you're talking about the schedule of an important person, it becomes a classified document.
You're imagining the spy film version of a classified document, something in a manilla folder with a big red "CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET" stamped on the front, when the reality is that 99.9% of classified documents are just mundane office emails or scribbled post-meeting notes about who got approval to buy a nice new desk.
1
u/GoldenEagle828677 9h ago
You are really trying to whitewash this. I'm not talking about documents marked "for official use only" because they contain someone's SSN or health records. Both Biden and Clinton had material with Top Secret information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_classified_documents_incident#First_batch_of_documents
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464811045/as-iowa-caucuses-near-clinton-email-probe-persists
→ More replies0
u/Bunny_Stats 9h ago
P.S. A little further reading if you're interested in how crazy the problem with over-classification is in the US:
-10
u/roylennigan 2d ago
although with the documents one could argue by the same token that Clinton and Powell before her should have been prosecuted too...maybe Biden as well
Ones have argued already. But there is simply no evidence of intentional withholding as there was in Trump's case. It's been pretty hard to prosecute cases against high level officials in the past without that.
34
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
But there is simply no evidence of intentional withholding
There's plenty with Clinton - she was literally running her own email servers intentionally to get around transparency laws then destroyed evidence.
I voted for Clinton, and I'd do it again if I went back in time to 2016, but I'm comfortable being honest with myself about her motivations.
13
u/WlmWilberforce 2d ago
Anyone remember the guy on reddit asking how to update the email DB to redact names?
-8
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
Comey stated Clinton broke no laws, but he did cite workplace policy. All of her emails were recovered and nothing was found.
14
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
Nah they didn't get all of them - and also the entire reason she was using a private server was to avoid scrutiny. The act itself was shady.
-1
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
The FBI did get all of them, the shady thing was they recovered *more* than they expected. This was in 2015, how did you not know this?
12
u/andthedevilissix 2d ago
The FBI did get all of them
Nope, they got some.
the shady thing was
Running a private server to avoid scrutiny
3
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
there is simply no evidence of intentional withholding as there was in Trump's case.
Clinton literally tried to erase the evidence. Biden kept docs from decades, some as far back as the 70s, documents he had no business having in the first place. I find it extremely hard to believe that no one noticed in all that time. Both cases look willful to me.
2
u/LegoFamilyTX 1d ago
It's pure politics, no objective reading of the situation says otherwise. Anyone claiming so either doesn't understand the situation, or doesn't care.
The idea that "no one is above the law" is a joke anyway, remind me how many bankers went to prison after 2008?
1
u/G0TouchGrass420 2d ago
I hope he doesnt show up and gives them the cold shoulder
-18
u/History_Is_Bunkier 2d ago
Why? He is a convicted felon. Is he above the law?
13
u/azriel777 2d ago edited 2d ago
He is a convicted felon.
Which nobody cares about as the election showed. The dems really thought adding Felon would hurt trump, but it had the opposite effect. I doubt this will be brought up much on mainstream as it would just make trump more popular.
-6
u/History_Is_Bunkier 1d ago
Caring is not the issue
Did he commit a felony? Yes.
Is he above the law? He shouldn't be.
30
u/EnvironmentalCan381 2d ago
They weaponized judicial system and lost. No one cares if he paid off porn star with his own money. In the eyes of public opinion he is innocent. That’s why he is the president now. Democrats gambled on this and lost.
9
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution and Trump agreed to use his business to cover up the crime. That’s the case, that’s the reason for the conviction. We knew all these details in 2918 when Cohen was sentenced, it was all over the news, perhaps you are too young to have been paying attention.
-11
u/goomunchkin 2d ago
In the eyes of public opinion he is innocent. That’s why he is the president now.
And in the eyes of the jury of his peers he’s guilty which is why he is a convicted felon.
Democrats gambled on this and lost.
Democrats don’t have shit to do with this. If Trump didn’t want to be convicted of 34 felonies he shouldn’t have committed 34 felonies.
8
u/CraftZ49 2d ago
12 jurors were overruled by 77,300,000 voters.
The justice system serves the people, and the people decided against the court. What legitimacy does a court have if the electorate don't believe in it?
-11
u/goomunchkin 1d ago
12 jurors were overruled by 77,300,000 voters.
That’s not how that works.
The justice system serves the people, and the people decided against the court. What legitimacy does a court have if the electorate don’t believe in it?
Trump had his day in court. He lost. A jury of his peers, who his defense council helped to pick, unanimously agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of 34 separate felony charges. He was afforded every single opportunity that anyone else in this country has at proving their case and he failed miserably at it.
So my point still stands. If Trump didn’t want to be a convicted felon then he shouldn’t have committed felonies and then left a trail of evidence to remove any reasonable doubts about his guilt. Stomping his feet and throwing a temper tantrum about the democrats doesn’t change that.
-7
u/autosear 2d ago
They weaponized judicial system and lost.
Respectfully, in what world is this the reality? Trump and his lawyer coordinated fraudulent business practices and all the fraudulent paperwork is publicly available. He was convicted by a jury. Who lost?
6
u/GoldenEagle828677 1d ago
The law requires an intent to defraud. Who was defrauded in this documents case? That's one of many problems with this case.
8
16
u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam 2d ago
Do we even know if those convictions are legitimate? Biden himself has come out and said the DOJ, and other departments, are politically motivated and not to be trusted.
-12
u/History_Is_Bunkier 2d ago
It's a conviction of a felony by a jury of his peers. By definition is legitimate.
-5
15
-1
u/GoodByeRubyTuesday87 2d ago
Yes. The wealthy and powerful are above the law in this country.
I think the last few years was just the most blatant example of that with Trump avoiding any ramifications for a novels worth of crimes or Biden (and to a similar by arguably lesser extent Trump) issuing tons of off the wall pardons including giving his own son a blanket pardon even for crimes not already known about
I think most people had already realized it but the last few years have basically removed any possible doubt
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 2d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-5
u/Cryptogenic-Hal 2d ago
He made his judgement, now let him enforce it.
6
u/History_Is_Bunkier 2d ago
That's not a judge's job.
The jury is the trier of fact and the judge is the trier of law. Now he imposes a sentence as prescribed by law.
Basic civics.
3
u/ThenaCykez 2d ago
/u/Cryptogenic-Hal is quoting Andrew Jackson, not making a statement on how criminal cases work.
-11
•
5h ago edited 4h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5h ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-36
u/Sensitive-Common-480 2d ago
What a disgrace to our great and beautiful nation it is to have a criminal in the White House. Hopefully by 2028 voters will realize how important respect for our laws is and we can all move on to having more straight and narrow representatives for our country.
21
u/CraftZ49 2d ago
Yes, straight and narrow representatives. You're right. We need more shadow committees running the executive branch that pardon their friends and family like the cash for kids judge.
-15
u/Sensitive-Common-480 2d ago
What about Biden? What about this? What about that? Is it not possible to defend President-elect Trump without just changing the subject and whataboutism
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
19
u/StemBro45 2d ago
The dems lost every branch of the government, America is tired of their crap.
-14
u/Sensitive-Common-480 2d ago
What about Dems? What about this? What about that? Can trump be defended without deflection and whataboutism?
In any case, there were many, many, many Republicans running in the 2024 primary who were not under active criminal investigation. It was entirely possible to be sick of Dems and still support law and order
13
u/direwolf106 2d ago
Yeah……when we have prosecutors going after victimless crimes and sometimes forcing innocent people to plead guilty and lose rights just so their lives aren’t completely destroyed trump being a felon will be seen as a positive quality.
Most people don’t care what he did with his money. They see this as a political prosecution. Him being a “convicted felon” is proof positive that those that built that system that hurts so many people don’t like him and that he’s dangerous to them.
The courts are supposed to be a place of justice but have become a tool of oppression. That conviction might as well have been a badge of honor marking him as the champion of the people.
People will “learn to respect our laws” when those that enforce them seek justice and not arrests and convictions.
-13
u/Sensitive-Common-480 2d ago
Nonsense. A jury of his peers carefully examined all of the evidence and came to a decision after much deliberation. President-elect Donald Trump was convicted because the prosecution could prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, not because it was political prosecution.
12
u/WulfTheSaxon 2d ago
A jury of his peers carefully examined all of the evidence
All the evidence the judge let them see, which didn’t include the testimony of the head of the FEC saying it wasn’t a crime.
17
u/direwolf106 2d ago edited 2d ago
Ish….. I’m not denying he did fucky stuff with his money. But are you really going to say that he wasn’t prosecuted because of politics? The prosecutor promising other New York business and rich people they weren’t going to come after them indicates this prosecution had zero basis in the act itself.
And this is what law fare is. If you did hard enough we’ve all committed felonies, mostly by accident because the law codes are very complex. What they did to trump was dig till they found something. It’s why they were digging that is important here.
Edit: there’s also a ton of misdemeanors that can land you in jail for years.
-7
u/qlippothvi 2d ago
We knew about Trump's crimes back in 2018 during Cohen's charges, you can look them up noting coconspirators. This is one reason why Bragg ran on prosecuting Trump for his clear part in Cohen's crimes. Trump's part being an agreement to falsify his business documents to conceal Cohen's crimes. That is against the law, a felony, and all that was prosecuted.
Trump's coconspirators to those crimes testified against him, there was Trump org letterhead with the means of falsification in Weisselberg's own handwriting, and a voice recording of Trump agreeing to the amount and means of the illegal act. The only surprise here for peopkle following the Cohen and Trump cases is it was blocked by Republicans to be charged at the federal level, and that it took so long for any charges at all.
13
u/direwolf106 2d ago
Who was the victim? Everyone that was supposed to get paid got paid what they were owed. And it was his money.
I will also point out this was found out during the first investigation which was only launched because they had decided to get him and find out something he did to justify it later. They decided to hunt him and investigated till they got something.
By the way, the most he will get as a first time offender, which he is, is probation or house arrest. But given that he will be followed by law enforcement officers the rest of his life any way ( his secret service detail) this means nothing even if he’d lost.
It was a political prosecution in the vain hope people would shy away from him when to many people have been burned by that system.
-2
u/qlippothvi 2d ago edited 1d ago
The victim was New York State. New York is the financial capitol of the country, they have very strict fraud and falsification laws, and Trump should know this.
We knew about Trump’s crimes in 2018, when we saw that Cohen had coconspirators to the crimes and that Coconspirator was the current president of the country. Bragg ran on prosecuting Trump because Cohen already proved the case.
Cohen committed a crime for Trump, and Trump falsified his business documents to conceal that crime.
17
u/direwolf106 1d ago
How was the state the victim? Did they not get to steal enough from him?
2
u/qlippothvi 1d ago
Steal what? Trump committed tons of fraud, and was sued for not paying his contracts a few thousand times.
If a man shoots at you a dozen times, did he commit a crime of no one is hit? What about speeding? Is it o Lu a crime of someone is hurt? Do you think speeding on a school block is victimless if no children are run over? Grow up, man.
5
-1
u/shadow_nipple Anti-Establishment Classical Liberal 1d ago
so like.....is this just for the liberal media to have 1 last article to jerk off over?
this just seems only performative
-17
u/WallabyBubbly Maximum Malarkey 1d ago
For 34 felonies and showing zero remorse, the appropriate sentence is several years in prison. NY just needs to suspend the sentence until after his presidential term to avoid any constitutional issues.
-8
u/Friendo_Marx 1d ago
But if he no-shows then jail time for some amount of days eclipsing the inauguration.
•
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 2d ago
This message serves as a warning that your post is in violation of Law 2a:
Law 2: Submission Requirements
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.