“He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is,” Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump’s age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime
Lack of injury?? He literally committed crimes to get elected, which he did. 340 million Americans had to suffer this dipshit being president for 4 years. A million of us died during his piss-poor response to COVID!
I can not WAIT for CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP who was found GUILTY and ALL 34 COUNTS to pay a $5000 fine and pinky swear not to do this again! THAT will teach him!
I hope it comes from Murkowsky! He’s definitely learned his lesson, THIS TIME.
deleted by creator
No
But can we at least get him out the election?
Also no
Can we at least avoid a dystopia future?
Why can a felon run for president?
Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.
“Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”
Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.
so it’s up to us not to vote for people who have 34 felony charges, got it.
Correction: 34 felony convictions.
34 felony convictions so far.
Well, we’re fucked.
Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.
You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.
Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.
Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.
You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”
He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments… the list can on for literally days.
Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.
Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.
Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered
Hah. Fair enough
While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That’s definitely a good example of why it shouldn’t bar someone outright.
Because if you’re able to invalidate your opponent’s candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can’t run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.
If felons can’t vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn’t be able to run for office.
If it makes you feel better, he can’t vote for himself.
This does make me feel better. Thank you.
Wait, why not?
Edit: Oh, right. This isn’t the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions
deleted by creator
Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela ran for president of the US?
I remember that he was the President of the US right before he died
My prediction: he may or may not go to jail.
My other prediction: either outcome will not influence his Nazi cult.
My other prediction: we were wrong on how 2016-2023 was down right weird. 2024 has us holding it’s double long island with no soda.
2025 is just a huge bag of cocaine.
That bag is gonna have Fentanyl and Xylazine mixed in as per tradition.
We are gonna need all the help we can get escaping reality
Once again, Betteridge’s law applies perfectly.
They had to fucking ask didn’t they!?!
Probably not, maybe house arrest? I’m curious to see if this has an effect on the other cases, if any. Can Jack Smith easily add a 2016 election interference count now that this is proven?
deleted by creator
He can’t pardon himself in these cases. They are New York state felonies, which means the governor of NY would have to pardon him. If they were federal, then he could maybe pardon himself.
deleted by creator
That would probably be up to the judge. Theoretically house arrest can be set at any home which could include an out of state address.
Let’s see how endlessly antagonizing the sentencing judge works out for him.
Nope. He’ll go straight into White House and will ‘remove’ 50% of US ppl. Either the hard way. Or they leave the country fast enough. USA is going the chinese or russian way. One leader with enough power to rule and many supporters who make profits in this odd system. The rest will suffer from this system. India and Europe will be there soon too.
No. But the hysteria from Ronald McDonald and his supporters is going to be lit.
Also: someone needs to meme that woman tRump supporter crying for him out in front of the court house. So tired of seeing that woman in the green jacket after Hillary “lost”, supposedly being a stand-in for all liberals or something. Time to show how hysterical the right really is.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Two experts told NBC News that it’s unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time.
During the trial, Judge Juan Merchan threatened to put Trump behind bars for violating his gag order, but it’s unclear if the former president will face similar consequences now.
Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it’s unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender.
An analysis conducted by Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, found that roughly one in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned, and those cases typically involved other crimes.
Kuby added that he believes “it is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time,” despite the logistical and practical complications that locking up a person with Secret Service protection would entail.
It’s also highly unlikely that comments that appeared to be aimed at sidestepping the gag order by Republican officials who attended the trial as Trump’s guests will figure into the judge’s reasoning, Kuby added.
The original article contains 842 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
34 counts… If they don’t sentence him, then what’s the fucking point!? Anything less than jail time is just going to empower him. Lock his ass up!
Agreed, that post made it seem like he was innocent up until now. The e jean carrol conviction should relieve him of his first timer status
That was a civil suit, not criminal.
Amen, it should also relieve him of his non-violent offender status. The man was found guilty of rape. The only reason he didn’t serve jail time for that was because it was past the statute of limitations.
It was also a civil suit, not criminal.
Which means it was a finding of FACT. Ans those don’t care about your feelings, apparently.
We’re gonna live in a country where either a felon can run for president but not vote or where one candidate is blind to genocide and the other can’t run because he’s in prison.
These all sound bad.
If you’re going to repeat russian propaganda - it’s TWO fucking candidates blind to genocide and the one who is now the first ever US President convicted of a felony has repeatedly made comments that he wouldn’t even hold back on Gaza and likely would accelerate it to “finish the job”. Biden is no fucking hero here, but Trump is objectively worse on Israel-Palestine if you are a single issue voter. And Isreal-Palestine generally doesn’t break the top 5 for single issue voters in the US, so please… please… stop with this.
Possibly, but why allow the possibility in the first place? The idea was that the voters and electors would ultimately decide
Because he did crimes? Voters don’t decide whether people go to prison for crimes (unless they are on the jury, I suppose).
But a government that potentially is nefariously attempting to block a candidate shouldn’t be able to bar someone from being elected.
eg. An English loyalist blocks George Washington from being president by fraudulently getting him convicted of a felony; is that a reasonable thing we should have codified in the Constitution?
Do I want trump to be elected? Hell no. I also don’t feel like we should go down the road where a political opponent can block someone from running illegitimately, either.
But a government that potentially is nefariously attempting to block a candidate shouldn’t be able to bar someone from being elected.
No conviction short of insurrection would disqualify him from running for office and being elected.
Many candidates have won election for president while never even leaving their house to campaign. Trump would unfortunately be in a better position than anybody to win the election from inside a prison cell.
eg. An English loyalist blocks George Washington from being president by fraudulently getting him convicted of a felony; is that a reasonable thing we should have codified in the Constitution?
An English loyalist that can prove beyond reasonable doubt, as judged by 12 peers which George Washington can help select…
A felon can be elected, but committing felonies should have consequences, for example it being more difficult to get elected.
12 peers can be coerced. If he still runs the rest of the country should be sufficient to not vote for him if he is undeserving of being elected. In theory it should be more difficult just by way of having more scrutiny into the type of person he is to the voters.
