Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The absolute zero remorse, but rather the opposite in attacking everybody else should be an aggravating circumstance.
Michael Cohen showed remorse, and cooperated, and he still got jail time.
I'd say Trump deserves to serve time more than Cohen did.
1 Trump did not cooperate
2 Trump gave the orders
3 Trump shows no remorse
Is it really true that: "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
To add to this :
4 Trumps gain from the crime was to become the most powerful man in the world
5 Trump would do it again, and is in a position to do it again right now
Given these, how can he not go to jail. A money fine is nothing compared to what he gained and could gain again.
You’re right about Trump deserving far more jail time, don’t get me wrong.
But the charges are not the same, and aren’t even in the same jurisdiction.
Add to this, he blew off doing his probation report. Some people say it was because of the drug test. That's also a negative factor in sentencing.
Do you have a source for that? I know people were speculating he might not show up, but I haven't seen reporting confirming one way or another.
He hasn't submitted to it YET, but there's still time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-blow-off-his-pre-sentence-probation-interview-2024-5
That’s also a negative factor in sentencing.
If it were anyone but Trump, I'd agree with you.
But this is Trump. Even Merchan has allowed Trump to play by a completely different set of rules (violating the gag order 10 times and still not being thrown in jail, as an example). He has also been openly hesitant about the idea of throwing Trump in jail.
Trump not participating was predicted from day one, and I doubt even Merchan expected otherwise. With that said, I still think the chances of him seeing any jail time are all but nonexistent. He will either get a non-incarceration sentence, house arrest, or probation (most likely). And even if he does get probation, there is no chance that he is going to be forced to report to some NY probation officer. Most likely, he'll end up somehow striking some deal where one of his lackey lawyers shows up on his behalf and pinky swears that he is being a good boy, and after about the 14th or 15th probation violation, he'll receive his first warning that further violations may someday make them consider the possibility of having a meeting about it.
But this is Trump. Even Merchan has allowed Trump to play by a completely different set of rules (violating the gag order 10 times and still not being thrown in jail, as an example). He has also been openly hesitant about the idea of throwing Trump in jail.
During the trial. The argument I have seen for why Trump has gotten away with playing by completely different rules is that if the judge or prosecution makes absolutely any wrong step in procedure, the kind of lawyers Trump hires will jump on that and can push for all sorts of ways to shut down the case on procedural grounds (mistrial? Forgive me I'm not an expert), and based on the nature of this case, that would shut it down for good. But the trial is now over, so that argument should no longer apply. The options on the table for Trump's lawyers interfering with the sentencing are significantly reduced compared to trial, so the judge should be able to go for a really harsh sentencing, particularly for the reasons in this article. We'll see if the procedural mistrial argument really was the explanation, or just another rationalization of the 2-tiered justice system.
I don't think the rules change magicaly because it's Trump
Maybe not, but the application of the rules certainly seems to change.
The fairest thing might be a suspended sentence, if that's allowed in NY. The judge could impose a 3-6 month sentence, but suspend it pending completion of 2-4 years' probation. If Trump complies with the terms of the probation, he's formally let off the hook for the jail time.
I don't think any judge wants to be the one who throws a Presidential Candidate in jail, and this leaves that decision solely to Trump. And for all we talk that he probably wants to go to jail because he can get more Martyr points, in this case the jail would be Rikers Island, which is a horrible place. Trump probably has the low-down from Weissleberg about how bad it is there, even in isolation. If given that choice, Trump might actually comply with probation.
I don't think any judge wants to be the one who throws a Presidential Candidate in jail
The political backlash would be difficult, but a judge being able to state "in my courtroom no one, NO ONE, is above the law" would be a great career thing.
Oh yes, please!!
“The fact, I think, that he has no remorse – quite the opposite, he continues to deny his guilt – is going to hurt him at sentencing,” said Jeffrey Cohen, an associate professor at Boston College Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Massachusetts. “It’s one of the things that the judge can really point to that everybody is aware of — that he just denies this — and can use that as a strong basis for his sentence.”
Further:
“I don’t see any real benefit of him speaking at sentencing because even if he did say something, he’s saying the exact opposite outside the courtroom and the judge is not unaware of that,” Cohen said.
Does he even understand what the word "sorry" means? Has he ever uttered it in his life?
Narcissistic people don't say sorry because they can't accept personal responsibility for anything
The full extent of this can only be understood in context with personal experience regarding a narcissist.
It is literally unbelievable otherwise. Hell, even then it is hard to understand by anyone having a tiny bit of empathy.
Only when saying "no I will not play 'sorry' that is a lame game, we'll play monopoly with my house rules, to make it more accurate. Also I already own boardwalk, and have a casino there"
He's the kind of person that enjoys monopoly.
While that is a run-on sentence, it's far too coherent.
Also, there's a severe lack of "I have the best rules", "people always say I have the best rules" or similar.
Here’s a search containing a massive collection of public documents from US Presidents: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/advanced-search?field-keywords=Sorry&field-keywords2=&field-keywords3=&from%5Bdate%5D=&to%5Bdate%5D=&person2=200301&items_per_page=25
I searched “Sorry” under Trump and not a single one of the first 25 results appears to be a sincere apology. I see tons of “Sorry you feel that way” type comments, which is unsurprising.
"It’s a truism of the criminal justice system that defendants hoping for lenient treatment at their sentencing are expected to take responsibility for their actions, even express remorse. "
Yep I think one of the biggest things you hire a lawyer for is how to properly cry and beg ahead of sentencing. Some cases you are just boned and you plead guilty and try to convince the judge you are a low risk of future crimes.
This is not something Trump is capable of doing. However maybe all the politics he has played about it will do enough work for him.
Lack of contrition? Check Fundraising off of lies? Check Violating gag orders? Check
I dunno how any of it could help. Not that I’m terribly optimistic.
He probably would have won the trial if he his defense had just said: "Yes a crime was committed, but it wasn't Trump. He just signs the checks. Sure he fucked the porn-star, but thats not a crime."
That's literally what they said. They were trying to convince the jury that Cohen did the whole thing all on his own. It didn't work.
I followed everyday of the trial. Denying literally everything was central to the defenses strategy.
Here is a good NYT breakdown of it, but also, like everyday it was the same thing in the trial.
and the key quote:
The defense lost a winnable case by adopting an ill-advised strategy that was right out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he denied everything and attacked anyone who dared to take him on. It worked — until this case.
I mean they denied the affair with Stormy Daniels. They denied several, easily provable things. If they would have just 'admitted' a few of those things, but strongly denied any Trump knowledge of wrongdoing, they probably could have won: It was a criminal who objectively hates Trump that was needed to make that connection.
Instead the defense denied everything. Even the provable stuff. After that it was just personal attacks. I mean look how the defense took on cross with Cohen. They made it about them. It was a disastrous approach.
The consequences of not paying your lawyers, you only get shitty lawyers in the end
Yeah, from what I've seen of other trial lawyer defense & prosecutorial analysis, Trumps lawyer was just not good/ rusty.
I also think the defense strategy was just not good.
You can't deny 'everything' in a case like this, you have to be really strategic about intent etc. Like if Trump had allowed themseves to be thrown under an bus and made some kind of argument like "Look I was campaigning, I had no idea what was going on, the books are ALL BS, I dont pay that much attention, and then I was president and I couldn't pay attention".
But I really think Trump couldnt' suffer that slight against his pride..
Read an article by a lawyer; they said the same thing you did.
The writer said that the side with the simpler case is the one that usually wins. The defense never created a story to explain what happened; they just denied everything.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "this will be thing that does Trump in" I would be rich. I'll believe it when I see it. So far the only difference between this and the last time I heard it is that I can refer to him as a convicted felon, which, while somewhat satisfying, doesn't really mean anything. He's still going to be the GOP nominee and polls indicate his voters don't care about his conviction that much.
I have posted this story before.
After the 2016 election there was a panel discussion; all the creators of the top TV political dramas were invited. House of Cards; the West Wing; Veep; Scandal and others. Every writer and producer said the same thing. If they'd had a character on a show say that they 'liked soldiers who didn't get captured' the networks and advertisers would have demanded that character be kicked out of office/defeated resoundingly by the next episode.
My money is on him just being on probation or being fined. The judge has already said that he was very reluctant to throw him in jail because he’s a former president.
I don’t agree with that perspective, but he already didn’t throw this guy in jail after his actions routinely threatened the court the family members of people involved in the case.
Maybe Trump will -finally- go to jail for something, but I not holding my breath.
Taking responsibility for your actions is a big part of sentencing. That’s why people who plea guilty get reduced sentences.