NY vs. Trump - Hush Money Trial

[Unagi]

He is still, in the eyes of the law, a first offender with no priors.

Who has negative remorse and is entirely contemptuous toward the court and the verdict.

[Zaxxon]

He is still, in the eyes of the law, a first offender with no priors.

Who has negative remorse and is entirely contemptuous toward the court and the verdict.

That's the part I don't get in the continual discussion of treating Trump leniently as a first-time offender. Granted--it's the first time he's become convicted felon Donald Trump. He's also made it abundantly clear--over the course of literally dozens of lawsuits & trials, hundreds of speeches and thousands of tweets/'truths'--that he has, as Unagi put it, negative remorse and full contempt for the court and system as a whole. And he repeatedly attacks the system and the humans working to carry it out, continually putting those folks into actual danger.

In other words, there is absolutely zero chance that treating him as 'a first offender with no priors' will have any rehabilitative impact. None. Further, allowing him to continue the status quo actively harms those humans I mentioned above.

So why would the judge treat him as though we don't know, though sustained action by cfDJT himself over the course of years, that this is the case?

[Smoove_B]

I think the "first time offender" is with respect to sentencing guidelines. I don't think anyone is claiming he's a guy that has maintained excellent behaviors and practices for the last 50+ years and then made a really bad decision.

[GreenGoo]

I don't know how the court would handle a murderer holding a press conference immediately after a verdict shouting for all to hear that he was railroaded and that murdering is just how he rolls. Deal with it, haters. Also this is the first time I've been caught doing the thing I said I didn't do after saying it's how I roll, so please be gentle, justice system. Also, hashtag rigged!

[Zaxxon]

I think the "first time offender" is with respect to sentencing guidelines. I don't think anyone is claiming he's a guy that has maintained excellent behaviors and practices for the last 50+ years and then made a really bad decision.

I know. I'm saying that when you know--as clearly and thoroughly as we know--that the low end of the sentencing guidelines will have absolutely no effect on the convicted felon, then why would the court consider the low end of the sentencing guidelines? In other words, he is literally a first-time offender, but he is effectively someone who has demonstrated that only jail time will have any effect on his behavior.

Which is not to say that I want to be the judge, or that a sentence of jail time won't have bad consequences for the nation. I'm speaking only to this notion that it matters in this specific case that Trump hasn't been convicted of a felony before. There is no level of benefit of the doubt that's appropriate to give cfDJT due to the fact that he's a first-time convict.

[ImLawBoy]

It's still a part of the sentencing guidelines that has to be considered.

[LordMortis]

cfDJT

I am under the impression that he won't be be cf until July and if I don't use TFG, then OJT is more appealing. It has the nonsensical spectacle and our collective rubbernecking of it all implied and the bonus of acknowledging Orange.

[stessier]

I think the "first time offender" is with respect to sentencing guidelines. I don't think anyone is claiming he's a guy that has maintained excellent behaviors and practices for the last 50+ years and then made a really bad decision.

I know. I'm saying that when you know--as clearly and thoroughly as we know--that the low end of the sentencing guidelines will have absolutely no effect on the convicted felon, then why would the court consider the low end of the sentencing guidelines? In other words, he is literally a first-time offender, but he is effectively someone who has demonstrated that only jail time will have any effect on his behavior.

Which is not to say that I want to be the judge, or that a sentence of jail time won't have bad consequences for the nation. I'm speaking only to this notion that it matters in this specific case that Trump hasn't been convicted of a felony before. There is no level of benefit of the doubt that's appropriate to give cfDJT due to the fact that he's a first-time convict.

I disagree that there is any sentence that would modify his behavior - this is all just to show that the system works. Sending him to jail will just make him a martyr and political prisoner - it certainly won't change how he operates.

[Zaxxon]

I disagree that there is any sentence that would modify his behavior - this is all just to show that the system works. Sending him to jail will just make him a martyr and political prisoner - it certainly won't change how he operates.

I mean in the literal sense. He won't tweet from jail because he won't be able to tweet from jail. He won't have rallies from jail because he won't be able to have rallies from jail.

Didn't mean to imply that he'd be rehabilitated into a decent human; clearly that's not happening.

[stessier]

I disagree that there is any sentence that would modify his behavior - this is all just to show that the system works. Sending him to jail will just make him a martyr and political prisoner - it certainly won't change how he operates.

I mean in the literal sense. He won't tweet from jail because he won't be able to tweet from jail. He won't have rallies from jail because he won't be able to have rallies from jail.

Didn't mean to imply that he'd be rehabilitated into a decent human; clearly that's not happening.

Does he need to be the one doing it? During the trial, he had intermediaries go on the attack so he ostensibly wouldn't violate the gag order. I could see the same thing happening from jail - he would have visitors who come out and bring us his musings and expectations. It might actually be worse as the faithful work to stay loyal until their savior is released.

[Blackhawk]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

[Alefroth]

cfDJT

I am under the impression that he won't be be cf until July and if I don't use TFG, then OJT is more appealing. It has the nonsensical spectacle and our collective rubbernecking of it all implied and the bonus of acknowledging Orange.

Why isn't he a convicted felon now?

[LordMortis]

cfDJT

I am under the impression that he won't be be cf until July and if I don't use TFG, then OJT is more appealing. It has the nonsensical spectacle and our collective rubbernecking of it all implied and the bonus of acknowledging Orange.

Why isn't he a convicted felon now?

IAN(even in the same conversation as)AL but I am under the impression he becomes felony convict at sentencing. It may be over but the crying but the crying, I believe, is July 11th.

[Unagi]

I think - unless he is sentenced to "a rockin' good time", and this simulation turns into a music video - he is a convicted felon.

In theory, in an appeal the conviction could be reversed and his record expunged, but for now, the sentencing is just the first thing you do to a convicted felon.

I'm also NIAL....

[Kurth]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

This is 100% true. There are many factors that Judge Merchan needs to weigh, and I'm confident he will, based on how he has presided over Trump's trial to date.

The problem, as Mr. Fed explained on the Serious Troubles podcast the other day, is that there are a lot of people expecting that when Judge Merchan sentences Trump, he will also factor in all the harm Trump has caused our country since he first came down that elevator and declared he was running for president in June 2015. As much as I might want Trump to be held accountable for all of that harm, that's really not what this sentence for this conviction is supposed to address.

[Isgrimnur]

It's still a part of the sentencing guidelines that has to be considered.

[Pyperkub]

As I told a friend the other day - which candidate has the endorsement of Russia, China, and Proud Boy white supremacists? That's all you really need to know to make an informed decision.

Being found guilty multiple times of fraud, and having a huge percentage of the people he surrounds himself with and appointed to government positions also convicted of fraud would also seem to be important...

[Pyperkub]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

Not a first time offender tho. See multiple civil business fraud judgements (and he still hasn't fulfilled those obligations).

First time felon, sure (for now), but not offender.

[Punisher]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

Not a first time offender tho. See multiple civil business fraud judgements (and he still hasn't fulfilled those obligations).

First time felon, sure (for now), but not offender.

But if they were civil do they really count here?

[Alefroth]

I don't think they do.

[El Guapo]

It's still a part of the sentencing guidelines that has to be considered.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled semi-recently that the Guidelines are optional (or more specifically, that requiring judges to follow the Guidelines is unconstitutional). Though my impression is that judges still pay attention to them.

[Blackhawk]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

Not a first time offender tho. See multiple civil business fraud judgements (and he still hasn't fulfilled those obligations).

First time felon, sure (for now), but not offender.

But if they were civil do they really count here?

I'MANAL IANAL, and I lose track of who here is an attorney (we should make them wear headbands or something), so take this with all due "WTF are you talkin' 'bout?"

Civil judgements are not criminal. There are whole different sets of criteria and rules (like that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - that goes out the window to be replaced with 'preponderance of the evidence'.) You don't get 'convicted' in a civil proceeding. They don't change 'first offender' status - after all, a divorce or custody case is a civil judgment.

Lesse... I've had two divorces and one custody hearing. Good thing I'm not in a 'three strikes' state!

[Kurth]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

Not a first time offender tho. See multiple civil business fraud judgements (and he still hasn't fulfilled those obligations).

First time felon, sure (for now), but not offender.

But if they were civil do they really count here?

I'MANAL IANAL, and I lose track of who here is an attorney (we should make them wear headbands or something), so take this with all due "WTF are you talkin' 'bout?"

Civil judgements are not criminal. There are whole different sets of criteria and rules (like that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - that goes out the window to be replaced with 'preponderance of the evidence'.) You don't get 'convicted' in a civil proceeding. They don't change 'first offender' status - after all, a divorce or custody case is a civil judgment.

Lesse... I've had two divorces and one custody hearing. Good thing I'm not in a 'three strikes' state!

All correct. Keep it up Blackhawk, and I'll be asking you to sub in to coach my high school mock trial team!

[ImLawBoy]

cfDJT

I am under the impression that he won't be be cf until July and if I don't use TFG, then OJT is more appealing. It has the nonsensical spectacle and our collective rubbernecking of it all implied and the bonus of acknowledging Orange.

Why isn't he a convicted felon now?

IAN(even in the same conversation as)AL but I am under the impression he becomes felony convict at sentencing. It may be over but the crying but the crying, I believe, is July 11th.

As I understand it based on the BlueSky posts of a former NY prosecutor and practicing defense lawyer of some 30 years, he "officially" becomes a convicted felon upon the entering of the sentence. Until then, while he has been convicted by a jury, he's not officially a convicted felon for government purposes. If he were to die before sentencing, he would not formally be a convicted felon.

Not that any of that means a dang thing from a practical standpoint, and I'm going to continue referring to him as a convicted felon.

[Zaxxon]

If it's good enough for ILB, it's good enough for me.

[GreenGoo]

It's still a part of the sentencing guidelines that has to be considered.

Consider it considered. And dismissed as not a viable option.

[GreenGoo]

I disagree that there is any sentence that would modify his behavior - this is all just to show that the system works. Sending him to jail will just make him a martyr and political prisoner - it certainly won't change how he operates.

It might kill him. That would be a nice act of god. I really don't think he can do more harm as a martyr than the tireless work he does every day to destroy the country.

[El Guapo]

I assume that even if given jail time he wouldn't be required to report before the election (though who knows), but can you imagine the impact if some random felon shanked him in October?

[LordMortis]

I assume that even if given jail time he wouldn't be required to report before the election (though who knows), but can you imagine the impact if some random felon shanked him in October?

Or he hangs himself?

[Blackhawk]

If the MAGettes think we killed their candidate to steal the election, we'd see violence. Hanging would be worse. We'd be hearing Epstein theories for the rest of eternity.

[El Guapo]

I assume that even if given jail time he wouldn't be required to report before the election (though who knows), but can you imagine the impact if some random felon shanked him in October?

Or he hangs himself?

I can't imagine that. He seems way too self-absorbed to ever consider killing himself, especially shortly before an election which (amazingly) he could still win and which would likely provide him with the power to save himself. And if one is conspiracy minded, I can't imagine the Deep State (Derp State?) offing him that way because it would be less believable.

[ImLawBoy]

It's still a part of the sentencing guidelines that has to be considered.

Consider it considered. And dismissed as not a viable option.

I didn't know you had that authority! Some kind of US-Canadian treaty, I suppose.

[GreenGoo]

I'm a King David analogue! My powers come from being a terrible person.

[Punisher]

Him being a first time offender is, and should be, a factor.

It is not, however, the only factor. His behavior, his statements, his history, his age, and many more things that I'm not aware of are also factors. Pointing out one factor that is in his favor doesn't discount the ones that are not.

Not a first time offender tho. See multiple civil business fraud judgements (and he still hasn't fulfilled those obligations).

First time felon, sure (for now), but not offender.

But if they were civil do they really count here?

I'MANAL IANAL, and I lose track of who here is an attorney (we should make them wear headbands or something), so take this with all due "WTF are you talkin' 'bout?"

Civil judgements are not criminal. There are whole different sets of criteria and rules (like that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - that goes out the window to be replaced with 'preponderance of the evidence'.) You don't get 'convicted' in a civil proceeding. They don't change 'first offender' status - after all, a divorce or custody case is a civil judgment.

Lesse... I've had two divorces and one custody hearing. Good thing I'm not in a 'three strikes' state!

I (don't like) ANAL either but from what I remember from my time as a HLEO, this is correct.
We generally charged people both criminally and civilly almost 100% of the time and they were treated separately although sometimes the defendant would plea out on the civil charged in order to get lesser criminal charges. It obviously depended on the actual crime because F some of them.

[em2nought]

If the MAGettes think we killed their candidate to steal the election, we'd see violence. Hanging would be worse. We'd be hearing Epstein theories for the rest of eternity.

I'm expecting Sleepy Joe will start WW3 with Russia before the election, and then quickly round up all Republican big wigs(Liz Cheney excluded) and charge them with collusion & treason with a speedy trial and conviction in NYC followed by speedy executions before anyone knows what's happened. The mainstream media will help with a news blackout for the "war". It will be just like the King of France and the Templars except without the burning at the stake part. Maybe they'll use a gas chamber so they can scare the crap out of any Jewish folk once they finally tell "we the people" about it. They'll probably grabbed Elon, Tulsi, & Joe Manchin while they're at it.

Might have to take the internet down to do it, we'll all be suffering withdrawls.

Canada will probably have to off the guy who eats apples while talking to reporters too!

[YellowKing]

For someone y'all call Sleepy Joe, you sure do give him a lot of credit for orchestrating massive conspiracies.

[em2nought]

For someone y'all call Sleepy Joe, you sure do give him a lot of credit for orchestrating massive conspiracies.

I should have said "his handlers", poor Joe is just their perfect brain dead puppet as long as they can keep him upright.

[Jaymann]

The Banana Republicans rejected impeaching Agent Orange, saying he should be held accountable for his actions in court under the rule of law. So when this actually happens it means the current administration is going into full fascist mode and do things the Orange Turd has already stated he will do if re-elected. Projection much?

[Blackhawk]

em2 - seriously, you exist only to try and cause problems.

It makes me wish we still had a CoC.

[gbasden]

em2 - seriously, you exist only to try and cause problems.

It makes me wish we still had a CoC.

I mean, he's kind of on to something. It's not like collusion and treason doesn't fit when you are talking about some of the folks on the right supporting Putin and Kim, much less the whole autocracy and overthrow of democracy.