Post New

Why the "unconditional discharge"? I can understand no jail time, and no home confinement, but why not at least sentence Trump to a significant fine? This was a campaign finance charge after all, isn't it?

This sentence amounts to "harsh words" and little else.

Why the "unconditional discharge"? I can understand no jail time, and no home confinement, but why not at least sentence Trump to a significant fine? This was a campaign finance charge after all, isn't it?

It wasn't a campaign finance charge - it was a business records charge.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I would hazard a guess that the judge didn't impose a fine because doing so would subject Trump to the continual threat of jail, which might give appellate courts pause. Again, I know little about NY criminal law, but I expect that when a criminal fine is imposed, the court retains jurisdiction and oversight over the defendant to make sure that the fine gets paid. And if it doesn't get paid, the court can order penalties. And one of those penalties is probably jail time.

If Merchan imposed a fine, Trump would never pay it. I know that, you know that, and all the appellate courts and SCOTUS justices know that. Which would mean that Merchan's court would have to be able to summon him back for further proceedings, with the possible imposition of jail time....which would keep all these weird and thorny legal issues in everyone's lap over the next few years.

So he didn't bother. There's no fine he could realistically impose that would have any impact on Trump (who is now worth many many billions, and could easily get someone else to pay any reasonable fine). So why open up the legal can of worms?

This sentence amounts to "harsh words" and little else.
****

NO but it also means you can call Donald a Felon - and celebrate how Kamala only lost by a little.

So that is totally worth it, isn't it.

Yup. Exactly right.
Only the most hard core of left wing AI chatbots believes this case has any legal merit and Merchan knows that.

I suspect that him imposing no penalty has 2 reasons - 1, the more harm Trump can show during his appeal the faster this gets overturned and 2, he doesn’t want to set a precedent for this kind of bullsh1t prosecution (lest some democrat suffers the same fate).

The damage the left does to our institutions on a daily basis requires a reckoning; these people need to pay.

"This sentence amounts to "harsh words" and little else."

Yup, not surprised at all. Man, Trump has really learned some harsh lessons about
how the US Justice system is not to be trifled with..............er, wait, Trump has never
had any reason to doubt that he is above the law in this Country. The last 4 years have
reinforced that belief deeper than ever. Dude can do whatever the eff he wants, no
worries.

What a joke.

Only the most hard core of left wing AI chatbots believes this case has any legal merit and Merchan knows that.

Oh, that's not right. The case certainly has legal merit. If Trump weren't the President-elect, he'd certainly get a whopping fine and perhaps some other sanctions relating to business operations, and perhaps probation.

But Merchan knows that Trump's status as President-elect makes it nigh impossible for a state judicial system to assert the type of control and jurisdiction over him necessary to actually impose a penalty - at least, not without solving a bunch of really thorny legal issues that will take years to resolve. Hence, the sentence.

So he didn't bother. There's no fine he could realistically impose that would have any impact on Trump (who is now worth many many billions, and could easily get someone else to pay any reasonable fine). So why open up the legal can of worms?

Ok, thanks. Makes sense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-merc...

"an extraordinary inflection point in presidential history: Amid all the posturing and pomp in the lead-up to the inauguration; amid all the saber-rattling and sycophancy of the past few weeks; and despite the failure of so many of our constitutional guardrails — one fact is unavoidable. As of today, Donald Trump is a convicted criminal in the eyes of the law."

---------------------------------------

what MSM doesn't seem to realize is that MAGA base strengthens with this decision.
They don't care that he's officially a convict, he's been a crook all his life,lol.

Am curious though, Federal Law is that convicts can't own guns. Will
Trump need to turn over his guns to law enforcement ??

The internet states that a convicted felon can't own a liquor license in Florida or New York.
Will these States confiscate Trump's liquor licenses ??

Lol, I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Oh, that's not right. The case certainly has legal merit.

It was selective prosecution of a public figure at its finest. That’s all this was and it will be thrown off the highest roof on appeal.

If Trump weren’t Trump this case never happens. Period.

Am curious though, Federal Law is that convicts can't own guns. Will
Trump need to turn over his guns to law enforcement ??

The internet states that a convicted felon can't own a liquor license in Florida or New York.
Will these States confiscate Trump's liquor licenses ??

I believe the first is already in progress. As for liquor licenses, I'd guess it only applies to the low level proximal business owners, not to the top one (Trump) who technically owns them all?

Also, don't some countries prohibit convicted felons from entering their territories?

It was selective prosecution of a public figure at its finest. That’s all this was and it will be thrown off the highest roof on appeal.

Claims of selective prosecution cannot serve as grounds for overturning a criminal conviction, unless the selective prosecution is based on arbitrary discrimination against a protected classification (like race or religion).

Claims of selective prosecution cannot serve as grounds for overturning a criminal conviction, unless the selective prosecution is based on arbitrary discrimination against a protected classification (like race or religion).


They'll get it tossed on there mere basis there was no crime in any of this, and certainly not 45 felonies.

They'll get it tossed on there mere basis there was no crime in any of this, and certainly not 45 felonies.

If they can prove that his actions were not, in fact, a violation of New York penal law, then they would be able to prevail on appeal.

The number of felonies isn't really relevant to review on appeal. It's not uncommon for white-collar crimes to involve multiple occurrences of the same criminal behavior, and they can all be independently charged. If doing something is a crime, then doing it X separate times means you can be charged with X felonies.

If Merchan imposed a fine, Trump would never pay it. I know that, you know that, and all the appellate courts and SCOTUS justices know that. Which would mean that Merchan's court would have to be able to summon him back for further proceedings, with the possible imposition of jail time....which would keep all these weird and thorny legal issues in everyone's lap over the next few years.

What's thorny? We know the expiration date. In four years he is no longer protected. So fine him today. If he fails to pay, pile on additional fines. If, after four years, he hasn't paid, toss him in the clink. Seems pretty straightforward.

What's thorny? We know the expiration date. In four years he is no longer protected. So fine him today. If he fails to pay, pile on additional fines. If, after four years, he hasn't paid, toss him in the clink. Seems pretty straightforward.

In order for a court to "pile on additional fines," it has to at that time have jurisdiction over the defendant and the lawful ability to impose criminal sanctions on him at that moment. I don't know much about NY state penal law, but there's a pretty good chance that the way that the law is written it would automatically give the court continuing jurisdiction over a defendant subject to a fine until the fine is paid. And the power to impose additional criminal penalties - including jail time - throughout that period.

That presents all kinds of issues. Can a court impose a sentence on a President-elect that would give the court continuing power to throw him in jail once he takes office? Marchan probably doesn't have the power to sever that ability from himself - if he sentences Trump to any fine, he automatically is giving himself that continuing enforcement jurisdiction until the sentence is fully served.

Can a court impose a sentence on a President-elect that would give the court continuing power to throw him in jail once he takes office?

While he's in office, the court clearly can't (based on discussions we had a few years ago). But in four years, they can. If the convict pays the fine, it's over. If not, it just piles up until the court has that power again (in 2029).

Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. Trump could flee to Mar-a-Lago (I hear he plans to run the government from there), and NY has no jurisdiction in FL. Even in 2029. But if they can impose fines on a FL resident, why can't they impose fines on someone who is -at present- "diplomatically" untouchable? Especially if we know that this status will end in four years.

While he's in office, the court clearly can't (based on discussions we had a few years ago). But in four years, they can. If the convict pays the fine, it's over. If not, it just piles up until the court has that power again (in 2029).

I'd be surprised if it works that way, under the NY Penal Code. I would expect that if the court does impose a fine, it will continue to have power over Trump until he pays it. There's probably not a mechanism for Merchan to dispossess himself of that power and jurisdiction. If he imposes a sentence that doesn't automatically conclude in the next ten days, then he has to be giving himself power over Trump on an ongoing basis.

If he did that, there's a good chance he loses the vote at the SCOTUS over whether he retains the power to sentence at all - which is probably why he announced ahead of time that this would be his sentence.

If he did that, there's a good chance he loses the vote at the SCOTUS over whether he retains the power to sentence at all - which is probably why he announced ahead of time that this would be his sentence.

And why didn't Merchan just put the case on hold until Jan 20, 2029 when Trump becomes a private citizen again? Couldn't he then impose a sentence with an actual penalty? Or was the goal here to simply brand Trump a convicted felon for the optics of it, even if that entails giving up on a meaningful penalty? I'd also heard that posyponing the case would allow Trump's lawyers to have 4 years to come up with a way to get the case thrown out, but they're going to be doing that anyway, aren't they?

And why didn't Merchan just put the case on hold until Jan 20, 2029 when Trump becomes a private citizen again?

I imagine it's because that's utterly unprecedented. It might specifically violate some provision of the NY criminal rules of procedure, which probably don't contemplate a four year delay between verdict and sentencing. But even if it doesn't, that's something that probably has never happened before.

Criminal defendants are entitled to due process - and while that's in some ways a pretty vague and nebulous term, it generally encompasses the right to have a criminal case processed under normal and regular rules. It would be highly unusual for a judge to delay sentencing for four years, and especially to do so for the purpose of being able to have more power to impose a harsher sentence than would be lawful at the moment (to phrase it in a way Trump's lawyers might). That might pose a defect that prevents sentencing at all.

I'd also heard that postponing the case would allow Trump's lawyers to have 4 years to come up with a way to get the case thrown out, but they're going to be doing that anyway, aren't they?

Not really. There are a few legal disabilities that come with being a convicted felon that don't inhere to someone who had their case thrown out, even if no additional penalty is imposed after the verdict. And there are obviously a lot of non-legal, reputational consequences that come from being a felon than someone who was never convicted.

If he did that, there's a good chance he loses the vote at the SCOTUS over whether he retains the power to sentence at all - which is probably why he announced ahead of time that this would be his sentence.

Yes, this was discussed by talking heads this morning. If Merchan had actually imposed any meaningful sentence (e.g. fines, parole, jail), he likely would have lost Amy the Coney and probably even John Roberts. Since there was no penalty imposed at all, they can support their decision in that it has no practical effect on Trump.

Yet, for now at least, he is a convicted felon. A first in history. And that makes a difference to many of us (and very much to Trump) and how he will go down in history.

Pete

It might specifically violate some provision of the NY criminal rules of procedure, which probably don't contemplate a four year delay between verdict and sentencing. But even if it doesn't, that's something that probably has never happened before.

A 4 year delay between trial and sentencing would FOR SURE violate the 6th amendment. Somebody would have to argue with a straight face that the "sentencing" was severed from the trial phase.

That presents all kinds of issues. Can a court impose a sentence on a President-elect that would give the court continuing power to throw him in jail once he takes office? Marchan probably doesn't have the power to sever that ability from himself - if he sentences Trump to any fine, he automatically is giving himself that continuing enforcement jurisdiction until the sentence is fully served.

How about a fine that isn't payable until January 21, 2029?

Yes, technically that would continue to give the NY courts power over Trump during his presidency. But there is nothing that could actually trigger that power until after he is out of office. He can't violate the order, since the order doesn't require any action while he is President. Hopefully, it would trigger the convict's appeal rights just as this no-punishment sentence does.

Or in a similar vein, how about a sentence that requires a certain number of hours of public service - as is commonly done. Merchan could even specifically agree that serving in an elected office would satisfy that service. Again, technically leaves the court with power, but really hard to have a violation that would trigger the power.

--Peter

How about a fine that isn't payable until January 21, 2029?

Maybe, but I don't know if the NY statutes give a judge the ability to impose a criminal fine with that kind of provision. And again, any fine the judge could impose would be a handslap for someone of Trump's wealth, if ever he even had to pay it himself (I guarantee someone would be easily willing to gain the "honor" of paying Trump's $75K fine for him). So what's the point?

merchan is a chickensh1+.
this country has no problems fining AND jailing the homeless, who have even less chance of paying.
those fines are what america, and assuredly MAGA, considers brave and deserved symbolism.

So what's the point?

The point is optics. The point is a criminal conviction with absolutely no consequences. How do you tell your children that no one is above the law when a felon convicted of multiple counts gets off with zero consequences? How do you convince our allies that we have a fair and just legal system when we let a criminal off for no reason other that they are rich and powerful?

There has been some evidence of a two tiered justice system for a while. This simply cements that fact. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that we do not have a two-tiered justice after this non-sentence.

--Peter

There has been some evidence of a two tiered justice system for a while. This simply cements that fact.

It most certainly does. Just not in the way that the left wants.

The point is optics. The point is a criminal conviction with absolutely no consequences. How do you tell your children that no one is above the law when a felon convicted of multiple counts gets off with zero consequences?

How are the optics any different if the judge imposes a $60,000 fine? To be paid in four years? I think that's the most that can be imposed - $5K per set of acts, and there were a dozen entries of the payments to Cohen, IIRC. That's a rounding error on his legal bill for this case, and he'd never actually pay it.

The consequences for Donald Trump are that he is a felon. No monetary fine would ever have been a real consequence for him, because the fines for these types of violations are low - it's the prison that is the consequence, not the fines, under the Penal Code. So once prison is out the window, a fine is pretty useless. Even for optics.

No monetary fine would ever have been a real consequence for him,

But they would carry the optics of a consequence. Sure, it's not really much for Trump, but 60 grand is a fortune to half or more of the country. Foregoing that potential fine just makes the justice system look even more two-tiered.

"Well, a 5 figure fine is meaningless to this rich guy so we won't even bother, but a $500 fine is impossible for this single mom to pay so we'll put her in jail for a few days instead, or force her to spend what little time off she has to do some community service."

The lack of any consequence at all completely sticks in my craw. It's wrong. It doesn't matter if the consequence is meaningless to any particular criminal. It's meaningful to society as a whole. It's meaningful to the concept of equality under the law.

--Peter

...don't contemplate a four year delay between verdict and sentencing...

I'm pretty sure I've read about delaying serving the sentence after it is rendered. So, sentence him to prison, and then delay his "report" date until Jan 21, 2029. Should be easy-peasy, depending on NY law.

The lack of any consequence at all completely sticks in my craw. It's wrong. It doesn't matter if the consequence is meaningless to any particular criminal. It's meaningful to society as a whole. It's meaningful to the concept of equality under the law.

Well, the States can't put the President in jail. Unlike you or me, he wields the entire Executive power under the Constitution - and since that can't be bifurcated from the person who holds the office, he can't be imprisoned. Which throws a spanner in criminal justice proceedings, because they aren't built to account for that type of defendant.

I'm pretty sure I've read about delaying serving the sentence after it is rendered. So, sentence him to prison, and then delay his "report" date until Jan 21, 2029. Should be easy-peasy, depending on NY law.

I know that can happen in federal courts, but I'm not 100% sure that's permissible under NY law:

§ 430.20 Commitment of defendant.
1. In general. When a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced, or when the sentence consists of a fine and the court has directed that the defendant be imprisoned until it is satisfied, the defendant must forthwith be committed to the custody of the appropriate public servant and detained until the sentence is complied with.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cpl/part-2/t...

I'm sure as a practical matter this sometimes gets done - but unless it's actually in the statutes, then it would probably be only at the forebearance of the Court or the agency that runs the prisons. Which therefore wouldn't solve the legal issues.

Well, the States can't put the President in jail.

OK. But fining him doesn't affect his ability to wield his Constitutional Executive power. Sure, the judge can't throw him in jail if he refuses to pay - at least not until his term is over. Which is why I suggested a fine that doesn't have to be paid until his term is over.

--Peter

OK. But fining him doesn't affect his ability to wield his Constitutional Executive power. Sure, the judge can't throw him in jail if he refuses to pay - at least not until his term is over. Which is why I suggested a fine that doesn't have to be paid until his term is over.

Again, perhaps. I don't know what the relationship is between the court and the defendant during the time when a fine has been sentenced and the date that it's due - whether the defendant is still subject to the court's jurisdiction during that interim period (for whatever reason), whether the due date can be modified, etc.

Albaby

Oh, that's not right. The case certainly has legal merit. = albaby

----------------

So are you predicting that Trump will be unsuccessful getting the conviction overturned?

<IHow do you tell your children that no one is above the law when a felon convicted of multiple counts gets off with zero consequences?

-----------------

Just tell them his conviction was overturned on appeal. Happens often in our Criminal Justice System.

Just tell them his conviction was overturned on appeal. Happens often in our Criminal Justice System.

Are you suggesting we lie to our kids? It hasn't been overturned yet. Are you predicting it's being overturned?

Are you predicting it's being overturned? - Lapsody

--------------

Yes.

The first federal court that sees this case will toss it, likely with prejudice. The sadz that Chatbots will post will be epic.

Just tell them his conviction was overturned on appeal.

I can’t, because it hasn’t been overturned.

Are you predicting it's being overturned? - Lapsody
--------------
BHM: Yes.

I agree with BHM.

Given his newly gifted wealth (DJT, CryptoFraud, SaudiBucks, etc) and having 4 years to seat more MAGA judges, the Felonious Trump* should have no trouble getting his case before a judge he owns.

*apologies to Thelonious.

So are you predicting that Trump will be unsuccessful getting the conviction overturned?

Of course it will be unsuccessful because he committed the crimes.

Until the fervent states’ rights SC justices decide that states’ rights don’t count when they don’t like the results.

...the Felonious Trump* should have no trouble getting his case before a judge he owns.

Sadly, in place of "The Notorious R.B.G." we now have "The Felonious D.J.T." Ugh.

Are you predicting it's being overturned? - Lapsody

--------------

Yes.

On what basis? I've only heard one talking-head attorney say it will get reversed on the evidence, but the standard on that is there has to be a "clear error". Where is there clear error in your view? And make a serious reply, because I haven't read of any clear errors.

...the Felonious Trump* should have no trouble getting his case before a judge he owns.

Sadly, in place of "The Notorious R.B.G." we now have "The Felonious D.J.T." Ugh.

Felonious, my old friend
Step on in and let me shake your hand
So glad that you're here again
For one more time
Let your madness run with mine
Streets still unseen, we'll find somehow
No time is better than now

[Chorus]
Tell me where are you driving
Midnight cruiser?
Where is your bounty of fortune and fame?
I am another gentleman loser
Drive me to Harlem or somewhere the same

On what basis? I've only heard one talking-head attorney say it will get reversed on the evidence, but the standard on that is there has to be a "clear error". Where is there clear error in your view? And make a serious reply, because I haven't read of any clear errors. - Lapsody

-----------------

The DA ran on elect me and I'll get Trump. But the payments and related records are a violation of FEC record keeping requirements whose statute of limitations had expired. So the DA has to create a franken crime by grafting those record keeping violations onto a NY fraud statute in order to have a case. That may be fine in Deep Blue NYC, but Dope is right, this case will be dropped as soon as a Federal Court gets it.

It’s very telling how the droogs on this board are all for this kind of lawfare. The day will come when one of them is in the receiving end of it…and they’ll suddenly discover some reverence for the rule of law.

Like little kids who change the rules of the game halfway through - that’s our libs for you.

The DA ran on elect me and I'll get Trump. But the payments and related records are a violation of FEC record keeping requirements whose statute of limitations had expired. So the DA has to create a franken crime by grafting those record keeping violations onto a NY fraud statute in order to have a case. That may be fine in Deep Blue NYC, but Dope is right, this case will be dropped as soon as a Federal Court gets it.

Nah, that's by no means clear. Cuomo extended the statute due to the Covid crisis. Can he do that? It looks like yes. Then there's his continuously being out of state. So there's at least two different ways you can arrive at a valid extension of time. If you are saying misdemeanors can't be elevated to felonies if there in furtherance of a crime, that's the way the law works.

And what crime is running for office on I'll go after Trump?

Nah, that's by no means clear. Cuomo extended the statute due to the Covid crisis. Can he do that? It looks like yes. Then there's his continuously being out of state. So there's at least two different ways you can arrive at a valid extension of time. If you are saying misdemeanors can't be elevated to felonies if there in furtherance of a crime, that's the way the law works. - lapsody

=============

Since neither of us is legal scholar, I'll just wait for the courts to decide.

--

And what crime is running for office on I'll go after Trump?

Marchan is not accused of a crime, by me anyway.

And what crime is running for office on I'll go after Trump?

Marchan is not accused of a crime, by me anyway.

Lots of MAGAts are posting their belief, their hope, that a broad range of democrats and RINOs be chastened/jailed/executed for non-existant crimes.

Clearly you're not that kind of MAGAt.

Since neither of us is legal scholar, I'll just wait for the courts to decide.

You haven't waited. The language you used showed you have already decided in Trump's favor.

I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure it sucks.

>>Since neither of us is legal scholar, I'll just wait for the courts to decide.<<

You haven't waited. The language you used showed you have already decided in Trump's favor. - Lapsody

---------------

True, My opinion remains that his conviction will be overturned. My reference to waiting on the courts to decide simply recognized the reality of the process. If I could actually decide, the case never would have been brought.

True, My opinion remains that his conviction will be overturned. My reference to waiting on the courts to decide simply recognized the reality of the process. If I could actually decide, the case never would have been brought.

Speaking of never waiting, every dem declared guilty even before Bragg unsealed the charges.

They just want To Get The Bad Orange Man, even after the voters told them to knock it off. Fine by me if they want to keep losing.

If I could actually decide, the case never would have been brought.

Which is why you don't decide. I's have to review the evidence, testimony, law and court decisions, and then attempt to be as impartial as I could if I were to decide. Then F*** Trump. :)

So are you predicting that Trump will be unsuccessful getting the conviction overturned?

No. A case can have legal merit and still be overturned. Sometimes you have procedural errors at trial, sometimes you have close questions of law where the prosecution's case is a legitimate interpretation, but a court finds the other way. And in this weird scenario, a case can have been completely meritorious when originally filed but develop a legal defect because the defendant happens to have won a Presidential election, which raises a ton of weird constitutional issues that wouldn't have been present at the time of filing or even the trial.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.