this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I know what I'm about to say is not going to get a ton of love here buuuut....

I'd argue that if you're a former president, you SHOULD get deferential sentencing. Too much potential for abuse otherwise. Imagine if Trump won in 2024 and suddenly Biden's document retention case got re-opened and he got the harshest possible sentence.

Similarly but separately, major party nominees should get deferential sentencing. It's an influence on the political process, and you should err on the side of having less influence. If you lock up a nominee so they can't campaign, it's not really a fair election. ESPECIALLY when it's a crime from 8 years ago.

Like, still get sentenced within the guidelines of the crime, but just towards the more lenient edge. If someone is guilty of murder you can't NOT put them in prison. But if the penalty for the crime doesn't require prison, it's quite a leap to get to prison on a former president, current nominee.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Counterpoint is that with great power, comes great responsibility, and those at the top should have even MORE oversight and even harsher penalties when they step out of line. For some reason (well, it's not much of a mystery - it's about power and money), it's completely backwards - those in power are almost never accountable for anything they do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Counterpoint:

FUCK THAT!

no one is above the law or we are not a free fucking country.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

It's not "above the law" when the penalty is still within the range of punishments listed in the law broken. The former president and/or nominee would still be punished according to the law, just at the lower bound allowed by judicial discretion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

34 Felonies, interfering with the election that got him to be president.... Yeah, lock his ass up. He's gotten away with enough bullshit his entire life that if it were anyone else that didn't have a rich daddy, they'd been in jail decades ago for decades to come.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I get that you are trying to explain a method to prevent the system from being abused against political rivals. But Trump was unanimously found guilty of 34 counts by a jury. He attacked the judge, the court and the jury during the trial, and continues to disregard the law. It will send a clear message that he is above the law if he gets a lesser sentence than Cohen.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Presidents are above the law while they're in office. This case is unique because it happened before he was in office. The message that will really be sent is "wait until you're actually president to do would-be illegal shit".

Still worth handing him a harsh sentence, just to put the orange fascist fuck behind bars, but there shouldn't be any misconceptions about some true notion of justice here. Trump is just a moron, and didn't know how to play the game correctly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Presidents are above the law while they’re in office.

Every time I learn a new thing about our government it looks even more fucked up and unworkable. I know those guys were on laudenum and cocaine and drunk off their asses when they wrote the Constitution but goddamn were they fucked up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the rules change magicaly because it's Trump

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

IMO the judge was fair and did not give too much deference to the defendant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How many times do you think you could violate a gag order before you get thrown in jail?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your interpretation may not be the same as the judge. It's always judgement call on their part, and it turned out to be a min9r issue after ruling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call stochastic terrorism "minor."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let's review what happened. The gag order was placed on Trump. Per procedure, the prosecution informed the judge that Trump had broken it. The judge held a special hearing on this and asked the prosecutor for curative measures suggested. The judge agreed to this cure and fined Trump. The Trump tonned it down for a time allowing the end of the trail. That's how a gag order is supposed to work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How many times do you think you could violate a gag order before you get thrown in jail?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just explained how the process works. You can sit in armchair judgement, but the real judge is the one who met his duty.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Answer the question dude....

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

You don't have a question, you only have a fantasy of being mighter than you are.