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 remorseIs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Well I think the judge usually considers the defendant’s job. And that is where he’ll not get house arrest or community service… his lawyers will correctly argue that Trump is campaigning for his job as president, so is expected to be in different states almost daily and or travelling a lot for at least 6 more months. Thus it would be an unfair sentencing if it limited him to earn a buck.
Same will be argued for prison time but ofcourse that is a whole different ballgame and a judge could finalize that sentence but put it on a delay for like 2025.
I don’t think the rules change magicaly because it’s Trump
Maybe not, but the application of the rules certainly seems to change.
Fact is the rules of the criminal courts process didn’t change, nor the application of those rules.
Like contempt and gag order violations?
He was fined repeatedly for those at the maximum amount possible
He received a warning after ten violations, which would land a normal schmuck like you or me in jail several times over.
Never mind that a fine for a wealthy person is not justice.
One of the purposes of being thrown in jail for contempt is so there is a method to punish the wealthy when monetary fines aren’t a deterrent. Fining Trump $10k for ten different violations is a prime example of this – Fining him $10k is like fining you and me a nickel. It’s not a deterrent in any form. Especially in a case like this where any one of those violations could have cost someone their lives, he should have been thrown in jail.
And there’s not a chance in hell that anyone else would still be walking free after violating a court order ten fucking times.
They certainly appear to.
IMO the judge was fair and did not give too much deference to the defendant.
How many times do you think you could violate a gag order before you get thrown in jail?
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.
I wouldn’t call stochastic terrorism “minor.”
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.
Merchan allowed it, yes, but the prosecutors never asked for jail for his contempt charges. Trump also received a warning at his hearing where he was found in contempt and afterwards did comply (technically).
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.
I think it’s not that they don’t accept personal responsibility. In fact, they think everything is about them, thus they are responsible for everything.
The real issue is that they think they can’t do anything wrong. Everything revolves around them and their actions are good, by definition.
Removed by mod
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.
Even if he played Sorry, when he knocked someone back to start when they were on the home stretch, he probably STILL wouldn’t even say “Soooooorrrryyyy!” in a super sarcastic voice, like you are supposed to do.
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[date]=&to[date]=&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.
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.
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.
…no it wasn’t?
They tried to deny almost all of what happened.
For those passing by, keep in mind that @TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world is someone who thinks Democrats are fascists.
Yes, Nougat is correct, thank you for pointing this out. Its not relevant to this conversation, but I take it as a point of pride.
I oppose fascism if its coming from Republicans, and I also oppose it if its coming from Democrats too.
If you do not oppose fascist policies because its a Democrat proposing or supporting it, you do not stand against fascism.
Saying that US citizens are no longer allowed to criticize an ethno-state that is engaged in the active genocide of a people, funded by US taxpayer, is absolutely a component of setting up a fascist authoritarian state. Criminalizing dissent is one of first steps towards fascism & authoritarianism that happens when people fail to recognize of holding their own political agents to account. Likewise, we have an extremely authoritarian border bill, that it looks like Biden will sign.
If you only oppose fascism and authoritarianism when it comes from Republicans, you are not an anti-fascist. If you only oppose racist policies when they come from Republicans, you aren’t an anti-racist.
Brave of you to rebuke with your personal justifications for your opinions.
People here are deliberately trying their hardest to build their own echo chambers and do not appreciate hearing opposing views such as yours.
Nor do many care to read your thoughts, and would rather read shit that makes them feel things as if everything and everyone needs to fall into a fucking category.
Beware the fascists in lemmy.
Once into context, Nougat isn’t make the point they think they are.
To be perfectly clear, you are a person who is disconnected from reality.
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.
Trumps lawyer was just not good/ rusty.
From what was said on Meidas Touch, a defense lawyer should be fairly independent. They should direct the best strategy. In this case the “strategy” seemed to be directed by Trump. It’s not just the quality of the lawyer, it’s also that the lawyer let the client dictate most of the defense.
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.
Well, not entirely. The other part is it’s far less expensive for the government.
Jury trials are expensive. A quick court hearing is not nearly as expensive.
deleted by creator
