On the rest??

Any other person would have gone to jail!

The lowest level of felony NY has, no prior felony convictions, here this would have been diverted.

NY wasted time and money on it just to try to make sure Trump will,get politically damaged enough to loose…oops…backfire
Well, NY Dems are not the brightest puppies in that litter

A miscarriage of justice. You or I would have been sentenced to jail and to pay a substantial fine.

I am disgusted. Trump should have received an immediate fine, then 3-6 months in jail, to be served upon expiration of his presidential term.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
A miscarriage of justice. You or I would have been sentenced to jail and to pay a substantial fine.

I am disgusted. Trump should have received an immediate fine, then 3-6 months in jail, to be served upon expiration of his presidential term.

Nope. We might get a petty fine... oh. Wait, you have zero experience is real business.. got it

but, hey, if we measured trump against YOUR elitist checklist, how many votes would YOU give him?

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
NY wasted time and money on it just to try to make sure Trump will,get politically damaged enough to loose…oops…backfire
Well, NY Dems are not the brightest puppies in that litter

Can you imagine someone so corrupt that he got run out of New York?

I don't think it was a waste. They made history by convicting Trump of felony so he's our first felon president. That's priceless.

It wasn't a matter of fact that Trump got elected simply because of the prosecutions. Key facts "elected" and "prosecutions" are true, but they are not linear truth. The part in the linear stream that's left out is Trump got elected because so many believed his persecution/victim lies.

If we could objectively measure harm to the nation by comparing something deemed to be harmful -- Well, let's do that.

Suppose there's a guy who has little regard for the rule of law, a con artist, a liar, a toxic narcissist, etc. who does what such persons like that are known to do.

OTOH those administering the rule of law does what such persons are expected to do.

The clash is inevitable.

The presumption is that no one is above the law.

So, the only way out for such toxic narcissist is to somehow rise above the law.

Winning an election for POTUS is the ultimate path.

So the result is that those administering the rule of law are thwarted and the narcissist is rewarded.

We already know the nuances along the way.

Suppose those administering the rule of law stepped out of bounds and abused their authority. That's obviously harmful on a national scale in this scenario, if true. First the rule of law is supposed to be administered on a factual basis, AND given the due processes, such as burden of proof, grand jury, appeals to different levels it's supposed to be self-correcting.

The narcissist by nature is out of bounds and abuses authority and not self-correcting. Factual is only a matter of convenience and lies are more often more useful. There is no due process and burden of proof. That's just not the working MO of a narcissist.

So in this scenario we now have the rule of law and a narcissist contest. Normally the outcome would be predictable.

Now throw in the wild card, millions of people who are duped for whatever reason by the narcissist's lies, and given the constraints of the legal system, the contest is decided at the voting booths all across the country.

So, really we have a twofer regarding harm. The rule of law is thwarted, the lies win.

The only author who could have made this story up is maybe Shakespeare.

Is this a contest of good vs evil? Usually in such stories good wins. Millions of Americans have decided that the "System" is the evil and Trumpism represents Good in the contest.

If we consider this outside the specific truth vs lies of it all, just look at the probabilities re good vs evil. The rule of law with its checks and balances called due process and factually based, per the Founding principles, in a contest with a person who exhibits the Dark Triad personality, which is more likely to do evil/harm?

Definition:
"The "Dark Triad" in psychology refers to a cluster of three interrelated, negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; essentially describing individuals who tend to be manipulative, self-centered, and lacking in empathy, often exploiting others for personal gain."

Which would you prefer, the principles of the Founders or the non-principled grip on the nation of the Dark Triad?

Here we are, and that's the question and answer you and millions have already decided.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
On the rest??

Any other person would have gone to jail!

we know at least another person that did that bad but did not go to jail nor give back the money ... seems there is a pattern for justice lol ...

I went and read the judge’s sentence. It is clear the sentence was influenced by DOJ policy that a setting president cannot be prosecuted and the immunity decision w Trump taking office. In part:

To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the Office of the President, have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump v. The United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

Jane Rosenberg/Reuters
New York State Judge Juan Merchan sentences President-elect Donald Trump as he appears remotely for a sentencing hearing at New York Criminal Court in New York City, Jan. 10, 2025, in this courtroom sketch.
Jane Rosenberg/Reuters

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating or mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others.

To be clear, the protections afforded to the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections are, however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. However, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is a power to erase a jury verdict.

It is clear from legal precedent -- which until July 1st was scarce -- that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the Office of the President that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder, and it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity. It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence.

After careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.


Trump’s pre-sentencing report is especially damning.

The judge did not pronounce a sentence of unconditional discharge because he felt the trial and charges were not just. His sentence reflects in his professional discretion what the rule of law requires given the American people have bestows a special status upon Trump. It is the legal status president that matters and not the man. That is the rule of law. The process is more important than the outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The judge did not pronounce a sentence of unconditional discharge because he felt the trial and charges were not just. His sentence reflects in his professional discretion what the rule of law requires given the American people have bestows a special status upon Trump. It is the legal status president that matters and not the man. That is the rule of law. The process is more important than the outcome.

Does that mean he's allowed into Canada?