Summary
New York judge Juan Merchan denied Donald Trump’s request to delay his sentencing on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, set for January 10, 2025, just 10 days before his inauguration.
Trump argued for a delay based on pending immunity appeals, but the court rejected the claim, citing repetitive arguments and delays caused by Trump himself.
Prosecutors noted the timing avoids potential legal complications during his presidency.
The judge plans to sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge, leaving him a convicted felon without further punishment.
The case involves hush money payments from 2016.
I wish I could commit felonies with impunity too.
Although, come to think of it, I don’t really want to commit felonies, because I’m not a criminal.
I admit I do get away with committing a lot of felonies.
Well, one specific felony a lot of times.
Glad I was able to go to a state where that felony is legal to purchase before the big snowstorm hit.
How much weed can one man smoke?
Is that a challenge?
I still don’t understand how a convicted felon loses the right to vote for president but can still be eligible to run for that office.
Simple: the Founding Fathers never envisaged that a convicted felon would ever have the balls to run for president, much less that anybody would be stupid enough to vote for one, because it’s fucking insane.
Or that, in true democratic fashion, they belived that the populace knows best. Allowing it or remaining silent could have been intentional. When forming a new government to escape from corruption, you wouldn’t want to create a situation that would outright exclude anyone that the corrupt government labels a felon.
They could never have imagined such vast distribution of misinformation and all three branches being so thouroughly compromised.
I doubt very much that the Founding Fathers had any illusion about the judgment capacity of the populace. If they had, the electoral college wouldn’t exist.
But they did believe that letting the citizens decide, however bad the decision, was the least worst option. And - more relevant to the Trump problem - I’m convinced they believed there was a level of stupidity and lack of morals below which even the most uneducated, most foolish citizenry could never stoop. That’s why didn’t put guardrails against the unthinkable.
Of course, Trump and the magards proved them wrong: there is no bottom rung on that particular ladder.
Guess which of these sentences aren’t in the article.
“The current schedule is entirely a function of defendant’s repeated requests to adjourn”
“Merchan said in his ruling Friday that he did not plan to jail Trump and that he was likely to sentence him to an unconditional discharge, meaning he would remain a convicted felon but would have no other punishment”
“We are not to blame for flushing democracy down a shit riddled toilet”
How the fuck can we ever take our courts seriously again?
There is some twisted logic to this. Your’e right, the system is broken, but this decision potentially avoids the constitutional crisis of whether a president can pardon themself. It may also make an appeal less likely. In short, it may be the best way to make the conviction stick. Now, what good is a conviction if there’s no punishment? The only thing I can think of that would have any impact on Trump is civil liability stemming from a criminal conviction.
Without punishment or rehabilitation, it doesn’t matter like you said. It’s the most in our faces it could possibly get, different rules apply. I forgot where I read or heard it, and it’ll be paraphrased:
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn’t mean a fucking thing if people do not back up it’s intent. And the people who are supposed to be are willingly neglecting their duty/oath to do so.
We were already an oligarchy in a trenchcoat pretending to be a democracy, we’re well beyond that now. Shit will get grim.
