334

Donald Trump was convicted on felony charges. Will he go to prison? (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 101 points 5 months ago

"He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is," Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump's age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime

Lack of injury?? He literally committed crimes to get elected, which he did. 340 million Americans had to suffer this dipshit being president for 4 years. A million of us died during his piss-poor response to COVID!

[-] JDPoZ@lemmy.world 54 points 5 months ago

My heart : "YES!!!!!"

My brain - which has seen what people like, for example, the Wal-Mart heiress who literally ran someone over that then died never spent a moment in jail... : "No."

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 40 points 5 months ago

Once again, Betteridge's law applies perfectly.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

They had to fucking ask didn't they!?!

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 36 points 5 months ago

I can not WAIT for CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP who was found GUILTY and ALL 34 COUNTS to pay a $5000 fine and pinky swear not to do this again! THAT will teach him!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] warm@kbin.earth 27 points 5 months ago

Why can a felon run for president?

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 74 points 5 months ago

Because if they couldn't, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.

"Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you've been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day."

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 5 months ago

Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago

You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went "I'm president so I can do what I want"

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 5 months ago

He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments..... the list can on for literally days.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago

Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.

Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.

Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered

[-] big_slap@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

so it's up to us not to vote for people who have 34 felony charges, got it.

[-] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago

Correction: 34 felony convictions.

[-] villainy@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

34 felony convictions so far.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Well, we're fucked.

[-] warm@kbin.earth 5 points 5 months ago

Hah. Fair enough

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter's rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election... which is unfortunate because it's a good one.

Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

[-] sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 5 months ago

I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That's definitely a good example of why it shouldn't bar someone outright.

[-] nova@lemm.ee 14 points 5 months ago

Because if you're able to invalidate your opponent's candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can't run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 5 months ago

If felons can't vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn't be able to run for office.

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 18 points 5 months ago

If it makes you feel better, he can't vote for himself.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

This does make me feel better. Thank you.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wait, why not?

Edit: Oh, right. This isn't the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Peer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 months ago

Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So, let's say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.

The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don't think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Probably not, maybe house arrest? I'm curious to see if this has an effect on the other cases, if any. Can Jack Smith easily add a 2016 election interference count now that this is proven?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

[-] petersr@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

But can we at least get him out the election?

[-] citrusface@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Also no

[-] petersr@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Can we at least avoid a dystopia future?

[-] clark@midwest.social 11 points 5 months ago

[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

My prediction: he may or may not go to jail.

My other prediction: either outcome will not influence his Nazi cult.

My other prediction: we were wrong on how 2016-2023 was down right weird. 2024 has us holding it's double long island with no soda.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

No. But the hysteria from Ronald McDonald and his supporters is going to be lit.

Also: someone needs to meme that woman tRump supporter crying for him out in front of the court house. So tired of seeing that woman in the green jacket after Hillary "lost", supposedly being a stand-in for all liberals or something. Time to show how hysterical the right really is.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Two experts told NBC News that it's unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time.

During the trial, Judge Juan Merchan threatened to put Trump behind bars for violating his gag order, but it’s unclear if the former president will face similar consequences now.

Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it's unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender.

An analysis conducted by Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, found that roughly one in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned, and those cases typically involved other crimes.

Kuby added that he believes "it is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time," despite the logistical and practical complications that locking up a person with Secret Service protection would entail.

It's also highly unlikely that comments that appeared to be aimed at sidestepping the gag order by Republican officials who attended the trial as Trump's guests will figure into the judge's reasoning, Kuby added.

The original article contains 842 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

34 counts... If they don't sentence him, then what's the fucking point!? Anything less than jail time is just going to empower him. Lock his ass up!

[-] ghostface@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Agreed, that post made it seem like he was innocent up until now. The e jean carrol conviction should relieve him of his first timer status

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Amen, it should also relieve him of his non-violent offender status. The man was found guilty of rape. The only reason he didn't serve jail time for that was because it was past the statute of limitations.

[-] qantravon@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

It was also a civil suit, not criminal.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Which means it was a finding of FACT. Ans those don't care about your feelings, apparently.

[-] qantravon@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

That was a civil suit, not criminal.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I can commit all the election finance fraud I want in the 2024 election and not have to deal with it until 2032 if I'm caught!

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Nope. He'll go straight into White House and will 'remove' 50% of US ppl. Either the hard way. Or they leave the country fast enough. USA is going the chinese or russian way. One leader with enough power to rule and many supporters who make profits in this odd system. The rest will suffer from this system. India and Europe will be there soon too.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 30 May 2024

334 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19170 readers

4535 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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