• oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    He faces probation or up to four years in prison.

    It’s been reported that only 10% of felons are given jail time for similar convictions. You have to wonder if such remarks after his conviction, indicating he’s learned absolutely nothing, may lead a judge towards the harsher punishment.

    Also, let’s take a moment to applaud Alvin L. Bragg.

    Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, risked his reputation by indicting Mr. Trump in a case that some prominent Democrats said wasn’t strong enough to have brought against a former president. Instead, Mr. Bragg cemented his place in history as the first prosecutor to convict a former president.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I remember when we thought we were going to make statues of Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill because we once thought he was brave for taking on Trump.

        Let’s maybe wait to see if Trump actually gets sentenced with an appropriate punishment first before jumping the gun with Bragg.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      The democrats are such goddamn pussies. They need to wake up and fight the fascism before their Inaction destroys this country.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I hate the rhetoric that we can’t do anything because it would make Trump a martyr.

        So it’s either let him do whatever he wants or he’s a martyr. I don’t know why they see this as a lose lose situation. Hold the fucker accountable for his actions or he’ll keep doing shitty things. It’s their fault that it’s gone on as long as it has.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      If anything you would expect someone who was trying to get elected (when the crimes were committed) to be held to higher standards than most and to be dealt a harsher sentence.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even if he’s just given probation, you can pretty much guarantee that he’ll violate the terms within minutes.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      He won’t go to prison, but there’s a decent chance he’ll get home confinement for a few months.

      • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nah, I think it’ll just be probation with generous terms. If they put him on house arrest, he’ll challenge that saying it’s political and it will prevent him from campaigning. It’ll be easier to just slap him with a “you have to report your travel plans” and a few hours of community service. He deserves much more, but it’ll cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and take years if they actually try to punish him. I’ll call it a win if we can always refer to him as “convicted felon DT” and let him walk. That will give more ammo for harsher sentences for the federal cases.

        • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is there any actual weight to this talk of campaign interference? I heard it somewhere else, too. It just seems absurd to me that that would be considered at all. Like if I did a few felonies but was like: your honor, I’ve got to water my plants. so you see - I can’t do any prison time.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          a few hours of community service

          Please, please, please, just let me see video of Trump serving and cleaning tables in a soup kitchen in Harlem.

      • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Plus he’s likely to have a probation officer either way that he will regularly have to check in with. Hopefully he has to take drug tests too

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Mr. Trump, the former president and presumptive Republican nominee, derided the trial as “rigged” and made numerous false statements about what had taken place in court

    Like he would even know what took place in court since he slept through half of it

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      2 months ago

      He said himself he doesn’t even know what the charges are.

      Personally I’d have asked my lawyer. Probably before 5 weeks of testimony, but definitely before the verdict.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’d think. lol

        The charges against him would have been read to him in their entirety during the arraignment proceedings which come (long) before the trial. The orange dipshit probably slept through that, too.

        • nilloc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          He’s playing like the charges are too complex for his voters. He may have also been trying to suggest they are just inane technicalities that we shouldn’t worry about.

          It’sa fucking act, he knows what he did, he was sure he’d get away with it, and now he’s trying to get out of it. He’ll say anything but the truth.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months ago

      He had the opportunity to testify if he thought any of the statements were false… he declined.

      That’s all we need to fucking say - under oath he refused to refute the charges.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It kind of does say it all, but in a criminal trial, refusing to testify cannot be held against you under the 5th Amendment. In a civil trial, though, refusing to testify can be factored into reaching a verdict.

        So yeah, while it may make you appear guilty as hell, refusing to testify in your criminal trial cannot be held against you.

        That was hammered into us every time I had to report for jury duty.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          Idealistically, you’re right. But it says volumes that someone would be willing to say a lot of shit in front of a camera (where the consequences are miniscule), but refuse to say the exact same shit in front of a judge (where the consequences are serious [assuming you’re not a “rich” white orange cult leader]).

          Trump doesn’t testify for the one reason we all know: he’d incriminate himself faster than any piece of evidence that could ever be produced.

          • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Oh, yeah. We all know. lol. But, for better or worse, he’s entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us (despite the fact he routinely wipes his ass with it).

            • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yes, it can’t impact the trial, that he didn’t testify. Doesn’t mean we can’t infer, out here away from the court, that he put up a big front in public and slunk away with his tail between his legs in court, because he knew he was guilty and would only have made things worse if he testified, along with earning some counts of perjury.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          My understanding is that it is usually idiotic to testify at one’s own criminal trial, even if innocent. Preventing Donald from testifying is one of the few intelligent things the defense did, and not just because he is a loudmouthed pathological liar who would instantly perjure himself.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It is absolutely your right to not be sentenced or punished by the state for refusing to testify and that’s fucking important… it absolutely isn’t your right to not be publicly damaged for being an obvious shit-heel who is clearly lying every second they aren’t under oath.

          I think it’s important to distinguish those two things.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I watched a documentary about Alex Jones’ court case with the Sandy Hook victims and he did the exact same thing. In court he does nothing, but as soon as he’s back in front of a camera he’s straight back to peddling lies and crying injustice.

    • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m sure the prosecutors will be bringing this up at the sentencing. I’m also sure the judge watched.

      Since he has been convicted, everything T**** says in public can be used to influence his sentencing.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

    And Johnson wants the Supreme Court to step in, overturn the conviction, and grant immunity to future prosecution.

    He’s a bigger dipshit than I took him for.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I hadn’t heard about Johnson calling for that, so I looked it up:

      https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/mike-johnson-trump-supreme-court

      “I think that the Justices on the court – I know many of them personally – I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight,” the Louisiana Republican added.

      I think that quote really puts into perspective that the GOP is no longer the party of law. If a jury hands down a decision we don’t like, we get our friends in high places to overturn it. I bet his kids never have to worry about traffic tickets, either, they all get magically “fixed” with the right phone call.

      Trump’s allies are already plotting revenge, with one prospective Trump attorney general candidate telling Axios’ Zach Basu and Sophia Cai that GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.

      You know what? If Democrats break the law, then prosecutors should go after them! Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what they have in mind.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.

        Can we just not have GOP and dem prosecutors, everything doesn’t have to be one or the other for fucks sake.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think that’s possible. First of all, they’re state crimes. Second of all, the jury has already rendered a verdict. The state courts are separate from federal for a reason, and setting aside a jury’s verdict for literally no reason is just not possible for the Supreme Court. The jury is the decider of fact, the judge is the decider of law. This jury decided that trump did indeed commit this crime, so it’s now established fact.

      They would have to rule based on some error in the court process. Judge Merchan was very careful to give Trump a fair trial, so there are no grounds for appeals.

      • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        I hate that we have to re-explain the entire legal system because one man who obviously committed obvious crimes also constantly lies about how the legal system works and people eat it up.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      To call something a lie, the media outlet has to know, 100%, that the speaker knows it’s a lie. It’s difficult to impossible to meet that threshold in pretty much all cases.

      A false statement is an untruth — a lie that could have resulted from an honest mistake, poor fact-checking, negligence, or just plain bad luck / stupidity.

      People may say something that is known to them as the truth, but is not necessarily the objective truth as known by others. In that case, they would be making unwitting false claims. i.e. “it’s not a lie if you believe it”

      Basically it comes down to liability. If a media outlet directly calls something someone says a lie, they’re going to get sued.
      And Cheeto is a walking SLAAP lawsuit.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        He won’t sue. If he sues they can subpoena and reveal that in private communications he admits the truth.

        • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I mean, a smart person (or a dumb person who at least listened to the advice of their lawyers) wouldn’t sue in that scenario. But this is Trump we’re talking about, lol, so I’m less convinced.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know what the law says, but it seems to me you can tell a lie without lying. If I hear a lie and then repeat it, transitive property, baby.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly even that much is a big step for the New York Times. I’m a little surprised they’re not trying to “both sides” it.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        the news on regular tv last night was totally lopsided. tons of ‘reaction’ from the right and far-right, hardly anything from anyone else.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The news on regular TV is almost all bought and paid for by Sinclair / Fox / whatever other explicit propaganda outlet. The people reading that bullshit may hate it a lot more than you do, but they may be contractually obligated to go up and say it. It’s real fucked up.

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Best guess? Just avoiding being sued. Something being a false statement is a matter of fact that’s easily proven. Something being a lie requires proving state of mind. In the US I can’t imagine actually winning such a suit, but its still safer to cover asses.

    • cranakis@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      And when you’re a star he lets you do it. You can do anything.

      Whatever you want.

      Kick him in the cunt. You can do anything.

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just tell him how much money he raises is proportional to the number of convictions he has. See if he bites.

  • fine_sandy_bottom
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Quick, everyone give him some more money so he can fight the good fight. I’m sure he won’t use it on blow and hookers or whatever.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I am glad about is the press used to tippie toe around calling out lying with him and at least that seems to not so much be the case anymore.