- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan postponed his sentencing until after Election Day, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to overturn his conviction and win back the White House.
In a ruling on Friday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26. He had previously planned to hand down Mr. Trump’s punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump will face off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.
While the decision will avert a courtroom spectacle in the campaign’s final stretch, the delay itself could still affect the election, keeping voters in the dark about whether the Republican presidential nominee will eventually spend time behind bars.
The intent here is probably to avoid MAGA riots before the election.
That’s not a very good reason or justification to delay.
If that worries the justice system, then Trump can never be sentenced. He has cult followers for life.
I believe it is a good enough reason to delay sentencing.
Am I happy with it? Ofc not. But I do understand that nobody wants the orange’s followers rioting and murdering people in the run-up to the election.
Let the election happen and then all the focus can be on his sentencing (25+ years is my wish).
Why wait until 2 weeks after election? Just to be sure to not give jail time if he wins?
I’m fucking tired of this two tiered justice system.
Government capitulation to threats or concerns of a violent mob, is always bad idea. It only serves to embolden the mob.
This is, in fact, avoiding the threats and violent mob. And that is not always a bad thing.
Have you never walked away from a confrontation because the cost wasn’t worth it?
Individuals aren’t governments. The best choice is almost always quite different for the two.
So, in other words, the courts are bowing to terrorists. Great precedent.
My bet would be that it’s to avoid influencing the election rather than riots.
Whichever sentence he gives, it has the potential to make him more likely to win, thereby undermining the sentence.
Personally, I’d like to see justice happen in a way that can be blind to that outside context, but we don’t live in that world.
I don’t like it, but I get it.
He’s already been found guilty and nobody seems to care one way or the other. What’s sentencing going to change?
A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just “guilty but still speaking publicly”.
Still don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.
He’s not getting a prison sentence. The judge in the trial straight up stated he did not want to put Trump in prison during the trial. He’ll get a fine, which he’ll be able to pay off with kickbacks from his friends, and the it’ll be back to business as usual.
The judge is anything but nonpartisan. He’s very obviously conscious of what his career is going to look like under either administration, and he’s playing very carefully so as not to overly offend either party leadership.
I’m unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.
“Not offending either party” is definitely not a partisan act. It’s almost the definition of nonpartisan.
I can’t fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn’t object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to “assist the court”, it’s pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf
Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn’t want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don’t turn up anything particularly relevant.
If we had done this earlier, this wouldn’t be a concern :/
Yup. :/
I looked it up and it’s not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.
Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said “everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here’s why a delay would actually be a good idea”, it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.
“Don’t punish political candidates like normal people” is a shitty reason to avoid justice.
Well, I don’t think anyone was saying don’t punish political candidates, least of all me.
Being cognizant of a political context for an action just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, even if it’s not how I think it should have played out.
Whatever sentence is given will have an impact on the political landscape in which that sentence is carried out, which can potentially directly undermine the sentence.
A few years back, I would have said that they are trying to uphold the image of democracy. “Vote for Harris, a guy you’ve never heard of or this criminal, your choice” isn’t a good look… sad that we ended up here anyway.
Probably also trying to avoid the headache of “what happens when a candidate is sent to prison”. That’s either going to be a lot of work for you or someone you know higher up, who isn’t going to like that paperwork, especially such a high profile case.
So, extortion. Cool. Justice waits for cowards, what a country I live in…