Why even bother trying to stop it?
The judge has stated started that he intends to sentence him to an unconditional discharge, which means they just close the trial and let him walk out of the courthouse.
It just closes the case and lets him off the hook, delaying sentencing would just keep the trial open.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
84 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19293 readers
2419 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As a convicted felon, many countries could refuse him entry.
This would be yet another step in having the entire conviction tossed.
He already has 34 felony convictions, so that bridge is very crispy for him already.
Understood, but today's "SCOTUS" is at his beck and call.
As a convicted felon, many countries could refuse him entry.
No country is going to refuse entry to the President of the United States. I don't care if he committed the Manson family murders.
EDIT: For those who are downvoting me, he's already a convicted felon. Here's a list of countries that would normally deny entry to convicted felons.
Go ahead and let me know when Canada, the UK, Japan, Austrailia, or even China denies Trump entry. Downvotes don't change facts, people. If you're going to downvote, list one country that is going to deny the President of the United States entry because he is a convicted felon. You don't have to like the truth, but downvoting fact-based information doesn't change it.
SCOTUS?
Is that you, John Roberts?
Would it be rhetorical to ask if you're American?
Why would that matter?
Trump has 34 felony convictions. He is a convicted felon. Which countries are going to deny him entry?
Why would it matter?
Because only an American would believe that Trump has the God-like power you've bestowed upon him.
It's sad and pathetic, but explains the SCOTUS prostration.
Then fine. Prove me wrong. Name one fucking country that is going to deny Donald Trump entry.
Saying that any country is going to refuse entry to Trump is little more than copium.
Like, right now?
China. Prove me wrong.
And when has China denied Trump entry?
Where did I say they did?
Ego.
Here's what I'm thinking. Now, keep in mind, I'm using TrumpMAGA logic here, not those little things like intelligence, common sense, existing precedent, etc. Those things don't matter in Trumpworld.
By bringing this case up to the Supreme Court, he is getting a federal court involved in a state criminal case.
By Trump logic, this would now make the case a federal case.
If it is a federal case, that means Trump can pardon himself.
This also means that all cases are ultimately federal cases in the end since they all eventually end up before the Supreme Court.
This also means Trump can pardon himself or anyone else for state crimes. Given the Supreme Court's historic love for just making up new powers for itself, I can easily see the Supreme Court going along with this because that would give them all sorts of broad new powers as well, since they'd be essentially able to more directly interfere in state cases. Throw in a twisted interpretation of the Supremacy clause, and maybe sprinkle in something carved in a stone tablet from ancient Rome for good measure, and I could easily see the SC going along with this on 6-3 party lines.
And then with that out of the way, he can build on that to get other things like his case against E. Jean Carroll completely reversed, have his other civil cases sealed, dismissed, reversed, or whatever, and be able to expand his bribery and corruption by dangling not only federal but essentially state pardons as well.
That's what scares me about this. It doesn't make sense for him to want to get the supreme court involved in a meaningless case that has all but been dismissed anyway. As the saying goes, I don't think this is the end. It may only be the beginning.
It would be both funny and painful if the SC decreed he was fully immune even while not president.
The SC will probably amend it to say president elects or prior presidents enjoy lifetime immunity. Hell they will probably go as far to say direct relatives will enjoy immunity
"A New York judge ruled that immunity does not apply until Trump is sworn in."
Oh hey it's Trumps literal bulletproof vest, delay!
It's not like he used that for LITERALLY EVERYTHING EVER THAT COULD EVER MAKE HIM FACE JUSTICE!
No. Never.
...JFC
I assume Harlan Crow was called to offer a certain SCOTUS justice a well-deserved holiday all expenses paid, yes?
Sorta like asking his kids for permission to do as he says....