Brilliant.
This is a lesser sentence than I got for "Attempted Disorderly Conduct," and I pled guilty.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
100 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19696 readers
3823 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
Can we just have a screaming face as the reply?
Could someone explain a non corrupt use of an unconditional discharge? I'm confused how such a sentence is even permissable under the system at all
Because incoming president. It's clear had this been anyone else (Michael Cohen) or had Trump lost the election, he would have done time.
Yeah I understand why in this specific case, the obvious corruption. But the framework of laws allowed this abuse, and I want to know why this is even possible, why is unconditional discharge a sentence that is allowed to be handed out, because to me, I can't see a not corrupt way it could be applied, and it doesn't seem like a new thing, just a rare thing.
From my own research I found this: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/unconditional-discharge-trump-sentencing-hush-money-rcna187044
Which isn't a totally satisfactory answer, but is at least some examples of it being used elsewhere.
Some states have laws with "mandatory minimum sentencing", but in this case it seems either New York doesn't have that, or the laws broken here aren't part of the mandatory minimum guideline.
From a PDF here:
"However, today, while most drug felonies in New York are excluded, minimums still apply for most people convicted of any other felony charge—whether violent or non-violent—if they have a prior felony conviction within the past ten years.
Even absent such a criminal history, minimums continue to apply to most convictions where the current charge is a violent felony."
So in the Trump case, no priors, not violent, minimums don't apply.
NOW - If he has ANOTHER felony, he does have prior convictions and it's a different ballgame.