Judge Merchan orders Trump sentencing

[Postvieww]

The second sentence of the post you quoted did exactly what you were complaining about, did you miss that?

“ Other legal scholars such as Laurence Tribe and Harry Litman consider Trump's investigation, conviction and sentencing as constitutional.” Is this the sentence to which you refer? I see no analysis only names , I posted names with thier analysis.

 

[DaisyDay]

You write as though MAGA is a bad thing . You do realize it stands for Make America Great Again!

You realize that it might be anti-American at its core by implying that America is not currently great?

 

[DaisyDay]

“ Other legal scholars such as Laurence Tribe and Harry Litman consider Trump's investigation, conviction and sentencing as constitutional.” Is this the sentence to which you refer? I see no analysis only names , I posted names with thier analysis.

Do you want actual analysis? Would you read it if provided or is this just another fool's errand?

 

[Postvieww]

Do you want actual analysis? Would you read it if provided or is this just another fool's errand?

Sure did you actually read what I posted?

 

[Pommer]

“ Other legal scholars such as Laurence Tribe and Harry Litman consider Trump's investigation, conviction and sentencing as constitutional.” Is this the sentence to which you refer? I see no analysis only names , I posted names with thier analysis.

Which is exactly what you’ve done for your proof.

My experts are right, your ‘experts’ are wrong!

Are we done here?

 

[FenderTL5]

You realize that it might be anti-American at its core by implying that America is not currently great?

In practice it certainly borders, if not crosses outright, into being anti-Patriotic. In most instances its use is nothing more than a declaration of allegience to the convicted felon who is now President-elect.

 

[DaisyDay]

Sure did you actually read what I posted?

I not only read what you posted but clicked on the links and read/skimmed those. I saw no new argument and I have not been convinced by the old arguments. So far, all the appeals courts and even the Supreme Court have rejected these arguments.

 

[JSRG]

I not only read what you posted but clicked on the links and read/skimmed those. I saw no new argument and I have not been convinced by the old arguments. So far, all the appeals courts and even the Supreme Court have rejected these arguments.

The appeals courts and Supreme Court haven't done any real rulings on those arguments yet. All they've done is rejected Trump's requests to defer sentencing--which makes sense, because if injustice is being done, that can be handled on actual appeals and due to the sentence being stated to be unconditional discharge (no fine, no prison time), Trump wasn't facing any actual punishment outside of loss of face, and even that is very limited considering it would be barely any more than he had already suffered. As the Supreme Court said when they turned it down:

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

I suppose your statement that "so far" they have rejected those arguments is still technically true, but the "so far" is only in regards to the emergency appeal, not the regular ones. Indeed, it mentions that the better opportunity to bring up these objections would be during ordinary appeals.

 

[SimplyMe]

The appeals courts and Supreme Court haven't done any real rulings on those arguments yet. All they've done is rejected Trump's requests to defer sentencing--which makes sense, because if injustice is being done, that can be handled on actual appeals and due to the sentence being stated to be unconditional discharge (no fine, no prison time), Trump wasn't facing any actual punishment outside of loss of face, and even that is very limited considering it would be barely any more than he had already suffered. As the Supreme Court said when they turned it down:

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

I suppose your statement that "so far" they have rejected those arguments is still technically true, but the "so far" is only in regards to the emergency appeal, not the regular ones. Indeed, it mentions that the better opportunity to bring up these objections would be during ordinary appeals.

This last part, that the Supreme Court hasn't rejected the arguments, is technically true but also an oversimplification. If the arguments about bias and evidence were as strong as those promoting Turley's and Dershowitz's ideas, then the Supreme Court would have voted to prevent the sentencing based on those arguments -- why make him appeal for clear errors -- particularly if one poster's fantasy of the judge and DA being charged with crimes for bring charges were true. Instead, the Supreme Court is stating there aren't any major issues that should stop the sentencing, that there is no "slam dunk" appeal; and instead they will need to see the arguments the defense makes in their appeals before deciding if there is any reason to hear, much less overturn, the conviction.

 

[DaisyDay]

The appeals courts and Supreme Court haven't done any real rulings on those arguments yet. All they've done is rejected Trump's requests to defer sentencing--which makes sense, because if injustice is being done, that can be handled on actual appeals and due to the sentence being stated to be unconditional discharge (no fine, no prison time), Trump wasn't facing any actual punishment outside of loss of face, and even that is very limited considering it would be barely any more than he had already suffered. As the Supreme Court said when they turned it down:

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

I suppose your statement that "so far" they have rejected those arguments is still technically true, but the "so far" is only in regards to the emergency appeal, not the regular ones. Indeed, it mentions that the better opportunity to bring up these objections would be during ordinary appeals.

But does the Supreme Court have that kind of jurisdiction over state courts? I think for the most part they do not except as affects his civil rights or anything touching the office of the presidency.

 

[Valletta]

But does the Supreme Court have that kind of jurisdiction over state courts? I think for the most part they do not except as affects his civil rights or anything touching the office of the presidency.

In this case numerous Constitutional rights of Trump were violated. The judge was sly in not giving Trump any sentence, had he done so it would have gone to the Supreme Court much more quickly. Perhaps Merchan will retire before disbarment looms.

 

[Pommer]

But does the Supreme Court have that kind of jurisdiction over state courts? I think for the most part they do not except as affects his civil rights or anything touching the office of the presidency.

SCOTUS doesn’t typically weigh in on State Court decisions, (the highest court in each the the several states rules), unless there’s a question that the law being argued, violates (after some fashion), Constitutional provisions.

 

[Pommer]

In this case numerous Constitutional rights of Trump were violated. The judge was sly in not giving Trump any sentence, had he done so it would have gone to the Supreme Court much more quickly. Perhaps Merchan will retire before disbarment looms.

We will see how the appeal goes, shall we?

 

[DaisyDay]

In this case numerous Constitutional rights of Trump were violated.

Such as? Please be specific as vague accusations are nobody's friend.

The judge was sly in not giving Trump any sentence, had he done so it would have gone to the Supreme Court much more quickly. Perhaps Merchan will retire before disbarment looms.

He did sentence him, in case you missed it - he was sentenced to unconditional release which is about as lenient as possible - and yet the Magadonians do complain so vociferously! Merchan let Donald completely off the hook (apart from fines) for his numerous acts of contempt. Where's the gratitude for that?

Why should a good, decent judge like Merchan be disbarred? And wouldn't impeachment be more suitable, not that you couldn't try for both. Getting revenge on public officials for doing their duty is Banana Republic stuff, but maybe that's where we're going.

Better still, he should be be elected to the seat as he is currently "acting". I wonder if his years of being Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of NY count towards the term limit of 14 years?

 

[Pommer]

Why should a good, decent judge like Merchan be disbarred? And wouldn't impeachment be more suitable, not that you couldn't try for both. Getting revenge on public officials for doing their duty is Banana Republic stuff, but maybe that's where we're going.

The “evidence” that Merchan is a “bad judge” is allowing Dear Leader to suffer through the indignity of trial.

 

[NxNW]

My statement was correct. Your statements are false. Trump never falsified any records.

He was convicted of it by an impartial jury of his peers.

That was not a jury of his peers.

Trump and his attorneys agreed it was an impartial jury of his peers.

 

[Zaha Torte]

This seems like an attempt to shoot the messenger. The person responsible for the negative inferences suffered for being convicted of 34 felonies lays squarely on the shoulders of the guy who a jury found guilty of those crimes.

What crimes?

 

[Pommer]

What crimes?

The “34 felonies”.

 

[ozso]

Trump's unconditional discharge sentence for class E felonies, which were actually misdemeanors, is not going the distance. Some court is simply going to take it one step further to aquittal.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The “34 felonies”.

You mean his labelling a Legal Expense as a Legal Expense?