https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-trial-verdict#trump-prison-secret-service
Donald J. Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced a porn star.
I think you mean much cheaper than what WE pay for them to stay at his hotel. That's tax payers' money. Fuck that guy.
The current record for number of US presidental votes received while in prison is about 1,000,000. Eugene V. Debs is the record holder, and that election was in 1920. Trump just may beat him this year. There is no law that says you can't be president while in prison.
It's not like Trump is going to prison for this. He's old, has no record, and did serve as president, regardless of how people feel about it. Plus, he's going to appeal, which means this thing will drag on long enough to still not matter, sadly.
In the state of New York, you serve time while awaiting appeal. If the judge opts to remand him to house arrest, which I think is the most likely outcome, his ass is staying put until his next court date.
That’s incorrect. It’s at the discretion of the judge to mandate imprisonment, place the felon on home confinement, subject to a curfew, or allow posting bail while awaiting appeal in NY.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-is-convicted-felon-now-what-2024-05-30/
NYS BAR Association: https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Publications/LegalEASE%20Pamphlet%20Series/PUBS_LegalEase_YourRIghtsToAppealInCriminalCase_final.pdf
Bear in mind that the sentence imposed by the lower court will go into effect while the appeal is being considered by the appellate court unless the trial judge or appellate court stays the sentence or a part of it (orders that it not go into effect). The order staying the judgment of conviction and sentence may include a requirement to post bail.
The “unless” (emphasis mine) is the operative word. The trial judge can choose to exercise discretion, but is under no requirement to specify any changes upon receiving an appeal.
That is to say, the default procedure is, as I said above, the convicted party serves their sentence during the time the appeal is being processed and considered.
You’re technically correct, but your comment may have mislead others to think remaining incarcerated was likely. It’s far more common to allow for exceptions during appeal of a nonviolent crime. He’ll also gain favor as a former President, as the judge will determine eligibility based on character and previous record.
With that being said, I don’t think sentencing will include prison time, due to the fact that they’re nonviolent class E felonies. I hope I’m wrong.
He will also likely never go to a real prison. I hate that draft dodging piece of garbage, and it warms my crusty, veteran heart that now since he is a felon he is not allowed to be buried with military honors and any honors he receives are illegitimate, but he was a president and thus exploded to a lot of classified information.
His bitch ass would sing like a canary if he was in Gen pop and we would lose even more security because of it. Him being in his own private island like Napoleon (2nd time) would be ideal. Let him sit there in isolation, get his meals, and fade away into nothing.
Then he has hell to look forward to, along with all his supporters.
That's assuming they actually sentence him to any kind of confinement and not just a really big fine (that he can't and won't pay anyway).
I mean, that judge is NOT happy with Trump, and has already lamented the fact that fines mean nothing to him.
Ooh this is an interesting point! I wonder if the continual fines having no effect to stop him from violating the gag order will give the judge a very defensible reason to sentence for something other than a fine.
Cool. They can do that while he sits in a room or a cell tossing ketchup against the walls.
While that may mean there is a technical component to it, that's not what people mean when they're thinking about it. Being put into a prison is what people are referring to and that isn't likely to happen.
He has a record. He also was convicted of rape sexual assault and also defaming said woman twice.
No, he had a sexual abuse charge, not rape. None of the above was a criminal charge, only civil.
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E Jean Carroll."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Whilst sexual assault is terrible we must remember that was determined only on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's an important part of our legal system.
Exactly. I'm not defending Trump in any way shape or form. But spreading misinformation, disregarding nuance, and ignoring factual details is dangerous and exactly what Republican politicians want. We need to be better than that as a nation.
Distinctions without a difference aside,
You know what seems like a distinction with a very important difference?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E Jean Carroll."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
They literally changed the legal code because of rape apologists since NY was one of the last states that didn't consider vaginal penetration without consent rape unless a penis was involved.
Which, after and not before you get shaeshanked in the dufrane, you can feel free to distinguish your differences.
Because of dumps vaginally penetrating someone without their consent, regardless of method, that is also legally considered rape in New York
Dumps is a rapist by most legal definitions, his crime is one of rape today because of the sexual assault he committed and was held liable for, and the judge made it perfectly clear that dumps is a rapist in case anyone was confused.
Sure, it still isn't a criminal conviction. Perhaps there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction and perhaps there isn't. I don't know.
One may conclude that in all likelihood he has committed such a crime. However, we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime, because he wasn't (in the context of that civil matter).
Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle and politics is a trivial reason to dispense with it.
The TL;DR is that the jurisdiction in which the case happened has a very narrow definition of what constitutes rape; It requires penis-in-vagina insertion. Anything else is “only” sexual abuse.
Trump grabbed her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. All of it non-consensually. But where it happened, that isn’t enough to qualify as rape, because it didn’t involve PiV sex. The judge was clarifying that no, the case didn’t say he raped her, but that is only because of the incredibly narrow definition of the word “rape”. The judge was basically saying that in common parlance, (not the jurisdiction’s narrow legal definitions), most people would agree that what Trump did was in fact rape.
The judge’s statement was in response to Trump’s lawyers going “LoL wEll AkShuAllY hE nEveR RapED HeR”, like some sort of “it’s not actually pedophilia it’s ephebophilia, and that’s not as bad” argument. The judge’s statement is also in line with what psychiatric fields and the justice department define as rape, which includes penetration with any appendages or objects. But again, the local laws had a narrower definition.
Also worth noting that New York quickly changed their legal definitions following the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit was a giant beacon to the fact that they were one of the last places in the country to still strictly define rape as PiV penetration. So if it were to happen again today, the verdict would have said Trump raped her.
You might be intending to reply to someone else, I actually explained these exact points in a couple other comments.
Oh, are you just adding a general tldr for everyone who isn't aware? Got it.
The point of a TL;DR is to explain the link to third parties, and maybe add some context. I’m assuming you’ve already read the article, and it wasn’t directed at you.
Yes but he also disrespected the court (falling to sleep and badmouthing people on social media), shows no remorse (claiming innocence despite a unanimous jury) had 34 charges against him (all unanimous) and did it to trick his way into the highest position in office. Which should all be considered when sentencing.
I'd agree with you if he had up to maybe 15-20 felonies. He got 34. What grounds do you think he can appeal on?
You're operating on a fallacy. You can only be tried and convicted once per crime. Every single one is an opportunity for an appeal. Having more just increases the likelihood that there will be at least some possible appeal. The easiest route will probably be an appeal against whatever the sentence itself is once that's issued, especially if he's sentenced to serve time. But it doesn't matter; his lawyers will simply look for every single possible way to delay the process, as they have continuously done.
Again, he has to have a reason for appeal, what reason do you think he has to appeal? He's going to appeal but it's going to get thrown out immediately. He's in deep shit and he knows it. The only thing that could save him is if he wins the election, which he's not going to.
Incorrect. He has to have a reason for the appeal trial to be approved. His lawyers can file an appeal on any grounds they see fit. That then has to be processed, which takes time. But I'll fall back to the answer that I already gave as well, if he's given a sentence that includes any sort of time to serve, his lawyers will use that as a basis for appeal, which is clearly stated as a possible reason for an appeal to be approved.
No record might matter if it wasn’t for 34 counts. If it was one or two non-violent felonies that could be made whole, could be weekends or lots of community service. But 34? No one gets to use the “I was a good little boy” defense on that.
There is no law that says you can’t be president while in prison.
This is so a ruling leader can't imprison all his competition and thus win another election by default.
Would be a good thing if the service were denied to convicted felons. Go a long way to legitimizing it
I wonder why? It's not like anything bad ever happens to high-profile inmates, just ask Jeffery Epstein...
Obligatory /s
Not enough people whipped it out.
We’re forever doomed until the mass flashing event that frees of us our sins.
Except here his kids will turn on him like they have been raised to do. No one close to him really cares about him.
I'd agree but there is a lot of "actual journalism" that is freely accessible. ProPublica, for example.
Is their funding method viable for every single journalism outlet though? Or maybe there better question would be, for every article posted, is there a 501c3 (or otherwise sustainably funded) news outlet that has published coverage on the same story?
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, I'm just writing out some of my own indecision on the topic. Journalism is vitally important but it seems like it's very difficult for people to make a living doing it and I don't know what the answer is.
I understand your question but it doesn't address my initial question: why are we posting paywalled links to public news? Everyone was reporting on this,(Edit: I may be wrong about that) I'm sure there is a free independent news source that has a similar article, so why are we putting up a paywall link to a NYT article? Wouldn't it be more effective to post a link everyone could access?
Edit: I am now going to look and see if there's anyone else reporting this, if it is exclusive to NYT, great, but each day I see a interesting article only to get halfway through and get hit with a "money please!" paywall.
That's fair. I was definitely using your question to voice something I have been thinking about for a while, more than actually addressing it/you specifically. Sorry about that.
Real paywall (text not sendet) is rare, you can see the full article by disabling JS in your obligatory adblock extension.
I think you just stumbled upon a great idea for an animated sitcom that lasts about two seasons on Fox.
Every week the secret service finds another way to try to escape.
Make a show about Trump in prison and never show him in the show. Just the shenanigans of his secret service guys living in prison.
During the Jan6 riot, the Secret Service tried to get Mike Pence into a car with agents that Pence didn’t recognize. The worry was that the agents were either rogue, or working directly for Trump.
Either way, Pence refused to get into the car because he knew he had to certify the election, which meant he had to stay in the building. His worry was that rogue agents (or agents taking orders from Trump) would spirit him away and prevent him from certifying the results.
Ever thought of Secret Service using the same abbreviation as nazi german Schutzstaffel?
INFORMATION ACCURACY WARNING: This is a New York Times (“NYT”) article. Proceed with skepticism
A story is only as good as its sources. I take NYT coverage on Israel/Hamas with a grain of salt because a lot of information comes directly from the IDF. NYT coverage though of peace talks, or domestic issues, is completely different. Even then, I'm usually skeptical of their polling methodology.
A better information accuracy warning would be to take nothing as absolute truth and critically examine their bias and sources. Because I guarantee, there is no publication that an information accuracy warning wouldn't apply to. I've seen progressive publications do a bad job at this too.
Yes! Agreed. Yours is the only sane, thoughtful, realistic response— and I thank you for it. Upvoted 👍
I’d apologise bc I haven’t even read the article, but it IS the nyt so who knows who paid for this article to be published
*paid as in actual cash, favours, golf tee times, yacht party invites, private jet use, etc