Trump Sentenced - Recap of the hearing

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Off Topic > Topic Details

battlezoby Jan 11 @ 9:57pm

Hey... I just listen to then entire intentionally slow boring sentencing hearing for Trump.

Pretty sure there was a conspiracy by both Lawyers, Trump and the Judge to talk slowly just to bore people into NOT putting the actual hearing into the news.

I've been doing a lot of pro-se legal work and I think I'm pretty good at understanding the legal issues so I wanted to post my impressions.

Someone told be they were letting Trump off because "The people voted to let him off."

Trump sort of implied that, but the court totally disagreed.

Bottom line is that the law allegedly doesn't allow the court to overturn the conviction even if the Judge wanted to because it was made by the Jury and not the Judge.

Trump insists he was convicted of calling "business expenses" "business expenses."

The DA seemed to imply that maybe he's afraid of Trump.... at least that's my impression.

DA and Judge think Trump's a dirtbag. (I'm paraphrasing.)

But the sentence is "Unconditional Discharge", which is a New York thing for no time served and no sort of supervision, probation or followup.

The reason for "Unconditional Discharge" is because the sentence would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as President; I think the idea might be that it would be a "distraction at best."

Judge respects the POSITION of the President of the United States, but made it clear he didn't make the sentence for the sake of the (paraphrasing here) "dirtbag criminal."

It also sounds like the "Unconditional Discharge" MIGHT" make the conviction harder to overturn in the appealate court.

Because now Trump has already "done his time" (my words) and, I'm guessing, that sort of makes the need to overturn less important and, to some extent, less likely to happen.

Last edited by battlezoby; Jan 13 @ 6:24pm

< >

Showing 1-12 of 12 comments

Bamford Jan 11 @ 10:07pm

You got walked past the point as expected, the charges were manufactured and never legitimate.

They will not survive appeal, so the judge just being dirty to smear, proving once again how thoroughly morally corrupt the democrats are, they have an endless supply of people who will lie cheat and steal for them, they are not bound by morality.

Its boring because there is no substance there, just like with Alex Jones who was fined a billion because "democrats don't like him", its not supposed to make sense, it can't make sense, so all their words are by design filler.

So just stop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-434pqXUwI

and yes, the democrats doing this know they are lying they aren't stupid, they are wicked.

This has aways been true.

Jake Tapper Is Lying About CNN’s Key Role In The Russia Collusion Hoax
https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/29/jake-tapper-is-lying-about-cnns-key-role-in-the-russia-collusion-hoax/

14 current and former Minneapolis cops say Assistant Chief Katie Blackwell LIED during trial of Derek Chauvin
https://thepostmillennial.com/14-former-mpd-officers-say-asst-chief-katie-blackwell-perjured-herself-when-she-claimed-derek-chauvin-was-not-trained-in-restraint-technique

Derek Chauvin Is a Martyr To a Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6s2kxcrtU0

NEW Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber Information | Darren Beattie | Ep 68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb0sX2WJ3Uk

No democrat narrative holds up to scrutiny, these are people who will manufacture evidence for trial, they are a miscarriage of justice, they are moral corruption.

Last edited by Bamford; Jan 11 @ 10:30pm

ナルゴ Jan 11 @ 10:09pm

Biased court conducting lawfare. Soo... much credibility.

Originally posted by Bamford:
the charges were manufactured and never legitimate.

unskilled- Jan 11 @ 10:22pm

The charges were never meant to stick anyways -- why else would these seasoned lawyers and judges commit such basic errors like not allowing the defendant to call his own witness? Nevermind the fact they never bothered to notify the defence of what the felony charges were that were used to revive a misdemeanour charge that had expired years before.

All this was intended to do (aside from dragging Trump's name through the mud), was to create the illusion that Trump is somehow above the law (lawl) when the inevitable challenge to the ruling comes down in Trump's favor.

Just like how Obama expelled Russian Diplomats to help create the illusion of Russian interference in the 2016 election to help justify the unprecedented spying on Trump's campaign, Democrats have no qualms in using the constitution or the law as toilet paper so long as they can maintain power.

The fact they didn't give Trump any sentence beyond the title of "Felon" is just the cherry ontop of this politically motivated poop sandwich. Remember, Bragg the DA who brought these charges forth campaigned on "getting Trump".

unskilled- Jan 11 @ 10:39pm

To elaborate on the charges:

Alvin Bragg elevated the original misdemeanour which if the FEC had originally pursued and charged and convicted Trump, would have resulted in a fine for a first time offence. The FEC investigated and a former FEC commissioner the defence wanted to call to testify but couldn't would have explained why they did not pursue the original charges.

Since the statute of limitations had ran out on those charges, Bragg had to invent a secondary crime which Trump committed the first (Cohen paying Stormy Daniels and billing Trump -- the business expense) to hide the second.

What is the second crime that allowed him to revive a misdemeanour charge that had its statute of limitations expire? According to Alvin Bragg, Trump making the payment to Stormy Daniels influenced the 2016 election and allowed him to win.

So yes, even though everybody in the media was predicting Hillary to win the 2016 election by a landslide (there is that infamous poll of Hillary having a 98% chance to win at one point), according to Bragg the fact the FEC could not prove one way or the other Trump made these payments to directly influence the election (and not to save his public image, or his relationship with his wife) -- did not matter at all because the fact Trump won the election is all the proof that was needed to prove his guilt...?

The only reason they created 34 charges out of a singular business entry is a rather under-handed dig by Hillary to get at Trump for wanting to "lock her up" due to the fact she was facing over 9,000 (yes, 9000) charges of breaking classified intelligence handling laws with her illegal bathroom server. The only difference is Trump doesn't have the DOJ in his back pocket to come in and literally dismiss all those charges against him because to charge him would be interfering in the election.

What a time to be alive.

battlezoby Jan 12 @ 3:17am

Originally posted by Bamford:
...

Hey, you sound like you've been following the case.

I read a lot of the actual transcripts for just before the trial and a few of the first days.

Big thing I couldn't keep track of is what company made the payment?

And what type is business is that in?

Thanks.

unskilled- Jan 12 @ 12:00pm

Originally posted by battlezoby:
Originally posted by Bamford:
...
Hey, you sound like you've been following the case.

I read a lot of the actual transcripts for just before the trial and a few of the first days.

Big thing I couldn't keep track of is what company made the payment?

And what type is business is that in?

Thanks. [/quote]

That would be Michael Cohen, a lawyer who worked for Trump at the time. He made the payment, then billed Trump. Then he lied about it and got convicted for it.

Ulfrinn Jan 12 @ 12:04pm

It was a meritless case that started to try to influence public opinion leading into the 2024 election. Now that the election is over, and it failed to do that, the people who brought it forward want it to go away because not only can it now be appealed, and will be overturned because of countless basic civil rights violated in the trial, and now puts the people who brought it forward in a position to now be investigated for clear corruption.

Ulfrinn Jan 12 @ 12:06pm

Originally posted by unskilled-:
To elaborate on the charges:

Alvin Bragg elevated the original misdemeanour which if the FEC had originally pursued and charged and convicted Trump, would have resulted in a fine for a first time offence. The FEC investigated and a former FEC commissioner the defence wanted to call to testify but couldn't would have explained why they did not pursue the original charges.

Since the statute of limitations had ran out on those charges, Bragg had to invent a secondary crime which Trump committed the first (Cohen paying Stormy Daniels and billing Trump -- the business expense) to hide the second.

What is the second crime that allowed him to revive a misdemeanour charge that had its statute of limitations expire? According to Alvin Bragg, Trump making the payment to Stormy Daniels influenced the 2016 election and allowed him to win.

So yes, even though everybody in the media was predicting Hillary to win the 2016 election by a landslide (there is that infamous poll of Hillary having a 98% chance to win at one point), according to Bragg the fact the FEC could not prove one way or the other Trump made these payments to directly influence the election (and not to save his public image, or his relationship with his wife) -- did not matter at all because the fact Trump won the election is all the proof that was needed to prove his guilt...?

The only reason they created 34 charges out of a singular business entry is a rather under-handed dig by Hillary to get at Trump for wanting to "lock her up" due to the fact she was facing over 9,000 (yes, 9000) charges of breaking classified intelligence handling laws with her illegal bathroom server. The only difference is Trump doesn't have the DOJ in his back pocket to come in and literally dismiss all those charges against him because to charge him would be interfering in the election.

What a time to be alive.

And that's the problem. You can't just say "well this is a crime because it was done while committing this other crime" because that "other crime" is only an "other crime" if he is actually charged with it, and given an opportunity to defend against it, as required by the 5th Amendment in the US Bill of Rights. Since he was never charged with that "other crime" then legally that "other crime" doesn't exist, and cannot be used to elevate something else.

This was a clear violation of the 5th Amendment and why it should have never made it that far in the trial in the first place. But because it has, it's going to be appealed and almost certainly overturned.

Last edited by Ulfrinn; Jan 12 @ 12:07pm

battlezoby Jan 13 @ 6:22pm

Originally posted by Ulfrinn:
And that's the problem. You can't just say "well this is a crime because it was done while committing this other crime" because that "other crime" is only an "other crime" if he is actually charged with it, and given an opportunity to defend against it, as required by the 5th Amendment in the US Bill of Rights. Since he was never charged with that "other crime" then legally that "other crime" doesn't exist, and cannot be used to elevate something else.

I don't think the press covered the case very well and confused the issues.

I read a few days worth of actual transcripts, starting on the day before the trial, and the charges were only of business record fraud and not anything else.

Fake Jan 13 @ 7:08pm

The sentencing date was originally due in September, but it waa delayed till now because Trump could not appeal the case until he was sentenced.

Imagine Trump winning the appeal just weeks from election day, that would have been devastating.

#10