• jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    “He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is,” Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump’s age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime

    Lack of injury?? He literally committed crimes to get elected, which he did. 340 million Americans had to suffer this dipshit being president for 4 years. A million of us died during his piss-poor response to COVID!

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can not WAIT for CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP who was found GUILTY and ALL 34 COUNTS to pay a $5000 fine and pinky swear not to do this again! THAT will teach him!

    • Ænima@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I hope it comes from Murkowsky! He’s definitely learned his lesson, THIS TIME.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.

      “Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”

      Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

      • InternetUser2012
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”

          • InternetUser2012
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments… the list can on for literally days.

            • hddsx@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.

              Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.

              Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

        You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.

    • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.

      Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

      • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That’s definitely a good example of why it shouldn’t bar someone outright.

    • nova@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because if you’re able to invalidate your opponent’s candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can’t run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      If felons can’t vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn’t be able to run for office.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          He is a Floridian though, doesn’t it take a “simple” meeting with DeSantis’s hand picked committee to get his voting rights back?

          • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s an interesting question since it isn’t a Florida felony that he was convicted of. However, the Florida law about felony voting already has several caveats. It only takes effect after the felony stuff is “done” as in time-served, parole done, and relevant fines paid. Then you have the committee approval which for Trump would likely be a high-five.

          • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nope. I’m not sure which law states that a convicted felon can’t vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.

            It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.

            • Chocrates@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Florida just changed their laws on that. As others have said though that Florida laws require it to be finished so if Trump appeals I think that is right out.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Wait, why not?

          Edit: Oh, right. This isn’t the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

    • Peer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

    • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.

      The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Isn’t there a bigger problem than who can run for president at that point?

  • paf0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    5 months ago

    Probably not, maybe house arrest? I’m curious to see if this has an effect on the other cases, if any. Can Jack Smith easily add a 2016 election interference count now that this is proven?

      • Zatore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 months ago

        He can’t pardon himself in these cases. They are New York state felonies, which means the governor of NY would have to pardon him. If they were federal, then he could maybe pardon himself.

      • axexrx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If he cant leave his house, he cant travel to DC to be sworn in. If he cant be sworn in, he cant become president.

        IIRC, the legal consensus is that while the 24th ammendment doesn’t cover a a president elect, his VP would be sworn in as President.

        • Kairos@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Its really weird how the presidency works. It’s an elected position but there’s no actual requirement that the person who is actually president is elected, because the need to have continuity of executive power is more important. NAL but I also thinks that if he’s in jail next in line takes over.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    My prediction: he may or may not go to jail.

    My other prediction: either outcome will not influence his Nazi cult.

    My other prediction: we were wrong on how 2016-2023 was down right weird. 2024 has us holding it’s double long island with no soda.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    No. But the hysteria from Ronald McDonald and his supporters is going to be lit.

    Also: someone needs to meme that woman tRump supporter crying for him out in front of the court house. So tired of seeing that woman in the green jacket after Hillary “lost”, supposedly being a stand-in for all liberals or something. Time to show how hysterical the right really is.

  • uebquauntbez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Nope. He’ll go straight into White House and will ‘remove’ 50% of US ppl. Either the hard way. Or they leave the country fast enough. USA is going the chinese or russian way. One leader with enough power to rule and many supporters who make profits in this odd system. The rest will suffer from this system. India and Europe will be there soon too.

  • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Possibly, but why allow the possibility in the first place? The idea was that the voters and electors would ultimately decide

    • ProfessorScience@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because he did crimes? Voters don’t decide whether people go to prison for crimes (unless they are on the jury, I suppose).

      • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        But a government that potentially is nefariously attempting to block a candidate shouldn’t be able to bar someone from being elected.

        eg. An English loyalist blocks George Washington from being president by fraudulently getting him convicted of a felony; is that a reasonable thing we should have codified in the Constitution?

        Do I want trump to be elected? Hell no. I also don’t feel like we should go down the road where a political opponent can block someone from running illegitimately, either.

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          eg. An English loyalist blocks George Washington from being president by fraudulently getting him convicted of a felony; is that a reasonable thing we should have codified in the Constitution?

          An English loyalist that can prove beyond reasonable doubt, as judged by 12 peers which George Washington can help select…

          A felon can be elected, but committing felonies should have consequences, for example it being more difficult to get elected.

          • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            12 peers can be coerced. If he still runs the rest of the country should be sufficient to not vote for him if he is undeserving of being elected. In theory it should be more difficult just by way of having more scrutiny into the type of person he is to the voters.

        • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          But a government that potentially is nefariously attempting to block a candidate shouldn’t be able to bar someone from being elected.

          No conviction short of insurrection would disqualify him from running for office and being elected.

          Many candidates have won election for president while never even leaving their house to campaign. Trump would unfortunately be in a better position than anybody to win the election from inside a prison cell.