Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ocelot II

(122,307 posts)
2. It was procedurally significant, though, because even though no punishment was imposed,
Fri Jan 10, 2025, 02:36 PM
Jan 10

it resulted in an entry of a judgment of conviction. This step was important because it was necessary to make an appeal possible - he couldn't appeal the conviction until this happened. So why did he try to hard to prevent this process from occurring? One big reason, besides the embarrassing fact of the final conviction itself, was because he didn't want to appeal while he was president. He wanted the sentencing and entry of judgment to be postponed indefinitely and until his term was over, because that way he could also postpone the appeal and the resurrection of all the sleazy, seedy facts that would come before the public once again. Not that this would make any difference to his MAGA base, but he doesn't want the public to be reminded that he boned a porn actress while his wife was caring for their newborn son, that he paid her $130K to keep her quiet before the 2016 election, and that he tried to conceal the payoff by laundering it through Michael Cohen. Stormy's unflattering description of the event (and of his "manhood" ) will be in the news once again, and within the next few months. Far from stopping the proceedings, Merchan enabled them to continue. Now Trump has to appeal, and soon, within 30 days (and we can be sure he'll appeal even though he'll probably lose) because the alternative is that the conviction is final and forever.

Recommendations

5 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 does not care if he is a convicted felon, only that he does not serve jail time.. This will only embolden him.nt mitch96 Jan 10 #1
He cares very much, otherwise he wouldn't have tried to postpone the sentencing Ocelot II Jan 10 #3
He did all that for sport. He is an asshole. Klarkashton Jan 10 #5
"If he didn't care he wouldn't be ranting about it".I think he rants about anything that attacks him. It's in his nature mitch96 Jan 10 #6
It was procedurally significant, though, because even though no punishment was imposed, Ocelot II Jan 10 #2
But why does he care? bluesbassman Jan 10 #4
Presidential tolling dpibel Jan 10 #9
You're an expert on NY law? I'm not, but your statement contradicts all the reports I've read. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #7
How so? bluesbassman Jan 10 #8
"the jury had previously convicted the POS so he was already a felon." I don't think you know NY law. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #10
You're correct, I'm not a NY attorney. However the NY Bar probably knows the law fairly well. bluesbassman Jan 10 #11
DoJ disagrees. Your link does not specifically address the point because it is a tutorial, not a legal analysis Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #14
That's the DOJ - Federal law. bluesbassman Jan 10 #22
It says "United States practice", not Federal. It would say the latter it was the latter, bc DoJ is, you know, Federal.n Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #25
"United states" in the legal context often means specifically the federal government unblock Jan 10 #28
New York Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #29
This is becoming a bit comical. bluesbassman Jan 10 #32
I got it from NY State Law pages. I was trying to explain the many articles that make the distinction to you Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #34
"NY Bar's word": whoosh. It is their SIMPLIFICATION. Read your own link's preface! Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #35
So after he was found guilty MorbidButterflyTat Jan 10 #12
In ordinary parlance, yes, a "felon". But as they say "The law grinds slowly but it grinds very finely" Bernardo de La Paz Jan 10 #15
I agree. Lack of a sentence does not vacate the felony convictions. CoopersDad Jan 10 #13
Correction: Lack of a sentence does not vacate a jury verdict . . . markpkessinger Jan 10 #20
Joke of a crimimal justice system in this country and I for one will never participate again. Fuck em. Comfortably_Numb Jan 10 #16
No. Judge Merchan didn't "merely conclude a proceeding." He sentenced the jury-convicted defendant. ancianita Jan 10 #17
Get back to me when ANY of those things happen to TSF. bluesbassman Jan 10 #24
And not one of them will enforce it against His orange majesty. orangecrush Jan 10 #33
Excuse me, but that very impressive list of lost rights, is 100% null an d void the as soon as he is officially "sworn msfiddlestix Jan 10 #26
Yes Merchan was just officially saying goodbye to Trump and ending the proceedings. Irish_Dem Jan 10 #18
There was a sentencing. It was one with no penalty, but it was a sentencing, Ocelot II Jan 10 #19
I am speaking in psychological terms, not legalese. Irish_Dem Jan 10 #31
There was a sentencing, just one with no penalty. TomSlick Jan 10 #21
I am talking psychology and reality. Irish_Dem Jan 10 #30
Ah, but now we're in my world. TomSlick Jan 10 #36
Merchan: [protections] did not reduce the seriousness of the crimes or erase the jury's verdict. CoopersDad Jan 10 #23
There is karma............. Lovie777 Jan 10 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge Merchan did not sen...»Reply #2