Posted on 06/05/2024 9:40:22 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is backed by Soros, is now under fire for allegedly leaking sensitive sentencing information about former President Donald Trump to the far-left media.
In the wake of a trial widely criticized as a sham, where Trump was convicted on all 34 felony charges in a ‘hush money’ scandal, sources suggest that DA Bragg’s office may recommend Trump serve a year at the notorious Rikers Island.
Judge Merchan told jurors they did not have to agree on a crime—a practice unheard of in US history. The jury only had to agree that something bad happened.
..... Snip.....
According to Hostin, this recommendation serves not just as punishment but as a stern message to society that such conduct will not be tolerated again.
“The other thing I’d like to say is the other reason that they will do this is because he has shown an utter disregard for our institutions. And prosecutors, when you are recommending a sentence, you are not just recommending a sentence so that they can be rehabilitated or so that they can be punished. You’re sending a message to the community that this is not going to happen again. This is not okay. ”
“The other thing I want to say is that there’s another thing that they will likely recommend is a six-month split, six months at Rikers, and then the rest, five years—four and a half years of probation that is under New York law,” Hostin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at gnews.org ...
I can believe that’s what the judge wants, but he may realize that would be foolish. Bank it? It’s possible but by no means certain. One way to look at it is, why would he want to keep making Trump stronger?
Just thought I’d throw this out there, because I haven’t heard it brought up much since the verdict was announced. We still have the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity pending. It’s possible that the New York ruling could be at least partially reversed by that ruling. I don’t think it’s likely, but it is possible. The decision is expected to be announced some time this month.
He can debate him from jail.
They had best be VERY careful in wishing for CW II!
And if you are like me, you don’t have absolute faith in Hostin’s accuracy.
The View is not exactly confidence inspiring. Verify everything.
This is all true, but my point is how botched up is a system that can produce this sort of result.
Lawfare, by its very nature, is corrupt. The prosecutor brought a case that was crap, and the judge presided over a show trial.
I doubt an appeal to the First Department in Manhatttan will succeed. I think the apppeal to the NY Court of Appeals has a reasonable chance of succeeding after the election. If I were New York I would not want to find out what Scotus would say.
Judges are Kings. They make laws from their throne whenever they choose to do so.
Corrupt judges do corrupt things.
They are funded by the legislature. The legislature is reelected at an astounding rate. They are the best legislators money can buy. The executive branch does not enforce laws when corruption is evident to all who are not blind. It is not the system (i.e. the Common Law system as opposed to the Civil Code system) that is at fault. It is having, tolerating, and even rewarding corrupt people in the system. With the way the government, all three branches, functions, I have little hope that the swamp gets drained. I hope I'm wrong.
I meant you can bank the rat Judge wants to remove Trump from the election.
Agree.
Are you defending hilLIARy???
Its now or never they will implement a scorched earth policy
That’s a solid ….. NO F**KING WAY
Pointing out the unjust, justice system.
Manafort went to prison because he didn’t/couldn’t info to get Pres Trump. The activities they went him for, we’re done working with Podesta’s. Who were doing the same things he was doing. Podesta’s were allowed to backdate documents and amend taxes.
See my reply to that here
Point taken!
Yes it was (essentially) the same thing.
She classified payments for creating the Russia collusion hoax as ‘legal expense’, the same thing they accused Trump of doing.
The matter of who can legally prosecute such a thing has never been a concern for democrats, and is not relevant to my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.