Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air)

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?

    • Yes. He's going 4 for 4. (including Georgia)
      6
    • He's going to lose 3
      5
    • Two for sure
      8
    • He's only going to get convicted in one
      1
    • No. He's going to skate
      11

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

@Fergasun

you need to understand the difference between me saying your reasons are wrong

 

and me saying I’m not convinced it’s going to happen

 

you do not need to explain to me *why* she should recuse herself

 

it would be great if she did. I’m not convinced that will happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ball Security

Ball Security

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

11th Circuit has already corrected two gross rulings.  

 

I would bet that the first time the DoJ has to waste time appealing a ridiculously deferential ruling for Trump early in the case that they will ask the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case. 

 

Again, this is the most important Federal trial we have ever witnessed.  She has already had 2 rulinga grossly faborable to Trump.  If it truly was a random lottery that assigned it to her, there are multiple avenues to change her.  The main judge in the Court could do so.... she could do so for her own credibility.  

 

 

I’ve heard more informed people speculate that she may recuse on her own. She evidently wasn’t too thrilled with her first experience and would likely want to find some cover and then make that move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tshile said:

Which I don’t think is unusual or means anything at all


What is unusual is for a case filed in Miami to be assigned to a judge in Fort pierce.  That may be one reason she’s not overseeing the arraignment, and may also contribute to a decision to remove her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

@Ball Security

 

tshile, basically it is what Ball Security said.  The judge must recuse because the public has to he able to trust there is no bias. This is argueably the most important Federal trial ever.  Reasonable people think Judge Cannon gave Trump enormously favorable legal rulings. She gave Trump unusual favor. 

Sounds like it should be grounds for being removed from the bench.  Oh well.. :kickcan:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

One of the reasons people are concerned with Aileen Cannon, is that if she remains the judge, she will be responsible for sentencing, and if she goes out of her way to show deference to Trump, as she did with her previous (erroneous) ruling, she might let him off with a slap on the wrist if and when he's convicted.

 

For reference, here is what an application of the sentencing guidelines to Trump's crimes would and should look like:

 

How Much Prison Time Does Former President Trump Face? Applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

 

Now that the public has seen the current list of federal charges against former President Donald Trump, there is a long road ahead. If the defendant is ultimately convicted, that road will lead to sentencing. The Espionage Act charges the defendant faces carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years.  The Tampering (and related Conspiracy) and Concealment charges each carry a maximum prison sentence of twenty years.  The Scheme to Conceal and False Statements  charges each carry a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.  Of course, in any criminal case, numerous factors affect the sentence, and focusing on the statutory maximums can be misleading. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3553, directs courts to impose a sentence based on a list of considerations. The U.S. Sentencing Commission issues Sentencing Guidelines to assist courts and promote consistent application of criminal law. Sentencing trends in similar cases can provide reference points, but only if similar cases exist. This quick note gives an idea of how a sentence would be calculated, with the caveat that issues such as sentencing on multiple counts of conviction, related conduct, and new factual developments could arise.

General Framework


Section 3553 directs courts to examine “the nature and circumstances of the offense” and the defendant’s characteristics. It also requires courts to consider the purposes of criminal sentences, specifically the need to:

 

Impose a sentence consistent with the seriousness of the offense

  • Promote respect for the law 
  • Provide just punishment
  • Deter future criminal conduct
  • Protect the public from the defendant’s potential future criminal conduct
  • Provide rehabilitation in the form of training, medical care, and other treatment
  • Avoid undue disparities among similarly situated defendants who engaged in similar conduct

The statute also mandates application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but the Supreme Court has held that a sentencing judge “must give serious consideration to the extent of any departure from the Guidelines” and must explain her reasoning if she imposes an unusually lenient or harsh sentence.

 

The Guidelines themselves set out general principles, then list specific base offense levels for specific crimes. They provide adjustments based on factors related to victims, a defendant’s role in the offense, any obstruction or related conduct, the treatment of multiple counts, and a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. Each of these factors adds or subtracts a specified number of points. The total value can then be compared to a chart that provides sentencing ranges based on a defendant’s criminal history.

 

Application to the Special Counsel’s Charges

 

Click on the link to see the analysis

 

Regardless, I expect he will get a lenient sentence no matter who the judge is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not sure you can win on this one...if it's a Biden appointed judge it's a different kind of mess.

 

Remember these are multiple felony counts...I can live with her staying as judge jus so whatever sentence it is they'll be less calls for a mistrial or appeal because odds of getting a better judge are slim to none.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ball Security said:

Twitter is wild. Guy posts this and replies in the comments claim it’s a half wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, it does look like white brick...

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Not sure you can win on this one...if it's a Biden appointed judge it's a different kind of mess.

 

Remember these are multiple felony counts...I can live with her staying as judge jus so whatever sentence it is they'll be less calls for a mistrial or appeal because odds of getting a better judge are slim to none.

 

 

As someone pointed out earlier, it's not simply that Trump appointed her. So it also wouldn't be simply that a new judge was appointed by Biden. It's more than possible for both Trump-appointed and Biden-appointed judges to be fair, objective, and apply the law in an unbiased manner. Cannon has already proven, though, that she's incapable of doing so.

Edited by Califan007 The Constipated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
balki1867

balki1867

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Simmsy said:

 

I mostly agree with you, but I also kinda don't. I don't have a favorable view of an actual swing voter, they do exist, but they're rare. I think a lot of republicans like to think they're swing voters to add some type "mysterious air" about their politics, but they're republicans. I had a former boss tell me he was a swing voter because he voted for Clinton almost 25 years ago, even though every other vote before and after was republican.

 

I think we're saying the same thing-- that was my point too-- a lot of self-proclaimed independents aren't independents at all-- and they almost always "swing" Republican. Being outwardly independent is just their plausible deniability for answering to anything Republicans actually does. The Republican party absolutely needs these "independent" voters, and if 60% of them think the charges against Trump are legitimate, the Republican party has a major problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Not sure you can win on this one...if it's a Biden appointed judge it's a different kind of mess.

 

Remember these are multiple felony counts...I can live with her staying as judge jus so whatever sentence it is they'll be less calls for a mistrial or appeal because odds of getting a better judge are slim to none.

 

Based on how badly the appelate court slapped down her previous ruling, I'd say you couldn't get much worse.  I'm not averse to a Trump appointed judge, as long as they apply the law fairly and as it should be, and she's shown that she doesn't.  After all, two of the three appelate judges that slammed her ruling were Trump appointees.

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

To be fair, it does look like white brick...

 

 

 

 

 

As someone pointed out earlier, it's not simply that Trump appointed her. So it also wouldn't be simply that a new judge was appointed by Biden. It's more than possible for both Trump-appointed and Biden-appointed judges to be fair, objective, and apply the law in an unbiased manner. Cannon has already proven, though, that she's incapable of doing so.

 

My comments weren't specific or limited to who appointed her...

20 minutes ago, China said:

 

Based on how badly the appelate court slapped down her previous ruling, I'd say you couldn't get much worse.  I'm not averse to a Trump appointed judge, as long as they apply the law fairly and as it should be, and she's shown that she doesn't.  After all, two of the three appelate judges that slammed her ruling were Trump appointees.

 

Any possibility her credibility and career are  on the line with how she does this case?  Even if he's gets a year or two, good enough for me, that's enough to keep him out the 2024 election (like to see what prosecutors do if Trump tries to push it past the election, might not be so obvious what she does)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...