- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
The judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan postponed his sentencing until after Election Day, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to overturn his conviction and win back the White House.
In a ruling on Friday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26. He had previously planned to hand down Mr. Trump’s punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump will face off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.
While the decision will avert a courtroom spectacle in the campaign’s final stretch, the delay itself could still affect the election, keeping voters in the dark about whether the Republican presidential nominee will eventually spend time behind bars.
A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just “guilty but still speaking publicly”.
Still don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.
If we had done this earlier, this wouldn’t be a concern :/
Yup. :/
I looked it up and it’s not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.
Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said “everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here’s why a delay would actually be a good idea”, it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.
He’s not getting a prison sentence. The judge in the trial straight up stated he did not want to put Trump in prison during the trial. He’ll get a fine, which he’ll be able to pay off with kickbacks from his friends, and the it’ll be back to business as usual.
The judge is anything but nonpartisan. He’s very obviously conscious of what his career is going to look like under either administration, and he’s playing very carefully so as not to overly offend either party leadership.
I’m unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.
“Not offending either party” is definitely not a partisan act. It’s almost the definition of nonpartisan.
I can’t fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn’t object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to “assist the court”, it’s pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf
Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn’t want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don’t turn up anything particularly relevant.
“Don’t punish political candidates like normal people” is a shitty reason to avoid justice.
Well, I don’t think anyone was saying don’t punish political candidates, least of all me.
Being cognizant of a political context for an action just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, even if it’s not how I think it should have played out.
Whatever sentence is given will have an impact on the political landscape in which that sentence is carried out, which can potentially directly undermine the sentence.