MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Unconditional discharge

Unconditional discharge

posted 2 months ago by fc31 (6117)
7 replies | jump to latest

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected-sentence-unconditional/story?id=116706931

Never heard of such thing, I learned something new today.

I thought they would at least fine him a dollar.

Would he get a criminal record?

None is above the law, right? All people are treated equally under the law, right?

Democrats clearly worried Trump would go berserk and retaliate.

That is what the law is about these days, political needs.

US justice system can be quite comical.

[–] BKB (11287) 2 months ago

Look, the whole thing was total bullshit to begin with. Paying a has been Porn star hush $$$$ under the table is not, NOT A felony and was nothing more than a frivolous misdemeanor turned into a Felony to keep this man from running and winning the election and they failed!!

[–] fc31 (6117) 2 months ago

I am not talking about that.

The jury has given a guilty verdict, and the judge can just let him go.

Is that how it is for every average Joe?

[–] BKB (11287) 2 months ago

But it's not a felony and putting someone in jail for something as frivolous as this says alot about the Biased Judges like Merchan who's clearly butthurt over Trump

[–] fc31 (6117) 2 months ago

The case was started because of politics, ended because of politics.

That is the state of US justice system.

That is the "independent" judiciary system.

[–] KingBob (3266) 2 months ago

The fact that the case was brought to trial in the first place shows how biased the justice system is against the right and how it favors liberals.

[–] fc31 (6117) 2 months ago

That I have to agree, especially that rape case.

Without any evidence, even the women only said it was in the 90s, because if she pinpointed a date, someone like Trump his schedule could have been filed and verifiable, she could be proven lying.

And the civil suit was still successful, the damage awarded by the judge was enough to bankrupt Trump.

Clearly the case was to serve a political purpose, to make sure Trump could not fund his own election campaign.

I think democrats now have to find some way to pay Trump back, to quell his anger.

Though I don't think they were targeting republicans in general, at least not the same extent. I think only Trump and people supported him.

[–] tvfan (14553) 2 months ago

The entire case was political persecution through lawfare. It was election interference to derail his campaign and prevent his 2nd term. The "unconditional discharge" confirms it.

The "unconditional discharge" essentially dismisses the charges. No prison, no fine, no probation.

Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump.

There is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel.
‌
That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected.

Merchan is guilty of nefariously interfering with the outcome of the trial using the following methods:

• Bias in Jury Selection: Manipulating the selection process to ensure a jury that is favorable to one side.

• Evidence Suppression: Illegally excluding or allowing evidence that can unfairly benefit one party.

• Improper Instructions: Giving the jury misleading or biased instructions to sway their verdict.

• Rulings on Objections: Consistently ruling in favor of one side during objections, affecting the evidence and arguments presented.

• Influencing Witnesses: Coercing or intimidating witnesses to give testimony that aligns with the judge's desired outcome.

• Prejudicial Comments: Making statements that reveal bias or influence the jury's perception of the case.

• Deliberation Interference: Inappropriately interacting with the jury during deliberations to influence their decision.