Srsly. People who have done time in prison and also in looney bins (especially prison hospitals for the criminally insane) seem to agree that the looney bins are worse places to be.
A judge has just sentenced the first felony-convicted defendant in the Jan. 6 mess to eight months in prison.
The claim: “There were no guns whatsoever” in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — former President Donald Trump
In a Fox News interview, Trump went on to describe the events of Jan. 6 by saying that “people with no guns walked down” to the Capitol, that the building’s doors were open, and that there was a “lovefest” between the Capitol police and the insurrectionists.
PolitiFact rating: False. Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby while in Washington, D.C. In addition, rioters had weapons other than firearms and used them during the attack.
…
And besides, the whole thing took place in a driving rainstorm… er, snowstorm, at night in the dark, under the blazing sun, amid rising floodwaters. In a drought. There was deafening silence, except for the singing and dancing. BUT NO GUNS! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
As mentioned above: 8 months for this douchebag…
"As he imposed the sentence, Moss said Hodgkins sent a profound and dangerous message by raising the Trump flag by the Senate dais at the hour members of Congress were supposed to be confirming President Joe Biden’s victory
“The symbolism of that act is unmistakable,” the judge said. “In that act, he captured the threat to democracy that we all witnessed that day. … People have to know that assaulting the United States Capitol and impeding the democratic process, even if you don’t come bearing arms, will have consequences.”
You left out that it was uphill both coming and going.
Eight months in prison and a felony conviction to follow him for the rest if his life. Not a slap on the wrist. Lets see how the rest start turning on each other.
Exactly. The time is almost irrelevent. Let him explain his felony conviction as he goes about the rest of his life. And I hope he enjoys the next few months of it.
That judge struck such an important blow in this fight. I wish everyone were required to read his words.
Most places dont even ask for an explanation, they just never call you back. And if they do call back they make you feel stupid for even applying.
I’m a little surprised that he gave a sentence lower than what the prosecution asked for. Is it rare for a judge to give the full requested sentence?
It depends a lot on the case, in my experience. But it’s not uncommon. (IANAL but spent years in courtrooms.)
When a case is high profile, judges will come loaded for bear with the reasoning for their decisions. I am sure this one did.
They will state for the record their factors in mitigation (e.g., defendant has never been convicted previously of a serious crime) and factors in aggravation (e.g., defendant showed no remorse for his actions) upon which their sentencing choice is rested, then make a finding that one outweighs the other, or not.
This defendant in fact took responsibility for his actions, which would weigh in favor of mitigation. Based on the Politico article, he also is not a regular serious offender.
The judge stated he feels the defendant’s actions pose a serious threat to our very democracy. This would obviously be considered a factor in aggravation.
I don’t have a transcript of the proceedings, so I don’t know for sure exactly how the judge rendered his sentencing choice, but I expect it was something like the above.
Factors in mitigation outweighing factors in aggravation, the defendant was sentenced to less than what the prosecution wanted and more than the defense wanted. I think it was a good choice. He also pointed out that making an example of this defendant was perhaps not as appropriate as others who are yet to be tried and likely convicted.
As @Si_Amigo and @bobot point out, a felony conviction following him for the rest of his life is no small thing.
Hope this answers your question somewhat.
Things might go less well for this one:
Yeah… Raw Story requires a white list I’m not willing to grant, but just based on what you posted, I see that one possibly heading for what we referred to in California as a 1368. (Penal Code, if you’re inclined to look it up. 
)
It is quoting from a Twitter thread:
Thanks Aspenglow! You went into more details than I was expecting.
Oh! Missed that. Thanks. 
I see my speculation was widely shared.
And probably more than you wanted. Brevity is not one of my qualities, sorry to say.
Hah! Nope, I read every word.
Glad you found it helpful in understanding how judges reach their decisions.
The owner of that thread also disagrees with earlier sentiment about the sentence handed down for the first guy, in case you wanted further reading.
The guy had the nerve to evoke Lincoln. Grrrrrrr: