What if he keeps insulting and attacking the judge?
The gag order never prevented Trump from attacking Merchan or Bragg.
I wanna see him doing community service.
Liking picking garbage on road sides. Lucky the orange jump suit will match nicely.
Quoted from another thread:
WAPO:
Will Trump go to jail?
The charges against Trump are nonviolent Class E felonies, the lowest level in New York, and they are punishable by 16 months to four years in state prison. Legal experts said it is unlikely that Trump, 77, would be incarcerated, given that he had not previously been convicted of a crime.
Other options for Merchan include sentencing Trump to probation, which would mean he would need approval from a parole officer to travel outside the state. Trump also could be fined or granted a conditional discharge pegged to the requirement that he stay out of further legal trouble, legal experts said.
I read a lot about anonymous legal experts saying that it’s unlikely that Trump will be prosecuted. Those with a different opinion in this thread need to explain why anonymous legal experts and anonymous prosecutors talking to reporters from WAPO and the NYT have a different opinion.
I’m genuinely curious. I opine that in a case like this one, the written opinion will have to be grounded in law and reason (straightforward) and that the prospect of jailing a Presidential candidate will have a larger influence than is stated.
IANAL but I also suspect the odds of multiple month incarceration, while less than 50%, are higher than indicated by the mainstream press so far.
There’s a massive difference between “unlikely” and “very unusual”. “Unlikely” only means there is a less than 50% chance that he’ll serve time on a first offense. And that doesn’t sound all that wrong to me.
But to say that it would be “very unusual” means that it rarely happens which is an exaggeration. You can flood the thread with examples of white collar crimes that led to jail time on a first offense. Hence why I said it happens all the time. Please don’t conflate the two.
Atamasama: I appreciate the clarification: thanks.
More from the press. Reuters:
It is rare for people with no criminal history who are convicted only of falsification of business records to be sentenced to prison in New York. Punishments like fines or probation are more common.
Defendants convicted of falsifying business records who get sentenced to time behind bars typically serve a year or less, and even in those cases most were convicted of other crimes such as fraud or grand larceny - unlike Trump.
NBC:
Two experts told NBC News that it’s unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time. But a third expert told NBC News he believes it is “substantially” likely Trump could end up behind bars.
We discussed those alleged thousands of cases upthread. NBC contin:
Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it’s unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender. “I’d be very surprised if there’s any sentence of incarceration at all,” Rosenberg said. “Of course, he did spend a good bit of time insulting the judge who has the authority to incarcerate him.”
One possibility is that he gets probation… but with conditions that have more teeth than the gag order imposed during the trial, such that if (oh, hell, when) he violates the rules, off to the slammer he goes.
I can only find one example of incarceration with a conviction for this particular crime:
However, there are some unusual aggravating factors in the Trump case:
I wonder about the possibly mitigating factor of age 77. How significant is that?
If I had to guess, he will at least get an unusually long period of probation, and possibly some house arrest – because of refusal to take responsibility.
P.S. Technically, the words aggravating and mitigating, in this post, are probably incorrect. But I think the factors mentioned have that effect on sentencing.
In a rational society he’d be taken to one of those vets who specialize in dogs that bark too much.
I don’t think Kristi Noem can help him now.
No problem; I suspect our opinion on this matter isn’t all that different. 
So as I explain above. There is indeed a study that showed only a small minority of these kind of felony convictions lead to a custodial sentence. But that includes guilty pleas and jury trials. Guilt pleas (as the result of plea deals) are way more common and result in much lighter sentences. So it’s totally true that it’s very likely that an elderly first time non-violent offender would be offered a non-custodial plea deal for a felony like this one. That does not hold for someone who forces a jury trial and is found guilty.
On top of that:
- This case involves election fraud by a candidate in a presidential election which is about as serious as a non violent crime can get.
- Trump has shown zero contrition for the crime, in fact he’s berated the judge and jury in the medi. Even if he shows contrition in the hearing that won’t be very convincing
More details here:
The problem with sentencing Trump is that there’s a good argument that, due to the importance of the office that he came to fill - by cheating - he genuinely does deserve a greater sentence than usual. But, because of how much he has poisoned the well, he can’t be.
Now, as I understand it, under a sentence of probation, the judge can stipulate any conditions that seem reasonable for the crimes and individual. E.g. if a person was driving drunk, they can be required to attend addiction classes. If they stole funds from a charity, they can be required to take classes in ethical business practices, etc.
So, I’d be curious as to what all sorts of things the judge could ask of him because one thing that runs through Trump’s fraud trial, his E. Jean Carroll trial, the Hush Money trial, the false electors scheme indictment, etc. is a history of extreme dishonesty.
Trump has made some promises to the American people, in the past: “I’ll show you my tax returns”, “I’ll divest from my businesses”, “I won’t play golf”, and so on.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are quite a few things that he promised to do - that didn’t rest on any act of Congress or any other person - that he then chose to not follow through on.
I don’t think even a MAGA could complain about a sentence that simply asked him to do what he himself promised to do or, in the case of golf maybe doing something like community service for an equivalent amount of time as he was golfing and not Presidenting.
If I was Merchan, that’s the area of punishment that I’d be exploring.
Being able to set any reasonable conditions for probation got me thinking.
While the jury didn’t have to decide which crime(s) Trump was concealing one of the likely ones was election fraud.
If Trump won the presidential election partially due to election fraud does it would seem reasonable to me to prevent him from standing for potitical office again. Is this a legal option and if so could it happen?
There’s no way that would survive appeal.
Are these listed anywhere?
In the absence of a list, I think that cases where some counts were for crimes beyond felony falsifying business records are being included.
The most compelling reason to think Trump will get a prison sentence is that Cohen got 3 years. It would seem a miscarriage of justice if the mastermind and beneficiary of the crime got a less serious punishment than his minion. Keep in mind, Cohen pled guilty, and agreed to cooperate, and still got a prison sentence.
On the other hand, I just have so little confidence in Trump facing accountability. He’s rich, white, male and famous. But as others have pointed out this did not save Martha.
Merchan seems pretty legit as a judge and fair-minded. I’m sure he will do what he thinks is just.
Nitpick-Martha is female.
No! Really?
Cohen and Stewart were convicted of more serious crimes. He was accused of a misdemeanor that only became a felony because of the election connection. Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading.