8 Comments
User's avatar
D F Barr's avatar

Not to be all conspiracy theorist here, but the way the system seems to work nowadays, I have a question. I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on tv, but by imposing a sentence of “conditional discharge” couldn’t these rat bastards revive this sham in the future. Isn’t conditional discharge some sort of double secret probation? What I mean is won’t they accuse Trump of something, anything, like a perfectly fine leaked phone call with a foreign leader and then haul him back into court claiming that he violated his good behavior requirement and so conditional discharge must be revoked and a new and improved sentence imposed? Just saying, these Marxists don’t just give up and go away quietly. It’s a revolution they’re a part of after all. That whole fundamental transformation thing.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

You're right, and this is one of the reasons why the judge delayed sentencing. It's also why I'm hoping that there could be some way to get this case over to the federal courts or even straight to the SCOTUS on appeal.

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

He takes office Jan 6. He is immune from the sentencing.

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

Colombian born Judge Merchan. There’s a reason this country is struggling with a civilizational identity. Prime example Cosmopolitanism is a fraud.

Expand full comment
Mr.Mac's avatar

It really does not matter when or where the appeal takes place for this "sham show" - damage has already been done in allowing the smug smirks of the elitist minorities to filter thro. this passing cloud , but more especially over the Pond , where the BBC - still the rabid the foreign propaganda arm of the Democratic party and its senile leader are daily propagating the myth of the USA about to be run by a " convicted felon ". Nasty, deliberate and enabling verbiage . The appeal when it takes place and Trump is vindicated will only be mentioned in passing - if at all .

Expand full comment
Manul's avatar

Obviously a total sham indictment and trial. 34 "felonies" - ridiculous. However, let's consider that there really are 34 felonies. Why is the judge willing to let them go with no sentence? Does that sound like justice to anyone? Plenty of people in the US go to jail for bogus and trumped up "felony" charges.

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. That's the justice system for many in these United States.

Expand full comment
Ray-SoCa's avatar

I wonder how long the appeals circus will take.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

I wonder whether there could possibly be a way to get this straight to the SCOTUS, given that there are federal questions and that the POTUS is involved. I dunno.

Expand full comment