Watched the sentencing. I recommend who ever finally sentences Trump just use the exact same talking points. Continual lies No remorse Attempting to destroy our democracy Most privileged defendant ever etc.
The woman was a public servant who not only totally violated the trust of her office, but committed crimes against her office, then absconded, resisted arrest, and remained defiant all the way to her…{checks notes} sentencing hearing after being found guilty. There was never any personal responsibility taken or contrition shown. Usually before sentencing is when a defendant begs for mercy, this nutbar thought it was a good time to relitigate her trial! Very much like her cult leader, it’s obvious this woman is a sociopath with extreme narcissism. Unfortunately i don’t think that qualifies as “mental illness” that the judge could consider, too bad for her. Maybe in prison she will get the diagnosis and medication she so obviously needs.
Very interesting. We humans are complicated, and I way too often forget this admonition - 'judge not lest ye be judged'. Still, she doesn't seem a very nice human.
I read it. Based on your comments, you appeared to be disturbed bout possible preferential treatment for those deemed not in a healthy state of mind. Also based on your lack of comments, you appeared totally unconcerned about the crime committed by this now-convicted felon, or the fact that she was led to doing this through the lies of a different convicted felon. Doesn't it bother you that there is a convicted felon who has been spreading lies about fake election fraud for over 4 years.......and these lies are cuasing good people to do bad things, and get thrown in jail? Shouldn't that bother you more than.....whatever preferential treatment thing you were worried about?
There are a lot of aspects of the judge's lecture that I didn't appreciate. You're sentencing this person to a number of years in prison. It is fine to point out her defiance, dispel her lies, make clear the harm her actions have done, and call out her lack of remorse. These are all factors that play a major role in the sentence she receives. It's important to put them on the record. I didn't appreciate the insults. He needs to be above that. Beyond making it seem personal, it is unnecessary. The prison sentence is punishment enough. Explain why you're imposing it, and leave it there. One of the things I most admired about the judge who mentored me was his desire to see even people charged with serious crimes as humans who were deserving of empathy and respect. That didn't mean he went easy on them. But it did mean that he did his job at sentencing hearings and nothing more. It was not an opportunity to embarrass them, rub their noses in it, or bring attention to himself.
I'm sure I've told the story here in the past, but my dad was sentencing someone for some crime and asked the defendent if he had anything he wanted to say before sentencing. He stood up and said "$@$# you judge" My dad, without making a beat goes "awwww you hurt my feelings" and then gave him his sentence. Always loved that story.
You have articulated well my unease about judges scolding people. This Judge may be as objective as they can get, but these sort of lectures often come across as personal and emotional and/or as pandering to me. If there is any subset of cases I hope they'd be extra cautious with that possible perception, it would be in cases that are politically charged.
There is famous transcript floating around in Hillsborough County where Judge Harry "Hangin' Harry" Lee Coe was sentencing a criminal defendant. The defendant told Coe to "get (redacted) so Coe sentenced him to 5 months, 29 days consecutive to his other sentence for contempt. The defendant replied, "(redacted) your contempt." Coe sentenced him to another consecutive 5 months, 29 days for "contempt #2." Defendant responded with "(redacted) your contempt #2." Coe then held him in contempt and sentenced him for "contempt #3" whereupon the defendant as you may have guessed responded with "(redacted) your contempt #3." This little exercise in basic counting went on for quite some time until the defendant was taken out of the courtroom. By that time he had amassed a well into double digits term of years for all of the contempts, each running consecutive to one another and the original sentence. It went up on appeal to the 2DCA and they ruled the whole thing was just one long, continuing contemptuous exchange and reduced the contempts down to one.
Draino is wrong as he often is. Peter’s son was a Seal and died in a parachuting accident in NJ. To be a Gold Star parent one’s child has to die in combat. I wonder how upset Mr Draino was about the treatment the Khans, true GS parents, got from trump.
Maybe she would have received a more lenient sentence if she had shown a little remorse and contrition. Probably sounds trite, she made her bed (probably with one of Mike Lindell's pillows) and now she has to lie in it.
Couldn’t disagree more. She required the scolding because she clearly demonstrated that she didn’t believe she did anything wrong. Go listen to her “mitigation” lecture she gave the court. There’s also a whole other group that needs to hear it as well.
Her sentence captures her lack of remorse. His job is to lay out clearly why he gave her the sentence he did, not to engage in theatrics, try to teach her a lesson, or try to prove a point.
Judges are often some of the most awful people in society. The judge in this case is a perfect example. He's a liberal authoritarian on a power trip. If he was smarter he would not have issued such an insane verdict. The sentence makes the. judicial system look bad so it should be overturned. If we had cameras in the federal courts we'd see how this type of behavior by judges happens all the time. People that want to become judges are often authoritarian by nature. They get off on power. They want to shame, censor and punishment people that are not part of their favored political group. This judge violated his judicial oath
"People that want to become judges are often authoritarian by nature. They get off on power. They want to shame, censor and punishment people that are not part of their favored political group." Sounds like a description of the Federalist Society recommended judicial nominees appointed to Federal judgeships by Trump.
