• jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think their point is that you or I wouldn’t get treated that lightly. How many people get 10 violations, let alone need a gag order in the first place. The sad fact is that a court acting “moderately” is a lot more lenient than what a lot of people experience.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      He was issued a gag order due to public criticism of witnesses and the effect it may have on their credibility. The 10 violations were addressed at two gag order hearings. At the first hearing he was fined the maximum. At the second, he was fined the maximum and warned of jail for the next offense.

      This is exactly how an impartial judge should be ruling.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          He was informed of the potential repercussions in the first hearing. It was the second of two hearings when Merchan said while he was reluctant to put a former president in jail, but continued acts would leave him no choice. That was the end of the violations.

          The goal of the gag order is to mandate compliance, not leverage a holding cell. Again, Merchan handled it by the book.

          I’d love to see him in jail, or better yet, prison, but it’s not worth compromising the judges ruling into bias.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Merchan said while he was reluctant to put a former president in jai

            He was biased to not put him in jail.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Sentencing is based on character and severity of crime. Being a former President speaks favorably in court. It’s not about money or influence.