Don't be fooled by the "10th time". There were 9 separate violations that were all brought as a single complaint last week. So technically one "time" (as in, one ruling), just regarding 9 separate tweets so technically nine separate incidents. Number ten here is basically Donnie's second strike in terms of actual warnings. If he gets a third without repercussions, then I think it'll be fair to say the judge may be bluffing.
Remember, judges have to play things a little softly if they don't want to set up precedent for appeal. He can't give Trump any reason to claim he's being treated unfairly. Two warnings is perfectly reasonable.
It's actually pretty likely to just be an afternoon, the first time around. Remember, this is a penalty for behaviour in court, not for the actual crimes he's done. The point is to get him to stop acting like a little child. So yeah, odds are the judge books him for an afternoon, just so he can see how bad it is, then if he still keeps at it he starts getting week long stretches until he learns to stop attacking witnesses.
Doesn't this create a precedence for being a dick to judges because they let it slide for Drowsy Don and everyone is supposed to be treated equally in front of court? I wonder what would happen if I were to be found in contempt of court for the 10th time in my trial.
He's not been warned ten times. It's ten violations. The first nine happened as a block. So this is his second strike, in terms of how often he's been reprimanded for this.
Everyone complaining about the judges leniency... consider that getting locked up would be absolute gold for trumps campaign. Infinite money as well as great exposure.
Yeas it works be great to see him behind bars, but I'd prefer to play the long game.
Even if he was locked up for a lengthy period of time, he can campaign from jail. There is precedent for this. He has to be locked up under specific circumstances to stop his campaign.
Name one famous example of a charismatic coup-attempting fascist getting locked up and rallying their supporters behind a manifesto referring to “their struggle”.
That is irrelevant. If Trump's behavior would cause a regular schlub to be jailed, then he should be jailed, full stop. That's how the law is supposed to work.
A judges whole job is to interpret the law and to apply appropriate penalties given the circumstances.
In some cases crimes have prescribed penalties - "exceeding the speed limit by 5mph" probably has a prescribed penalty.
In other cases the judge must weight the circumstances and determine what penalty is appropriate.
In this case, trump is antagonising the judge because it keeps his base engaged, and keeps campaign donations flowing in. Trump wants to go to jail because it would ignite his base. Why would a judge feel that penalty is appropriate? May as well give him a blow job.
More to the point, the primary objective of any punishment in this case would be to cause Trump to desist. If putting him in jail is not going to do that, but rather give his contemptuous remarks a far greater reach, then why indeed put him in jail?
Honestly, the best course of action for the judge and the correct "punishment" for Trump is to give his various utterances the least oxygen possible while preserving the authority of the court.
Sentencing him to jail is going to activate his base. That’s my only concern. People who have grown tired of him crying wolf will finally see this as the deep state locking away Trump to keep him from campaigning.
It's not a sentence. This is a penalty imposed by a judge for misbehaviour in a court room, not a sentence handed down for a crime.
And the judge has to give at least a couple of warnings (this is actually the 2nd, not the 10th; the first 9 violations were all assessed as a block) or else he risks the actual case getting thrown out on appeal.
