Yesterday, on Morning Joe, MSNBC’s beloved legal analyst Lisa Rubin made a bold assertion about the Trump trial verdict. Rubin insisted that the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and his team were hardly excited about the successful conviction despite the overwhelming backlash asserted by Trump and his conservative cohorts.
Rubin’s claim begs the question: is it even credible to presume that despite their air of composure, Bragg’s team, those that campaigned their cause around taking down Trump, was not in a state of secret jubilation? Bragg’s campaign focus was prosecuting Trump. After doing exactly that, does Rubin expect us to believe they’re curbing their joy?
Concurring with Rubin, Analysts Danny Cevallos and Chuck Rosenberg sided with the view that leniency, in the form of probation rather than prison, should be extended to Trump. Their argument was founded on the fact that Trump, a first-time offender convicted for a non-violent crime, hardly warrants a prison sentence by New York standards.
Rosenberg, however, admitted the possibility that Trump’s sentence might be ramped up due to his relentless critiques of Judge Merchan, paired with his anticipated lack of repentance.
In another twist, Cevallos argued that Trump’s sentencing should consider the financial losses inflicted upon others, which, according to him, was “zero.” He brought up a hypothetical scenario of a pretend university scam, where victims lose out on money. He was likely alluding to Trump University lawsuits where Trump shelled out $25 million in settlement.
However, while Cevallos argued about the financial losses, Rubin pointed out the clear and unwavering response of the DA’s office following the indictment. Their collective demeanor didn’t reflect an overt sense of victory. They weren’t grinning or gloating, despite the conviction lending more credibility to their previous claims.
Cevallos and Rosenberg continue to project their views that Trump’s crime, being non-violent and his first offence, doesn’t demand a prison sentence. Their complex discussion on financial loss further emphasizes the differences in legal perspectives.
But what they and Rubin seem to forget is Trump’s controversial stance throughout the trial. His continuous attacks on the judiciary, the persistent lack of remorse boost the possibility of a must sterner punishment than what analysts like them are predicting. Only time will tell if Trump, the wild card, has alienated himself enough to warrant a harsher penalty.
In conclusion, it’s clear to see that despite persistent analyses and conjectures, Trump’s fate lies only in the hands of the law. And with his constant disparagement of legal figures, the outcome of his sentencing remains shrouded in uncertainty. Time will reveal the true impact of his brash conduct on his impending sentence.
