I am not saying you are wrong here, I am trying to understand what you meant by saying "should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies". It sounded like you are saying something was kept secret. I don't know what you are saying did not get brought forward about the federal campaign finance law part.
As for AOC and other people who commit campaign finance violations, IIRC people are almost never convicted for violating those laws, just fined because the rules are so complex that they are violated all the time, intentionally or unintentionally.
As for your statement that the sentence proves he did nothing wrong, that is not what it means. The ruling is a practical one, made so as not to disrupt the function of the presidency. Can you imagine trying to have the president on probation?
When the government and the media repeat the "34 felonies" in every story but almost never include the underlying felony he was never convicted of, it's for a purpose. Anyone with a brain would ask, "Why not convict on that one felony instead of manufacturing 34 more felonies that should have been misdemeanors?"
They wanted this prosecution to become a barrier to Trump winning the election. If you want an example of actual election interference, which was the supposed never-tried underlying felony, this case is a perfect example. It would be perfect if the DOJ convicted Bragg of election interference.
The fact you know campaign finance violations are usually punished with a fine (plus giving back any illegal donations) is important. What makes this case different? Why did Trump get tried on 34 felony counts based on one count of election interference for PAYING someone to be quiet -- the exact opposite of what most campaign finance violations entail, i.e. receiving money?
It would not be difficult for Trump to perform 30 hours of community service. in fact, he would love being out with people cleaning up a park, serving the needy in a soup kitchen or visiting the very ill in a hospital or hospice. Probation is a problem because he has to be able to travel. Same problem with having an ankle bracelet. He could have also been fined a few million to pay back a portion of the money NYC wasted trying to keep him from winning the race.
There's also something called deferred sentencing. He could have been sentenced to 2 years probation deferred for 6 months (or some other probationary period). After 6 months of probation, if he's not brought up on any more charges in that jurisdiction, the sentence is replaced with a dismissal of any conviction or plea deal, so as to not have a conviction on his record.
A deferred sentence is a court-passed judgment that allows a probationary
period before imposing the sentence. This option might be given in cases
when repeat offenses are unlikely, when the accused has no criminal record
or often at the judge’s discretion. If at the end of the probationary time the
defendant has met all imposed conditions, a judge might throw out the
sentence and guilty plea, leaving the defendant without a recorded conviction
for most purposes.
https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-a-deferred-sentence.htmBy choosing unconditional discharge, they are basically saying, "Game's over. We quit." They keep his felony convictions on his criminal record so they can use them against him in the future. Hopefully the next president has the good sense to grant him a full pardon for these charges that never should have been filed against him, much less convicted and sentenced.
Who in the history if the US is convicted of 34 felonies in one trial and not sentenced to any punishment at all? Felonies are pretty serious charges. If they were really conerned about it impacting his ability to perform his presidential duties, they would have dismissed the entire thing with prejudice. Jury verdicts get set aside all the time. But when the DA and judge are going after a political target, they can't see the damage they are doing. They only see the chance to bag a big trophy.