this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
269 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2894 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Other coverage for comparison:

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 129 points 7 months ago (2 children)

During jury duty, we got all sorts of shit for even whispering which court room we are going to. We were all numbers and even addressed ourselves as a number. And we were threatened repeatedly with fines and prison sentences.

This motherfucker gets to say whatever the fuck he wants and gets a bunch of verbal warnings and finger wagging.

This is why we lose trust in various govt systems

[–] [email protected] 82 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not just the special treatment. It's the fact that he's gonna turn around and say he's the one being treated poorly, and a good chunk of the population will agree, in spite of the plain evidence.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"I'm being treated.. worse than Jesus!"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

One could only dream

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

And the religious nuts all cheer and agree. WTF?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And no judge has the balls to hold him in contempt like he's not a man facing felony charges.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

I think him putting in the "I'm immune to criminal charges" argument into the courts hands has actually given him temporary immunity until it's decided. It's BS

[–] [email protected] 98 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Maggie Haberman writes:

Todd Blanche [Trump's lawyer] says Trump is entitled to complain about “two systems of justice.” “There’s two systems of justice in this courtroom? That’s what you’re saying?” Justice Merchan says.

I mean, there are two systems of justice in this country, and he's always been part of the better one. If he wants to see what the rest of us would have to go though, by all means, let's try him under that system of justice.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. If a non-billionaire (allegedly) tweeted out barely-veiled threats to jurors and witnesses and the judge's family that causes their friends to send death threats, you'd be in prison after you violated the gag order. Maybe not even get a gag order: just also charged with tampering.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would literally just be held in contempt without bond if I was threatening a judge and their family.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So far this morning, it's all about the prosecution pushing for Contempt charges.

Justice Merchan has repeatedly pushed Todd Blanche to clarify his arguments, only to have Blanche deny that he is saying what he seems to be saying. Trump is very lucky that the jurors are not here for this. Merchan is really dressing down Blanche right now.

Blanche is Trump's lawyer (for those who didn't know)

[–] [email protected] 55 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As Blanche insists Trump is trying to follow with the rules, Merchan interrupts him. “You’re losing all credibility with the court,” he says.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago

Ouch. When a judge has to tell a defense lawyer that, things are not going well for the defense.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 7 months ago (13 children)

Looking at the way this is going, I'm genuinely starting to wonder if Donald Trump ends up jailed for contempt sooner rather than later. It seems Merchan's patience has been exhausted.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Prosecutor Christopher Conroy has just said that prosecutors are not seeking jail time for Trump’s violations of the gag order.

We are not yet seeking incarceratory penalty. Defendant seems to be angling for that … We are asking the court to impose the maximum $1,000 fine for each violation."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/apr/23/trump-hush-money-trial-new-york-updates

"Defendant seems to be angling for that" ... so? Why are they taking into consideration what Trump wants? Just treat him like you would a black guy in Texas caught with a little weed.

[–] Jax 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Because if Trump can get them to act emotionally his lawyers can argue that this is a witch hunt.

They have to go through this painstaking process. If the don't they embolden his base and suddenly those definitely-not-calls-to-action are much more threatening.

[–] rebelsimile 10 points 7 months ago (6 children)

I disagree. The reason that we have gag orders is to protect the integrity of the process. The integrity of the process doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump, it has to do with literally everyone else. And we learned a long time ago that it’s not possible to have a fair trial when a loud defendant can manipulate the press, attack jurors and inflame the public. It’s time for him to shut up and spend some time in jail.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nah, he'll get another paltry $5k fine that is unlikely to ever be paid.

[–] eestileib 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Iirc NY law puts a $1000 cap on fines for contempt in criminal cases.

So the slap on the wrist will be even gentler than that.

If it happens at all.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Jail and prison time are both possible though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The prosecution made a point of not asking for any jail time in this hearing, but rather a warning that future violations will escalate to that. I don't think the Judge really wants to jail Trump while the trial is ongoing. Trump will get a hefty fine as well as that warning. Well see how long it takes for Trump to end up in Rikers.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

But why, though? Trump doesn't give a fuck about fines; time spent in jail is the only thing that has any chance of getting through to him because his wealth/grift can't solve it for him.

I'm willing to bet even just sending him to the holding cells in the couthouse for a couple hours each time he makes another out-of-order outburst would shut him up real quick.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

All a short term trip to jail would do is play into the Martyr complex that he and his supporters have. He would complain that he's not getting a fair trial, and low-information voters who are not paying attention will believe it.

While the judge doesn't care about Trump's political prospects, he does care that the trial is fair and that public perceptions don't make it into the jury's deliberations. But marching Trump off to a holding cell will be such an event that it would be impossible to keep it from the jury, and could give Trump a valid avenue for appeal.

However, if the judge establishes a paper trail that proves Trump was given every chance to comply, then it would make it harder for the appeal to succeed. Trump can't very well argue that the court is biased against him when they gave him extra opportunities to comply.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

He would complain that he’s not getting a fair trial, and low-information voters who are not paying attention will believe it.

He has and will continue to do this, and worse, and his cult will believe all of it, and worse. We cannot make decisions, especially not exceptions to laws, based on fears of how a fascist cult of supporters will react to it. They are going to do and say stupid/crazy shit, all the time, no matter what.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

I don't care what it plays to. Make lady liberty stop peaking through her blindfold and treat him like the rest of us would be treated.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Because he wants to come off as a martyr to his base, and putting him in jail is exactly what he's aiming for to do that.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Can we try once? Just give him a night, let him know what he's up against?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

They will make him one no matter what, deciding not to carry out justice out of fear of an angry and uninformed mob just puts decision making entirely in the hands of that mob.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

The Appellate Court likes to see that judges gradually escalate through the options, not just go straight for the harshest one available. It’s likely Marchan (and the prosecution) want to make this case as appeal-proof as possible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

If he wants to complain about 2 justice systems, I think that'd qualify as "fucking around and finding out."

I can't imagine anything that would bring Americans at large greater joy.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (1 children)

At least we know the origin of fake news, it's the orange man himself.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Always was.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Jeebus... Pecker would send Cohen articles before they were published so he could vet them. That's absolutely bananas.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Is it? That bit seems the least outlandish, I'd guess that happens regularly to people in power and/or with a litigious streak.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Two possibilities:

  • The judge finds him guilty of contempt and orders a short jail term as punishment. Could happen any time now that he's heard arguments, but the prosecution didn't request it, so a $1000 fine is much more likely unless he keeps on violating the gag order.
  • The jury convicts him, and he's then sentenced to a significant term. This won't happen until the trial is over, several weeks hence
[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Reality number 1: He avoids all responsibility. Avoids all punishment.

He has so far had a 100% success rate in avoiding jail time or any consequences. I hate the guy and wish that hell was real (I'll even go there too if it meant these kinds of people would) but I would never in a billion years bet against him avoiding punishment.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I was curious about a specific term:

"In a pivotal stretch of testimony, David Pecker, the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer, described a 2015 meeting with Mr. Trump and his fixer at the time, Michael D. Cohen, at Mr. Trump’s midtown Manhattan headquarters.

Fixer
Noun
2. A person who uses influence or makes arrangements for another, especially by improper or unlawful means.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Holy shit, I wish I could be watching this live. It looks like the prosecution brought all the receipts, including ones I never even knew existed. Pecker attended Trump's candidacy announcement in 2015, invited personally by Cohen, and the prosecution have the email to prove it.

That in itself isn't illegal, of course, but it completely undercuts any future attempt by the defense to argue that Pecker and Trump weren't close.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

But it's him so the rules don't apply.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Seeing the latest updates, it appears David Pecker is actively throwing Trump under the bus. The increase in the level of communication between Pecker, Cohen, and Trump once Trump announced his candidacy is going to be really hard for the defense to explain away.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Things are getting spicy again. Pecker knows Karen McDougal.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Another hushed Playboy Playmate, for those who don't know.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

And now we've got a meeting in Trump Tower in August, with Hope Hicks present.

load more comments
view more: next ›