814
Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
814 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19126 readers
3014 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How about the media stop using caveats like "may have" when shit is entirely 100% clear.
There are laws on the books regarding things like this. There is no may have. It's cut and fucking dried.
Because they don’t want to be sued.
It's only libel if it's not true. If he threatens to sue, grow some balls, call his bluff and make him prove it's not true in court.
Threatening to sue, effectively forcing the media to back down because it would too inconvenient to deal with a suit is how Trump keeps getting away with his bullshit.
No, it's about access. They don't want to lose access.
Also trump is above the law so the headline is pointless
There is the Logan Act, but he likely would not be prosecuted under it, let alone convicted. From Wikipedia:
The Logan Act gets talked about much more than it has ever been used. There's also a debate as to whether the Logan Act is even unconstitutional.
Well from your own Wikipedia source, it's never been used successfully.
Yup, that's the point. The journalist who wrote OP's article should know better. The Logan Act is functionally dead. As much as I hate Trump, it would be a bad thing if he was prosecuted under it because it would clearly be a case of selective prosecution.
They really can't say "has" because it's possible he wins the case in court. It should be something like "seems to have" though. "May have" means there'd a chance. It should be something that means "it is likely."
Sorry, but no.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t work that way. It’s a legal fiction imposed upon the courts and justice system as a means of (poorly) protecting the civil rights and liberties of those who are accused.
On that, it’s a very important “fiction”- don’t get me wrong.
What it does not do, however, is change historical reality. If Jackass murders a homeless woman, Jackass is a murderer- even if that woman’s murder was never properly investigated, and he was never suspected/indicted/arraigned/convicted for murder.
One’s guilt at having committed a crime does not, in fact, change based on the outcome of a trial. After all the officers of the court, and the jury, are all human and prone to errors. They get it wrong. Sometimes that means guilty people go free, and sometimes that means innocent people are convicted.
But the truth of that guilt is established when one commits a crime.
So I’ll say it: Trump is a mass murderer.
As president, he had a legal, moral and ethical obligation to act to protect Americans from harm during moments of crisis
This includes from things like COVID. He had a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to voice sound medical guidance like “hey folks, I know it’s tough and it looks a little silly, but we need you to stay home if you can, and if you can’t, wear a mask. A real mask.”
He failed us in that moment of crisis and as a direct consequence of his rampant bullshit; millions of Americans needlessly died.