906
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 02 Oct 2023
906 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1936 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
He’s already lost, this trial is only to determine how much it will cost him. I think it’s more that he’s realized how bad his attorneys are, and that he’s going to lose everything.
And to think, all he had to do was not run for president of the United States (among many other things) and this probably never would have happened to him.
I mean, I’ve never run for president of the United States, it’s a very easy thing to not do.
He also could have, you know, not crimed.
Could he, though? Really?
Be reasonable
That's a lot harder to not do. Much easier to not run for president.
Seriously. Had he not ran, or dropped out early, he could have probably started his own fringe news channel and lived a relatively unchanged, trouble free life and probably made some money doing it.
I personally think he expected to lose and wasn’t expecting the Russians to barely tip the scales to eek out an electoral college victory.
Same here. There's a photo of him on election night as his win was being declared. Everyone around him looks happy, but he looks like he was just told he has 2 weeks to live.
Had Trump lost to Hillary, he would have done the whole "they stole the election from me" shtick. He'd have launched Trump Tirade Hour where he'd rant about the latest political topics - criticizing the people in charge and declaring that he'd solve everything so easily.
Of course, like his health care plan, Trump would never give details on HOW he'd fix everything. It would just be "A is doing B to fix complex problem C. That's the wrong thing to do. If I was in charge, I'd fix the complex problem easily by.... whoops, looks like it's time for a commercial break!" It would really have been the best job for him. It would have fit his skills of being an armchair critic that understands nothing and yet claims to know more than anyone else.
Sadly, he won and did the whole "I know better than anyone else despite not understanding anything" from the most powerful seat on the planet.
Fucking lol. If this century could have a headline
Respectfully, I hope you are wrong.
If not running was all it took not to be prosecuted then, to me, that says this is indeed a political prosecution and not about the rule of law.
I think they meant not run the first time? As in: he doesn't run, and therefore doesn't get elected, so he stays away from the spotlight and can, relatively, quietly live his life with his foot in his mouth at every turn, but nobody cares because he's a D list celebrity.
And of course, not being the president, he has no access to half of the shit he's dealing with federally. I feel like the state stuff in NY was a pretty long time coming, but the federal stuff could've been avoided had he lost or not ran in 2016.
I don't even know what a world like that would look like, but I'm sure it would've been better than the four years we had of him.
Edit: Mobile, misspelled some things due to autocorrect.
President Hillary Clinton would be fully supporting Ukraine as House Republicans desperately searched for any excuse to launch their fifth impeachment
Clinton would have been out of office for more than a year when the invasion started and the Democrats would have a stain on their record that would have made it much harder to fight whichever Republican fascist (but I repeat myself) was currently in charge.
Out of office? Nah, re-elected
When you run for president, you get the spotlight, but you also get a magnifying glass...
And in THAT mixed metaphor:
as president he had access to much higher level criming, which is why he is now in the trouble he is in.
Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.
I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.
I think they mean for the first presidency. Had he not run for president and won via the electoral college, he never would've been in a position to commit a lot of the crimes he's in trouble for.
Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.
I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.
But he wants to look cool in front of his friends.
I can imagine a world where Trumps publicity presidential run starts spinning out and Jared/Ivanka start pulling strings to make it happen. Jared walked away with untold billions and just walks away unscathed. It's disgusting, especially when you think of how the GOP will stop at nothing to bury Hunter.
They are desperate to show the Dems are just as bad.
Maybe he should have paid or listened to the first dozen sets of lawyers he went through.
He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.
I hate to be that guy, but you can't appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.
I don't know, I just feel like correcting people on the internet often comes off as being pedantic even if that isn't the intention. That is why I included the disclaimer I suppose. Thanks for the kind words though, I appreciate it.
Whoa, whoa..I was told this was a Reddit replacement and this is way too kind, humble, accepting, and level headed.
This is downright peaceful.
Stop being aggressively reasonable!!
Since when has something being legal or not ever stopped Trump from trying it?
I'm not sure what you mean exactly in this context? Are you saying he will try to appeal on those grounds anyway? If that is what you are saying then it doesn't work like that because the appeals court will simply throw out the appeal for lack of standing I believe.
That's exactly what I'm expecting would happen. Trump submits paperwork trying to appeal, it gets rejected for not being valid grounds to appeal, and he cries persecution in the media.
Oh, well in that case then I guess I agree with you. Both because that is his M.O. and also because his legal team in this specific case is especially incompetent.
I'd love to watch him cry about it in jail, but I'm not hopeful he'll actually end up there.
“My trial was unfair!”
“On what grounds?”
“I made it unfair for myself!”
Your honor, I object!
And why is that?
Because it's devastating to my case!
https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=Yb8ma4gk_Aezw_IR
💀
RBG was too ______ to retire as well.
This oversight was first reported over two weeks ago, yet he hasn’t mentioned it or taken action in any way. Wonder if that would have an effect on such an appeal.
I don't think it would because it is unlikely this case would have been granted a jury trial anyway due to New York law. There are specific requirements for requesting a civil jury trial in New York, and all the legal analysis I have seen has suggested they would not have met that bar.
Jury Trials are onerous on the public and the judicial system, but are fundamentally necessary as well as guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, for civil matters that is the exception rather than the rule.
Interesting, I hadn’t heard the possibility that he may have been denied a jury until now. Maybe that’s why he’s been quiet about it (until now of course.)
It wasn't denied, his attorney's never requested one in the first place. It is unlikely it would have been granted even if they had due to the aforementioned reasons. However, that has not stopped Trump from saying he was "denied" a jury trial which is just patently false.
Yes, I know he failed to request one, I broke the story here on Lemmy over two weeks ago
https://reddthat.com/comment/3313060
I meant that it never occurred to me that if they had requested one properly, that he might be denied and have to have a bench trial anyway.
I see, my bad. Was just confused by the verbiage.
No worries, I probably could have phrased it better.
Even if he did appeal, would that delay execution of the resulting court order?
He's going to send out a new round of "save our country" money-raising emails and every one of his cult members are basically going to bail his ass out of this again.
Yeah but surely there must be diminishing returns, or at least there's a somewhat finite pool to draw from. Like as case after case goes bad why would anyone keep giving him money?
You would think. But it keeps happening. Maybe this will be the final straw?