822
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 Oct 2023
822 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3475 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
The headline is incorrect, but yours isn't much better.
It should read "Judge asks Trump to explain why he shouldn't be sanctioned or jailed". Because this is what the judge actually said:
A semantic difference. Trump will provide no rational explanation, and the judge won't jail him anyway.
Trump's lawyers did provide an explanation. They said they immediately deleted his Truth Social post, but did not realize a copy remained on his website.
Which is plausible, because there was no media coverage about that copy until yesterday. And once the media brought it to their attention, his lawyers immediately deleted that copy, too.
Is that enough to satisfy the judge? I think so, or at least enough to avoid jail. It would be a different matter if this were a new post instead of a copy of the old one, or if the lawyers took their time in deleting it.
I reluctantly accept your explanation.
Nonetheless, one of the truisms that Trump's rise to power has taught us is: All you need is enough money and you get the gentle treatment. I am 100% certain that nothing which will befall him in any of these pending court cases is going to disprove this.
Meanwhile, people already struggling get ground into dust pretty much the moment they are required to interact with the justice system in any way.
And he was given that opportunity. The lawyers claimed the usual "it was an accident and I pinky swear it won't happen again until next time" excuse. There's no indication the judge imposed sanctions. He didn't imprison Trump. He didn't reschedule another hearing over the matter. He did nothing.
The lawyers pointed out that they partially complied with the order, by pulling the post from Truth Social and not mentioning it further. This is a mitigating factor that argues for good faith and against maximum sanctions. The hearing was this morning, and minor sanctions are still a possibility.
More generally, I think there is a tendency to project our desire to see Trump in jail onto this judge. That's why people are disappointed by headlines like "Judge threatens Trump with jail". The judge doesn't want to put Trump in jail as much as we do. He would prefer a reason not to put Trump in jail, and he got one.
Seems to be a recurring fucking problem.
He has to consider the safety of his staff in his decision making which I think people forget. If putting him in jail could be avoided that would be best for the parties involved. It's not fair it just but the lives of their staff are taking priority.
By this logic we are essentially saying that you are above the law so long as you can get enough people willing to commit violence on your behalf.
I mean yeah, but based on his behavior during this trial this is what I'm assuming he's bashing his actions on.
The judge ended up giving Trump a $5000 fine for this violation.