139

The reality of being a criminal defendant on trial finally dawned on Trump. He didn’t take it well. (www.politico.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 62 points 5 months ago

Whole thing is a scam. Not because of Trump, but because the legal system is a scam in the US. He's sitting trial for things that happened in the run up to the 2016 election. 8 years of zero consequences.

Assuming he loses, he will appeal. Assuming he loses, he will appeal. Everyone knows that if there was ever an appeal case for supreme court consideration, something involving a former president is a pretty good case. That's going to be 3 years to a court he's stacked.

If he's still alive in 2028 he'll still be free, 12 years of no consequence other than sitting in a chair sometimes. And that's it.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago

That would have to be one hell of an appeal, regardless of the court stacking.

His co-conspirator in this crime, Michael Cohen, already got convicted and served his sentence.

[-] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Let him appeal if he's convicted. If he is initially sentenced to prison, he's not allowed to post bail and will continue to serve. Hopefully it would take a while to get up to SCOTUS, and he can enjoy wearing orange to match the rest of him for at least that long.

[-] tiefling 14 points 5 months ago

Oh honey prison doesn't work like that for rich people

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Man, there are a bunch of undeservedly optimistic statements packed into that comment.

[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 46 points 5 months ago

“This whole trial thing isn’t really convenient for me at all - can we just skip to the part where I win?”

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 43 points 5 months ago

In all four cases, he was allowed to remain free pending trial, as long as he abided by certain conditions of release (conditions that he has, at times, flouted with few consequences).

Shouldn't be surprising the he is upset about possibly needung to follow a judge's orders after getting free reign on everything prior. Hope this judge actually follows though, but not holding my breath.

[-] PorradaVFR@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

He really doesn't want to miss the graduation of the child he ditched to raw dog a porn star because …. ?

[-] fitgse@sh.itjust.works 31 points 5 months ago

And he griped about the prospect of missing Barron’s graduation.

“I was looking forward to that graduation, with his mother and father there, and it looks like the judge does not allow me to escape this scam,” he said

Wait, who is Barron’s father?

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

I'm guessing this is his verbal/textual diarrhea form of saying "I wanted him to graduate with both of his parents there to see it".

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Think of this in context. It originally ready barron was looking forward to having his mo there and father there. But trump couldn't stand seeing the sentence being about Barron so they changed it to I

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] kwirky@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

As usual, Trump is lying about being prevented from attending the graduation:

Merchan has not prevented Trump from attending his son’s graduation. In fact, when asked if Trump could be excused from court on Friday to attend the event, the judge stated that it was too early to rule on the matter but that if the trial proceeded as planned, he would be open to excusing the defendant.<

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-high-school-graduation-barron-trump-1235005274/

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 10 points 5 months ago

Lock him up.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 5 months ago

I have a judge who I think should try Trump's case

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

The title of this video and the douche jumping in with his take periodically are...just awful.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Absolutely heinous

I actually thought about tracking down the original source because it was so obnoxious, but I didn't have the motivation to invest the time in it

[-] Donnywholovedbowling@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Agreed. I love watching sovcits get what's due but that guy added nothing

[-] bquintb@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago

watching sov cits getting owned is it past time of mine

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024

139 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18894 readers

2876 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.
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.
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

• 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