this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
352 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19125 readers
2883 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
 

And it’s based on his “advice of counsel” defense

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 133 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hate the terminology of 'prosecutor set a trap' or 'perjury trap' if you remember when Mueller wanted to get Trump to testify under oath. It might be a trap in the sense of catching someone, but it gives off this sense of plotting and scheming to unjustly nab an unknowing innocent being that was just going about its business, like when you trap a rabbit or something.

It's not a trap. Trump doesn't have a good defense because he did do the thing he is accused of. A horseback cavalry charge against a machine gun isn't "a clever trap by the machine gunner" one side just has the tools to win, and the other side doesn't.

[–] khepri 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's much more like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing than a trap. Or a "backed yourself in to a corner" you might say, or, "completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it". But it's only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a 'trap'

[–] stringere 4 points 1 year ago

I'd put just a bit more distance in there. Trap, to me, implies bait or deception being used to lure something or someone into a place or situation of your design.

Jack Smith did not design the situation that the defense team placed themselves in. I am reasonable sure he's overjoyed that they did.

The OP article does make a good case for exactly how that defense will fail in multiple ways, from a legal standpoint.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, the term dilemma would be better used here.