this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
604 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19148 readers
3629 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
 

Not just ANY bail bond joint, "A 2nd Chance Bail Bonds" in Atlanta.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The guy who erased the footage already flipped...

He had a trump lawyer and said it was never erased. Then he switched to a public defender and recanted his statement that it wasn't erased.

Even if he didn't take a deal, that counts as "flipping"

[–] JustZ 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All the lawyer had to do is be honest about what's going to happen in this prosecution, and how many years he would spend in federal prison in order to maintain the lie.

[–] hogunner 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was the footage actually erased? I thought that Trump’s crew asked him to erase it (but he either wasn’t able or willing to) but the actual issue was he initially lied to the Feds saying they never asked him to erase it. After getting a new attorney he’s recanted and told the feds that they did ask him to.

I never saw mention of the tapes actually being erased but maybe I just missed that detail? I assumed the Feds had the tapes.

[–] Nightwingdragon 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I could be wrong. But my understanding is that the guy didn't have the ability to erase the security footage even if he wanted to. That was part of the whole discussion about "the boss" wanting the footage erased. The IT guy lied about even being asked at all when he had a Trump lawyer, then recanted that when he got his own public defender.

[–] hogunner 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah that was my understanding, too but I wasn’t sure if I was remembering correctly. :)