politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I don't know if it'd be considered legal under the constitution, but someone needs to issue a blanket gag order that basically says he's not allowed to say anything to the public, directly or indirectly, until after his trials are over. Otherwise he's going to keep finding loopholes that allow him to get past the gag order.
That would be a First Amendment violation, because it would also prohibit legal speech. The only way he's not able to reach the public is if he's in jail.
If he goes to jail - a justifiable sentence for continually violating gag orders - his minions will call that a First Amendment "Deep State" thing. And they might not be far from the truth.
It's going to be really bad, the more he threatens people. It's going to even worse if he goes to jail.
Edit: I wanted to add, "The only way he stops sending his threats is if he dies," but that's not even true.
If he dies of natural causes, or an accident, or by murder - doesn't matter. His followers will blame their enemies, and they will act. There is no way this all ends with anything but violence. The only question is when, and how much.
Thing is... they're gonna do what pumped up hate-fueled idiots always do, no matter how much factual reality differs from their oh-so-sacred claims. It doesn't matter if this asshat lands in jail or at the bottom of an empty elevator shaft. They're going to erupt in violence and will need to be put down in kind.
Just, yank the fuckin' bandaid already, get this over with, FFS. Waiting doesn't make it better for anyone.
And although there will be short-term pain with the MAGA folks committing terrorist acts in the name of Trump, long term it would hurt the movement.
Say Trump is thrown into prison for life tomorrow. Who leads the MAGA movement towards their goals? Who even tells them what their goals are? Rob DeSantis? At one point, maybe, but now it isn't likely. Don Jr? Perhaps but he's not his father. Vivek Ramaswamy? Maybe, but he doesn't have the support.
The most likely outcome would be that MAGA fractures. You'd have Don Jr MAGA, DeSantis MAGA, Vivek MAGA, etc. Each MAGA group would insist that THEY are the successor to Trump MAGA and would fight amongst themselves to prove who is the true ~~Scotsman~~ MAGAman. The movement would be weakened as a result.
That's also what culling "the weak" could look like. You do realize that those among us who read for comprehension, think critically, and otherwise operate at what much of the world might consider a default level of intelligence have been underestimating the whole lot of these morons from the jump, right? What say we stop doing that, hmm?
The keyword there is "violent".
If they were just rambling on on Trump's twitter-knockoff, then I'd agree with you. But we've seen January 6, along with several examples of lone wolves willing to act on their own. There's a reason why virtually everybody involved with these cases have extra security detail and why these courtrooms continually go into virtual lockdown every time new charges are brought against Trump.
They might be idiots, but their bullets do just as much damage.
a martyred Trump is a national nightmare.
The question is this: Sometimes its pretty solid to issue repeated gag orders (in front of the watching jury), and everyday have to drag the defendant up and once again talk about how they violated the gag order in spirit and have to get even further sanctioned... while the whole jury sits and watches it.
Everytime it happens the jury becomes further pitted against the asshole who is wasting their time.
Yeah but there’s no jury in the New York civil fraud case. It’s just the judge, and he’s already ruled against Trump (on the most important claim, there are others), the remaining trial is just to see what the damages will be (and to determine the status of the other claims).
Ah, thats right.
Well, in that case its extra going to be a bad hand for Trump, I guess.
Everytime the Judge extends him an olive branch to shut the fuck up and Trump proceeds to double down on his rhetoric, I imagine the Judge is bumping up the amount owed he has in his head already as the trial continues.
Like it's absolutely wild when you have this judge as the sole delegate as to just how hard you are going to get dinged, and you decide "ah yeah lets talk shit about this person"
Thats... not going to go well at all... lol
He's likely hoping one of his nutjob followers kills the judge. It also lines up to imprison the judge if he gets back into the White House.
And then him and his lackeys cry “unfair trial”
"The judge doesn't like me" "The judge was very unfair to me."
Now you know why.
It may go better than you think.
There are reports already out that the judge in this case undervalued at least some of Trump's properties when making his fraud ruling. Now if Trump can goad him into making any kind of personal comments that even give the appearance that the judge is biased, he can use all of that on appeal in hopes of getting the whole thing thrown out.
"This judge made numerous factual errors in his original ruling of fraud, grossly undervaluing the Trump brand and the value of our properties. And during the trial, he said X, Y, and Z in response to me exercising my First Amendment rights under the Constitution. He would not allow us to file for a jury trial even though amended filings are commonplace in our court system. Therefore, we ask the appeals court to throw the entire case out entirely."
Adjust for legalese as necessary, but that's pretty much what Trump is going to go for. And keep in mind that, contrary to the beliefs of some, Trump's record in these cases isn't nearly as bad as some claim. Will it work? At worst, I'd say the chances are nonzero. But those chances significantly increase if this judge actually does anything that an appeals court rules as even slightly improper. And that's what Trump is trying to goad this judge into.
Our system of justice is not really designed to balance the First Amendment rights of someone who is expressing an opinion or otherwise just venting frustration when that same person's word can literally cause nationwide violence. How do you handle someone like Trump when attempting to silence, gag, or jail him could spark nationwide violence at any time and put everyone involved with the case and their families at risk, but not attempting to do so only emboldens him and causes him to make even more violent threats?
The judge is not in real estate, he's a judge. He didn't dream up figures to fry Trump. James would have gotten them from sources who are real estate experts, and at this level the sources must have been deemed independent and unbiased by the judge to use them.
As long as the case took to build, and as it all rests on these figures, the people who matter must have full confidence in them under scrutiny.
Any suggestion that the figures are flawed likely comes from Team Trump, and would be in line with their long list of dubious claims both in and out of court.
Actually, it's coming from articles such as this.
Even if the judge had a good-faith reason to believe the values that he was presented with, those values being wrong could easily be enough to have the case thrown out regardless of who's fault the error was. (This assumes that the properties were undervalued in the first place, of course).
If the arguments made in that article are accurate, it becomes a question of whether an appeals court believes that the judge jumped the gun in issuing his ruling of fraud instead of giving Trump's legal team an opportunity to make their case that the properties were undervalued. (IMO, this should have been done anyway, as there's no way he can make this case without admitting to even more serious tax fraud charges, as he was simultaneously under-valuing the properties himself for tax evasion purposes.)
If these property valuations really are wrong, there's a case for an appeal here. Now add Trump's usual spin to it and the fact that eventually the case is going to end up in front of a Trump-friendly panel of judges (even if he has to appeal all the way to the SC to get there), and you end up with a case that may be messy and incoherent because it's Trump after all, but still a case who's chances of being successful are still uncomfortably above zero.
If those arguments have merit then they'll have to sort out the details of how much Trump overvalued his properties. As I understand it that is the purpose of the trial at this point.
The Florida-based real estate pros referenced in the article didn't throw out any estimated values of Mar a Lago, and they didn't suggest it hadn't been overvalued by Trump.
The lawyer in NYC quoted seems to have little concern over the whole thing.
| Cintron, the Harrington Ocko & Monk partner, doesn’t think the Mar-a-Lago valuation controversy moves the needle on the question of whether Trump committed fraud.
| “There is enough of a pattern of this practice that he’s engaged with in respect to his properties to support Judge Engoron’s conclusions that there was an intent to defraud,” Cintron said.
EDIT: Apologies for formatting, I haven't figured out quotes in Lemmy
This I agree with. In the end, what Trump's team is arguing is that "hey, I only committed a little fraud, not the amount they're accusing me of!", as if that's all that much better.
But it does open the door enough for Trump's team to be able to use it as a basis for appeal, especially if those incorrect estimates are tied in any way to the verdict or damages he's going to have to pay. And unfortunately, Trump has an amazing talent of being able to kick the door in if you leave it open enough for him to even squeeze in a toe.
Going by the events of recent history, I'm inclined to agree that they'll weasel out of appropriate consequences by arguing over anything except the main points.
It sure would be nice if the NY court proves us both wrong. I believe that if just one of the cases follows through holding his feet to the fire (including on appeal), the other courts will be much more inclined to follow suit.
Of all the types of speech protected by the courts, none is more highly valued than political speech. So there's no way in hell a court would try to impose blanket silence on a political candidate.
Except for the fact that his "political speech" consists of threats and slander, both of which are illegal.
There's a (ridiculous) law excempting lies told by politicians on the floor of Congress, but no such thing for someone who's not even in public office committing stochastic terrorism almost every day
You mean the Constitution's speech and debate clause?
Yes, that ridiculous exemption. If you can't make your political point without literal slander and fraud, you shouldn't get special treatment for making it where that kind of thing is at its most destructive to society and the population as a whole.
How would you change this protection in order to address your concerns while still serving the important purpose of protecting legislators from retaliation?
I would remove it.
You still have to prove intention and that it unfairly harms or enriches someone, which means that good faith errors and differences of opinion are already legally protected just like with everyone else.
As for politicians and their supporters using unwinnable lawsuits to harass and damage their opponents, that's what anti-SLAPP laws are for.
Tl;Dr: there's no valid justification for letting politicians say and do what would be against the law for regular people.
Historically, this protection was a necessary limit on the prosecutorial power of the executive/king.
Simply throwing it out seems like an over reaction that doesn't take into account the actual justifications for its existence.
That's not necessary now that there's no king and a politically independent justice department. If either of THOSE things stop being the case, we have much bigger problems than politicians not being allowed to enrich themselves and destroy each other by lying.
Scrapping a rule that causes more harm than good in a modern country with weaponized media is just common sense.
The "actual justifications" are invalid as they don't apply to current reality and in fact that exemption has played a big in enabling the kind of demagoguery that makes an octogenarian who entered politics before the invention of the pocket calculator and thinks the solution to police brutality is to throw money at cops by far the LEAST bad realistic option for president.
Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?
In what ways does it cause more harm than good?
Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who's paying attention.
In what ways DOESN'T it? If I had a dollar for every American who died as a result of politics based on one or more politicians deliberate lying, I'd be able to buy the Eiffel tower. If you included every American trapped in avoidable poverty, I'd be able to put in a fair bid for all of France.
As for the protection of honest speech, everyone has that without giving the already powerful and notoriously dishonest special lie allowance privileges.
...exposed by a Senator reading classified documents into the Congressional record, thus entering them into the public record and being immune from prosecution.
Also, that's not how Americans spell "behavior" ;)
There's already whistle-blower protections for that. Granted, the exceedingly authoritative government shits all over such laws when it's not one of their fellow rich and/or powerful people doing it, but that's not the fault of the law.
Also, it's no secret that I'm not an American and I will spell words however the fuck I want.
Congress isn't covered by whistle-blower protection laws, and such laws generally only protect disclosure to the proper authorities rather than to the public. This also ignores the case when the "proper authorities" may be the very people being reported on.
I'm still interested in knowing what actual harms you're alleging the speech and debate clause causes. You pointed to lying, but that's generally legal anyway and not really enabled by the S&D clause.
Willfully and maliciously lying to harm the reputation of someone else and/or to exploit others financially is called slander and fraud. Both are usually illegal and this is the last time I'll try to get it through to you that demagogues having carte blanche to slander and defraud people took the point of passing legislation based on said fraud ans slander is a bad thing with often catastrophic consequences.
I really don't understand how that isn't obvious to you. Unless you've been wasting my time arguing in bad faith this entire time, of course..
I'm actually being sincere. Something that you clearly don't understand or appreciate.
You're right. I don't understand nor appreciate how someone could fail to see the problem with some of the most powerful people in the world, the ones that shape the rules of an entire country, just being allowed to make shit up as they go along out of spite and greed.
Especially not when living in a country with only two major parties, one of which has lied their way into inspiring a global resurgence of fascism and the leadership of BOTH parties continue to pretend that a bribe isn't a bribe unless you specifically annonce that you're bribing someone and for which specific purpose!
That's mind-boggingly obtuse and evidence of some SERIOUS propaganda and/or unearned trust in authority figures. Extremely fucked up either way.
Yeah, no, that is a direct violation of his 1st amendment rights. He knows he's playing catch me if you can with the court and his mouth because the court can only gag very narrowly defined speech. For instance the court could say he can't talk about pickles, so he talks about cucumbers soaked in a brine. The court tells him he cannot talk about cucumbers soaked in a brine. So he talks about a green vegetable roughly the size of a pickling cucumber that you then put into a mixture that contains seasonings, vinegar, etc. Will he eventually run out of ways to describe a pickle? Sure, but he'll have wasted shitloads of the judge's time and distracted from what was actually happening in court. And it's working. Do you know anything about what has been presented so far in the case? You probably don't because those articles don't bring the clicks and views like stories about his latest shenanigans on social media.
My blood boils a little bit just seeing this behaviour described. Probably because it's relatable kids behaviour.
Trump has said that his temperament hasn't changed since he was in the first grade so it tracks that he uses the same tactics that little kids use.
The difference, of course, is that the little kids will grow out of this behavior. Trump won't.
The judges in each case can issue a gag order against discussing anything and anyone pertaining to the case in public. That would be bulletproof and also constitutional.
The problem is enforcement. We both know that Trump wouldn't be able to go 5 minutes without violating it. But then what?
Jail him? Congratulations, you made him a martyr. His poll numbers are going to skyrocket and his die-hard followers are going to interpret it as a call to action. You've hired a bunch of extra security for yourself , everyone on your team right down to the custodian, and their families, right? There's a reason why nobody has been willing to do this yet. There's a reason there are so many reports about lawmakers unwilling to remove Trump from office due to fears of retaliation. There's also the optics that Trump already spins on the daily about jailing a political opponent, and the fact that he is the leading Republican candidate which, like it or not, is going to give him a lot of leeway as judges are loathed to curtail political speech.
Fine him? Objective reports say that the man has at least $400 million cash on hand. While his business isn't nearly as valuable as he claims it is, he does have several billion dollars in assets around the world that can be tapped. Any fine would qualify as little more than a rounding error on his taxes, and any attempt to issue a fine that would actually impact him is almost guaranteed to be struck down on appeal as excessive. Fining him in an attempt to curb his behavior would be as effective as telling you I'm going to fine you about $1.79 if you don't knock it off. The man just got slapped with a $5 million smack for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll, and was right back on the air less than 24 hours later saying even worse stuff. Monetary fines do nothing.
Keep warning him? How many times did your mom say "1........2.........Two and a half......." before you realized that there is no 3? Same thing here.
Move the case up early? There are numerous legal, procedural, and logistical issues that would make this a non-starter. Numerous talking heads have written this off as an empty threat that would be impossible to actually enact, while giving Trump's legal team grounds for appeal.
And before anyone says "So what are we supposed to do with him then? Just let him keep doing what he wants with impunity?".......that's the exact question our entire judicial system is currently tasked with answering, and nobody seems to have come up with one yet. How do you handle someone who is hellbent on doing what he wants, but also has the resources and ability to force people to back down out of legitimate fear of retribution to themselves, their associates, and their families?
That's what he and his cult already believe and will continue to believe no matter what happens or doesn't happen.
Nah, he has more or less reached his ceiling. He has a number of people who are members of the cult and would never abandon him without literal cult deprogramming and the majority of the population would never vote for him after what he's already said and done.
You mean like is already the case now that he's slandering and vilifying most of them with no consequences to himself?
True, but not the one you think.
THAT'S the actual reason.
"Like it or not" is an awfully casual reaction to the powerful getting blatant special treatment, which is in itself against the law
The question is literally answered already. Letting him get away with constantly and blatantly breaking the law is in itself negligent bordering on being criminal.
This is what people said about him being impeached. Then it's what they said about him being impeached the 2nd time. Then it's what they said about him losing the election. Then about when he was indicted the first time. Then the 2nd. Then the third. Then the fourth. Notice a pattern yet?
Easy to say when you're not the one putting yourself, your staff, and all your families directly at risk. Senators refused to oust him from office out of fear for their safety. Courtrooms shut down, sometimes for days, out of fear of retribution. People who have infinitely more resources and in many cases the power of the US government behind them, and they still refuse because of credible threats.
Actually, it is.
This is another reason, yes. But it is not the primary one. If this were the issue, it would be cleared up in appeals, pre-trial hearings, etc.
No, it's an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. Trump is the leading GOP candidate for POTUS, and judges are absolutely going to give him a lot of leeway in order to avoid the appearance of interfering with political speech. Whether they are right or wrong for doing so is certainly up for debate, but it's absolutely going to happen.
Again, a very easy comment to say when you're not the one standing directly in the line of fire. It's much, much different when it's your offices getting bomb threats, your kids' pictures and identifying info being published online, and your family members who aren't even involved receiving daily threats. And it's also very easy to say that when the subject isn't capable of summoning mobs of idiots, some of which are armed to the teeth and willing to commit violence.
Look, I'm not saying Trump should walk. I agree that someone needs to actually start using the tools available to put this guy away. The problem is that the process actually has to be started by an actual person, there doesn't seem to be too many people willing to put their family's safety at risk in order to pull the trigger, and its understandable why those in power who can pull the trigger are reluctant to do so.
That's not really how the law works, and judges generally take a dim view when someone is trying to circumvent their order.