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
Here's what I would do: Trump is ordered to write a formal apology letter to the clerk in which he disavows the spurious claims outlaid in his post, he must record himself reading the letter and post it to his website for at least 2 months. Or he can go to jail for contempt of court.
This way he either does something he definitely does not want to do (admit fault) or go to jail and because he 'holds the keys to his cell' so to speak, his claims of being wrongfully imprisoned would be hollow.
Unfortunately I believe there is a long case history that prevents courts from forcing them to say things as it violates the 1st amendment. Similar to forcing engineers to write code that puts "backdoors" into security systems.
I think there is precedent for apologizing as an alternative to punishment, but I'm no expert so you may well be correct.
Just look at Powell, she must write a letter of apology, but the difference there is she took a deal and agreed to it vs being forced into it I guess?
Right, my thought is that the apology would be in lieu of going to jail for contempt, so he isn't being forced to apologize, he violated a court order and is being punished, he could then choose to forgo punishment by apologizing.
I'm fascinated by your choice of analogy. Do you have a story to tell?
Not my story but the US government has tried a number of times to force engineers at Google/Apple to write backdoors into their encryption in order to "fight the terrorists". They've been prevented from doing that on 1st amendment grounds. Example: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/encryption-and-speech-surplus-building-backdoor-to-first-amendment
I think he literally couldn't bring himself to make the apology, though. He's way too much of a narcissist.
His claim of being wrongfully imprisoned is already hollow, his supporters are going to believe it regardless of the hoops
Also not apologizing/admitting fault is a point of price for them
Honestly this is a really great plan. It put the whole thing on him. Though sadly he would just do that sing song baby voice he uses and it would sound like he was mocking the apology