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
It shouldn’t have needed to exist in the first place.
If you or I pulled this behavior, we wouldn’t get gag orders. We’d be held in contempt and locked up.
Indeed, a normal defendant would have been treated much differently. Then again, a normal defendant doesn't have an army of enraged violent dipshits with a tenuous relationship with reality, eager and willing to end democracy on his behalf, supporting them. That's why he gets treated with kid gloves.
They’re treating him with kid gloves because they’re trying to avoid an appeal. They know he’s going to appeal whatever verdicts he gets. But you can only appeal a conviction on the basis of a mistrial. Basically, you need to prove that your trial wasn’t fair. And one way to do that is to show that the judge was biased against you. So they’re avoiding giving him any ammo for his inevitable appeal.
Because higher courts get more and more conservative as they go up, so his chances of getting a conviction overturned increase with each subsequent appeal. And if it makes it all the way to the SCOTUS, they’ll gladly light the constitution on fire to let him walk. So their best chance of having anything stick is to stop the appeals process before it can even begin, by refusing to give him any basis for an appeal. They’re doing everything they can to treat him with kid gloves, so the appeals court can’t go “yeah maybe the lower courts treated you unfairly.” It means that if a conviction happens, it’ll truly be ironclad.
Bingo. It's like the Colorado judge who found Trump factually guilty of insurrection. That case was getting appealed, no matter what. But now the next court(s) in line has to take that fact into account, they don't get to rehash or question it.
tl;dr: All these things we're mad about are brilliant legal maneuverings.
Yeah right. Like how Mueller was taking his time because he was building an air-tight case. I've been hearing this kind of thing since early in his presidency. I no longer buy that the "good guys" have a plan and will put a bow on it in the end.
A "brilliant" legal maneuver would be having a legal system where a fucking literal traitor doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves... This entire thing is a fucking farce and no amount of "genius" political posturing will ever correct it.
That turns out not to be the case. Both sides are appealing that ruling.
So they are trying to overturn that factual finding. Trump will try to drag this out forever or until he can try and pardon himself.
I'd say they're more insurrectionists than terrorists, and no I do not.
Speculating why they are doing something is not endorsing it.
Can you elaborate? I don't follow.
Ah I see, well he's clearly being treated differently than a normal defendant and I speculated on why, but after reading this comment I agree with @PM_Your_Nudes_Please that it's probably more about denying him a case for appeal even if it means treating his behaviors with more leniency than a normal defendant. Getting it right is important because of the damage he can cause, (due to said army and the scary possibility of reelection,) if he gets off with a technicality. I'm referring to his legal woes in general and not just this trial, he's been trying stochastic terrorism in many of them.
Gag, fine, jail is the standard contempt workflow that most (terrible) people go through, but he still should have been gagged, then fined, then put in a cell all by the end of day 1.