this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
359 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19101 readers
3698 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
 

Closing arguments in New York’s civil fraud trial against Donald Trump took place on Thursday, and despite having been officially barred from personally delivering his defense’s closing statements, the former president launched into an unauthorized rant before the court and Judge Arthur Engoron.

Sources told Rolling Stone that Trump had been rehearsing what he thought would be a blistering, dramatic conclusion to the case that will determine the fate of his business empire.

Based on what the two sources relay to Rolling Stone this week, it appears Engoron’s assumption that Trump would use the forum to rave about his own grievances was right on the money. The former president’s private “rehearsing” of what he planned to say included haranguing the judge’s staff, railing against the New York attorney general as “racist” and soft on crime, claiming that the trial was an example of the Democratic Party and Biden administration supposedly trying to “rig” the 2024 election, and gratuitously boasting of the values of his sprawling business and real-estate empire, among other jabs and bluster.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Makeitstop 72 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In a jury trial, this could be a big deal. You have all this stuff that's off limits that the jury isn't supposed to hear because it's prejudicial, inadmissible and irrelevant. Mistrial have happened for less.

But there is no jury, the one deciding everything is the one who would be enforcing those same rules anyway. If anything, it just shows how easy the judge has been on Trump and team throughout this process.

It doesn't even really affect the media coverage because there's no clip to show, and any outlets that give him positive press off this would parrot his public comments anyway. To everyone else it just makes him look like a joke, a sad thin skinned loser who is trying to get the last word in in an argument he's already lost.

This just seems like a bad idea that his ego demanded against anyone's better judgment. Though I suppose it wasn't ever going to hurt his image among anyone that actually likes him, and anyone who is still on the fence won't remember this in a week, let alone in November.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Can the judge wait until after the trial is over and then jail him for contempt, or does it have to be right after the action?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Actually, a bit of both.

There was an initial order that the judge issued that laid out how the trial was going to go. This order would have things that Trump was required to do, or things that he was prohibited from doing. (that part is rare in pre-trial orders) Anyway, the prosecutor can look at that order, and make a motion to hold Trump in contempt if Trump violated it.

That contempt charge would then be added onto the final order, the one that's likely to completely dissolve the Trump organization. Jail time in such a contempt is usually issued as "suspended" meaning that it's ordered, but if the person doesn't fuck up for a period, and obeys the final order, then they don't actually have to go to jail.

The other type of contempt is when Trump disregards the Judge while in the courtroom. And that one is a straight to jail type thing. The judge here might be brave enough to do it. Or mad enough.

After all, Trump's followers have made bomb threats to this judge's home. That makes people a tich mad.

[–] TechyDad 7 points 10 months ago

Jail time in such a contempt is usually issued as "suspended" meaning that it's ordered, but if the person doesn't fuck up for a period, and obeys the final order, then they don't actually have to go to jail.

So all Trump would need to do would be good and not act up?

He's going to prison!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

That’s very informative, thank you!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Excellent summation