this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
243 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19149 readers
4221 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Earlier this month, attorneys for Trump asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold Smith in contempt for filing motions ahead of deadlines.

The judge overseeing the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump has rejected his request to hold special counsel Jack Smith and his office in contempt.

Earlier this month, attorneys for Trump asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold Smith in contempt for filing motions while the case is stayed pending Trump’s appeal on presidential immunity grounds.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoly 83 points 10 months ago (2 children)

wow, what desperation. to claim that he should be held in contempt for filing paperwork with the court is fantastic in its absurdity

[–] cogman 46 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not just any paperwork, and not to the court. Smith's team sent Trump's team discovery documents. They are literally crying because Smith's team is giving them requested documents even though they don't technically have to.

[–] cybersandwich 15 points 10 months ago

I imagine they are upset that it will prevent them from stalling further on the grounds that "they just received all of this material and we'll need time to go through it all!"

I'm sure they were hoping the appeal with buy them time then they'd try to get more time once they got the discovery. Jack Smith just blew up that dumb charade.

[–] ripcord 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is it? That's not what the article seems to say.

Judge also apparently agreed he shouldn't have done it, but said it also wasn't a big deal and they were being babies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

More specifically, the Judge said that there was nor order preventing the Gov from filing. She then issued an order to that effect; so if Smith continues doing it, there likely would be a contempt order issued.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago

it's just a delaying tactic... just file a never ending stream of pointless but legally valid motions, and they have to respond... which takes time...
that's been his main strategy forever...

[–] SinningStromgald 50 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How dare the prosecution file motions BEFORE a deadline! What do they think they are?!?!? Professionals?!?!???!? I demand they be held in contemp your honor!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, trumps lawyers have done things like forget to ask for a jury, fail to comply with discovery, leading to automatically losing the case, and make the same flawed argument half a dozen times.

Maybe their view is a bit skewed

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

His lawyers willingly work for him. With his track record of treatment of legal counsel, that really speaks for itself.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

They can change him! You don't know him like they do!

/s

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Earlier this month, attorneys for Trump asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold Smith in contempt

Pot tries calling kettle black but then reveals that they're not even in the same room and the pot is actually a giant turd and the arguments are just fart noises and everything is shit because the pot won't stop touching things with its shit-covered hands. Then it turns out that the kettle actually was black when it really was supposed to be black the whole time, so it's really doing its job, but the pot is still a big heaping pile of putrid shit and acne puss and should stop calling itself a pot just because 40% of Americans are either loathsome or too stupid to be left alone with a box of crayons so they decided to elect their pile of shit-acne-puss to be recognized as a pot.

I'm pretty sure I lost the thread there, but fuck Trump.

[–] Naja_Kaouthia 8 points 10 months ago

It was a glorious journey in the reading.

[–] benderbeerman 2 points 10 months ago

I don't think it's fair to say 40% of Americans.

He only had ~74M votes in the last election, and he still lost. That equates generously to around 1/4 of all Americans (329M), back then. If the support numbers haven't shifted, that's still significantly under 25% of Americans that are too stupid to be left alone with a box of crayons.

[–] badbytes 7 points 10 months ago

Sad to see this history writing itself.

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

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON — The judge overseeing the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump has rejected his request to hold special counsel Jack Smith and his office in contempt.

“This measure is an addition to the Stay Order, aimed to further advance its purposes, and does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith,” she wrote.

Chutkan noted in her order that Smith's office was factually correct: Her motion did not forbid the special counsel from continuing to meet deadlines.

The motion earlier this month came from Trump lawyer John Lauro who argued that Smith should be held in contempt for an “unlawful” production of discovery and said that federal prosecutors are engaging in “partisan-driven misconduct.”

Trump is waiting for a ruling by a federal appeals court in a case in which he argues that he's immune from being prosecuted over his election interference efforts because he was president at the time.

She then quoted a prior statement she made in which she said seven months would be “sufficient time” to prepare for trial, suggesting that an additional few weeks could be added since the case has been paused since December.


The original article contains 613 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Sweetpeaches69 3 points 10 months ago

Well, first of all, first of all, I just want to say this: how dare he? I know, everyone knows, that if it's due today, do today. Am I right, folks? That's what hardworking Americans have been saying all along.

[–] Snapz 2 points 10 months ago

"Let's give all the jurors money and say it's from me!"

He's just in the courtroom, yelling random impossible shit