This doesn't make any sense. He had not yet been elected when committing these particular crimes.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
168 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19232 readers
3984 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Some of the evidence presented was from when he was president. That's at least the angle his lawyers are going for.
I generally don't agree with broad statements about all lawyers being thrown into the sun because it's important for even guilty seeming people to have fair representation... but his lawyers absolutely should be thrown into the sun.
"Yo Dawg, I heard you like bad faith arguments, so I put some bad faith arguments in your bad faith arguments."
I mean, to play devil's advocate, it's their job. He's their client, they're supposed to work in their client's best interest, and as long as they're not breaking any laws to do it, they're doing what they're being paid to do.
I think it more comes down to the judge needing to put a stop to the bad-faith arguments; if the judge is accepting them, why wouldn't they keep making them?
Yea, okay, we can hold off on our coronal mass injection cannon for now - but if those fucks break any laws trying to intimidate jurors or bribing officials... well, I'll keep the cannon spun up in my garage.
I, specifically, want Trump to gain no special benefits or privileges based on him being Trump or wealthy - he's gotten far too many gifts already.
no special benefits or privileges based on him being [...] wealthy
That's unfortunately simply not the world we live in.
So you're saying I should wind up the cannon? Can't a mad scientist just launch a few people into the sun without all this back and forth?! /s
Yea, I know. It fucking sucks.
Yeah, this is it. It’s the defense’s job to zealously defend to the extent of the law, the burden is necessarily on the state to prove things and carry out justice.
Which is why when your supreme court are corrupt fascist bastards and fuck all that up, there’s not a lot of options left. It would have been great to elect someone from a competent or at least not-evil party to avoid this particular situation but “we” didn’t.
ITS BULLSHIT!!!
GOD! FUCKING! DAMMIT!!
. . . Sorry had to get that out. Uh, carry on, I’m gonna go lie down . . .
We're fucked. Fascism is here. Fight like your life depends on it. In the next few months it will. The powers that be are all in on King Trump.
defense attorneys argued that Manhattan prosecutors had placed “highly prejudicial emphasis on official-acts evidence,” including Trump’s social media posts and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings
It's unclear to me why an official act cannot be used as evidence that a different unofficial act occurred. Let's say candidate Trump shoots Bob on Fifth Avenue and then, after being elected, threatens to "kill Joe the way [he] killed Bob" during his State of the Union address. He can't be held accountable for threatening to kill Joe, but he did just confess that he killed Bob while he wasn't president. Why couldn't this confession be used as evidence in his trial for killing Bob? Or, for that matter, in his trial for killing Joe if he went on to kill Joe after he was out of office?
You're right, it's totally nonsensical. Clearly that was put in to screw with this specific situation.
You can see pretty clearly how the conservatives have a result they want and work backwards.
The Supreme Court added in a provision to the ruling that official acts can't be used as evidence for unofficial crimes. It's based on absolutely nothing and tailor made to get Trump out of his legal troubles. It was bad enough that they lost Coney-Barrett on that part of the ruling so it was only 5-4 there. But it doesn't need to make sense because they are the completely unchallengeable deciders and everyone else has to dutifully accept whatever new law they make up. They believe they've won and don't need to pretend anymore.
I totally agree. I hope Mercan goes that direction
King President
King Former President!
Nah nah, the ruling applies to all presidents, see?
Oh really? Obama's one negative was being on board with overuse of drone strikes that killed civillians...
Someone get Obama on the phone!
Remember: there are bad actors here that are doing everthing they can to paint Biden as being worse for America than Trump- despite things like this. Despite Project 2025. Despite him claiming he’d help Israel “finish the job.” They are urging you not to vote against him-
LIVES DEPEND ON VOTES THIS YEAR.
Don’t listen to these cowards and VOTE!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Manhattan prosecutors said Tuesday they would not oppose Donald Trump’s request to delay the sentencing in his hush money trial as he seeks to have the conviction overturned following a Supreme Court ruling that granted broad immunity protections to presidents.
If granted by Judge Juan M. Merchan, the delay would mean that Trump won’t learn his sentence until after he is formally nominated at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, which starts July 15, leaving open the possibility that he could be ordered to jail during a critical stretch of his campaign.
The letter came one day after Trump’s attorney requested the judge delay the sentencing as he weighs the high court’s ruling and how it could influence the New York case.
In their filing, defense attorneys argued that Manhattan prosecutors had placed “highly prejudicial emphasis on official-acts evidence,” including Trump’s social media posts and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings.
Trump was convicted May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.
Prosecutors said the Daniels payment was part of a broader scheme to buy the silence of people who might have gone public during the campaign with embarrassing stories alleging he had extramarital sex.
The original article contains 467 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!