this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
227 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19244 readers
3290 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
 

A New York judge has moved the sentencing in Donald Trump‘s hush money trial to after the election, on November 26. “The public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from […]

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 143 points 3 months ago (4 children)

jesus fucking christ man, why won't these judges simply follow the law

[–] Raiderkev 10 points 3 months ago

The judges:

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

I mean, most of them probably became judges specifically to gain the power to choose who needs to follow what laws - as well as the profitable position that puts them in for rich criminals who don't want to go to jail.

[–] Tom_Hanx_the_Actor 4 points 3 months ago

According to an NBC report I saw on this, Trumps legal team requested a delay and the DA didn't reply to the request. That kind of tied the judges hands and this (non)action is the norm for this situation. A break from the norm would help trump on appeal.

[–] themeatbridge 99 points 3 months ago

If this pisses you off, good. Because this is the legal system we have, and it's always been this corrupt. It's always been this unjust, this skewed, and it will continue to be until we demand a change.

[–] [email protected] 92 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just don't understand why the rules and laws never, ever seem to apply to him!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago

Because he is, or at least was, part of the insider clique.

Even as late as 2014 he was still allegedly close enough to the Clintons that he and Bill could have a personal phone call hours long.

Seriously though, it is self preservation for the judge. If Trump loses, no harm in sentencing him punitively. If he wins, might as well sweep it under the rug to try and save a few lives of you and your staff.

[–] CobblerScholar 45 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Watch we'll see a headline in some future morning "Donald J Trump Dead at --" and that afternoon we'll see "supreme court drops all extant charges on former president saying ""its time to focus on grieving""

Fucking pitiful

[–] idiomaddict 6 points 3 months ago

That’s actually a really interesting question. I think putting dead people on trial (for new crimes, not postmortem exonerations) is fucked up, because they can’t testify in their own favor, but it’s also such an important case for the country to learn about, to assess the breadth of collusion and depth of corruption involved in trying to overthrow the government.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[–] badbrainstorm 29 points 3 months ago

Infuriating bullshit, nonstop

[–] yesman 28 points 3 months ago

This reasoning doesn't make sense unless Trump loses. How can sentencing the POTUS be any less fraught than sentencing a candidate? The judge is a coward with at least two rulings in his back pocket depending on the outcome of the election.

[–] capt_wolf 22 points 3 months ago

"The public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction and distortion"

The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands to see justice served you kowtowing stooge! Grow a pair and do your fucking job!

[–] Zombiepirate 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The members of this jury served diligently on this case, and their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election. Likewise, if one is necessary, the Defendant has the right to a sentencing hearing that respects and protects his constitutional rights.

Haven't we known the date of the election for roughly 225 years?

[–] Plopp 4 points 3 months ago

There's an ELECTION?? Election of what?

[–] 2piradians 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

After he loses the election and gets sentenced, I hope to never again hear from this scourge.

[–] Rapidcreek 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

NY Times analysis actually making a good point: "Trump’s criminal sentencing being delayed until after Election Day might be good news for him legally, but it’s bad news for him when it comes to fund-raising. His team is being badly out-raised right now by the Harris campaign. Some Republicans were hoping that his sentencing in the hush-money case could lead to another fund-raising bonanza similar to those that he got after his criminal indictments and conviction. Now, that’s off the table."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I suspect between Russian influence operations and the billionaire sociopaths, Trump's funding isn't a factor at this point.

But I'm doomscrolling these comments trying to find any practical silver-lining, so I genuinely appreciate this attempt.

[–] kescusay 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay. So. He lost in 2020, and hopefully he'll lose again in 2024. After that, can he FINALLY HAVE SOME FUCKING CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL THE CRIMING HE DOES GODDAMN IT AAARGGGH@$#&#@!!!

[–] Supervisor194 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nope! Gotta keep our eye on 2028!!!!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The year is 4199. The English language has evolved past recognition of the 21st century mind, and the country of ‘America’ is part of a strange past known only through strange ‘metallic manuscripts’, and physical archaeology. Every year at the start of winter, the tradition of the ‘turnip festival’ takes place. Children paint a grumpy face onto a turnip (or its future equivalent) and set it outside. It is traditional for the children to write a list of ‘crimes’, of which the turnip is accused, and pin it nearby. Usually the list consists of naughty things the children themselves have done in the year past. After midnight, older children dressed in traditional red and black, with amusing wigs, march around neighbourhoods to ‘postpone punishment to the new year’ by tearing down the lists of children’s crimes, and leaving candy in their place. Afterwards the adults get very drunk. Nobody remembers the origin of this tradition, but historians theorise it could be related to an unpopular leader thousands of years ago known as ‘the turnip king’ who famously evaded justice through his corrupt legal system and connections to powerful oligarchs of the time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is both cowardly and very clever. It’s very strategic.

If trump wins, the sentencing hasn’t hurt his campaign and the case goes away. The Judge’s house doesn’t get doxxed to unstable people.
If Trump loses, his supporters cannot claim interference. But Trump can be sentenced and imprisoned before the next change of power.

Ugh. Fucking gross.

[–] finestnothing 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They'll still claim interference because he has ongoing court cases, maga cult followers may not be good or smart people, but they are skilled at mental gymnastics around why them losing was unfair or justifying Trump's actions

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I mean. Yeah. There’s only so much planning you can do to contain stupid.

A number of years ago a colleague wanted to download a song for a presentation. The site was blocked by our firewall, so they downloaded it to their phone, and transferred it from their phone to their work computer, then asked for my help to figure out why song.mp3.exe kept flashing a black screen and not playing any music.

[–] JustZ 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He won't be inprisoned before January. The sentence will be stayed immediately while Trump appeals for the next two years, minimum.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I hope that’s not the case, but he’s rapidly declining, anyway.
I don’t really care if he’s ever imprisoned, so long as he loses and the cult that follow him and the sociopaths that fund/back him are left without their messiah/useful idiot in a position of power.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Cowardly judges say what?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Stocks in "Trump will get away with everything forever" continues to soar! What's next, winning the presidency after calling Kamala the n-word with hard R in the debate? Stay tuned!

[–] someguy3 3 points 3 months ago

The President is ~~not~~ above the law.

[–] Makeitstop 3 points 3 months ago

A major part of why Trump never seems to face consequences is because of judges (really the entire justice system) playing it safe. They tip the scales in Trump's favor so that their decisions can't be easily portrayed as being biased against Trump.

In this instance, the judge could do the legally expected thing and just follow a normal timetable without worrying about the election. But sentencing Trump in the lead up to the election is very likely to be portrayed as an attempt to influence the election, and that would maximize the amount of scrutiny the decision gets both in and out of court. Trump will appeal as he always does, and there will be angry nutjobs sending in death threats at the very least, with a very real possibility of actual violence of some kind.

On the other hand, delaying until after the election means that the decision can't be seen as influencing the election. Instead, the outcome will either be known by everyone involved, or it will be in an extended dispute that will likely drown out any attention the sentence would receive. If Trump wins there's probably no point in worrying about the sentence anyway since he will be above the law. And if he loses, there will probably be a lot fewer people looking to pressure the court, and the judge might even be able to give a real sentence without retaliation

I'm not saying this was the right decision, but I think it's easy to see why the decision was made.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 2 points 3 months ago

Don't want a trial to interfere with your political career then don't break the fucking law.