Holy clickbait batman, you can say the judge didn't recuse in the headline.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
194 points (83.7% liked)
politics
19139 readers
5955 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you don't pay for online news then you're the product, and they're going to be incentived to say whatever for clicks. I agree though, what a terrible and deliberately misleading headline. It got my hopes up and then immediately smashed them back down.
It’s pretty insidious to claim the judge is biased because of a $100 donation.
When he is likely found guilty he will just delegitimise the verdict and his base will eat it up.
That's because he would have sold the farm and it's nuclear secrets for $100
Would have? Probably did.
They will anyway. It doesn't really matter what happened or what any facts are, if it doesn't go his way, they will say it was fake blah blah blah and so will he.
They couldn't throw $10,000 between the all of them to make this argument look kind of legitimate?
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the plaintiff in the case, is arguing Trump, by allegedly motivating Jan. 6 protesters with his election fraud claims,. . .
“Allegedly motivating J6 protestors”?! Really, Newsweek? That’s where you are, huh?
FFS. THIS - this weak-ass corporate news slurry of rightish goo they’re barfing up - is why American democracy is under serious threat. It’s pathetic.
Tbf - they do this because of a rule that is actually very important. Basically news media can't say that a person did a crime until they're convicted of that crime - otherwise it's libel (or slander, I can never remember which is which)
That's important because otherwise the media can basically just have unilateral control over the court of public opinion. People already rarely read past headlines, imagine if news headlines could just declare someone guilty with impunity.
It always seems silly in these cases - and in similar cases where the defendant has basically already admitted to doing it - but it's actually an important rule in my eyes
otherwise it’s libel (or slander, I can never remember which is which)
No, you're right. Libel is written, slander is verbal. Thanks J Jonah Jamison.
just remember "libel" starts like "library"
Newsweek is a right-wing rag that pretends to be centrist. They unironically published an opinion piece last week entitled something like, "The World Needs President Trump Now More Than Ever."
It's owned by a Trump supporter, so what should anyone really expect?
Corporate media is who gets the money when all those campaigns are bidding for ad space with PAC money. Which dragon are we slaying first?
And the "loss" was the defense wanting the judge to recuse herself based on a $100 donation to a Democratic PAC in the state., and the judge saying "no."
Breaking and setting records
Is he tired of winning yet? 🤔
Maybe soon he'll be living rent free in a jail cell
Many (shithole) states have started charging prisoners for their incarceration.
Well yeah, you think for-profit structures are gonna make enough money off of legal slave labor? Infinite growth demands it eventually.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the plaintiff in the case, is arguing Trump, by allegedly motivating Jan. 6 protesters with his election fraud claims, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the trial kicked off Monday, Judge Sarah Wallace quickly rejected an effort from Trump's legal team to have her recused from the case, the Associated Press reported.
Trump's attorneys had filed a motion calling for Wallace to recuse herself from the case due to an alleged $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project in October 2022.
The PAC's website reads that it is focused on defeating Trump ally Representative Lauren Boebert and "electing Democrats across Colorado."
"The Colorado Turnout Project aims to prevent violent insurrections by addressing this problem at its source– if we vote out pariahs like Representative Boebert, we can turn CO Blue once and for all," the organization's website reads.
Trump's legal team has argued the former president was exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech by saying the election was stolen via widespread voter fraud, a claim that has not been proven.
The original article contains 480 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They're asking her to recuse over one $100 donation. She said lol no Lmfao. Get fucked trump.
Does this have any chance of succeeding before the Georgia or Washington cases potentially pin a crime on Trump?
hate/love to see it