820
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
820 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2082 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
But instead fined him $5,000. This headline is stupid.
I am not a lawyer, but my first thought is that you cannot pass a six figure (or more) fine for this kind of infraction. Even though Trump is starting to show a pattern of disregarding this specific case’s proceedings, the judge would have to start at a reasonable amount and go up from there. In this case, I searched for reasonable fines for violating a gag order and got $1000 to $10000. If he handed down a $500,000 fine then the media / right would go crazy questioning if this fine was justified by Trump’s actions. I think we all know that regardless of the sum (barring $100,000+ fines), Trump is gonna disregard the fine and do it again. But doing so gets Trump closer to actually being imprisoned (in theory). The actual threat of being imprisoned is far more likely to quiet Trump than a monetary fee. ‘Tis the life of the (comparatively) rich, monetary fines don’t have the same sticking power as for you and I.
There are many other countries, including some with some shared legal history with the US, where civil fines are proportional to the income and/or wealth of the person. Rich people get four or five or six figure traffic tickets, etc.
All gag orders are not equal. Given this one was due to what amounts to a threat against his staff, I find it unlikely most judges in other circumstances would have let this happen with such flagrant disregard for the order without jail time. The fact is, Trump supporters are violent, and this judge is scared of that violence. A slap on the wrist is all he had the courage to do, and I'm doubtful anything will change with this judge going forward. He just knows how appalling it is to have his hard working and innocent staff threatened and reacted like someone with a spine momentarily, and then he realized he doesn't have one and walked it back.
The entire thing is theater.
This is the bit I don't get, Trump doxxing court staff and encouraging his followers to harass them is surely way beyond contempt of court. Is that not an entirely new crime by itself?
You'd think so, but like we're seeing with the Jim Jordan thing, people are quite honestly (and reasonably) scared of escalating violence and harassment from... punishing the incitement of violence and harassment. The problem comes from the fact that you can't stop the escalation that will occur simply by punishing the inciter--you make it worse. That's why mob violence and stochastic terrorism are so scary.
Another mind reader I see. Tell us, has the judge already decided if he is guilty? And what number am I thinking of?
U mad?
That's refreshingly rational, all things considered. Thank you.