455
Jack Smith Asks Court To Jail Trump If He Keeps Yapping About Witnesses
(www.huffpost.com)
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 26 Oct 2023
455 points (97.5% liked)
News
23311 readers
1076 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know all of us non-fascists want Trump in prison yesterday, but I can appreciate how methodical they are being about this.
No mistakes or emotions means no mistrials & few excuses for appeals.
I mean, I get it, but like.... so the other side (Trump & co.) is able to make mistakes and be absurdly emotional over petty fucking bullshit, and it's just sort of accepted and okay for them?
I'm so sick of everything being tilted towards we can never appeal the people who are obviously acting in bad faith and everyone who is operating in good faith has to endlessly cross every T and dot every I while the other side essentially plays the pigeon and knocks all over the chess pieces while shitting all over the table and strutting around like they won.
Like, I get that some people have legitimate grievances for appeals, but I'm so sick of a justice system that hands people with money an effective endless route to act in bad faith to drag out cases and get away with it. Why is there no legal recourse to deny such things to people who are painfully obviously operating in bad faith? Why do we have to keep letting them get away with it to make the case "iron clad." I don't fucking get it, it seems like the whole system is set up for people like Trump to actively exploit it.
Why the fuck isn't there more demand for reform of our criminal justice system? Not just the painfully obvious two-tiered justice system that favors the rich and politically connected, but just this basic idea, that the rich can't just endlessly look for fucking loopholes to try to drain the other side of money to fight the case. Too much of our system really comes down to who has the most "Fuck You Money" to spend on lawyers for the longest, and I'm sick of acting like that's fucking okay somehow. It isn't, period.
This kind of behavior should be grounds for denying future appeals, not handing them out like fucking candy, for fucks sake. He lead a fucking coup, and if our government can't grow a pair of balls and start treating this accordingly, he'll end up pardoning himself and then being an insane autocrat who gives out capital punishment to his enemies.
Of course the system is set up for the people with money and power to exploit it, who do you think set up the system? It's always been heavily slanted to provide protection to those who can afford it.
Good plays by rules. Evil does not.
In some weird, derivative Abrahamic/ Marvel fantasy maybe.
I'll be more clear then:
There are certain actions which "goodness" disallows. There are no actions which "evilness" disallows. This will always give the edge to evil, unless the number who support good are overwhelmingly larger. Just a majority will not do.
It can easily be argued that the constant kid-gloves approach with Trump and other rich and politically-connected defendants falls under "the indifference of good men."
They understand the laws have been twisted to favor people like Trump, but they keep acting within the confines of the "law" like that makes them "good." No, at best it makes them "lawful neutral" if we're talking D&D alignment.
To be fair, that Kitty Genovese story quoted there isn't really accurate as to what actually happened, as there weren't as many witnesses as popularly understood, they generally did not get a clear picture of what was happening, and several did call the police. Still, I suppose that's just an example and not really the point at hand.
That whole thing about Kitty Genovese - it was sloppy reporting by NYTimes.
Sorry, why is that being used as a benchmark for "good men"?
Those witnesses presumably weren't stabbing other people on the side.
So as long as you don't stab people, you're a good person? Dang, I'm a saint!
I feel personally attacked by that comment.
If "good" thinks these rules that favor those with the most money, who spent a lot of money on senators and house representatives to make sure those rules favored them, that those rules should be followed with strict intensity, then yeah, good is pretty fucking dumb.
Society: You keep playing by these rules that favor the wealthy. We even have proof the wealthy paid for bills to be passed for the rules to be more favorable to them!
Government: Look, if we don't follow these rules we've set up for ourselves where we're always outspent by the oligarchs who actually fund us, we stop getting payche---- err, I mean, it all falls apart.
"So you see, that is why Evil will always triumph: because Good is dumb."
The video
Trump acting in bad faith, saying whatever he wants, and strutting around like he's above the law are all things that severely undermine his legal defense. He lost the rape civil suit because he so thoroughly demonstrated his shitty character. Incredibly damning evidence is admissible because he's lost attorney client privilege thanks to Trump and his attorneys engaging criminal and fraudulent activity together. He's constantly feeding new evidence to the prosecution by making public statements that contradict his previous statements, are incompatible with his defense, or even just admit to facts which support the prosecution's case.
The prosecution needs an ironclad case because this has to stick. We can't afford to leave room for appeals, or for a friendly judge to to find an excuse to get him off the hook. We need a case so overwhelming that even a rabid MAGA supporter in the jury will be unable to stomach a not guilty verdict. It sucks, but there's no getting around it.
Yes.
Defendants of any sort should be afforded every latitude. Criminal convictions are supposed to be reserved only for those whose guilt is proven beyond the shadow of doubt. Anyone accused of a crime should be free to present any defense they want, while the state should be handcuffed to the constitution and hobbled by the law.
I'm convinced that Trump belongs in prison, but it's up to the state to prove it.
Given the long record of witness tampering and intimidation and such that's well-documented and has been for years, my feel is it's ABOUT FUCKING TIME the state decided to take up the question.
I mean, yes- burden of proof and all, but when the defendant has been bragging he did all of these things in public and on media and in speeches to crowds, it was time to do all of this a long time ago
Well said.
The asymmetry you're talking about is the presumption of innocence, and I would prefer not to "reform" that. Trump isn't guilty of leading a coup until he's convicted of leading a coup with every t crossed and every i dotted.
No, but he's guilty of acting like a total ass in court, which would get literally anyone else thrown in jail. I don't want to see him get his consequences without due process, but it's disgusting that people like him get different treatment.
That's how the law is supposed to operate, it's actually refreshing to see it done that way, even if it does mean Trump gets 200 second chances.
Anyway it doesn't matter because we all know that if you give Trump 200 second chances he will do it again for the 201st time. The man is pathological.