565
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 25 Nov 2023
565 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2188 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
Yes, it's called special treatment for the rich and powerful.
Sure is.
Always fucking does.
The court is bending over backwards to avoid looking biased. The only way you can appeal a trial is on the basis of a mistrial. Basically, you need to argue that the trial was unfair in some way. And the court really doesn’t want that, because if he’s able to appeal all the way up the chain to the SCOTUS, they’ll let him walk. So they’re avoiding taking any actions against him, because they don’t want to appear biased against him.
It could be the most airtight ruling and fair trial in the existence of human kind and he would still appeal, and he'd force the appeals court to hear it by having bought some of them, and then he'd appeal that to the SC, who'd let him off because he owns it.
I think everyone is missing the biggest one. Trump will lose his businesses. He can't "win" here. So he's trying to provoke the judge into doing something stupid so he can appeal and delay and appeal.
The judge isn't going to be manipulated into that.
You guys can be mad about it but this is the long game and imo the right move.
The leading theory on that is that the judges currently assigned to Trump's legal cases are going to extremes to avoid being labeled as "biased" so that they can avoid a potential mistrial, which seems to be Trump's goal at this point in lieu of an actual defense.
I'm not so sure that's the case, seeing as Trump has been treated with the kid gloves the entire time and yet he is still throwing sucker punches at every opportunity he gets. They would have had every right to be heavy-handed with his treatment considering his threatening language. I think it has more to do with the fact that the case is unmistakably political by virtue of the fact that it involves a former president and the judges want to be extra careful to not incite Trump's mob to take violent action against themselves or their court staff.