239
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 19 Apr 2024
239 points (94.1% liked)
News
37817 readers
868 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
He violated The gag order over ten times. Why the fuck won’t the judge hold him in contempt of court and arrest him?
The fines should be exponential tho.
I’m always in favor of exponential fines. You can start at a very small sum at first offense and if you double at every new offense you’re quickly in the billions.
Just make all fines proportional to net worth. I don't want poors to be fucked for life for the same behavior that an affluenza sufferer would just pay $100k and be done with. Make contempt like 1% of net worth, everyone can choose how much it is worth to act a fool in court.
This is what exponential fines solve. It can start at $100 and it’ll eventually stop when the unrepentant behavior raises it to the point of crippling the offender economically.
For the record I would much rather have the exponential fines than this $1,000 joke of a punishment.
That goes without saying 😊
Yes but that point comes sooner for the poor person than the wealthy person. We should remove inequality in the justice system, not just work around it.
Just don’t repeat the offense, bub. A fine is a deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, it’s not working. Imagine having to assess someone’s net worth every time a fine is to be applied.
2 tier justice system. Although I can imagine a judge rationalizing being so endlessly patient with Trump out of fear of what might happen if they aren't.
Not that I would agree with the judge coming to such a decision in that way, but if Trump actually got arrested there's no telling what his base will do. Could be anything from local unrest to full blown civil war
I imagine there's a level of over-cautiousness, as one misstep (or even a perceived one) and one friendly appellant judge can overturn the whole thing.
This, to me, is the absolute key of it all. They have to do everything possible in the world to avoid providing even the smallest mote that the defense can use on appeal.
Appeasement always works. The unrest is going to happen one way or another, one way just ends you stuck with the same problem longer until you have to kick its ass globally and it runs to its bunker.
This sequel fucking sucks.
Sadly, we have to accept that a former president is not a normal citizen and that this entire event is completely without precedent. I suspect that a lot of this behavior will be used against him when it comes to sentencing time. Until then, judges have to do whatever they can to not provide fodder to the hateful right and to preserve security in and around the court, its staff, and their families. They also have to do everything possible to avoid any suggestion of bias, which Trump lawyers will take to appeal.
It’s all fun and games until the republicans get a democratic president in a sham trial, holds them in contempt for some obnoxious reason and sends them to jail based on precedent set with Trump…
This could be why they are walking a very very fine line with Trump. For good or bad.
You think Repubs will respect a precedent?
No of course not. But why make it easier for them to justify? Let them be seen as the ones breaking precedent. Again it’s a very careful line. I’m not saying it’s the right course, but I understand it.
That's where you're wrong.
Or at least I hope that's one of the outcomes of this trial. 50 years ago I'd have said former Presidents should get almost the same respect as the current President but now, let's just chuck them in a special retirement home and not let them have visitors.