419
submitted 3 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 167 points 3 months ago

Sounds much cheaper than what they pay to stay at his hotels.

[-] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 62 points 3 months ago

I thought this was a joke at first.

It's not.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

And it’s still happening

[-] ChexMax@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

I think you mean much cheaper than what WE pay for them to stay at his hotel. That's tax payers' money. Fuck that guy.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 85 points 3 months ago

I’m good with that. Lock him the fuck up.

[-] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 59 points 3 months ago

The current record for number of US presidental votes received while in prison is about 1,000,000. Eugene V. Debs is the record holder, and that election was in 1920. Trump just may beat him this year. There is no law that says you can't be president while in prison.

[-] soul@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

It's not like Trump is going to prison for this. He's old, has no record, and did serve as president, regardless of how people feel about it. Plus, he's going to appeal, which means this thing will drag on long enough to still not matter, sadly.

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

In the state of New York, you serve time while awaiting appeal. If the judge opts to remand him to house arrest, which I think is the most likely outcome, his ass is staying put until his next court date.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That’s incorrect. It’s at the discretion of the judge to mandate imprisonment, place the felon on home confinement, subject to a curfew, or allow posting bail while awaiting appeal in NY.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-is-convicted-felon-now-what-2024-05-30/

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

NYS BAR Association: https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Publications/LegalEASE%20Pamphlet%20Series/PUBS_LegalEase_YourRIghtsToAppealInCriminalCase_final.pdf

Bear in mind that the sentence imposed by the lower court will go into effect while the appeal is being considered by the appellate court unless the trial judge or appellate court stays the sentence or a part of it (orders that it not go into effect). The order staying the judgment of conviction and sentence may include a requirement to post bail.

The “unless” (emphasis mine) is the operative word. The trial judge can choose to exercise discretion, but is under no requirement to specify any changes upon receiving an appeal.

That is to say, the default procedure is, as I said above, the convicted party serves their sentence during the time the appeal is being processed and considered.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You’re technically correct, but your comment may have mislead others to think remaining incarcerated was likely. It’s far more common to allow for exceptions during appeal of a nonviolent crime. He’ll also gain favor as a former President, as the judge will determine eligibility based on character and previous record.

With that being said, I don’t think sentencing will include prison time, due to the fact that they’re nonviolent class E felonies. I hope I’m wrong.

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago

He will also likely never go to a real prison. I hate that draft dodging piece of garbage, and it warms my crusty, veteran heart that now since he is a felon he is not allowed to be buried with military honors and any honors he receives are illegitimate, but he was a president and thus exploded to a lot of classified information.

His bitch ass would sing like a canary if he was in Gen pop and we would lose even more security because of it. Him being in his own private island like Napoleon (2nd time) would be ideal. Let him sit there in isolation, get his meals, and fade away into nothing.

Then he has hell to look forward to, along with all his supporters.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

That's assuming they actually sentence him to any kind of confinement and not just a really big fine (that he can't and won't pay anyway).

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean, that judge is NOT happy with Trump, and has already lamented the fact that fines mean nothing to him.

[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Ooh this is an interesting point! I wonder if the continual fines having no effect to stop him from violating the gag order will give the judge a very defensible reason to sentence for something other than a fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] newnton@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

But we can still hope

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

He has a record. He also was convicted of ~~rape~~ sexual assault and also defaming said woman twice.

[-] soul@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

No, he had a sexual abuse charge, not rape. None of the above was a criminal charge, only civil.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago
[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 3 months ago

Whilst sexual assault is terrible we must remember that was determined only on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's an important part of our legal system.

[-] soul@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Exactly. I'm not defending Trump in any way shape or form. But spreading misinformation, disregarding nuance, and ignoring factual details is dangerous and exactly what Republican politicians want. We need to be better than that as a nation.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] settoloki@lemmy.one 3 points 3 months ago

Yes but he also disrespected the court (falling to sleep and badmouthing people on social media), shows no remorse (claiming innocence despite a unanimous jury) had 34 charges against him (all unanimous) and did it to trick his way into the highest position in office. Which should all be considered when sentencing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 months ago

There is no law that says you can’t be president while in prison.

This is so a ruling leader can't imprison all his competition and thus win another election by default.

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Agreed. But in this specific case it's frustrating.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago

Would be a good thing if the service were denied to convicted felons. Go a long way to legitimizing it

[-] benderbeerman@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 months ago

I wonder why? It's not like anything bad ever happens to high-profile inmates, just ask Jeffery Epstein...

Obligatory /s

[-] mrgreyeyes@feddit.nl 23 points 3 months ago

When will Harambe's curse leave us.

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Not enough people whipped it out.

We’re forever doomed until the mass flashing event that frees of us our sins.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Except here his kids will turn on him like they have been raised to do. No one close to him really cares about him.

[-] Thassodar@lemm.ee 35 points 3 months ago

Whyyy are we still posting paywall'd links to places???

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago

Because actual journalism costs money.

[-] Thassodar@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

I'd agree but there is a lot of "actual journalism" that is freely accessible. ProPublica, for example.

[-] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Is their funding method viable for every single journalism outlet though? Or maybe there better question would be, for every article posted, is there a 501c3 (or otherwise sustainably funded) news outlet that has published coverage on the same story?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, I'm just writing out some of my own indecision on the topic. Journalism is vitally important but it seems like it's very difficult for people to make a living doing it and I don't know what the answer is.

[-] Thassodar@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I understand your question but it doesn't address my initial question: why are we posting paywalled links to public news? ~~Everyone was reporting on this,~~(Edit: I may be wrong about that) I'm sure there is a free independent news source that has a similar article, so why are we putting up a paywall link to a NYT article? Wouldn't it be more effective to post a link everyone could access?

Edit: I am now going to look and see if there's anyone else reporting this, if it is exclusive to NYT, great, but each day I see a interesting article only to get halfway through and get hit with a "money please!" paywall.

[-] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

That's fair. I was definitely using your question to voice something I have been thinking about for a while, more than actually addressing it/you specifically. Sorry about that.

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 3 months ago

Real paywall (text not sendet) is rare, you can see the full article by disabling JS in your obligatory adblock extension.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
419 points (98.4% liked)

News

22851 readers
3518 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.


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