this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
359 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3158 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
359
Trump 'Rehearsed' His Unhinged Fraud Trial Rant for Days Before the Judge Shut Him Up (www.rollingstone.com)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Closing arguments in New York’s civil fraud trial against Donald Trump took place on Thursday, and despite having been officially barred from personally delivering his defense’s closing statements, the former president launched into an unauthorized rant before the court and Judge Arthur Engoron.

Sources told Rolling Stone that Trump had been rehearsing what he thought would be a blistering, dramatic conclusion to the case that will determine the fate of his business empire.

…

Based on what the two sources relay to Rolling Stone this week, it appears Engoron’s assumption that Trump would use the forum to rave about his own grievances was right on the money. The former president’s private “rehearsing” of what he planned to say included haranguing the judge’s staff, railing against the New York attorney general as “racist” and soft on crime, claiming that the trial was an example of the Democratic Party and Biden administration supposedly trying to “rig” the 2024 election, and gratuitously boasting of the values of his sprawling business and real-estate empire, among other jabs and bluster.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's a few considerations why he's being handled with kid gloves compared to anyone else:

  • as opposed to your random defendant, Trump has (in theory) access to an unlimited amount of lawyers that will jump on anything that can be seen as bias or any other indication that something might not be done by the book. In practice, of course, he's gotten so many lawyers in legal trouble by roping them into criminal schemes that he's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  • when Trump denounces someone, death threats follow. And a lot of those are obviously bullshit, but you never know if someone somewhere is going to carry out some kind of plan. So they're super careful to not sound too harsh when dealing with him. Having to live with police protection isn't fun and is super disruptive, especially to family.
  • they want to make sure nothing they do gives cause to getting something overturned in an appeal, so they're making sure he's given every right and procedure he could possibly call on
[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Ok, but like... the first two points you raised have nothing to do with the legal system and are just about metagaming and cowardice. And the third... Judge Engoron has already determined that Trump is liable in this case, like a couple of months ago. So this is just about figuring out the punishment. And as long as he doesn't give some outrageously absurd fine or penalty, then this won't really have an impact on an appeal. The appeal would be for the original decision finding him guilty of engaging in fraud. So I'm not sure what actual legal reason he'd have for treating him with kid gloves here. I mean, Trump's going to appeal one way or the other, and he's well within his rights to hit him with contempt of court. Hell, he even said as much to Trump's lawyers the other day in an email exchange where he said if Trump does what he just did, he'd hit him with a $50,000 fine.