this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
536 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4099 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
536
Judge warns Trump jurors in E Jean Carroll trial to never reveal themselves (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 97 points 9 months ago (2 children)

“I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” [Trump] claimed...

This mother fucker is so dumb he thinks civil suits are brought about by the federal government. Sometimes I still can't believe this guy was actually president.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 55 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That's for his followers, to rile them up and keep them loyal, that's not really what he believes. Not to say he isn't a dumb cunt, he is, but this is not an example of that.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I agree it's mostly for his followers, but I think it's arguable that it's an example of both. I'm sure he really doesn't know (or understand the difference) or confused this with another trial, or both.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.

This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn't actually 2016:

So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.

The Authoritarians

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is also to drive donations

[–] Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone 13 points 9 months ago

I can already hear the outraged clucking from gaggles of fuckwits as they prepare to empty their retirement savings to send to him in support.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I swear in a hundred years there will be arguments in every history class about whether his entire political career was even real or some kind of parable to frighten young people into voting.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

About 20 years ago, I used to work with an older dude who was just on the verge of retirement. That guy hated Nixon. He would occasionally go on rants about how much of a piece of shit ol' Tricky Dick was. But at the time, Nixon was 30 years removed from office, and all that shit happened before I was born. So I just kind of blew it off as an over-exaggeration of this one dude.

But yeah, in about 25-30 years, we'll be talking to kids in their 20s trying to explain the complete and utter shit-stain that was Donald Trump. And they'll humor us, but mostly they'll just be thinking "I'm sure it wasn't that bad. The guy was elected president after all."