187

Live Updates: Trump Lashes Out After Conviction in Misleading Speech (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 73 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

He faces probation or up to four years in prison.

It's been reported that only 10% of felons are given jail time for similar convictions. You have to wonder if such remarks after his conviction, indicating he's learned absolutely nothing, may lead a judge towards the harsher punishment.

Also, let's take a moment to applaud Alvin L. Bragg.

Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, risked his reputation by indicting Mr. Trump in a case that some prominent Democrats said wasn’t strong enough to have brought against a former president. Instead, Mr. Bragg cemented his place in history as the first prosecutor to convict a former president.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

Bragg should get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

I remember when we thought we were going to make statues of Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill because we once thought he was brave for taking on Trump.

Let's maybe wait to see if Trump actually gets sentenced with an appropriate punishment first before jumping the gun with Bragg.

[-] slaughtermouse@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

When the time is right, I'd suggest we rename fort liberty after him.

[-] LordGimp@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

New fort same as the old fort. I like the cut of your jib cully.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 5 months ago

The democrats are such goddamn pussies. They need to wake up and fight the fascism before their Inaction destroys this country.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

I hate the rhetoric that we can't do anything because it would make Trump a martyr.

So it's either let him do whatever he wants or he's a martyr. I don't know why they see this as a lose lose situation. Hold the fucker accountable for his actions or he'll keep doing shitty things. It's their fault that it's gone on as long as it has.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago

If anything you would expect someone who was trying to get elected (when the crimes were committed) to be held to higher standards than most and to be dealt a harsher sentence.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Even if he's just given probation, you can pretty much guarantee that he'll violate the terms within minutes.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

He won’t go to prison, but there’s a decent chance he’ll get home confinement for a few months.

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Nah, I think it'll just be probation with generous terms. If they put him on house arrest, he'll challenge that saying it's political and it will prevent him from campaigning. It'll be easier to just slap him with a "you have to report your travel plans" and a few hours of community service. He deserves much more, but it'll cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and take years if they actually try to punish him. I'll call it a win if we can always refer to him as "convicted felon DT" and let him walk. That will give more ammo for harsher sentences for the federal cases.

[-] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 5 months ago

Is there any actual weight to this talk of campaign interference? I heard it somewhere else, too. It just seems absurd to me that that would be considered at all. Like if I did a few felonies but was like: your honor, I've got to water my plants. so you see - I can't do any prison time.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

a few hours of community service

Please, please, please, just let me see video of Trump serving and cleaning tables in a soup kitchen in Harlem.

[-] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Plus he's likely to have a probation officer either way that he will regularly have to check in with. Hopefully he has to take drug tests too

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 73 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Mr. Trump, the former president and presumptive Republican nominee, derided the trial as “rigged” and made numerous false statements about what had taken place in court

Like he would even know what took place in court since he slept through half of it

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 54 points 5 months ago

He said himself he doesn’t even know what the charges are.

Personally I’d have asked my lawyer. Probably before 5 weeks of testimony, but definitely before the verdict.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 19 points 5 months ago

You'd think. lol

The charges against him would have been read to him in their entirety during the arraignment proceedings which come (long) before the trial. The orange dipshit probably slept through that, too.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 months ago

He’s playing like the charges are too complex for his voters. He may have also been trying to suggest they are just inane technicalities that we shouldn’t worry about.

It’sa fucking act, he knows what he did, he was sure he’d get away with it, and now he’s trying to get out of it. He’ll say anything but the truth.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 28 points 5 months ago

He had the opportunity to testify if he thought any of the statements were false... he declined.

That's all we need to fucking say - under oath he refused to refute the charges.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It kind of does say it all, but in a criminal trial, refusing to testify cannot be held against you under the 5th Amendment. In a civil trial, though, refusing to testify can be factored into reaching a verdict.

So yeah, while it may make you appear guilty as hell, refusing to testify in your criminal trial cannot be held against you.

That was hammered into us every time I had to report for jury duty.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Idealistically, you're right. But it says volumes that someone would be willing to say a lot of shit in front of a camera (where the consequences are miniscule), but refuse to say the exact same shit in front of a judge (where the consequences are serious [assuming you're not a "rich" ~~white~~ orange cult leader]).

Trump doesn't testify for the one reason we all know: he'd incriminate himself faster than any piece of evidence that could ever be produced.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh, yeah. We all know. lol. But, for better or worse, he's entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us (despite the fact he routinely wipes his ass with it).

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago

Yes, it can't impact the trial, that he didn't testify. Doesn't mean we can't infer, out here away from the court, that he put up a big front in public and slunk away with his tail between his legs in court, because he knew he was guilty and would only have made things worse if he testified, along with earning some counts of perjury.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

My understanding is that it is usually idiotic to testify at one's own criminal trial, even if innocent. Preventing Donald from testifying is one of the few intelligent things the defense did, and not just because he is a loudmouthed pathological liar who would instantly perjure himself.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

It is absolutely your right to not be sentenced or punished by the state for refusing to testify and that's fucking important... it absolutely isn't your right to not be publicly damaged for being an obvious shit-heel who is clearly lying every second they aren't under oath.

I think it's important to distinguish those two things.

[-] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 5 months ago

I watched a documentary about Alex Jones' court case with the Sandy Hook victims and he did the exact same thing. In court he does nothing, but as soon as he's back in front of a camera he's straight back to peddling lies and crying injustice.

[-] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

I'm sure the prosecutors will be bringing this up at the sentencing. I'm also sure the judge watched.

Since he has been convicted, everything T**** says in public can be used to influence his sentencing.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago

And Johnson wants the Supreme Court to step in, overturn the conviction, and grant immunity to future prosecution.

He's a bigger dipshit than I took him for.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

"States Rights"

Convicted of State crimes

"Not like that!"

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I hadn't heard about Johnson calling for that, so I looked it up:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/mike-johnson-trump-supreme-court

"I think that the Justices on the court – I know many of them personally – I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they'll set this straight," the Louisiana Republican added.

I think that quote really puts into perspective that the GOP is no longer the party of law. If a jury hands down a decision we don't like, we get our friends in high places to overturn it. I bet his kids never have to worry about traffic tickets, either, they all get magically "fixed" with the right phone call.

Trump's allies are already plotting revenge, with one prospective Trump attorney general candidate telling Axios' Zach Basu and Sophia Cai that GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.

You know what? If Democrats break the law, then prosecutors should go after them! Somehow, though, I don't think this is what they have in mind.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 5 points 5 months ago

GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.

Can we just not have GOP and dem prosecutors, everything doesn't have to be one or the other for fucks sake.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 17 points 5 months ago

I don't think that's possible. First of all, they're state crimes. Second of all, the jury has already rendered a verdict. The state courts are separate from federal for a reason, and setting aside a jury's verdict for literally no reason is just not possible for the Supreme Court. The jury is the decider of fact, the judge is the decider of law. This jury decided that trump did indeed commit this crime, so it's now established fact.

They would have to rule based on some error in the court process. Judge Merchan was very careful to give Trump a fair trial, so there are no grounds for appeals.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

I hate that we have to re-explain the entire legal system because one man who obviously committed obvious crimes also constantly lies about how the legal system works and people eat it up.

[-] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the opposition. He's not an idiot and knows exactly what he is doing.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Angling for a VP nod.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago

Why did they say “false statement” when “lie” is much more efficient?

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 34 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

To call something a lie, the media outlet has to know, 100%, that the speaker knows it's a lie. It's difficult to impossible to meet that threshold in pretty much all cases.

A false statement is an untruth — a lie that could have resulted from an honest mistake, poor fact-checking, negligence, or just plain bad luck / stupidity.

People may say something that is known to them as the truth, but is not necessarily the objective truth as known by others. In that case, they would be making unwitting false claims. i.e. "it's not a lie if you believe it"

Basically it comes down to liability. If a media outlet directly calls something someone says a lie, they're going to get sued.
And Cheeto is a walking SLAAP lawsuit.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

He won't sue. If he sues they can subpoena and reveal that in private communications he admits the truth.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean, a smart person (or a dumb person who at least listened to the advice of their lawyers) wouldn't sue in that scenario. But this is Trump we're talking about, lol, so I'm less convinced.

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

Yes, but that would sink him if he did.

I would throw a few bucks in for their defense fund.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 5 months ago

Honestly even that much is a big step for the New York Times. I’m a little surprised they’re not trying to “both sides” it.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 9 points 5 months ago

the news on regular tv last night was totally lopsided. tons of 'reaction' from the right and far-right, hardly anything from anyone else.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 11 points 5 months ago

The news on regular TV is almost all bought and paid for by Sinclair / Fox / whatever other explicit propaganda outlet. The people reading that bullshit may hate it a lot more than you do, but they may be contractually obligated to go up and say it. It's real fucked up.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 5 points 5 months ago

Best guess? Just avoiding being sued. Something being a false statement is a matter of fact that's easily proven. Something being a lie requires proving state of mind. In the US I can't imagine actually winning such a suit, but its still safer to cover asses.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

It’s high time he get kicked in the cunt.

[-] cranakis@reddthat.com 18 points 5 months ago

And when you’re a star he lets you do it. You can do anything.

Whatever you want.

Kick him in the cunt. You can do anything.

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Throw this dipshit in prison, please.

[-] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! He's such a pathetic cuck, fuck trump

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 months ago

Quick, everyone give him some more money so he can fight the good fight. I'm sure he won't use it on blow and hookers or whatever.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Just tell him how much money he raises is proportional to the number of convictions he has. See if he bites.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 31 May 2024

187 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers

4759 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

• 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