439
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 07 May 2024
439 points (97.6% liked)
News
23361 readers
3291 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 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
Just because things that should have happened and didn't, doesn't mean this time it won't. This judge may face repercussions. It may not be any that impact the trump case though
Id love to be wrong here but Trump has been impeached twice (which did jack shit because the republicans in the senate would have had to help convict him) and the only real consequences for what hes done were in civil trials and even that was monetary. They didnt even make him pay the bail bond he was initially "required" to pay. He's been threatened with consequences for contempt of court over a dozen times now.
Unfortunately the best predictor of the future is the past and the past hasnt laid a hand on him.
Oh sure sure. I'm saying this JUDGE may face repercussions.
Trump ? Idk I'm hanging on a prayer as the song says.
Has anyone in a position of authority ever faced consequences for this? Because in Cannon's case, you'd have to prove that she didn't have a legitimate reason to do what she did and that it rose to the level of an ethics violation deserving of punishment. Which we can infer given the obvious conflict of interest but if that was enough to punish her it would have probably happened by now. And the standard for evidence required to punish a judge like that is reasonably high.
Trump knows where the bodies are buried on Epstein Island.
Civil trial consequences are always only monetary - you can't go to prison for a civil case. That's part of why civil cases get away with having a much lower standard of evidence - essentially the plaintiff wins a civil case if it's even slightly more likely than not but a prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The purpose of that sort of bond is to prevent you from using funds you should use to pay damages on lawyers to fight the case further, not to prevent you from being able to fight it at all. By the point the bond was reduced the court had their eyes in his accounts and knew exactly what he could afford and could make some rough estimates based on the shakier parts of the assigned damages where damages might end up on appeal (it's pretty common for damages to be reduced on appeal). I'd be willing to bet that the reduced bond was either close to what Trump could actually get without selling slow-to-liquidate assets (aka real estate) or close to where the court thinks damages might end up. You'll notice he started hawking Bibles almost immediately afterward, likely because he needs more liquid funding in the short term.
I believe he's been fined for it several times now, but the fine is set by law and is an amount that's a pittance to Trump. Jailing him is an option but complicated since most jails don't have remotely the capacity or security of a real prison and you've still got to figure out how to work his Secret Service detail into the picture. And also the protests from his cult if/when that happens.
Which is exactly why I mentioned it. He has never faced consequences from criminal charges, only civil court.
He would have done that regardless of whether he "needed" funds or not. Like most obscenely rich people, there is no such thing as "enough" wealth.
Which doesn't really contradict my point that he effectively hasn't faced any real consequences.
He's a criminal. He shouldn't be afforded the same security detail as his predecessors that weren't. We don't "have to" do anything. It was just decided as a society that this man, and others like him, should be given privileges that others don't have.
This should never ever ever factor into what his punishment is. A functioning society needs a justice system that doesn't cave to mobs.
Everything about this is abhorrant.
You don't face consequences from criminal charges until you are convicted, which hasn't happened yet. Or someone is trying to make an example of you ala Kevin Mitnick.
I mean yeah, he's absurdly rich and greedy but I don't think he would have gone the route of Bible salesman like that if he wasn't pinched for funds. Or he would have back when he posed for that photo of him holding the Bible upside down. It's not a coincidence that the Bible sale started less than 48 hours from the bond being reduced.
He hasn't been convicted of a crime yet. Until he is, he's not going to prison. That's pretty fundamental to how the criminal justice system works. He's got damages levied against him that he's going to challenge and probably have reduced some (that's how it often goes), and had to put up $175M as a bond that will immediately go towards said damages after his appeal.
You'd have to legally revoke his security detail, and even then you probably don't want to - as a former President he's a valuable asset because of what he might know despite his seemingly poor retention. As well as the sway he has over his cult. You ideally want to imprison him separate from all other prisoners with his security detail living on site if possible. I've said before the easiest way to make that happen is to convert the SHU at a medium-large prison into a sort of "Presidential suite" to house Trump and his security detail. No one else enters or leaves the unit, anything going in or out goes through both prison security and SS security.
It's a side bonus that it prevents inmates from being thrown in solitary at the same time. And a proper prison is easier to defend from "protesters" than most jails are, and which prison he is sent to should take the possibility of an attack by right wing nutters into consideration.
It does, but only because you have to plan around it happening. Most jails aren't really set up to deal with that sort of thing, and contempt sends you to jail, not prison. So you have to figure out how to do that without causing a bunch of innocent people to be injured or killed as a consequence. Ideally before you put him in the jail. And where to send the people you'd normally jail there, because he's going to take up excessive space for the same security-related reasons he will in prison.
Which are all things the judge acknowledged in his statement ashen he handed down the most recent contempt ruling.
Like it or not, there's a lot more considerations to this than simply "lock him up".