317
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 28 May 2024
317 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3373 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
From the article:
"In a brief order, Cannon slammed prosecutors for not following the court’s rules by failing to meaningfully confer with Trump’s defense lawyers about a potential gag order before making the request."
Maybe it's just me but this sounds an awful lot like she's denying the motion because the prosecutors......didn't ask the Trump team for permission to file the motion? Am I reading that right? The prosecution needs permission from the defense to file a motion for a gag order?
Lawyers, please tell me that Cannon is once again just being extraordinarily stupid. This can't be normal, right? To me, this is like a domestic abuse victim having to ask the abuser for the right get a restraining order.
As I understand it, they don't need to ask permission, but they need to make an actual attempt at a diplomatic resolution before making the formal request. If that doesn't go to their liking, then they would speak to the judge.
It should have been a formality, because in all likelihood, the defense would have politely told the prosecutors to get fucked, but they really shouldn't have skipped that step.
Your honor, I have a hundred examples of Trump violating gag orders from/checks notes/ the past 2 weeks. Asking them would be an insult in the first place.
Maybe it's a good way to test the waters to add to their concrete examples of bias.
It's not like they expect the gag order to be followed or enforced anyway. Judge Merchan has enough issues with that, and we already know Cannon will have less than no interest.
This is what "justice" is for the rich. The rest of us would be serving time in double digits by now. They just get the judges in their pockets to pull strings.
This is what leads me to worry you're oversimplifying something. Is it cool if we avoid the generalizations here? We can all confidently say Mr Trump isn't a very upstanding cretin, but don't let him take your rep down.
It really depends on what these rules are