103
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 25 Jun 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3176 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
Blows my mind how much they bend over for this scumbag.
But I recall reading that the DAs office was in favor of a partial lifting of the order. There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.
Trump's lawyers wanted a full cancellation of the order and as far as I can tell the DA's side got everything it asked for and Trump's side only got the things the DA agreed to.
I’d argue there is plenty of reason to keep it in place for witnesses until all appeals have played out…
As I understand it, though, the point of the gag order was to prevent the witnesses from being intimidated before their testimony. The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony. So a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.
I see - I assumed wrongly they would need to testify again in a retrial if an appeal was won.
Wasn’t there also talk of declaring a mistrial at some point? Would they testify again in that case?
Not only that - he's got many other criminal counts still pending. The potential witnesses to those crimes are paying close attention to how much protection these witnesses get in the wake of their testimony.
Lift this gag order, Trump goes on a rampage, witnesses get an increased level of threats or, god forbid, actual violence - that is a chilling effect on witnesses in all of Trump's other cases, and to a lesser extent, for witnesses in any future cases involving any defendant.
It's not this judge's job to police those cases, though. The other judges can apply whatever orders they need in order to protect the integrity of the trials they oversee. But this trial is over.
Like Judge Cannon, right?
Judge Cannon has the ability to protect her case through orders like this. But it seems all she wants to do is protect her little Donnie-kins from that meanie Jack Smith....
Not to mention retaliation; I would fear for my life if I was a witness and my name was made public for this case, ever.
Not only that, it sends a message to witnesses in ongoing cases that they will never be safe.
But still necessary to minimize the risk of his crazed cult following violently targeting the witnesses he continues to demonize.
Upholding that protection is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to a widely viewed event such as a presidential debate.
The fear (a rational fear, I think) is that if they didn't, they'd potentially have an armed rebellion to deal with. Yea, it's shitty for this asshat to get gift after fucking gift but if there was any appearance of him being targeted he'd never fucking shut up about it.
I'm done with their bullshit and I feel, for democracy's sake, we should just seize all the family assets to discourage future ass hattery and deal with the consequences now... but I also do appreciate my relatives not living in a war zone.
If the rule of law leads terrorists to attack institutions, then we need to stop those terrorists with force. We should not bend over backwards to avoid angering the terrorists.
I think you're being too black and white. The purpose of all this society shit isn't to have laws that are justly applied - it's to (ideally, late stage capitalism is fucking is here) provide the best life we can to as many people as we can. Being murdered, robbed or a bundle of other things fucking sucks so we use the law to guarantee (again, suckinh at this right now) safety and stability.
If someone did a little asshattery I don't want to start a civil war - as a parallel, if someone runs a red light and we could either let them go unpunished or start a high speed chase, I'm going to favor the former. There is a line somewhere, there is some amount of petty treason someone could commit and some quantity of armed fanatics backing them where I'd say "we should just not risk it."
Basically, sometimes it's optimal to be non-confrontational even if it feels shitty.
Nah, fuck that noise. I don't want to start a civil war, either, but I'll be more than happy to end one. You're conceding ground to effective terrorism.