221
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 81 points 6 months ago

“This is diminishing the American people’s faith in our system of justice itself and, to maintain a republic, you have to have that, people have to believe that justice is fair, that there’s equal justice under law.

No u

[-] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago

I vote this is our response to Trump from now on

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

And/or “I know you are, but what am I?”

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I’m rubber and you’re glue

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

somebody should create a truth bot or whatever it's called and everytime he insults some one or soemthing, it just says "I know you are but what am I?" or maybe "You're an orange [whatever he just said]"

You know. maybe keep him so irate and busy he forgets all about this presidential campaign thing.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

That’s brilliant. Like a digital one of those “how to keep an idiot busy” cards.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I think you just aged both of us…

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

How about a bot that just instantly fact checks and replies every time he posts anything. We could potentially prevent the lies from getting half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I like it. Bots for everyone.

[-] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 59 points 6 months ago

I don't even understand what they're asking for here? Are they suggesting that the Supreme Court can overturn a state conviction? I didn't think that was allowed, but if any court is corrupt enough to do it I suppose it's this one.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

The SC is allowed to weigh in on a State matter, but its only supposed to happen when it concerns something that the Federal Government has a say in, or a matter that includes a dispute between states. However, the SC itself if the sole arbiter of whether it reaches that threshold or not, so who knows what excuse they might pull out of Harlan Crow's jet.

One thing that is certain, however, is that it cannot act at all until all appeals in NY are exhausted. So that means the SC can't just zoom in and grab the case unless his appeals first get turned down by all courts through the highest appellate court in NY. Then his lawyers can ask the SC as a last resort, and we'll see where that leads.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

You can thank Jack Smith for setting that "can't skip" precedent not too long ago... 😂

[-] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 24 points 6 months ago

They'll do it, then it'll be contested, and go to court. It will be appealed up to the SC where they'll decide it's allowed.

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

So, you're not going to want to hear this but SCOTUS is the court you appeal to after you lose at your state supreme court. SCOTUS rarely takes the case and even more rarely sides with the convicted person. If they vacate Trump's conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical considering their treatment of other people with real problems with their convictions.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

it would be incredibly hypocritical

Like they care.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Exactly. Pope Alito don't GAF about things like optics or morality or even any kind of internal consistency.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

If they vacate Trump's conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical

I think it is required to be hypocritical if you are Republican.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 55 points 6 months ago

Collusion to subvert the justice system? By republicans? By powerful Americans? Say it isn't so!

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 6 months ago

Cry me a river, shitheads.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The rules?! Applied to a rich right wing cishet allegedly xtian man like donnie? Outrageous!

That's not the "law and order" we were talking about!

[-] autotldr 5 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Donald Trump was so angry when the guilty verdict was read aloud at his New York hush money trial last month that he was heard afterwards subjecting Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, to a foul-mouthed rant by phone, according to a new report.

Trump was fuming after a jury of 12 Manhattanites found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to prevent her allegation of an extramarital affair in summer 2006 getting out and damaging his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The defendant repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and that the liaison itself ever happened, persisting in claiming that the whole case against him was “rigged” by a “corrupt” district attorney and his political enemies and was presided over by a “highly conflicted” judge.

His complaints ultimately cost him $10,000 in fines for contempt of court as he repeatedly violated the gag order placed upon him by Judge Juan Merchan, who is now set to sentence Trump on July 11, four days before he formally accepts the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination at its convention in Milwaukee.

Johnson, who had joined other MAGA Republicans in showing up at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse in order to denounce the proceedings against his party’s candidate for the White House, was reportedly sympathetic to Trump’s grievances during the call.

It also quotes two Republicans anxious about any threat of defunding Smith’s investigations, one of whom, Indiana representative Mike Simpson, said: “I don’t think it’s a good idea unless you can show that [prosecutors] acted in bad faith or fraud or something like that.


The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 286 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
221 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19237 readers
2146 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS