557
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 81 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Alt Headline: Judges would rather hand our country to fascists than to hold a fascist accountable

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 7 months ago

I don't think so. If they hold him in contempt then it becomes more likely his push for a mistrial succeeds. His goal is to push the trial time past election day, so then he can continue the argument that they can't do anything to the president and he can pardon himself federally (assuming he wins or takes over after losing).

I'd love to see him be held accountable like an average person is, but I totally agree with their position of playing it safe. You don't fuck around for fun when a want-to-be fascist dictator is in play. Either you execute him quickly or you make sure to do everything properly and give them no room to argue you cheated, because they'll try no matter what.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

It's really that an appeal for mistrial goes to some other judge that might have maga up the ass. I don't agree that this is the safe play, there's a strong history of contempt being used in court as a deterrent and any skilled prosecutor would get intimately familiar with all the cases where public statements were made to intimidate witnesses and such.

[-] Sagifurius@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago

Someone's learning judges love fascists, no one that ain't gets into these lines of work.

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
557 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18074 readers
3331 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS