this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
922 points (97.1% liked)

politics

31155 readers
1653 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The meme has been liked nearly 9,000 times and shared 2,400 times as of Monday. In reaction to Mr Trump’s repost, journalist Aaron Rupar sarcastically wrote on Twitter: “rubbing my last 2 brain cells together as I try to remember who ran the government on January 6.”

The former president shared the meme despite a House committee that investigated January 6 declaring Mr Trump the “central cause” of the day’s events. “None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him,” the House panel wrote in its final report.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world 14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

As a fellow fan of syndicated daytime television, I'm sure that Mr. Trump is as familiar as I am with this above quote by Detective Lenny Briscoe, N.Y.P.D. So a re-post from him like this is puzzling to me….

Trump will testify under oath or take the Fifth -- he'll be forced to do one or the other. My guess is that he will "exercise his right against self-incrimination" in all pending and yet-to-be-announced cases against him.

Without any live testimony given by the defendant, prosecutors will be free to present any part of any of Trump's public statements and social media posts as testimony.

Prosecutors will be free to pick-and-choose whatever public comments they want, to show Trump in whatever light they want to show him in. Trump won't be able say anything back about it, because he'll've already invoked his constitutional right to not say anything at all.

Public comments (including endorsement by "re-truth"ing like this) are not made under oath, so they're not legally binding, but they are still things that Trump said out loud and on purpose.

However much they gin up support from his base of voters, they also add to the threat of Trump's own words being used against him later in a court of law. Used against him in the general election, too, if he somehow manages to make it that far.

Trump is all too familiar with the millions of Americans who love him for what he says, but I don't think he has any true notion about the millions more American voters who have come to despise him for what he has done. I'm not sure he ever will.

[–] venusenvy47@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

In a trial, the prosecution goes first and presents their full case. Then the defense gets their turn to refute anything presented by the prosecution. Even if he pleads the 5th, his lawyers will do their best to refute any presented earlier by the prosecution.

[–] ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago

I agree they'll do their best, but how? With what? Are they going to try to refute Trump's crazy tweets with other crazy Trump tweets?

Among the most damning aspects of Trump's public statements is their lack of consistency -- the OP meme we're discussing is an example. I don't think this aspect will be refuted by his lawyer demonstrating even more inconsistency.

The only thing Trump has been consistent about on social media is lying about the 2020 election and personally attacking anyone who says anything against him. I don't see how either of those behaviors are going to help his lawyers refute anything either.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago

As someone who has served on a jury... for me and everyone else in the room who served with me, legal teams words carried a lot less weight than the words of those who were actually involved in the alleged crime.

And we got all the advice we needed from the judge. There was no compelling reason to listen to the legal nonsense of the two opposing legal teams. We listened go the legal teams of course, but they didn't have much impact on the verdict.