351

The danger is to the entire courthouse — and Trump's intentions are clear: legal expert (www.rawstory.com)

submitted 9 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If Donald Trump cared about his impact on the people he attacks, he would have stopped after seeing the 275 pages of single-spaced threats just one staffer in the New York court received. Speaking to MSNBC about the matter on Sunday, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, who co-hosts the "Sisters ...

top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 121 points 9 months ago

He needs to be jailed for many things. But especially Stochastic Terrorism.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 39 points 9 months ago

Unfortunately the legal system from the Attorney General to the fbi to judge are scared of him.

This is a person who a judge found to have committed insurrection but decided he should not face the loss of eligibility clearly specified in the constitution because "the president is not an officer of the United States".

If they're willing to just make shit up like that, he's already won.

[-] Raine_Wolf@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

As if THE PRESIDENT is NOT the HIGHEST officer the United States has.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

You'd think that the "Oath of Office" being specified in the constitution would provide a hint.

[-] BenadrylChunderHatch@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Commander in Chief.

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

I've read that was actually a good strategy. She ruled that he absolutely did so an insurrection. Then she said the law doesn't apply because a weird easily reversible interpretation. So it's going to get appealed and easily reversed in a higher court based on a review of the law's inclusion of POTUS as an officer, not relitigating the insurrection part. She gets to skip the death threat phase for herself and alli oops this one for the higher court to slam dunk. I hope that's the case.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

Frankly, that's turd-polishing.

This judge made a crazy decision in order to dodge her responsibility.

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

Trump's team are already appealing the ruling that he engaged in insurrection. The hearing is set for Dec 6th, so they will be re litigating that part.

[-] Raine_Wolf@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

I think the fear is that the higher courts also don't want death threats, so everyone and their mother is gonna keep trying to pass this around. Which is what Trump wants to happen until he can try to get re-elected in 2024 and then pardon himself.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The judge argues that commander in chief is not a military office under 14a3. Power loves cowards

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

It lists a shitload of non-military officers as being made ineligible by the same clause. I don't see how that's relevant.

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

Just call it terrorism. "Stochastic" has too many syllables.

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 40 points 9 months ago

Someone is going to do things like Trump does and suffer real consequences for them one day. Not Trump, but someone.

[-] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

But until then, Trump should be the supreme example setter and get at least one life sentence out of all the shit he has done

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -99 points 9 months ago

Comments from a podcaster. No new updates.

[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 70 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Comments from a podcaster.

Her name is Joyce Vance and she was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017.

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -118 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And now she's a podcaster. Her career is really blossoming.

You're also talking about a lawyer in Alabama commenting on legal proceedings in New York. She did not pass the bar in New York.

Has she actually said anything meaningful here? Something no one else has put forward? I don't think so, I don't think there will be anything meaningful until the judge in New York actually makes the next ruling.

[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 52 points 9 months ago

And now she’s a podcaster. Her career is really blossoming.

Just so we're all on the same page, this is all their comment said before they got buried in downvotes and started editing multiple times to try and dig their way out while pretending to have been making reasonable point the whole time.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

Trump is a disgrace I hope he goes to jail.

[-] tillary@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 months ago

What do ya have against podcasting? It's educational, informative, it's free speech. I learn so much from them.

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -31 points 9 months ago

I don't have much against podcasting as such, except for the fact that it's primarily entertainment, not necessarily educational or informative. If your main goal when listening to them is to learn you would do well to fact check.

My issue here is that this story is not news. It's a fluff opinion piece, one that doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said a dozen times over.

I want to know what's happening in the trial. I don't want to be bogged down with padded out opinion pieces. We're awaiting the ruling from the judge, this article is just a distraction.

[-] Johnny5@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Apparently other people want other things… like civil discourse and pertinent analysis. just move along already

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 9 months ago

Aww, TWeaK the twat has earned a block. 🖕🏽🤣

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

What relevance does her being a podcaster have to anything?

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -23 points 9 months ago

That's her current career. She isn't actively practising law.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Okay? And? Do you have to be actively practicing law in order to understand it?

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -13 points 9 months ago

No, but a practising lawyer wouldn't comment on the case in the way she has. She's behaving like a podcaster first, lawyer second.

Frankly to me it comes across like she's only doing it so people might look up her podcast. The comments in this thread have gone on so long I think I probably will, too.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

How do you know a practicing lawyer wouldn't have said that? Are you a practicing lawyer?

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Speaking into a microphone bad?

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023

351 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18821 readers

4950 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.
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.
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

• 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