702
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 05 Oct 2023
702 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19143 readers
2429 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
Yeah, no, that is a direct violation of his 1st amendment rights. He knows he's playing catch me if you can with the court and his mouth because the court can only gag very narrowly defined speech. For instance the court could say he can't talk about pickles, so he talks about cucumbers soaked in a brine. The court tells him he cannot talk about cucumbers soaked in a brine. So he talks about a green vegetable roughly the size of a pickling cucumber that you then put into a mixture that contains seasonings, vinegar, etc. Will he eventually run out of ways to describe a pickle? Sure, but he'll have wasted shitloads of the judge's time and distracted from what was actually happening in court. And it's working. Do you know anything about what has been presented so far in the case? You probably don't because those articles don't bring the clicks and views like stories about his latest shenanigans on social media.
My blood boils a little bit just seeing this behaviour described. Probably because it's relatable kids behaviour.
Trump has said that his temperament hasn't changed since he was in the first grade so it tracks that he uses the same tactics that little kids use.
The difference, of course, is that the little kids will grow out of this behavior. Trump won't.
The judges in each case can issue a gag order against discussing anything and anyone pertaining to the case in public. That would be bulletproof and also constitutional.
The problem is enforcement. We both know that Trump wouldn't be able to go 5 minutes without violating it. But then what?
Jail him? Congratulations, you made him a martyr. His poll numbers are going to skyrocket and his die-hard followers are going to interpret it as a call to action. You've hired a bunch of extra security for yourself , everyone on your team right down to the custodian, and their families, right? There's a reason why nobody has been willing to do this yet. There's a reason there are so many reports about lawmakers unwilling to remove Trump from office due to fears of retaliation. There's also the optics that Trump already spins on the daily about jailing a political opponent, and the fact that he is the leading Republican candidate which, like it or not, is going to give him a lot of leeway as judges are loathed to curtail political speech.
Fine him? Objective reports say that the man has at least $400 million cash on hand. While his business isn't nearly as valuable as he claims it is, he does have several billion dollars in assets around the world that can be tapped. Any fine would qualify as little more than a rounding error on his taxes, and any attempt to issue a fine that would actually impact him is almost guaranteed to be struck down on appeal as excessive. Fining him in an attempt to curb his behavior would be as effective as telling you I'm going to fine you about $1.79 if you don't knock it off. The man just got slapped with a $5 million smack for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll, and was right back on the air less than 24 hours later saying even worse stuff. Monetary fines do nothing.
Keep warning him? How many times did your mom say "1........2.........Two and a half......." before you realized that there is no 3? Same thing here.
Move the case up early? There are numerous legal, procedural, and logistical issues that would make this a non-starter. Numerous talking heads have written this off as an empty threat that would be impossible to actually enact, while giving Trump's legal team grounds for appeal.
And before anyone says "So what are we supposed to do with him then? Just let him keep doing what he wants with impunity?".......that's the exact question our entire judicial system is currently tasked with answering, and nobody seems to have come up with one yet. How do you handle someone who is hellbent on doing what he wants, but also has the resources and ability to force people to back down out of legitimate fear of retribution to themselves, their associates, and their families?
That's what he and his cult already believe and will continue to believe no matter what happens or doesn't happen.
Nah, he has more or less reached his ceiling. He has a number of people who are members of the cult and would never abandon him without literal cult deprogramming and the majority of the population would never vote for him after what he's already said and done.
You mean like is already the case now that he's slandering and vilifying most of them with no consequences to himself?
True, but not the one you think.
THAT'S the actual reason.
"Like it or not" is an awfully casual reaction to the powerful getting blatant special treatment, which is in itself against the law
The question is literally answered already. Letting him get away with constantly and blatantly breaking the law is in itself negligent bordering on being criminal.
This is what people said about him being impeached. Then it's what they said about him being impeached the 2nd time. Then it's what they said about him losing the election. Then about when he was indicted the first time. Then the 2nd. Then the third. Then the fourth. Notice a pattern yet?
Easy to say when you're not the one putting yourself, your staff, and all your families directly at risk. Senators refused to oust him from office out of fear for their safety. Courtrooms shut down, sometimes for days, out of fear of retribution. People who have infinitely more resources and in many cases the power of the US government behind them, and they still refuse because of credible threats.
Actually, it is.
This is another reason, yes. But it is not the primary one. If this were the issue, it would be cleared up in appeals, pre-trial hearings, etc.
No, it's an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. Trump is the leading GOP candidate for POTUS, and judges are absolutely going to give him a lot of leeway in order to avoid the appearance of interfering with political speech. Whether they are right or wrong for doing so is certainly up for debate, but it's absolutely going to happen.
Again, a very easy comment to say when you're not the one standing directly in the line of fire. It's much, much different when it's your offices getting bomb threats, your kids' pictures and identifying info being published online, and your family members who aren't even involved receiving daily threats. And it's also very easy to say that when the subject isn't capable of summoning mobs of idiots, some of which are armed to the teeth and willing to commit violence.
Look, I'm not saying Trump should walk. I agree that someone needs to actually start using the tools available to put this guy away. The problem is that the process actually has to be started by an actual person, there doesn't seem to be too many people willing to put their family's safety at risk in order to pull the trigger, and its understandable why those in power who can pull the trigger are reluctant to do so.
That's not really how the law works, and judges generally take a dim view when someone is trying to circumvent their order.