702

Donald Trump on Wednesday launched fresh vitriol against the judge and prosecuting attorney in his New York business fraud trial, carefully skirting a gag order imposed on him just a day prior.

Trump tried Tuesday to bully a court clerk, sharing false conspiracies about her as well as her personal information. Presiding Judge Arthur Engoron issued a gag order later that day prohibiting all parties involved in the case from publicly discussing court staff.

While Trump avoided mentioning court staff on Wednesday, he went all out with attacks against Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“This is election interference. They made up a fake case, these fraudulent people,” Trump told reporters. “And the judge already knows what he’s gonna do. He’s a Democrat judge. In all fairness to him, he has no choice.… He’s run by the Democrats.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

Historically, this protection was a necessary limit on the prosecutorial power of the executive/king.

That's not necessary now that there's no king and a politically independent justice department. If either of THOSE things stop being the case, we have much bigger problems than politicians not being allowed to enrich themselves and destroy each other by lying.

Simply throwing it out seems like an over reaction that doesn't take into account the actual justifications for its existence.

Scrapping a rule that causes more harm than good in a modern country with weaponized media is just common sense.

The "actual justifications" are invalid as they don't apply to current reality and in fact that exemption has played a big in enabling the kind of demagoguery that makes an octogenarian who entered politics before the invention of the pocket calculator and thinks the solution to police brutality is to throw money at cops by far the LEAST bad realistic option for president.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

That’s not necessary now that there’s no king and a politically independent justice department.

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

Scrapping a rule that causes more harm than good in a modern country with weaponized media is just common sense.

In what ways does it cause more harm than good?

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who's paying attention.

In what ways does it cause more harm than good?

In what ways DOESN'T it? If I had a dollar for every American who died as a result of politics based on one or more politicians deliberate lying, I'd be able to buy the Eiffel tower. If you included every American trapped in avoidable poverty, I'd be able to put in a fair bid for all of France.

As for the protection of honest speech, everyone has that without giving the already powerful and notoriously dishonest special lie allowance privileges.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago

Yes. Pretty typical Pentagon and presidential behaviour that should come to no surprise to anyone who’s paying attention.

...exposed by a Senator reading classified documents into the Congressional record, thus entering them into the public record and being immune from prosecution.

Also, that's not how Americans spell "behavior" ;)

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's already whistle-blower protections for that. Granted, the exceedingly authoritative government shits all over such laws when it's not one of their fellow rich and/or powerful people doing it, but that's not the fault of the law.

Also, it's no secret that I'm not an American and I will spell words however the fuck I want.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago

Congress isn't covered by whistle-blower protection laws, and such laws generally only protect disclosure to the proper authorities rather than to the public. This also ignores the case when the "proper authorities" may be the very people being reported on.

I'm still interested in knowing what actual harms you're alleging the speech and debate clause causes. You pointed to lying, but that's generally legal anyway and not really enabled by the S&D clause.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Willfully and maliciously lying to harm the reputation of someone else and/or to exploit others financially is called slander and fraud. Both are usually illegal and this is the last time I'll try to get it through to you that demagogues having carte blanche to slander and defraud people took the point of passing legislation based on said fraud ans slander is a bad thing with often catastrophic consequences.

I really don't understand how that isn't obvious to you. Unless you've been wasting my time arguing in bad faith this entire time, of course..

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago

Unless you’ve been wasting my time arguing in bad faith this entire time, of course…

I'm actually being sincere. Something that you clearly don't understand or appreciate.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're right. I don't understand nor appreciate how someone could fail to see the problem with some of the most powerful people in the world, the ones that shape the rules of an entire country, just being allowed to make shit up as they go along out of spite and greed.

Especially not when living in a country with only two major parties, one of which has lied their way into inspiring a global resurgence of fascism and the leadership of BOTH parties continue to pretend that a bribe isn't a bribe unless you specifically annonce that you're bribing someone and for which specific purpose!

That's mind-boggingly obtuse and evidence of some SERIOUS propaganda and/or unearned trust in authority figures. Extremely fucked up either way.

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:

  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS