this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
96 points (93.6% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4693 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
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago

This is the second time his sentencing was delayed, mind you...

Reminder, kids, it isn't political if justice remains ignorant to the existence of an election and proceeds as is typical for said cases... But it sure becomes politically motivated if you delay in lieu of one.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok so to get out of crimes we just need to say we are running for office and the sentencing must be delayed until after the election. Got it.

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 4 points 2 months ago

Also, be rich with ties to foreign entities that help you. You can't be a poor person running for city council. You gotta qualify for that upper tier of the criminal justice system not available to ordinary people, as designated by the likes of Chief Justice Roberts.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 months ago

For fucks sake. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion. The members of this jury served diligently on this case, and their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election. Likewise, if one is necessary, the Defendant has the right to a sentencing hearing that respects and protects his constitutional rights," the judge wrote.

The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system has already eroded to dangerous levels. Continuing to allow these delays is only making it worse. We all know Trump's modus operandi is to file appeal after appeal and tie things up in court indefinitely, and by letting him continue to do that, they're letting him make a mockery of the court.

Of course that pales in comparison to the mockery he's making of the federal court, or the federal government as a whole.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hey I’ll be brutally honest: I have precisely zero trust in the integrity of the court system in vast swaths of the country, both at the state and federal level, and the current USSC is nakedly, undeniably partisan and completely fucked.

It got this way because one whole side of our political establishment worked for literal decades to slowly corrupt and undermine the system, and the other side pretended it wasn’t happening. And now we’re here. I’ll be shocked if Biden does anything about it in the months he has left, so unless Harris gets in office and either immediately packs the court, (or, invites the Tribunal of Six somewhere special, goes “🔫 fuck you, official act”, and then appoints six new justices and railroads their confirmation), I don’t see this changing without political violence.

[–] finley@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 19 points 2 months ago

I don't see why the election should have anything to do with the sentencing, or when it takes place. This was interference in the 2016 election (and calling it his "hush money" trial is a great way for the media to "both sides" this whole thing). He should be sentenced now, and if that means he continues his run for office from a jail cell waiting on his appeal it should have been expected (and is of course why he announced so early). If he wins then we have just moved the goal posts to sentencing a running candidate to sentencing the President-elect, which you know the Supreme Court is going to do absolutely everything in their power to say he is then immune to all sentencing. He then becomes a dictator, gets all his cases removed, and puts his flying monkeys into motion for retribution and Project 2025.

The whole system being afraid to hold Trump accountable for crimes (in this case he has already been found guilty of them), makes this more political by trying to maintain this nonsense of dealing with everything he does in bad faith with kid gloves to maintain a "non-political" look. He should be treated like any other citizen found guilty of 34 felonies, his political life should play no part in his sentencing, and the fact that is not the case just goes to show how we have a 2 tier justice system.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Someone handle that judge please.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That judge is smart enough to know that if he decides against the next president of the United States then he can kiss is career goodbye.

Trump is still the favorite to win thanks to the electoral college and this judge knows that; so he's not going to do anything to jeopardize his position like any other judge in this country would do.

It lays bare the inherent contradictions of our legal system and all of the legal professionals would prefer it that we didn't pay attention, but merchan doesn't have that luxury so he's going to play it safe to protect himself; to the detriment the rest of the country as Trump himself has done

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s all well and good but judges are ostensibly impartial and not supposed to care that much about their careers when it conflicts with a gross miscarriage of justice, which that would be. But we’re all just meatbags, not paragons of virtue, so that’s obviously flawed logic.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

No one is impartial and anyone who believes that they are only fooling themself to the detriment of everyone else.

Also questioning that "impartialality" under the circumstances it exists can get you jailed & fined being beyond your capability to pay; laying bear another inherent contradiction.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago

I dunno, that one guy who is 9 for 10 predicted Harris. 90% accuracy is pretty good.

Still gotta vote, everyone!!!

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-delays-trump-sentencing-hush-money-case-november-rcna167282
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support