• Melkath
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

  • HuddaBudda
    link
    fedilink
    852 years ago

    According to two sources familiar with the matter and another person briefed on Team Trump’s legal strategies, the former president and his lawyers are intentionally trying to provoke the judge into a nuclear-level overreaction.

    This? Is the plan?

    That’s like saying you’re going to kill a dragon by hopping into its mouth.

    • TechyDad
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      “Step 1, I hop into the dragon’s mouth. Step 2, ???. Step 3, the dragon dies and I emerge victorious! There are no holes in this plan at all!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      If the judge loses it bad enough, they can claim “judicial bias” and have a pretty clear path to mistrial/appeal. Given the situation, it’s probably the best play they have.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        Any normal defendent would be in jail though, probably before the trial even started, but definitely after calling a judge names while in court. I’m simultaneously shocked and not at all surprised he isn’t.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Why would he have been in jail prior to trial?

          They don’t do pre-trial detention for fraud, and the only way for this trial to lead to jail time is a (deserved) contempt charge.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      482 years ago

      Overreaction?

      How is it an overreaction when any normal person would have been tossed in jail months or even years ago?

      • FlashMobOfOne
        link
        fedilink
        23
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Normal people don’t have a few thousand people out there waiting for an excuse to shoot people.

        But they should jail Trump anyway. When you have such a dangerous following, it’s even more important that the law come down hard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      202 years ago
      According to two sources familiar with the matter and another person briefed on Team Trump’s legal strategies, the former president and his lawyers are intentionally trying to provoke the judge into a nuclear-level overreaction.
      

      I think Trump’s legal strategy is he knows he’s lost already. He’s going to be fined and run out of business. So is his only hope is if he and his lawyers are obnoxious dicks and provoke a reaction to force a mistrial or grounds for appeal. Also he can whine about “witch hunt” and the usual nonsense to his base if he’s found in contempt or held accountable for his actions. Expect this nonsense to happen in his criminal trials too.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        I think Trump’s legal strategy is he knows he’s lost already.

        I’m pretty sure he has lost already and guilt has been legally decided. This is to determine the penalty. FTA:

        Engoron ruled in September that Trump’s financial statements contained fraud.

        This trial is to determine the depth of the fraud, and importantly, the consequence appropriate depending on the outcome. The whole strategy now is to delay and get to appeal probably with the number one goal being to get elected again and create a legal quagmire, or simply ride out the rest of his years until his milkshake-filled arteries realize he hasn’t ever had a heart and the only thing that’s been pumping this long is pure narcissism.

        This is, sadly, probably the least stupid thing he could do, because the more facts you learn about Trump, the more you’d think his fetish is just bending over and getting fucked by a strap-on wielding Lady Justice.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    262 years ago

    Same as every other time he has tried to stir shit with these trials. All they have to do is keep a level head and let the hammer drop. They’ve got him, the evidence is there, all they have to do is get the trials to go through with as few hiccups as possible. These judges need to keep a level head and they should be able to do so easily because, despite all the petulant whining and diversionary tactics, they’ve got him.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      People said this many times before and he weaseled out of it. I will be optimistic if and I stress IF he ever faces consequences

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    532 years ago

    Throw all of them in with the normal prison population and any conservative that tries to “liberate” them.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Someone said that he could still become president even if he went to prison. Is that true? I don’t understand how that would even work.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      192 years ago

      There’s some weird argument by his cult that it’s not in the constitution that a president can’t be in prison. It’s a lot of mental gymnastics, ignoring the fact that he traitorously stole classified nuclear documents from the US government, along with subverting democracy in the RICO case with the 18 co-conspirators.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 years ago

        You’re conflating two things here. There is absolutely nothing in the cotus that bars someone from becoming POTUS because they are in jail. Imo, there should not be, just like you should not lose your right to vote simply for being a felon.

        However, there is something in the cotus that bard someone from being an officer of the state if they’ve been part of an insurrection. This, imo, should bar him, but I’m curious to see how the court cases play out.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible.

            • Cethin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Don’t get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I’m missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don’t know how it would disqualifying some other way.

                • Cethin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

                  Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

                  It would be giving aid to an enemy surely.

    • TechyDad
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      Technically speaking, yes. Trump could be sent to prison tomorrow and still be elected President. There isn’t any “the President can’t be currently incarcerated” requirement. (Likely because the founding fathers thought it was self evident that a criminal shouldn’t be elected President.)

      As for how it would work, nobody knows. It’s never happened. Would he get to go to the White House for 4 years and then have to return to prison to serve the rest of his sentence? (Assuming here that he couldn’t just pardon himself.) Would he need to conduct presidential business from the Square Cell instead of the Oval Office? Would a SCIF need to be set up in the prison so that Trump could review classified materials from his cell?

      We would be in totally uncharted territory if this happened.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    Hitler was imprisoned almost 100 years ago, in April 1924. Perhaps Trump is going by the playbook. Hitler was 34 years old then though, so that part is a little different.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1762 years ago

    “When a defendant honestly believes he can’t possibly get a fair trial from the judge, one of the tactics is to antagonize the judge to a point of causing reversible errors,” Dershowitz says. “That is what happened in the Chicago 7 case, and I was one of the lawyers on the appeal in that case. Abbie Hoffman provoked Judge Hoffman to such a degree that the judge made mistake after mistake. And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors.”

    What a dick. This does not sound like the legal process at work at all. Besides, innocent people would never do this.

    • ObliviousEnlightenment
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s so dumb that an appeal for a mistrial can get the whole case thrown out rather than simply retried with a different judge

      • rhombus
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Most mistrials are retried from the beginning. I imagine it’s mostly the cases that involve misconduct on the judges behalf that get throw out, as that’s a strong argument for a 6th Amendment violation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      482 years ago

      The tactics have included attacks on Engoron’s court clerk, filibustering the prosecution’s witnesses with repetitive questions, and raising legal arguments the judge had already specifically prohibited.

      Responding to these provocations with contempt charges is correct and proper. Any appeal court judge is going to see that Trump was treated with kid gloves here.

      And it kinda doesn’t matter what political party the appeal judge is. They really don’t like people being disrespectful to them and ignoring their orders. It’s like the number one thing all judges hate. This strategy will probably not work.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        132 years ago

        I don’t know about that last part so much. Current conservatives have shown that there is no level that they won’t sink to and no level of hypocrisy they won’t espouse.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Caveat being it is to further their own lust for power. The second they are on the receiving end serious injustices are taking place.

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

    Again…

    I can think of no better defense than directly antagonizing law enforcement

    • Taco
      link
      fedilink
      English
      60
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      That’s a lil extreme my guy

      Edit: what fuckin world do we live in, where someone says that a politician needs to be shot to death, and the controversial opinion is to not shoot someone? Am I crazy for thinking that killing trump wouldn’t solve anything? We shouldn’t give people a martyr. The best way to get rid of someone is by shaming them and forgetting them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        102 years ago

        Fuck shaming them, I want the blood of thieving billionaires and corrupt politicians to stain the streets red. They feel no shame, that part of their brain doesn’t exist like it does for you and me.

        • Taco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          Hm actually no. I’d prefer to not be a crazy person. Thanks for the offer tho. Enjoy your killing spree. I’ll watch it on the news later

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 years ago

        I think it is more towards the fear of him becoming re-elected and death – while indeed extreme – would prevent such an outcome.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        He may be a politician but he’s also a criminal and I think that would be the punishment for his crimes not for being a politician. Although hes a pretty awful politician too lol that’s not a crime.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Boy let me tell you something about our founding fathers… This man tried to destroy our democracy, he deserves to die. However, for the sake of our civilized society I would prefer to see him rot in jail until he dies in the most unglamorous way possible that way he can’t be made a martyr.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        To respond to your edit:

        Death as a punishment for treason would do a lot to stem the tide of treasonous fucks that are currently holding high positions in our political system.

        The time for leniency is OVER. And making a martyr out of a huge sack of shit is just fine- let more of those fucks step out of line and see what happens.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Not so stupid that I’d think that doing next to nothing is the proper way to deal with traitors to our country.

                It’s even in built into our laws that death be a possible punishment.

                But noooooo, better he remain in jail where he can continue to rile up his army of dipshits and continue destroying this country.

                And yes, jailing him still entitles him to martyrdom. At least if the fat fuck were bleeding out in the dirt- he’d shut the fuck up for a change.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        “Furthermore, 18 U.S.C § 2381, states that a person guilty of treason against the United States “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Not sure about this really. You have a great point with the martyr risk, but then again, if Hitler had been executed in 1924, would the whole nazi thing have fallen on its face? Trumpism (much like Hitlerism) is a person cult. Perhaps killing their leader is exactly the kind of thing what people like Trump supporters respect and positively respond to.

        The best way to get rid of someone is by shaming them

        I think we can be pretty certain that this strategy is not working against Trump. Unless you find a shaming angle that actually works against his supporters. I have no idea what that could be since just about every angle that would work on normal people has been tried out.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Honestly, if Hitler had been killed on Aug 29 1939, the Nazis might have done a lot better than they did. I don’t think his generals would have marched into Russia the way he did.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Not really. It’s in line with all US laws to ask for the death penalty

        18 U.S.C § 2381, states that a person guilty of treason against the United States “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

        Considering the scope and impact of his crimes. It would be reasonable to ask for the maximum punishment.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        412 years ago

        When he says that on a fringe social media platform it’s “lil extreme”

        When Trump says that 5 thugs need to be put to death, who were found Innocent, it’s just an opinion everyone is allowed to.

        • Taco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          162 years ago

          Uh no, that’s also an extreme opinion. Death is always an extreme opinion, because there’s no way to change your mind. Death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            82 years ago

            If you’re gonna be a naïve idealist, at least be an effective one and pick arguments where you’re not splitting hairs over hyperbole on niche social media, much less hyperbole directed at a world-class factory of inflammatory hyperbole who has 0 chance of being executed by the government.

            • Taco
              link
              fedilink
              English
              72 years ago

              I will not entertain the concept of normalizing extremist hyperbole, as normalizing extremes tends to make them normal.

                • Taco
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  Nah I think we should do that to you, considering you’re ok with stuff like that

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                And what do you do when that comes? If most people consider extreme to be normal, what do the rest of us do?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    Never gonna happen. Judges aren’t going to do shit to this guy without a guilty jury verdict.

    Even then they’ll probably wimp out.