this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
242 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4012 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
242
Live Updates: Jury to Consider Felony Charges Against Trump (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by silence7 to c/politics@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For comparison, coverage from:

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 98 points 5 months ago (4 children)

One challenge for the jury is the unusual layering of charges: The charges against Mr. Trump are felonies because prosecutors say he falsified the records to cover up another crime.

It's the coverup that gets you, not the crime.

If he'd have just cut her a check directly, none of this would be happening.

It's going to be insane if what brings trump down is that he underestimated what his voters would handwave away.

I don't think he'd have lost a single vote if he just admitted he paid a pornstar for sex. Hell, with the way Republicans act he probably would have gained votes.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 51 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think he'd have lost a single vote if he just admitted he paid a pornstar for sex. Hell, with the way Republicans act he probably would have gained votes.

In hindsight, this is absolutely true. At the time, however, on the heels of the Access Hollywoo tape, it may have been a one-two knockout. Unfortunately, as we have since learned, anything Republicans say or do is perfectly fine with their voters. The political process in the US is forever changed for the worse.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

anything Republicans say or do is perfectly fine with their voters.

No. Anything Donald Trump says or does is fine with their voters. Other members of the GOP aren't always given such leeway. See Kristi Noem as a prime example. There are limits, but only for those not named Trump.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Noem felt confident enough to talk about shooting her dog, and then double down on it after the backlash, and still has a career as an elected politician. She will be elected to the Governor's office in South Dakota again, and handily.

I agree that there are still limits for Republicans not named Trump (Noem is less likely to be Trump's VP pick, for example), but even those limits are wildly more lenient than they've ever been in US politics.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yep. IOKIYAR. A Democrat would have been hounded by everyone across the spectrum, including their own party, until they stepped down.

My favorite example is: Al Franken. Guy made a goofy pose - was made to step down, and even to this day, there are certain women that will fly off the handle at the mere mention of...Al Franken.

Ronald McDonald BRAGS about sexually assaulting women, brags about busting into dressing rooms of underage women at "his" pageant, is credibly accused of actual rape, and....he still has a political career and virtually no one in his party is hounding him to step down, step aside, etc.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 5 months ago

... is credibly accused of actual rape, ...

Was found liable for sexual assault which is colloquially known as rape.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Noem felt confident enough to talk about shooting her dog, and then double down on it after the backlash, and still has a career as an elected politician. She will be elected to the Governor’s office in South Dakota again, and handily.

I don't follow South Dakota politics, so I'll have to take your word on that. I know she's been banned from every tribal land in the state; how does that impact her re-election chances? Does losing the Native American vote matter enough? And what about the possibility of another Republican rising up and challenging her? (I know there's no chance in hell of a Democrat winning in SD.)

I agree that there are still limits for Republicans not named Trump (Noem is less likely to be Trump’s VP pick, for example), but even those limits are wildly more lenient than they’ve ever been in US politics.

Oh, absolutely. But even after taking that into consideration, the "limits" for Trump, if there even are any, are even more wildly lenient. Noem at least somewhat hit the limit with the controversy about shooting her dog. If it were Trump, he'd rile everybody up and convince them that the entire breed needs to be exterminated.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Repubs see her banned by groups they despise and understand that as her making them angry and "owning the libs."

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think it varies wildly with republicans. They very nearly elected a known pedophile in one election (not talking about trump).

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I don't think he'd have lost a single vote if he just admitted he paid a pornstar for sex. Hell, with the way Republicans act he probably would have gained votes.

This might be where his insistence on denying everything finally backfires on him. Because if he didn't deny that it happened, the Prosecution would not have needed to bring Daniels onto the stand. While the act itself is not a crime, his insistence on having his lawyers deny it, in the face of graphic evidence, will serve to convince the jury that he is a liar, and make them less likely to find his other explanations credible.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think the nail in the coffin is really gonna be Michael Cohen‘s testimony. Maga world made such a big deal of calling him a liar, but the trial made it very clear that he was Trump’s liar. He lied for Trump, and the evidence corroborates that, as do the witnesses that the defense called.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll go so far as to say that if he had just admitted that the sex happened, he'd walk.

Let's be realistic. No amount of jury instructions can override basic human nature. And I'd be willing to bet that almost nobody on that jury cared about anything other than the testimony of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. Had Trump just acknowledged that the sex happened, there would be no reason to put Daniels on the stand and the jury would be going into deliberations over a whole bunch of boring facts and technicalities that could cure insomnia. Instead, they're going in there with a vision of an orange man with a mushroom dick in his boxers being spanked with a magazine seared into their heads. Her testimony was (a) largely irrelevant relative to what he's been charged with, and (b) will be given outsized weight with the jury just because of the scandalous details she gave. Right or wrong, that's just human nature. Keep her off the stand and you've got a case that's about as exciting as the ingredients on a tube of toothpaste.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If he admits on stand that sex happened, I wonder Melania’s lawyers will get ready to null and void her prenup and take half of his estate. Mathematically speaking, half of 0 is still 0.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

She's not going anywhere. If she splits, she's off the gravy train. Right now, she can still spend his money while he still has it. She knows she'll never get a dime from a prenup because he'll stiff her just like he does everybody else, and tie the case up for years when she sues him.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

That’s the thing. Imagine what wonders she can do when Donnie goes to jail for any of his treasons and on top of that she suddenly gets prenup null and voided for cheating - she doesn’t have to fight for his property with his creditors, legitimate and illegitimate children, pornstars, Russian mafia, and any number of lackeys who want replace him.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

I wish I had your confidence that he'll face any consequences. I don't think his supporters know anything about the trial, other than it's "a deeply unfair politically motivated witch trial in a kangaroo court".

I'm just hoping that the remainder of voters aren't too far gone and realize what a POS he is. The polling being as close as it is concerns me.

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

A lot of people do think he's on trial simply for paying a prostitute; they don't care. Check out a few MAGA interviews on YouTube.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

If he'd have just cut her a check directly, none of this would be happening.

Yes, but he used campaign funds, because he's a cheap bastard, and he didn't report it.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 76 points 5 months ago (1 children)

i'm extremely pessimistic that any single thing that should happen actually will happen

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm betting they find him guilty of enough items that would lock any of us up for the rest of our lives. I'd also bet he will not spend any time in jail.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's fine, so long as it barrs him from running. I'll take small steps to fix shit for now. We can accelerate after we oust this jackass.

[–] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

You can run for office as a felon, you just can’t vote. I’m not sure that there’s any way a criminal trial would bar him from running. Hell he could even run from prison.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 68 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Just watched trumps little tirade during a break in the trial and he said "even mother Teresa couldn't beat these charges..."

Sounds like it's going great!

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Remember when mother Teresa paid a pornstar to keep her mouth shut while she was running for election? Yeah, I heard she couldn’t beat those charges in a court of law.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Mother Teresa was a horrible person who reveled in the suffering of others while avoiding suffering herself.

His statement is truer than he knows if he's comparing himself to her.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That is a gross oversimplification of Mother Teresa. I’m no fan of hers, but let’s dislike her for truthful reasons rather than exaggerations.

She never reveled in anyone’s suffering, though she did remark that suffering brings us closer to God, which I would consider an unhelpful stance at best.

She ran multiple hospice care centers because no one was doing anything and people were just dying in the street. She had extremely limited resources and could only provide limited medical care as she wasn’t a doctor and again, I say this with intended emphasis, literally no one else was doing anything to help.

She saw unimaginable suffering and did everything in her power to reduce that suffering to the extent of her ability and resources, which was far more than anyone else was doing.

I don’t think she’s a saint, but I think her goals and efforts were laudable even if her beliefs and methods were less than ideal.

This Wikipedia page highlights the controversy surrounding the quality of medical care, but also shares the counter argument, which is that they struggled with the same problems as the rest of healthcare in India and were treating people no one else would.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They weren't treating them they were refusing treatments for people under their care. Saying suffering brings u closer to God and then inflicting and or prolonging that suffering makes her a shitty person.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Source?

Even in the critical article in the wikipedia, they noted that they were giving limited treatment to the best of their ability. Their ability, however was lacking. To say that they denied treatment to encourage suffering is a far cry from the harshest criticism I’ve come across from anyone who actually witnessed their facilities.

Again, I’m not a fan of Teresa. If there’s more evidence of what you’re saying, that’s totally valid, I’ve just not seen it myself and I did some digging myself just to make sure of what I was talking about.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Some people just exist to shit on other people for no particular reason except to shit on people...

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

What does that mean? Like the crimes are so bad and blatant that they wouldn't give anyone a pass?

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

His "first criminal trial"，does the heart good.

Looking forward to the sequels

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

If he wins, they'll be cancelled. Ironic, since the cons claim to hate cancel culture so much.

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Calling it, they won't do shit to him. If they do, I might have some faith.

But after two impeachments, he practically gets away with nearly everything.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In those impeachment, though, he had the protection of 40+ Republican Senators who were afraid of how voting against their guy would affect their reelection. Here, his fate is being decided by 12 Manhattanites who have never met him and have been instructed to set aside their personal opinions on the matter.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

and have been instructed to set aside their personal opinions on the matter

I know there's a jury selection process for this but I feel like it would still be difficult to do

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How would you even pick an impartial jury in a trial like this

[–] silence7 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You ask these questions let the lawyers sift through the answers, and then toss out people they don't like. You also excuse anybody who thinks they won't be impartial, or who is doxxed in the right-wing press and starts getting death threats.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The link you sent is broke :(

[–] silence7 3 points 5 months ago

Still working just fine for me here. It's a PDF of the questionnaire handed out to the jury.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hung Jury in about 4 days. Juror 2 was a plant.

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Juror 2 is an investment banker that gets all his news from Twitter and Truth Social. I don't know how they let him sit in on this one.

[–] kofe@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

... Source?

[–] silence7 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The NYT ran an article about jurors answers to the questionaire

Hearing the evidence must have been a real shock to their bubble.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

From this article it sounds like that's not all his news sources and the Truth stuff was through a repost bot. He also said he followed Michael Cohen.

Second juror: ‘I’ll try to keep an open mind’ The second juror is a married man who works in investment banking.

His hobbies include hiking, music and concerts, and he said he reads “basically everything” — including Trump’s Truth Social posts through an account that reposts them on the social platform X.

The man also said he follows Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer who made the hush money payment at the center of the case, on X, but he assured Trump’s attorney he would be able to put aside any opinions about Cohen.

“I’ll try to keep an open mind,” the man told prosecutors during questioning.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4612102-meet-trump-hush-money-criminal-trial-jury/

Sus for sure, but he's not actually on Truth. Seems like an extremely risky juror though. Kind of odd that he says he reads "basically everything", but apparently only if it's posted on Twitter, and only Truth deserved mention in the media consumption questionnaire.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

"Reads everything" sound like someone who's "rejected MSM". As soon as some actually uses MSM in communication I know I can check out of that conversation and they've detached from reality.

[–] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Fry him

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Tick Tock Donald