this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
146 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4081 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
 

The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two key errors in a June trial, one of which violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 80 points 1 year ago

She's an idiot appointed by an idiot. She's doing exactly what she was put there to do.

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Cannon, a 42-year-old former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump to the bench in 2020 late in his presidency, also neglected to swear in the prospective jury pool - an obligatory procedure in which people who may serve on the panel pledge to tell the truth during the selection process. This error forced Cannon to re-start jury selection before the trial ended abruptly with defendant William Spearman pleading guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Cannon’s decision to close the courtroom represents “a fundamental constitutional error,” said Stephen Smith, a professor at the Santa Clara School of Law in California. “She ignored the public trial right entirely. It’s as though she didn’t know it existed.”

[–] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When people like Trump get off the hook because of judicial incompetence, people are going to look outside the justice system for their justice. It's not a good thing. We should be doing things right.

[–] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's the Trump supporters that are frothing at the mouth for any reason to shoot someone.

Trump is probably safe from vigilante justice

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Imagine that… a trump worshipping minion put in place for his benefit only- managed to benefit him.

Color me surprised!

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Does this mean that every person that's ever opposed Trump or found unfavorably against him is going to have everything in their career examined through the lens of Donald Trump being persecuted by them?

It's not good What this judge did to deny someone their public trial and failing to swear in the jury is just stupid. I don't see how it relates to Trump or even indirectly is affected by him.

[–] stallmer@lemmy.one 20 points 1 year ago

It’s an example of her incompetence and lack of understanding of basic tenets of a jury trial in the lead up to a highly visible and important case in which Trump is the defendant.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Yes to your first paragraph.

load more comments
view more: next ›