You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
145 points

This woman is shameless

permalink
report
reply
64 points

I hope history will be harsh towards her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
88 points

She couldn’t care less. She’s aiming for a Supreme Court pick if Trump gets re-elected. She’d be a perfect replacement for Clarence Thomas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she’ll skate if it is … but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves … and thus skate as well to open up space for her.

Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the “western world”, it doesn’t seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Fascist regimes don’t last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don’t make them effective societies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And she’ll be a footnote, after she’s spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She’ll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we’ll be comforted that someday she’ll get her judgement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I hope contemporary will be harsh towards her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Why wait? She’ll live a long life. There’s plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump’s defense and had determined they couldn’t have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.

Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump’s ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not much I can do on my end, considering I don’t live in the US. I’ll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

she’s doing exactly what she was appointed to do.

I still find it mind-boggling that she’s even participating in the case, much less judging (adjudicating?) it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because “who cares” and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can’t just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she’s pointing out that the rules specify it’s really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she’s at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

That may fly if Trump already didn’t have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Even if you don’t like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren’t supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn’t she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that’s when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said “Eh, it’s fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won’t matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule.” Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let’s people speak their views. It’s supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.

Also, I hate Trump’s views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments