301 points
*

90 days for trying to overthrown the government and verbally attacking the judge. What a fucking joke of a sentence.

permalink
report
reply
239 points

Hey it’s not like he did something insanely criminal, like owning a negligible amount of cannabis to enjoy in the privacy of his own home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
140 points
*

How about trying to vote with a provisional ballot after being told it’s okay to vote and then being thrown in jail because it wasn’t okay to vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

You forgot to add that she did all of that while being black. If she had had the good sense to be white, she probably wouldn’t have spent 5 years in jail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

30 days time served too. So it’s just 2 more months.

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

insulted a prosecutor and verbally attacked the judge who punished him.

Sounds like a certain ex-president who deserves to have his eventual sentence quadrupled.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Have we figured out how to execute someone multiple times?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m ok with it, let’s do it

permalink
report
parent
reply
-89 points

Those aren’t crimes though. Dude should get a sentence reflecting what he did, not reflecting his right to say political figures (and judges and prosecutors absolutely are) are fuckwits

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

Contempt of court is a crime. Also I like how you lumped the judicial and executive branches into “political figures” like there isn’t a constitutional difference.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-47 points

They’re often elected. And it doesn’t seem to mention a contempt of court charge

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

I think the article makes it seem different than it is.

He was going to get a lighter sentence because he was showing remorse by playing guilty. Then his behavior between the plea and the sentencing showed that he wasn’t actually remorseful, so they go back to what they would have sentenced him.

It’s like if you get offered a discount on a bill if you pay early, then you pay late instead and have to pay the full amount. They aren’t charging you more, they’re just not offering the early discount because you didn’t hold your end of the bargain up.

So, he’s getting the sentence he deserved without credit for showing that he knows what he did was wrong.

Lesson for other defendants: the time to return to being an asshole is after everything has been settled.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

He’s still getting less than four months. It should be a lot worse to reflect the severity of what he did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

Article doesn’t really say what he did, but the prosecutors only asked for twenty one days so probably fuck all

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points

This guy thinks he can do exactly what Trump does and get away with it like Trump seems to always do. The root cause must be fixed.

permalink
report
reply
22 points
*

Meaning Trump and his shills getting a sentence and even quadrupled? Hell, I’m all for it

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

Insulted a prosecutor and verbally attacked the judge who punished him.

The little guy getting an actual sentence out of it while cowardly judges refuse to toss trump in jail for worse.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

for worse

I’d say they’re both guilty of the exact same thing, they’re just two halves of the same crime.

Without mooks like this, trump was essentially just a loud angry nuisance, at least as far as the election goes. He could rant about how much the election was stolen until his face went from orange to blue, but at the end of the day he couldn’t have done anything about it.

And without people like trump to rile them up, most of these idiots probably would have just stayed home.

You need both halves of it for something like 1/6 to have taken place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

These judges are playing a long game that people like us are too ignorant to see.

Example; The judge’s ruling in Colorado that kept him on the ballot? Found him factually guilty of insurrection.

No matter the verdict, this was going up the legal food chain. The next court has no choice but to accept that he’s an insurrectionist. Feel me? That is now an established fact that an appellate court cannot disregard or change.

Fucking brilliant legal maneuvering.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

So what? Everyone has known that Trump took part in an insurrection for years and it hasn’t made a bit of difference. Unless you have a specific case in mind where that legal distinction is likely to make a difference then you’re just debating the semantics of “nothing happened to him”.

We already know history will not look favorably on Trump. Solidifying the words future historians will use to describe him doesn’t make his election to a second term any less likely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Actually no. The appellate hearings don’t have to accept the lower court’s findings and can ignore the opinion entirely to reach their own conclusions. Leaving him on the ballot creates a potential constitutional crisis. Consider the possibility that it doesn’t reach the Supreme Court until Trump has been elected.

The best outcome is Trump is not the GOP nominee. Parties can set their own rules for primaries, but once he’s on the ticket, you’re talking about the courts disenfranchising a bunch of morons. And while we may all prefer that morons don’t vote, the fact is that the legal system that protects their right to vote also protects everyone else’s right to vote.

This was a justice splitting the baby to try to keep both sides from attacking politically and physically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

What the fuck is this? I’m not one for cruel and unusual punishment but these people will be able to make another insurrection by the time Trump loses in 2024 with these sentences. What the fuck? The point is to deter insurrectionists, these light ass sentences won’t do shit.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Loads of the big guys are in for years. Sentences depend on what they did, I imagine this guy didn’t do much

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just being there should earn you 10. What would these people who “didn’t do much” have done if their plot was a success? No one there was benign.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Except maybe journalists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

If you were around protesting and not breaking any laws you shouldn’t even go to jail. It’s not be back or white

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Beer hall putsch

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.

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

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 501K

    Comments