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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess he is daring NY Judge, because it is a civil case.
He probably should have his release conditioned on gag order in federal cases. And he should be jailed if he breaks it.
If the fear is that his fans will riot, newsflash: they follow identity politics, they don’t care how guilty trump is. Whatever they plan to do, they will do it anyway. So either treat him like you would treat anyone else for similar crimes or just forget about trials and let him do whatever he wants without any consequence. Because there’s no point in wasting time if he can’t be punished.
As the article mainly states, this isn't just because Trump can't help it but also as a strategy to make it easier to get a favorable appeal. Plus, it would stoke his favorite way to portray himself, as a victim, and fundraising:
there have been recent conversations among some of Trump’s 2024 campaign brass of how much of an immediate fundraising boost they would enjoy, if a New York judge were to try to put Trump in a cell for even a minute. “All the cash in the world,” one Trump political adviser says.
I think the solution here would be for the judge to go after Trump’s lawyers. From the article they’re engaging in some of this behavior themselves, in addition to encouraging it in Trump. But, they want the optics of Trump getting imprisoned in order to play victim and try to help an appeal. Seems the judge could side step that and go after the lawyers instead, who have more to lose.
It seems like putting a lawyer in jail would just be a recipe for delaying a trial though. They can’t be expected to provide defense if they’re locked up. Or do they just require you to find new counsel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If such was legal and in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, the military would stand ready to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and obey the orders of those appointed them. Our officers stand ready and willing to defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Domestic terrorists are terrorists, and there’s nothing we like better than to hunt terrorists and put warheads on foreheads.
Yeah, good luck getting a court to convict that. There are multiple lawsuits. None of them are considering anything with the death penalty, nor should it. There is no legal precedence for it.
Convicting Trump of the death penalty is more likely to result in a 2nd civil war than it is to make people fall in line. We tried bombing the taliban into falling in line for 20 years. How’d that go?
“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.”
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.
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.
🤣 Hey, remember how Trump separated immigrant children from their mothers, some of whom we lost record of and have no idea if they’ve been reunited? Remember the physical abuse of immigrants he internally promoted? Remember his pandering to the Klan and neo-nazis and adjacent white nationalist organizations? Remember all the covid deaths he caused with his validating and spreading of lies? His insurrection attempt? Divulging of military strategic information? Don’t you think that tips the scales a little bit? All it took was a little bit of pushback to get you to flip on your “never joke about violence” stance. I’ve never done any of those things. You should re-evaluate your priorities. Unless this is really the hill you want to “die” (😱) on.
A lil pushback? Flip? No, I’ve always been anti-violence. Killing people only results in more graves. War doesn’t solve anything. Sometimes you need to stand up in defense, and that’s different, but starting the violence is never a good thing
Getting on a high horse over hyperbole is silly, but that’s what you doubled down on doing, then you used the exact same kind of hyperbole yourself because you were mad. That’s the definition of flipping. (And irony.)
You can stop grandstanding now, no-one cared before, except for the bit where you stuck your foot in your mouth, maybe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn’t fall under the definition of treason. If “an adversary” would rise to the level of “enemy” then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as “aid and comfort” is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times.
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.
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.
<span style="color:#323232;">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.
</span>
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment