this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
466 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4533 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
 

Judge Engoron shoots down ‘nonsensical’ arguments and ‘disingenuous’ and ‘bad faith’ statements

The New York judge overseeing Donald Trump’s civil trial for fraud allegations has rejected a motion from the former president’s attorneys for a mistrial.

A filing from attorneys for Mr Trump and his co-defendants argued that the case was “tainted” with “tangible and overwhelming” evidence of “apparent and actual bias” from Judge Arthur Engoron and his chief clerk, who has been the subject of ongoing attacks from Mr Trump and his allies, which prompted the judge to issue a gag order in the case that prevented parties from disparaging court staff.

In his order on Friday, Judge Engoron shot down “nonsensical” legal arguments from Mr Trump’s legal team involving his clerk, and underscored his “unfettered right” to consult with his law clerks throughout the course of a trial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I didn't see anything about any banks testifying. I can't image a bank that would get a representative on the stand to basically say, "he cheated us out of possibly millions, but that's fine", while at the same time foreclosing on someones home because they offered them a predator mortgage loan to make a few thousand extra (depending how long the homeowner took to go under water).