905
Illinois judge rules Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's 2024 election ballot
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
905 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4046 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that's true. The Colorado state supreme Court says he engaged in an insurrection. Truth is a defense.
The truth is up to interpretation. You can say what you believe to be the truth, but somebody with a lot of money and access to experienced lawyers can cripple you with a lawsuit regardless.
Do you really want to engage in a trial that could theoretically take years? Spending untold sums of money in order to defend yourself? Even if you will probably win, you're tying up a lot of capital and manpower to fight it. For what? The difference between an article that has the word "alleged" or not?
The risk-reward just isn't there.
With that logic couldn't you basically never tell the truth about anyone sufficiently rich and vindictive enough to pursue you in court? Like Trump could be sitting in jail, and we'd still be saying alleged because he might tie you up in court?
and you just basically described why news organizations prefer to use alleged
So if Trump is sitting in jail, found criminally guilty in his indictments, USA today would be justified in what, calling him allegedly guilty, in case he feels like bankrupting them with his money? I find this very hard to beleive.
If he is found guilty, he could make the argument that publications making that claim prior to the verdict swayed the jury's opinion. One would think an informed jury is always a good thing, but American courts are very strict about the information they present to the jury and in which context to allow them to make decisions. Not that it is likely, but it could result in a mistrial if it was proven that any juror read any news from the publication making the claim.
After he is found guilty, and assuming the verdict stands, publications are free to say he was convicted of X, Y, or Z freely.
Once he's been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court they'll drop the alleged.
This isn't even a Trump specific thing, they use "alleged" or "accused" to refer to any crime committed by anyone that they haven't been found guilty/liable for. Or will describe them as being arrested for specific charges or a specific incident if that's what they're reporting on. But in that case , they'll refer to them as being arrested for X and then being alleged or accused of X, but not simply that they did X.
But Trump was found, in multiple courts, to have engaged in an insurrection. He does not need to have a criminal finding of that for it to be true and accepted fact in a court. I'm sorry, but this is a hard disagree from me, when state courts find as a matter of fact that he did engage in an insurrection its not an allegation anymore.
once he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom, it's much less risky. still risky, actually, but much less so. i remember during trump's term he actually wanted to change libel laws specifically for stuff like this - you would have to be extremely careful what you say so you don't get sued
You simply refer to it as "alleged" until found guilty/liable when referencing someone doing something criminal or similar.
They could also get by with quoting that judges opinion, so long as they made it clear what they are quoting.
But a judge presenting an opinion regarding a ballot removal in which the accused was not entitled to a thorough defense and the standard being held was "whatever the judge personally felt best" rather than the more rigorous standards of a criminal trial was probably enough for their legal department to insist on the "alleged".