this post was submitted on 06 May 2024

317 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers

2411 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

• 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

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

317

Live Updates: Trump Held in Contempt Again as His Criminal Trial Speeds Along (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Washington Post coverage for comparison

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 173 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Said Merchan (per NBC News), "The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States, and possibly the next president as well. There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for you.”

I don't care what job the defendant used to have or what job he's applying for, and neither should Judge Merchan.

He MUST be treated like any other defendant or we don't have a functioning democracy or a justice system.

Referencing his previous job or status as a political candidate is actually 'special treatment' and the judge absolutely should not be doing that. trump is a criminal defendant in a court of law, and the court of law is supposed to apply the law equally the same to all citizens.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 93 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Trump's nonsense immunity claim doesn't even apply here. He is not president. He has been found in criminal contempt for actions he took when not president.

I am 100% certain that everyone is handling him with kid gloves because they know that treating him like any other defendant would likely result in violence. Well, guess what? There's gonna be violence in November (and/or January and beyond) no matter what the election results are. Trump loses? Violence because "stolen election." Trump wins? Violence because "Now we can hurt all the people we've always wanted to hurt."

It's not a matter of "if." It's "when" and "to what extent." Justifiably jailing Trump controls the "when," making the response to "to what extent" more effective. It would also force Trump and his menials' hands before the election.

Let's fucking go.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It turns out America doesn't just negotiate with terrorists; it in fact completely abandons any illusion of democracy, or a justice system, under the threat of terrorism — as long as it's an oligarch from the private elite boys club.

LOL

[–] person420@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 6 months ago

It depends on which flag the terrorist is waving

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

You're absolutely right that they are treating him with kid gloves due to the very real potential for violence. It is my belief they are trying to curb that guaranteed damage as much as possible. I am in agreement that he should have the book thrown at him and get special treatment for a weekend in a jail cell. Let him bring his slippers.

BUT...I do get it. Assuming we're right and they are trying to curb that violence, this does make sense. It just fucking sucks.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Everyone knows he's been getting special treatment from the start. Idk why saying it out loud is a no-no.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

Honestly, I read the judge's statement as a sort of appeal to Trump's ego and integrity. Like a, "Come on bro, you were the president, don't make me throw you in jail,jackass."

It's mostly performative, so the judge can say he didn't want to when he eventually ~~gets~~ has to.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 75 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yup, called it.

"Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!"

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago (2 children)

He said he would sentence jail next time. Merchan is avoiding justification for a mistrial. It’s a good thing.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah it bothers me so much that ppl don't realize how the legal process works. If merchan makes any mistakes, his decision will get overturned. I want trump convicted and I want him to be unable to change that.

[–] meleecrits@lemmy.world 63 points 6 months ago

To be fair, he was supposed to put up over $400 million to prevent asset forfeiture with a hard deadline. He ended up posting bond for about a quarter of that, nearly a month after the deadline with no consequences.

A lot of people are rightfully skeptical that he'll never face consequences for his illegal acts.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah it bothers me so much that ppl don’t realize how the legal process works.

I want the legal system to work the same for Trump as it would for me. Is that so much to ask? How many times do you suppose I could defy the court before ending up with either 1) a fine that was sizable enough to actually matter to me or 2) jail time?

[–] protist@mander.xyz 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The law in NY defines how much the fines are and how long someone could be held in jail. It would be illegal for the judge to issue a fine larger than what he's been issuing, which would give Trump a reason to go to a higher court to seek Merchan's removal, or at the very least delay the case

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The law in NY defines how much the fines are

So like all fines, they are only a punishment for the poor and middle class.

and how long someone could be held in jail.

Sweet, how long is that, and how many times does he have to fuck up before he ends up there for contempt the way I would?

Edit - pretty sure it's X + 1 times, where X is always however many times he's fucked up to date.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I understand you feel angry, but Merchan has been clear with Trump that jail is on the table moving forward, and I completely respect him not jumping the gun and throwing Trump in jail on a whim. By giving Trump ample opportunities to correct his behavior with warnings of jail time for future violations, he's setting it up so Trump's legal team will have no basis to argue Trump didn't deserve this when they try to remove Merchan from the case or try to appeal

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I understand that but - is jail time not always on the table when you repeatedly ignore orders from a judge in their own courtroom? Does it need to be TEN TIMES to qualify for not jumping the gun? And do you really believe that "next time" he will get jail? (I do not.)

Meh.

2 legal systems. That's what's on display here. Whether there is justification or not. I don't fault you for accepting the justification, but this is proof there is one system for the rest of us (which will chew us up and derail our lives over relatively minor infractions), and one system for folks like Trump. (who will die of old age living a 1% lifestyle without ever going to jail, IMO.)

My frustration is not directed at you, you are just the unfortunate recipient.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

is jail time not always on the table when you repeatedly ignore orders from a judge in their own courtroom?

Yes. That's how NY law on this works.

The thing that needs to be fixed here is that the initial fine isn't scaled to the offender's networth.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

is jail time not always on the table when you repeatedly ignore orders from a judge in their own courtroom?

Yes. That’s how NY law on this works.

OK, so if jail is always on the table, and this is the TENTH time he's been found in contempt, how would it have been "jumping the gun" to jail him after say the 8th time? Or how about the third time? Would I get away with three contempt findings and no jail time under the same judge?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not the tenth time after the first hearing.

There was one hearing covering several instances. All those get bundled together as a set of $1000 fines each. There was then a second hearing (which is what is being cited in OP), which covered more instances, but they all happened before the first hearing. So it's a second set of $1000 fines. If there's contempt hearing for something that happened after the first hearing, then it's jail time.

Which is how the system should work for anyone, excepting the size of the fine compared to networth.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which is how the system should work for anyone

I feel really doubtful that it would work that way for me, (or for any rando off the street) but you seem very certain, so that's probably as far as we can expect this conversation to go. Thanks for the discussion though. :)

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, it would work for you, because NY law is very specific about how this works. There isn't much wiggle room here.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well, it would work for you, because NY law is very specific about how this works.

I've been avoiding requesting a citation up to now, but can you quote me the bit that says any random person can be fined for this many infractions (specifically willfully failing to follow directives from the judge in a way that would be considered contempt) without expecting jail for it? I've got no problem admitting I'm wrong, but as of yet I don't feel convinced that I am.

Edit - specifically the part which stipulates that this should result in one hearing, not "several" -

There was one hearing covering several instances. All those get bundled together as a set of $1000 fines each.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Judge Manchen's April 30 order cites this case from 1983:

https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-mccormick-v-axelrod-6

The judge from that case considers if there should be criminal or civil penalties, and concludes that you can't just hastily jump to criminal penalties:

Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves vindication of an offense against public justice and is utilized to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates ( King v Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476). Inasmuch as the objective is deterrence of disobedience of judicial mandates, the penalty imposed is punitive in nature ( State of New York v Unique Ideas, supra). Although the line between the two types of contempt may be difficult to draw in a given case, and the same act may be punishable as both a civil and a criminal contempt, the element which serves to elevate a contempt from civil to criminal is the level of willfulness with which the conduct is carried out (compare Judiciary Law, § 753, subd A, par 3 [civil contempt], with id., § 750, subd A, par 3 [criminal contempt]; see, e.g., Sentry Armored Courier Corp. v New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 75 A.D.2d 344). It is clear, in the present case, that the record does not support a finding of the willfulness necessary to hold respondents, particularly the Commissioner of Health, in criminal contempt. Accordingly, our further discussion is limited to the elements of civil contempt.

And then proscribes a fine, with the amount to be split up among the petitioners. This being from 1983, I'm not sure what the fine amount was at the time, but there are several petitioners making up several infractions here.

Accordingly, petitioners' motion to hold respondents Commissioner of Health, Beth Rifka, Inc., and Sally Gearhart in contempt is granted, and respondents are fined in the total amount of $4,000 for which they shall be deemed jointly and severally liable to be paid to petitioners as follows: $2,500 to be paid to petitioner Louise McCormick; $1,000 to be paid to petitioner Maria Bonsignore; $500 to be paid to petitioner Theresa Coppola.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Does that very old case (which seems a really odd basis for this seemingly minor point of law - and I'm skeptical this 1983 decision is weighing on this judges mind) also stipulate that someone should get only a single hearing for multiple infractions?

I still don't see the logic anywhere showing "hey, we'll let folks do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER but it would be jumping the gun to do more than slap his wrist until they've done it, say, twelve times."

This just seems like an example of a judge being lenient in a specific case, and not especially relevant beyond that.

Really it doesn't matter. He'll do it again, and I'll be shown correct when they fine him another nickel, or he'll do it again, and I'll be wrong, but he'll actually be inconvenienced by his actions by a very short stint in jail so that will be OK, I guess.

Edit - with no snark intended, this is seeming less true, not more, as we continue.

NY law is very specific about how this works.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Its the second time he's been found in contempt. The first was on 9 counts. In the second the judge is now threatening jail time.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago

Only because Trump has money for those appeals. Any other person would have been in jail already, because only the rich get a pretense of justice.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

He said that last time, too ...

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago

The infractions being cited on this second go all happened before the first hearing had happened. He's not moving any goalposts. Infractions that happen after the first hearing do have jail as the result.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

No, last time he stated that he could. This time he reinforced his stance against jailing a former president, but made it clear he would if another violation occurs. He’s playing it by the book.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

These infractions came before he was fined the first time, but after the imposing of the gag order. Got to have him break the gag order after the judge says he'll throw him in jail in order to get causality right.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 58 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Sentence him to community service, picking up trash on the side of the highway in an orange jumpsuit. 40 hours per count.

He wants to be jailed for his fundraising wet dream, so don't give him that.

Ed: looks like it's getting some traction! (gift link)

Jail for the Chief? There’s a Better Punishment. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/opinion/trump-contempt-jail-punishment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qE0.7izo.wEQIT2d_JJSW

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 months ago

I love this idea. Very publically shameful and the physical activity would beat him down in a way no jail cell could. Hope the judge considers this, seems like a proper punishment.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

He was bragging about how he can pick up more things off the ground than Biden the other day, so let's put it to the test!

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Completely orange from hair to toes.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

And reflective!

☣️

[–] null@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As if he wouldn't just refuse to do it

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah if you're already not going to put him in jail because of political reasons I don't see how you're going to realistically compel him to do this. He says no, then what, you tack on more community service that he never performs?

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 40 points 6 months ago

Judge said next he will jail him because fines "are not working".

Sounds like the jury told him to say that. He better go on his ~~money laundering scam~~ Truth Social and rant about how unfair it all is.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 17 points 6 months ago

Hope he comes out and talks about the jury again.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

did he bring his coinpurse to pay it on the spot?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's a bunch of sweaty hundred dollar bills he keeps in his flab folds

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago

If you think those are real hundos he keeps in there, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh boy. Surely the next time he'll see a jail cell? Surely.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 21 points 6 months ago

Just to put the timeline straight: Marchan issued the gag order, trump retweeted 10 things that might have violated it, Marchan said that was wrong, trump said he hadn't violated it, Marchan scheduled a hearing. Before the hearing occurred, trump again retweeted ?3? things that might have violated it. Marchan holds the hearing, finds trump in contempt on 9 of the 10 items - it's at this point that trump's retweets are established as mostly violating the gag order.

Today's hearing was in regard to the ?3? retweets made prior to the first hearing. He's getting a fine today because the [comical] argument would've been made that, at the time of those, ?3? retweets (before the first hearing), he still believed his actions weren't in contempt.

I'm not sure if he's done anything since that first hearing that might violate the gag order, but that's when the clock started ticking. And, unfortunately, it only started ticking for those kind of violations. He might decide to try smirking finger-guns next, and argue that he was only just enthusiastically greeting an old friend :/

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

My god, you can see straight through his sad, fake, whispy hair to his deformed, pasty, Darth Vader scalp below in that thumbnail.

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

JAIL

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Believe it or not, jail.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 6 points 6 months ago

Jail for this traitor or no tax money next quarter 🥱

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Surely even Trump understands "three strikes", yeah?

load more comments