Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
“This is diminishing the American people’s faith in our system of justice itself and, to maintain a republic, you have to have that, people have to believe that justice is fair, that there’s equal justice under law.
No u
I vote this is our response to Trump from now on
And/or “I know you are, but what am I?”
I’m rubber and you’re glue
somebody should create a truth bot or whatever it's called and everytime he insults some one or soemthing, it just says "I know you are but what am I?" or maybe "You're an orange [whatever he just said]"
You know. maybe keep him so irate and busy he forgets all about this presidential campaign thing.
That’s brilliant. Like a digital one of those “how to keep an idiot busy” cards.
I think you just aged both of us…
How about a bot that just instantly fact checks and replies every time he posts anything. We could potentially prevent the lies from getting half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
I like it. Bots for everyone.
I don't even understand what they're asking for here? Are they suggesting that the Supreme Court can overturn a state conviction? I didn't think that was allowed, but if any court is corrupt enough to do it I suppose it's this one.
The SC is allowed to weigh in on a State matter, but its only supposed to happen when it concerns something that the Federal Government has a say in, or a matter that includes a dispute between states. However, the SC itself if the sole arbiter of whether it reaches that threshold or not, so who knows what excuse they might pull out of Harlan Crow's jet.
One thing that is certain, however, is that it cannot act at all until all appeals in NY are exhausted. So that means the SC can't just zoom in and grab the case unless his appeals first get turned down by all courts through the highest appellate court in NY. Then his lawyers can ask the SC as a last resort, and we'll see where that leads.
You can thank Jack Smith for setting that "can't skip" precedent not too long ago... 😂
They'll do it, then it'll be contested, and go to court. It will be appealed up to the SC where they'll decide it's allowed.
So, you're not going to want to hear this but SCOTUS is the court you appeal to after you lose at your state supreme court. SCOTUS rarely takes the case and even more rarely sides with the convicted person. If they vacate Trump's conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical considering their treatment of other people with real problems with their convictions.
it would be incredibly hypocritical
Like they care.
Exactly. Pope Alito don't GAF about things like optics or morality or even any kind of internal consistency.
If they vacate Trump's conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical
I think it is required to be hypocritical if you are Republican.
Collusion to subvert the justice system? By republicans? By powerful Americans? Say it isn't so!
Cry me a river, shitheads.
The rules?! Applied to a rich right wing cishet allegedly xtian man like donnie? Outrageous!
That's not the "law and order" we were talking about!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump was so angry when the guilty verdict was read aloud at his New York hush money trial last month that he was heard afterwards subjecting Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, to a foul-mouthed rant by phone, according to a new report.
Trump was fuming after a jury of 12 Manhattanites found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to prevent her allegation of an extramarital affair in summer 2006 getting out and damaging his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The defendant repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and that the liaison itself ever happened, persisting in claiming that the whole case against him was “rigged” by a “corrupt” district attorney and his political enemies and was presided over by a “highly conflicted” judge.
His complaints ultimately cost him $10,000 in fines for contempt of court as he repeatedly violated the gag order placed upon him by Judge Juan Merchan, who is now set to sentence Trump on July 11, four days before he formally accepts the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination at its convention in Milwaukee.
Johnson, who had joined other MAGA Republicans in showing up at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse in order to denounce the proceedings against his party’s candidate for the White House, was reportedly sympathetic to Trump’s grievances during the call.
It also quotes two Republicans anxious about any threat of defunding Smith’s investigations, one of whom, Indiana representative Mike Simpson, said: “I don’t think it’s a good idea unless you can show that [prosecutors] acted in bad faith or fraud or something like that.
The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 286 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!