this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
432 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3449 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 164 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Don't kick him out, that's exactly what he wants.

F**KING ARREST HIM and charge him with contempt of court.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 67 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Judge doesn't need to charge him, he can just be found in Contempt & held.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yep, I don't think I have the self control to be a judge. I think the maximum is 180 days and the very first time he uttered even a syllable off topic or without being asked a direct question his ass would be in for the maximum allowable amount of time.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I feel the same, but he's going to appeal and one of the arguments will be that the judge was biased against him. The judge tolerating more than would be expected torpedos that argument. So this is trying to make the result appeal-proof.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 55 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Judge: Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you’re probably eager for me to do that.

Trump: I would love it

Judge: I know you would like it. You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently.

Trump (muttering): You can’t either.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a real conversation had by someone who once was and is again running for president. What fucking weird timeline are we living in?

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's pootin's timeline. We're just stuck in it.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

Hopefully Putin's is coming to an end. One way or another.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 128 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Trump just can't stand having to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Habba called the judge’s ruling “insanely prejudicial” and the judge soon afterward cut her off, saying he would “hear no further argument on it.”

Habba told the judge: “I will not be spoken to that way, your honor.” When she mentioned the funeral again, the judge responded: “It’s denied. Sit down. Bring in the jury.”

So... she would be spoken to that way.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 81 points 10 months ago (4 children)

What kind of ridiculous thing is that to say to a judge, anyway?

[–] noride@lemm.ee 57 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, one thing a judge can pretty much do without question is talk to you however the hell they damn well please.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they are enough of an unreasonable asshole it can come up in appeal though.

I would imagine using language bigoted against a protected class would not help their decision stick.

[–] Twelve20two@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

There's a Key and Peele sketch hidden in there

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 56 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What do you expect from the lawyer who befriended a sexual assault victim, convinced to to drop her existing lawyer for her, then had the victim sign an NDA and accept a pittance sum for suffering through years of sexual abuse. At one of Trump's golf courses.

Then turned around to Trump and said "look what I did for you". Which is how she got the current job.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As I said above, Habba is stupid. Trump-level stupid. He likes her because she has Melania's body type and I wouldn't be surprised if he was fucking her.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 22 points 10 months ago

I don't imagine he fucks anyone. Aside from the every American.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oof... now I really hope she's getting paid up front.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I hope nobody who does anything for Trump gets paid at all.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Yes and no. Trump having less money, good, but people having an incentive to work for him, bad.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's three-ring-circus clown riding a rodeo clown into a mime's balls (which are wearing a jester's cap) level ridiculous.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hold this asshole in contempt and throw him in a cell until he agrees to behave. And when he doesn't, throw him back in for a month.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

You'd be in a cell. I'd be in a cell. This fucking Cheeto chimp POS is untouchable!

Infuriating!

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 51 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

From the video:

"He didn't speak but he expressed himself through facial gestures and hand gestures. At one point, the judge asked if any of the prospective jurors thought Trump had been treated unfairly by the court system, and Trump sort of slyly raised his hand, prompting some laughter from the room."

  • Jake Offenhartz, Associated Press
[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago

He's a fucking CHILD!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 48 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Presidents should not be above the law!

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They aren't. 45 just thinks he is.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

Until actual consequences are enforced, he is.

Hopefully this is one of a dozen times this year that he finally gets real consequences.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

I mean…they kind of are. Hasn’t that been proven over and over and over again?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"I'm granting your request to go to your mother in laws funeral. Don't come back."

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

He can go to her funeral, that's the ridiculous part. His attorney represents him in court, and anything he misses Thursday can be recounted to him on Friday.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yep. It was just a delaying tactic by Habba. Who is stupid. So it didn't work. Because the judge is not stupid.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Just because a lawyer tries something that doesn't work doesn't mean they're stupid. They're being paid to try anything they can.

I'm not saying Habba isn't stupid, but this isn't the reason why.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Habba tries anything she can in stupid ways. Because she's stupid. And trying to delay a trial by saying Trump has to attend a funeral when Trump doesn't have to be at the trial is fucking stupid.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He also doesn't have to attend the funeral. He gets to choose, and the judge doesn't give a fuck what he chooses.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Sure, but I think claiming that you have to go to a funeral is a legitimate excuse to reschedule a court date. Just not when you don't have to be in court anyway.

[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 11 points 10 months ago

True. But in this case, the lawyer is also stupid for other fuck-ups.

[–] rivermonster@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would personally pay for the rope and duct tape to secure him to his chair and tape-up his orange, fascist mouth.

[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Make sure to get that nasty prickly rope that's used on boats.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 13 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump was threatened with expulsion from his Manhattan civil trial Wednesday after he repeatedly ignored a warning to keep quiet while writer E. Jean Carroll testified that he shattered her reputation after she accused him of sexual abuse.

Earlier, without the jury in the courtroom, Trump could be seen slamming his hand on the defense table and uttering the word, “man,” when the judge again refused his lawyer’s request that the trial be suspended on Thursday so he could attend his mother-in-law’s funeral in Florida.

Carroll, 80, was the first witness in a Manhattan federal court trial to determine damages, if any, that Trump owes her for remarks he made while he was president in June 2019 as he vehemently denied ever attacking her or knowing her.

Carroll’s appearance, which continues Wednesday afternoon, was somewhat of a tight rope walk because of limitations the judge has posed on the trial in light of the previous verdict and prior rulings he’s made restricting the infusion of political talk into the proceedings.

She said that Trump’s vitriol toward her has not ceased, pointing to multiple social media posts he made about her in recent days, and that his rhetoric continues to inspire venom against her from strangers because she claimed he sexually abused her decades ago.

Carroll has maintained she lost millions of readers and her longtime post at Elle magazine, where her “Ask E. Jean” advice column ran for over a quarter-century, because of her allegations and Trump’s reaction to them.


The original article contains 1,272 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

At what point does this become contempt?

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Bailiff, club that man!

load more comments
view more: next ›