this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
410 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3388 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

The blockbuster remark came moments before closing arguments in Trump's second trial in a case brought by E. Jean Carroll

A federal judge threatened Donald Trump's attorney Alina Habba with jail time on Friday, after the former president's lawyer kept contesting a ruling after it had been issued.

"You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup," senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan warned. "Sit down."

The bombshell remark came moments before the start of closing arguments in Trump's second trial in a case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't be such a tease, judge. Do it already!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Sending her to jail does nothing other than rile up his base and give him grounds to declare bias. I'm glad the judge has a better grasp on this than you do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So we just let them continue breaking the law so as to appease fascists? Yeah that's a terrible idea

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

No, it's the exact opposite. I don't give a shit if she spends a couple of days in jail for being annoying in court. I want to make sure the rulings against trump, the rapist and insurrectionist, are unimpeachable.

It's overreacting to petty shit meant to antagonize that is going to let them get away with breaking the actual laws we all actually care about.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I get it, but there has to be a point where the rule of law isn't held hostage by "riling up the base". People get pissed that there's two justice systems, one for the rich and another for everyone else - so because this rich asshat can throw cannon fodder idiot performative lawyers out to gin up the base, he gets kid gloves?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I get it, but there has to be a point where the rule of law isn’t held hostage by “riling up the base"

100% agreed. That point is far beyond a lawyer being annoying in court, imo.

so because this rich asshat can throw cannon fodder idiot performative lawyers out to gin up the base, he gets kid gloves?

Ignoring this is so the punishment given to him is unimpeachable. If she puts his lawyer in jail, it's easier on appeal to claim bias. It's the whole point of the move, and it would be bad judgement by the judge to jail her...it's like grabbing the little fish and thus letting the big one get away.