this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
114 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2736 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 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And Who among has hasn't written off a quarter million dollars paid to sex workers as expenses on the books?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

It's an emotional support porn star

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Sorry, but since it was put down as legal fees, it's off the books, as it was covered up. I mean really, $250k is chump change, but only a moron hides their pornstar expenses....

[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I saw somewhere he was going to try and focus his appeal on Stormy's testimony. I think Judge Merchan was really smart to object on the Defense's behalf and ask them why they weren't objecting and if they were planning on objecting to her testimony.

By doing that (choosing to not object), they kinda forfeited their ability to appeal on that part.

I really hope Judge Merchan goes hard on the sentencing due to trumps public actions afterwards.

I sure the hell wouldn't want to put my foot in my mouth like that while sentencing loomed over my head, but I'm also someone that has never been convicted of a crime, and don't have rabid supporters hanging on my every word and giving me millions of dollars in donations.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Trump has been pissing off Judge Merchan and badmouthed his daughter. Not to mention the dozen or so contempt warnings. I really hope the sentencing reflects that.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The judge objected to their lack of objections!?!?!

I don't think I've heard of that before?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

It was really weird, they objected so much for like every piece of evidence entered, but when her testimony veered they were completely silent. I wonder if the judge saw it for what it was and called it out.

Here's an article on it

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I really hope Judge Merchan goes hard on the sentencing due to trumps public actions afterwards.

Not just afterwards, but during as well. How many times was he held in contempt, warned, etc. And after Trump got nervous that he was going too far, he enlisted others to carry on attacks against the judge, prosecutors, jury, etc.

IMHO (not a lawyer) I think the judge would be well within his rights to throw the book at Trump for all his behavior.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

I have no expectation that Trump will go to prison. I just think it's bullshit that Cohen cooperated and got jail time, while Trump didn't cooperate and will probably get a fine and probation.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He could jump off Trump Tower…

Just sayin’.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Hey! Another first for him and America! And such a spectacular way to do it too! Nobody's going to top that. He just keeps on winning!

[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“I think that the justices on the court — I know many of them personally — I think they’re deeply concerned,” said Mr. Johnson

kinda made me want to vomit a little

[–] [email protected] 53 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That entire quote is proof that Mike Johnson believes that justice is for the poors, and rich, well-connected people have different rules than the rest of us. If, for some weird reason, the Court does find tortured logic to take up the case, there should be immediate hearings into what, exactly, Mike Johnson said to these justices to incentivize them to make them take up the case. After all, he is admitting to trying to sway their opinion on it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


“This is long from over,” Donald J. Trump, the former president and current felon, declared on Thursday, moments after a Manhattan jury convicted him on 34 counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.

Several legal experts cast doubt on his chances of success, and noted that the case could take years to snake through the courts, all but ensuring he will still be a felon when voters head to the polls in November.

Former President Donald J. Trump faced 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, related to the reimbursement of hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels in order to cover up a sex scandal around the 2016 presidential election.

Mark Zauderer, a veteran New York litigator who sits on a committee that screens applicants for the same court that will hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, said that Justice Merchan avoided pitfalls that often doom convictions.

To elevate the charges to felonies, Mr. Bragg argued that Mr. Trump had falsified the records to cover up violations of a little-known state law against conspiring to win an election by “unlawful means.”

Justice Merchan, who began every trial day with a “good morning” for Mr. Trump, did occasionally scold him for misbehaving in the courtroom, or violating a gag order that barred attacks on witnesses and jurors.


The original article contains 1,869 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!