And through it all, Trump has been required to remain seated, not gesturing, not talking and not using his phone. He has not even been allowed to adjust the temperature a few degrees in a courtroom he described as “freezing.”
The gag generally prohibits Trump from publicly commenting on potential witnesses, jurors and other people involved in the case. […] The prosecutors want Trump fined $1,000 per violation.
He violated The gag order over ten times. Why the fuck won’t the judge hold him in contempt of court and arrest him?
The fines should be exponential tho.
I’m always in favor of exponential fines. You can start at a very small sum at first offense and if you double at every new offense you’re quickly in the billions.
Just make all fines proportional to net worth. I don’t want poors to be fucked for life for the same behavior that an affluenza sufferer would just pay $100k and be done with. Make contempt like 1% of net worth, everyone can choose how much it is worth to act a fool in court.
This is what exponential fines solve. It can start at $100 and it’ll eventually stop when the unrepentant behavior raises it to the point of crippling the offender economically.
For the record I would much rather have the exponential fines than this $1,000 joke of a punishment.
That goes without saying 😊
Yes but that point comes sooner for the poor person than the wealthy person. We should remove inequality in the justice system, not just work around it.
Just don’t repeat the offense, bub. A fine is a deterrent. If it doesn’t deter, it’s not working. Imagine having to assess someone’s net worth every time a fine is to be applied.
2 tier justice system. Although I can imagine a judge rationalizing being so endlessly patient with Trump out of fear of what might happen if they aren’t.
Not that I would agree with the judge coming to such a decision in that way, but if Trump actually got arrested there’s no telling what his base will do. Could be anything from local unrest to full blown civil war
I imagine there’s a level of over-cautiousness, as one misstep (or even a perceived one) and one friendly appellant judge can overturn the whole thing.
This, to me, is the absolute key of it all. They have to do everything possible in the world to avoid providing even the smallest mote that the defense can use on appeal.
Appeasement always works. The unrest is going to happen one way or another, one way just ends you stuck with the same problem longer until you have to kick its ass globally and it runs to its bunker.
This sequel fucking sucks.
Sadly, we have to accept that a former president is not a normal citizen and that this entire event is completely without precedent. I suspect that a lot of this behavior will be used against him when it comes to sentencing time. Until then, judges have to do whatever they can to not provide fodder to the hateful right and to preserve security in and around the court, its staff, and their families. They also have to do everything possible to avoid any suggestion of bias, which Trump lawyers will take to appeal.
Sadly, we have to accept that a former president is not a normal citizen
That’s where you’re wrong.
Or at least I hope that’s one of the outcomes of this trial. 50 years ago I’d have said former Presidents should get almost the same respect as the current President but now, let’s just chuck them in a special retirement home and not let them have visitors.
It’s all fun and games until the republicans get a democratic president in a sham trial, holds them in contempt for some obnoxious reason and sends them to jail based on precedent set with Trump…
This could be why they are walking a very very fine line with Trump. For good or bad.
You think Repubs will respect a precedent?
No of course not. But why make it easier for them to justify? Let them be seen as the ones breaking precedent. Again it’s a very careful line. I’m not saying it’s the right course, but I understand it.
Why do they write so many biographical details about the jurors? I don’t need to know that one of the jurors emigrated from another country and what his hobbies are, but it seems like bad people would be very interested in that.
I genuinely wonder what legitimate newsgathering purpose Politico thinks it serves to go into so much detail, especially in a trial for a modern gangster who has threatened everyone and their mother. What is the steelman for this?
Worse: why is the court OK with allowing this information to get out to the public? What legitimate public interest is there in knowing this information in the face of jury tampering and threats that are sure to come?
What I love though is that he decided throughout this process to go back to attacking Jimmy Kimmel over the Oscars… which just allowed Kimmel to fact-check the entire post and show that Trump either literally couldn’t tell the difference between Kimmel and Al Pacino or didn’t actually watch the Oscars he keeps bitching about.
I don’t like Trump politically but I’m just not into this schadenfreude journalism. “This guy had an upsetting experience in court…ISNT THAT COOL?”
No, it’s a criminal trial. The point isn’t to get the defendant to feel bad, it is to have justice served, whichever way that goes.
If I could make the trade where Trump has his best most successful and happy life, but it’s 100% outside politics, I’d happily do it instantly. I don’t want him to suffer, I want him to fail in his political goals.
I think he’s demonstrated that his best, most satisfying life (even outside politics) involves some pretty lecherous behavior combined with the alleged illegal business practices.
So yeah, I don’t want to just mock him and jeer, but I also wouldn’t wish him his ‘best life’ without some serious character growth that I didn’t picture happening just because he avoids politics.
They’re not revelling in him being treated poorly they’re revelling in him being treated like every other defendant on the fucking planet any of which would be in prison with bond revoked for any number of dumb shit Trump has done or said.
He was made to act in a quiet, respectful manner just like any other defendant. What made it upsetting for him was being required to act in a quiet, respectful manner just like any other defendant.
deleted by creator
I’m not a lawyer, but couldn’t this kind of journalism support the impression that the jurors are biased, which could be grounds for appeal or mistrial? I suppose the judge knows what he’s doing, but still.
The orange gibbon misinterpreted the gag order and shit his pants so no one could breath.
