• @Hobbes_Dent
    link
    816 months ago

    “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

    • @Iheartcheese
      link
      386 months ago

      I vote this is our response to Trump from now on

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        166 months ago

        And/or “I know you are, but what am I?”

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            English
            66 months ago

            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.

            • @disguy_ovahea
              link
              126 months ago

              That’s brilliant. Like a digital one of those “how to keep an idiot busy” cards.

              • FuglyDuck
                link
                English
                96 months ago

                I think you just aged both of us…

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              36 months ago

              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.

              • FuglyDuck
                link
                English
                36 months ago

                I like it. Bots for everyone.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    596 months ago

    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.

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      286 months ago

      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.

      • @Dkarma
        link
        15 months ago

        You can thank Jack Smith for setting that “can’t skip” precedent not too long ago… 😂

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      246 months 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.

    • @Maggoty
      link
      56 months ago

      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.

      • @AbidanYre
        link
        English
        196 months ago

        it would be incredibly hypocritical

        Like they care.

        • @CharlesDarwin
          link
          English
          66 months ago

          Exactly. Pope Alito don’t GAF about things like optics or morality or even any kind of internal consistency.

      • @Blue_Morpho
        link
        76 months ago

        If they vacate Trump’s conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical

        I think it is required to be hypocritical if you are Republican.

  • @JeeBaiChow
    link
    556 months ago

    Collusion to subvert the justice system? By republicans? By powerful Americans? Say it isn’t so!

  • @CharlesDarwin
    link
    English
    15
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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!

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    56 months ago

    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!