US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

Which is why a judge might think she should caution him. The man has no governor.

Well no, she’s meant to be neutral, remember!

 

[Moxie]

Well no, she’s meant to be neutral, remember!

She's meant to be "sort of neutral," but as I reminded you, they always treat defendants as a bit guilty. Judges are great scolds, and they don't have a lot of patience. They make the point that you are in their court, and they won't take any nonsense. She's telling him not to fuck up in ways that he has proven inclined to. This is not unusual. Plus, given who Trump is, I'm sure the judge wants to establish that it's HER court. He's the defendant. Period.

 

[Kieran]

She's meant to be "sort of neutral," but as I reminded you, they always treat defendants as a bit guilty. Judges are great scolds, and they don't have a lot of patience. They make the point that you are in their court, and they won't take any nonsense. She's telling him not to fuck up in ways that he has proven inclined to. This is not unusual. Plus, given who Trump is, I'm sure the judge wants to establish that it's HER court. He's the defendant. Period.

It is unusual to a lot of commentators and legal people who have mentioned this. And to be honest, the idea that judges ‘treat defendants as a bit guilty’ is a miserable prospect. The presumption of innocence should be found first and foremost in the court..

 

[tented]

It will certainly be a shit show. I agree with you that no person is above the law, but a defendant in Ireland is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so the judge would never treat them more sternly than they would if they aren’t in the dock, unless the defendant is behaving in a particular way that disrupts the court, or treats the process with contempt…

That’s the very nature of Trump. The same day as his appearance in federal court, he issued an all-caps threat on Truth Social: ”IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.” It’s the embodiment of witness tampering. If anything, I’d say Trump is being given special treatment: If I were about to go on trial, and had posted that, I would be in jail for threatening witnesses.

 

[Kieran]

That’s the very nature of Trump. The same day as his appearance in federal court, he issued an all-caps threat on Truth Social: ”IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.” It’s the embodiment of witness tampering. If anything, I’d say Trump is being given special treatment: If I were about to go on trial, and had posted that, I would be in jail for threatening witnesses.

See, this is going to be the whole difficulty in proving the case against Trump, large swathes of it will come down to interpreting what he said. In that message, is it beyond reasonable doubt that he’s referring to witnesses? Witnesses aren’t going after him, they’re called to testify, and some will probably be there reluctantly.

But could he be referring to the Biden administration, and his belief that they’ve weaponised the courts to nab him? I would say that unless it’s more explicit, it’s difficult to prove who he means there. Was he replying to somebody?

 

[tented]

See, this is going to be the whole difficulty in proving the case against Trump, large swathes of it will come down to interpreting what he said. In that message, is it beyond reasonable doubt that he’s referring to witnesses? Witnesses aren’t going after him, they’re called to testify, and some will probably be there reluctantly.

But could he be referring to the Biden administration, and his belief that they’ve weaponised the courts to nab him? I would say that unless it’s more explicit, it’s difficult to prove who he means there. Was he replying to somebody?

It was interpreted to be a threat against witnesses, hence the special prosecutor having to go back to Court to seek a protective order. Trump could have also meant the Biden administration, but he didn’t mention them specifically either, however this is his Mafioso-manner: issuing vague threats.

As to the issue of “some will probably be there reluctantly” — that’s the point: he’s issuing coded warnings that anyone who testifies against him will be screwed if they do. He’s trying to get people to plead the fifth while on the stand.

 

[Kieran]

It was interpreted to be a threat against witnesses, hence the special prosecutor having to go back to Court to seek a protective order. Trump could have also meant the Biden administration, but he didn’t mention them specifically either, however this is his Mafioso-manner: issuing vague threats.

As to the issue of “some will probably be there reluctantly” — that’s the point: he’s issuing coded warnings that anyone who testifies against him will be screwed if they do. He’s trying to get people to plead the fifth while on the stand.

Absolutely, but the special prosecutor has a vested interest in interpreting his words in the most damaging way possible, no?

Trump is wise to limit their options and stay off social media, but it’s like Tourette’s with him…

 

[tented]

Absolutely, but the special prosecutor has a vested interest in interpreting his words in the most damaging way possible, no?

Trump is wise to limit their options and stay off social media, but it’s like Tourette’s with him…

This is at least the second time on the same day as being arraigned he was first warned not to issue threats, then proceeded to do precisely that. Tourette’s is a kind diagnosis. He has always been his own worst enemy in that manner. He got away with it (outside of federal politics) for so long, he can’t stop himself.

 

[Kieran]

This is at least the second time on the same day as being arraigned he was first warned not to issue threats, then proceeded to do precisely that. Tourette’s is a kind diagnosis. He has always been his own worst enemy in that manner. He got away with it (outside of federal politics) for so long, he can’t stop himself.

Oh for sure. His social media activities are the same as firing bullets at his own toes…

 

[Moxie]

Oh for sure. His social media activities are the same as firing bullets at his own toes…

That's my point above that the judge was warning him specifically about behavior that he's prone to. You could say she was trying to do him a favor by making it clear. Unfortunately, he didn't pay attention.

 

[Kieran]

That's my point above that the judge was warning him specifically about behavior that he's prone to. You could say she was trying to do him a favor by making it clear. Unfortunately, he didn't pay attention.

I really don’t think she was doing him a favour but it’s an interpretation. It’s gonna be open to that.

When does this trial begin?

 

[tented]

I really don’t think she was doing him a favour but it’s an interpretation. It’s gonna be open to that.

When does this trial begin?

May 2024, last I heard. That’s how slow the US judicial system is. Not sure if such a trial would be quicker in Ireland?

 

[Kieran]

May 2024, last I heard. That’s how slow the US judicial system is. Not sure if such a trial would be quicker in Ireland?

It’s hard to know, we wouldn’t have anything on a similar scale. I mean you’re kind of in unprecedented waters there? A big trial like this with high price lawyers on both sides and ginormous media attention, I imagine the process will be slow and careful. Lot of research and discovery.

It’ll be loud and nasty, that’s for sure, but I think the estimate is probably made by people who do these things. Imagine then how long it’ll last..

 

[Moxie]

May 2024, last I heard. That’s how slow the US judicial system is. Not sure if such a trial would be quicker in Ireland?

It’s hard to know, we wouldn’t have anything on a similar scale. I mean you’re kind of in unprecedented waters there? A big trial like this with high price lawyers on both sides and ginormous media attention, I imagine the process will be slow and careful. Lot of research and discovery.

It’ll be loud and nasty, that’s for sure, but I think the estimate is probably made by people who do these things. Imagine then how long it’ll last..

We are indeed in unchartered waters. I heard one of Trump's lawyers on Meet the Press (US political talk show) this morning, and he said a trial of this magnitude should take 3+ years. The judges and prosecutors in the various trials are trying to navigate what is fair, with an eye to the notion that the defendant is running for the Presidency again. There is the push-pull as to how much should already be adjudicated before the election, and how much time the defendant needs to get a fair shake. In the US, the defendant has the right to a speedy trial. But some would argue that Trump would want to get elected before the federal cases get finished, in order to pardon himself, if found guilty on the charges, or to stop the proceedings, since he couldn't be prosecuted on Federal charges, as a sitting President. In terms of the state charges, the pay-off case in NY (hush money to Stormy Daniels) and the Election Interference investigation in Georgia are state cases, and he couldn't pardon himself in those.

 

[Moxie]

You know, I’ve been thinking: how many people who cite Marx, or use the words “Marxist” or “Marxism” have ever actually read him? There’s the Communist Manifesto, which he cowrote with Engels of course, but Marx’s main work — Das Kapital — is nearly 3,000 pages. (I checked the 3-volume edition on Amazon.)

I’m willing to bet less than 1% of the population has ever read him. Even a single page. Yet I can’t think of anyone else who is cited so often, yet virtually never read.

[I know your post was directed to @Federberg but I wanted to add this thought.]

Interesting PBS piece on Trump's use, and the recent proliferation of the use of "Marxism" and "Communism" against Democrats.

Retread scare: Trump and other Republicans evoke another era by calling Democrats 'communists'

Former President Donald Trump's arraignment in federal court has highlighted a popular strategy among Republicans: likening their opponents to "Marxists" and "communists."

www.pbs.org

 

[Kieran]

Interesting PBS piece on Trump's use, and the recent proliferation of the use of "Marxism" and "Communism" against Democrats.

Retread scare: Trump and other Republicans evoke another era by calling Democrats 'communists'

Former President Donald Trump's arraignment in federal court has highlighted a popular strategy among Republicans: likening their opponents to "Marxists" and "communists."

www.pbs.org

I think these desperate measures of name calling run across both divides, and not only in America but in any western democracies that are too deeply entrenched into tribal left/right identities. So we commonly see even centrist conservatives called Nazis, and now we see a centrist liberal president called a communist, or a Marxist. As the article says, it’s shorthand for saying he’s one of America’s traditional enemies.

Biden, and the democrats in general, would do well to steer clear of any forms of identity politics - which is, I think, the cultural Marxism that @Federberg was referring to, the reduction of individuals to their group identity in all areas of the culture, whether it be the boardroom or film set, or the idea that if you don’t vote a certain way “you ain’t black”, or the assumption that white peoples are racist simply by being white, or so many examples which are having a terrible effect everywhere, but which are an extension of the Marxist/communist idea which was to subsume the individual into a group identity based on class.

But Biden isn’t communist or Marxist economically, which is where those terms are more properly used…

 

[the AntiPusher]

That’s highly irregular for a judge to say something like that to a defendant. It’s as if she’s already found him guilty. I’d be surprised if she isn’t removed from the trial..

It wasn't the Judge that is going to be presiding over the trial which made those statements to Trump last week

 

[Horsa]

I'm very sorry to disturb everyone's conversation but I wondered if I could ask everyone a question.

 

[Kieran]

I'm very sorry to disturb everyone's conversation but I wondered if I could ask everyone a question.

Why not? Go for it!

 

[Horsa]

Why not? Go for it!

O.K. Thank you very much.

I've been challenged to write a poem for a contest on American politics & voting in America. Why people should vote etc. (The contest title is "Why should we vote with our feet?" & when I read all the rules & what was expected it went on to mention about American politics & voting though the title would fit other ways of voting with our feet which I could word-play my way around.) Should I write a poem but make it ambiguous so it would fit the topic but could be about something else as well & maybe multi-dimensional? Should I do my research & write a poem based on what I find (if so, where should I start) or should I not bother & explain I'm British & know nothing about American politics.?