this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
133 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19125 readers
2398 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
 

Yet while the process failed, it was not entirely pointless. It served at least three functions that partially, though only partially, redeem it.

The first and most visible of the three is that the cases created a record. The record is substantially bigger than the portion of it that is public. Eventually, more of it may become public. But even the record we have now across three of the four cases (the Georgia case did not advance far enough to produce much of a record) offers a great deal of clarity and precision about what Trump did, about how he did it, and about what prosecutors were prepared to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury—and in one case actually did so.

...

The second benefit is subtler, but it is one I witnessed with my own eyes. Whatever else Trump may have gotten away with, he did have a moment of accountability in New York. That moment lasted for six weeks this past spring, when Trump was forced to sit in a courtroom, day after day, as witness after witness came up and testified in his presence about his conduct before a judge to whose authority he was forced to submit. Trump then had to sit there while 12 nobodies deliberated about his conduct and judged him. And he had to sit there as they delivered that judgment on dozens of counts—against him.

I do not want to overstate the importance of this moment of accountability. I don’t believe for a second that the experience of watching that process and being judged changed him or will alter his future behavior. I merely want to suggest that it visibly disquieted him and that this process of being judged was unlike anything he had been through before. .

...

... that moment of his conduct being subject to human judgment that he cannot persuade, cajole, or terrorize has, I believe, real value.

So too does a third aspect of the criminal justice process with respect to Trump’s conduct: the impact on those who aided him. While it’s clear that the cases against Trump are going away, and likely that Trump will pardon many or all of the Jan. 6 defendants, those facing charges in state court for 2020 election misconduct are not quite so lucky. They cannot be pardoned by the president, and freezing the Georgia case against him doesn’t necessarily freeze it against others. There are other state cases in a variety of jurisdictions. It’s hard to be a lawless president without the assistance of others. And these cases remain important because they may deter others from helping Trump in future lawlessness. And that has real value too.

The trouble is that none of it has enough value.

In the end, the process failed. If the Trump trials stand for one thing, they stand for the proposition that John Adams was wrong when he wrote that inspiring nonsense about having “a government of laws, not men.” The moral of the story of the Trump trials is that the criminal justice system will not ultimately rein in the tyrant if the people don’t want it to.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20241112131519/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--were-the-trump-trials-pointless

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yep. Next question, please.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They did provide the illusion of hope and a little bit of justice for the naïve for a limited time.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

Just another case of running out the clock. That's about all America does on anything now.

[–] riskable 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What it proved is that the super rich have too much power. A power that shouldn't exist in a democratic society.

Right wing media has been given far too much leeway in spreading disinformation and misinformation. Every show, podcast, and news article that spreads easily disproven falsehoods should be prosecuted. Fuck "corrections". If an organization has to issue a correction that should be all they're allowed to say for at least a 24 hour period (basically, put them in timeout).

Basically, they need to be held to account for not doing due diligence on what they're reporting as fact. Unverified claims? It's simple: Don't publish that. Don't even bring it up as news at all until you feel safe defending your statements in a court of law.

We already have standards for defamation of individuals. What we need are standards of defamation of reality.

We can't rely on the civil court system to protect society from total bullshit. It's too expensive and there's so many ways to spout dangerous bullshit without defaming anyone.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Basically, they need to be held to account for not doing due diligence on what they’re reporting as fact.

Here's the problem with your theory: Who decides what's "Fact"? Because as of January 20, 2025, the answer to that question is going to be "Donald Trump."

Your suggestion would just lead to Trump making an official proclamation that the 2020 election was stolen, Biden is secretly the leader of a powerful crime family, and Hatian people eat dogs. Anyone who tries to say otherwise would be facing jail time.

Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If an organization has to issue a correction that should be all they’re allowed to say for at least a 24 hour period (basically, put them in timeout).

When I was a kid and I lived in a flawed but mostly functional democracy, I remember that sometimes even the biggest TV channels would air a black screen with a single sentence for hours of primetime:

"We have falsely claimed that [...]. The truth is that [...]. As per law [...], normal programming is on hiatus for 2 hours. Programming will resume at [...]."

This is how it should work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would you mind sharing the country?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Hungary. Yes, that Hungary. It isn't like it used to be, this was during the late 90s early 2000s.

Insert only 90s kids know meme.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago

That was clear pretty early on. The options are vigilante justice or no justice; the law is a joke.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

It was a dog and pony (bread and circuses) show for the masses. The oligarchy will never charge one of their own. While voters were consumed with Jan 6 and other shit their entire party made a hard swing to the right and no one noticed it cared. As long as their Boogeyman remains to the right of them they will continue moving to the right.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

A primary purpose of the injustice system is to violently enforce privilege by attacking the poor.

This is completely normal.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Let's wait out the next couple of months, but I am almost convinced that at this point a billionare can shoot 10 random people in the head in Time Square with 100 cameras pointed at him, and the victims families are the ones that are going to end up in jail.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Yup it absolutely served a purpose. It proved Trump is immune to any legal consequences.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Worse than nothing. His fans are already pointing out he's innocent because he's going to stop the trials or pardon himself. They don't care what the pardon entails...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Of course the criminal justice system is not just. Ask any poor person who's gone through the process and they'll tell you the same thing. Ask defense lawyers how often prosecutors, cops, and judges either lie or bend the law to work in their favor. This is old news.

What's more specific about this case is that the attorney general could have proceeded rapidly following January 6th and he didn't, and that's disgusting. Because it's not like nobody saw this coming.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

You should phone up Mueller and ask him.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

If their goal was further eroding people’s faith in institutions I’d say they worked pretty well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

~~City on the Hill Elegy~~

Elegy for The Shining City on A Hill