• Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “When a defendant honestly believes he can’t possibly get a fair trial from the judge, one of the tactics is to antagonize the judge to a point of causing reversible errors,” Dershowitz says. “That is what happened in the Chicago 7 case, and I was one of the lawyers on the appeal in that case. Abbie Hoffman provoked Judge Hoffman to such a degree that the judge made mistake after mistake. And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors.”

    What a dick. This does not sound like the legal process at work at all. Besides, innocent people would never do this.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The tactics have included attacks on Engoron’s court clerk, filibustering the prosecution’s witnesses with repetitive questions, and raising legal arguments the judge had already specifically prohibited.

      Responding to these provocations with contempt charges is correct and proper. Any appeal court judge is going to see that Trump was treated with kid gloves here.

      And it kinda doesn’t matter what political party the appeal judge is. They really don’t like people being disrespectful to them and ignoring their orders. It’s like the number one thing all judges hate. This strategy will probably not work.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about that last part so much. Current conservatives have shown that there is no level that they won’t sink to and no level of hypocrisy they won’t espouse.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most mistrials are retried from the beginning. I imagine it’s mostly the cases that involve misconduct on the judges behalf that get throw out, as that’s a strong argument for a 6th Amendment violation.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    1 year ago

    As the article mainly states, this isn’t just because Trump can’t help it but also as a strategy to make it easier to get a favorable appeal. Plus, it would stoke his favorite way to portray himself, as a victim, and fundraising:

    there have been recent conversations among some of Trump’s 2024 campaign brass of how much of an immediate fundraising boost they would enjoy, if a New York judge were to try to put Trump in a cell for even a minute. “All the cash in the world,” one Trump political adviser says.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      99
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the solution here would be for the judge to go after Trump’s lawyers. From the article they’re engaging in some of this behavior themselves, in addition to encouraging it in Trump. But, they want the optics of Trump getting imprisoned in order to play victim and try to help an appeal. Seems the judge could side step that and go after the lawyers instead, who have more to lose.

      • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        She should remand the entire Trump legal team to the jail for a day, and require Trump to stay at his home for that day as well.

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can the judge jail the lawyers for repeatedly violating his orders? They should know better than to antagonize the court.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. A judge can hold anyone in contempt of court, and they can fine or jail them for any length of time.

        • jballs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          But could you hold a lawyer in contempt of court for something their client tweeted? That doesn’t seem likely.

        • ferralcat@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seems like putting a lawyer in jail would just be a recipe for delaying a trial though. They can’t be expected to provide defense if they’re locked up. Or do they just require you to find new counsel?

          • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sure he has a whole team. If it was a small case, with really only one lawyer, then they would probably not jail them.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am far from an expert, but I don’t believe so. The court can fine them or maybe recommend them for censure and disbarment.

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to two sources familiar with the matter and another person briefed on Team Trump’s legal strategies, the former president and his lawyers are intentionally trying to provoke the judge into a nuclear-level overreaction.

    This? Is the plan?

    That’s like saying you’re going to kill a dragon by hopping into its mouth.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Normal people don’t have a few thousand people out there waiting for an excuse to shoot people.

        But they should jail Trump anyway. When you have such a dangerous following, it’s even more important that the law come down hard.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago
      According to two sources familiar with the matter and another person briefed on Team Trump’s legal strategies, the former president and his lawyers are intentionally trying to provoke the judge into a nuclear-level overreaction.
      

      I think Trump’s legal strategy is he knows he’s lost already. He’s going to be fined and run out of business. So is his only hope is if he and his lawyers are obnoxious dicks and provoke a reaction to force a mistrial or grounds for appeal. Also he can whine about “witch hunt” and the usual nonsense to his base if he’s found in contempt or held accountable for his actions. Expect this nonsense to happen in his criminal trials too.

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think Trump’s legal strategy is he knows he’s lost already.

        I’m pretty sure he has lost already and guilt has been legally decided. This is to determine the penalty. FTA:

        Engoron ruled in September that Trump’s financial statements contained fraud.

        This trial is to determine the depth of the fraud, and importantly, the consequence appropriate depending on the outcome. The whole strategy now is to delay and get to appeal probably with the number one goal being to get elected again and create a legal quagmire, or simply ride out the rest of his years until his milkshake-filled arteries realize he hasn’t ever had a heart and the only thing that’s been pumping this long is pure narcissism.

        This is, sadly, probably the least stupid thing he could do, because the more facts you learn about Trump, the more you’d think his fetish is just bending over and getting fucked by a strap-on wielding Lady Justice.

    • CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the judge loses it bad enough, they can claim “judicial bias” and have a pretty clear path to mistrial/appeal. Given the situation, it’s probably the best play they have.

      • ferralcat@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any normal defendent would be in jail though, probably before the trial even started, but definitely after calling a judge names while in court. I’m simultaneously shocked and not at all surprised he isn’t.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why would he have been in jail prior to trial?

          They don’t do pre-trial detention for fraud, and the only way for this trial to lead to jail time is a (deserved) contempt charge.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Step 1, I hop into the dragon’s mouth. Step 2, ???. Step 3, the dragon dies and I emerge victorious! There are no holes in this plan at all!”

    • Taco@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a lil extreme my guy

      Edit: what fuckin world do we live in, where someone says that a politician needs to be shot to death, and the controversial opinion is to not shoot someone? Am I crazy for thinking that killing trump wouldn’t solve anything? We shouldn’t give people a martyr. The best way to get rid of someone is by shaming them and forgetting them.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Furthermore, 18 U.S.C § 2381, states that a person guilty of treason against the United States “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

      • lateraltwo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        When he says that on a fringe social media platform it’s “lil extreme”

        When Trump says that 5 thugs need to be put to death, who were found Innocent, it’s just an opinion everyone is allowed to.

        • Taco@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uh no, that’s also an extreme opinion. Death is always an extreme opinion, because there’s no way to change your mind. Death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

          • 1847953620@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re gonna be a naïve idealist, at least be an effective one and pick arguments where you’re not splitting hairs over hyperbole on niche social media, much less hyperbole directed at a world-class factory of inflammatory hyperbole who has 0 chance of being executed by the government.

            • Taco@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I will not entertain the concept of normalizing extremist hyperbole, as normalizing extremes tends to make them normal.

                • Taco@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There is a difference between starting conflict, and defending yourself. Assassination is not a defense

                • Taco@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nah I think we should do that to you, considering you’re ok with stuff like that

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, if Hitler had been killed on Aug 29 1939, the Nazis might have done a lot better than they did. I don’t think his generals would have marched into Russia the way he did.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To respond to your edit:

        Death as a punishment for treason would do a lot to stem the tide of treasonous fucks that are currently holding high positions in our political system.

        The time for leniency is OVER. And making a martyr out of a huge sack of shit is just fine- let more of those fucks step out of line and see what happens.

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not so stupid that I’d think that doing next to nothing is the proper way to deal with traitors to our country.

                It’s even in built into our laws that death be a possible punishment.

                But noooooo, better he remain in jail where he can continue to rile up his army of dipshits and continue destroying this country.

                And yes, jailing him still entitles him to martyrdom. At least if the fat fuck were bleeding out in the dirt- he’d shut the fuck up for a change.

          • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If such was legal and in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, the military would stand ready to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and obey the orders of those appointed them. Our officers stand ready and willing to defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Domestic terrorists are terrorists, and there’s nothing we like better than to hunt terrorists and put warheads on foreheads.

            • Pottsunami@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, good luck getting a court to convict that. There are multiple lawsuits. None of them are considering anything with the death penalty, nor should it. There is no legal precedence for it.

              Convicting Trump of the death penalty is more likely to result in a 2nd civil war than it is to make people fall in line. We tried bombing the taliban into falling in line for 20 years. How’d that go?

              • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’ll March to the Sea again - and back, and forth, and back, and forth, as long as it takes. We did it once, we can do it again.

      • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it is more towards the fear of him becoming re-elected and death – while indeed extreme – would prevent such an outcome.

      • xenoclast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. It’s in line with all US laws to ask for the death penalty

        18 U.S.C § 2381, states that a person guilty of treason against the United States “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

        Considering the scope and impact of his crimes. It would be reasonable to ask for the maximum punishment.

        • Taco@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hm actually no. I’d prefer to not be a crazy person. Thanks for the offer tho. Enjoy your killing spree. I’ll watch it on the news later

      • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He may be a politician but he’s also a criminal and I think that would be the punishment for his crimes not for being a politician. Although hes a pretty awful politician too lol that’s not a crime.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Boy let me tell you something about our founding fathers… This man tried to destroy our democracy, he deserves to die. However, for the sake of our civilized society I would prefer to see him rot in jail until he dies in the most unglamorous way possible that way he can’t be made a martyr.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Throw all of them in with the normal prison population and any conservative that tries to “liberate” them.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    I will straight up double-dog-dare them. I bet they won’t, they don’t have the balls.

  • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same as every other time he has tried to stir shit with these trials. All they have to do is keep a level head and let the hammer drop. They’ve got him, the evidence is there, all they have to do is get the trials to go through with as few hiccups as possible. These judges need to keep a level head and they should be able to do so easily because, despite all the petulant whining and diversionary tactics, they’ve got him.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People said this many times before and he weaseled out of it. I will be optimistic if and I stress IF he ever faces consequences

  • cuibono@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Someone said that he could still become president even if he went to prison. Is that true? I don’t understand how that would even work.

    • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s some weird argument by his cult that it’s not in the constitution that a president can’t be in prison. It’s a lot of mental gymnastics, ignoring the fact that he traitorously stole classified nuclear documents from the US government, along with subverting democracy in the RICO case with the 18 co-conspirators.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re conflating two things here. There is absolutely nothing in the cotus that bars someone from becoming POTUS because they are in jail. Imo, there should not be, just like you should not lose your right to vote simply for being a felon.

        However, there is something in the cotus that bard someone from being an officer of the state if they’ve been part of an insurrection. This, imo, should bar him, but I’m curious to see how the court cases play out.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I’m missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don’t know how it would disqualifying some other way.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

                  Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

                  It would be giving aid to an enemy surely.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically speaking, yes. Trump could be sent to prison tomorrow and still be elected President. There isn’t any “the President can’t be currently incarcerated” requirement. (Likely because the founding fathers thought it was self evident that a criminal shouldn’t be elected President.)

      As for how it would work, nobody knows. It’s never happened. Would he get to go to the White House for 4 years and then have to return to prison to serve the rest of his sentence? (Assuming here that he couldn’t just pardon himself.) Would he need to conduct presidential business from the Square Cell instead of the Oval Office? Would a SCIF need to be set up in the prison so that Trump could review classified materials from his cell?

      We would be in totally uncharted territory if this happened.

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Never gonna happen. Judges aren’t going to do shit to this guy without a guilty jury verdict.

    Even then they’ll probably wimp out.