444
Ex-Trump Aide Says Trump’s Use of ‘Riggers’ Isn’t a Racial ‘Dogwhistle – It’s a Bullhorn’
(www.mediaite.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
444 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4623 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh ... I'm not convinced.
We have an inexhaustible supply of real and unambiguous crimes and other offenses that we can pin on him.
I think it unnecessarily muddies the water to even bother with something this ambiguous.
The guy is on trial for RICO charges, and in all likelihood will see seeing a 5-year prison sentence for ORGANIZED CRIME in trying to overthrow a lawful election.
Let's just keep talking about that. And these fact that we have it on tape that he was asking the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" exactly the number of votes Trump needed to overturn the election he lost.
I don't have any faith that he'll see a jail cell. I wish I could be like you.
The RICO charge carries a mandatory 5 years that can't be pardoned and can't be paroled. And RICO is stunningly easy to get a conviction on. It was built to catch mob bosses who directed activity but didn't get their hands dirty.
Until the RICO charge, I didn't think he'd see prison either... but now... looks pretty good.
Unrealistic optimism aside, the chances of any of these cases getting to trial before the 2024 election are slim. Trump is a master of delay tactics, and even the prosecution seems willing to defer to him in ways that they wouldn't do for any other defendant. Add 19 co-defendants to the mix and the chances of trial before the election drop like a rock.
And prosecutors need to stop dog-piling the charges on. Not that he doesn't deserve it. But every new set of charges lends credibility to the argument he makes saying "I have so many legal cases on my plate that I cannot adequately contribute to my own defense, therefore we need to delay this trial." .
And he's 77 years old, living on a steady diet of big macs, and essentially already living on borrowed time. There's the very real possibility he could simply drop dead of natural causes long before he's ever in real danger of seeing the inside of a prison cell.
There's the very real possibility he could simply drop dead of natural causes long before he's ever in real danger of seeing the inside of a prison cell.
We can only hope. . . .
He certainly can contribute to his own defense. He is choosing to run for president (to try and avoid accountability for his crimes). If he seriously wanted to beat the charges, he could suspend his campaign.
He is a defendant, and a rich one at that. There are countless defendants in cases every day that have to choose between hiring sufficient counsel that can offer a good defense and paying rent or buying groceries for their children.
Trump is affluent enough (and has enough people willing to donate to pay his legal bills) to be able to focus on these charges and nothing else, but he tries to get sympathy for his own choices.
I have none to offer him.
Why would he suspend his campaign? It's his campaign that's paying his legal bills. If he suspended campaigning he'd have to pay for all that shit out of the $2 Billion Jared got from the Saudis.
He is being charged in four different jurisdictions and counting up and down the east coast, not counting his civil lawsuits. Yes, he absolutely should suspend his campaign. But he's not going to because even he knows it's the only way he's avoiding being found guilty. But even if he weren't a presidential candidate, asking one person to be able to competently contribute to their own defense in multiple jurisdictions in such a short time becomes more unreasonable with each case. You're absolutely correct if we're talking about one case or even two. But once you're talking about so many charges in so many jurisdictions in just one year, and the argument that he can't competently contribute to his own defense becomes more and more valid. And the last thing you want is an appeals court throwing a conviction out later based on that.
Of course, the simple way he could have avoided the issue is to not commit crimes in the first place, but here we are. And even Trump deserves to be able to competently contribute to his own defense.
Oh he absolutely has the resources to hire competent counsel (assuming he can find any willing to take him on). But those legal teams would have to worry about 1 case each. He still has to participate in four. You would be describing a situation of ineffective counsel. I'm talking about the sheer number of cases in such a short time impacting his ability to contribute to his own defense.
I don't think anybody does. But I want him to be able to contribute to his own defense competently when he's found guilty so the case doesn't get thrown out on appeal.