this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
266 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4211 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 71 points 9 months ago (6 children)

It was not clear why Mr. Tacopina decided to withdraw, and he declined to comment.

Hahahaha! AhhhhhhhhHahahahahahaha! Does anyone think it’s NOT because Trump’s check bounced and he refused to pay what they agreed?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago

More likely he realized that Donnie is likely to do something that will get him disbarred.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

I think it's because Joe thinks sanctions or worse are an imminent possibility, and he doesn't want to throw away his career (any more than he has) on Trump's bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Probably because trump went off on a rant during closing arguments after his lawyers and the judge toldbhin not to.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Yeah having a client who can't keep his fucking mouth shut in the courtroom, and has their fan-club threaten members of the judicial, etc isn't a great thing

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

It could also be because he has basic pattern recognition and saw how many of Trumps former lawyers are being convicted of serious crimes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

It could be that he finally found a lawyer who wouldn't break the law for him?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Based on the actual article it sounds like they disagreed in whether Trump should make the closing arguments.