this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
267 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3902 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
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Caused to be tweeted from... Ah, legalese...

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the wording would cover him having an intern do the actual tweeting so he can’t claim it wasn’t him actually typing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, that is the only reason I can think of for this curious wording. Amusing (if it weren't also so terrible).

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hope the verb "tweeted" dies soon. It sounds so childlike. "Posted" is a perfectly good word to describe publishing a message online.

And the service isn't even called Twitter anymore. I don't want to live in a future where news anchors start saying a celebrity "X'ed" in response to this or that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I kinda just hope we all decide one day that the past tense of "tweet" is "twat". Doubly so now that it would mean that legal documents about the most important political issue of my lifetime would now have to include the phrase "...DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be twat..."

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

If they're tweets now then they would be Xeets, pronounced shits.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I prefer x-creeting and reading x-creetions or x-creement.

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

His fingers should be sentenced to prison!

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

Legalese like this is really important in terms of being precise. Say Trump tweeted it, and they can prove he didn’t (he got an assistant to do it) and that evidence may get thrown out

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No rephrasing allowed, huh...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nope, no rephrasing. That’s literally what the double jeopardy rule is about. The government gets a monopoly on violence, and we expect them to use that monopoly only within certain limits. Without those limits you get authoritarian dictatorships and really scary stuff such as found in the Catholic/Protestant wars in England’s history.

An example of how rephrasing is not allowed:

A number of years back, there was some outrage over a case where a rapist got off “on a technicality” that was headlined in various places as “the judge ruled it wasn’t rape because the severely mentally disabled victim could have objected”. The real issue was that the prosecutor decided, as a strategy to get more jail time for the guy, that they would charge him under a law against raping an unconscious person, but the truth was that the victim was not unconscious. The government is only allowed one shot at trying you for a crime though. If the prosecutor applies the wrong law, they don’t get a do over. The guy absolutely was a disgusting rapist, but he didn’t rape an unconscious person in this instance, and so he gets off scot free.

It’s vitally important that a prosecutor applies exactly the right words, because they are only allowed one shot. If a not-guilty verdict comes back for any reason, including for technicalities, that’s it. Not guilty (for that crime) forever.

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

Interesting, thanks for elucidating! But what is double jeopardy?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Google is your friend.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

if you are found not guilty you can't be tried for that crime again.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump thought that being President, and by extension the head of the party, meant that he could run the party like one of his companies. He didn't realize that politicians wouldn't just do whatever he told them to. Particularly high-ranking State officials, who won their elections without Trump on the ballot and owe him nothing.

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

To be fair, at that point I was also surprised that Republican officials opposed him.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most of them are about the governor or the lt. governor. I don't know that he's going to get an assist from Kemp in this trial.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Considering Kemp refused to be party with the conspiracy, I'd tend to agree.