this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
859 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18883 readers
4424 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 90 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I hate to be that guy, but you can't appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Since when has something being legal or not ever stopped Trump from trying it?

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly in this context? Are you saying he will try to appeal on those grounds anyway? If that is what you are saying then it doesn't work like that because the appeals court will simply throw out the appeal for lack of standing I believe.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's exactly what I'm expecting would happen. Trump submits paperwork trying to appeal, it gets rejected for not being valid grounds to appeal, and he cries persecution in the media.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, well in that case then I guess I agree with you. Both because that is his M.O. and also because his legal team in this specific case is especially incompetent.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

I'd love to watch him cry about it in jail, but I'm not hopeful he'll actually end up there.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

“My trial was unfair!”

“On what grounds?”

“I made it unfair for myself!”

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Your honor, I object!

And why is that?

Because it's devastating to my case!

https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=Yb8ma4gk_Aezw_IR

[–] cedarmesa@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago

RBG was too ______ to retire as well.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This oversight was first reported over two weeks ago, yet he hasn’t mentioned it or taken action in any way. Wonder if that would have an effect on such an appeal.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it would because it is unlikely this case would have been granted a jury trial anyway due to New York law. There are specific requirements for requesting a civil jury trial in New York, and all the legal analysis I have seen has suggested they would not have met that bar.

Jury Trials are onerous on the public and the judicial system, but are fundamentally necessary as well as guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, for civil matters that is the exception rather than the rule.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

Interesting, I hadn’t heard the possibility that he may have been denied a jury until now. Maybe that’s why he’s been quiet about it (until now of course.)

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

Even if he did appeal, would that delay execution of the resulting court order?