politics
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
view the rest of the comments
That is a gross simplification of what happened. Title X of the 1968 Civil Rights Act was found to be a violation of the First Amendment's protection to free speech. Given that the Government's main backing for bring about the charges on the Chicago 7 was no longer valid, the Government sought to not retry the charges that were remanded by the appeals court. The Court did not toss out some of the criminal charges, just simply indicated the Government needed to redo the trail and the Government declined because their core argument was gone. I cannot see the State of New York's core argument that Trump took money not his, suddenly evaporating any time soon. But deadly virus in 2019 was not on my Bingo card so, who knows at this point?!
Additionally, the parts that were tossed out or remanded were of criminal nature for the Chicago 7. Trump in this case faces civil penalties, there's hardly the incentive to undo a wrong that's just moving money around as to freeing someone who has been wrongly jailed. And finally, Trump's case has the State of New York seeking equitable remedy, not legal remedy.
There are so many facets of Trump's case that are so wildly different than the Chicago 7. That's not to say that there's no parallel, obviously a Judge must behave and prudently deal with mischief within their courtroom. So there is a concern about the gag order that the Judge has issued, but at the same time there's been a deluge of threats sent into the office of the Judge. What those threats entail, who knows, but the Judge has shown a massive amount of restraint because if this was literally ANYONE else, that person's ass would be in jail for contempt at light speed. So the threats might be shown to be serious enough to justify the Judge's near exasperated sentiment with Trump.
So Alan Dershowitz does have a point and Dershowitz is not some idiot lawyer, so him saying this indicates that someone has a very good idea of the path that they would navigate. Would Alan Dershowitz step in if Trump got hauled off for contempt and blaze the path forward? (Because Alan Dershowitz is not currently Trump's lawyer, he was his lawyer during the first impeachment trail. Which interestingly, Alan Dershowitz was repaid for his time as Trump's impeachment lawyer by the then President pardoning ten of Alan Dershowitz's previous clients. One of them being George Nader who plead guilty to child pornography. So it's actually a good question if Dershowitz would get involved since Trump no longer has the power to pardon anymore of Dershowitz's clients.)
That's not to say that Chris Kise cannot hold his own. Chris Kise being Trump's lead lawyer on the New York case. Chris Kise is not an idiot either, he's not exactly the best lawyer but his experience as Florida's solicitor general has given him some experience at having a cool composure in pretty stressful situations in a courtroom. And he's not exactly one to seek out limelight for sake of being popular. So I wouldn't put it pass Chris Kise to have some idea about how to do this strategy that Dershowitz is indicating. But that said, them being open about trying their hand at this does also hurt their case. Additionally, Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven case compared to Judge Engoron who presides over this case, the difference to how they've handled the respective cases thus far is pretty stark. Judge Engoron has gotten upset but it has been way less of the "YOU DAMN YUPPIES!!" that Judge Hoffman exuded.
So, if this is indeed the plan by Chris Kise, Kise is smart enough to likely pull it off. But that said, the details of their example case and this case are so vastly different, it's really hard to see the parallel and indicate that they could absolutely pull this off.
Isn't Kise the lawyer in Colorado? IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, he leans very far into the shitty layer category. He said "they're far right or conservative" and didn't correct himself. He says, "Uuuuuuuuuum, let me ask you this,..." so many times I want to punch him. He keeps trying for a gotcha moment when he's cross examining for a judge trial. This judge is smart as a whip and catches everything too, I doubt that would work. I could be wrong though, maybe I don't understand how it works since I'm not a lawyer. If I was on a jury, I haven't seen any great evidence because the petitioners tear his witnesses apart.
Edit for an example and the one that cracks me up the most: The petitioners lawyer asked the defense witness if he really thought that the crowd was filled with happy and joyful people just enjoying the speeches and he said yes. "In the picture you provided, is that guy holding a pitchfork?" The witness said yes and the layer asked if that is a happy and joyful weapon.
Plus, wasn't the Chicago Seven case famous for literally jailing everyone for contempt, including all the lawyers and all of the defendants, multiple times each, some before the trial even started or after it ended?