• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The headline is incorrect, but yours isn’t much better.

    It should read “Judge asks Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned or jailed”. Because this is what the judge actually said:

    I will now allow the defendant to explain why this should not end up with serious sanctions or I could possibly imprison him

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And he was given that opportunity. The lawyers claimed the usual “it was an accident and I pinky swear it won’t happen again until next time” excuse. There’s no indication the judge imposed sanctions. He didn’t imprison Trump. He didn’t reschedule another hearing over the matter. He did nothing.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The lawyers pointed out that they partially complied with the order, by pulling the post from Truth Social and not mentioning it further. This is a mitigating factor that argues for good faith and against maximum sanctions. The hearing was this morning, and minor sanctions are still a possibility.

        More generally, I think there is a tendency to project our desire to see Trump in jail onto this judge. That’s why people are disappointed by headlines like “Judge threatens Trump with jail”. The judge doesn’t want to put Trump in jail as much as we do. He would prefer a reason not to put Trump in jail, and he got one.

        • The judge doesn’t want to put Trump in jail as much as we do. He would prefer a reason not to put Trump in jail, and he got one.

          Seems to be a recurring fucking problem.

        • DrPop@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          He has to consider the safety of his staff in his decision making which I think people forget. If putting him in jail could be avoided that would be best for the parties involved. It’s not fair it just but the lives of their staff are taking priority.

          • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            By this logic we are essentially saying that you are above the law so long as you can get enough people willing to commit violence on your behalf.

            • DrPop@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean yeah, but based on his behavior during this trial this is what I’m assuming he’s bashing his actions on.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Trump’s lawyers did provide an explanation. They said they immediately deleted his Truth Social post, but did not realize a copy remained on his website.

        Which is plausible, because there was no media coverage about that copy until yesterday. And once the media brought it to their attention, his lawyers immediately deleted that copy, too.

        Is that enough to satisfy the judge? I think so, or at least enough to avoid jail. It would be a different matter if this were a new post instead of a copy of the old one, or if the lawyers took their time in deleting it.

        • I reluctantly accept your explanation.

          Nonetheless, one of the truisms that Trump’s rise to power has taught us is: All you need is enough money and you get the gentle treatment. I am 100% certain that nothing which will befall him in any of these pending court cases is going to disprove this.

          Meanwhile, people already struggling get ground into dust pretty much the moment they are required to interact with the justice system in any way.