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
He probably would have won the trial if he his defense had just said: "Yes a crime was committed, but it wasn't Trump. He just signs the checks. Sure he fucked the porn-star, but thats not a crime."
That's literally what they said. They were trying to convince the jury that Cohen did the whole thing all on his own. It didn't work.
I followed everyday of the trial. Denying literally everything was central to the defenses strategy.
Here is a good NYT breakdown of it, but also, like everyday it was the same thing in the trial.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240531020231/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/opinion/trump-trial-defense.html
and the key quote:
I mean they denied the affair with Stormy Daniels. They denied several, easily provable things. If they would have just 'admitted' a few of those things, but strongly denied any Trump knowledge of wrongdoing, they probably could have won: It was a criminal who objectively hates Trump that was needed to make that connection.
Instead the defense denied everything. Even the provable stuff. After that it was just personal attacks. I mean look how the defense took on cross with Cohen. They made it about them. It was a disastrous approach.
...no it wasn't?
They tried to deny almost all of what happened.
For those passing by, keep in mind that @TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world is someone who thinks Democrats are fascists.
Yes, Nougat is correct, thank you for pointing this out. Its not relevant to this conversation, but I take it as a point of pride.
I oppose fascism if its coming from Republicans, and I also oppose it if its coming from Democrats too.
If you do not oppose fascist policies because its a Democrat proposing or supporting it, you do not stand against fascism.
If you don't know about the relationship between the curtailment of free speech and fascism, you should take the time to educate yourself.
Saying that US citizens are no longer allowed to criticize an ethno-state that is engaged in the active genocide of a people, funded by US taxpayer, is absolutely a component of setting up a fascist authoritarian state. Criminalizing dissent is one of first steps towards fascism & authoritarianism that happens when people fail to recognize of holding their own political agents to account. Likewise, we have an extremely authoritarian border bill, that it looks like Biden will sign.
If you only oppose fascism and authoritarianism when it comes from Republicans, you are not an anti-fascist. If you only oppose racist policies when they come from Republicans, you aren't an anti-racist.
Brave of you to rebuke with your personal justifications for your opinions.
People here are deliberately trying their hardest to build their own echo chambers and do not appreciate hearing opposing views such as yours.
Nor do many care to read your thoughts, and would rather read shit that makes them feel things as if everything and everyone needs to fall into a fucking category.
Beware the fascists in lemmy.
Once into context, Nougat isn't make the point they think they are.
To be perfectly clear, you are a person who is disconnected from reality.
I mean, if you can't oppose fascist policies because they came from within the party you support, that says much more about you than it does me.
The irony is so thick with this one.
The consequences of not paying your lawyers, you only get shitty lawyers in the end
Yeah, from what I've seen of other trial lawyer defense & prosecutorial analysis, Trumps lawyer was just not good/ rusty.
I also think the defense strategy was just not good.
You can't deny 'everything' in a case like this, you have to be really strategic about intent etc. Like if Trump had allowed themseves to be thrown under an bus and made some kind of argument like "Look I was campaigning, I had no idea what was going on, the books are ALL BS, I dont pay that much attention, and then I was president and I couldn't pay attention".
But I really think Trump couldnt' suffer that slight against his pride..
Read an article by a lawyer; they said the same thing you did.
The writer said that the side with the simpler case is the one that usually wins. The defense never created a story to explain what happened; they just denied everything.
From what was said on Meidas Touch, a defense lawyer should be fairly independent. They should direct the best strategy. In this case the "strategy" seemed to be directed by Trump. It's not just the quality of the lawyer, it's also that the lawyer let the client dictate most of the defense.