this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
473 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3949 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
 

The order also explicitly limits Trump’s ability to attack witnesses or his co-defendants, including on social media.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Isn't the full amount posted by somebody? And if you leave the bondsman can find you and take you to the cops?

Don vs Dog the bounty hunter would be a battle of the bad haircuts

[–] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dog the Bounty Hunter tackling Trump is such an absurdly perfect image. I'll expect to see a New York Times article about it in a month.

[–] paper_clip@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Given that we're in the dumbest time line, this is actually a plausible scenario.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Just follow the cheeseburger shortages

[–] Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah I’d be curious to see what happens if he skips, because he has Secret Service protection for the rest of his life.

The Secret Service has an obligation to protect him, but they’re also federal officers. Would they protect him from the bounty hunters? Would they rat him out? Would they act as the bounty hunters and drag him back to the courthouse against his will?

It also raises questions about a potential conviction. If he gets convicted, will the Secret Service simply post extra guards specifically for his (isolated) prison cell? They’d probably want to try and outsource it to the prison directly, but then you run into the issue of having a person who still has Top Secret clearance and has proven to be irresponsible with it being guarded by people who don’t have that clearance. The Secret Service would probably need to clear several of their members and post them there as guards, simply to prevent Don from blabbing national secrets to anyone who will listen. Basically, limit his contact to only people who also have clearance.

Regardless, I’d pay good money to get a livestream of the bounty hunters taking Don down.

[–] nathanjell@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't get why the secret service would do anything to stop it. They aren't loyal to a person, I thought, they're federal officers charged to protect an individual. Protect from... who, the government? No, from harm. Is it their job to turn him in? Maybe not, quite frankly I don't know, but I don't see how they'd turn against other police forces - they aren't his personal militia.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

I doubt they'd up and go to war for him, but if some of the SS were part of his cult, I could see them doing ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING they could to keep him free.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Talking our of my butt, but it would be worth it to either put him is ADX, or build a new prison just for him.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Reopen Alcatraz and put him in there.

I'm sure the irony of having him in prison in California would be lost on no one except him.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, it's usually 10% if you go to a bail bondsman. And yes, you still owe them if you skip out, and they can hunt you down.

I don't think the secret service would let that happen though.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You mean the same secret service that deleted subpeonaed evidence to protect themselves and trump?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

That's "subpoenaed."

It looks just as ridiculous, maybe more.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I think Biden did some housecleaning in the secret service staff.

[–] thessnake03@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why wouldn't the secret service let a bail bondsman carry out the active attest warrant that's sure to follow if he skips.

Why would Trump even need a bail bondsman? He can surely afford to pay his own bail and get it all back, rather than taking the 10% bond as a loss.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

I was about to agree, but

  1. Trump never pays for anything up front.

  2. Trump never pays anyone who does a service for him.

  3. Logic and reason do not apply to his behavior.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean they wouldn't let him skip bail. If he somehow did, they'd probably help get him back.

But we have no idea how much cash he actually has on hand.

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 4 points 1 year ago

I would imagine they would. Their duty is to keep him safe, not help him carry out illegal activities. I think they could make the moral choice to take him in as long as they could be sure he would be safe being arrested. And if they can’t be I would imagine they would be pulling the strings to make it safe while keeping tabs and not staying hidden.

[–] Edgarallenpwn@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

I have a feeling Dog wouldn't take him in and they would just hang out at the back of Da Kine