this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
77 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2990 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
77
Judge in Trump's hush money case raises questions about social media post claiming to preview jury verdict (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 5 months ago by Riccosuave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (4 children)

“Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote in a letter dated Friday.

“My cousin is a juror and said Trump is getting convicted,” the post stated, according to Merchan's letter. “Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”

Merchan said that the comment, which was attributed to a user identified as Michael Anderson, was "now labeled as one week old," and was posted in response to a routine notice from the court posted on May 29 about oral arguments unrelated to proceedings in Trump’s case.

for anyone wondering what the comment was. elsewhere, I've read that the account is a common troll of the NY court system, so, probably not even an accurate statement- quite probably a nothing-hamberder.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Good to know, but made my asshole pucker a little bit when I first read that because you know he is going to scream bloody murder about this being total proof of impropriety by the jury, which puts them in additional danger among other things...

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

He's known to post misinformation knowing it'll rile up his rubes. Even if it gets proven as nothing of consequence, his base is already eating it up as politcal persecution.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 9 points 5 months ago

Whoever posted that is going to learn what the inside of their butthole looks like.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Self described "professional shit poster."

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm with Nougat. He's about to become very familiar with other people's shit. One might even say intimately familiar.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I hope so, but I'm not sure what he did is expressly illegal. Can anyone say which law he broke if it was indeed a shit post?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure on the specifics, but if it could be proven that he interfered in the proceedings of a criminal trial? yeah. there's a charge there.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

So, best case scenario... Post was made by a troll unrelated to any of the jurors and this whole thing can be safely ignored.

Worst case? A juror leaked verdict information to their cousin, who blabbed, verdict gets set aside for jury malfeasance and this whole thing starts all over again...

I really hope it's a troll and they get prosecuted for attempted interference.

[–] LimpRimble@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

When a defendant who has been convicted by a jury but has not yet been sentenced learns of alleged jury misconduct, he can move to set aside the verdict under New York criminal procedure law. If a defendant can prove that jury misconduct “may have affected a substantial right of the defendant,” the remedy is a new trial.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 13 points 5 months ago

Well at least they'll have to prove the claim before requesting a new trial.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The New York judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money trial has asked attorneys in the case about a social media post purporting to preview the former president's guilty verdict.

“Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote in a letter dated Friday.

Merchan said that the comment, which was attributed to a user identified as Michael Anderson, was "now labeled as one week old," and was posted in response to a routine notice from the court posted on May 29 about oral arguments unrelated to proceedings in Trump’s case.

NBC News has not verified the claims made in the comment or the identity of the user who published the post, which has since been deleted.

Trump was convicted last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to reimbursing Cohen for hush money paid to Daniels in the final days of the 2016 campaign.

Trump had pleaded not guilty in the case and denied Daniels’ claims that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006.

The original article contains 324 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!