If Donald Trump cared about his impact on the people he attacks, he would have stopped after seeing the 275 pages of single-spaced threats just one staffer in the New York court received. Speaking to MSNBC about the matter on Sunday, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, who co-hosts the "Sisters …

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately the legal system from the Attorney General to the fbi to judge are scared of him.

      This is a person who a judge found to have committed insurrection but decided he should not face the loss of eligibility clearly specified in the constitution because “the president is not an officer of the United States”.

      If they’re willing to just make shit up like that, he’s already won.

      • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve read that was actually a good strategy. She ruled that he absolutely did so an insurrection. Then she said the law doesn’t apply because a weird easily reversible interpretation. So it’s going to get appealed and easily reversed in a higher court based on a review of the law’s inclusion of POTUS as an officer, not relitigating the insurrection part. She gets to skip the death threat phase for herself and alli oops this one for the higher court to slam dunk. I hope that’s the case.

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Frankly, that’s turd-polishing.

          This judge made a crazy decision in order to dodge her responsibility.

        • Raine_Wolf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the fear is that the higher courts also don’t want death threats, so everyone and their mother is gonna keep trying to pass this around. Which is what Trump wants to happen until he can try to get re-elected in 2024 and then pardon himself.

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It lists a shitload of non-military officers as being made ineligible by the same clause. I don’t see how that’s relevant.

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

      But until then, Trump should be the supreme example setter and get at least one life sentence out of all the shit he has done

    • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Comments from a podcaster.

      Her name is Joyce Vance and she was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        125
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And now she’s a podcaster. Her career is really blossoming.

        You’re also talking about a lawyer in Alabama commenting on legal proceedings in New York. She did not pass the bar in New York.

        Has she actually said anything meaningful here? Something no one else has put forward? I don’t think so, I don’t think there will be anything meaningful until the judge in New York actually makes the next ruling.

        • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And now she’s a podcaster. Her career is really blossoming.

          Just so we’re all on the same page, this is all their comment said before they got buried in downvotes and started editing multiple times to try and dig their way out while pretending to have been making reasonable point the whole time.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            80
            ·
            1 year ago

            while pretending to have been making reasonable point the whole time.

            What new update was she providing?

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            83
            ·
            1 year ago

            My comment hasn’t removed anything, I’ve added 2 more lines, in 2 successive edits. The first edit was made when I had 3 upvotes and 6 downvotes.

            My point still stands, and you’ve done nothing to challenge it.

        • tillary@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do ya have against podcasting? It’s educational, informative, it’s free speech. I learn so much from them.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            34
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t have much against podcasting as such, except for the fact that it’s primarily entertainment, not necessarily educational or informative. If your main goal when listening to them is to learn you would do well to fact check.

            My issue here is that this story is not news. It’s a fluff opinion piece, one that doesn’t say anything that hasn’t already been said a dozen times over.

            I want to know what’s happening in the trial. I don’t want to be bogged down with padded out opinion pieces. We’re awaiting the ruling from the judge, this article is just a distraction.

            • Johnny5@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Apparently other people want other things… like civil discourse and pertinent analysis. just move along already

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hang on, where have I not been civil? You’re ganging up on me and making out like I’m the bad guy, when others among you have been directly insulting towards me.

                My comment was valid, there are no new updates here, just needless commentary on what should be obvious. Commentary that a practising lawyer wouldn’t normally give, but a podcaster would.

                If you want me to move on, then don’t reply to me and pull me back into this thread.

                • dangblingus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your argument is that a podcaster shouldn’t be listened to. We all hear you, and disagree. Please move on.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            66
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. I believe the injunction will be reinstated - but that’s for the judge to call, not a retired prosecutor from another state.

            • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The key word in “federal prosecutor” is federal. Since you don’t seem to know what that word means, let me help remedy your staggering ignorance. It means they represent the US government. So what state she worked in is irrelevant. Does that help, or should I use pictures and memes?

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                24
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think I could be forgiven for assuming that a state prosecutor works at the state level, not the federal level. US legal structures are far from intuitive.

                If you have a separation between state law and federal law, one would imagine that there is a difference between state prosecutors and federal prosecutors. A district attorney for a state sounds like someone who works at the local state level, not the nationwide federal level. But yeah, apparently a state district attorney can prosecute federal charges, TIL.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            38
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lmao someone who I haven’t even spoken to feels the need to announce that they’re blocking me…

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s her current career. She isn’t actively practising law.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, but a practising lawyer wouldn’t comment on the case in the way she has. She’s behaving like a podcaster first, lawyer second.

                Frankly to me it comes across like she’s only doing it so people might look up her podcast. The comments in this thread have gone on so long I think I probably will, too.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s certainly a step down from being a District Attorney.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah I agree. And I don’t knock her for doing it (I’ve even queued up one of her podcasts), I imagine she’s made enough money that she’s just doing it for fun and a bit of side cash in her retirement. That’s no bad thing.

                I still feel like this article has no real substance. If anything, it’s more of an ad for her podcast than a meaningful analysis.