384
Mar-a-Lago Judge: Jury Sees Top Secret Files or Trump Wins
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
384 points (97.5% liked)
politics
31238 readers
2204 users here now
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Trump's lawyers got the prosecutor on another case fired for going on a date and we keep putting up with this woman????
Different rules depending on whos intereste you signal you're going to serve.
While I agree with the sentiment... if you are referring to Nathan Wade, my understanding is that it was way more than "going on a date".
More like fucking your boss (the DA, who assigned you this case) on the reg (behind your wife's back), going on trips with your boss and being reimbursed by her for her expenses in cash, and perjuring yourself at your divorce hearing where you lied about when you started fucking your boss on the reg. There's more that I'm sure I don't remember. Lots of drama.
Admittedly not super relevant to the trump case but still enough of a shit show that looks bad and shouldn't be happening. If he didn't resign, I believe the entire office would have been kicked off the case since it's under the DA/boss he'd been fucking. Now some other lawyer needs to take it over.
This is totally fair and I am grateful that you added a lot more context to my admittedly emotional and hyperbolic reactionary comment, while understanding the sentiment that this judge is doing unethical things that are directly affecting the case in favor to one side; in comparison to what amounts to a bad look (since there was no evidence that it was affecting the outcome of the case)