this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
485 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3042 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
 

DONALD TRUMP SAID he “absolutely” plans to testify in the federal government’s case against him regarding classified documents he removed from the White House. “I’m allowed to do whatever I want … I’m allowed to do everything I did,” the former president told conservative podcast host Hugh Hewitt.

In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that dropped Wednesday, the host asked Trump, “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President? Did you tell anyone to move the boxes?” referring to the boxes of more than 300 classified documents the federal government seized last year from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 110 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Will be super interesting to see him try that under oath...

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"OBJECTION YOUR HONOR. My client is a moron and just incriminated himself."

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Your honor, I object!"

"And why is that?"

"Because it's devastating to my case!"

https://youtu.be/Dx32b5igLwA

[–] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

"Overruled."

"Good call."

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Dx32b5igLwA

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

His lawyers actually said that while he was president. They said he was incapable of being deposed without perjuring himself. Eventually they sent 10 questions written out and he had his lawyers with him to help respond.

[–] Tar_alcaran@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They said he was incapable of being deposed without perjuring himself.

"Perjury trap" is a fake term that tries to place the blame for "My client is a compulsive liar and literally can't tell the truth to save his life" on the other party. And whoever came up with the term deserves both a raise for being amazing at their job, and a knee to the groin for being a shit human being.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

And whoever came up with the term deserves both a raise for being amazing at their job, and a knee to the groin for being a shit human being.

So, a lawyer.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago

Probably went to the same school as the lawyer that came up with "afluenza"

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I cannot imagine the guy speaking a single word in court.

[–] catfish@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can def see a man-child reaction exactly like this dumb statement -kinda like what he did on the debates with Hillary and Biden, interrupting and interjecting his sad alternate reality- as the cases pick up steam and hes forced to fly between Fla, DC, Ga and wherever his current cult rally/grievance is that day, oh boy, is it gonna be fun or what?

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thing is, neither a man-child reaction, nor making deranged statements, helps you in court. So, I'm imagining his lawyers will instruct him to please shut the hell up.

[–] catfish@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah cause the trumpet is well known for heading his lawyers advice

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Eh, I also just imagine, he's not particularly excited for speaking there. The judge won't let him blathe on like an imbecil, but rather demand proof for his statements. And the only way, he can avoid subjecting himself to that power dynamic, is to not speak to the judge.

But yeah, we'll have to see...

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I could see him yelling and screaming as they take him away.

https://youtu.be/sA0glbG6c-8#t=48s

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, after the verdict, I can imagine him inciting another coup and whatnot.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/sA0glbG6c-8

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I can.

And it almost is a replacement for PornHub.

[–] holiday@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems like he is showing what his defense will be. It won't be whether he moved documents or shared confidential information or whatever. It will be them challenging the scope of power of the presidency.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The defense comes down to the Afluenza Defense. Note, to my knowledge that never really worked before.

He keeps repeating he thinks he's allowed to do all these things and even when found in court he isn't allowed to do those things, they'll try to say he didn't know.

Thing is, he's playing dumb now, while he's repeatedly shown he knows full well what's right and what's wrong, his statements like how he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would do anything about it, or the grab em by the pussy line.

He made statements showing he knows perfectly fine these are things one shouldn't do, but he does them anyway as he was never held responsible and could get away with it.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except in the cases of Brock Turner, the convicted rapist and Ethan Couch, the teen who killed 4 people driving drunk and only served 2 years in prison.

And then there’s all the deferred sentence stuff that practically every white collar criminal gets to stay rich and out of prison.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you trying to say here? You clearly show they all got convicted.

It was just the sentencing they got treated lightly on.

And it's a given Trump won't see the inside of a jailcell.

But a conviction on any level will disqualify him politics, for a while.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m highlight that it’s lack of (the same) consequences for action as the rest of us would receive.

The only thing that will disqualify him will be individual states or congress. And unless the GQP is kicked out of power, I’m worried that a conviction isn’t going to do shit without real punishment.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 13 points 1 year ago

Not really the scope of power so much as destroying Trump's delusional interpretation of the Presidential Record's Act.

If he honestly tries that in court he's going to get "Um, actually" lawyer-splained so fast BARRON'S kid's heads will spin.

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It would make for a much shorter trial, at least. Basically just a guilty plea with extra steps.