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 …
He needs to be jailed for many things. But especially Stochastic Terrorism.
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.
As if THE PRESIDENT is NOT the HIGHEST officer the United States has.
Commander in Chief.
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.
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.
Just call it terrorism. “Stochastic” has too many syllables.
Someone is going to do things like Trump does and suffer real consequences for them one day. Not Trump, but someone.
Comments from a podcaster. No new updates.
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.
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.
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.
while pretending to have been making reasonable point the whole time.
What new update was she providing?
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.
Trump is a disgrace I hope he goes to jail.
Agreed. I believe the injunction will be reinstated - but that’s for the judge to call, not a retired prosecutor from another state.
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?
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.
What do ya have against podcasting? It’s educational, informative, it’s free speech. I learn so much from them.
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.
Apparently other people want other things… like civil discourse and pertinent analysis. just move along already
Aww, TWeaK the twat has earned a block. 🖕🏽🤣
Lmao someone who I haven’t even spoken to feels the need to announce that they’re blocking me…
What relevance does her being a podcaster have to anything?
That’s her current career. She isn’t actively practising law.
Okay? And? Do you have to be actively practicing law in order to understand it?
