172
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 80 points 6 months ago
[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's amazing how sketching a goatee and putting glasses on her puts her halfway between Lebowski and Candie.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

She looks like a cousin of Kim Jong Un in a bad disguise

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

I was thinking Depp

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 71 points 6 months ago

"I'm supposed to be in New Hampshire. I'm supposed to be in Georgia. I'm supposed to be in North Carolina. South Carolina," the presumptive Republican nominee for president said in the hallway outside the courtroom. "I'm supposed to be a lot of different places, campaigning. But I've been here all day on a trial that really is a very unfair trial."

Shut the fuck up, rapist traitor.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 6 months ago

Shit thing is that I'll be surprised as hell if there isn't at least one person on that jury that will refuse to vote guilty, no matter how damning the evidence is.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I fully believe that at least one, and probably several, of those jurrors are faking their impartiality. I wouldn't, but only because I have a digital fingerprint hating on Trump that's about 9 years old now (even I lived in NYC which hell fuck no I don't.)

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago

You know some right winger heavy nut job got on there because they don't believe in social media and just had no online sputum to be found.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

I’m supposed to be in Georgia.

No, he fucking isn't! As a Georgian, I say he is not welcome here except to be convicted and imprisoned on the election interference case.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

He's supposed to be in jail.

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

...and it freezing in there!!

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

On the bright side, it’s helping him less and less. Everyone knows what to expect, and this judge doesn’t seem to be very tolerant of his bullshit.

Before court ended for the day, Trump's attorney Todd Blanche asked if the defense could find out the names of the first three witnesses prosecutors plan to call to the stand. Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, replied that doing so is a courtesy they normally extend, but refused in this case.

"Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses. We're not telling them who the witnesses are," Steinglass said.

Merchan said he "can't blame them." Blanche seemed mystified, and asked if the defense is not going to find out who the witnesses are until they walk in the door. He offered to "commit to the court and the [prosecution] that President Trump will not [post] about any witness" on Truth Social, Trump's social media platform.

"I don't think you can make that representation," Merchan said.

Blanche offered another solution: giving the witness names only to the lawyers, who wouldn't share them with Trump.

"I'm not going to order them to do it, no," said Merchan. "I'll see you tomorrow morning."

I love this judge.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

~~FRY HIM!!!!!~~

I mean, FLY HIM!!!!!! to Russia

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

No. To Guantanamo!

[-] felbane@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Both of the excused jurors were replaced later in the afternoon as a new cohort of 96 Manhattan residents filled the courtroom. Half of the new group — 48 — said they could not be impartial and were immediately excused.

Thank you for clarifying that half of 96 is 48, CBS News. I'd never have figured that incredibly important detail myself.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

This is America, we don't do math.

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

I can’t read, what are they saying?

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Buy stock in MyPillows

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Twelve New Yorkers have been selected to serve as jurors in former President Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, filling out the panel on the third day of proceedings.

Before court ended for the day, Trump's attorney Todd Blanche asked if the defense could find out the names of the first three witnesses prosecutors plan to call to the stand.

Two jurors who had been selected earlier in the week were excused, including one woman who expressed concerns about being identified publicly and her ability to remain impartial.

Those who remained underwent a 42-question assessment to glean their feelings about Trump and their ability to fairly decide the outcome of the first criminal trial of a former president in U.S. history.

He denies all allegations in the case, which revolves around reimbursements to former attorney Michael Cohen for a "hush money" payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Prosecutors say Trump covered up the reimbursements in order to distance himself from the payment, which days before the 2016 presidential election temporarily bought Daniels' silence about an alleged affair.


The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Already? Wow! Good job kicking out the possible corruption guy, too!

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People were predicting that jury selection would go into next week. I’m glad it’s completed (except for the alternates).

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 6 months ago

No one's confused by that obvious part!

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Man, you start sounding good, but then throw in something that makes it confusing.

What do you mean by "possible corruption guy"?

And what do you mean by "except for the alternates"?

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 10 points 6 months ago

Sorry to be unclear. I was at work and typing quickly. The man I called the “possible corruption guy” was mentioned in the story:

Prosecutors also raised concerns about Juror #4, saying they discovered information about someone sharing the person's name who was arrested and potentially involved in a corruption investigation in the 1990s. The man arrived late to court and was briefly questioned by attorneys in front of the judge, out of earshot from the court's microphones. Merchan ultimately decided to dismiss the man.

And by “except for the alternates” I was referring to this bit:

The selection process will continue Friday, since six alternate jurors are needed before the trial can move to opening arguments. One alternate had been selected as of Thursday afternoon.

Anyway, thank you for asking. If you were confused, I expect others were, too.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Thank you. No, I apologize. Obviously I need to RTFA.

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
172 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19087 readers
4122 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.
  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