this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
291 points (98.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7237 readers
560 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Read the full decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Federal courts just move slowly.

The J-6th rioters got court hearings and sentences before Trump was even brought up on charges. That's telling.

Now it's too late and he's the frontrunner. By taking so long they might destabilize the country.

[–] Jordan_U@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The prosecuted J-6th rioters actually entered the capital building, committed crimes with their own hands on camera, or spent months prior to the insurrection explicitly (in writing) organizing people to do things like kidnap Nancy Peloci and kill Mike Pence.

Those are easier cases to make, and those defendants filling court records with defenses of "I was just following the orders of my president" help build a case against Trump himself.

The "Imminent lawless action" standard in first amendment jurisprudence is a harder one to meet than most people realize. There's reasonable precedent to say that enough time passes between Trump inciting his croud to insurrection and them actually doing it that it doesn't meet the "imminent" standard. It's not in any way an easy case to make and win.

There are many federal and state cases against Trump right now, and to say that they've been intentionally slow-walked to cooencide with the election is to ignore the years of litigation that have already happened in most of them.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Not at all. Trump’s case is much more difficult and he has used far more delay tactics. It’s a bit similar to preparing a case for a mob boss vs for a foot soldier.