The lawyers pointed out that they partially complied with the order, by pulling the post from Truth Social and not mentioning it further. This is a mitigating factor that argues for good faith and against maximum sanctions. The hearing was this morning, and minor sanctions are still a possibility.
More generally, I think there is a tendency to project our desire to see Trump in jail onto this judge. That’s why people are disappointed by headlines like “Judge threatens Trump with jail”. The judge doesn’t want to put Trump in jail as much as we do. He would prefer a reason not to put Trump in jail, and he got one.
Trump’s lawyers did provide an explanation. They said they immediately deleted his Truth Social post, but did not realize a copy remained on his website.
Which is plausible, because there was no media coverage about that copy until yesterday. And once the media brought it to their attention, his lawyers immediately deleted that copy, too.
Is that enough to satisfy the judge? I think so, or at least enough to avoid jail. It would be a different matter if this were a new post instead of a copy of the old one, or if the lawyers took their time in deleting it.
Nonetheless, one of the truisms that Trump’s rise to power has taught us is: All you need is enough money and you get the gentle treatment. I am 100% certain that nothing which will befall him in any of these pending court cases is going to disprove this.
Meanwhile, people already struggling get ground into dust pretty much the moment they are required to interact with the justice system in any way.
Removed by mod
The headline is incorrect, but yours isn’t much better.
It should read “Judge asks Trump to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned or jailed”. Because this is what the judge actually said:
Removed by mod
The lawyers pointed out that they partially complied with the order, by pulling the post from Truth Social and not mentioning it further. This is a mitigating factor that argues for good faith and against maximum sanctions. The hearing was this morning, and minor sanctions are still a possibility.
More generally, I think there is a tendency to project our desire to see Trump in jail onto this judge. That’s why people are disappointed by headlines like “Judge threatens Trump with jail”. The judge doesn’t want to put Trump in jail as much as we do. He would prefer a reason not to put Trump in jail, and he got one.
Seems to be a recurring fucking problem.
A semantic difference. Trump will provide no rational explanation, and the judge won’t jail him anyway.
Trump’s lawyers did provide an explanation. They said they immediately deleted his Truth Social post, but did not realize a copy remained on his website.
Which is plausible, because there was no media coverage about that copy until yesterday. And once the media brought it to their attention, his lawyers immediately deleted that copy, too.
Is that enough to satisfy the judge? I think so, or at least enough to avoid jail. It would be a different matter if this were a new post instead of a copy of the old one, or if the lawyers took their time in deleting it.
I reluctantly accept your explanation.
Nonetheless, one of the truisms that Trump’s rise to power has taught us is: All you need is enough money and you get the gentle treatment. I am 100% certain that nothing which will befall him in any of these pending court cases is going to disprove this.
Meanwhile, people already struggling get ground into dust pretty much the moment they are required to interact with the justice system in any way.