• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump has the makings of a great meme template.

    Batshit crazy demand #1 - “or we’re not going to have a country anymore!”

    Batshit crazy demand #2 - “or we’re not going to have a country anymore!”

    Batshit crazy demand #3 - “or we’re not going to have a country anymore!”

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      "I’d like a large mushroom pizza and a bottle of coca cola, please, " - “or we’re not going to have a country anymore!”

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        gimme a uh… double bacon cheeseburger… gimme a pie (apple)… gimme a uh… liter of cola… OR WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE!

        The memetic cross-pollination potential here is real.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s not how appeals courts work. EDIT: Except in New York State. Please refer to this comment for more details.

    Appeals courts only address matters of law, not matters of fact. There would need to have been a legal error in the process of the first trial so large that it would have impacted the jury’s decision. In the best case for Trump, the appeals court would find that, and then send the case back to be retried (though depending on the error identified, the prosecution can choose whether to retry the case or not).

    Appeals courts don’t just say “No, we decided you’re innocent! OVERTURNED!” and we know this because of Trumps previous appeal attempts on other shit.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, appeals courts deal with matters of the interpretation of the law and the legal process. Ineffective advice of counsel: "My lawyer made such a heinous error that the fairness of the trial was ruined because of it. “The judge’s instructions to the jury were so glaringly wrong that they had an impact on the verdict.”

        Appeals courts avoid questions of fact as much as possible, only ruling in favor of the appellant if the facts (testimony, evidence) presented at trial can be proved to have been false, and that the falsehood would have had an impact on the verdict.

        Lastly, criminal appeals are rarely successful. If you’re an appellant who gets a ruling in your favor, that does not change your verdict from guilty to not guilty. What it does is void the previous trial, and everybody starts all over again from the very beginning. New discovery, new trial prep, new pre-trial motions, new jury selection, new courtroom trial. Just like what happened the first time, so long as the prosecutor determines that the case is still ripe.`

        That trial, that jury may find you not guilty based on what happens in that courtroom. The appeals court does not do that.

        • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          What I’m hearing you say is that traditionally, appeals courts do not typically deal with matters of fact. One thing Trump has exposed is the flaw of relying on tradition and any type of honor. Wouldn’t surprise me to hear it gets appealed to a court that owes him a favor who says to hell with tradition. Although IANAL and have no idea what I’m saying.