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 …

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    109
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        while pretending to have been making reasonable point the whole time.

        What new update was she providing?

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        70
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • tillary@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do ya have against podcasting? It’s educational, informative, it’s free speech. I learn so much from them.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Johnny5@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Apparently other people want other things… like civil discourse and pertinent analysis. just move along already

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hang on, where have I not been civil? You’re ganging up on me and making out like I’m the bad guy, when others among you have been directly insulting towards me.

            My comment was valid, there are no new updates here, just needless commentary on what should be obvious. Commentary that a practising lawyer wouldn’t normally give, but a podcaster would.

            If you want me to move on, then don’t reply to me and pull me back into this thread.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your argument is that a podcaster shouldn’t be listened to. We all hear you, and disagree. Please move on.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re attempting to form a scarecrow argument against me.

                Where did I say she shouldn’t be listened to? All I said was that she said nothing new.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        55
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. I believe the injunction will be reinstated - but that’s for the judge to call, not a retired prosecutor from another state.

        • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            If you have a separation between state law and federal law, one would imagine that there is a difference between state prosecutors and federal prosecutors. A district attorney for a state sounds like someone who works at the local state level, not the nationwide federal level. But yeah, apparently a state district attorney can prosecute federal charges, TIL.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s her current career. She isn’t actively practising law.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmao someone who I haven’t even spoken to feels the need to announce that they’re blocking me…

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s certainly a step down from being a District Attorney.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I agree. And I don’t knock her for doing it (I’ve even queued up one of her podcasts), I imagine she’s made enough money that she’s just doing it for fun and a bit of side cash in her retirement. That’s no bad thing.

            I still feel like this article has no real substance. If anything, it’s more of an ad for her podcast than a meaningful analysis.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The original comment in the thread stated that this article was commentary from a podcaster and contains no new updates. How is that a lie?