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 …
Her name is Joyce Vance and she was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017.
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.
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.
What new update was she providing?
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.
What do ya have against podcasting? It’s educational, informative, it’s free speech. I learn so much from them.
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.
Apparently other people want other things… like civil discourse and pertinent analysis. just move along already
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.
Your argument is that a podcaster shouldn’t be listened to. We all hear you, and disagree. Please move on.
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.
Trump is a disgrace I hope he goes to jail.
Agreed. I believe the injunction will be reinstated - but that’s for the judge to call, not a retired prosecutor from another state.
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?
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.
Aww, TWeaK the twat has earned a block. 🖕🏽🤣
Lmao someone who I haven’t even spoken to feels the need to announce that they’re blocking me…
What relevance does her being a podcaster have to anything?
That’s her current career. She isn’t actively practising law.
Okay? And? Do you have to be actively practicing law in order to understand it?
No, but a practising lawyer wouldn’t comment on the case in the way she has. She’s behaving like a podcaster first, lawyer second.
Frankly to me it comes across like she’s only doing it so people might look up her podcast. The comments in this thread have gone on so long I think I probably will, too.
How do you know a practicing lawyer wouldn’t have said that? Are you a practicing lawyer?
No, I gave that up because I didn’t like all the reading. But I have several friends who are, and still take an interest in law in general. Also, law still plays a significant role in my career.
I’m interested in this case (and the others against Trump), but not in an in depth analysis of a tiny part that draws obvious conclusions.
What has this article said that is significant? Beyond the headline “former lawyer cum podcaster says Trump is wrong”?
lmao dude you’ve already said you didn’t know U.S. Attorneys are a federal position. You don’t even understand the basic facts of the arguments you’re trying to make.
Speaking into a microphone bad?
It’s certainly a step down from being a District Attorney.
I imagine it’s a whole lot less stressful.
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.
Well, as we can all see the original comments in this thread, this was determined to be a lie.
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?