this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
392 points (91.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1990 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The former president raised $4.18 million on Friday alone, the single-highest 24 hour period of his campaign to date.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the absence of prosecution is very much as political as the prosecution. Not prosecuting what is, in reality, a failed attempt at a coup.... is what would be disastrous for our democracy. not that there's a lot of that left, given the sheer number of dumb-asses that think it was "justified".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely concur. I hate that they waited this long to bring charges. I really do think that Biden instructed Garland to avoid prosecution as long as possible to avoid the appearance of this being politically motivated.

The best scenario would have been for Congress to have convicted him during one of his impeachment trials. We wouldn’t be dealing with this bullshit at this point.

[–] eestileib 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Biden was reported to be irritated at Garland's laziness/cowardice.

I think he expected Garland to, I don't know, value the survival of the Republic over his future invitations to FedSoc junkets, but we know how that worked out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d love to see a source on this.

[–] eestileib 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No sweat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/us/politics/merrick-garland-biden-trump.html

The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Awesome, thanks. I’ll read this. I’ve been under the impression to this point that Biden wanted to avoid the appearance of prosecuting Trump based upon political grounds, so he wanted to avoid it if possible. I based that on a NYT article I read a week or two ago and I’ll see if I can’t dig it up.