politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why didn't she take that fucker down? Damn it! One of the most evil people in the U.S. government. Truly.
Because she's extremely careful, and decided she didn't have enough to make a conviction stick.
Yet.
Give it time. She's an excellent prosecutor, and she's doing her job extremely well. She's going after the people who are easily the most provably guilty first. This is a broad, far-reaching infestation of corruption and treachery, and I think she and Jack Smith are only getting started.
If Trump takes the stand and is under oath, he will say anything he can to shift culpability to others.
Allowing Trump to take the stand is probably the 2nd worse move his lawyers could make. The first is, naturally, being Trump's lawyer.
The odds of Trump perjuring himself is so incredibly high.
Trump can do whatever he wants.
He’s never once listened to his lawyers before. Why would he do so now?
Yes, but would his credibility (plus the available evidence) be enough to convict someone else, like Graham?
I'm not sure, that's not something I know much about. I do know that utterances under oath can be used to open new investigations and as testimonial evidence in other trials but I'm not sure how that works.
Let's hope?
Fingers crossed!
So many people don’t get this but it’s extremely important. Jack Smith and Fani Willis have been extremely careful and smart in the charges they have brought. They can add more later. And many think they will. But if you are going after the mob, you better make sure your charges are in order and you have a sure fire case or it will come back to bite you.
People kept asking why it was taking so long to bring charges at all - this is why. Yes, the crimes are obvious and some were even committed in public view, but if you're going after high level government officials - if you're going after a former president of the United States - you better make sure you have every last detail in order. For crimes of such magnitude, you can't risk the case getting dismissed or overturned based on a frivolous detail or a minor oversight or a technicality. It has to be iron-clad and air-tight, with every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed.
Trump isn't some common thief or vandal. He's not just a crime boss or a corrupt politician. He's a history-altering, would-be dictator who tried to stage a coup to overthrow our government. There is no room for error.
It's not just that he's a former president. It's also that he's:
Omar comin'
complete missed opportunity, probably had something to do with "resources" and "big fish", which to be fair, if I had to choose, gotta take the head off the snake, I don't know if anything stopping her from filing charges at a later date
It would be a lot more difficult to indict a sitting congressperson on something like this, particularly since these can be a plausible argument that whatever they were doing could have simply falled under their official duties.
I think it's a good move to first go after Trump and the people in his inner circle, because if that conspiracy can be proved in court, it's an easier lift to then go after the Senators and Representatives who aided it, because one jury already found the conduct to be illegal (and thus not protected in any official capacity).