Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Who is running this government? All these calls for people to be locked up, but no action whatsoever. Do your fucking job, you are the law, arrest them and put them in front of a judge and jury.
Almost like America is a plutocracy, and these people can get away with things you never will because both sides protect each other.
"both sides" again .....
It’s not both sides, it’s one side; the rich and powerful.
Terrific. Is that investigation going to end before or after the election? Because if it's after, it may not matter.
His name is Merrick Garland and he's on the Republican take
He's already a felon, FFS. The only reason he's out walking around is Trump pardoned him
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you can charge someone with conspiracy if they take an "affirmative step in the furtherance of a crime"; idly discussing if it would be a good idea to assassinate someone probably isn't conspiracy (probably 1A protected, and doesn't "further" a crime), but actually getting together with your friends and starting to plan out how you would do that probably is
One could argue that, because of a congressperson’s increased influence and power, the bar for what qualifies as “conspiracy” perhaps should be a little lower. I’m not saying that it actually is lower, but maybe it should be.
Regardless, this seems like a serious ethics violation. Someone should not be allowed to serve in government if they’re going to talk about how their colleagues “need to die” before a certain date to send some sort of a “message”.
Eric is right. Roger should not be doing that.
Yes. Good luck with that.