this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
457 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19150 readers
1578 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 is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department's election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 234 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Call me old fashioned but it seems like a flaw in the legal system if it takes slightly longer than one 4-year presidential term to prosecute someone for interference in a presidential election.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 9 months ago

The real screw up here was appointing a fucking conservative as attorney general.

Never, ever show kindness to conservatives. Politeness and professionalism? Sure. But a conservative sees kindness as a weakness to exploit. That is just who they are at their core.

Reaching across the aisle by appointing Merrick Garland was an extremely stupid move that could cost us our democracy.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes, very. Federal judges have huge case loads, and expanding the size of the federal bench would be one way to fix that. At least doubling it, and quite possibly doubling it again.

Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

I don't even know if it's just that they're spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don't really mind a conservative judicial system.

The vast majority of people in Congress are affluent white people, and they really have nothing to gain by replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one. A conservative judicial system isn't going to stop them from leaving the country for an abortion, or change what the private schools teach their children. While a liberal judge may increase their taxes, make it harder to accept bribes, or even ruin their businesses by implementing labor laws.

I just don't really see anything that would really motivate anyone in Congress to enact a more fair judicial system.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it seems to me that Democrats are in a pretty nice position for themselves - they can claim to be for the people, while lamenting that they're unable to make the big changes that the people want due to conservatives holding them back. If they didn't have that excuse, they might actually need to coordinate those changes, which they likely don't want to do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.

Sadly, I think you're right. Occams razor would suggest that's what we're seeing here. IMO, it's far more likely that politicians are being self-serving (power corrupts) than being a bunch of shrinking violets in circumstances where it hurts everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Didn't the turtle Mitch refuse to fill hundreds of members of the federal judiciary?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Yes, that's exactly why Trump was able to fill so many. His administration was very slow to fill vacancies at other federal agencies, but not judges. Shows exactly where they had their priorities.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago

Charles Manson never personally murdered anyone. There was no video of the crime. It took 2 years from the day his cult murdered people to Manson being sentenced to jail for life.

3 years later after a live televised insurrection and not even a trial.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago

Garland was gonna let him skate. It wasn't until he refused to give back the classified documents that he crossed the line and Garland have the go-ahead to prosecute him for that. And once you've given permission to prosecute an ex-president for one thing, you can't tell the other prosecutors who want to nail him for other crimes 'no'.

Garland should never have been picked as AG. He's literally the guy democrats pick when they want to tell Republicans "Hey, we see you, we love you, and you have nothing to worry about from us. So please just be normal 💕"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

it seems like a flaw in the legal system

Oh no, this is exactly how it's designed. The rich are above the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 177 points 9 months ago (2 children)

And we slip even closer to fascism

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad 65 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

What if i told you..

Morpheusface

We are already there?

I'm not being edgy. Let's review the 14 signs:

The 14 characteristics are:

  • Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

    Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

  • Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

    Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

  • Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

    The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

  • Supremacy of the Military

    Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

  • Rampant Sexism

    The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

  • Controlled Mass Media

    Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

  • Obsession with National Security

    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

  • Religion and Government are Intertwined

    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

  • Corporate Power is Protected

    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  • Labor Power is Suppressed

    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

  • Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

  • Obsession with Crime and Punishment

    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  • Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  • Fraudulent Elections

    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I expect pushback on this, simply because it is absolutely terrifying and worse? I don't know what to do other than try and point this out to people. Maybe someone somewhere knows a way outta this mess.

It's not coming, it's here friends, the future is today. Fascism isn't binary. It's not yes/no, it's analog, the dial slowly turned up. And like the proverbial boiling frog, if you're expecting there to be a flashing sign, one giant moment that signals to everyone yes, yes now we are here, this is fascism?

It walks the streets outside your home, in the hallways of your building. It is just outside your door, getting ready to knock on someones. Will you know it before they knock on yours?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fascism isn't binary. It's not yes/no, it's analog, the dial slowly turned up.

My biggest concern is that we're crossing a point of no return from which there is no way back except for violent overthrow of the regime. My biggest fear is that we've already crossed it.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My biggest fear is that we’ve already crossed it.

...mine too. I am coming to grips with what i increasingly believe is...yes, we have. And i am not ready, so very not ready to accept what that actually might mean. I said this slightly differently earlier, but part of my problem, now that I'm on that road to acceptance, is trying to find some direction, some way to find agency. And to share that agency I've found (it must exist! It must! I must find it!) with other people who would listen. But i am adrift. I hate this feeling of fearful helplessness. I would wish it on no one. But all I've got is what i see right now, and the faith that someone out there smarter than me has an answer we can all share

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

the monopoly on violence that is reserved for the state is what drives that feeling of fearful helplessness. there are no right and easy answers because they have been labeled wrong. i will not advocate for violence but i will point out that we are not allowed to carry out violence against the state or its infrastructure.

if you have been the victim of repeated physical abuse and had the opportunity to physically fight back and took it, then you know how powerful that feeling after is, when you realize that you actually do have power.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Aye the seeds of fascism have already sprouted weeds

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Absolutely no doubt the Republicans are a bunch of fascists. But they don't have full control yet.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I don't play party politics my friend. I am saying this is the way the nation is currently running. What i mean is to say that the country, despite (as you say) the Republicans not having ' full control', that this is our country, now. My point is fascism, as defined in these 14, is here. Now. Setting aside party politics (gamified by our corrupted media) where each "news company" plays different flavors of

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

the "news" is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser? Can't you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

Today, when you woke up, it was under the flag of a fascist nation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the "news" is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser?

As much as I have disdain for all corporate media. That isn't something the non overtly conservative media does. Whether it's to service their false narrative of turning everything into a horse race for ratings. Or actual journalistic integrity. I can't say, though my money is on the former.

Can't you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

Nope. I definitely have heard individuals wound up about this election get overly concerned about primary shenanigans on the Democratic side. The corporate media however often focuses on false criticisms still. Out of some misguided need to APPEAR fair and balanced . Rather than be succinct and honest.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

I would like you to be my ally, and in fact you are. Our light disagreement here is (in my opinion) that you are still holding on to the idea that while propaganda exists, it isn't something you personally consume. That while fascism exists and is growing, it is not at all on the side you are on. That the things you believe, you believe because you are informed, and that you disagree with others because they are not.

I would like you to consider the possibility that you are subject to lies and propaganda. That the things you are told, the people you believe? Might be lying to your face. Might be twisting things juuust enough for your compliance and support. Is that not possible?

I really don't want to push any harder than this because i desire your open mind above all else. But my opinion is you're far too quick to dismiss other's opinions as uninformed or plain wrong, and i would like that part of you to change.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

you're doing very good work.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Of note, this has nothing to do with the $450,000,000 and $83,000,000 bonds he needs to put up very soon

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't matter. He can hold off on liquidation until November and if he wins, (which would mean there's a strong chance the Senate flips), have his cronies pass a, " lol god emperors don't pay for summary judgements" bill.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago (12 children)

No he can't. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he's satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there's interest running on the meter until he does.

He's gonna pay whether he likes it or not.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (19 children)

Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

He wouldn't even need to do that. He would just need to sell a few of those Top Secret documents to MBS, and all of a sudden the Trump Org has another 2 billion worth of business in Saudi Arabia

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They don't have the money for champagne.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sure they do, the RNC is likely buying it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The RNC has only 8.7 millions in bank.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago

Your Grandma just sent him $50

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago

it’s what they were installed for. trump gave us a corrupt court that will last for decades, regardless of him not being in office.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago

“Literally popping champagne right now,”

Is that what people call snorting coke now?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.

If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.

During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.


The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

Maybe Biden should take one for the country. You know the court would rule against absolute immunity for something Biden did. And he's old enough, that he probably wouldn't even see jail. No more Trump, no question as to if the president is above the law. Win win.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The second they rule in Trump's favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

[–] agentsquirrel 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

Well, that's the thing, they won't rule in Trump's favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump's case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn't taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There's no legal support at all for Trump's claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You know how parents would say "because I said so" without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?

That's the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Somehow the founders didn't see that as being a problem.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think impeachment was supposed to be a check on their powers, but that never happens.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›