Clown country
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
309 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19335 readers
2184 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial never meant shit
Isn’t it super cool how that STILL WOULDNT HAVE MATTERED
What will happen now after Trump term? Can't they take up the case again?
The supreme court would likely get more extreme. I don't think hes getting in trouble with a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 supreme court.
I don't think there will be an 'after Trump term' unless he passes while in office. Dictators don't usually leave office.
He said he shouldn't have left in 2020. He figured if he had stay they couldn't have physically remove him. He is going try it this time.
The constitution says he's no longer president Jan 20 no matter what. They'd have to change or entirely ignore the constitution.
I think there will be, but it will be a putin-medvedev where trump steps down and becomes voice president but maintains control without breaking the rules. He will organise a succession for his favoured candidate as well
I honestly don't think he'll live that long. Dude's lifestyle is atrocious.
Unfortunately I think we've all learned the lesson of betting against trump
Yes, if trump ever leaves office alive or doesn’t get an instant pardon from the next guy.
Those are two very big ifs
He also decided he could pardon himself last time, so there's that.
At which point do we call a spade a spade and declare the DOJ and the prosecutors to be accomplices for their roles in protecting an obviously guilty grifter at the expense of justice and the common good?
We did long ago. All of the prosecution for four years ago should have started 3.9 years ago, and it didn't, and that was an active choice by DOJ leadership and Joe Biden.
(And screw them for doing that.)
We can call them whatever we want, but nothing is going to happen to any of them.
Sure, but just being honest about it in stead of making up a ton of bullshit excuses would still be preferable to the pretzel logic of the media and the Blue No Matter Who apparatchiks.
You had 4 FUCKING YEARS to do this! This doesn’t even qualify for too little too late. You did nothing for 4 years but stuck your head up your collective asses and now you make claims that he should have been convicted and sentenced? Complicit traitors.
You're mixing special counsel with the AG. Jack Smith did his job, it was Garland who waited 2 years before starting the case and eventually assigning him.
The AG is not an all powerful entity. He was appointed by Biden himself. Similarly the Democrats could have pressured Biden to fire Garland. And Biden could have done it himself.
Everyone was very happy to wait for years to "make sure the trial was well prepared".
The AG is not an all powerful entity.
Trump sure made it seem so what with Bill Barr.
Jack Smith could have chosen to bring charges in a district where there wasn't a 50/50 chance it would end up in Canon's courtroom, but he was high on his own farts & wanted the big win.
Let's not whitewash the dude's errors.
To clarify, the charges brought in the Florida district could have been brought in another venue, but the crime was the documents being withheld in Florida, so that is the correct venue. It could have gotten way through the process and been appealed due to incorrect venue and we would have been back at the start.
That said, I think getting Cannon removed would have been more likely to bear fruit. She had clear evidence of bias and would have been way past the threshold of appearance of impropriety, so getting her removed would have been a fairly likely path to success. Unfortunately the supreme court was so flooded by idealogues that it would have been appealed and they would have either held it up or overturned it and gotten her back on, or just dismissed the case in some other way.
What was needed was a much more aggressive approach from both Biden and Garland. Biden to change the number of supreme court justices and to direct his justice department to deeply investigate all of the justices on the court. Garland to open said investigations, push for intelligence agency support, and lots of speaking indictments to get information in front of voters.
Thanks for this amazing comment.
After reading this, I searched and read this msnbc blog synopsis that gets into a little more detail about possible motives for Smith's choice of venue that basically reiterates choosing to prosecute in a different district could have thrown a guilty verdict into question.
And Qannon was certainly amenable to Trump's request to push back basically every date involved in the case.
And we have had almost 250 years to make sure we have laws that prevent criminals like trump from becoming president, but that didn't happen either.
If you make a "no felons can be president" then you give state and local DAs the power to destroy someone's election chances. That's a dangerous proposition and I don't support it, because you know Texas would start fucking with every decent future left-wing candidate.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that he should be behind bars already, and therefore ineligible for president on account of "he's locked the fuck up right now", I agree.
If by "we", you mean the best politicians and judges that money can buy.
The so-called guardrails against undue interference are all from a time where everyone expected politicians to always act and argue in good faith and where corporations as we know them today didn't exist.
It's not for fun that every single other constitution still in effect is newer. Other countries have continued to renew their laws to better suit changing circumstances like the Founders intended for the US to do.
Who do you mean by who, you fuckin` fruit cake? Did you fookin charge him in U.S. court? Eh, silverbuttons?
Luigi Mangione
Luigi Mangione
Luigi Mangione
When I look at how many presidents who are considered good people have been shot, it would only be fair to balance the scales a bit.
The Beetlejuice sequel I'm here for.
They were really going to do it too! Until they did nothing instead
Those meddling boomers... Darn them!!1!1!
Such a shame they waited so long to start the trial and gave Trump every opportunity to delay. But surely Trump would have gone to prison if Harris won. Despite all the other things Democrats did not do to get him in jail, that would have been the thing. You know, four years is just such a short period of time for a trial. Everyone know you need exactly 4.5 years.
“Oh yeah, he definitely would’ve been convicted.” “Then why wasn’t he?” “We’ll see, what had happened was…”
Corrupt judge is what happened. No one remembers this?
An AG that waited 2 years before even trying....
Garland is a Republican and they always protect their own.
So you didn't remember anything. At least you're admitting it.
Oh yeah, but my comment wasn’t serious. It’s always corruption.
Woulda coulda shoulda. Line them all up at this point. They’re all guilty.
Trump was kind of pardoned by the manipulated population.