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.
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
view the rest of the comments
It certainly feels that way, but it's important to have all of your ducks in a row before you go after a former president, especially one who has had such crazy influence on a large portion of the country. It would not do well to miss something or make a misstep that results in a not guilty and immunity via double jeopardy. Getting through the investigation and all of the interviews would take forever, not to mention charging others to get them to flip.
They would have to trip in to a wood chipper to fuck this up. There is no fucking excuse. He has a MILLION charges to deal with. They could've lined ONE jail-worthy charge up and snapped him up months upon months ago, but noooo. He's more guilty than OJ and he wrote a book that was effectively titled, "I DID IT", yet he's free FOUR FUCKING YEARS. I call BS on that kind of "justice" system.
Again, what if they hadn't crossed all of their t's and dotted all of their i's for that one charge? Look at all of the stunts he has pulled so far. There's a lot that goes into making charges stick. This is how the justice system works for big cases, not just for Trump. You're right about him being free all this time, though. That was an injustice against the American people. If most people did what he did, we would have been waiting in jail. That's where his money and influence really aided him. Although, putting him in jail may have caused his supporters to try again, and in far greater numbers, to bring down democracy. That'll probably happen anyway, but him being free has delayed that inevitability.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting we have to like how it has unfolded. I am suggesting that if it had happened some other way, it had a good chance of failing or leading to the fracturing of our democracy.
Many changes need to be made to prevent this from happening again. He's a buffoon and his tactics are obvious to everyone except his biggest supporters. It's almost better that he has done this and exposed many of the flaws in the system, because a competent person would have been successful and wrested power during the last presidential election and there wouldn't be another this year.
I wouldn't even go that far. He's innocent until proven guilty, just like anyone else. Bail exists for a good reason, as it has for centuries. You pay a deposit that makes it worth your while to come back for trial, and you stay out of jail in the meantime. Do that, and you get your money back. If you don't, that money is forfeit.
What we're seeing is how it should work for anyone accused of (but not yet found guilty of) a crime. If there are people unable to afford it or whatever, that should be addressed - it is in our constitution, after all.
Then when he's convicted, lock him up like anyone else.
Bail is allowed for folks who are not likely to reoffend/commit other crimes while they wait for trial. I would say he is likely to reoffend/commit other crimes. So, bail should not have been offered. If you or I did what he did, we'd be in jail.
As an aside, paying for it just means rich people have it easier than poor people. So, again, if he were like us, he'd probably still be in jail.
If you search "factors in setting bail" you'll see 5 or so recurring things, and that is not one of them. Closest thing would be danger to community, but we're generally talking murder and such.
Even then, he's no longer president; he's probably not taking any more documents from the White House. The election is a way off (and was further away when he first left the White House, as this conversation started with) so he can only do so much to be fraudulent with the results. There is a campaign going now. Could he be using those funds to pay off a porn star? I suppose, and so might a judge, but they need a lot more than the prosecution saying "I would say yes, your honor" (but again, it's all a moot point when reoffending is not really a factor)