this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
286 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19138 readers
3344 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Kenneth Chesebro's false statements to prosecutors put him at “great legal risk," law professors say

Right-wing attorney Kenneth Chesebro, one of the key architects of former President Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 fake elector scheme, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors that was filled with posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in Trump’s election subversion scheme, according to CNN.

Chesebro denied having a Twitter account or any “alternate IDs” when asked by Michigan prosecutors last year, according to recordings of his interview obtained by the outlet.

But CNN’s K-FILE linked Chesebro to a secret account — BadgerPundit — based on matching details, including biographical information about his work and travels as well as his family and investments.

The posts show that before the election and days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a “far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview,” CNN reported.

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Please, for Pete's sake, let's get as many of these vile scum locked up for as long as possible.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Well he's gotten away with it at this point, maybe if we are lucky he will spend a month in jail before he gets a pardon

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Uh oh, Kenny Cheese-Bro is in the shit now!

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The fact that it’s now 2024– and this guy is still walking around, along with all the other treasonous twats, is BEYOND ABSURD.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I blame Garland and Democrats' lack of spine. It's Reconstruction all over again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Yep, Democrats anyways pick Republicans for justice or law enforcement appointments, but they should get guys like Keith Ellison instead.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

I agree with you. I think a lot of blame rightfully falls squarely on Garland.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

That the treasonist in chief is still walking around and would have a boatload of support either way is mind-melting.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Bro... not cool.

cheesy puns on their name is what the other side does... (hehe)

[–] [email protected] 61 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"Legal experts/law professors say" is such bullshit.

I was fired from a job and sued them for discrimination. "Legal experts" said I should get between $30k-$60k. I barely got $5k.

This guy should be in handcuffs right now. Lying to the feds is still a crime. How about obstruction of justice?

I'm sick to death of treating traitors with soft, cushiony jargon.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Crimes require proof beyond reasonable doubt, unfortunately all we have here is a balance of probabilities. In other words, it is more likely he did it than not, but it isn't certain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

In a well-functioning system: yes, I agree.

In a system that is very obviously unfair and biased along political, racial, and socioeconomic axes: you’re gonna start to see some vigilante justice at some point.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Looks like we're gonna see how far "it was just a joke, bro" can go