I think I'm missing something. So the insurrectionists, yell "charge" as if in battle and say to pull all the Democrats out into the street and have a mob trial, but what they're being charged with is interfering with a government proceeding? Like that's the only thing wrong here?
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
206 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2803 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're missing something. He's being charged with breaking multiple laws, not just "interfering with a government proceeding."
The criminal proceeding against him has been tied up in appeals after a Trump-appointed trial judge ruled that one of the criminal laws Fischer is charged with violating must be read very narrowly.
But only one of those charges is being contested. The Supreme Court gets to decide if he'll be tried on that charge, but it sounds like he'll be tied on the other charges regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. The headline is sensational, but what else would you expect from Vox?
Copy that. Thanks. I did read the whole thing but must have missed that line. Or maybe dozed.
I don't blame you, the article really overplayed that one charge. I bet they had great "engagement," though.
The corrupt trump judge's reading of the statute in focus here is such overly-obvious bullshit. Also, not even his reading I'm sure (did someone follow the paper trail that shows how the federalist society likely fed him his "thoughts" on this to pave the path to the conflict of interest laden Supreme Court?
This is serious, but none of it is sincere. 250 years to fully confront the fact that the US founding principles of government are built on "gentlemen's agreements" and an assumption of minimum level of real/performative integrity (and a fear of tarnished legacy after death) - our way of government is helpless if those core assumptions aren't in place. Now we're just left here to watch an obvious slow moving train intentionally crushing line after line of school children and ultimately headed towards a cliff.
Plenty of warning time, but nobody can move the children or stop the train.
I think it is funny that this image keeps getting used. The dude in blue being Jon Schaffer from the band Iced Earth.
Isn't that the band Richard Christy played with for a while before he did Charred Walls of the Damned?
Used to love that band, their concept album about the early years of superhero Spawn was dope. Can't stand to listen to them now knowing that terrorist was a major part of it.
So he's a nobody?
It would suck if he got off (and many others by association) but is this the only charge levied against him? They should've got him on trespassing, inciting a riot, and possibly vandalism. I would hope those things combined would be at least a 5 year sentence.
And let me guess, the seditionist’s husband is not going to recuse himself.
He was offered a $1*million/year for life if he retired. It's not about the money, it's about the corruption he is able to provide to his rich "friends"...
And a 2.5 million RV
Sorry, it's not an RV. It's a motorcoach
You should hear this in John's voice: "is it though"
Nah, it's about the money. One million a year is not enough for that greedy fuck.
He's exactly where he wants to be. Why would he voluntarily relinquish power?
Handing this case to a blatantly partisan SCOTUS is the thing that can go wrong, and now it has.
Let’s just call it what it is— it’s whatever Ginni Thomas decides.
They hand it to themselves, that's how Cert works
Lower courts have their collaborators tho