To date, the court has not seemed very sensitive to the political imperative of a verdict that gives voters a piece of critical information before the November election: whether one of the candidates is guilty of a scheme to subvert the last one. That is in stark contrast to the court’s obvious speed in deciding Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot before the state’s primary.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
197 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18789 readers
2817 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.
- 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.
- 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
Remember when they dragged their feet for 2 years before they got this process started?
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.
That's why they spent decades stacking the courts — to enable the fascist coup.
That would be some serious abracadabra shit if he pulls this off.
David Blaine, watch out!
I wanna know: How the ever living fuck does Trump get the apparently best, dirtiest lawyers that get him out of everything when he’s famous for never paying his lawyers? Wtf?
Ghouliani is about to not only be homeless, but get strung up and do hard time because if Trump. And he has multiple teams of new lawyers doing horrible things again for him now. HOW??
They're not the best, they are just flinging shit at the wall and the corruption is deep enough that the shit penetrates it and sticks. 'Like dissolves like' and all that, but with stickiness. I also seem to remember something about the recent ones have all been paid in advance.
Truthfully, his lawyers at this point are legitimately not good. Look at his defamation damages. These are not the best lawyers by a long way - those lawyers are keyed into his scheme to not pay them and also usually don't want to be associated with a completely unreliable client.
The last time he had good lawyers was probably the first impeachment. Now he's just coasting on delay tactics. It's working because it's worked for 70 years to threaten and delay. That actually does make people defensive, deferentially overcautious, and usually diminishes his liability. It will be a great day when that's no longer enough to hold back justice, but we're not there yet.
In this case the answer to your question is a crooked judge is helping trump
That’s also happening, but that’s a separate issue.
They're working for something better than money. Exposure! Don't you know working for such a big name will do better things for their career than money! At least, that's what they tell artists.
They’re working for something better than money. Exposure!
I hear people die of exposure.
I hear people die of exposure.
Maybe that's why people keep complaining about me exposing myself.
Before they’re swallowed up into the flaming pits of The Inferno, they’ll get a sweet gig as a talking head on Fox News and Newsmax for 9 months or so.
They are getting paid just not by this client.