this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
394 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3616 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
(page 3) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 192 points 1 day ago (37 children)

Yup.

You can kiss Trump ever seeing consequences for his crimes goodbye.

Welcome to the new America.

Elections have consequences and Americans are simply too stupid to maintain a democracy. So we won't have one much longer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Relevant username is relevant.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Leave it up to moderate liberals to roll over and die. Way to signal his kingship guys, fucking top notch pick, that Merrick Galand. To think this ineffective dipshit was considered for SCOTUS. Literally a direct historical correlation to the rise of Hitler through ineffective and complacent liberalism from the socialist party. I guess when you construct a DOJ that doesn't prosecute billionaires the whole thing short circuits when the tyrant is one.. who could have predicted that except every leftist and historian?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

We have a socialist party?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Republicans sure think so lmao

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"COMMUNIST MARXIST FASCISTS" are our preferred pronouns according to Shitler.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No, and neither did Germany.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The Darkest Brandon move would be to remove the DOJ policy on not investigating sitting Presidents. Many of these cases were clearly not under Presidential Immunity, and some weren't even done while Trump was President. That should have consequences regardless of getting the job back or not.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I still don't understand how this is an official DOJ policy. I always see it referenced as a DOJ memo from the 70s. Who gives a shit about memos? This is supposed to be a country of laws, not 50 year old memos.

But yeah, would love Garland to issue a new memo overturning that policy. Let Trump's first official act be to overturn an existing policy to prevent him from being investigated. Not saying he would even hesitate to do it, just saying I'd like to make it an explicit step he has to take.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

That's government for you. If the 50 year old memo is the only thing that talks about it, then that's the basis forever. There's so much stuff like this that there's an actual legal term for ignoring it: Desuetude. But that's usually for things much, much older than that, and they would have been actively ignored for almost as long.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago

The darkest Brandon would be [redacted]

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The people clearly made their choice and intentions known. It’s a shame.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I dont think republicans picking whos vote gets counted and throwing all the rest away really counts as 'people made their choice'

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Are you suggesting that the difference in results is purely because votes were tossed? Yea voters rolls purged and gerrymandering, but the left didn't show up, and that's why Trump won. He has by all accounts more supporters than Harris did, and they made their choice.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The suspicious part was several states experienced a ton of people who voted for Trump, but voted straight Democrat downticket.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Stop acting like MAGA. I live in North Carolina. The state has voted Dems on the state level and Republicans on the federal level consistently since 2016. Even Trump distanced himself from Robinson after his Black Nazi porn shit came out.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for all your hard work. Very meaningful.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago

There are rules for us, not them.

[–] [email protected] 115 points 1 day ago (6 children)

But why?

Make the fascist fire you.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Actual reasons from an actual lawyer here https://youtu.be/wFEo9YJjGA0

Tldr; Every other possibility ends in dismissal with prejudice. Dropping it leaves it potentially reviewable in 4 years. It's still highly unlikely anything happens.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago

Came here to post this. Legal Eagle breaks it down proper here.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 105 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  • Because his job will now never be completed
  • Because this also slightly diminishes the possibility that he’ll be politically prosecuted by the incoming admin - though to be clear, I fully expect the Trump DoJ to make Smith’s life a living hell, and to throw him in jail if they can, and perhaps even execute him if they can figure out how to kangaroo court things to that degree. That is not a joke. This is an entirely serious comment.
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I understand the sentiment, but it will never happen. Killing "Whites", especially whites named "Jack Smith" is bad for optics. Now Letitia James and Fani Willis is another story entirely. If I was either one of them I'd be getting my ass on a plane to someplace with a non-extradition treaty post haste.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why have a trial? SCOTUS already ruled President Trump is a king and can kill anyone so long as it's an official act.

We are entering the beginning stages of fascism people. Hold onto your butts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

just wait till Jack see's all the new crimes trump is gonna commit, he'll be back in business in a few years

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Dog.... just stop with the copium. It's embarrassing. Trump will never answer for his crimes, period. This should be abundantly clear after 8 years of flopped motions against him.

No Mueller report, no special council, no hush money case.... is ever going to stop this guy.

Give up on the idea of justice against this dude and start preparing for his dictatorship.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court already rules that not only is Trump all but immune from prosecution, but that he can't even be investigated or questioned over it.

So if Trump were to make a phone call and say "Yes, we're going to sign this into law, and schedule a meeting about that other thing. Oh, and have Tom Hanks killed in a hail of bullets, kthxbye.", the fact that he ordered Tom Hanks killed might be prosecutable. The problem is that even if they know he ordered Tom Hanks killed, they legally can't even ask him about it because it happened during an official phone call.

Trump could go on a crime spree that would make the Mafia legitimately look like choir boys, and Jack Smith......well, Jack Smith isn't going to be able to do Jack about it.

January 20, 2025 isn't a swearing in ceremony. It's a coronation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (5 children)

yep, I hate it but at least it's starting to sink in. come jan. we are in a functional trump dictatorship. there are no checks and balances left, the court assured so and with the legislative branch under his control, the single, only hope we have is that he's too hilariously inept to be effective.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 day ago

Because the cause for his appointment no longer exists. The OLC memo regarding the prosecution of sitting Presidents means that Smith's appointment is frustrated at its most basic level of inception.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago

The Fascists will fire people with firing squads, there's no shame in an act of self preservation when resigning from a job you can't do might keep you alive.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›