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
I don't know why anyone is surprised. All of the court watchers who aren't MAGA told us SCOTUS would sit on this as long as they possibly could. Which, assuming they're still coloring inside the rules, means the last ruling of the season. And they'll drag out all the other cases too so it doesn't look weird. In fact on Strict Scrutiny they've been warning that the court is dropping a bunch of no contest decisions because they're expecting one big drop with shitty partisan decisions that have no logic beyond the personal politics of the majority.
That the charges weren't made until late last year is also a failure, the whole process has been unreasonable long.
That was part of the game though. If any part of that process was sped up for him the Republicans would have ammo in their accusations about the trial. And rich people have long made sure the justice system goes slowly.
I mean the reasons exist but if the system cannot rapidly respond to attempts to destroy it then those attempts will succeed.
Part of "the game" is to make sure that the trial would start far too late for it to end before the elections... To make sure that Trump can get elected before the ruling is over... And then give himself immunity?
Yes, but it's important to remember that there are multiple players in this game. The Democrats and the prosecutors want the trial done before then but they can't be seen to be speeding it up or even to be impatient. This gives the defense and the Republicans plenty of opening to show the trial down.
This was entirely predictable. There was no reason for the Democrats to wait so long to start the process. They wanted to make sure Trump could run for the Republicans so they can keep fearmongering everyone into voting for Biden.
They did start the process very early though. The problem is there's a whole thing before bringing charges that they had to go through. They aren't skipping any step because that could be grounds for an appeal. Even before officially opening an investigation they had to make sure they had the grounds to do that. So there was an investigation before the investigation, likely trying to get something less ephemeral than speech=riot; like direct ties to fake electors. Then they can start the official investigation where they get people on the record in meetings with the FBI. Finally when that's gone far enough they can get a grand jury to look at everything. Then finally they can charge Trump and start preparing for a trial.
In both of the investigative phases anyone partial to Trump can slow them down by rescheduling repeatedly and lying to investigators. (Which has already resulted in charges for some of them because it's much easier to prove.) Then the grand jury doesn't usually meet every day, in fact they may only meet once a week.
Taking two years to figure out there was a connection, and another year to gather enough evidence for a grand jury isn't unusual. Especially in cases involving rich and influential people.
Look at the lib escalate into a spiraling web of complexity in order to justify failure. No, the timeline here was unreasonable and will allow trump to win again. The Dems have served up a silver platter to the wealthy.
I agree that it's unreasonable. But it's how the system works with rich people. Meaning this isn't abnormal.
Merrick Garland is a conservative. He did exactly what the world knew he would do when the neoliberal president appointed him.