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
At least we'll know right out of the gate if she's going to at least give the appearance of impartiality by denying the request, or if she's not even going to bother trying to be impartial and just all but tell us to sit back and wait for the eventual acquittal.
Reportedly, Jack Smith has more charges he can bring against Trump in New Jersey if Cannon decides she's a puppet for Trump.
Right, but at some point (in terms of public opinion here), filing charges in NJ because the FL charges didn't work out is going to play right into Trump's playbook of being painted as a victim of political persecution, which will galvanize support (and fundraising) from his base and increase the chances of a MAGA nut getting on the jury and pushing for jury nullification because "it's all a witch hunt".
Yes, there are tons of legitimate reasons for this to happen (with, you know, the whole Trump committing multiple crimes in multiple states and all that), but one thing I learned in college is that when it comes to public opinion, if you have to explain your position in that level of detail, you already lost the argument. While this wouldn't matter 99.999999% of the time, it matters in this case because it could impact his prosecution.
I don't disagree with your predictions, but the whole point is that public opinion won't matter if the judge is not a hack. That is to say, who cares if Trump says it's a witch hunt if he's charged again in NJ? He's already saying that.
It's one thing to say "It's all a witch hunt". We've been hearing that for years.
But it's a completely different thing to say "It's all a witch hunt! See what Jack Smith is doing?" when he can point to Smith filing cases in NJ because his FL case is at risk. And then you have the upcoming GA case. Is this all legitimate? Absolutely. But to someone who doesn't follow this stuff significantly? It does give off the appearance that the government is just trying to throw whatever they can at as many walls as possible just to see what sticks. Especially if he follows this up with charges in DC stemming from the J6 investigation.
Doing this accomplishes two things: One is that it's going to galvanize his base and increase his support, which could lead to greater turnout at the polls. The other is that it increases his chances that one of his supporters will end up on one of the juries and push for jury nullification "to counter the government's witch hunt".
This is why I say that this is the .00000001% of time where it matters.
I honestly don't know what you're arguing here. Are you saying the justice department should bow to public pressure and not attempt to hold Trump accountable for his actions?
I'm saying that the way that the fact that he is filing multiple charges in multiple states is going to give off the impression that "it's all a witch hunt". It may be the only way he can do it (because of the crimes being committed in multiple states, etc.), and I'm not saying he's wrong for doing it. But I am saying that it's going to have the side effect of playing right into Trump's hands in a way that is likely to help him in the general election (by incentivizing more of his supporters to vote and send him money), and possibly in at least one of his upcoming trials as well.
I think you are vastly overestimating this effect. What subset of Trump supporters are not already all-in on supporting him, but would become so if he was charged with additional crimes in another state? (where those crimes took place.)
To me that would be even worse. It would've Trump admitting he'd only get a favorable trial if it was a judge in his pocket
His attempt at smearing Smith didn't go anywhere