this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
308 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19338 readers
2933 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report said.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 16 hours ago

Clown country

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial never meant shit

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 27 points 1 day ago

Isn’t it super cool how that STILL WOULDNT HAVE MATTERED

[–] Redditsux@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What will happen now after Trump term? Can't they take up the case again?

The supreme court would likely get more extreme. I don't think hes getting in trouble with a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 supreme court.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think there will be an 'after Trump term' unless he passes while in office. Dictators don't usually leave office.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

He said he shouldn't have left in 2020. He figured if he had stay they couldn't have physically remove him. He is going try it this time.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

The constitution says he's no longer president Jan 20 no matter what. They'd have to change or entirely ignore the constitution.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think there will be, but it will be a putin-medvedev where trump steps down and becomes voice president but maintains control without breaking the rules. He will organise a succession for his favoured candidate as well

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I honestly don't think he'll live that long. Dude's lifestyle is atrocious.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago

Unfortunately I think we've all learned the lesson of betting against trump

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes, if trump ever leaves office alive or doesn’t get an instant pardon from the next guy.

Those are two very big ifs

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

He also decided he could pardon himself last time, so there's that.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 110 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

You had 4 FUCKING YEARS to do this! This doesn’t even qualify for too little too late. You did nothing for 4 years but stuck your head up your collective asses and now you make claims that he should have been convicted and sentenced? Complicit traitors.

[–] takeda@lemm.ee 77 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

You're mixing special counsel with the AG. Jack Smith did his job, it was Garland who waited 2 years before starting the case and eventually assigning him.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The AG is not an all powerful entity. He was appointed by Biden himself. Similarly the Democrats could have pressured Biden to fire Garland. And Biden could have done it himself.

Everyone was very happy to wait for years to "make sure the trial was well prepared".

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

The AG is not an all powerful entity.

Trump sure made it seem so what with Bill Barr.

[–] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jack Smith could have chosen to bring charges in a district where there wasn't a 50/50 chance it would end up in Canon's courtroom, but he was high on his own farts & wanted the big win.

Let's not whitewash the dude's errors.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To clarify, the charges brought in the Florida district could have been brought in another venue, but the crime was the documents being withheld in Florida, so that is the correct venue. It could have gotten way through the process and been appealed due to incorrect venue and we would have been back at the start.

That said, I think getting Cannon removed would have been more likely to bear fruit. She had clear evidence of bias and would have been way past the threshold of appearance of impropriety, so getting her removed would have been a fairly likely path to success. Unfortunately the supreme court was so flooded by idealogues that it would have been appealed and they would have either held it up or overturned it and gotten her back on, or just dismissed the case in some other way.

What was needed was a much more aggressive approach from both Biden and Garland. Biden to change the number of supreme court justices and to direct his justice department to deeply investigate all of the justices on the court. Garland to open said investigations, push for intelligence agency support, and lots of speaking indictments to get information in front of voters.

[–] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

Thanks for this amazing comment.

After reading this, I searched and read this msnbc blog synopsis that gets into a little more detail about possible motives for Smith's choice of venue that basically reiterates choosing to prosecute in a different district could have thrown a guilty verdict into question.

[–] Mister_Feeny@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago

And Qannon was certainly amenable to Trump's request to push back basically every date involved in the case.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And we have had almost 250 years to make sure we have laws that prevent criminals like trump from becoming president, but that didn't happen either.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago

If you make a "no felons can be president" then you give state and local DAs the power to destroy someone's election chances. That's a dangerous proposition and I don't support it, because you know Texas would start fucking with every decent future left-wing candidate.

On the other hand, if you're suggesting that he should be behind bars already, and therefore ineligible for president on account of "he's locked the fuck up right now", I agree.

If by "we", you mean the best politicians and judges that money can buy.

The so-called guardrails against undue interference are all from a time where everyone expected politicians to always act and argue in good faith and where corporations as we know them today didn't exist.

It's not for fun that every single other constitution still in effect is newer. Other countries have continued to renew their laws to better suit changing circumstances like the Founders intended for the US to do.

Who do you mean by who, you fuckin` fruit cake? Did you fookin charge him in U.S. court? Eh, silverbuttons?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

At which point do we call a spade a spade and declare the DOJ and the prosecutors to be accomplices for their roles in protecting an obviously guilty grifter at the expense of justice and the common good?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 3 points 17 hours ago

We did long ago. All of the prosecution for four years ago should have started 3.9 years ago, and it didn't, and that was an active choice by DOJ leadership and Joe Biden.

(And screw them for doing that.)

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We can call them whatever we want, but nothing is going to happen to any of them.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago

Sure, but just being honest about it in stead of making up a ton of bullshit excuses would still be preferable to the pretzel logic of the media and the Blue No Matter Who apparatchiks.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When I look at how many presidents who are considered good people have been shot, it would only be fair to balance the scales a bit.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

The Beetlejuice sequel I'm here for.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They were really going to do it too! Until they did nothing instead

Those meddling boomers... Darn them!!1!1!

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Such a shame they waited so long to start the trial and gave Trump every opportunity to delay. But surely Trump would have gone to prison if Harris won. Despite all the other things Democrats did not do to get him in jail, that would have been the thing. You know, four years is just such a short period of time for a trial. Everyone know you need exactly 4.5 years.

[–] loaf@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

“Oh yeah, he definitely would’ve been convicted.” “Then why wasn’t he?” “We’ll see, what had happened was…”

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Corrupt judge is what happened. No one remembers this?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

An AG that waited 2 years before even trying....

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Garland is a Republican and they always protect their own.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So you didn't remember anything. At least you're admitting it.

[–] loaf@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Oh yeah, but my comment wasn’t serious. It’s always corruption.

[–] galaskorz@discuss.online 12 points 1 day ago

Woulda coulda shoulda. Line them all up at this point. They’re all guilty.

Trump was kind of pardoned by the manipulated population.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Are the Yankees still mad at the Cowboys?