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
Proof?
Did Garland ever lay charges for sedition? The evidence was right on TV for the entire global population to watch live...
So you don’t have any proof of your conspiracy theory?
Proof of what? That Trump led an insurrection, and Garland did nothing about it, except talking about some day doing something about it?
Garland started multiple investigations. And did all the things necessary to prosecute a President. Trump delayed that prosecution using his judges.
Then you claim Garland didn’t start the investigations or try to prosecute Trump. And you blame Trumps enemies for Trumps actions.
How long does one need for something that was publicly broadcast?
What exactly are you referring to that was publically broadcasted?
Because the argument that Trump used was that he didn’t incite the insurrection and that the people who stormed the capital acted on their own.
So to prosecute Trump, the DOJ had to prove beyond doubt that Trump intentionally incited the insurrection.
Not prove it to you or me. But prove it to a Judge appointed by Trump.
While managing the thousands of cases and investigations against the insurrectionists.
Proving intent beyond a doubt to a Trump appointed judge would require hard evidence and could still be ruled in favor of Trump by the judge he appointed.
The literal insurrection that happened, at his prompting...
Almost all of the folks convicted stated otherwise.
Doesn't sound any more difficult than a nationwide manhunt for someone who defended our nation against a mass murderer... And they seemed to be able to get that wrapped up pretty quickly.
I would have loved, had they tried. Garland, however, did not want to launch a case against a fellow neocon.
It must suck to be the AG... Or, perhaps, Biden should have appointed someone up tot he task. Meanwhile, they were investigating thousands of insurrectionists, convicted a bunch, who all stated they were following Trump's orders.|
Yes, I would have LOVED to see him even try to do so... However, he did not want to sic the hounds on a neocon darling like Trump.
Their statements don’t prove Trumps intent in court. Especially to a judge who favors Trump.
Luigi wasn’t the president. I’m surprised that needs to be explained to you.
They did try. Trump blocked the case using his judge. This is the part you’re ignoring for your conspiracy theory.
He was up to the task. Trump blocked the case using his judge. This is the part you’re ignoring for your conspiracy theory.
The other insurrectionists didn’t own any judges to block their cases until they became president again.
They tried to prosecute. Trump blocked the case using his judge. This is the part you’re ignoring for your conspiracy theory.