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
You really think Trump followers voted for Trump when he was found guilty of fraud only because it wasn't a criminal case?
Using your excuse, New York v. Trump should not have happened because there was a chance Trump would have been found innocent and that would have given the election to Trump.
Really?
Different cases, different things to prove, different evidence available to prove it. New York v Trump had plenty of evidence, including a paper trail and tons of witnesses. It still took a ton of time to compile it together so that the case would actually end with the guilty verdict, but he WAS convicted of 34 felonies by the end of the process because the prosecution in that case felt they had enough to bring it to trial. Just like any other criminal case that gets prosecuted.
You were saying that Trump should have been arrested on January 7. Then what? A case so poorly put together that he gets acquitted? A conviction that gets overturned on appeal because the defense didn't have adequate preparation? Just as Trump should be accountable like anyone else (to be clear, he's a piece of shit and I'm pissed Aileen Cannon and SCOTUS have done him so many favors to put us in this position) he should have the same legal protections as any other defendant. That includes a speedy trial on arrest as the constitution says. I understand you know people who were screwed by the system. That shouldn't happen to anyone, and definitely shouldn't be used as a justification to have it happen to more people.
Arrests are made, then the case is put together. That's the way it works.
They didn't wait 4 years for Luigi. We had video of Trump telling the crowd to attack.
There's a threshold to be met. When you kill someone not in self-defense, your intent isn't as relevant (maybe there will be a different degree of murder/manslaughter considered, but it's pretty obvious that there's something to arrest you for)
Trump had enough left out in his speech ("go to the Capitol building and protest peacefully", could mean "do the same thing you're doing here but outside the Capitol building") to give some plausible deniability on its own. In the months/years to follow, we learned important details like that he knew the crowd was armed (and said to remove the metal detectors). That he knew he lost and didn't believe the bullshit conspiracies he was spreading (and was advised as much). Things that are very much needed in a criminal trial to reach that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with that intent part of things that's very hard to prove in cases like this.
What specifically was added to Jack Smith's report after November which would have ensured a conviction?
Everything from the metal detectors, witnesses, and confessions were all known 4 years ago. Arrests started for everyone but Trump in 2021.
Republicans immediately impeached him on the overwhelming evidence. They literally said the next step was the courts: which never happened.
I'm going to take "4 years ago" to mean January 7, because that's when you said he should have been arrested.
Metal detectors and stuff came out from the 1/6 committee. That was learned from interviews with witnesses (remember, a witness is someone testifying on their knowledge, not necessarily an eyewitness). That took time to compile who knew what, who is reliable, whose testimony may conflict with someone else's, who may know more about what someone said, etc.
Some Republicans joined Democrats in the House in the vote to impeach, and some Senators did the same in giving a guilty verdict. The latter was not the 2/3 needed to convict (in the impeachment proceedings, not criminal of course).
The problem is that in the impeachment proceedings, people were saying it's a problem for the courts. In the courts, they said there's nothing that could be done if the president wasn't impeached. That's some bullshit circular logic, but the real bullshit is that it worked.
Impeach was House. Convict was Senate. Courts did not say nothing could be done without impeachment because there was no court case.
So again, what was in the report that was discovered after the Nov 5th 2024 that would have forced Trump's conviction?
Understood, and I don't think I said anything to dispute that.
Incorrect once again! There were 2 cases brought on by Jack Smith. Neither went to trial. Aileen Cannon dismissed one case (Mar a Lago documents, which should have been pretty straightforward if it had a competent judge running things) saying that Jack Smith wasn't properly appointed (which would be a godsend for the many people who have been convicted under a special prosecutor if that logic actually holds for once).
The other (January 6 and related stuff) had a competent judge who was actually very tough on the J6 rioters previously, but that case got appealed up to SCOTUS which had that horrible "official acts" ruling.
That was kind of my point on my very first post on this thread. There were things in progress, things that would not have been done if Smith didn't think he had a good chance at meeting that high burden of proof. There was enough before that report was released, after a ton of work was put into it, but the judicial system did in fact fail here. Not because Trump wasn't arrested on 1/7/2021, which would have been a short and certain path to nothing (and because of double jeopardy laws, could have lead to a permanent actual exoneration) but because they allowed every avenue to delay, made a few ridiculous rulings, and ultimately Trump somehow got reelected to stop the few moves Smith had left (for example, appealing the docs case dismissal or showing that his January 6 actions weren't official acts as president)
There is nothing in the case that was new. Therefore Trump could have been in jail while the case was being built.
Do you actually believe that Trump will be arrested in 4 years? Because if not, then the entire idea that he would be exonerated is irrelevant.
You said he shouldn't have been jailed because without an airtight case, he could have been released. Then what's the worst that could have happen had he been found not guilty two years ago? He could get reelected? Well look what happened.