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
From what I've read on the subject, the judge's options are basically to force DOJ to prosecute the case, which sounds about as silly as you'd think, or to at least go on record explaining their reasons for dismissal. The fact that it's a quid pro quo is already on record, but there doesn't seem to be much the judge can do about it.
Basically, the DOJ can give "Because fuck you that's why" as the reason and there's not a lot the judge can do about it. But it gets it on the record.
I've read that there is another option: the judge can order that a special prosecutor be assigned to take over the case. It is unusual, but then again, so is a slew of prosecutors resigning rather than sign the request for dismissal, which they know is improper.
The judge can rule that the reasons given by the current DoJ are not sufficient to simply wipe away the indictment, which was given by a Grand Jury. Yes, Grand Juries typically vote to indict, but in order to do that the prosecutor must at least show up with enough evidence to secure it.
Could the judge not also switch it to "With prejudice" so that they can't bring the charges again? Wouldn't be the best scenario because he would essentially get off scott free, but it would also prevent Trump from being able to hold the threat of future prosecution as blackmail
My understanding is that Trumps DOJ specifically filed it for dismissal without prejudice so they could retain the option to charge him again (Implicitly, to hold as blackmail over him)
I heard that is the most likely scenario, but I don't know if I'd say it's the "best" scenario. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to see criminals prosecuted for their crimes.
The judge could do that, but that would be an admission that the underlying reasons for dropping the prosecution after getting the indictment were acceptable to the judge. Which he might not want to sign off on, if he doesn't like what the prosecutors told him.
Well it also removes the power they have over him in the quid pro quo. If they can't bring the case again, he no longer has to hold up his end of the deal, and so it forces the DOJ to make a statement of whether the case truly is not worth pursuing.