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
I imagine it's a combination of not wanting to reveal sources and mechanisms for acquiring intelligence, needing to follow due process, unwillingness to show federal agencies interfering with a federal election, as well as a certain amount of fascism within the agencies involved.
Add to that the previously common assumption that "it can't happen here."
The real question is, why did the Biden administration not recognize the existential threat in letting them try again?
They did. And people were trying to warn everyone about this pretty much since Trump left office last time. Two problems. One is that people just didn't listen or didn't care. Especially his base. Trump could have ran Putin himself as VP and his base still would've voted for him. All the warnings in the world wouldn't have done jack shit.
The other problem is that, especially as the incumbent running for re-election, Biden can only say and do so much before giving off the appearance that he is using his position of authority to attack political rivals and interfere in elections. I'm not even saying he'd be wrong per se, but using a position of authority to make those accusations and have someone prosecuted, jailed, and/or disqualified from running is a common tactic in authoritarian regimes, and people absolutely would be making those comparisons, likening Biden to a wannabe-dictator trying to hang onto power. Trump absolutely would have latched onto that with a deathgrip, and given the political environment we're living in, he could have easily won by an even bigger margin than he did on the backs of people saying that Biden overstepped his authority by trying to have Trump disqualified based on what would be perceived as wild accusations and conspiracy theories.
And when it comes to political campaigns, perception is typically far more important than reality. Doesn't matter how true the accusations are. It would come off as a Biden conspiracy theory to try to have a political rival disqualfied, which most Americans are dead set against.
Was the Trump Base running the DOJ between 2021 and 2025? Was it running the FBI back in 2016? Why did Trump's criminal prosecution happen in New York County Court rather than a Federal District Court? And why didn't that court deliver a penalty as part of the verdict against him? Were Alvin Bragg and Juan Merchan part of the Trump base? Was AG Merrick Garland?
You don't think staunch evangelical stalwart Mike Pence and shameless Peter Thiel bagman JD Vance brought anything to the Trump ticket in '16 and '24 respectively?
Love to call Donald Trump a treasonous crook guilty of 91 different crimes and needing a good long stay in federal prison along with a stiff fine amount to his entire personal fortune, because of all the evil things he's done.
But then turn around and say "There's literally nothing I can do - as The President of the United States of America - to protect you from an American in America flagrantly doing crimes against his neighbors, because that guy is running for President and I wouldn't want to look biased against him."
I'll posit you this. By not actually prosecuting Donald on day one of his administration, the Biden Administration gave off the appearance of using his presidential campaign to slander the incumbent with false rumors and baseless accusations.
Because if you say all this gnarly shit about a man and build up this entire case for their removal from office, then step into the Chief Executive's Office and announce "Lolz, jk! Nothing to prosecute!" it looks like the guy you were badmouthing was actually not guilty of any crimes. If he was guilty, you'd have prosecuted him, you'd have won the case, and you'd have put him in jail. But you didn't do that. So why would anyone believe your VP when she started in on the same shit four years later?