this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
348 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19151 readers
3687 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2scoops 70 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Excellent news. Of course they want want to move to Fed. Court, so they have the potential for presidential pardons. Fuck every one of these seditionist assholes.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

State charges wouldn't be pardonable in Federal court, what it WOULD do is widen the jury pool outside Fulton County and block the TV cameras.

Getting jurors from outside Fulton county being the primary goal given how hard that county broke for Biden in 2020:

J. Biden Dem. - 73% - 380,212
D. Trump Rep. - 26% - 137,247

[–] kmartburrito 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They wanted to move it to West Virginia to get a "more diverse jury pool" haha.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

That's the Federal indictment brought by Jack Smith, not the State indictment brought by Fani Willis. Moving the Georgia case to Federal court would involve the Federal court district proximate to Fulton County, not relocation to a whole other state.

[–] Zippy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok I want to see justice served to all those involved as much as anyone but I don't think we can hold the high ground if we praise the use of biased jurors. It certainly is nothing to be smug about.

[–] kmartburrito 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They (republicans fighting felony indictments) are trying to, in several instances, get a jury pool of conservative white men, which they're calling a "diverse jury pool". That's them doing exactly what you're saying of desiring to use biased jurors. I'm not praising it, I think it's absolutely ridiculous and why I called it out.

If felony indictments aren't something you desire, and you're upset that a jury of your peers might not be stacked with people aligned with your corrupt practices and brainwashed in your political cult, then maybe don't. Commit. Fucking. Crimes.

[–] Zippy 1 points 1 year ago

While practically impossible to get a certain jury pool that would be exactly in the middle, both extremes can be wrong. If you're laughing because of the absurdity of them not getting their way to stock it with Republicans, then I apologized for the misunderstanding.

If people are smug for it being stacked with Democrats, then they are not much better than those that trying to move it to a friendly venue.

[–] Cerbero 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also saying it was within his duties and having the judge agree would dismiss the case.

[–] Phlogiston 4 points 1 year ago

I think this was the strategy. “I was just following orders” aka ”I was just doing my job “

The first step would be getting the judge to buy the basic argument - and then try to use it to get off scott free.