this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
906 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19143 readers
3332 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
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The slow walk of prosecutions against the Jan. 6th insurgents

A sane legal system takes time. While I agree the organizers have mostly gotten off scott-free, it's because they know how to keep themselves in the grey area even knowing full-well how the uneducated, violent people will react to their messages. The rubes have gotten hard time and I feel potential rubes have taken some notice. They'll still play the victim all day, but they seem less hesitant to join calls to action.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It didn't help that America's top cop (AG Merrick Garland) deliberately held back on the investigations. It's not just my opinion. Multiple observers came to the same conclusion.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Merrick+garland+slow+walk+January+6+investigations

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

And if the fuckers hadn't obstructed in the first place, Garland would be a Supreme Court Justice, and someone else would be AG.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't believe how many people are trying to paper over that by strawmanning "you wanted Garland to indict immediately?"

No, i wanted him not to BLOCK ALL INVESTIGATIONS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. But insiders gonna inside, Garland wants those country club memberships and speaking engagements.

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

... INCESTIGATIONS ...

Stepbrother, no ...

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

Ah, the nicest way to point out I'm an idiot. 😄

Fixed.

Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I saw "a typo" more than once, but typos get a pass. I think on the third time reading it: "OHHHhhhh."

[–] Riccosuave 2 points 1 year ago

they seem less hesitant to join calls to action.

I'm hoping you mean "more hesitant".