Yes. There should have been. FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO!
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
369 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19425 readers
5672 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Omg yes, this. Garland did Jack Shit for 2 years until Jack Smith got called in to start actually doing something, due to mounting public pressure. Merrick is a picture perfect representation of weak sauce Dems - pathetic. And now he says “hurry up”. Ducking infuriating dude.
Right, we're getting to the point where the Biden admin is playing right into his hands. If this goes through at those point, they are already primed to cry foul.
He was going to cry foul no matter what. He will always cry foul. He's a whiner and a loser and he's going to complain no matter the situation if it doesn't go his way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's not like they had 4 fucking years to get a trial done. They dropped the fucking ball and now they're panicking because it's already too late to push it through. He should have been convicted and incarcerated before the Iowa caucus this year.
The only thing I'd disagree with here is that I don't think they're really panicking, I think Trump being the Republican nominee is exactly what our current administration wanted because he's the easiest one to beat in a general election. This is why as soon as the case got handed over to a special counsel with some degree of independence from the White House things actually started happening with it.
I mean, that's what Clinton thought in 2016.
Nobody thought he could win in 2016 and everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm
The voters learned their lesson, but the Democratic party's establishment isn't nearly as pragmatic
Nobody thought he could win except all the people screaming about how bad it was that Clinton was running on keeping the status quo (when so many were clamoring for change) and how she was too arrogant to campaign in key states. Plenty knew that Clinton was fucking up, but Clinton and her fans were too far up their own asses to realize it and now they say things like "nobody could've known!" and "Clinton was right that Trump is a bad guy!!"
Clinton's fans didn't care. They planned on blaming her critics if their second choice won.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it would have been better if he didn't get the nomination. There's a 1000% chance he would run 3rd party or independent if he didn't get the nomination and that would split the Republican vote making it easier for the Democrats to win when 2/3 of voters don't show up to the polls this year.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Easiest to beat, yet there are a shit ton of people willing to vote for their dictator.
No argument there, but the things that make social conservatives lose their minds for him make independents and everyone else sick to their stomach. No one can beat him in a GOP primary, but he's a terrible general election candidate.
He's the easiest one to beat yet they put Biden up again which is probably like the only guy who has any chance of potentially losing against him.
Put any 48-58 year old up and he is probably guaranteed to win. It's like the Democrats don't want to win.
Biden is the only person who has defeated Trump in an election. Past performance doesn't guarantee the future, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be.
Nah, Biden is pretty likeable, neutral, uncontroversial, and a well known name. Kamala Harris would likely perform worse, for example. I'm sure there are many better people the DNC could have promoted by giving screen time and stuff like that starting years ago, but it was much too late to start that just months before primaries. And I'm guessing Biden and his administration didn't want to step away.
Unfortunately, it looks like the DNC is currently grooming Gavin Newsom to run for president in '28, and he's extremely unlikable, IMO. And I'm not even sure there will be a real election in '28.
Sorry man, that's not how this stuff works.
- You can have a quick case.
- You can have a strong case.
Choose one.
Now consider you're:
-
Evidence-gathering and waiting for smaller fish to flip and issue depositions.
-
All the while evidence gathering has happened since Garland got in office.
... While you're up against a former President in an unprecedented prosecution where loads of outside money will be funding the defense.
So your arguments better be TIGHT. I'd rather they take their time and do it right.
This is 100% the reason. Given the seriousness of the charges and the non-stick coating that Orange Hitler seems to have, this case needs to be way beyond firm. We're talking rock solid, gay porn hard.
You have a way with words.
it takes time to put things together.
We can't go back and correct the mistakes already made. However, we can correct the problems going forward. Starting with not treating Trump with as much deference as he has received.
Donald Trump is a prime example of what happens when nobody stands up to a bully.
Wish he was up against more Federal judges like Judge Lewis Kaplan in the NY civil trials, that guy takes no shit.
Well thanks for dropping anchor there, Admiral fucking Obvious.
Isn't Merrick Garland the one to make that call? Times a tickin.
No, not really. It's entirely in the hands of the court and to a lesser extent Special Council Jack Smith and the chess moves he makes against said Judges (which some may be fair; others not so much aka SCOTUS)
In the phoneix Wright universe, trials can take up to 3 days and no longer. I use to think that was a dumb rule. Now I wish that something like that was real.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in an interview with CNN that he believes there should be a “speedy trial” in the election subversion case against Donald Trump, while also pushing back on allegations that his department is targeting the former president for political reasons.
Garland said he agrees with special counsel Jack Smith’s assertion that the “public interest requires a speedy trial” in the 2020 election currently set for trial in March in Washington, DC.
Garland also defended the department against allegations of election interference when asked whether he thought the federal cases against Trump should have been brought sooner – in order to avoid the prosecution of a leading candidate unfolding months before a presidential election.
When asked about the perception that the Justice Department is prosecuting Trump for political reasons, Garland said: “Of course it concerns me.”
The federal criminal case over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has been put on pause while a dispute over Trump’s claim of presidential immunity winds through the appeals process.
“With respect to the public, I hope they will see, not only from what we’ve done but the outcomes of the cases and the way in which special counsel have proceeded that we have kept politics out of this,” Garland said.
The original article contains 351 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›