this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
98 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4443 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The more she digs into this shit, the more shes making an easy case to get disbarred. Let's see her psycho GOP operatives try and stop that.

[–] AlternatePersonMan 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter. It will be too late. She's just trying to delay.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Yeah, but that’s not gonna sink in for a generation or so

[–] Eatspancakes84 2 points 5 months ago

Lol at disbarred. She will be in the Supreme Court if the election goes the wrong way!!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, appeared somewhat skeptical of their long-shot arguments, which join a long list of motions to dismiss the case.

But she also questioned whether Attorney General Merrick Garland has oversight of the case, and took the unusual move of allowing nonparties who support Trump to argue in front of her.

Cannon appeared to cast doubt on that argument, telling attorneys that judges in a similar case involving Robert Mueller did a “fairly comprehensive review.”

It’s not unusual for attorneys to throw whatever they can at trying to dismiss the charges against their clients, but judges rarely hold hearings on them — and almost never invite people who aren’t involved with the case to argue on a defendant’s behalf in an open court.

The former president faces 40 separate charges stemming from allegations that he withheld hundreds of classified documents after leaving the White House for his private Mar-a-Lago compound in Florida, then conspired to obstruct government attempts to retrieve them.

His co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who are accused of helping Trump mishandle documents at the Florida property, have also pleaded not guilty.


The original article contains 575 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Why do you let those destroying your country walk the earth?

You can’t reason with cancer - Steve jobs is really dead

[–] Etterra 3 points 5 months ago

We all knew something like this would happen, but noooo they went ahead and left her in charge anyway.