this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
237 points (98.8% liked)

politics

20428 readers
6049 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
 

Judge Tanya Chutkan has denied Donald Trump’s effort to block a new dossier of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s evidence in the election inference case from becoming public.

From the decision: “The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making, rather than incorporating them as Defendant requests.”

Chutkan said she will unseal the evidence tomorrow.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person 61 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 4 months ago

Trumps own fault for delaying, too bad his voters have decided criminal over country.

[–] PlasticExistence 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Smith Team sends its regards

[–] jordanlund 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Tell Trump it was me! I want him to know it was me!"

[–] billiam0202 5 points 4 months ago

Not exactly the best quote, given what happens to that character immediately after she says that...

[–] alquicksilver 49 points 4 months ago

I read the order in full and am so satisfied. It's quite short and worth the read. While it isn't much in the grand scheme of things, reading Judge Chutkan's metaphorical eyeroll was delicious. I particularly enjoyed:

Setting aside the oxymoronic proposition that the public’s understanding of this case will be enhanced by withholding information about it, any public debate about the issues in this case has no bearing on the court’s resolution of those issues. “Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941).

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think this kind of shows Trump doesn't actually understand his base. There's no reason for him to be concerned about this being made public.

Whatever information comes out from this will result in:

Dems: fucking duh, he's a criminal

Magoos: FAKE DEMOCRAT LIES!! DEI OBAMA JUDGE!!

[–] Raiderkev 12 points 4 months ago

Grabs popcorn...

[–] ChowJeeBai 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Wait for him to whine about interference...

Poor Don Poorleone. Hopefully this time it'll stick.

[–] CluckN 7 points 4 months ago

See article about new Trump charges

”This time he’s in trouble”

Court takes 2 years to reach a verdict

Trump sells Hawk Tuah merch and pays the fine back.

The cycle continues

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -5 points 4 months ago

CourtListener - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CourtListener:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/265/united-states-v-trump/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support