this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
226 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19115 readers
3593 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
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case made public Friday a heavily redacted trove of documents that provide a small glimpse into the evidence prosecutors will present if the case ever goes to trial.

The nearly 1,900 pages of documents collected by special counsel Jack Smith’s team were initially filed under seal to help U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan decide what allegations can proceed to trial following the Supreme Court opinion in July that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts they take in office.

That's gonna be some serious reading over the weekend.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

More here:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/18/politics/donald-trump-special-counsel-evidence-documents-release/index.html

Talking heads tonight should be fun!

"Most of the pages are completely redacted and believed to include grand jury transcripts and notes from FBI interviews conducted during the yearslong investigation.

The documents that are visible largely contain information that’s already been released publicly, including a transcript of Trump’s call with the Georgia secretary of state after the 2020 election where Trump asked him to “find” votes, photos of the 2020 fake elector certificates, and Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to Congress explaining why he could not reject congressional certification of the election on January 6, 2021."

[–] whostosay 7 points 1 month ago

I love your outlook, but according to the last 9 years, no the fuck they will not.

[–] 2piradians 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There's a lot of hype around calling this a trove and playing up Trump's resistance to having it released. Surely there's something damning in there, right?

[–] kescusay 21 points 1 month ago

I mean, I'm pretty sure most of it (not all) is known from the dribs and drabs that have already come out, but it's a coherent document that ties it all together.

[–] foggy 8 points 1 month ago

I betcha he still gets to run for president.

[–] EleventhHour 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, but nothing new, apparently

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago
[–] TropicalDingdong 1 points 1 month ago

Rachel Maddow and edging, name a more iconic duo.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -4 points 1 month ago

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

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://apnews.com/article/trump-capitol-riot-jack-smith-a4b4d7821c1a6d1f5076ec68f5ba7170
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support