this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
254 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19232 readers
3777 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 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person 70 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No shit. She needs to be investigated when Harris wins.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing will happen unless there’s a majority in both the house and the senate. She has to be impeached. I don’t believe the executive branch can fire her.

[–] Riccosuave 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They can and should criminally charge her if they had any fucking balls at all.

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

Really? Can you find me a reference? I thought the executive branch’s check on the judicial branch was appointment

[–] Riccosuave 2 points 1 month ago

Her preventing, hindering, or delaying the lawful prosecution of someone who stole state secrets definitely fits the federal criminal code for seditious conspiracy.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She has proven herself to be craven and corrupt enough, willing to serve Trump instead of the USA. I imagine she's a leading candidate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Hell, it's how JD got tapped for VP, so a proven tactic to advancement

[–] AshMan85 28 points 1 month ago

She should be on the list of accomplices

[–] Bonesince1997 13 points 1 month ago

One of his "Hitler Generals"

[–] barsquid 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's actually surprising me that she would receive a favor after he no longer needs her. I guess Federalist Society recognizes a shamelessly corrupt collaborator when they see one.

[–] SauceBossSmokin 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have it backwards. She doesn't get a favor. Everything is about Trump and who he thinks will do him favor after favor. The judge already did him a huge favor and Trump would expect constant favors if the judge is appointed AG.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

This. He knows he has a useful one now.

[–] Nastybutler 9 points 1 month ago

Quid pro quo. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

[–] stoly 4 points 1 month ago

Fortunately she’d be incompetent at it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] rigatti 1 points 1 month ago

Cool word, unfortunately not as cool of a concept

[–] Snapz 1 points 1 month ago

Open corruption

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -3 points 1 month ago

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

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

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-tossed-trumps-classified-docs-case-list-proposed/story?id=114997807
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support