this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
187 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19245 readers
4221 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
 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon declined to recuse herself from the case involving Donald Trump's would-be assassin Ryan Routh.

The 58-year-old Routh's attorneys asked the Florida-based federal judge to recuse herself because she had been appointed by the alleged target of the assassination attempt and cited her controversial ruling in favor of Trump in civil and criminal cases — including the dismissal of his felony charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

"To the extent this case can even be said to qualify as a 'same or related' case as compared to the cited cases involving former President Trump — a strained assumption to begin with — the Motion presents no facts or law warranting a departure from the general rule of no recusal, much less the 'pervasive bias and prejudice' necessary to trigger the exception to the general rule," Cannon wrote in her ruling.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago

This is like… a textbook case for a mistrial. She is a blatantly biased imbecile, but I’m honestly shocked that she can’t even understand that this is just straight up not going to work.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Dude's gonna get the firing squad, calling it now

[–] alquicksilver 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

(Don't take this seriously. Or do; I'm not sure it would make a difference in all the insanity in the world.)

The conspiracy theorist in me says he'll disappear into the woodwork and, effectively, go free because it was a false flag.

My 'reasoning':

  • Trump wasn't in the guy's line of sight.

  • The guy didn't shoot.

  • When it happened, wasn't Trump having some struggles with his publicity? I forget the details, but I wanna say he wasn't getting as much attention at the time.

  • Trump didn't get much lasting attention from the first attempt, and it certainly didn't cause the country to rally ~~against~~ around him. Why not stage a second one to gain sympathy?

Again, I'm only maybe 5% serious here but, if the other side gets to have their insane conspiracies, I think it's okay for me to have this one.

Edit to correct me using the opposite word I meant.

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

Wouldn't letting him go free be an idiotic step in this conspiracy theory of yours? Might as well announce to the world he was on their side.

[–] halcyoncmdr 6 points 1 month ago

No one is paying attention anymore. No one cares. For those exact same reasons it was a failure. Trump was never actually in danger with this one.

[–] alquicksilver 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Cannon has shown herself to be inept enough in her position before; I could see her 'accidentally' messing up and needing a mistrial.

Or could take it even crazier and have him go to prison and quietly squirrel him away somewhere under a new name. (Even better if he were to "die" in some method where his remains wouldn't be pristine so as to make it easier to falsify its identity.)

Ugh. Typing that made me feel like I'm making arguments to treat this seriously; feels gross. I don't understand how people can genuinely believe conspiracy theories; if you pull at any one of the loose threads, the whole theory falls apart. My 5% has decreased. 😂

[–] Iheartcheese 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, I'm glad you saw the light about how bad these conspiracy theories are. No intelligent human could ever believe they would make a presidential assassin just disappear in prison. It's laughable.

[–] alquicksilver 3 points 1 month ago

Not sure if you're joking, so wanted to clarify, just in case - It's not that I "saw the light"; I was never in the dark and am not a conspiracy theorist. My initial comment was meant to not be taken seriously.

[–] Carrolade 3 points 1 month ago

Nah, I'm seeing drawn and quartered.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'd be shocked if the appeal took more than 5 minutes.

[–] distantsounds 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That headshot of her has become triggering

[–] tuxtey 2 points 1 month ago

Are we not doing phrasing anymore?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -4 points 1 month ago

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

Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source is biased and that in-text attribution should accompany each use of the source.


MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-trump-2669504258/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support