I deleted my comment. I projected my emotion and criticized an article I hadn’t read. After reading it, it makes sense. Just tired of clickbait I guess.
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
209 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19151 readers
3802 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wow that’s character growth you won’t see in the other site. Good job
I lurked on Reddit for years and watched the shit show. I’m only commenting on Lemmy to help it grow. Amazingly, I realized after a couple of days of commenting that people were just venting their emotions/ fears into comments. I would read a comment, get angry, and respond. Then after a while, I would read the comment again, and see it in a completely different light. I understand now that sometimes people can be assholes just because they didn’t eat breakfast.
.
How dare you show me a stock image of "Irish Weekend Fry-Up served on a plate " and pretend that that was your actual breakfast!! I bet your so-called "peer-reviewed research" is just as false and useless as your non-existent breakfast!!
[Also, now I'm hungry. Guess I should've eaten before commenting .... ]
.
Oi, bruv, lemmy get sum of that English brekky too bruv, looking right delicious innit 🇬🇧
Yeah, but English baked beans.. bluuuuuurgh
Hey, it could be worse — at least he's not Chevy Chase!
Hallelujah, holy shit! Where's the Tylenol?
Love that movie. Favorite holiday film ever.
I agree with you. It's refreshing to see.
Damn. World needs more of you. ❤️
Thanks. This is my philosophy. Always choose kindness.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/s74HtrQAVtU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
And building a case this secure is why it took 2.5 years to get this indictment. Honestly, light speed in our legal system. Everyone who doubted along the way doesn't understand how these things work.
Honestly, light speed in our legal system.
For rich white people committing white collar crime.
I mean, yes. It's harder to make charges stick to people who can afford expensive defense attorneys. Add in the inevitable political ramifications of these particular charges, and you can see why it was critical to take the time to get this right. And they managed it in only 2.5 years. Absolute light speed under the circumstances
Certainly, and I'd much rather that the prosecutors and investigators make an iron-clad case than rush it and bungle something that lets the defense cry foul.
I was just commenting mostly so that we all remember that even though Trump seems to be getting a tiny bit of the comeuppance he deserves, we can't lose track of the fact that there are still two different legal systems. And we need to stay mad about the fact that which justice system a suspect ends up in is based almost entirely on the suspect's skin color and perceived wealth.
Living perpetually in a state of barely contained rage might not be the healthiest choice, but it's certainly one that keeps me motivated to do everything I can to change the existing system.
Yeah, I try to reach first for the easiest, high-impact reforms: End cash bail NOW. End the imprisonment of people who can't pay fines.
If this was "light speed", how long "should" it have taken? 200 years?
There's no "should," there's just how it is. Watergate took this long just to get to impeachment, and there was no federal criminal investigation into Nixon to go along with it:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize
Watergate only ended Nixon's presidential viability because Republicans still had some vague sense of shame at the time. Now they don't. If you want ironclad criminal charges, the investigation requires time.
If there is no standard pace, how can it be light speed? I think you undermine your point by stating this was really fast. To the layperson it absolutely isn't. And apparently to lawyers, it takes as long as it takes.
It's just difficult to find succinct sources that provide that data. Justice Department investigations tend to be years in length even when they don't involve a former President of the United States.
I think the layperson might confuse all criminal investigations with ones prosecuted by the DOJ when most crimes are actually prosecuted by state officials, not the DOJ. DOJ always moves way slower, always has.
Links below are not hard data, but it is statements from people with experience in the process:
"A Federal investigation can last upwards of 5 years due to most Federal Statute of Limitations prohibiting the Government from charging or indicting someone after that time period. It is not unusual to see an indictment that lists dates of offenses 3-5 years prior to an arrest."
https://thetampacriminallawyer.com/how-long-can-a-federal-investigation-last/
I only wonder how quickly this whole process is going to take. Can't help but wonder Trumps legal team is going to drag this out as much as possible.
Idk, tho I'm not a law wizard.
Yeah they definitely will try to drag it out. Trump knows that his only surefire way out of this mess is to win the election.
From the article
The charging decisions in the indictment reflect smart lawyering by the special counsel Jack Smith and his team. The beauty of this indictment is that it provides three legal frameworks that prosecutors can use to tell the same fulsome story.
It will allow prosecutors to put on a compelling case that will hold Mr. Trump fully accountable for the multipronged effort to overturn the election. At the same time, it avoids legal and political pitfalls that could have delayed or derailed the prosecution.
And further down
A conspiracy requires two or more people who agree to participate. This indictment lists but does not yet charge or formally identify six Trump co-conspirators. Mr. Smith clearly has enough evidence to charge those unindicted co-conspirators but has chosen not to — for now. This, too, is a smart tactical decision.
and in conclusion the author states
This indictment presents detailed and overwhelming allegations. It reflects sound legal and tactical decisions that should allow the government to move quickly and put on a powerful case.
It seems the feds already know exactly his his game, and wrote the indictment to head off as many avenues of delay that he may try to take.
Remember, Trump has decades experience fighting in civil court. Federal court is a very different ballgame.
He is no doubt going to try spinning this into a talking point for his election campaign. The same old "they're only punishing me because they're crooked demonrats" and all that shit
For sure. I am really still saddened that this works so well. Republicans are so tribal, it just doesn't matter what they have on him. Never has hit a point where "ok maybe a lot was political but this is overwhelming".
It's gotta be that the anger and hatred trump represents is core to their very being. They can't examine it. It would mean their whole life is flawed.
I feel this with my parents:/ Republicans used the abortion issue and it gets a lot of religious votes, and it works. Calling the democrats evil and saying they eat babies is something some of them really beleive in. So depressing.
Exactly. Same. Mine don't even watch Fox News. But they talk to their friends who do and they're under the impression that the media has been out to get Trump and have treated him unfairly since day one. As if the media wouldn't crucify anyone who runs for president with decades of skeletons in their closet. My mother has heard trump say "grab them by the pussy" and thinks it's offensive to have an issue with that quote. The same person who grounded me for weeks for less. I got spankings for WAYYY less than this. Lost a ton of respect for my parents over this. The worst part? Anytime you present evidence against Trump, they don't just ignore its implications. They get very mad.
Dude, are we siblings :) same exact shit. I was punished so hard for the tiny things I did wrong as a child. Always told I have to be better, and that being obsessed with money and leing is wrong. and then trump comes and its all ok and even a little funny. They wonder why my generation is disillusioned by organized religion.
Yeah it definitely sounds like we were raised similarly. So weird that our parents and others don't see the contradiction!
Trump’s basic platform was ‘they’re all crooked and out to get us, you absolutely CANNOT trust them. I am the only one you can trust’. The people who bought that will deny any evidence you put in front of ‘em.
100% he will, even if he has to "fire" is lawyers the day before the trial begins, which will automatically allow him an extension.
But then he's still got his Georgia mess and his NY State mess.
Not sure if there's anything cooking in Arizona or the Midwest states he tried to swindle votes from, but the chance is probably nonzero.
This is what we wanted from the Mueller investigation .
No, at the time the Mueller investigation released its report these crimes hadn't been committed yet.
We're still waiting on indictments for the Mueller investigation crimes! (And the violations of the Emoluments Clause and probably a bunch of other stuff, but who's counting?)
Great article, interesting take. Feels wierd but am gasp optimistic now?!