Shit or get off the pot.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
390 points (96.0% liked)
politics
23493 readers
2905 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That’s not how the legal system works. If you come at the king you best not miss and jack has no interest in missing.
I’d rather have an air tight case given how slippery Trump has been. You clearly understand how difficult this is yet here you are advocating for a rush job.
Let him cook.
It's been three fucking years. I strenuously object to the notion that building even an airtight case for crimes we all witnessed live on national fucking TV really needed to take this goddamn long!
For perspective, by this amount of time had passed after the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler had been arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, wrote a shitty book, and pardoned and released again. If even the Weimar fucking Republic -- damn near a failed state -- could manage that, what do these ridiculous delays say about us?!
Remind me what happened to Hitler after that prosecution?
He was convicted and imprisoned. Are you implying the fact that he got pardoned means that wasn't what they should have done? Do you think if they moved slower or did something else different Hitler wouldn't have been pardoned somehow?
Hitler didn't base his society on lawyers
load more comments
(1 replies)
In principle I agree. But the truth is the GOP has gone fully rogue. They aren't even playing the same game, let alone by the same rules. The more latitude Trump and those in thrall to him are afforded, the more likely an actual, effective, coup is executed. The deeper into the process Trump gets, the more legitimaized he becomes. The more legitimaized he becomes the more the "implications" increase. Basically he needs to be removed from the game as soon as possible because time is a huge factor. He's very good at stall tactics, and he is very good at making sure things do or do not stay in the public consciousness. In short, the most dangerous thing you can give Trump to play with is time.
Or just stringing it out and managing to win the next election (probably by more effective cheating)
We've already missed on multiple occasions and it's showing now.
No more half measures, Walter
I'm with you on the legal side, but on the media side, wtf. I'm tired of having to check whether each piece of new, devastating evidence is in fact a) new and not some new wrapper around an article from yesterday b) actually devastating, not routine filing and c) relevant at all.
That's no dig at this particular article, but these headlines are inducing a "shit or get off the pot" mentality as far as trying to keep up.
Edit: I would like to note that this headline engages in speculation (note the word "may"). That is some "shit or get off the pot" shit. I'm tired of what "may" happen. At least in the headline. Speculation has its place. It's in the body of a well-sourced article.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If the legal system cannot hold Trump accountable before hes able to get elected president and make these investigations stop then the legal system doesn't work. A system that cannot protect itself from the people it's supposed to punish is fundamentally broken, and that's looking like where we are. Cling to the broken system and you should expect broken results.
All that can be true and rushing it would still be a worse option.
We are nowhere near rushing it, its been three years. We are actively slow walking, all we need to do it treat him like we treat people without wealth, but we cannot. There's a massive amount of space between 'rushing it' and what we are doing right now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wait, are we cooking or are we shitting? Because those are very different pots...
Isn't the trial date already set? This is just an article about some random "expert opinion," not something actually from the case.
I'm so tired of these that I'm nimb to it. I've resigned myself to a bleak Donald Trump filled future.
Dont
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is this the relevant part?
Former Trump aide Nick Luna also shared that when the ex-president was told about Vice President Mike Pence’s need to be moved to a secure location, Trump responded by saying "So what?" Luna perceived this as an “unexpected willingness” on Trump's part to expose a longtime loyalist to potential harm.
“Indeed, Trump’s angry response to Scavino’s comment to him that there’s smoke coming out of the Capitol in effect was, ‘Let it Burn,’” Gershman said. “And his nonchalant indifference to Vice President Pence’s safety and welfare offers chilling proof that Trump’s conscious purpose, namely, his intent, was first to incite an insurrection and then by his inaction to demonstrate his intent that the insurrection effectively stop Congress from doing its constitutional duty to certify the election results.”
This proof would be “powerful circumstantial” evidence of Trump’s criminal intent underlying all the federal charges, he added.
I find it crazy how Trump trying to foege election results with fake certificates and get those flown into DC somehow didn't affect any of these things at all.
Like wtf.
This salon article is basically a re-posting of this article linked:
Basically the tldr is it's testimony that was recently disclosed publicly for the first time in a new motion from someone around him as the insurrection was unfolding. Lots of details about his mindset and what he was doing at the time, but one particularly interesting one was apparently trump decided to make the tweet about "Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done" minutes after hearing he was in danger, some more solid evidence he was trying to get his coup followers to attack Pence and others. Interesting details about what went down that will no doubt be helpful in court, but the headline is a bit sensationalized I think.
This is reminding me of Muller and how it was all talk that amounted to nothing
"Amounted to nothing"? Did you read the report? There was plenty of evidence that Mueller put forward that should have amounted to a case. The only remaining questions were if Trump was even aware he was being assisted and actively colluding, and if a sitting president could be prosecuted. Mueller decided he had to be impeached and removed before action could be taken, and his cult protected him.
That's not "all talk", that's Republicans putting their own interests over the country.
Muller's report was like... Yo, this guy did some things that definitely could be considered crimes. As an investigator, I referred them to the DoJ, as bringing a case against the president was not part of my mandate.
That then Bill Barr was like... Eh, he's white and rich and he's forwarding a christofacist agenda, so I don't think we need to charge him with anything.
There was plenty of evidence that Mueller put forward that should have amounted to a case.
"Should have" is all we ever deal in.
And Garland decided not to use it when he had the chance at the beginning of the Biden administration.
People went to jail because of Mueller's good work. Is that what your mean by "nothing"?
You may have wanted Trump to go to jail or be forced out of office but there was no chance of either of those given that Trump was President.
Yeah, that guy.
That head guy at the FBI that said Trump was fine after reviewing the report ... that guy is now in prison for being a Russian asset.
It was profitable, 34 people and 3 companies were indicted, and it substantiated election interference.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I have no faith in justice. I do have faith in strokes and heart attacks.
Quick, someone order him some a few dozen more hamberders
I feel like Trump would have his blood scrubbed nightly to prevent just that kind of thing.
I mean, if they properly constructed full presidential immunity on anything what's to stop B from having T executed?
I keep seeing hypotheticals like this as if the Dems won't pull the same old "we go high" BS they've been pulling my entire life. They're all about positioning themselves as "the good guys" while letting Rs do just whatever. The realistic way it would play out is Dems pretend nothing is wrong, make a show of "peaceful transfer of power" after the election, and do the shocked pikachu when it's bad. Do pay attention to modern history.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.
Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he'll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it's currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he's elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president's relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that's a given. Anyone that's flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.
People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they're probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he's a dumb, vindictive sonuvabitch.
Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn't the same as what I get from news sources. There's a lot that I've seen that simply isn't going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.
If I was a defendant in this case, I'd say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn't be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I'd end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren't great odds when you're talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.
view more: next ›