this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
383 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3677 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 114 points 1 day ago (6 children)

But why?

Make the fascist fire you.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Actual reasons from an actual lawyer here https://youtu.be/wFEo9YJjGA0?si=-tQmsAGUSC4-H4jw

Tldr; Every other possibility ends in dismissal with prejudice. Dropping it leaves it potentially reviewable in 4 years. It's still highly unlikely anything happens.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 3 hours ago

It will be posthumous at best. That orange leather lump ain't lasting four years, even if he did plan to step down at the end of it.

[–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

Came here to post this. Legal Eagle breaks it down proper here.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Thanks for this.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 105 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  • Because his job will now never be completed
  • Because this also slightly diminishes the possibility that he’ll be politically prosecuted by the incoming admin - though to be clear, I fully expect the Trump DoJ to make Smith’s life a living hell, and to throw him in jail if they can, and perhaps even execute him if they can figure out how to kangaroo court things to that degree. That is not a joke. This is an entirely serious comment.
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why have a trial? SCOTUS already ruled President Trump is a king and can kill anyone so long as it's an official act.

We are entering the beginning stages of fascism people. Hold onto your butts.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I understand the sentiment, but it will never happen. Killing "Whites", especially whites named "Jack Smith" is bad for optics. Now Letitia James and Fani Willis is another story entirely. If I was either one of them I'd be getting my ass on a plane to someplace with a non-extradition treaty post haste.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

What if they call him gay and plant cp on his PC?

It would be trivially easy to convince Trump voters that he deserves execution...

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Nazis make new in-groups and out-groups all the time. Loyalty way overshadows race in this case.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago

Because the cause for his appointment no longer exists. The OLC memo regarding the prosecution of sitting Presidents means that Smith's appointment is frustrated at its most basic level of inception.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago

The Fascists will fire people with firing squads, there's no shame in an act of self preservation when resigning from a job you can't do might keep you alive.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

just wait till Jack see's all the new crimes trump is gonna commit, he'll be back in business in a few years

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Dog.... just stop with the copium. It's embarrassing. Trump will never answer for his crimes, period. This should be abundantly clear after 8 years of flopped motions against him.

No Mueller report, no special council, no hush money case.... is ever going to stop this guy.

Give up on the idea of justice against this dude and start preparing for his dictatorship.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Teflon donvict.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 14 hours ago

Trump is and always has been, immune to consequneces

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

"Won't somebody [redacted] of this [redacted] p[olitician]?" unfortunately seems like our only escape hatch. I wish the two time travelers had better success in their missions. I am not confident the future resistance has enough resources to send a third, but one can hope.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court already rules that not only is Trump all but immune from prosecution, but that he can't even be investigated or questioned over it.

So if Trump were to make a phone call and say "Yes, we're going to sign this into law, and schedule a meeting about that other thing. Oh, and have Tom Hanks killed in a hail of bullets, kthxbye.", the fact that he ordered Tom Hanks killed might be prosecutable. The problem is that even if they know he ordered Tom Hanks killed, they legally can't even ask him about it because it happened during an official phone call.

Trump could go on a crime spree that would make the Mafia legitimately look like choir boys, and Jack Smith......well, Jack Smith isn't going to be able to do Jack about it.

January 20, 2025 isn't a swearing in ceremony. It's a coronation.

[–] 4grams@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yep, I hate it but at least it's starting to sink in. come jan. we are in a functional trump dictatorship. there are no checks and balances left, the court assured so and with the legislative branch under his control, the single, only hope we have is that he's too hilariously inept to be effective.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

And this didn’t even require a violent takeover like he thought was necessary last time. He was a far worse candidate this time and so much of the American public was eager to throw the power back into his hands, while a sizable chunk did not seem to think it was important enough to go vote against him.

[–] 4grams@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Right. And can buy the scorpion and the frog argument the first time around but this time there was NO ambiguity.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

No ambiguity for anybody who cared enough to pay attention anyway!

It’s like the scorpion only stings while the frog is sleeping, and every morning the scorpion complains about how those damn hornets wearing DNC and BLM shirts came back and stung the frog that the scorpion loves so much. And despite the stings not even looking like hornets did it, the frog is unaware of the concept of confirmation bias and likes what he’s hearing so he just goes with it.

[–] 4grams@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'm always a fan of torturing a metaphor so yeah, exactly :)

It's been going on for ages but at this point I don't really blame the scorpion anymore. I certainly don't blame the hornets wearing t-shirts, I mean, I don't like them and I will try to exterminate them but not by trying to starve them out with scorpion overpopulation.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 10 hours ago

As far as not blaming the scorpion, when you look at it from his perspective Trump is one of the most “successful” people on the planet according to the metrics that matter to him. His shitty behavior is rewarded and reinforced over and over again. Ugh.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Because he’s a nazi supporter, and was ineffective on purpose.