this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
378 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2328 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
 

Summary

After facing nearly 100 felony charges, including a historic conviction for hush-money payments, Donald Trump’s legal troubles appear to be stalling.

Jack Smith, the special counsel leading key federal cases on election interference and classified documents, reportedly plans to resign following Trump’s recent election victory, which effectively nullifies these cases.

Trump’s return to office, combined with Supreme Court rulings enhancing presidential powers, signals he may face minimal accountability.

This lack of oversight could empower Trump’s administration to act with unprecedented legal and legislative freedom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The justice dept went easy on Trump because it sets a very dangerous precedent for the current administration to use the power of the justice dept on political rivals. He was removed from office and his actions were investigated and displayed to the public. Under normal circumstances, those actions should make it so he cannot run again. The electorate are designed to be the check on political power, but it failed.

I fear elections no longer have that check. I do however believe the justice department made the right decision. I don't think it should criminally prosecute political rivals, because then we end up with situations like Nivalny dieing in prison. The justice department played it's role by exposing all of the criminal behavior, the electorate did not by allowing someone that dangerous back into power.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you are confusing prosecuting political rivals with prosecuting felons

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I understand your frustration, and I think he is guilty of the things he is accused of also. I still think the justice department made the correct democratic decision of setting the precedent that the executive branch does not prosecute political figures when the electorate has a chance to make that decision.

I hate that the electorate decided that none of those offenses were damning enough to flush that turd, but that's democracy. He won the popular vote and it's up to those of us unhappy with the result to convince others that we need better leadership.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

Compare to Brazil. They had a similar scenario play out with Bolsanaro. He was prosecuted and barred from office until I think 2030 for his stunt. It doesn't seem controversial.

[–] Veneroso@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

The investigations into January 6th and the classified documents were slow-walked beyond belief. Trump didn't even announce reelection until after the FBI raid. That was in August 2022! 20 months after January 6th.

If you or I did any of this we would have been in a government black site, not free to run for reelection.

Trump won't have the same hesitation when he starts his revenge tour.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

That's a removed take. If there's evidence of crimes then you go after them...