this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
181 points (98.9% liked)

politics

29946 readers
2310 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attack the court of public opinion was in agreement that it was justified as exigent circumstances. No Americans were defending the terrorist.

In the aftermath of the nation’s democratic institutions being attacked, it was a large portion of the voting populous that was actively contributing, primarily due to psyop campaigns from Russia and the Trump administration that convinced a large amount of the populous that the election was stolen. The people that were victims of this campaign were judges, politicians, military leaders and many other roles that allowed them to do things like Judge Cannon when she dismissed the 40-count federal indictment against Donald Trump and two aides, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

The difference between these two scenarios are so obvious they shouldn’t need explaining.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Not ar all. The GOP were angry, or left in stunned silence for weeks; it was fascinating at the time to watch them re-frame the narrative in public, in real time. In the first days, though, I doubt they would've objected. And so what if they did? Biden was the President, how would they stop him? If there had been a MAGA uprising, it could have been crushed, just like Occupy Wall Street was.

Also, plenty of people objected to the flouting of due process in 2002. The difference is not that some people objected.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

MAGA is made up of people with systemic power like judges, cops, military leaders, the billionaire class.

The occupy Wall Street movement never had members with that much power. Or anywhere near the same numbers.

The majority of Americans were ok with the reactions to 2001 terrorist attacks.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That was the point, wasn't it? That the U.S. has never held the powerful to account.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The point was that in the example of the terrorist attacks that there wasn’t anyone to hold accountable because as far as the majority was concerned there was nothing to be held accountable for.

With the example of Jan 6th U.S. tried to hold Trump accountable but was prevented by Trump himself with the help of a majority of the voting populous.

In a democracy it’s the voters that decide if there is something to be held accountable for. In both examples the voters decided there was nothing to be held accountable for.

In addition to that there are plenty examples of the U.S. holding the powerful to account. Here’s what I found in just a few seconds:

  • George Santos: The former New York Republican Congressman was arrested and indicted on a 13-count federal indictment in May 2023 for charges including wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making false statements.

  • Chris Collins: The New York Representative was indicted and arrested in 2018 for tipping off his son to confidential corporate information regarding an Australian biotechnology company. He resigned and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and lying to law enforcement.

  • Duncan Hunter: The California Representative was indicted in 2018 and eventually pleaded guilty to misusing over \(\$150,000\) in campaign funds for personal expenses, including family vacations, movie tickets, and extramarital affairs.

  • Larry Householder: The former Ohio Speaker of the House was arrested and convicted in March 2023 in a \(\$60\) million federal racketeering and bribery scheme—one of the largest public corruption cases in state history.

  • Steve Watkins: The former Kansas Republican congressional candidate and Representative was charged with three felony counts and one misdemeanor regarding voter fraud and illegally registering his residence at a UPS store ahead of the 2019 election.

  • David Rivera: The former Florida Representative was arrested in Atlanta in December 2022 and indicted for federal charges including acting as an unregistered foreign agent for a Venezuelan national and conspiracy to launder money.