this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
197 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3395 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
 

"Special counsel Jack Smith laid out new evidence to support his assertion that Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election were taken as a private candidate, rather than his official capacity as the president..."

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Cue republicans immediately trying to shift the discussion to how inappropriate it is to do literally anything at all relating to Donald Trump's many indictments while the election is this close at hand, because as the republican candidate for president he should be above the law. You know, in the name of fairness.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

they've been saying that for 3 years, though. Well. would have been... but it took that long to get here.

grrr.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you're building a case against someone like Trump, you wait until it's rock solid before moving on it. There's the reason federal prosecutors have such a high conviction rate.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

And?

It took them 2.5 years to get the fucking documents back. Because "that might be political" It took them only slightly less time to get a special prosecutor appointed. marrick garland absolutely went political in the other way because he was scared of trump and slow walked the shit out of it in the hopes that trump would just go away.

Trump led an insurrection to try and overthrow the lawful government of the united states, he was never "just" going to go away.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Yep. Over on Fox News this is another “desperate” move by a weaponized DOJ.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago
[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Washington Post:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/02/jack-smith-filing-trump-immunity-jan-6/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support