politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Plenty of suggestions as long as we’re second-guessing his actions. Many of his crimes were related to the 2020 election, and if he hadn’t ran, he wouldn’t have issues in Georgia. We could also just say he could have not taken a bunch of classified documents, but it’s pretty easy to say “just don’t commit crimes”. The main one that he couldn’t avoid at that point was the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
If Trump had exited without a fight, my guess is that most of the momentum for that would have died out. Yes it was a crime, but I think most would have just wanted to put Trump in the rear view mirror and forget about him and focus on the future for better or worse.
Possibly. That would be basically agreeing with his claim that it was politically motivated prosecution, though. Seems to me like he really pissed off some people in New York and they may have done it anyway.
I disagree with your conclusion.
As an example, Nixon committed worse crimes than Trump's New York state crimes, and Nixon was not prosecuted for his crimes. Had authorities pursued conviction of Nixon that would not have been politically motivated.
I'm not saying I agree with Trump saying that in the first place. But to say he's prosecuted because he's running and wouldn't be if he wasn't seems like the definition of politically motivated. In any event, he's being prosecuted because he's guilty.
When someone in good faith says "This prosecution against me is politically motivated." They are communicating the idea that the charges were manufactured without any underlying crime or possibly the underlying crime is minuscule, but the charges are overblown. Neither of those is the case with Trump.
If you're just using the dictionary definitions of the words, "politically", "motivated", and "prosecuted" then yes it meets that, but then so does a whole bunch of other absurd stuff you don't mean when using the same logic. By that logic a home burglar is the victim of "politically motivate prosecution" because our legal policy is that burglary is a crime and that the burglar is being prosecuted because of it.
That's not a good parallel, it's the politically 'motivated' part he's referring to. If someone is being prosecuted because they're running for office, and you have a legitimate argument that if they had chosen not to run for office the charges would have been dropped, it's legitimate to say it's politically motivated.
On the other hand, if your crime was literally campaign finance crimes and voter manipulation, there's a reasonable argument that 'politically motivated' isn't necessarily a bad thing here. If you did a political crime, and seem likely to continue to be politically motivated to commit more crimes, it kind of makes sense that prosecuting you with a tiny bit of political intent isn't totally unreasonable.
Isn't "just don't commit crimes" a common justification for police murder and deflection when prison reform is brought up?
I guess. Not stealing a bunch of classified documents and refusing to give them back is a great way to not be prosecuted for stealing classified documents though.
Anyway what I meant by “pretty easy to say” is that it’s not really a satisfying or useful suggestion.
Lol. Indeed.
It's "hadn't run" in English.
Sorry about your highway shooting, glad if no one's been killed.
Highway what?