this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
139 points (99.3% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4612 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
139
Trump’s stalled election-subversion prosecution revs back to life (www.politico.com)
submitted 1 month ago by just_another_person@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Some Trump critics have urged Chutkan to hold a hearing to assess the effect of the immunity ruling on the evidence Smith intends to present. That proceeding could feature witness testimony from key figures in the case.

Trump opponents hope this “mini-trial” would showcase Trump’s ties to the violence that unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021, and remind voters of the most chaotic day of Trump’s presidency, even if it doesn’t carry the same stakes as a jury trial.

IANAL but if this mini-trial doesn’t have the same stakes as an actual trial, Trump will just claim that, “they didn’t convict me so I’m innocent”. I’m not sure if this is the best gambit.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

It's not a "gambit", it's the only logical outcome given what the Supreme Court did. They crafted a new protection for the President out of thin air. They may act like it's been there all along, but when Smith first filed these charges, these protections (particularly regarding getting any staff testimony at all) didn't exist.

So the prosecutor made a bunch of charges based on one set of rules, then the SC stepped and said "Naw, use these rules instead". Of course, Trump will say that these new rules render the entire Prosecution null and void, while Smith wil say that it has little effect. So the judge has no choice but to take in all the evidence and make a ruling. She wouldn't be doing her job correctly if she didn't do it this way. It's kind of like when the judge in the GA trial held a "mini-trial" of the DA and her vacation plans, when assessing whether the DA's relationship was a problem or not.

The timing may be convenient for Trump's opponents, having a public airing of charges right before an election (and maybe a bit after his NY sentencing). But let's not pretend that Trump didn't purposefully do everything he could to delay his trials until after the election. If this one didn't get delayed quite far enough, it's not Jack Smith's fault. He wanted this trial over with by now.

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

I also ANAL, but I digress

Not doing something because "Trump will claim it as a win/innocence for himself" is bad. Some things may not be worth pursuing because it won't convince anyone of anything new, but Trump claims everything is his personal win. He could completely, graphically, undeniably, soil himself in front of everyone and he'll call it a victory of innocence to pwn the left and his fans will scream for more. Weird.

He has flagrantly lied about objectively provable facts (daily/hourly) and nobody who is voting for him cares.

Weather a trial is high stakes, low stakes, or no stakes, reality is whatever Trump says it is.

Anyone still on the fence should be exposed to as much J6 imagery, rhetoric, and traito(R) flopping between the rioters being FBI Antifa plants, and also RNC diarama prayer props. True patriots to be prayed over, and who will be immediately pardoned in a second Trump presidency.

The general protest and subversion of Facisim in all its forms should always be endorsed.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It should take Chutkan about an hour to list all the reasons these aren't official acts, then get this shit going again.

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

Yep, air the laundry, then let the convicted felon appeal the new ruling back to his pals at the corrupt SCOTUS.