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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
Late May seems ... kind of late? I was listening to some qualified people talk about March as a reasonable time frame, both for the defense to prepare, and for the trial to wrap up before the election. Having it in May means that the outcome of the Republican primary will probably be known, very possibly with Trump as the presumptive candidate. Which then allows the defense to yell about "b-b-but presidential candidate, you can't hold him responsible for anything!"
That would be such a dangerous precedent tho
Step 1 : commit as much crimes as you can
Step 2 : become a presidential candidate
Step 3 : cry on social media that this is a political hit.
There. Loophole to freely commit crimes and corruption.
Well, we've already seen that that "logic" applies when Step 2 is "Become president." That precedent was already successfully set; might as well try to wedge it open further.
Keep in mind that this is a Trump appointed judge and she's essentially all in on the Trump train. There have been articles in the past month or so speculating what she'd do, whether push this off until after the election (which is what Trump wanted, and if he won, he'd make sure it went away or got buried, and would basically destroy her reputation as a credible judge, so that would play into her career) or have it before the election, which is obviously what Trump did not want. I think she's splitting the difference here, having it before the election, but months after what Jack Smith had requested.
FTA:
This sounds like she's trying to appease both sides as much as possible with minimal damage to her credibility, reputation, and career.