News

36327 readers

2068 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

545

Donald Trump would have been convicted over 2020 election, special counsel report says (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 if he had not won the presidential election in 2024, according to the special counsel who investigated him.

Jack Smith’s report (***the report is 174 pages long) detailing his team’s findings about Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy was released by the justice department early on Tuesday.

Following the insurrection on 6 January, 2021, Smith was appointed as special counsel to investigate Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His investigation culminated in a detailed report, submitted to the attorney general, Merrick Garland.

Volume one of the report meticulously outlines Trump’s actions, including his efforts to pressure state officials, assemble alternate electors and encourage supporters to protest against the election results.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be clear, I agree with you. However, I've been saying that the Trump Campaign didn't win this election, the Democratic Party lost it. The Trump campaign was a fucking mess. Trump rallies sucked. Their policies sucked, and I don't mean they were evil, I mean when you polled people, objectively, virtually every major policy the Democrats held polled better than anything the Republicans did.

The major difference was that the Democratic Party gave people the impression that they cared about propriety and institutions more than they did about normal people or even winning the election. They tried so hard to seem normal that nobody believed them when they talked about the threat posed by Republicans, and how can you blame people? If you were facing an apocalyptic threat, you would be fighting, not issuing high-minded press releases and carefully-worded and narrowly-defined policy papers.

Harris didn't run a totally garbage campaign, but when Trump and the Republicans were in full rabid dog mode and the Democrats couldn't figure out how to get past the tut-tut stage, it was never going to work.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree with most of what you wrote here but I have a response to one phrase..

how can you blame people

I mean, for me to not blame anyone, I'd have to assume that the vast majority of people are way stupider than I ever knew, or had no access to information to the contrary. And I've always thought people are dumb as fuck.

How can I blame people? Well, even if we assume that people knew nothing at all about the past decade, republicans made it blindingly obvious what a shit option they are. The democrats could've come on the stage drooling and babbling about space lasers and only in that case should the choice have been unclear.