this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
183 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2158 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 51 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Yup.

You can kiss Trump ever seeing consequences for his crimes goodbye.

Welcome to the new America.

Elections have consequences and Americans are simply too stupid to maintain a democracy. So we won't have one much longer.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 9 points 4 days ago

Trump didn't see any consequences in the old America either.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

A couple of people gave it a shot.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not happening at all, but the only hope for accountability is a massive blue wave in 2026 followed by an immediate impeachment. Even then that's just early retirement.

[–] Lennny@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We are well and truly fucked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Relevant username is relevant.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 66 points 4 days ago (11 children)

But why?

Make the fascist fire you.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 54 points 4 days ago (2 children)
  • Because his job will now never be completed
  • Because this also slightly diminishes the possibility that he’ll be politically prosecuted by the incoming admin - though to be clear, I fully expect the Trump DoJ to make Smith’s life a living hell, and to throw him in jail if they can, and perhaps even execute him if they can figure out how to kangaroo court things to that degree. That is not a joke. This is an entirely serious comment.
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why have a trial? SCOTUS already ruled President Trump is a king and can kill anyone so long as it's an official act.

We are entering the beginning stages of fascism people. Hold onto your butts.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I understand the sentiment, but it will never happen. Killing "Whites", especially whites named "Jack Smith" is bad for optics. Now Letitia James and Fani Willis is another story entirely. If I was either one of them I'd be getting my ass on a plane to someplace with a non-extradition treaty post haste.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Nazis make new in-groups and out-groups all the time. Loyalty way overshadows race in this case.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Actual reasons from an actual lawyer here https://youtu.be/wFEo9YJjGA0?si=-tQmsAGUSC4-H4jw

Tldr; Every other possibility ends in dismissal with prejudice. Dropping it leaves it potentially reviewable in 4 years. It's still highly unlikely anything happens.

[–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Came here to post this. Legal Eagle breaks it down proper here.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Thanks for this.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

Because the cause for his appointment no longer exists. The OLC memo regarding the prosecution of sitting Presidents means that Smith's appointment is frustrated at its most basic level of inception.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

The Fascists will fire people with firing squads, there's no shame in an act of self preservation when resigning from a job you can't do might keep you alive.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] greenshirtdenimjeans@sh.itjust.works 38 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago

There are rules for us, not them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Leave it up to moderate liberals to roll over and die. Way to signal his kingship guys, fucking top notch pick, that Merrick Galand. To think this ineffective dipshit was considered for SCOTUS. Literally a direct historical correlation to the rise of Hitler through ineffective and complacent liberalism from the socialist party. I guess when you construct a DOJ that doesn't prosecute billionaires the whole thing short circuits when the tyrant is one.. who could have predicted that except every leftist and historian?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 4 days ago

I'd quit too. America was too stupid to not vote trump in again, so why the hell martyr yourself for half a country of clowns when it gains you nothing?

Guess this election really was the nail in the coffin for me regarding how people were so blind and meek regarding Hitler's rise to power. Guess anyone that's not a leftist really does just let it happen, and the left is turned ineffective due to being labeled too extreme

History will think of today's USA the same way we thought about nazi Germany: wondering why nobody just put a bullet through Hitler's skull

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

We have a socialist party?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The Republicans sure think so lmao

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"COMMUNIST MARXIST FASCISTS" are our preferred pronouns according to Shitler.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No, and neither did Germany.

[–] BangelaQuirkel@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Maybe I’m not getting something here, but why do you think Germany didn’t have a socialist party?

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because at the time of the Nazi takeover, the party with that name was wholly operating as a rubber stamp to the most extremist right wing elements taking hold of their party. "The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" is similarly nondescriptive as "German Worker's Party" later purposely misleadingly named to "National Socialist German Workers' Party" after Hitlers rise.

[–] BangelaQuirkel@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Ah I see. Yes, no doubt the NSDAP wasn’t socialist but that doesn’t mean Germany didn’t have socialist parties back then. E.g. the social democrats were still marxist, iirc.

As an aside it is very saddening that people really think the nazis were leftists because of the name. That’s just a level of stupidity I can’t fathom to comprehend.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 28 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The Darkest Brandon move would be to remove the DOJ policy on not investigating sitting Presidents. Many of these cases were clearly not under Presidential Immunity, and some weren't even done while Trump was President. That should have consequences regardless of getting the job back or not.

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Darkest Brandon should have Trump [redacted]

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

He's an obvious national security threat. Biden could claim immunity since it would be an official act to protect the country.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I still don't understand how this is an official DOJ policy. I always see it referenced as a DOJ memo from the 70s. Who gives a shit about memos? This is supposed to be a country of laws, not 50 year old memos.

But yeah, would love Garland to issue a new memo overturning that policy. Let Trump's first official act be to overturn an existing policy to prevent him from being investigated. Not saying he would even hesitate to do it, just saying I'd like to make it an explicit step he has to take.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Legal memoranda are not just an interoffice note. They are policy interpretations and internally-governing documents. The memorandum is from the Office of Legal Counsel which is an independent subdepartment — neither Garland or the President himself can overturn the policy.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad that presidents can't just overturn Justice Department policy when they want.

Wish we had a remind me bot so I can check this comment in 4 years and see if that's still the case.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

It won’t be. Because: fuck everything

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

The darkest Brandon would be [redacted]

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 18 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why? Prosecutors dogged Clinton for 8 years.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

from the article:

In late October, Trump said in a radio interview that he would immediately fire Smith as special counsel if re-elected. “It’s so easy — I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said, adding that he got “immunity at the Supreme Court.”

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Clinton didn't have a rabid dog in the AG office

[–] ProIsh@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Thanks for all your hard work. Very meaningful.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 6 points 4 days ago (7 children)

The people clearly made their choice and intentions known. It’s a shame.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›