this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
441 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3977 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
 

"The brief due Thursday (9/26) – which is expected to exceed 200 pages, including exhibits, and is meant to convince courts Trump should be prosecuted for alleged obstruction and conspiracy criminal activity — is a rare avenue for evidence to be aired in court before a trial.

Chutkan of the DC District Court, in a six-page opinion, said she would allow such an outsized briefing because the Supreme Court, in its recent decision to give Trump’s actions while president immunity from prosecution, has directed her as the trial judge to look closely at facts in the case to decide if some allegations could move forward to trial."

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 86 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Get the popcorn popper ready

[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 88 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm full of popcorn already. It's time for the movie to finally wrap up and the villain to get his ass handed to him. :(

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

This is just the prequel bud

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago
[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

How bout some Popplers™️?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah I’m not down for this RotK EE IRL bullshit.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This popcorn better be Xanax and bourbon flavored.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

So I’m too drugged up and sedated to get too angry when nothing actually happens here?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago

That was a great literal lol as I get ready for my day. Thanks!

[–] AtomicHotSauce@lemmy.world 73 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I wish I had any hope that this will lead to him rotting in a cell but, alas, it’ll be a nothingburger like every other action against him. We live in an alternate universe now.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But he's losing and not the Republicans golden boy anymore. Maybe he's finally weakened enough to Finish Him!

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the only thing that's going to Finish Him! at this point are hamberders in the next 6 to 8 years

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 month ago

a wild covefe enters mar-a-lago

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you follow court cases, this kind of time is normal. The other actions are not nothingburgers, not at all.

Take the Sarah Palin email hack. Happened in Sept 2008, they zero in on him almost immediately, and he's charged in Oct. The trial doesn't even happen until April 2010, and then sentenced that November. That was a relatively straightforward case against a nobody.

Or Kevin Mitnick, who was arrested for computer hacking in Feb 1995, charged in 1998, and pleads guilty in 1999.

If Trump doesn't win the election, he's fucked. Only death will keep him out of jail. If he wins, it's still quite possible Merchan sentences him to jail (on state charges that quite clearly have nothing where he can claim immunity), and then things will be a little too interesting. What happens when a state sentences someone who is the President-elect? I'm a curious person by nature, but lets leave that question unanswered if we can avoid it.

[–] lionheat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

He'll just leave the country.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Eh, I'll accept that outcome if it means he never comes back.

[–] anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that leave J.D. as the president? Not a better outcome. Maybe even slightly worse.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

JD would last two weeks before a staffer found him sobbing under his desk.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder where he would go?

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Russia or Saudi Arabia. My guess would be Russia since that's the best place to get Russian prostitutes to pee on you. Although I'm sure Saudi Arabia can provide that, too.

Fun little-known fact: Saudi Arabia provided political asylum for the rest of his miserable, syphilitic life to fucking Idi Amin after he was ousted from Uganda.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Donald will choose whichever location has the sex workers most resembling Ivanka.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Justice will not happen. But at least details will be aired one more time and a spotlight on how dangerous he is will shine shortly before the election.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Extremely sadly, if those details mattered anymore, we wouldn't even have been talking about this guy in 2016 for more than a month or two.

I guess there's a chance if something bad enough comes out. And I guess there's value in stuff being fresh in peoples' minds.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Especially this close to the election. Even if he is proven guilty in a cri.final court with overwhelming evidence, to convict him before the election would cause gun-toting riots. He would need to be replaced with only a few months to spare, and a more neutral candidate would be called in who might actually win the election, and still follow through with all the project 2025 insanity.

He's already immune, unless this case takes a few more months to sort out...

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 71 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love how she tied it to the immunity defense. “Oh because you’re only immune in these specific instances. We’re going to review every single tiny last minutia of detail to see if you’re really immune or not.”

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Will this make it public record?

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Smith has been trying to file under seal. He doesn't want it to be public record yet presumably because that would interfere with the prosecution.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Everybody knows that this will go absolutely nowhere despite what everyone wants to think. Trump is in the club, and the duopoly will never charge one of their own.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is not a both sides moment.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you've convinced yourself of "muh both sides" everything that happens just further confirms it. Like if Trump were to end up behind bars. . .do you think this poster would all of a sudden realize that both sides are not the same? Nope. They would just convince themselves that Trump was actually an outsider. . .and then probably pretend that they maintained this position the whole time.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Exactly. What they are really saying is that neither party particularly addresses the needs that THEY personally care for. They can't see how one is toxic towards minorities while the other offers lukewarm support, as just one example.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Neither side is implementing state capitalism with hundreds of billionaires, so of course lemmy.ml finds them both equally distasteful.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Trump has spent his entire life trying to get into "the club". The specific "club" he was trying to get into was the Hollywood one for many years. The Apprentice got him close, but the "reality TV" club isn't quite the same as the "Hollywood club". Luckily, for Trump, it was enough to get him into the political club. I'm still not quite sure how, but it was. How it got him into the presidential club is even further baffling, but he did that too. Don't get me wrong, I understand how he got elected. But I don't understand how he survived the primaries. (I mean I do, but I'm just sad about it.)

But Trump, assuming he loses the upcoming election, is on his way out.

You're probably right that he'll never be in jail. He'll never serve a day in prison. But he'll be in court. He'll be in court until the day he dies. It's not perfect. It's not what he deserves. But it's what'll happen, and I'll take that.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There was an article around here a few days ago about the creation of the Apprentice. And it basically all came from that. Without that show trump likely would have disappeared forgotten to history or lost to Russian debtors. This all started there with those producers.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I'm guessing https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/14/business/donald-trump-apprentice.html

and overall I agree.

I've never watched The Apprentice. Not because I'm "too cool" for it or anything. I remember watching the first season of two of Survivor. It was a fun enough show, but eventually I just got bored of it. I know I'm somewhat in the minority as reality TV really took off. Tons of reality TV exists today for a wide variety of shows and there are tons of success.

However I look at many of the folks (older adults) who are Trump supporters now and I'm confident they got their start watching him on The Apprentice.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And those are people who should be prosecuted, and they won't be, because they're in the club.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Wait, are you arguing that the people who put Trump on a reality are only avoiding criminal prosecution because they are in some club?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

He was found guilty of 37 felonies. Pretty hard to keep the "it's a conspiracy they'll never find him guilty" point when "they" (the justice system) already did.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah but I sold myself on both sides being the same side and I've been pushing it so hard for so long that I'm absolutely married to the idea and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.

[–] Backlog3231@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

And he has faced consequences for those felony convictions, right?

...Right?