139
Biden’s first 2024 campaign ad highlights threats to US democracy
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
139 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1847 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I am saying they are democrats that have removed republican opposition from the next election. This is what republican voters are going to see and its gonna be hard to campaign on democracy itself while setting this precedent.
Do our laws matter or not? The guy has been found by courts to have participated in an insurrection. He lost last time, we all know that. He tried to make it so he stayed in power, we all know that. We are just supposed to pretend that didn't happen because some people still like him?
Sorry, not how our county works.
The way it's supposed to go is he gets arrested immediately after the crime by the DoJ and brought to federal trial. But that didnt happen, for several years.
This is like someone being charged with illegally possessing a firearm as a felon, but without ever being convicted as a felon. No matter how much you believe they committed a felony, they still have to be found guilty first. In this case it's someone being barred from running for office as an insurrectionist, without ever being convicted as one.
No. The way it's supposed to go is the DoJ gathers evidence and decides whether there's enough of it to charge someone with a crime, and then that person is presumed innocent and has a right to an attorney who builds a case for their defense, using a process called "discovery" which grants them access to evidence and witnesses, and then they are entitled to a jury of their peers, which takes time to select from the general population. Where the fuck did you learn how prosecution works? Pyongyang?
I think you again stopped reading mid sentence. You are describing the federal trial. And you are confusing arresting with sentencing. For many crimes, especially violent ones (which, considering 5 deaths and over a hundred injured, I'd say this qualifies), arresting is actually the first step, to make sure no one else is endangered while the legal process goes on. Again, the DoJ has the authority to arrest, charge, and prosecute for federal crimes. And prosecute does not mean sentencing, it does not mean the DoJ gets to find anyone guilty themselves, they bring them to trial and make the case, they try to prove that the person committed the crime, and it's up to judge or jury to decide to find them guilty or innocent. That is what prosecution means.
Yes, and the people directly responsible for that violence were arrested as quickly as they could be identified and located. It's like you simply refuse to accept that assigning culpability is not so straightforward when it's several degrees removed. Mens rea in a criminal conspiracy requires an overt act to commit a crime, and the overt act must be verified, else a charge wouldn't be provable in court. And no DA in the country would arrest someone that high profile in such a complicated case without gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, crossing t's, and dotting i's:
I don't know what world you live in where the DOJ can simply act like John Fucking Wayne whenever it wants, but these are career prosecutors, and thankfully they're not dumb enough to try to lock up the kingpin before closing the net around the underlings and making sure the case is ironclad.
Yeah theyre handling this case so meticulously that the defendent will be in position to fire the prosecutor because they took so long. Its already creating a trainwreck with state level democrats trying to remove his election eligibility before theres any convictions. I bet you those cases are gonna make their way to the supreme court a hell of a lot faster than any charge against Trump ever has.
The. DoJ. Should. Not. Consider. Political. Implications. When. Pursuing. A. Criminal. Trial.
Full fucking stop. The moment they start speeding shit up because it might be affected by or affect an election, is the minute we become a banana republic. The DoJ is NOT, nor should it ever be, a political weapon.
I think the only reason its taken this long is some fumbled political strategy to try to distract trump from campaign season. They werent gathering evidence for 3 years, theyll be as prepared for this case no better than if they charged him 3 months after the crime. What evidence would they not have by then?
Corroborating witnesses and guilty pleas. Honestly, dude. Have you not ever spoken with an actual lawyer in your life? You can't possibly be this clueless.
Witnesses? The whole thing was filmed! Everyone watched Trump rally his followers to march on the capital and "fight like hell", where news crews were already stationed. We've had an insanely extensive breakdown on the attack for a long time now.
You have literally no idea how criminal conspiracy or mens rea work. Jesus fucking christ dude. I'm so glad people like you aren't in charge, or Trump would walk after a 2-day trial and 4 minutes of jury deliberation. I honestly can't even figure out how to start explaining how shittily informed you are.