516
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 17 Jan 2024
516 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19136 readers
4070 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
She was also separately the judge in an earlier lawsuit that Trump filed trying to stop the government from examining what it obtained with the search warrant, for reasons that made no sense and they couldn't really articulate. The Trump filings were essentially legal nonsense, so this judge took it upon herself to try to weave together something else for them, that still didn't make any sense. She was faffing about with appointing a time consuming special master (not at all appropriate for that situation) and trying to find ways to prevent the government from examining the evidence. Jack Smith played along with her but at the same time appealed the legality of any of this to the eleventh circuit (actually pretty conservative circuit too). When they finally got the case they said this is all legal nonsense, you never should have even taken up this complaint, accused them of just doing all this only because he was a former president. It was a pretty crazy opinion to read, they were not happy with her. Case was dismissed and the government was finally able to examine all the evidence they had seized with the search warrant. Whole charade delayed the investigation by at least 6 months.
And then when the government finally file charges after the investigation is complete, she gets pulled, again, to be the judge in this case (randomly apparently but from a very small potential pool). Ugh. So that's why we have her again. It's been reported Jack Smith has contemplated filing for her removal from the case. It's a tall order though and would also delay things. Potentially could be trying to gather even more evidence for bias before trying to make such a play, or could be trying to see if there's any way he could still get it through in a timely manner while she plays interference for Trump. Either way it's infuriating, as she's tying up probably the most solid criminal case against him, probably trying to delay it past the election.