this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
364 points (99.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3882 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 78 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

So, they roll up all the pawns, lock them into a story, test your trial strategy, get them convicted.

Once done, use the lineup to charge other not yet charged co-conspirators.

With a proven fact as a matter of law (that there was election interference) due to the past trials..

So then prosecution only has to prove if the defendents indeed where co-conspirators.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago

The DOJ uses this one neat trick that Defense Attorneys don't want you to know!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Well that's fun!

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Hopefully Trump doesn't get elected because then none of this will matter when he pardons himself.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

Once again, he can't pardon state charges.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Can't pardon state level convictions. Has to wait for the governor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Which has yet to be tried and decided if legal

[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'd rather they were indicted co-conspirators, but I'll take what I can get I suppose.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'll take indicted co-conspirators, for all 3.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I'll take them being punched in the cock on live television

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

RutabagaRudy might just enjoy it, so…

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Like Mario squishing a Goomba.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are we repeating here now? Then I would prefer if all three were indicted co-conspirators!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are we repeating here now?

Well then I second your preference seconding my preference, which is also your preference 🙃😅😉

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I would have preferred to not get a headache.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I wouldn't. Better to test strategy low, then once interference is proved to exist, try the others as coconspirators so you have less to prove in that trial.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

Treasonous fucks.