149
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 05 Jan 2025
149 points (94.1% liked)
politics
19292 readers
2100 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because the DOJ didn't care. Neither did Biden.
The day that Garland got sworn in, there should have been a warrant issued for Trump's arrest on treason charges. Given his unique position as not only a threat to national security, but also a fight risk, Trump needed some 5 star accomodations at ADX-Florence until the threat to national security has been fully investigated and neutralized.
If they could literally hunt down Edward Snowden in real time like a real-time game of Carmen Sandiego, they can have Trump brought in for treason. Lock him up in ADX-Florence during the investigation to make sure he doesn't hop on a private jet and head straight to Saudi Arabia or Russia or something.
The FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever executed the Mar-A-Lago raid absolutely should not have given Trump a heads up as a courtesy. Show up, secure the documents, escort Trump out in handcuffs and take him and everybody who even walked into that room in the past six months straight to Colorado. Under no circumstances should securing top secret documents be treated with the same urgency as rescheduling an inconvenient doctor's appointment.
If the DOJ wasn't going to take this seriously, why should the people?
That would have been foolish both legally and politically.
Garland should have appointed a special prosecutor immediately rather than delaying for a year and a half. Direct involvement of the administration would have raised questions of political bias and revenge with both the courts and the public. A prosecution for treason, which is defined very narrowly would raise similar questions.
The charges against him for January 6 would have likely derailed his campaign and could have led to a lengthy prison sentence had they been filed 18 months earlier. He is not a young man; chances are strong it would have been effectively a life term.
I completely disagree with this logic. What you are saying is that the President would be essentially immune from prosecution even before that terrible SC decision because prosecuting the former president would have been bad optics anyway. Heaven for-fucking-bid. All this does is strengthen the two-tier justice system in this country.
The man stole countless boxes of national security secrets, stuffed them in a golf club bathroom, and his son-in-law magically got $2 billion out of nowhere. The man held meetings in the white house with foreign representatives, behind closed doors, without allowing US translators or note-takers in the room.
That's treason. At the very least, put treason charges before the American people and let a jury decide. I stand by my belief: The man should have had a permanent stay at ADX-Florence the minute those boxes were found.
What is it you think a special prosecutor does?
The first of those things is very much illegal, and the special prosecutor who was appointed too late did indict him for it. On a different timeline with a different judge, it likely would have resulted in a conviction and a lengthy prison term.
The other two are very suspicious. It's very likely there were crimes surrounding those events, but they are not, themselves crimes. They certainly aren't treason against the United States, which
Now it's possible some of those foreign representatives could be considered "enemies", and possible he gave them secret information, which would qualify as "aid and comfort". The next thing the constitution requires is
And sure, if that burden is met, he should be charged. Otherwise, charges that are actually likely to hold up in court are more appropriate.
The idea of a "special prosecutor" is and always has been redundant. If I'm going to go after a political opponent, what is the difference between doing it myself and hiring someone to do it for me? If people are going to think it's political persecution, they're going to think that way whether I do it myself or hire someone to do it under my watch. The end result is the same. I can guarantee you that absolutely no AG is going to appoint a special prosecutor who isn't going to do exactly what the AG would have done themselves anyway.
And exactly what the fuck did you think Donald Trump was going to do with a room full of national security secrets stolen, hidden, and locked in a golf course bathroom? Some light reading while taking a dump? What did you think the Saudis gave Kushner $2 billion for? A birthday present?
Something very crooked, for which he should be in prison.
Most things that are crooked and harmful to the country are not treason, and many things that might be treason are difficult to prove as treason due to the unique constraints on prosecuting that crime. We have other criminal charges for those acts, and Trump was, in fact charged with felonies for them. The prosecution was started too late, for which I do blame the Biden administration and specifically Garland.