this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
308 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2642 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
 

Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith can't appeal, expert says

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trump’s motions to dismiss his classified documents case.

Cannon shot down Trump’s motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.

Cannon after a daylong hearing issued an order saying some of Trump’s arguments warrant “serious consideration” but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that “rather than prematurely decide now,” she denied the motion so it could be "raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”

“The good news here is temporary,” Vance wrote. “It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument—but just for today. She did it ‘without prejudice,’ which means that Trump’s lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 52 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Member when they were like "o no the DNC is absolutely going to run Hillary" and everyone was like "lol well she can at least beat trump" and then four years of utter political insanity and this judge gets the biggest case to come out of that infected turd circus?

I dunno i thought i was going somewhere with that but maybe it's just a still life

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Remember when Hilary threw the election away by not even campaigning in what were otherwise secure democratic states that she lost, and how she spent so much time giving secret talks to rich people and corporations behind security and white noise generators, and generally did everything she could to be unlikable? and if she had put in even the slighest modicum of effort, she'd be the president we complained about instead of the Trump horror show despite of all of Russias interference and bullshit?

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean all of that might be true but I still put a lot of blame on the assholes who voted for trump.

Sometimes we act like only Democrats have agency, and Republicans are just like a force of nature. Like a fire that burns without thought or a bear that mauls because that's what bears do. But they're still people and they could have chosen something else.

Trump supporters are at fault.

"Clinton didn't come to my state and make me feel special" is not an acceptable justification for supporting the catastrofuck that is trump.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Its not "Clinton didnt come to my state and make me feel special"

its

"Clinton didnt go to these states, to engage with her base and share with them her vision, plans, goals, etc, Which allowed just enough to be swayed by those that did"

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If this was 1840 I'd be more convinced. We have the internet. We've had radio for a hundred years. You shouldn't need to go to a rally to know what a major politican's visions, plans, goals, etc, are.

"I felt ignored" is a stupid emotional response, but I can understand it, kind of. Sometimes I'm petty, too. Feeling so ignored that you vote for trump is inexcusable, though. I don't think I'd excuse shirking your civic duty here, either.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You are sure hung up on this whole "I was ignored" thing.

Are you, specifically, upset that cause you felt ignored?

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 8 months ago

That's what I took from the "she didn't come to my state and share her vision with me, specifically" thing. Or the related "I don't like being called flyover country ", I guess. Maybe I just don't get the people in question.

I live in a major city and don't feel politically ignored. A little, what do you call it, victim of a tyranny of a minority, sometimes, what with like North and South Dakota having senators.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

To be fair, that's mostly what her campaign manager was supposed to work out.

Mooooooook

[–] Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Remember when the party fucked over Bernie for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?

And if you want to argue that they didn't have a choice, it's the difference of 300 delegates in the face of internal organizational opinion that you control. You can't maintain that it wasn't a choice. The DNC chose Hilary.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?

How idiotic can you get? If no one liked the nominee she wouldn't have had the most votes.

The DNC chose Hilary.

By "DNC" you mean the voters?

You can’t maintain that it wasn’t a choice.

Exactly. Stop pretending it wasn't the voter's choice. That is Trump level bullshit. There just wasn't enough of us voting Bernie.

[–] Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 months ago

You sweet summer child

[–] Raykin@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

I'm with you bud. This shit is confounding.

Also, you had my upvote at 'member'.