this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
176 points (90.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2510 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
 

The recent news about possible Russian space nukes reminds us that we live in a very insecure world. That is why perhaps none of Donald Trump’s four criminal cases is more troubling than the federal prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith for mishandling classified documents. Unfortunately, the judge handling the case, Aileen Cannon—a last-minute appointment rushed through in the waning days of the Trump administration—has proved herself to be by far the worst of the jurists overseeing these momentous cases. Her decisions during the investigative phase of the case strayed wildly from precedent, leading to brutal reversals by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Now Smith appears to be preparing to ask that body to overturn at least one and possibly two of her decisions. In our view, while he is there on those other issues, he should also petition them to remove her from the case.

Why do we think Smith might be headed to the court of appeals? In part because he has already sought reconsideration for the latest of Cannon’s unlawful orders. This is a step that is warranted only in rare circumstances, including when a judge has made a “clear error” that led to “manifest injustice.” …

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 101 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Headline: Aileen Cannon Might Actually Get Herself Kicked Off the Trump Classified Docs Case

Article: In our view, while he is there on those other issues, he should also petition them to remove her from the case.

Although I suppose "Aileen Cannon might actually get herself kicked off the Trump classified docs case if Jack Smith does what we suggest" is less pithy.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 50 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We've seen the same thing with Trump for seven years. "This could be the one, folks!" Spoiler: it never is. I'm so tired of this speculative, wish-fulfillment journalism.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Journalists are not lawyers...

Some actual lawyers have chimed in here and said that getting a judge, even one as blatantly biased as Cannon, removed from a case is basically impossible.

Turns out, there's a set legal definition on bias, and it's one of the hardest standards to meet.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Plot twist: Journalists aren't even journalists

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

The judgement on the NY fraud case is real. If he wants to appeal, he has to pay the full amount and then some in escrow, and he probably doesn't have that cash on hand.

It's the first step. It's real.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Question for the lawyers.

My guess is that getting kicked off the case now would be less injurious to her career than bing overturned later.

Or is she just an idiot?

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

She's a Federal judge, she's got a job for life unless the Democrats get 75+ seats in the Senate.

Complete slavish devotion to Trump is probably how she's planning to get appointed to higher positions though.

[–] recreationalplacebos@midwest.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it two thirds, or 67 seats? Not that that's any more likely to happen.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yea, he might be accounting for a buffer though for those DINOs like Manchin

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah she's assuming there will be holdouts.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago
[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ignoring the article for a moment: Jewish space lasers was also projection?

What a time to live.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Maybe the lasers were designed to project an image on to a far away surface?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

possible russian space nukes

Doesn't that violate the space weapons treaty? It's no nukes, no biohazards, and... I forgot the third one

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

No nukes, no biohazards, no unleashed dogs.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Oh right how could I forget?

Although Russia violated that too. RIP Laika.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Aw fuck I'm getting kicked out of this trailer park aren't i

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Nah, I'm pretty sure that biohazards and loose dogs are mandatory there.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 1 points 9 months ago

I'm king of the road!

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the space weapons treaty, but I do remember learning as a middle schooler that the three classifications of WMDs are nuclear, biological, and chemical, so maybe it's no chemical weapons?

Then again, IMO, putting chemical weapons in the same category as nuclear and biological weapons is a bit like classifying rocks as the same level of danger as assault rifles and handguns, but that's a separate issue

[–] sneakattack@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In space, rocks put rifles and handguns to shame.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fair point, but I just meant that in general, chemical weapons are not in the same category as biological or nuclear warfare. But to your point about rocks in space, in the BattleTech (aka MechWarrior universe), orbital bombardment of any type is placed on the same level as nuclear warfare, which frankly makes a lot of sense.

I think the US even had a program that looked into the feasibility of using tungsten rods dropped (launched) from satellites (partly to get around the space weapons treaty) that would have been equivalent to dropping a nuke on a city without the nasty fallout or stigma.

[–] sneakattack@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

And if you have a lot of time on your side and with the right technological advancements for space travel you could place large rocks in fast moving large orbits that you call upon when needed. It would be an absolutely devastating amount of kinetic energy.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah that's the one