62

Unlike 2016, when his victory over Hillary Clinton came as a shock to many Americans, Trump was no surprise in 2024. The Democratic Party had the benefit of four years to ensure that this would not happen again. Yet as in 2016, Democrats appear to have failed to win over the electorate in a race against a uniquely unpopular candidate — this time one with multiple impeachments, indictments, and criminal convictions.

The short-lived Biden campaign and subsequent Harris campaign opted to try to beat Republicans at their own game, by tacking rightward on issues such as immigration, criminal justice, and climate. After President Joe Biden dropped out, the Democratic Party rejected calls to stop providing arms to Israel’s war on Gaza. Instead, Harris touted the endorsements of conservatives such as Liz Cheney. The strategy was a ploy to woo moderates and conservatives wary of a second Trump term, but it may have alienated key voting blocs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

Yes, because the DoJ are “congress”.

Biden is the head of the executive branch, and Marrick Garland's boss.

It took Garland two and a half years just to appoint Smith as special counsel. They sat around with their thumbs up their asses hoping trump would fade to obscurity because they were afraid of being “political”

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

What would have changed by doing it sooner?

And how is Merrick Garland working for democrats? I thought the FBI was non partisan?

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

I mean, Merrick Garland is literally working for Democrats. But they tried to give it the appearance that wasn't working for Democrats. That's what the other poster is complaining about. Trump cases needed to be expedited, knowing that he would piss and moan and delay as much as possible. Now it's too late because he's going to be president in a couple months, and he can just pardon himself.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

If it were that simple why didn’t they just do it? Do you think they were conspiring to help Trump? Or do you think they were lazy?

Or is it the same situation it has been every single time Trump commits a crime and gets away with it, where he has weaponized his base to avoid consequences?

The latter is the obvious answer imo and even the FBI can’t stop the man with the Supreme Court on his side. Scapegoating the FBI seems odd here.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Did you really just ask what getting highly classified nuclear secrets back from a broke-ass billionaire with ties to both the saudis and Putin sooner would change?

Also I already answered your second question.

Biden was his fucking boss, and not doing his job is inherently partisan when it protect a politician. Make sense?

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

If it were that simple why didn’t they do it? Do you think they were conspiring to help Trump? Do you really think they just said “I don’t want to do that today, let’s put it off for another time”?

I think if it were that simple they would’ve done it. But Trump has been able to avoid consequences for everything he has done so obviously it is not that simple to prosecute him.

I dont know why it is so hard for you to see that.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

If it were that simple why didn’t they do it?

It is that simple, the Jack Teixeira case shows how qiuckly and how simple it is to get a fucking warrant and get the documents out of the hands of people who have no business holding them.

Once you have the documented evidence recovered from the warrant it's incredibly simple and iron clad to show that trump violated the law. having those documents is itself all the evidence you need.

as for what laws were broken That to is incredibly simple, and the simple fact of him having the classified materials after leaving office is iron-clad proof of his guilt. the text to save you click:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Do you think they were conspiring to help Trump? Do you really think they just said “I don’t want to do that today, let’s put it off for another time”?

Their stated justification for their actions were "to avoid appearing political". Which, given the blatant guilt (you saw the news-crew videos of the FBI agents dragging out the classified materials, right?) inaction is itself also political.

Any one with even so much as a single half-baked ethics training class under their belt would know that the way you avoid accusations of political bias isn't to change how you do your job- it's to do the job in the same way that you always would; and to document the shit out of doing your job that way for transparency. Sitting on your ass for two and a half years is inherently political when you would not do that for literally any other subject imaginable.

But Trump has been able to avoid consequences for everything he has done so obviously it is not that simple to prosecute him.

Because chucklefucks like Marrick Garland can't be arsed to do their fucking jobs.

I dont know why it is so hard for you to see that.

Because you don't want to

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Their stated justification for their actions were "to avoid appearing political".

They stated this and treaded lightly because this is literally how Trump has gotten away with everything. By claiming any consequences against him are because of a political witch hunt.

And half the country has supported his rejection of reality.

If facts are ignored by claiming they are politically motivate then it isn’t as easy as you are making it out to be. But anyone that has been paying attention can see that.

You are scapegoating the people trying to stop Trump.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

again it is that fucking simple.

not prosecuting someone or investigating someone to avoid appearance of political motive is inherently political.

Which is precisely why you proceed as you would for any other case.

You can act like what you’re saying is reasonable, but it’s absolutely not. It’s a gross miscarriage of justice.

And Biden allowed it to go on because he was still stuck in the pre-Nixon era mindset of disgraced politicians going the fuck away.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

Trump literally put off multiple cases against him long enough to become president again.

THIS ISNT HAPPENING BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE PROSECUTOR DIDNT DO ENOUGH.

TRUMP AND THE BILLIONARE CLASS HAVE BOUGHT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5040 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