409
Why? Prosecutors dogged Clinton for 8 years.
from the article:
In late October, Trump said in a radio interview that he would immediately fire Smith as special counsel if re-elected. “It’s so easy — I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said, adding that he got “immunity at the Supreme Court.”
Leave it up to moderate liberals to roll over and die. Way to signal his kingship guys, fucking top notch pick, that Merrick Galand. To think this ineffective dipshit was considered for SCOTUS. Literally a direct historical correlation to the rise of Hitler through ineffective and complacent liberalism from the socialist party. I guess when you construct a DOJ that doesn't prosecute billionaires the whole thing short circuits when the tyrant is one.. who could have predicted that except every leftist and historian?
Guess this election really was the nail in the coffin for me regarding how people were so blind and meek regarding Hitler's rise to power. Guess anyone that's not a leftist really does just let it happen, and the left is turned ineffective due to being labeled too extreme
History will think of today's USA the same way we thought about nazi Germany: wondering why nobody just put a bullet through Hitler's skull
I'd quit too. America was too stupid to not vote trump in again, so why the hell martyr yourself for half a country of clowns when it gains you nothing?
We have a socialist party?
I believe they were referring to the German Social Democratic Party, which was in power for a time during the Weimar Republic.
load more comments
(6 replies)
But why?
Make the fascist fire you.
- Because his job will now never be completed
- Because this also slightly diminishes the possibility that he’ll be politically prosecuted by the incoming admin - though to be clear, I fully expect the Trump DoJ to make Smith’s life a living hell, and to throw him in jail if they can, and perhaps even execute him if they can figure out how to kangaroo court things to that degree. That is not a joke. This is an entirely serious comment.
Why have a trial? SCOTUS already ruled President Trump is a king and can kill anyone so long as it's an official act.
We are entering the beginning stages of fascism people. Hold onto your butts.
Google is already testing the Lügenpresse filter.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/13/24295463/google-eu-test-news-outlets-removing-results
I understand the sentiment, but it will never happen. Killing "Whites", especially whites named "Jack Smith" is bad for optics. Now Letitia James and Fani Willis is another story entirely. If I was either one of them I'd be getting my ass on a plane to someplace with a non-extradition treaty post haste.
Nazis make new in-groups and out-groups all the time. Loyalty way overshadows race in this case.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Actual reasons from an actual lawyer here https://youtu.be/wFEo9YJjGA0?si=-tQmsAGUSC4-H4jw
Tldr; Every other possibility ends in dismissal with prejudice. Dropping it leaves it potentially reviewable in 4 years. It's still highly unlikely anything happens.
Came here to post this. Legal Eagle breaks it down proper here.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because the cause for his appointment no longer exists. The OLC memo regarding the prosecution of sitting Presidents means that Smith's appointment is frustrated at its most basic level of inception.
The Fascists will fire people with firing squads, there's no shame in an act of self preservation when resigning from a job you can't do might keep you alive.
load more comments
(13 replies)
The Darkest Brandon move would be to remove the DOJ policy on not investigating sitting Presidents. Many of these cases were clearly not under Presidential Immunity, and some weren't even done while Trump was President. That should have consequences regardless of getting the job back or not.
That doesn't matter if the DOJ is just a rubber-stamp puppet for the president.
Darkest Brandon should have Trump [redacted]
He's an obvious national security threat. Biden could claim immunity since it would be an official act to protect the country.
I still don't understand how this is an official DOJ policy. I always see it referenced as a DOJ memo from the 70s. Who gives a shit about memos? This is supposed to be a country of laws, not 50 year old memos.
But yeah, would love Garland to issue a new memo overturning that policy. Let Trump's first official act be to overturn an existing policy to prevent him from being investigated. Not saying he would even hesitate to do it, just saying I'd like to make it an explicit step he has to take.
Legal memoranda are not just an interoffice note. They are policy interpretations and internally-governing documents. The memorandum is from the Office of Legal Counsel which is an independent subdepartment — neither Garland or the President himself can overturn the policy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The darkest Brandon would be [redacted]
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
409 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3570 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS