this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
584 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2411 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
 

Edit: There's a lot of people in the comment section who clearly didn't read the article so let me clarify that no, this is not about Judge Aileen Cannon. Read. The. Damn. Article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Also, if those people could read they'd realize the only reason she said no right now, is she wants to allow that argument to be used as a defense during the trial, where she can then acquit him herself and give Jack Smith no chance to appeal. She only said that the argument couldn't be used to dismiss the charges before the trial starts. If she did say yes to Trump's request right now, Smith could appeal and a higher court would slap her down in a second for this blatantly incorrect interpretation of the law, and cut off Cannon's plan to acquit Trump of all charges during the trial. She is bending over backwards to not rule on anything before the trial, so nothing can be appealed beforehand, and then get to the trial stage when her dumb shit will be effectively unappealable. Everything in her recent order is still to Trump's benefit.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Neither you nor the person you’re replying to read the article. If you did you’d know this isn’t about Judge Aileen Cannon.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I know Judge cannon is not in the article, and I did read it. I assumed the person I was replying too was bringing up judge Cannon for contrast with this judge, because unlike this judge or pretty much any other judge Trump has been before (who they and their family members have been getting constant death threats and harrasment, often from Trump himself) they've been lavishing praise on her. Kind of ironic they turned on her as well just yesterday after her order when she's still doing her best to put the fix in for Trump. Trump even had to put out a tweet to remind people that judge cannon is great.