politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
And what at this point could they possibly do that they're not doing already?
She has scolded the prosecution publicly every step of the way. She bends over backwards to rule in Trump's favor. She's already said she was going to delay ruling on some motions until after the trial starts, putting the case at high risk of double jeopardy. She has long since passed being "openly hostile" and is neck deep in "intentional sabotage". How much more hostile could she possibly get without calling for his assassination in the town square?
Which could at least possibly have been avoided if Smith had filed a motion to recuse when it became obvious the fix was in.
So she'll bend over backwards to rule in Trump's favor, ignore the obvious fact-based arguments brought up by the prosecution, give them a tongue lashing at literally every hearing for the most trivial of matters, rule against the prosecution at every turn, then give the jury instructions that would basically guarantee an acquittal.
How is that different than what she's doing now?
Which means his options are to (a) take it on the chin and virtually guarantee that Trump walks because the fix was in all along and she dismissed the case first chance she got once double jeopardy attached, or (b) Motion for her recusal and have at least a chance of having it reassigned to an impartial judge.
Which is 100% guaranteed with Cannon in charge. Smith has no chance of winning already as long as she's on the bench.