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.
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
view the rest of the comments
Frankly, I’m surprised that the current slate of indictments haven’t extended to MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, and the rest of their traitor caucus compatriots.
So there is a really real discussion within the Federal Government if Trump supporters in the Govt should be subject to a security review to have their clearances revoked for Anti-American sentiments and activities.
Wait. Hold on a fucking minute.
I cant even have a security review to have clearance before I get a job that requires it (and then what happens if you don't?) but these people aren't even reviewed?
Fuck, you want to talk about compromised information, that's a fuckload of security risks
Review used to be every five to ten years, but the Biden Administration changed it to five last year for all clearances. What's being discussed is if MAGA supporters should be reviewed deeper as they are a threat to National Security. Generally speaking how someone votes has not been an issue for clearance unless you were a member of the Communist party. The problem now is that being a member of the Republican Party doesn't mean you support Trump but if you do support him you lable yourself as a threat. It's a slippery slope. Security clearance checks scan your entire internet history going back seven years. We are seeing clearances denied due to Xbox conservations, loads for social media comments. The Security form you fill out requires you list every online handle you used over the last seven years. To not list one would be a criminal offense. So it's become a problem that MAGA is running into, their online history is creating red flags. The discussion is do they start treating MAGA like Communists and blanket ban them from public service.
every online handle over 7 years?
oh well, guess I'm really not going into DoD work now. I probably have a dozen or so that I don't even have the username saved for.
Yeah, that was new to the form. They review your finances, every location you traveled, every address you lived at, interview neighbors, coworkers, they will pull logs from social media like FB, Twitter, Reddit, Playstation and Xbox, the pull phone records and GPS data, text records, ISP records, etc. That is why people with a TS clearance should not be on social media at all. That form gives the Federal Government full access to your entire history for that seven year period to determine if you are trustworthy.
For a normal security clearance they don't go as deep, usually just financial and review for any police reports, but all give the govt the right to search everything if need be.
Yeah I don't even trust myself that much
I can't guarantee I haven't made politically spicy comments in the last 7 years and I'm usually a "trust the system" liberal
This level of transparency is dystopian.
I think it would be very hard to prosecute, because the Constitution gives direct protection to Members of Congress who are discussing matters at the Capitol in their official capacity, in the Speech and Debate clause. And since validating the Electoral College count is expressly spelled out in the Constitution as a thing Congress does, it will be hard to argue that the Speech and Debate Clause doesn't apply.
MTG passed out pictures of Hunter's penis in Congress, after all, and is not likely to face any repercussions at all. (If she does, it will be because she tweeted it, too.,..)
I think it all really depends on what you have evidence they said, saw and knew.
Yeah, I agree it will be impossible to convict a congressional rep for voting against certification. BUT if you have evidence that person was attending meetings where a criminal conspiracy was taking place and especially if you have evidence they were directed to stall, and especially if they knew what was to happen after the vote failed..... Then idk maybe they can be charged as part of a conspiracy. But just voting NO on it? I don't think that's criminal in and of itself.
Or took people on tours so they knew where to go when they broke into one of our biggest buildings of power and tried to murder at least our vice president.
Not every tool is used for every job
Especially since the propaganda machine is working on the current round of charges.
Once Trump goes down the rest will follow
Depends on if a Republican wins in 2024...if they do, all this goes away.
They're going to have to cheat, so there's a chance.
I agree. But I’m also not particularly opposed to a hammer being used in place of a screwdriver in this specific instance.
Since we're sure we would rather have rule of law Instead of a tyrant, we don't get to make exceptions or pick when the rules apply. That we barely get a say in the rules is beside the point.
Anyway my only point here was actually more about how I'm not even sure Boebs was guilty enough of these charges. The prosecutors have a strong incentive to advance only the charges they can make stick, or the whole case could fail.
I want to see his goddamn kids also thrown in jail.
Nothing will hurt him more than if Ivanka is roped into his corruption.
But I guarantee you it won't happen.
Really, you think so? Trump strikes me as a person who ultimately doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself when backed into a corner.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I want to see them in jail, too, but I think just about any negative repercussions to his own life would hurt him more than seeing his kids suffer consequences. Push comes to shove, I can see him throwing those kids under a bus, even Ivanka.
He wouldn't give a fuck if it was Jr or the other son, but Ivanka? His princess? His beautiful princess that he lusts over?
Oh, that would hurt him dearly!
Which is all the more reason that prosecutors should be going after her (and the others), but we all know they won't.
I'm gonna take Ivanka out to a nice seafood dinner and then never call her again!
Even better.
Who knows, currently it's a matter of switch sides or get indicted.