this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
681 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5225 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 189 points 3 months ago (1 children)

She really dismissed it over the appointment of a special prosecutor? Completely insane, but the fake Supreme Court will probably rubber stamp it. America is so fucked.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Its all good, now they can have her removed from the case

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This. Jack Smith hasn't been able to nail her on any of her antics thus far, as they've been plausibly deniable, but her specious reasoning for the dismissal is a prime target for reversal by the 11th Circuit. She's so bad at her job, she can't even stall properly.

If Smith doesn't go to the 11th Circuit, then he was a terrible choice to begin with, and he was never going to win anything.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The question now might be whether he appeals to the 11th Circuit Court or straight to the Supreme Court. I fear either way may be too slow to get anywhere before November.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I doubt this will run its course before November, but if it can be a drain on his sanity and coffers, I'd say it's still in the public interest to keep it going. As someone who listens to Knowledge Fight often, this kind of stuff gets under their skin and derails their ability to be effective at messaging.

Ultimately, it's in the public interest to keep going, if only because it's still a crime that deserves to be tried on the real possibility that he loses in November.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Agreed. It's all very disgusting but no reason for despair, just continued fight.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

True, but it will all take so long that the case still won't get anywhere before the election. In a way this might even have been the judge's ultimate delay tactic, capping off the slow-walk that she already perpetrated.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It'll put more pressure on Trump's system so I can't complain. Its obv bullshit but it gets the rubes' hopes up so it all balances out. I don't buy his assassination attempt has changed anything

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago

It changes nothing, it's even worse it was a republican that did it.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

and she doesn't get to rule on a lot of the key decisions she had been dragging her feet on, so when she is replaced that judge will not have to inherit her bullshit decisions on important aspects of the case.