• xor@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      he could shoot someone on the street, and the trial would still take long enough for him to get reelected and pardon himselfā€¦

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        The only good news is that he canā€™t pardon himself from state crimes and the Georgia criminal trial is on the state level.

        • osarusan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          he canā€™t pardon himself

          Anytime I hear someone say Trump canā€™t do something, I want to wave my hands in the air and point to everything.

          Trump will pardon himself because he has no shame, and the people in charge of pointing out that he canā€™t pardon himself will do fuckall, just like every single person with any repsonsibility has done fuckall the stop Trump from doing anything for the past 8 years.

          There have been thousands of chances to prevent Trump from doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. And every. single. person. has done nothing at all to stop him. He truly is above the law.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          The Georgia criminal trial does not have a lot of hope of succeeding unfortunately.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              Ā·
              10 months ago

              Iā€™ve heard that its likely the case will get taken from its current prosecutor and handed to a state legal board that leans conservative and that thereā€™s a number of ways to do that. At best delaying the case for years and at worst dropping it entirely.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been accused of having a romantic relationship with a top prosecutor in the case against Donald Trump. Mike Roman, who served on the embattled ex-presidentā€™s 2020 reelection campaign team, made the allegations on Monday but failed to provide hard evidence to back up his claims, RadarOnline.com has learned.

            https://radaronline.com/p/fani-willis-improper-relationship-trump-prosecutor-nathan-wade/

            Donā€™t fall for their bullshit.

              • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                Ā·
                10 months ago

                I really hope itā€™s bullshit, but itā€™s going to a hearing

                I think thatā€™ll be just fine

                Willis and her office have yet to file a response to the motion in Fulton County, The judgeā€™s order gives the DAā€™s office until Feb. 2 to file a response.

                Willis did have a response in a separate case involving Wade on Thursday, though ā€” Willis was subpoenaed to give a deposition in his divorce case. Responding to that subpoena on Thursday, the DA accuses Wadeā€™s estranged wife of conspiring with people involved with the election interference case to attack Willisā€™ character and undermine the prosecution.

                Willis goes on to say Wadeā€™s marriage was ā€œirretrievably brokenā€ and that her deposition was not needed in the unrelated matter. Willis accused Wadeā€™s wife of having an affair and noted that a request to unseal the divorce docket, her subpoena and the motion making the allegations of impropriety all happened on the same day, Jan. 8.

                [bolding added]

                • vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  Ā·
                  10 months ago

                  Sounds like the jealous ex wife is being used and exploited to attempt to throw a Hail Mary to get the case thrown out.

          • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            If she did anything inappropriate that is separate from the election interference heā€™s being prosecuted for. Much like Stormy Danielsā€™ lawyer that is accused of ripping her off didnā€™t change the fact that she was paid hush money.

            I donā€™t see it as relevant to the prosecution. Separate matter theyā€™re trying to exploit to muddy the water.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Thereā€™s a difference between power and authority.

          Authority is what the law allows you to do.

          Power is what the electorate allows you to do.

          A President may not have the authority to pardon himself, but that doesnā€™t mean he doesnā€™t have the power to do so. Laws are only as good as what the citizens will tolerate.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Omg yes, this. Garland did Jack Shit for 2 years until Jack Smith got called in to start actually doing something, due to mounting public pressure. Merrick is a picture perfect representation of weak sauce Dems - pathetic. And now he says ā€œhurry upā€. Ducking infuriating dude.

    • thesprongler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Right, weā€™re getting to the point where the Biden admin is playing right into his hands. If this goes through at those point, they are already primed to cry foul.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        He was going to cry foul no matter what. He will always cry foul. Heā€™s a whiner and a loser and heā€™s going to complain no matter the situation if it doesnā€™t go his way.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    8
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Itā€™s not like they had 4 fucking years to get a trial done. They dropped the fucking ball and now theyā€™re panicking because itā€™s already too late to push it through. He should have been convicted and incarcerated before the Iowa caucus this year.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      Ā·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The only thing Iā€™d disagree with here is that I donā€™t think theyā€™re really panicking, I think Trump being the Republican nominee is exactly what our current administration wanted because heā€™s the easiest one to beat in a general election. This is why as soon as the case got handed over to a special counsel with some degree of independence from the White House things actually started happening with it.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          4
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Nobody thought he could win in 2016 and everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm

          The voters learned their lesson, but the Democratic partyā€™s establishment isnā€™t nearly as pragmatic

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            3
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            Nobody thought he could win except all the people screaming about how bad it was that Clinton was running on keeping the status quo (when so many were clamoring for change) and how she was too arrogant to campaign in key states. Plenty knew that Clinton was fucking up, but Clinton and her fans were too far up their own asses to realize it and now they say things like ā€œnobody couldā€™ve known!ā€ and ā€œClinton was right that Trump is a bad guy!!ā€

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              Ā·
              10 months ago

              Clintonā€™s fans didnā€™t care. They planned on blaming her critics if their second choice won.

          • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm

            It used to. Then bush and Obama spent 16 years executive ordering themselves unprecedented new powers which surprisingly enough didnā€™t just vanish into thin air when their terms were over. And not Biden nor the legislature nor the courts have done squat to dial it back.

      • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think it would have been better if he didnā€™t get the nomination. Thereā€™s a 1000% chance he would run 3rd party or independent if he didnā€™t get the nomination and that would split the Republican vote making it easier for the Democrats to win when 2/3 of voters donā€™t show up to the polls this year.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        Heā€™s the easiest one to beat yet they put Biden up again which is probably like the only guy who has any chance of potentially losing against him.

        Put any 48-58 year old up and he is probably guaranteed to win. Itā€™s like the Democrats donā€™t want to win.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Nah, Biden is pretty likeable, neutral, uncontroversial, and a well known name. Kamala Harris would likely perform worse, for example. Iā€™m sure there are many better people the DNC could have promoted by giving screen time and stuff like that starting years ago, but it was much too late to start that just months before primaries. And Iā€™m guessing Biden and his administration didnā€™t want to step away.

          Unfortunately, it looks like the DNC is currently grooming Gavin Newsom to run for president in '28, and heā€™s extremely unlikable, IMO. And Iā€™m not even sure there will be a real election in '28.

        • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          Biden is the only person who has defeated Trump in an election. Past performance doesnā€™t guarantee the future, but itā€™s not as easy as youā€™re making it out to be.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          Ā·
          10 months ago

          No argument there, but the things that make social conservatives lose their minds for him make independents and everyone else sick to their stomach. No one can beat him in a GOP primary, but heā€™s a terrible general election candidate.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      6
      Ā·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Sorry man, thatā€™s not how this stuff works.

      • You can have a quick case.
      • You can have a strong case.

      Choose one.

      Now consider youā€™re:

      • Evidence-gathering and waiting for smaller fish to flip and issue depositions.

      • All the while evidence gathering has happened since Garland got in office.

      ā€¦ While youā€™re up against a former President in an unprecedented prosecution where loads of outside money will be funding the defense.

      So your arguments better be TIGHT. Iā€™d rather they take their time and do it right.

      • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        This is 100% the reason. Given the seriousness of the charges and the non-stick coating that Orange Hitler seems to have, this case needs to be way beyond firm. Weā€™re talking rock solid, gay porn hard.

          • toddestan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            Ā·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            How about how Garland sat on all the stuff outlined in the Mueller report and just let the statute of limitations expire while doing nothing? Itā€™s pretty clear he intended to do the same with this stuff too, at least at first.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            Ā·
            10 months ago

            You expect him to actually come out and admit that the investigation was slow walked because he didnā€™t want to do it?

            Youā€™re just defending him because you like the lack of results.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              Ā·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Iā€™m just asking for source as opposed to oneā€™s complete and utterly blind speculation and conspiracy theories.

              Your accusation as to my motives is equally blind as it utterly misses the mark as well.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                Ā·
                10 months ago

                You want a source that involves reading minds. Your assumption that heā€™s not dragging his feet is as baseless as my assertion that he is.

                Youā€™re just happy with his lack of action and want everyone else to be.

                Itā€™s not a conspiracy theory to withhold the benefit of the doubt.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  Ā·
                  10 months ago

                  The difference between you and me is that in the complete and utter absence of any evidence whatsoever, your mind jumps to a conclusion that necessitates a greater leap in logic. Iā€™m not making a suggestion either way, but rather recognizing that you and I are clearly not attorneys and have absolutely zero idea as to how long it takes to fact find, gather evidence, wait for lower court rulings and smaller fish to flip, get an independent council, and indict a former President with enough evidence so as to not make a mockery of justice.

                  There you go again, with wild speculation as to the motives of others. Shall I start doing the same? You just want this fairy-tale conspiracy theory that you understand and nobody else does and think you know better than the lifelong experts in this field. In that respect, you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger Effect and have just that much more in common with the maga movement than you may realize.

                  Itā€™s a conspiracy theory to speculate that there is obstruction when you literally have zero fucking evidence whatsoever. So please proceed to pull out of your ass this string of incoherency.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              10 months ago

              At least according to that article, they conflate stalling with treading carefully.

              Naturally, the pursuit of charges against a former President of the other side does necessitate an abundance of caution to assure a legitimate witch hunt doesnā€™t occur. If Garland is introspective enough to recognize human fallibility, heā€™d likely ensure that he himself wasnā€™t fitting the data to see what he wanted to see.

              Naturally these are unprecedented times and I think he made good moves so far, especially appointing Jack Smith.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    3
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    We canā€™t go back and correct the mistakes already made. However, we can correct the problems going forward. Starting with not treating Trump with as much deference as he has received.

    Donald Trump is a prime example of what happens when nobody stands up to a bully.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Wish he was up against more Federal judges like Judge Lewis Kaplan in the NY civil trials, that guy takes no shit.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      No, not really. Itā€™s entirely in the hands of the court and to a lesser extent Special Council Jack Smith and the chess moves he makes against said Judges (which some may be fair; others not so much aka SCOTUS)

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    In the phoneix Wright universe, trials can take up to 3 days and no longer. I use to think that was a dumb rule. Now I wish that something like that was real.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Attorney General Merrick GarlandĀ said in an interview with CNN thatĀ heĀ believes there should beĀ a ā€œspeedy trialā€ in the election subversion case against Donald Trump, while also pushing back on allegations that his department is targeting the former president for political reasons.

    Garland said he agrees with special counsel Jack Smithā€™s assertion that the ā€œpublic interest requires a speedy trialā€ in the 2020 election currently set for trial in March in Washington, DC.

    Garland also defended the department against allegations of election interference when asked whether he thought the federal cases against Trump should have been brought sooner ā€“ in order to avoid the prosecution of a leading candidate unfolding months before a presidential election.

    When asked about the perception that the Justice Department is prosecuting Trump for political reasons, Garland said: ā€œOf course it concerns me.ā€

    TheĀ federal criminal case over Trumpā€™s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results hasĀ been put on pause whileĀ a dispute over Trumpā€™s claim of presidential immunity windsĀ through the appeals process.

    ā€œWith respect to the public, I hope they will see, not only from what weā€™ve done but the outcomes of the cases and the way in which special counsel have proceeded that we have kept politics out of this,ā€ Garland said.


    The original article contains 351 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 42%. Iā€™m a bot and Iā€™m open source!

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    16
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Imagine if this fedsoc jackwagon was a supreme court justice right now, instead of personally being responsible for the end of civilization

  • RarePepeCollector@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    28
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    So he admits openly that this isnā€™t about justice, but about politics. As long as you have people in key areas of the government politically persecuting someone as high a former and likely future president, people will yearn for a populist president like Trump.

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      Ā·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Garlandā€™s not leading any of the prosecutions, nor did he originate any of the indictments. Heck, many of them arenā€™t even federal indictments.

      And if people donā€™t want their favorite candidate indicted, they should start by picking one whoā€™s not a crook.