“Your honor, I’d like to cite ‘What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.’ for my case.”

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

But, the good of the scorpion is not the good of the frog, yes?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Except any court would reject that outright because you haven’t done it in Latin

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Quid pro… goosius maximus

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

As he should.

permalink
report
reply
44 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
76 points

Cannon’s ruling was that the entire concept of the DoJ appointing a special prosecutor is unconstitutional. Following that same logic, anyone who has ever been the subject of a special prosecutor investigation that was later adjudicated guilty can and should have their convictions thrown out.

That’s why Hunter is saying his case should be thrown out. He was investigated by a special prosecutor on behalf of the Department of Justice. That investigator ruled he broke the law when he had the temerity to own a firearm while he was using illegal drugs, and then the case went to court.

Under Cannon’s ruling, Hunter has got every right to ask for this. So does Bill Clinton for Whitewater. And the ghost of Richard Nixon for Watergate. Anyone who was ever investigated by a special prosecutor appointed by the DoJ who then faced any sort of legal consequences for their actions can now ask to have their convictions overturned on these grounds.

Cannon’s ruling is a pretty intense case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regards to judicial procedure, and it’s likely to be reversed by the appeals court. On the other hand, her ruling was only meant to delay the trial, which worked flawlessly. When her peers in the appeals court reverse the ruling and remove her from the bench for it or any other reason, look forward to seeing her as a talking head on conservative news networks. She’s certainly earned her place there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I may have a flawed understanding, but I think it’s worse than that. She’s actually trying to get the case dismissed completely because of a catch she put in the special counsel stuff. That catch being that the thing that illegal about the special counsel is not the special counsel itself, but rather that the person pursuing special counsel should be an elected official.

Now I think this still does a number on our legal system and I don’t know enough about Hunters counsel here to say if that applies, but this was suggested to her and it’s a way to target throwing out trumps specific case while retaining the right to use special counsel elsewhere.

I wish I were joking but the Supreme Court can and likely will make yet another carve out in the law so that the law can survive but is severely crippled in a way that massively benefits Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Has a special counsel ever been elected before?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The best part is if the question goes up to SCOTUS, it might well get consolidated with Cannon’s dismissal, and they’re considering one legal question in cases against a Trump and a Biden.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

“No, not like that!” 😆

permalink
report
reply
25 points
*

I hope this is just the first salvo the Biden’s launch and start using all the ridiculous policies the GOP is setting against them.

I am middle of the road but registered democrat. I vote for who I think will do the best job in local and national elections.

I am partially paralyzed and it takes me 1/2 a day to vote. I will always vote because its all we have imo.

IMO The Electoral college stole the election from Hillary but you don’t see her running around like Kari Lake who is acting this way on purpose so if Trump wins, she will get appointed to a good job in his cabinet.

Back to Hillary, She won the popular vote by millions and still lost!

This is what the electoral college did

She won the popular vote just short of 3 Million!

Back then we had **249,372,406 people over the age of 18. About 80% of them were eligible to vote

That is roughly 200k people. 199,497,924. The point is the amount of popular votes should have been a solid win. Not a landslide but solid.

This makes me very sketched out along with all these new voting districts and restrictions on absentee ballots,

and some states banning giving people in line a bottle of water or food! Google line warming!

What if Biden wins by 2 million? Is that a solid win for Trump???

**Child and Adult Populations 2016

Age 18 and over

United States 249,372,462

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Yes, democrats have to win by a landslide in order to squeak out a victory. Meanwhile, republicans can lose over and over and over and still rise to power. No republican has ever entered the presidency by winning the popular vote in my entire lifetime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’m not sure how old you are, but George Bush won the popular vote in 2004. That was the last time a Republican won the popular vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

He did not enter the presidency with that election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Culturally speaking we already won, politically speaking, the Right won’t take a fucking hint and they don’t have to because to Democrats unrigging the game would be as wrong as rigging it in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That is roughly 200k people. 199,497,924.

I think you may have meant 200M, or you have 3 extra numbers and a comma that don’t belong lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

He meant a period instead of the 2nd comma. 0.924 extra people voted for Hillary

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 387K

    Comments