81 points

I won’t comment on why these traitors were not indicted. Just want to make sure everyone knows the names of these fucking traitors.

The nine-page report showed jurors recommended charges against 39 number of people, compared to the 18 who were charged along with former President Donald Trump. The names of those not indicted included Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of Georgia, former U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

permalink
report
reply
57 points

Lindsay Graham is from South Carolina, don’t blame us Georgians for him, we have two Dem senators at the moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Moneyyy pweeeeeaaasssseeeeeer

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah, I copied that text straight from the article. But you are correct.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What is it with shitty editors in the news nowadays

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Perhaps it’s a not indicted yet situation. Once circus at a time?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I think Lindsey has flipped, and several of the others, too.

These prosecutors aren’t fucking around, and these are serious charges. How many people are actually willing to go to prison for trump, who very obviously cares only about himself and will throw even his own family under the bus?

Lindsey famously said if the GOP backed trump, it would be their downfall. He’s not a loyalist, and he’s a proven coward – the exact type of person who would flip on trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I agree that it’s likely Lindsey Graham may have flipped. I’ve long suspected Lindsey only fell in line with Trump because he’s got dirt on him. The sniveling little weasel did a complete 180° on Trump after going golfing with him at one of Trump’s properties. Something happened that turned a vocal Trump critic into one of his biggest cheerleaders in a single afternoon and I highly doubt it was the result of a policy discussion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

So is there a time limit in which the DA would need to indict before having to go back to a grand jury? Or is this something g that will always sit over their heads as something that could be charged whenever?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I believe it’s 5 years for the statute of limitations on these particular crimes. They have plenty of time. Trump is the focus, and once that trial is either over, or well underway, indictments will come to the remaining unindicted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I believe the judge doesn’t think further indictments are likely:

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the partial release of the report in February but declined to immediately release the panel’s recommendations on who should or should not be prosecuted. The judge said at the time that he wanted to protect people’s due process rights.

McBurney said in a new order filed Aug. 28 that the due process concerns were moot since a regular grand jury has indicted Trump and 18 other people under the state’s anti-racketeering law.

If he truly believes that not releasing the names of the unindicted protects their due process rights, then it only makes sense the reason he considers the issue moot now is because they will remain unindicted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Idk but I see the logic of getting Trump convicted and then it makes it easier to go after the other big fish.

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
38 points

Does anyone else think the fact that there was at least one “No” for every charge means there was at least one Trumpist on the jury?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Yeah, that makes me seriously doubt that these people will ever be held accountable by an actual jury. Looks like a Trumper got onto the grand jury where they don’t need unanimous decisions, but if one sneaks their way onto the actual jury, then these traitors are going to get a free pass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

deleted by creator

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Holy shit. And someone downvoted you here. 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Jesus Christ that’s terrifying

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

There needs to be a tip jar on lemmy instead of how stupid reddit did gold.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Good job

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Even more fun? Trump’s eighteen co-conspirators starting into a legal wood chipper will be telling and telling prosecutors LOTS more about Lapdog Lindsey, Traitor Flynn, Dummy Turdue and Kelli Fluffler that the grand jury didn’t yet hear.

The party is just getting started, friends.

permalink
report
reply
42 points

Don’t forget, Graham is not just any other senator. He is the ranking republican leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Beyond fucked up.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Why didn’t she take that fucker down? Damn it! One of the most evil people in the U.S. government. Truly.

permalink
report
reply
37 points

Because she’s extremely careful, and decided she didn’t have enough to make a conviction stick.

Yet.

Give it time. She’s an excellent prosecutor, and she’s doing her job extremely well. She’s going after the people who are easily the most provably guilty first. This is a broad, far-reaching infestation of corruption and treachery, and I think she and Jack Smith are only getting started.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

If Trump takes the stand and is under oath, he will say anything he can to shift culpability to others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Allowing Trump to take the stand is probably the 2nd worse move his lawyers could make. The first is, naturally, being Trump’s lawyer.

The odds of Trump perjuring himself is so incredibly high.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes, but would his credibility (plus the available evidence) be enough to convict someone else, like Graham?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

So many people don’t get this but it’s extremely important. Jack Smith and Fani Willis have been extremely careful and smart in the charges they have brought. They can add more later. And many think they will. But if you are going after the mob, you better make sure your charges are in order and you have a sure fire case or it will come back to bite you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

People kept asking why it was taking so long to bring charges at all - this is why. Yes, the crimes are obvious and some were even committed in public view, but if you’re going after high level government officials - if you’re going after a former president of the United States - you better make sure you have every last detail in order. For crimes of such magnitude, you can’t risk the case getting dismissed or overturned based on a frivolous detail or a minor oversight or a technicality. It has to be iron-clad and air-tight, with every ‘i’ dotted and every ‘t’ crossed.

Trump isn’t some common thief or vandal. He’s not just a crime boss or a corrupt politician. He’s a history-altering, would-be dictator who tried to stage a coup to overthrow our government. There is no room for error.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

It would be a lot more difficult to indict a sitting congressperson on something like this, particularly since these can be a plausible argument that whatever they were doing could have simply falled under their official duties.

I think it’s a good move to first go after Trump and the people in his inner circle, because if that conspiracy can be proved in court, it’s an easier lift to then go after the Senators and Representatives who aided it, because one jury already found the conduct to be illegal (and thus not protected in any official capacity).

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

complete missed opportunity, probably had something to do with “resources” and “big fish”, which to be fair, if I had to choose, gotta take the head off the snake, I don’t know if anything stopping her from filing charges at a later date

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.

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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 510K

    Comments