“But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report said.

  • @nutsack
    link
    310 hours ago

    admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial never meant shit

  • @Redditsux
    link
    2024 hours ago

    What will happen now after Trump term? Can’t they take up the case again?

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed
      link
      fedilink
      English
      412 hours ago

      The supreme court would likely get more extreme. I don’t think hes getting in trouble with a 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 supreme court.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1523 hours ago

      I don’t think there will be an ‘after Trump term’ unless he passes while in office. Dictators don’t usually leave office.

      • @Fredselfish
        link
        719 hours ago

        He said he shouldn’t have left in 2020. He figured if he had stay they couldn’t have physically remove him. He is going try it this time.

        • @Dkarma
          link
          718 hours ago

          The constitution says he’s no longer president Jan 20 no matter what. They’d have to change or entirely ignore the constitution.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        420 hours ago

        I think there will be, but it will be a putin-medvedev where trump steps down and becomes voice president but maintains control without breaking the rules. He will organise a succession for his favoured candidate as well

    • @Zron
      link
      8
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Yes, if trump ever leaves office alive or doesn’t get an instant pardon from the next guy.

      Those are two very big ifs

      • @ilinamorato
        link
        318 hours ago

        He also decided he could pardon himself last time, so there’s that.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    At which point do we call a spade a spade and declare the DOJ and the prosecutors to be accomplices for their roles in protecting an obviously guilty grifter at the expense of justice and the common good?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      313 hours ago

      We did long ago. All of the prosecution for four years ago should have started 3.9 years ago, and it didn’t, and that was an active choice by DOJ leadership and Joe Biden.

      (And screw them for doing that.)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        219 hours ago

        Sure, but just being honest about it in stead of making up a ton of bullshit excuses would still be preferable to the pretzel logic of the media and the Blue No Matter Who apparatchiks.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    110
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    You had 4 FUCKING YEARS to do this! This doesn’t even qualify for too little too late. You did nothing for 4 years but stuck your head up your collective asses and now you make claims that he should have been convicted and sentenced? Complicit traitors.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      76
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You’re mixing special counsel with the AG. Jack Smith did his job, it was Garland who waited 2 years before starting the case and eventually assigning him.

      • @IndustryStandard
        link
        20
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The AG is not an all powerful entity. He was appointed by Biden himself. Similarly the Democrats could have pressured Biden to fire Garland. And Biden could have done it himself.

        Everyone was very happy to wait for years to “make sure the trial was well prepared”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 day ago

        Jack Smith could have chosen to bring charges in a district where there wasn’t a 50/50 chance it would end up in Canon’s courtroom, but he was high on his own farts & wanted the big win.

        Let’s not whitewash the dude’s errors.

        • @rowinxavier
          link
          211 day ago

          To clarify, the charges brought in the Florida district could have been brought in another venue, but the crime was the documents being withheld in Florida, so that is the correct venue. It could have gotten way through the process and been appealed due to incorrect venue and we would have been back at the start.

          That said, I think getting Cannon removed would have been more likely to bear fruit. She had clear evidence of bias and would have been way past the threshold of appearance of impropriety, so getting her removed would have been a fairly likely path to success. Unfortunately the supreme court was so flooded by idealogues that it would have been appealed and they would have either held it up or overturned it and gotten her back on, or just dismissed the case in some other way.

          What was needed was a much more aggressive approach from both Biden and Garland. Biden to change the number of supreme court justices and to direct his justice department to deeply investigate all of the justices on the court. Garland to open said investigations, push for intelligence agency support, and lots of speaking indictments to get information in front of voters.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 day ago

            Thanks for this amazing comment.

            After reading this, I searched and read this msnbc blog synopsis that gets into a little more detail about possible motives for Smith’s choice of venue that basically reiterates choosing to prosecute in a different district could have thrown a guilty verdict into question.

      • Mister_Feeny
        link
        fedilink
        61 day ago

        And Qannon was certainly amenable to Trump’s request to push back basically every date involved in the case.

    • Zier
      link
      fedilink
      201 day ago

      And we have had almost 250 years to make sure we have laws that prevent criminals like trump from becoming president, but that didn’t happen either.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        213 hours ago

        If you make a “no felons can be president” then you give state and local DAs the power to destroy someone’s election chances. That’s a dangerous proposition and I don’t support it, because you know Texas would start fucking with every decent future left-wing candidate.

        On the other hand, if you’re suggesting that he should be behind bars already, and therefore ineligible for president on account of “he’s locked the fuck up right now”, I agree.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 day ago

        If by “we”, you mean the best politicians and judges that money can buy.

        The so-called guardrails against undue interference are all from a time where everyone expected politicians to always act and argue in good faith and where corporations as we know them today didn’t exist.

        It’s not for fun that every single other constitution still in effect is newer. Other countries have continued to renew their laws to better suit changing circumstances like the Founders intended for the US to do.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 day ago

      Who do you mean by who, you fuckin` fruit cake? Did you fookin charge him in U.S. court? Eh, silverbuttons?

  • @foggy
    link
    451 day ago

    Luigi Mangione

    Luigi Mangione

    Luigi Mangione

    • @Metz
      link
      English
      13
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      When I look at how many presidents who are considered good people have been shot, it would only be fair to balance the scales a bit.

  • @RagingRobot
    link
    731 day ago

    They were really going to do it too! Until they did nothing instead

  • @IndustryStandard
    link
    241 day ago

    Such a shame they waited so long to start the trial and gave Trump every opportunity to delay. But surely Trump would have gone to prison if Harris won. Despite all the other things Democrats did not do to get him in jail, that would have been the thing. You know, four years is just such a short period of time for a trial. Everyone know you need exactly 4.5 years.

  • loaf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    171 day ago

    “Oh yeah, he definitely would’ve been convicted.” “Then why wasn’t he?” “We’ll see, what had happened was…”