this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
268 points (99.6% liked)

politics

25161 readers
1894 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So it wasn't an assassination attempt after all.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 55 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It depends on what secrets are being kept. Here, I would guess that the accused is asking for information relating to secret service deployments, surveillance, and other information on how he was discovered. That information would be useful to future assassins, but doesn't serve to mitigate his actions or exonerate him.

Just because the accused asks a question with a classified answer does not mean the accused should go free.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

But in this case, I'm for it.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean that does seem relevant to his case if it specifically on what they were doing in realtion to him. I think the idea future assassins would be able to use it to make assasinations easier to be a bit much. They likely could get things like that from books of retired people.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

These hearings were specifically for determining whether the information the defendant is requesting is exculpatory, or if the requests are specious.and irrelevant. If the judge had ruled the opposite way, the government would have to decide whether to declassify the information, or drop some or all of the charges.

It is very likely that if they chose to declassify and publish the information, they would be able to prosecute many additional charges. They have to balance the value of charging every crime committed against the cost of revealing operational information.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thanks. Although I don't have massive faith in the judiciary currently.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Agreed. Unfortunately, it's all we have.

This particular decision is appealable, if this guy is eventually convicted. And the appeals will be years in the future.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What are the odds that he'll be allowed to appeal without going to jail?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 6 days ago

He's already in jail, so zero.