politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
lol
What a disgusting joke this administration has made everything.
Don't know about the US, but in most european places the statute of limitations limits when something can start being prosecuted - i.e., if you were indicted a minute before the statute is up, and the process takes years to complete, it doesn't prevent the process from continuing.
Same here - they just have five days for this new head of the 300-person prosecutor's office who handles a lot of government cases to create an illegal false prosecution scheme against the former head of the FBI and have their slip-and-fall-lawyer director get it in front of a judge and convince them it's really important to do this in the equivalent of the next few minutes because Predisent Demented Rapist Babyhands is gonna cry.
Technically possible. Practically - less so.
I know these particular charges are probably bullshit, but I don't think there should be a statute of limitations for lying to Congress.
Five years seems to be plenty of time to fact-check someone's testimony. Anything longer than that, and most people simply won't recall their own words well enough to hold them accountable for them anymore.
Congress has cameras. If you're lying to Congress about factual things, your memory of the event shouldn't matter.
The problem is that the DOJ isn't as independent as people would like it to be, so you basically need a change in administration to hold someone to account, which could take longer than 5 years.
You can still run investigations in the meantime, though. Republicans are notorious for that. Even when they have no real power to do anything about it, they will investigate all the craziest shit that they can imagine...just to make it look like they're doing something. Then when they have more control again, they have the option to pull the trigger or not.
Democrats should definitely take something from that playbook, but there's been many cases of someone lying in front of Congress and not facing consequences. It happened in the leadup of both Iraq wars, and I don't think people should just be allowed to get away with stuff like that just because the clock ran out.
Obviously part of the problem is that Democrats don't seem to be interested in prosecuting stuff like that in the name of bipartisanship, but that's how they got where they got now.
The biggest problem with all this stuff, is trying to prove that the person in question actually "lied" versus "I genuinely believed what I said at the time" versus "Oops, I was obviously mistaken".
It's impossible to know what's going on in someone else's mind, so unless you have some kind of date-stamped confession, that clearly contradicts their testimony...you're never going to get a conviction.
By that logic, there shouldn't be a statute of limitations beyond 5 years on rape. Is that what you're saying? (I'm being very over inflammatory)
I mean, that's literally a change some states made in response to the Weinstein scandal. If it's reasonable to assume the truth isn't going to come out before the statute runs out, I'm definitely in favour of making it longer. It should probably still exist, but 5 years seems very short for serious crimes, especially considering how slow the justice system works.
They're bullshit enough that the previous AG refused to prosecute and got fired for it.
He's really doing a good job of QA testing of USA v1. We'll know what to patch in v2.