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
They had more than enough evidence after they concluded a long and detailed investigation, as well as several other, interconnected lawsuits. It doesn't matter how obvious it "looks" to everyone on the outside...if you want it to stick in court, there needs to be no doubt. That means hard evidence. No theories. No speculation. No assumptions. They needed documented receipts.
When it comes to incitement, it is extremely hard to prove intent. Every one of the speeches given that day, before that mob descended on the Capitol building, was very carefully worded to allow for enough deniability, that none of those people could be held responsible in court.
Which meant they had to get proof that Trump knew about, and was directly involved in, the fake electors scam they tried to pull. First they went after the fake electors themselves. Those poor idiots were more than happy to point the finger at Kenneth Chesebro, who orchestrated their participation. After that, they had enough evidence to convict Chesebro of carrying out the plan...but they still needed him to flip on Trump in order to prove that Trump himself, was an active part of it.
Too many people who work for Trump seem perfectly willing to take the fall for him, despite the fact that he has a long track record of throwing them under the bus as soon as they get caught following his orders. And it never actually came out whether or not Chesebro was actually going to testify against Trump, but given the fact that he was only sentenced to probation, I strongly suspect he cut a deal.
The problem with all this, is the fact that it takes time for all these other cases to go through the courts, before they had a clear lock on Trump himself. Even if they could have started the process sooner...which isn't necessarily the case...it still would have taken years to bring Trump in front of a judge for his part in all of it.
And they nearly did. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court forcing Jack Smith to have to re-file the charges at the last minute, he would have been on trial in the summer of 2024...right in the middle of his campaign.