this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
451 points (98.5% liked)

News

35867 readers
2787 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Special counsel Jack Smith's report asserts sufficient evidence existed to convict Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election but cites Trump’s 2024 presidential victory as the reason charges were dropped, due to constitutional protections for sitting presidents.

Smith detailed Trump’s actions, including pressuring officials, spreading false election claims, and encouraging protests.

While charges against co-conspirators were considered, no final conclusions were reached.

Smith denied political bias, emphasizing adherence to facts and law.

The report also references challenges like expanded presidential immunity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This memo that the DOJ prepared one time decades ago that asserts an opinion that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, has somehow brought us to this.

I know it's all too late to do anything remotely constructive, but if a democratically-minded AG at any time under Obama or Biden had thought, "Gee, that doesn't seem right. It's crazy to think anyone is above the law and this gives an overwhelming incentive to be evil. Let's trash and redo that memo," it's possible Trump would not have had the incentive to run again, or that the DOJ wouldn't have taken so much time to prosecute.

I just think sometimes about how many infinitesimal probabilities had to align - how dedicated and consistently wrong so many actors had to be at so many crucial decision points - to create this uniquely, thoroughly awful result.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 28 points 1 year ago

Biden should have stolen something minor, like, for example, an ice cream sandwich, and the Republicans would have flopped over and ratified the bill.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They didn't align by chance. Republicans have been pushing and shoving since Nixon to get as many lined up as they can.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish there was some sort of organization that would push back against them, maybe like some kind of political party that emphasizes a democratic approach to politics

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Too bad we only have the Donorcratic party in the running

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

In the completely unhinged dub of the anime “Ghost Stories”, they make a throwaway joke about how Bush is stacking the courts to oppress minorities. Sad and scary how relevant that joke is 25 years later.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I always thought that memo meant something entirely different. It's not that sitting Presidents have some sort of immunity, but rather a recognition that there can never be an impartial investigation of the person who is in charge of the investigators.

Let's say that memo wasn't there, and the President was accused of some sort of crime -- but upon investigating, the DoJ decided not to press charges. Could we really ever be sure he was innocent? Woudnt the conspiracy theory always exist that the President quashed it? The proper thing to do would be to either wait until he is out of office, or appoint someone with some statutory independence, who is able to make decisions without interference. I always thought that memo was simply an attempt to preserve the integrity of the DoJ by keeping it out of an obvious conflict of interest.

Of course, the Supreme Court weighed in with their totally bonkers interpretation of it, giving the President free reign to do whatever the hell he wants. Their opinion matters more than mine, unfortunately.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

appoint someone with some statutory independence, who is able to make decisions without interference

That's what they did. Twice. Robert Muller and Jack Smith performed independent investigations and recommended criminal prosecution.

But then the rest of government killed it.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Mueller specifically did not recommend charges and Smith never finished his homework. There's certainly enough in both cases to reach the conclusion you did but that's not technically what happened in either case.