this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
457 points (99.1% liked)

politics

26427 readers
2534 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
 

“We've had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats," Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told NBC News.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said the number of threats against her exploded after Donald Trump posted social media messages targeting Democrats on Thursday.

“We’ve had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats,” Slotkin, one of the six Democrats featured in a video that provoked Trump’s ire, told NBC News’s Ryan Nobles.

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said they’d looked into security for the lawmakers who appeared in a video released earlier this week. In the video, Slotkin and five other Democratic veterans and former intelligence officers reminded service members that they could “refuse illegal orders” from the administration.

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 15 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Democrats chose not to throw him in prison for treason when they had the chance. They were also sitting on a mountain of evidence of child sexual assault and sex trafficking and they chose not to prosecute for that either. Thanks guys it’s almost like this was preventable.

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 101 points 1 day ago (1 children)

well, i sure am grateful that the fbi and doj will be fully investigating and arresting these people threatening congress….

for real it can’t be that hard to do… i bet the majority of them don’t know how to use proxies or leaked their identities somewhere…
yet i never hear about them being prosecuted.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Trump would just pardon them anyway

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are there no state-level crimes to charge them with?

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I'm not really sure how locality plays into that. If this all happened in DC then there is no state government to handle the situation. Perhaps the state governments of the state that either the congress member or the person threatening them is from could prosecute them but I'm honestly not sure.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That might be useful information if the left could muster the courage to do something more than talk shit about them on Twitter

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

“Anyway”? So it’s not worth following through on?

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, Trump controls all the departments that would be involved in that process so it's not really a matter of worthiness at all. Criminals don't investigate themselves with any kind of impartiality. But, if you were to somehow convince the DOJ to follow through and convict these people against Trump's wishes he would just pardon them. That's the reality of the situation. The ideal outcome isn't anywhere near this picture.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, but a pardon implies the process worked. And I think it’s important because sane people will understand the outcome.

But I guess, as others have pointed out, that’s not justice. So prosecution post the possibility of pardon does make sense.

What a fucked up situation.

[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If you can't play the roll of party loyalist, you're not working for the DOJ. I'm fine waiting until that is over to begin prosecutions

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They could refuse illegal orders???

Aren’t they required to refuse illegal orders under the USMJ and the constitution?

[–] jdredbeard@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

Servicemen were dishonorably discharged for refusing to deploy to Iraq.

Shooting at civilians is obviously illegal. Soldiers must disobey such an order.

However, there are many circumstances where there isn't an obvious crime. A soldier who disobeys an order not obviously illegal assumes the risk of punishment

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Honestly, it's a legal grey area, especially if those orders come from the President. However that is absolutely not the mind frame conservatives are engaging this with. It's just good old-fashioned hate of the other.

The YouTube channel Legal Eagle did an interesting video on it. Link

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's pretty clear what is legal and what isn't here. The president is not above the law, and many of his decisions/actions have been deemed illegal by yhe actual court system.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is supposedly fine, but people saying Charlie Kirk was an asshole who didn't deserve life or sympathy are "inciting violence".

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And now Charlie's in Heaven and is the patron saint of FAFO.

Naw, just kidding, he's burning eternally along with all the other sanctimonious hypocrites.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

he's burning eternally along with all the other sanctimonious hypocrites.

We can only hope. I'm not counting on it though.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who is saying what part about this is fine?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Have you not noticed that republicans will defend literally anything Trump does?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Got it, ty.

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 8 points 21 hours ago

His every whim is a demand according to the mentally bereft smooth brains that adore him.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unfortunately there was No Way to KNOW nor PREVENT this From happening! Oh well, let's send a VERY STRONG Letter, do EVERYTHING Trump says, and head Back to Minnesota!

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Even if the government remained in shutdown this would probably all still be happening. Dems have no power.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago

I'm honestly worried one or more of these Democrat lawmakers is going to be murdered. Wouldn't be the first time this year.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

Aren’t those democratic voters so violent!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Apparently the orange traitor learned from Jan 6!that he can get away with even the worst crimes. That plausible deniability is microscopically thin