Gone

[Jolly]

[Mik]

How about that. You mean these cases where President-Elect Trump threatened our way of life are of no more value?

[George K]

Without prejudice.

[George K]

@Mik said in Gone:

How about that. You mean these cases where President-Elect Trump threatened our way of life are of no more value?

Muh Democraceeeee!

[Jolly]

Pure politics from the get-go.

[jon-nyc]

@Mik said in Gone:

How about that. You mean these cases where President-Elect Trump threatened our way of life are of no more value?

Yes, due to DoJ policy written by Nixon’s White House, reconfirmed by Clinton’s White House, and reconfirmed yet again by Trump’s White House. No administration that wasn’t facing prosecution ever weighed in on the subject.

“In both of the court submissions, Mr. Smith made clear that his moves to end the charges against Mr. Trump were a necessity imposed on him by legal norms, rather than a decision made on the merits of the cases or because of problems with the evidence. The filings cited a Justice Department policy that sitting presidents may not be prosecuted.

That policy, Mr. Smith wrote to Judge Chutkan, “is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”

As an aside, can we marvel on how shitty that account is to not mention which case, which venue, which judge?

[89th]

It's ok, given Trump's long track record of breaking the law, he'll provide the DOJ with plenty of work starting in 2029. Heck, it might single handedly boost employment numbers for President #48!

[George K]

@Jolly said in Gone:

Pure politics from the get-go.

Yale Law Prof agrees.

[Horace]

If that DOJ policy didn’t exist, they would have had to invent it. In the back of even the most TDS addled mind is the realization that that circus, during a presidency, makes the prosecutors look bad and Trump look good. And the people who elected him to do a job would be galvanized.