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.
- 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.
- 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
Have you been paying attention? For the last two and a half years, we've seen the entire court system bend over backwards to carve out special exemptions that only apply to Trump, or make Trump exempt from certain laws because reasons. Trump has received special accomodations for no reason other than the fact that he's Donald Trump. They could very easily declare that the Supreme Court will determine which special counsels are valid and which ones aren't on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, the special counsel is invalid because Trump couldn't have been investigated for official acts in the first place, per their previous ruling. And since this presidential immunity doesn't also cover the president's children, the special counsel in that case is valid and therefore Hunter's conviction stands.
If you objectively follow the logic of their previous rulings, this is pretty much where that road leads to. Special counsels investigating Trump are invalid because Trump is covered by Presidential immunity. Special counsels against Hunter biden are valid because that immunity doesn't cover a president's son (until Eric, Don, Ivanka, or Jared need it to). Special counsels currently investigating Biden are valid because it's not the court's place to interfere in ongoing investigations, and removing the special counsels would be too disruptive. Or something. It makes sense as long as you don't think about it too hard. Or at all. Or if you're a brazenly corrupt Supreme Court judge.
Precedent doesn't matter any more. The rules now apply when the Supreme Court says they do. And if they say that the rule only applies to Trump because fuck you that's why, they're going to say that the rule only applies to Trump because fuck you that's why.
that is precisely what I'm saying