this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
383 points (99.5% liked)

politics

31138 readers
3034 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It was a sharp rebuke to the prosecutors who are dealing with the fallout from President Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and federal agents into Washington.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 129 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Twice in two days that they've failed to get a grand jury to indict on charges related to ICE retaliation.

That seems kind of unheard of, and maybe good news... However, I figure they'll just start skipping the due process altogether like they do with accused undocumented individuals.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

That seems kind of unheard of, and maybe good news…

Grand juries still come from the county where the charge was filed. I can't imagine anyone living in DC right now is thrilled with how the feds are conducting themselves. Must be very difficult to find a jury pool willing to play along.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 113 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good. That was a bullshit charge.

They could also forgo seeking felony charges and refile his case as a misdemeanor, which does not require an indictment to move forward.

This sounds like a job for Jury Nullification Man!

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Now, this looks like a job for me

So, everybody, free the detainee

'Cause we need a lot less guilty

'Cause it feels like this man will go free

I said this looks like a job for me

So, everybody, free the detainee

'Cause we need a lot less guilty

'Cause it feels like this man will go free

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How long until an executive order saying that grand juries are no longer needed for federal cases?

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

I mean, if Executive Orders can limit your First Amendment Rights (unconstitutional, but who TF cares these days), what are the rest of them even for?

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

An executive order can say anything. They may not be legal, but that small detail hasn't stopped Trump as of yet.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Do what, murder child sex traffickers in prison to cover their complicity in child sex trafficking?

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 year ago

Anyone with enough power has always been able to do whatever they want. Laws aren't magic.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago

They can do whatever they want. On the other hand, the people of the country can throw things other than sandwiches.

People tend to get confused, even when they are familiar with all these founding documents and principles (which the current government is not). They start to think there are "rules" and they get to say what's allowed, and they can punish people who do what's not allowed, but it doesn't go the other way, because that's not allowed and they're in charge. That's not reality. Reality is, we're all just on this planet bebopping around, and if someone is in a "government" role, it behooves them to make sure the people "under" them agree with the idea of them being in charge. Because no one has a monopoly on violence or vigor.

Even the top leaders of the USSR (starting with Kruschev) had to figure this out: He made a mostly unspoken deal with the other leaders that he wouldn't try to kill them for being potential threats, and in return they wouldn't kill him to take him out of power and replace him. And what do you know, it worked! It's better that way. The US up until now has had a little more sophisticated version, extending beyond the inner circle of leadership, but it sounds like Trump is hankering for an earlier era without really being aware of its perils.

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

Who's going to stop them? The government?

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

As long as you end the EO by saying that everyone will do things according to the law. That way when they follow the instructions and break the law it's an honest mistake and not the result of the EO.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Curiously, they could have prosecuted him for a misdemeanor without needing to get an indictment. But the prosecutors took it all the way to 11 with a felony charge. You'll hear DAs joke that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But I guess this was a bridge too far.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, classic mistake. The grand jury would have indicted the ham sandwich but they made the mistake of trying to prosecute the guy who threw it instead.

As they start trying to crank up the fascism hopefully we'll see more of this and jury nullification pushing back against these constitutional violations.

We’re officially in the year 1774… One of the big catalysts for the American revolution was American juries refusing to convict, so King George (who ruled by decree) suspended jury trials and began shipping accused to England to face trial there instead.

So how long until King Trump writes an executive order (cough decrees cough) that suspends jury trials?

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

This attitude is all over the united states, and the news, with this exception (it's headline-worthy), is pathetic enough to make it seem like it isn't.

Keep it up, everybody. If you can pronounce the word "no", then you have what it takes not to be a giant fucking pussy.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Hell yeah, any decent DA could indict a ham sandwich, but not over this ham sandwich bullshit.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

Producer Amy Pascal threw a sandwich at producer Kevin Feige over a disagreement about bringing Spiderman into the MCU

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

There's an old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich...

Maybe they should try doing that

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

Some of the judicial system is still holding up, so that's good news. They really just need to do their jobs and make proper rulings according to law to be a good check against the criminal regime of Adolf Diddler.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago

Sortition is a really powerful tool for preventing an instition from being captured

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Jury nullification is awesome.