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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
what was the original reasoning for them giving him immunity in the first place.
He appointed chronies who support the theory of an untouchable authoritarian unitary executive.
The reasoning was that he denied everything as a service to protect the country. From what doesn't really have to be defined. He denied it all to protect the country from a scandal. Boom. Lies told as President in service the the country are apparently protected.
Once he repeated the denials after the trial he blew his cover. He wasn't lying to protect the country now so he just not have been doing it for the country before either, so immunity was revoked.
They started defending him for this when Bill Barr was still AG. So when Garland came in he had to either backtrack on what DOJ already decided (bad for long term justice department credibility) or let the Bill Barr line of reasoning play out. They continued to apply the Barr excuses just with minimal effort.
Now that legal action is back on the table, Garland can say this is a different situation and step away from the actions set in place by Bill Barr. They can drop Trump and DOJ doesn't have to damage its credibility by backtracking what Bill Barr started.
They claimed that his statements made while President served an interest to the government. It's wildly stupid, and really just a flimsy excuse to protect him, but that's what they said.
I think this may just be another excuse, but part of why they're reversing course is that he's now made statements long after losing office, so how could you argue that his actions were driven by his service to the office?
Complicity.