You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
237 points

Lock the child rapist up.

Why is this even an argument? Republicans are disgusting sickos, letting this piece of shit roam around, actively protecting him.

permalink
report
reply
117 points

I mean, he paid minors to cross state lines for sex…

That’s a federal thing and Biden’s AG could bring charges.

We have another month before Republicans are the only ones who can hold him accountable. But I’m not expecting much, even tho child trafficking should be an obvious charge and evidence already uncovered.

I just don’t think Biden’s admin has it in them to do anything about this. They’ll ignore it and then later complain when Republicans do the same thing.

Neither party is really interested in politicians ever being held accountable, if not, Biden would have done something about trump in the last four years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

I just don’t think Biden’s admin has it in them to do anything about this. They’ll ignore it and then later complain when Republicans do the same thing.

Really going to both-sides this? Merrick Garland is a heel-dragging clown, but even if Biden replaced him with the most aggressive and seasoned prosecutor on Earth today, how the absolute fucking fuck would you expect them to try this case in 28 days?

That is a federal thing, and Biden could bring federal charges; good job, cookie for you. What would he be doing by bringing these? Oh, just casually getting him indicted and either not having enough time to start the trial or, if the trial does somehow start, creating jeopardy and thereby disallowing future prosecution when Trump inevitably drops the case. Good thinking. Too bad you’re not running the country with this 5D political calculus.


Edit: so actually, there’s technically no risk of double jeopardy, because what the OP is describing is completely impossible anyway:

“Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se.”

Thus you’ll never reach a jury being impaneled or a witness being sworn, because the trial will never happen. So bravo, I guess; that risk isn’t there. What you have instead is a DOA case that simply goes absolutely nowhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Merrick Garland is a heel-dragging clown,

And Biden appointed him after Trump tried to steal an election…

Do you think Biden is stupid and thought Merrick wouldnt be a “heel dragging clown”? Or do you think he knew and that’s why he was picked?

Is Biden incompetent or intentionally maintaining the status quo where the rich and politically connected are above the law?

Like…

even if Biden replaced him with the most aggressive and seasoned prosecutor on Earth today, how the absolute fucking fuck would you expect them to try this case in 28 days?

Is this the first time you noticed Merrick was a waste of a pick? Do you think up until now he’s been doing a fine job?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

but even if Biden replaced him with the most aggressive and seasoned prosecutor on Earth today, how the absolute fucking fuck would you expect them to try this case in 28 days?

We’ve known about Gaetz’ child sex trafficking ring for about 18 months now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This was all well known years ago. Waiting on a congressional report was always a cop out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

They could have charged him any time in the last several years. Don’t hold your breath.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

he paid minors to cross state lines for sex

The report specifically says he did not. One minor and he didn’t move her across state lines. However, 17 is statutory rape in Florida.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Paying a minor for sex alone is a violation of the Federal sex trafficking statute, no transportation across state lines required.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wtf does this have to do with anyone besides the FBI?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Because the FBI can only bring charges to the office of the attorney general. And the AG are divided into regions that do not map to the political maps of the states.

And the AG has more people to please than just the FBI. And the FBI, right now, is under pressure to submit to the incoming Trump presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 9.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 218K

    Comments