583
'There will be a civil war': Trump fans rage after Georgia judge orders trial to proceed
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
583 points (96.3% liked)
politics
19062 readers
3868 users here now
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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cannon says "no" to the defense for the first time this trial and they turn on her immediately
what a bunch of traitorous snowflakes
Wanna know how I know you didn’t read the article?
Or even the headline. It clearly says Georgia.
Lol yeah, but that I can be a little more forgiving about. It can be hard to keep track of which case is being handled in which area. But had they read the article, they'd see the judge mentioned by name in the first sentence and it's not Aileen Cannon.
This is not about Florida though. Cannon is the Florida classified documents case.
I know.. it's hard to keep track with all the trials:
I probably forgot some...
Also, if those people could read they'd realize the only reason she said no right now, is she wants to allow that argument to be used as a defense during the trial, where she can then acquit him herself and give Jack Smith no chance to appeal. She only said that the argument couldn't be used to dismiss the charges before the trial starts. If she did say yes to Trump's request right now, Smith could appeal and a higher court would slap her down in a second for this blatantly incorrect interpretation of the law, and cut off Cannon's plan to acquit Trump of all charges during the trial. She is bending over backwards to not rule on anything before the trial, so nothing can be appealed beforehand, and then get to the trial stage when her dumb shit will be effectively unappealable. Everything in her recent order is still to Trump's benefit.
Neither you nor the person you’re replying to read the article. If you did you’d know this isn’t about Judge Aileen Cannon.
I know Judge cannon is not in the article, and I did read it. I assumed the person I was replying too was bringing up judge Cannon for contrast with this judge, because unlike this judge or pretty much any other judge Trump has been before (who they and their family members have been getting constant death threats and harrasment, often from Trump himself) they've been lavishing praise on her. Kind of ironic they turned on her as well just yesterday after her order when she's still doing her best to put the fix in for Trump. Trump even had to put out a tweet to remind people that judge cannon is great.
Cmon man at least make sure it's the right case if you're not going to read the article