upvote
If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.
reply
I can tell you what will happen instead.

If a dem wins in 2028, the big push will be one of reconciliation and acceptance. Let bygones be bygones. And it'll happen. And then for the next 4 years conservative media will absolutely pound that person's backside over made up and/or exaggerated corruption claims. Then in 2032 the GOP candidate will claim they're going to look into these claims.

reply
Yep. Remember when people were expecting Obama to prosecute Bush for war crimes? He should have, but chickened out and decided he would instead carry on Bush's transgressions as the new status quo.
reply
> He should have, but chickened out and decided he would instead carry on Bush's transgressions as the new status quo.

With hindsight, it's pretty hard to believe that wasn't always the plan.

It was a pretty clever plan too, because everyone calling Obama out for [mass surveillance, illegal wars, promoting the '08 crash bankers, torture, funding ICE, bombing a wedding/s, assassinating US citizens without trial, attacking whistleblowers, using his supermajority to implement a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan, etc] was dismissed as a racist.

To this day I see people talk about the tan suit and the dijon mustard thing as if those fake outrage stories were the worst things he did. 'Wasn't it nice to have a President who could talk in complete sentences'.

reply
To be fair, it was nice to have a president that could speak in complete sentences. But yes, I agree that people go way too easy on Obama and present fake controversies as his worst. It should be possible to simultaneously recognize a president's strengths while also being critical of his flaws, but unfortunately American culture seems to have a growing personality cult problem, and it's generally just assumed that if you're not glazing a politician, you're an extremist from the other side doing false flag rhetoric or something inane like that.
reply
Your scepticism is well warranted. That's exactly the playbook Biden chose to follow, and I agree the most likely outcome is the next admin will follow it again.

However, I am unfortunately an incurable optimist, and sometimes we Americans really do pull off amazing feats. I live in the Twin Cities and we actually defeated DHS/CBP/ICE here. It was an amazing thing to witness, and maybe there is enough outrage at this admin's looting of the US that we can build the support nationally to do that kind of thing again.

reply
It wasn't just Biden. This is how it played out with Obama as well, except that Romney lost in 2012.

Heck, Obama won the peace prize for no other reason than he wasn't George W Bush

reply
"Defeated" is an interesting way to look at it. My perception is that the administration was just using the Twin Cities as a distraction, like they do for basically everything. In the mean time, the higher ups get their business deals done while the commoners are busy wasting energy cleaning up the mess. In which case, they succeeded. Now, onto the next distraction, and then the next one, and so on and so forth.

Minnesota has a very high probability of sending 2 Democrat senators and all their electoral votes to the Democrat presidential candidate. Minnesota and the Twin Cities are of zero consequence to this administration, so why not use them as a distraction?

The primary goal of the administration, sweeping tax cuts, was already accomplished in Jul 2025, so even Congress is of limited value now until after the next presidential election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone

reply
They certainly liked the distraction, but the invasion of MN allowed them to 1) catch some illegal immigrants, 2) intimidate legal immigrants, encouraging them to "self deport", 3) flex their power and demonstrate the ability to cause pain and harm to political enemies, and 4) give agents practice and training for the next city they invade. So far they have had these "surges" in Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and Minneapolis. There are plenty more cities in blue states and plenty of money left in their budget, and almost 3 years left in this administration.
reply
I blame Garland for much of the mess we are in. If the DOJ had done their job regarding the Jan 6 insurrection we wouldn't be here talking about stupid tarrifs that caused a year of turbulence for US businesses and contributed to inflation, for no good reason (and this might be the least of the problems caused by the Trump admin).
reply
It seemed like the Democrats selected Garland just so they could poke the Republicans in the eye. "You blocked him from SCOTUS so now we're going to make him Attorney General, how you like them apples?" Without really considering whether he'd actually do a good job.
reply
An alternative view is his personality used to be what you want (in theory) as both AG and SCOTUS justice - slow, deliberate, non-partisan.
reply
There's slow, and then there's taking more than four years to prosecute high-profile crimes committed in plain view.
reply
I agree; but different times called for different measures. There was also too much of a feeling of "whew, that was close, but now we can get back to normal" instead of "let's make sure that never happens again".
reply
If you care to read a bit more about it [0], then the Garland pick looks a lot more sinister.

That's Sarah Kendzior, one of the few journalists who was talking about Epstein long before all that started to became well known.

'Fun' fact: The Attorney General is able to unseal court documents at will. And for four years Garland didn't do that with the Epstein files. It was beyond clear that the SC were slow rolling Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, and still nothing even leaked.

0 - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-of-the-mafia-s...

reply
We’ll be dependent on New York for that, as potus will pardon everyone save for a few suckers at the end, assuming he leaves office in an orderly manner.

The purge of DOJ (They can’t even find confirmable US Attorneys at this point.) and the military officer corps makes that not a certainty.

reply
He didn't pardon anyone involved with January 6th until he was re-elected. There is a documentary where Roger Stone acts psychotic with anger because Trump refused to issue a pardon for him or anyone else after Jan. 6. Trump is a selfish person, and if he thinks he is going to be vulnerable, he isn't going to protect anyone else for no other than reason than he thinks they should go down with him.
reply
> We’ll be dependent on New York for that

do you mean because POTUS can't forgive State convictions? But why NY?

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already absolved Trump of anything he does in office

reply
Nationalize the entire trump family fortune with RICO. Impoverishment is the perfect moral hazard to reign in hubristic and corrupt business practices.
reply
> We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029

Best we can do is a couple dozen golden parachutes.

reply
Sure, give them the golden parachutes. Put a few holes in them, then make them jump.
reply
Nope. Parachutes are too expensive to waste on these losers. Give them all backpacks. Tell them the backpacks are parachutes.

EDIT: Link to old but good joke [0] provided for context.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/16imt2f/long_an_old_...

reply
I think the precedent has been set - proactive pardons for all, every administration from now on
reply
Merrick Garland is tanned, rested, and ready to not do jack until 2040.
reply
We've let criminal administrations get away with too much for too long. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump 1 were all allowed to disregard the law and it got worse every time. We cannot move forward without purging crime and corruption from our system. Everyone from the top down to Billy-Bod ICE agent.

No more Merrick Garlands. No hand-wringing over appearances of weaponizing the DoJ. The next president needs to appoint an AG who enforces the law, and if they don't do it, they need be fired and replaced by someone who will.

reply
How many cops/prosecutors/judges/prison guards/government employees support this administration?

Doesn’t seem like a trivial task, given the Nov 2024 election results.

reply
How many high-ranking Department of Justice officials got canned for made-up reasons and maybe are looking for revenge
reply
Whoever takes over DOJ has to come in with a ready-to-go team they already know; a state AG who can draft their whole staff or something. They'll be entering a deliberately fucked, hollowed-out, booby-trapped organization they have to rebuild from the ground up. Speed will matter enormously.
reply
Hence why when Trump said he doesn't want future elections, we should take him seriously.
reply
The first thing on the agenda is to impeach & convict, if there were enough patriotic Americans in Congress it should be possible this afternoon.

Then they can take their time to reverse all immunity granted by this President so all snakes can be rooted out.

reply
Presidential pardon immunity is unreversable. There could potentially be a constitutional amendment on this, which is a super high bar, but even then the prohibition on ex post facto laws would only affect pardons going forward. It will be up to the states.
reply
> Presidential pardon immunity is unreversable

But presidents are also immune against prosecution for official acts. Could a president just disregard pardons from a prior administration? Immovable object, irresistible force kinda situation right?

reply
Yes, but the courts would dismiss the case. If not the appeals court would. If not the Supreme Court would.
reply
And then you use presidential immunity to Maduro a few justices.
reply
At least 3 members of the Supreme Court are among those working under the current admin who need to be serving life sentences in prison.
reply
If at least two-thirds of the Senate doesn't agree, then that doesn't matter.
reply
deleted
reply
>>the prohibition on ex post facto laws would only affect pardons going forward.

That is plainly wrong. A constitutional amendment can say anything. There are no prohibitions.

reply
Well, no, it’s in the US Constitution. So I suppose congress could add a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition on ex post facto laws. But that’s so unthinkable it might as well be a fantasy. Far from “plainly wrong,” which seems unnecessarily aggressive verbiage.
reply
An amendment can’t violate the constitution. It is the constitution. You can do anything.
reply
Why couldn't the amendment just say, "The presidential power pardon is revoked, and all prior pardons are null and void"? You have to amend the Constitution to remove the pardon power regardless, why would it be so difficult to put in a clause saying that it's retroactive?
reply
Whatever it takes would be worth it.

An example needs to be set.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Wrong.

American patriots have never had anything in common with anybody like Trump.

Take your racist attitude somewhere else and it would not be so embarrassing.

reply
It’s racist to call out the anti-white hatred that is prevalent with leftists who claim to be patriots (while they generally claim that the US is illegitimate)?

All the internet brigading in the world won’t absolve you from what you’re part of.

Again, the left are not patriots by any stretch of the world. MAGA is a patriotic movement. You can’t hate nationalism and be a patriot.

reply
Unfortunately, we have a two party system, and neither side is going to do anything about it. One side is complicit and actively participating in the fraud and grift. The other side is all talk and no action. If they win, they'll spend four years making excuses about why they can't actually do anything. They had four years to prosecute and imprison Trump 1.0 and just... talked and sat on their hands doing performance art.
reply
I 100% agree. I will never forgive Biden for not putting these traitors behind bars in his first 6 months. He failed at one of his most important sworn duties, protecting the US from its enemies.

But, sometimes a groundswell movement really can build momentum and drive the conversation regardless of what the leaders think about it. Write to your state & national representatives demanding that they publicly support prosecution for the incredible crimes we're seeing committed by this admin. Try to make it a policy platform for your state party. Maybe we can build enough support from the bottom up to get popular momentum behind it. Holding criminals accountable for their crimes is not really a controversial position, we have to demand that they actually do it.

reply
Yep. Biden's "well I bet he will just go away naturally" approach to Trump's crimes will be a historic error. It remains to be seen if this is quite at the level of walking back Reconstruction, but if the US descends further into fascism then it will be up there.

Biden is gone, but Schumer and Jeffries aren't exactly looking any different.

I'm currently livid at the dem leadership that doesn't have the guts to do anything hard. Dem leadership needs to go and we need a serious response here. South Korea just jailed their criminal president for life. Just imagine.

reply
I feel very strongly that's what should happen, and equally strongly that there's zero chance a democratic president will actually do that in a meaningful way. Dems sometimes talk a big game when they're out of power but when they're in power they actually quite enjoy the expanded powers and reduced accountability that's come about. That plus their usual ineffectual bumbling will combine to mean they basically doing nothing.

At this point I think I'm most scared of the next fascist president. Trump has opened up a lot of avenues for blatant corruption and tyranny. His greed and stupidity have so far saved us from the worst outcomes but someone with his psychopathy but more savviness will mean the true end of our freedoms.

reply
The last time Dems had power was before Jan 2015. And even then it was tenuous, because the Dems have had a few Senators that do not vote lockstep with the Dems (Manchin, Lieberman, Sinema, etc), but the Repubs maybe have had 1 defector (McCain?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...

Going forward, the Dems are not likely to have power either, based on the projected safety of Repub Senate seats.

https://www.270towin.com/2026-senate-election/

reply
Maybe Dems only don't have power because they don't want too much of it. It fucks with the plausible deniability.

Like, they could easily have taken down Trump, either over Jan 6th or the Epstein files. They didn't.

They could have easily gained _millions_ of votes in the 2024 election just by promising not to keep helping murder tens of thousands of children. They didn't. They could have kicked up a fuss about some rather obvious election fraud; they didn't.

They could have fought harder for SC picks on multiple occasions. They could have leaked choice Epstein files at key times. They could have held proper primaries, instead of ramming a demented roomba warmonger and then his wildly unpopular warmonger sidekick down our throats (for like the third election in a row). They didn't.

At some point you need to realize that Dems have lots of power; and they choose to use it in very curious ways. Arming genocide and protecting billionaire blackmail pedo-rings aren't things that I'm willing to look past. Yes the Republicans are even worse, but at every point where Dems had all the power needed to hold them accountable they've gone to rather extreme lengths not to do that. For decades.

reply
[flagged]
reply

  "The Biden Pardon immunizes everyone from future prosecution"
He pardoned specific individuals that had already been targeted and attacked by Trump and conservative media, who were extremely likely to be persecuted by a potential (and now realized) 2nd Trump term. There's a big difference between investigating January 6th and, you know, doing January 6th.
reply
And there's a pretty huge precedent for that; the preemptive pardon of Nixon.
reply
You're making an argument for why its use is defensible. I find it not unconvincing, especially since it's pretty much just Analects 13:18. But Trump can use the Biden Pardon (shorthand for broad large-period pre-emptive pardon) too, and he's pioneered the use of the Trump Pardon (shorthand for plausibly deniable pay-to-pardon). The combination of the two pardon techniques signals the end of Rule of Law for sufficiently well-connected individuals in the US. Plausibly Jeffrey Epstein was just caught a decade early. He wouldn't be in trouble today.
reply
[flagged]
reply
This kind of vitriolic discourse has no place here and I hope, for our sake, you get banned or, at least, mass flagged.
reply
Internet brigading is all the fascistic left has atp, so I’m not surprised. All my comments that push back against the dwindling and irrational far left movement are always mass flagged. It’s expected but I don’t really mind.
reply
> the will of the majority

Trump didn't even get a majority of the votes, let alone a majority in current polling.

reply
He absolutely won the popular vote, and won every single swing state.
reply
Cool, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...

Trump: 49.8%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)

> A plurality vote (in North American English) or relative majority (in British English) describes the circumstance when a party, candidate, or proposition polls more votes than any other but does not receive a majority or more than half of all votes cast.

What he does have a very clear majority on currently is disapproval of his actions: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-appro...

reply
Just because they promise illegal shit on the campaign trail doesn't mean they get a pass for implementing it.

And do you remember when he promised to illegally raise taxes without the consent of congress? Me neither.

reply
[flagged]
reply
> the fascistic left

Immediate signal that you can ignore whatever comes next.

reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
Hunter Biden and the Biden family were investigated for years by Congress. They came up with tax and gun form charges. Why would that stop Dems from prosecuting all the corruption and treason happening under this administration?

I'm not following the reasoning in your comment. So because fishing expeditions are possible we shouldn't ever go after political opponents for actual crimes?

reply
And do you not see how those sort of investigations failing to turn up anything is precisely what makes people think the entire system is brokenly corrupt? You can't in good faith argue you think he was in that position on merit. He was (and is) a drug addict with no relevant skills, and he's making millions working on the board of directors for a Ukrainian gas company?

You can, for instance, make your same argument about Dick Cheney and his relations with Halliburton which were equally obviously corrupt. Yet lo and behold, plenty of showy investigations, and the political establishment finds that the political establishment did nothing wrong, well at least nothing deserving of anything worse than a few very gentle taps on the wrist.

reply
Somehow, the "Everything is Corrupt" folks always end up supporting the most corrupt president in our history.
reply
Maybe you have to say "everything is corrupt" in order to not be morally required to condemn the current administration.

Yes, other administrations were corrupt, going back at least to Andrew Jackson. No, from what I can tell, they weren't this corrupt (with the possible exception of Grant).

reply
What was Hunter Bidens official job and what corrupt official acts did he commit? Some private third party hires some washed up relative of someone in power is looking decidedly quaint if you look at the brazenness and dimensions of the current administration.
reply
I'm completely lost on what your position is here. You think the fishing expedition against the Bidens was actually kinda good but the Republicans were secretly positioning to only charge him with a gun-form thing that almost no one gets charged for standalone and for taxes that he paid back?

What crime did you want him found guilty of exactly?

reply
I can in good faith completely reject your comments, which are totally lacking in good faith.
reply
The DNC had nothing to do with it. Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts--that was the justice system working. He was then gifted complete freedom from consequences--that was the justice system not working.

There are other falsehoods in your comment as well.

reply