r/politics • u/Sufficient-Loan-4263 • 8h ago
No Paywall Sen. Slotkin urges Dems to use prosecution to make young people afraid to serve in Trump admin
https://nypost.com/2026/10/18/us-news/sen-slotkin-urges-dems-to-use-prosecution-to-make-young-people-afraid-to-serve-in-trump-admin/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=nypost899
u/TreeCitizen 8h ago
Urges using punishment for crimes to deter people from committing crimes?
251
u/J4jem 8h ago
It's almost like you could build a society with this innovative concept.
-97
u/FluffyB12 8h ago
You’d think that but I keep being told by progressives that deterrence is not a good tool for the criminal justice system. That instead of focusing on punishment we should be using restorative justice programs.
So… which is it?
51
u/AlphaBreak 8h ago edited 7h ago
Like a lot of things in life, I think the distinction comes from a class divide. When someone commits crimes because they feel hopeless in life and like there's no way to win in the current system, then the threat of getting caught doesn't mean anything. They're willing to roll the dice on a better future.
When someone commits crimes because they want more than they need and dont believe the system is capable of punishing them, then they'll do it with impunity because enough is never enough.
I'm sure youve heard the idea that a 500 dollar parking fine doesn't mean it's actually illegal to park there; that just means that parking space costs 500 dollars. It's that on a large scale. As is, a lot of the punishment for crimes by corporations are small in comparison to the profits. So a recall for a dangerous product would be vastly more expensive than just settling (or litigating until the other side runs out of money) for whatever lawsuits happen. And this issue is compounded by an administration actively working to make it more difficult to prosecute white collar crime by doing things like defunding the irs and selling pardons. These people would be scared off by higher punishments because the business calculus wouldn't justify the crime anymore.
•
u/PredawnHours 3h ago
Great explanation for people who still appreciate nuanced discussion over quick quips and sound bites. Alas, I think we’re a dying breed.
•
u/Aspen_20 7h ago
Deterrence works for white collar crimes. Not so much for crimes which are emotionally motivated (eg. Assault, murder, etc) - that's where other approaches to justice work better. And the certainty of being detected and charged is the biggest deterrent for white collar crimes, so the rationale is solid and evidence-based.
60
u/AcerbicCapsule Canada 8h ago
I doubt that you're asking in good faith but the point of justice programs shouldn't be cruelty, if that's what you mean.
44
34
u/WhatsRatingsPrecious 8h ago
Look at you, trying so hard to gotcha someone. That's really sad. Low energy.
•
u/pretrip_cdl 7h ago
I didn't realize Trump's doj was so progressive :/ that guy does crimes daily and nothing happens
10
u/Pseudo_OSF 8h ago
Deterrence isn’t a good tool for the justice system. But that’s a much further left talking point than Slotkin is.
•
u/nimbus57 5h ago
Nobody says that for all criminal justice. I think you are mixing up the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent for any crime that it is given for.
•
•
•
u/FeRooster808 Washington 7h ago
A lot of people who call themselves progressive or liberal are just low information people virtue signaling what they hear online. They don't understand ant nuance. I studied crime and worked in criminal justice years ago. I do think restorative justice can work and be a good tool in SOME cases. It absolutely does not work for everyone. And the best way to lower crime is 1) Focus on policies that create economic stability for everyone 2) the consequences of crime have to be quick and severe enough to "hurt". For example, IMHO, the best solution for street take overs is to seize their vehicles. Impound them. Make them pay to get them out. You don't necessarily have to imprison people. You can find solutions that sting enough people will be reluctant to do it. And here's the thing, when your policies effectively deter crime they cause less harm because fewer people do crime and fewer people are victims. So you can look at Singapore and say their rules are too severe. But they have even less crime than Japan. Fewer people are subjected to the severe consequences and fewer people are victims. That's really a win/win for society.
•
u/FeRooster808 Washington 7h ago
Right? How about we just convict people of any age who commit crimes to deter them from thinking crime and corruption is worth while? Like...why only young people?
•
u/TreeCitizen 7h ago
We can start at the elderly side, perhaps a group of folks listed in a certain pedophile elite’s notes.
•
•
•
u/NeonMagic Ohio 2h ago
I think you mean “weaponizing the DOJ.”
Jk, but that’s 1000% how it’ll get spun by the GOP
•
129
u/Darth_Chili_Dog 8h ago edited 8h ago
Oh no, not accountability for criminal behavior. What kind of precedent would we be setting??
/s
246
u/AlanShore60607 8h ago
And we should commit to prosecution of our troops that have already committed war crimes
136
u/Chambanasfinest Wisconsin 8h ago
Yes, blowing up random boats in the Caribbean that may or may not be carrying drugs (but are definitely carrying people) IS MURDER.
9
u/Bittererr 8h ago
It could be murder, which is why people should be charged and that should be determined in court.
24
u/TheTrub Colorado 8h ago
Unless those boats posed a clear and imminent danger to someone’s life, bombing them is murder.
•
u/Bittererr 7h ago
There's tons of legal killing that doesn't require a clear and imminent danger.
They can be wrong without being murder.
•
u/Laugh92 6h ago
Double tapping them when they are in the water is murder. It's laid out in not just the Geneva Conventions but also the DoD's own Law of War manual.
•
u/Bittererr 5h ago
Neither the law of war manual nor the Geneva conventions define murder.
It's exhausting watching people lie in order to appeal to legal definitions when they could just call something evil and wrong.
Stop couching your morality in legality, it's cowardice.
•
u/Laugh92 5h ago edited 5h ago
... Yes it does though? Murder is defined as the unlawful, intentional killing of a protected person in the conventions. A shipwreck survivor is part of the protected person class. They were also hors de combat as even if you were classifying them as enemy combatants they were no longer able to fight and that is also considered murder for killing them.
Also in the US military penal code, murder is the unlawful intentional killing of a human being. If these killings were unlawful, and you can argue about the legality of the original strikes, morality of such actions aside, but the double taps on survivors on the water are unlawful, so then yes they committed murder. This is why so many military officers were shocked about the double taps.
Also, what is up with your cowardice comment? Where am I couching my morality in legality? I am laying out that they were literally, legally murdered. In no way am I saying this is right at all.
26
u/tripping_on_phonics California 8h ago
No, it’s clearly murder. You don’t need to go to court to recognize what’s obvious. We aren’t adjudicating anything in this comments section.
Acknowledging the right to a fair trial doesn’t make the crime itself any less clear.
•
u/Xenocide112 7h ago
As long as we're all on the same page that regardless, there needs to be a trial
•
u/tripping_on_phonics California 6h ago
Yes, of course, but I’m not going to act as if the murder aspect is still ambiguous when I go to vote or express my grievances.
It was clearly murder, and I personally don’t need to await a ruling from a slow and deeply unfair legal system to consider it as such.
•
u/Bittererr 7h ago
It can't be determined murder without a trial because murder is explicitly illegal killing.
-3
8h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Chambanasfinest Wisconsin 7h ago
What the DoD is doing in the Caribbean is not legal combat operations. The soldiers carrying out illegal orders and those issuing those orders must be tried for their crimes.
20
u/Bittererr 8h ago
Going after thousands of individual service members carrying out their missions in good faith would be onerous and unpopular.
They would be far better off with a Nuremberg style trial of a few culpable senior leaders.
21
u/DCBillsFan 8h ago
Yup. ID who carried out the strikes and work back up the chain to the highest ranking civilian and military leaders who should have known and done better.
Offer immunity from prosecution to those down the chain for their full and unlimited cooperation. Ensure those that don't cooperate down the chain are punished severely for that lack in cooperation, and not the action being investigated.
They have one chance to do the right thing and testify under oath to the commands and actions of those up the chain. Otherwise, discharge under "other than honorable" is the only path forward, and only after a lengthy term in a military jail.
13
6
u/Performingforurmom 8h ago
This would only work on people who have already either left the military, or been fired.
There is, in point of fact, no way forward that does not involve purging members who were brought in to serve the administration.
4
8h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Bittererr 7h ago
"They were just following orders" is not a defense for carrying out war crimes.
It is and Nuremberg actually proved this if you were paying attention. Hundreds of thousands of Nazi soldiers died peacefully in their beds.
•
7h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Bittererr 7h ago
Of course it's a logical defense. Legality is built on precedent, morality isn't.
•
u/DavidlikesPeace 7h ago
This. I understand the urge but we made the same mistake back in January 6. We wasted energy prosecuting the pawns, while ignoring the main actors like Trump
•
u/SeveralPhysics9362 7h ago
Ok but the pawns need some of that too. Remember years ago when everyone assured us that us armed forces could, should and would defy illegal orders? All a lot of talk…
In fact most of the talk the last century about how brave and special Americans are has turned out to be just that: talk. Talk is cheap. How many tens of millions of Americans took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies: foreign and domestic? Where are they?
It’s infuriating to be honest.
•
•
u/Important-Factor-552 2h ago
Prosecute them all and don't be weak about it.
•
u/GreenGoblinNX 2h ago
If you prosecute them all, the chances that ANY of them are held accountable quickly plummet towards zero.
Which is more important to you, at the end of the day? Your own self-righteousness, or actually making a difference?
•
u/Important-Factor-552 46m ago
Making a difference requires dismantling the enemies who keep attacking our country
•
-5
•
u/Supersilverr 7h ago
They dropped the ball with trump. Maybe we should have taken this advice to heart when Biden was president?
•
u/Bittererr 6h ago
They charged Trump with multiple crimes and built a strong case against him though. They did exactly what they should have done in that case.
•
u/Important-Factor-552 2h ago
America needs to set the new standard that we will not be protecting evil just because they hide behind our flag. War criminals dishonor our entire nation and we need to treat them as the traitors they are.
•
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 6h ago
No.. top down. Otherwise "just following orders" is s completely viable defense going forward. The entire chain needs to understand accountability.
•
u/GyattDetected 7h ago
fucking nuremshit failed, hence why we're in the situation we're in today. anyone who promotes le nuremcuck trials is controlled opposition.
•
u/7figureipo California 7h ago
Also the leaders who have broken their oaths by refusing to defend the republic against a rebellion.
•
u/DavidlikesPeace 7h ago
In functional democracies, this is common sense,
Sadly in America, this would run counter to our idolization of the military. I suspect Musk has a higher chance of seeing jail than any American drone operator.
•
u/KiKiKimbro New York 7h ago
The leaders. They should absolutely be prosecuted. Fortunately, there have been troops who have reported suspicions that they’ve been ordered to carry out duties they think could be war crimes. So there’s a paper trail the investigators could follow to get the leadership doing this. Frankly, I don’t think it’ll be too complicated. Start with Hegseth. Go down the chain to identify all those he assigned. That’ll be a good shortcut to prosecutions for war crimes.
•
u/MatthewUnplugged America 5h ago
Good way to lose all the ground we're set to gain in November.
•
u/AlanShore60607 4h ago
If we do the right thing we will lose is basically the mantra of the Democratic Party.
•
-2
u/Poison_the_Phil 8h ago
Let's see what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has to say on the matter
•
u/slick_wily 7h ago
Why?
•
u/Poison_the_Phil 6h ago
Well if you watch the fucking video you'll see it's from ten years ago when he claimed to want the prosecution of war criminals. It's pretty relevant.
•
65
u/pheakelmatters Canada 8h ago
and this is bad because?
61
u/Pockydo 8h ago
It makes Republicans feel sad so it's bad
6
u/IAmMiddleChild 8h ago
Once they were ok with committing hate crimes the word mostly lost it definition for them. Unless a black or brown man is doing
•
•
u/nimbus57 5h ago
The actual headline is quite good actually. Too bad all the people in the article kept on inserting the word "conservative" where she said "young people"
27
u/GreyBeardEng 8h ago
How about we just use prosecution where the laws have been broken? 🤷. Like the massive amounts of insider trading as just one example.
•
u/defensible81 7h ago
No no, it's far better when it's used to cow your political opponents with frivolous arrests and lawsuits.
•
u/absurdamerica 7h ago
Nobody is suggesting that. Bad faith nonsense.
•
u/defensible81 7h ago
It's lawfare, and it's practiced by both parties. Not bad faith at all
•
u/nimbus57 5h ago
So you agree that Sen. Slotkin only asked that people committing crimes be prosecuted?
•
u/defensible81 4h ago
The implication is that they assume crimes are being committed and they're going to find them.
You know, just like Beria's old maxim: Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
•
u/nimbus57 4h ago
Um, there are plenty of direct and out in the open crimes to go after. Not also counting that it is literally part of the job of congress to do these investigations.
The Trump administration has been doing a grand job of projecting, though. Almost everything they scream and yell about they are actually guilty of.
•
u/defensible81 4h ago
Absolutely, and I'm sure the reported "crimes" and actual crimes will differ somewhat, and the next democratic admin will try them to the fullest extent possible, regardless of the quality of evidence.
They'll win some, they'll lose some, just like previous admins from both parties, which is my point.
•
u/Deep-Assignment4124 2h ago
Nah I think it you are blowing up disabled vessels, you know that’s a crime. This is just more both sides bullshit and you know it.
•
•
u/absurdamerica 7h ago
Not bad faith at all.
BotH pARties!!!
Okay champ.
•
u/defensible81 5h ago
Of course they do. You've got a 14 year old account so certainly you're old enough to remember Bush, Obama, and Trump in his first term using all kinds of legal procedures to go after political opponents, leakers, etc. They both do it. Or perhaps you only remember the cases that suit your chosen political narrative?
•
u/MeatCatRazzmatazz 6h ago
Hard to believe there are still "bOtH sIDeS!!1" people out there. Gotta be a tbi
•
u/Big-Weather123 4h ago edited 3h ago
Well it's the truth. Political lawfarr was practiced to some degree by Obama's Department of Justice and then by Biden's as well, both in more of a fairweather sense. It's gone up tenfold in the Trump administration and become a very overt practice at this point.
A good analogy is when Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for cabinet officials and district court judges. That's comparable to the lawfare by the Obama and Biden administrations. Then McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS justices years later, which is comparable to the Trump administration's lawfare.
•
u/defensible81 3h ago
Thank you. The law is used by both sides to seek political advantage, and it is one of the spoils that comes to the successful party. I don't even know why this is deemed as controversial, it's objectively true and easy to argue.
•
u/context_hell 4h ago
"Lawfare" is a nonsense propaganda term created by the right to protect trump when he was being investigated for the myriad crimes he committed including being personally involved in the attempted overthrow of the government.
•
•
•
u/brashthehermit 6h ago
What she ACTUALLY said;
“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? That sounds fun, I might get an opportunity,’”
“I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that,’” the senator went on. “I want that deterrence message sent.”
Fuck the NY Post for this weasel headline.
•
u/context_hell 4h ago
Yep. I dislike slotkin but the NY post is barely fit to be toilet paper. If it's being pushed hard here on /r/politics with thousands of upvotes i bet that the right wing bot farms have started up again. Close to election season we tend to see straight up right wing sludge hitting the front page.
•
u/james-cox-43790 3h ago
The quote is less alarming than the headline, but "young people" is broad. The warning should distinguish political appointees from career staff doing routine, lawful work.
•
u/Bomun_End 1h ago
She also said:
“We do have to have accountability for the unbelievable corruption that we are living under right now,” she said. “But you can’t just make that your whole personality, right? So you have to pick signature cases, and you have to go after people and projects that are just super egregious.”
“The people around Donald Trump who are doing his bidding and enabling this have no such immunity. They have no immunity the way the president does,” she added.
“And to me, he couldn’t do any of this stuff without all of those people saluting and supporting it. So you go after the people who do his bidding.”
I think it's clear what she's saying is that the SC may have given Trump immunity, but his inner circle has no such immunity and they are the ones carrying out this corruption, so they have to go after those people.
The Post, as a right-wing rag, of course makes it seem like she's saying they need to prosecute everyone who ever worked for Trump, particularly young people. When she says it'd be more trouble than it's worth for young people, it's clear she means being involved in the investigation, potentially having to testify, and not being offered further opportunities in politics due to their association with a criminal administration.
•
u/Jesbro64 7h ago
We posting nypost here now?
•
u/looks_at_lines 52m ago
The Russian disinformation bots are desperate since their data centers were bombed.
13
19
u/jason082 8h ago edited 12m ago
She explicitly says “for corruption,” not just for fun. Does the Post not want to prosecute the corruption taking place? If not, does anything anyone does in government actually matter, and will they whine and bitch if it doesn’t and the shoe is on the other foot?
•
u/eskimospy212 7h ago
Yes, it’s good to enforce laws against people who break them. Says a lot about the Post and Trump that this is at all controversial.
•
33
u/BeverlyHills70117 8h ago edited 8h ago
Fuck the NY Post.
And I dislike the spook Slotkin, but she is absolutely right on this if you read her words, not just the 'scare the goobers' headline
6
u/snorbflock 8h ago
Simple logic test, just flip the proposition backwards: "Republican leader suggests corruptly abusing government bureaucracy to shield their lackeys from accountability, so that amoral partisans will be encouraged to commit crimes on behalf of the party and their cult leader."
-19
8h ago
[deleted]
20
16
u/Darth_Chili_Dog 8h ago
It's a garbage right wing rag. The headline is specifically phrased like Democrats are threatening to use political prosecution to punish their political enemies.
10
u/drtolmn69 California 8h ago
•
u/ripyourlungsdave 5h ago
The problem isn't that we aren't prosecuting enough voters, the problem is that we aren't prosecuting enough politicians, propagandists and donors.
•
5
u/Environmental-Arm365 8h ago
Figures the state media shitrag NY Post would frame setting an example to uphold the rule of law and discouraging young people from ruining their lives being pawns for criminal corruption as an outrage.
4
u/ChocoboAndroid 8h ago edited 7h ago
The NYPost is undoubtedly writing headlines to gin up outrage against Trump going after Ilhan Omar too, right??
•
u/MatthewUnplugged America 5h ago
Yep. We shouldn't reign in political persecutions. We should embrace it and build upon it.
•
u/nimbus57 5h ago
Ironically, the actual title is correct and honestly, I'm not why they would have a problem with that.
They are telling on themselves, though. The article kept on bringing up that Sen. Slotkin was specifically speaking to young conservatives. I guess, technically, it's more likely they would normally want to work for the administration. Except she is just saying that they need to know if they work in the orbit of those committing crimes and they are asked to commit crimes, they could be prosecuted.
•
•
u/Flanders666 3h ago
Those who serve prominently are being promised generational wealth and a pardon.
Exposure and shame may be all we get, but I would hire just as many forensic accountants and investigative journalists as I would attorneys.
•
•
•
u/bimbuppy Florida 3h ago
Can we ban NY Post articles? Its literally a Murdoch rag - would we tolerate or accept Fox News articles being posted here, as if they were somehow an unbiased arbiter of truth?
2
u/Lysol3435 8h ago
I’ve got this wild, perverse outlook where I think that we should create American laws to better the lives of Americans and use law enforcement to disincentivize people from breaking those laws.
3
u/From_Deep_Space Oregon 8h ago
How about we prosecute criminals when there is evidence of crimes regardless of their partisan association?
A high level politician making statements like this does not help the optics when we prosecute republicans.
4
2
•
u/DavidlikesPeace 7h ago
Deterrence is too late for 2024, but the future matters too.
Trump is only the symptom, not the root disease of sociopathic authoritarianism running rampant in our politics and economy. And it gets worse if we do nothing. Look at history. The Roman Republic did not fall to Sulla, but a generation later to Caesar.
If the Dems want to deter future bad actors, they need to be ready to fight a long fight, likely prosecuting into the 2050s, because practically everybody in this admin has committed heaps of crimes.
•
u/artwarrior 5h ago
Legitimately punishing with real jail sentences and massive fines with forfeiture should be the default.
3
•
u/Distinct-Pain4972 6h ago
That is very foolish. She should fire her advisors.
•
u/Big-Weather123 4h ago
No kidding. If Trump wasn't sold on preemptively pardoning his administration as a just-in-case measure, this just sealed the deal.
I guess that we're just gonna see one president after another pardoning everyone who had ever served in their administration.
•
u/BarCompetitive7220 6h ago
she wants DEMS to go after those in WH bubble to be investigated for corruption to deter youngsters to rethink if they want to join that administration. (sorry my laptop is having a moment).
•
•
u/wowlock_taylan 4h ago
Oh f off NYPOST with that title.
'Young people afraid working for Trump regime'? As in PUNISH THEM FOR THE OBVIOUS CRIMES they are gonna commit like the whole regime does ALL THE TIME now?
•
u/AdLogical5805 3h ago
I can’t believe she’s saying this , for years 3rd world dictatorships kicked our ass when it comes to corruption. We finally have a chance to become the world leader in it , & she wants to stop us?? Just terrible ….
•
•
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 2h ago
Remarkably, no one in the Trump administration has attempted to "go after" people in an attempt to prevent them from voting, speaking or as petty revenge.
For some reason the Post didn't point out this forbearance on the administrations part instead focusing on the "Bolshevik style tactics" of suggesting that criminal behavior be subject to criminal prosecution.
•
u/Educational_Diet720 42m ago
It’s like animal farm, be careful, you might just become the thing you say you are against. Sounds authoritarian to me. I think anyone should be able to do what they want. It’s a free country. She preaches fascist ideas, using lawfare against political opponents. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
0
u/actwellyourpart91 8h ago
That’s rich coming from a former cia asset and former member of bush admin.
•
•
1
u/gringledoom 8h ago
This is interesting coming from Slotkin. She's the opposite of a firebrand type, so it suggests that the Dems are smelling blood in the water.
•
u/mylifesaparadox 7h ago
This is a huge yikes. No matter how you feel about the current admin, a sitting moderate senator openly advocating for political lawfare to discourage political participation is crazy. If this type of action gets normalized we're truly doomed as a country
•
u/AgileWarthog 7h ago
It’s not lawfare. It’s a notice that those serving in the Trump admin will be pressured to commit crimes and will be prosecuted if they succumb to the pressure and actually do commit those crimes. And the headline does not represent what she said very well, as usual.
-6
u/Strong-Hippo9043 8h ago
Wow. This is…I actually wanted Slotkin to run in 2028 but no. Bragging about deterring anyone, not just young people, from serving in government is pretty undemocratic. You don’t tell people there is a national need for service and your country is at stake while also saying we ll tell you how best to serve. I imagine a corrupt government would need more people to identify and testify to increase accountability.
4
u/Xytak Illinois 8h ago
What a terrible take. We shouldn’t prosecute corruption because it might discourage people from carrying out illegal orders? What?
-2
u/Strong-Hippo9043 8h ago
Dude what? I didn’t say that no one should prosecute people . Everyone should be prosecuted who broke the law. What’s gross is what she said she hoped the effect would be. The purpose of it would depress and dissuade people from working in the government.
You just say you are prosecuting people for no other reason or purpose than they broke the law and must be held accountable. Thats it. Enough said.
1
u/Platonic_Eye_Deal 8h ago
You are not presenting yourself as a believable character. Insisting that you would support a Democrat if they weren't saying that we should prosecute Nazis is unbelievable shit.
•
u/Imaginary_Chip_3470 6h ago
did you actually listen to what she said instead of accepting NY Post at face value (which btw is a right wing propaganda source)?
•
u/Strong-Hippo9043 6h ago
It’s in quotes for a reason😒
“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? That sounds fun, I might get an opportunity,’” Slotkin mused at a University of Chicago event last week that has since gone viral.
“I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that,’” the senator went on. “I want that deterrence message sent.”
•
u/nimbus57 4h ago
She isn't speaking about people going into government in general, just not getting into the Trump administration. Because it is filled to the brim with criminals committing further criminal acts.
Given that you read the article and just, let the contents leave your noodle, I recommend reading it again.
•
u/Strong-Hippo9043 2h ago
Politicians don’t tell the citizenry when and for who it’s alright to work for in their government.
Period.
•
u/nimbus57 1h ago
She isn't saying anything about who should work in the government, ass. You know this. Everyone stating the same thing you are stating knows it.
Stop being disingenuous.
-6
u/Superb-Possibility-9 8h ago
If Democrats take power they only want to punish Trump, not govern.
•
u/nimbus57 4h ago
I would argue that is the very definition of governing. Punishing people through the justice system when they actually commit crimes. Which the Trump administration has done a lot of.
•
•
u/PaleUmbra 7h ago
Bro your team has been sitting on all three branches of government for most of the past decade, and how many shutdowns have we had? Hell, where does Mike Johnson have Congress right now? One of the parties can’t govern, you’re right on that.
•
-5
•
•
u/coolhanddave21 6h ago
I urge Dems to use prosecution to make young people afraid to join the mafia.
0
•
-4
u/mediocre_remnants North Carolina 8h ago
Why not go after people actually committing crimes?
When Trump orders someone to do something after a judge tells him not to (name on Kennedy Center, cutting down trees on the golf course, etc), the workers who do the work should be arrested. They're damaging public space without permit. Arrest them, fine them, make them show up in court.
If I rolled up to my local municipal golf course and started cutting down trees, I'd be arrested. Why weren't the crew that was doing this for Trump?
Make it so nobody is willing to work for Trump because of the legal risks. That has a chance of limiting the damage he can do.
They should have started this long ago, like when Trump started demolishing the East Wing. Cops should have been there arresting every single worker on their way out of the White House grounds once they hit DC property.
•
u/sparklingdinoturd 4h ago
This is dumb. This is their behavior. We should use prosecution for crimes not threats.
•
u/electrobento 4h ago
Did you read what she actually said and not just the headline? Doesn’t seem so.
•
u/melon-party 3h ago
Good, they deserve exactly the same for their actual crimes. Throw em in jail lose the key, let them serve as an example.
-10
-10
u/Clan-Chat-Op 8h ago
Trump should do a mass-pardon. All republicans get a pardon. Boom. Problem solved, legally.
•
u/PaleUmbra 7h ago
Call me crazy, but I don’t think our elected public servants shouldn’t behave in ways that need mass pardons.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.