Literally no charges can be made. Fuck this bullshit. Good luck getting a judge to sign off on that.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
179 points (98.4% liked)
politics
25197 readers
2919 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. 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He's appointed what, 1/4 of the currently sitting judges? It's not gonna be difficult to find one loyal to him.
Judges can't just make X charges make Z sense. They still have to justify their actions to not get sued and have it immediately reversed by a higher court, in which case it still doesn't matter, because it still has to make legal sense.
Because a higher court stacked with Republicans would favor the Democrats?
Do you not read the news? Why are you thinking all the courts are stacked with Republican aligned assclowns, and follow up question: why has Trump been losing 90% of court cases of its Republican simos all the way down?
Your understanding of the court system is flawed and wrong.
Fair point. Counter point, they're ignoring court orders when they feel like it.
They control the supreme Court. No court higher then that.
Exactly lol, it will be FBI vs govt security detail. They ain't apprehending shit.
They'll stand around a bicker about who has jurisdiction and it will not be the FBI.
... state (and federal) reps don't get a security detail unless there's a present threat. They're not assigned them by default at all. These folks are wholly on their own.
There is literally currently a present threat.
They are not on their own.
There isn't, at least not one that would merit being assigned a security detail. In this context, that's what I'm referring to as being 'on their own', just to be clear. Additionally a state security detail would be directed by either the general assembly or governor of texas, so they'd be a threat to these people even if they'd been assigned initially (and that's ignoring the extremely complex issue of jurisdiction outside of the state they're assigned in, which unless federally assigned they generally do not have and is the reason the FPS exists in the first place).
And, aside from all that, why on earth would the texas state police suddenly side with a bunch of dems? They're notorious psychos.
Like this administration listens to judges who say things they don't want to hear.
Gotta slow boil this stuff. Eventually he'll get ICE to round them up.
They are his Gestapo, after all.
What authority would/does the FBI have to make arrests?
"We have the authority because Trump says we do. His Word is the One True Word and all that matters."
"Our daddy issues 'father',
who art in the white house,
hallowed be they name on every fucking building you can find.
Your kingdom has come,
your 3 yo will be done,
on earth as it is in your fantasies.
Give us today your daily tantrum,
and forgive us our sins, but don't forgive the immigrants.
And lead us not into temptation,
for those trans and gay websites are truly hot.
For yours is our political loyalty so please don't hurt me.
MAGA Allwhitemen"
Not all white men. Too many of us. But there are still many of us who vehemently don't want to be tarted with that shit brush.
True, true. I'm just repeating their words, not declaring truth.
Wrong question.
Who will stop them?
The Democratic governors have stated they will exert their power to protect them.
They're going to try to say donations to cover their fines are bribes.
There was a survey done to gauge support and legality for the matter and there was 100% support and it was found to be 100% legal. Sample size was 1, of course. But you’ll have to ask the one of the great new statistics hires if that’s a representative sample size.
There are no checks and balances to stop this.
Except for the people.
That implies hoping that someone else will act.
And the Lorax's advocacy of collective action doesn't? Hop off your high horse.
Oh yeah nice catch, because the real quote is: “Unless someone besides you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
Problem is that we've all been taught for forty years that every problem is an individual problem, actually, and that nobody needs solidarity.
We've digested all the communal systems in this country and now instead of "we the people" it's all about "me the person".
tUrN oFf ThE wAtEr wHiLe YoU bRuSh YoUr TeEtH
-Exxon et al while I was growing up, difference being you're still falling for it
The people already failed.
Wasn't Texas a 'states rights' state? I'm sure sending armed people into other states would be an infringement of that state's rights. You should follow the proper channels and ask that state to return those people. Remember: "No" is a complete sentence.
The "state's rights" states have ALWAYS been "our state's rights and not yours": "our rights to own slaves" and "our rights to come into your state and find drag our runaway slaves back to our state". This is literally the Fugitive Slave Act, but the "Fugitive Legislator Act": we're going to send our people into your state to arrest them and drag them back.
What about Texans right to infringe on other people's rights?
Plus, you can't let other states infringe on your rights, so best be infringing on them, first.
If they do this we'll be in a whole new territory of fucked. Returning political opponents to pass a political bill to subvert the fairness of an election for the presidents agenda.
Didn’t republicans do the same shit? Not that it’s justified either way, but I seem to remember arrest threats against the republicans and at the time thought it was some shitweasel behavior by them to dodge some stuff. I feel more sympathetic to us being shitweasels against facism though.
Yes, yes they did. But ya know... 'rules for thee but not for me'.
Democrats do it from time to time too apparently. It's just a tactic in our system that isn't used often.
Sounds very reminiscent of Wisconsin circa 2011.
Is it illegal to travel, now?
"Great, another politically toxic task thrown in my lap"
- Some field agent, every day since 2016