this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
633 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26356 readers
2742 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A handful of documents found by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago were so sensitive that even a senior Justice Department official didn’t have authorization to see them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 95 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Some of this information was available but read the entire article. It's very good reporting on just how clear Trump's intent to break the law was, the extreme sensitivity of the documents, and the clear lies Trump told in response to the raid and demands. Just an example excerpt:

Olsen’s minders then told him about a fourth stack of documents, stored in a separate safe, explaining that only one agent in the field office was approved to handle them. Each of the documents in the safe bore a ticket with coding that described its unique handling instructions — above and beyond the strict approvals for highly sensitive top-secret and sensitive compartmented information.

Olsen got on the phone with his counsel to read the codes aloud, one by one, to determine if he had permission to view them. Some of the documents were so restricted that top Justice Department security officials reacted with surprise to the code names: They had never heard of them before. Some involved special access programs that required the president or a cabinet member to grant approval to view.

The documents that Trump did not turn over - after repeated requests were ignored, after turning over the initial boxes, the false "complete" folder of additional documents, showing the FBI the room with other boxes that was staged after they moved out other incriminating documents - were documents so sensitive that infosec policy required the acting president or cabinet member to personally authorize any request to view them.

If Trump "authorizes" the DOJ to settle his frivolous lawsuit related to the FBI raid, it will be a criminal openly stealing public funds in retribution for catching him red-handed after he repeatedly lied to police, and for nearly but not even making him face consequences. It gives me a headache how corrupt, unethical, and immoral that would be.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The fact that every level of law enforcement has failed so utterly in this regard is the most damning reason for a wholesale restructuring and rewriting of our legal codes and governing system. It is unconscionable to be a part of such a broken society.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Yes, you are totally right. I would like to add that the rule of law, when it comes to money, has been broken from the foundation of the US.