Progressive Politics

4054 readers

825 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

266

Did Pam Bondi Just Lie Under Oath About Trump and Epstein? (newrepublic.com)

submitted 4 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Representative Ted Lieu accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of lying under oath Wednesday, catching the Trump official in a bind after she claimed no evidence existed of young girls at parties attended by the president.

The California lawmaker highlighted that, under Bondi’s direction per a July 2025 memo, the Justice Department had “not uncovered evidence” that warranted investigations against “uncharged third parties.”

He then referred to recently released images of ex-Prince Andrew, depicting the disgraced British royal on all fours, towering over one of Epstein’s victims.

“These two photos staring you in the face are evidence of a crime and are more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew,” Lieu said. “So I ask you, Attorney General Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this investigation last July and why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 35 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The problem is "these people" include 6 corrupt Supreme Court justices. Hard to have any justice if those administering it are corrupt to the core.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

We are in dire need of a drastic change to the way we look at vigilante mob justice in our society at this point. It is literally the only option for actual justice and positive change when the justice system operates under a pay to win rule and the wealth gap is the highest it’s ever been since the gold standard was established.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fun fact, the supreme court is only the highest appeal court because they say they are. The constitution actually says they're a maritime court.

There's more to it, but yeah, Congress can legally strip the court of power by establishing a new court.

The old court would still have the final say in maritime law. But little else.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The constitution actually says they're a maritime court.

IDK that sounds like you're about to argue, that you don't need a driver's license or registration for your car, because you're not driving, you're traveling.

In any case it's more expedient to approach this matter with torches and pitch forks, than to wait for congress to get their act together. Just remember who'll appoint replacements for any justice you remove.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

The whole concept of Judicial review didn't exist before 1803 when the court granted itself that power.

Per the actual constitution;

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

A plain reading of that says that Congress can change all the rules at will except the Maritime and Ambassador stuff.

Congress can strip away the full appellate jurisdiction and replace it. At least one sitting congressman wants to do just that and replace the court with a random rotating bench pulled from the federal appeals courts.

Here's an interview with the guy. He touches on the supreme court, but the main push is uncapping the House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ9Zhu-zCCw

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

There's more of us than there are of them.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I do honestly think that the tribunal of six is going to require some… uh…

If we manage to somehow pull out of this horrific tailspin.