this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
194 points (99.5% liked)

politics

30676 readers
2107 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

FBI interviewed individuals who accuse Amy Coney Barrett faith group of abuse

This one is just a bad look, not corruption.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's an obedience situation with that one:

A PoP handbook states that members are expected to be obedient to male authorities, or group heads, and are expected to give 5% of their earnings to the group. Heads are influential decision-makers in members’ lives, weighing in on issues ranging from dating to marriage and determining where members should live.

During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that -- to put it politely -- indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a "handmaiden" that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.

Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it's a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I'd have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.

Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Thanks, I'll look at this side of things too and add her to the list.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i'm lazy at the moment but there's a group that tracked the "totally not bribery" disclosures from the court and Barrett is no innocent

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh wow, I'll look into that and update the classic if I find anything. Thanks.

iirc, they found 3-4 figures total in gifts each to the 3 liberal justices and 5-7 figures total in gifts each to the 6 trump justices