this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
281 points (99.0% liked)

politics

28784 readers
2322 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
281
DOJ Chose Which Epstein Files You’d See — And Left Out the Trump Ones: WSJ (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Process this: If you think that the stuff you've seen in the Epstein Files is outrageous, and people should be tossed in dungeons over it, understand the very worst stuff has been quarantined. If you this stuff is bad, wait until we find out what they're hiding.

Epstein dealt with a lot of evil people and evil deeds, and he said that Trump was the most evil person he'd ever known. I'm hearing stories of murdered babies and such, and as crazy as they sound, so far the stuff I've heard from the Epstein Files has turned out to be true, so I'm assuming the rumors are true as well.

[–] MunkyNutts@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Your last source hints at it, but keep digging. I've seen some fucked up stuff, but I didn't save the sources, so I won't repeat them. I think I might start.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 68 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This needs to involve some time in prison for the guilty.

And Pam is most certainly guilty given her little performances in Congress.

[–] Tapirs_Are_AI_Slop@lemmy.org 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh, she's been covering for these pedos since she worked in Florida. It's her whole career plan.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Given this, should blantant partisanship disqualify you from the bench? I'm fine with conservative leaning justices, but this is not justice, nor law. Making decisions on partisan lines should disqualify anyone from serving in the justice system, end of story. Be they blatantly left or blatantly Pedo protectors, they should not serve in a court of law. It's not Republican law, or democratic law, it is law or it isn't.

[–] Tapirs_Are_AI_Slop@lemmy.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

She's an AG, not a justice, and so is appointed by the president and confirmed by senate. Presumably the confirmation is to keep this position from being wholly partisan. But there's so many ways for that to fail, which seems exacerbated by the two party system we've become entrenched in.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The two party system but also the fact that, around the world, we act like 51% is anything more statistical noise. That’s not a majority. We need to start seeing the bar as being 60-70%, 50% is way too low and results in, functionally, less than half the country being represented.

[–] Tapirs_Are_AI_Slop@lemmy.org 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yep, and that requires abandoning the first past the post election style. And probably also the electoral college as it currently stands.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

The electoral college is the worse of the two defects and should be ditched first. Or subverted by the compact among states to cast their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in each state.

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

Don’t worry, in Canada our “centrist” party(read: at the moment, incredibly conservative) was elected in 2015 on that promise…and they immediately gave up on it when they learned they’d probably never win again. And then we let them get away with three other times, if I remember correctly!

Hurray!

[–] Tapirs_Are_AI_Slop@lemmy.org 2 points 1 day ago

It's all such a joke. I even forgot to point out all of our legal bribery that's gotta go too. At least North America has plenty of woodland to hide in. For now, anyway.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It should, but the process to get rid of them is impeachment, and that's blocked by the Republicans.

And what justices are you referring to? Bondi's a political appointee, and leads DOJ, which is a bunch of prosecutors, no judges there.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

BUT THE DOW IS ~~OVER~~ ^almost^ 50,000 DOL... 50,000 POINTS!

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

Not any more. We can care about raping kids now.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Yeah, we know

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

Congress:

The DOJ must provide all the documents, not withold information for sake of saving embarrassment or protecting politicians, and let us see all redactions or they're breaking the law!

Hey DOJ, the DOJ broke the law! Arrest yourself!

We're so smart!

Me:

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

It's remarkable that they curated it and the files still show that a large portion of the modern far right was somewhere between acquaintances with and funded by and taking orders from a convicted child sex trafficker.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is anyone surprised

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 11 points 3 days ago

No, absolutely no one.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I will never understand how the women in this administration cover for the men who raped girls.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because sociopaths are sociopaths, even if they're women.

Though I do wonder who shat in Bondi's cornflakes to make her such a concentrated ball of corruption and spite. She seems like she hates the whole world, but lacks the nerve to leave it.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...because gender doesn't dictate if someone is ethical or empathetic.

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Power hunger and greed come to mind as reasons.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think there's a complicated kind of fig leaf which is very clearly unethical but it allows these people to retain some dignity.

I'm sure there's a word for it but in criminal justice everyone needs a lawyer to defend them, even someone accused of awful crimes with very strong positive evidence of their crimes. I've heard defense lawyers say that even if they dislike their client, they need to do their very best to defend them or else their lack of defense might be the grounds for an appeal later. That does kinda make sense to me.

The extension of this concept is that everyone gets to make their best argument. Even in business / contractual disputes, both sides have an opportunity to make their best argument, their best version of the truth. "Best version" in this context means, emphasising your best actions and minimising your worst.

I guess this can kind of be corrupted in a way to be "well if I don't spin this for then someone else will", which is where ethics goes out the window really. As in, someone accused of a crime might be entitled to appropriate defense, but someone who's been abusing women their entire life is not entitled to have a government official cover up their behavior by obfuscating details or documents. In the same way, often in a professional role your only recourse if you object to something is to resign.

In summary, Bondi is an awful human but this is how I imagine she justifies that.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

She doesn't even try to justify it, beyond "Because I can, and fuck you."

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Duh

[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

The story is not news. Last year we heard that the fbi had 100,000 man hours on people making redactions of trumps involvement; the files aren’t even half of them, and there has been NO video released, blurred or otherwise

The wall st journal is a Murdoch shit rag, we cannot trust ANY US media - NYT, Wapo, WSJ, cnn, msnbc, Fox, they are ALL complicit in the coverup, and actively aiding the fascist takeover of the US government

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And yet the orange turdsack's name still appeared more times than the rest of the big names combined... quite telling, ain't it?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

More times than Harry Potter's name appears in all the Harry Potter books.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So since they wouldn't release over half of the documents. We can assume those all have trump and his buddies in them. Millions of documents on those people specifically.

[–] TwilitSky@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

https://giphy.com/gifs/gets-smart-question-vQqeT3AYg8S5O

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 9 points 3 days ago

Trump called in every favour that was owed, used every asset he could to get a second term in the white house, ffs he staged the shooting at that rally so he would win so he could keep those files hidden and considering how much effort there is invested in diversions just to keep everyone's mind of the files.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Wait, what?!

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

We know.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

No way they would do somethings ng that self serving and I just. More lies... /S