this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
269 points (99.3% liked)

politics

30889 readers
1929 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
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 75 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lordy, this is good - someone call the burn unit to rescue Patel:

Stewartson celebrated the final order, which referenced his comment in a footnote. “I’d like to commend the judge for including ‘googly-eyed Kremlin bitch’ in his ruling,” Stewartson wrote on X Tuesday.

“PSA: Now that my case is settled, you are free to refer to @FBIDirectorKash as a ‘chud,’ a ‘googly-eyed Kremlin bitch,’ and a ‘traitor’ without fear of legal repercussions!” he wrote in another post.

This was Patel's doing and now he'll be remembered on the legal docket for this - to say nothing about his continuous humiliation in social networking platforms and the media.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 weeks ago

I particularly liked that he didn't call him a "googly eyed kremlin bitch" until a response to the courts from a Nevada ruling in Patels favor for $250k against the guy, as he seemed to dismiss that ruling because the journalist had no ties with Nevada.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 66 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The judge took one look at little Kash and dismissed the suit.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

"Your honor...look at him."

Gestures towards chud's face.

[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

We got all this...like...evidence that this guy didn't even pay his hospital bill.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

“As our first witness we call Kash Patel’s face.”

[–] hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

"You can tell by the way he is!"

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 46 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)
[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Between this one, Vance, Kirk & Shapiro I have no idea what size anybody’s facial features are anymore.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Weird head and facial shapes always makes me think of the Hapsburgs and inbreeding.

[–] ncc74656@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

#scarred4lyfe

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

AAA i clicked it by mistake I swear crab god it was a mistake

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Do yourself a favor and click the article to see the picture at the top, it's funny

[–] TomMasz@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If you didn't know who he was, you'd assume it was some SNL skit.

[–] Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh Jesus. Did our reality get mixed with a reality that carries on like a SNL skit? Are all of our current problems, problems that would be funny in a skit, but not in our reality?

Oh fuck. It makes sense now. It's why Trump and everyone who follows him seems to be unrealistically corny and stupid. To stupid to function, but somehow has total power? SNL reality has melded with our reality.

[–] Pistachio@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, SNL has had quite a few "skits" in which they literally just reread the transcripts. Famous example would be Matt Damon's reprisal of Coach Kavanaugh's senate confirmation rant

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Pistachio@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Its been a long time, but I vividly remember being a bit in shock because it was at least damn near if not exact.

Here's a side by side duck://player/ImBO2-Dn0jY

After watching the side by side again after x years, it is very similar, with artistic liberties taken lol

Seriously, I have to remind myself that it’s not a bit, and that’s just… him. He is that much of a parody of himself, and a comprehensive loser. I’d call him a feckless chud, but that would be an insult to feckless chuds. If it weren’t for the fact that he’s actually nominally nominally in charge of the FBI, it’d be absolutely fucking hilarious.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I really would love to see a skit based on this.

“Your honor, the defense submits into evidence Exhibit C, a bag of googly eyes from JoAnn Fabrics.”

“Objection! I fail to see how this is relevant.” Gestures at evidence while Patel in background is seen with nearly identically googly eyes

Judge (looks at Patel, one beat): “Overruled. Defense, continue.”

“Defense also submits Exhibit D, a t-shirt with the graphic text in glittery pink stating ‘Putin’s Little Kremlin Bitch’, recovered from Plaintiff’s home.”

Judge: “While we’re submitting evidence, do you have any exhibits pertaining to the claims that Director Patel is a, quote, (reading from a paper) ‘weaselly little ass-goblin’, a ‘mushroom-licking megachode’, a ‘fat-faced, pencil-necked suckup’, or a (adjusts glasses, clears throat) ‘sniveling, attention-whoring, brown-nosing, goose-stepping, gold-digging, unqualified, untalented, unattractive, unappealing, whiny, [30-second long censorship bleep]-gargling chud’?”

Defense lawyer waves at courtroom doors, which burst open with clerks pushing several wheeled carts of paraphernalia

Patel’s lawyer whips his head around to glare at Patel, who shrugs sheepishly, then turns to the judge.

“Your honor, Plaintiff would like to settle.”

Judge: “Defense?”

“Oh hell no, this is too awesome. Defense would urge the Plaintiff to check Instagram for my client’s latest if he’d like to sue us again. We’re free next week.”

[–] Steve@startrek.website 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

For those allergic to website cancer:

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Somebody please upload this to mediawiki commons, so it can become the literal photo of "googlie eyed chud" in the encyclopedia

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Dude if he gets an Honorable in front of his name we all get to be Popes if we want

[–] MrRandom@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

god.dammit.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 24 points 3 weeks ago

Fake news! He didn't even call him a "Googly-Eyed Chud"

He called him a “googly-eyed Kremlin bitch".

And a "blatantly incompetent chud"

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Following President Donald Trump’s lead, Patel has filed six defamation lawsuits against journalists in just seven years. Patel recently filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic for reporting on his excessive drinking at work.

More to come!

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

My body is ready for discovery on the excessive drinking claims. What a dumb googly-eyed traitor.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago

"Your honor, I would like to present Exhibit A."

"Accepted."

"Your honor, the Defense rests."

"Yeah, this is going to be an easy one. You'll all be home for dinner tonight."

[–] stumu415@lemmy.zip 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] sam_the_tech@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You can’t fool me. I can tell from a mile away that’s a fake beard! 👌

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The whole article is even better. There’s so many more creative insults in there

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

When discovery is just more creative insults the plaintiff hasn't yet been called

[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 15 points 3 weeks ago

LOL! Good. :D

[–] generic_computers@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 weeks ago

Therefore he is legally a googly-eyed chud.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Imagine ~~Jeopardy!~~ in about 20 years.

“This FBI director lost a lawsuit against a man who called him a ‘googly-eyed’ chud.”

I wonder if people will be too embarrassed by this era to be able to answer, “Who is Kash Patel?” We they be able to admit this doofus was given such power?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 3 weeks ago

I'm no legal beagle but I think this means he's legally got to change his name now. 👩‍⚖️

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

#NotTheOnion lmfao

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago
[–] bender223@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Truth is a defense against, uh, whatever he got sued for