this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
263 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19356 readers
1955 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
 

Summary

Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general nominee, hinted at the existence of an "enemies list" during her confirmation hearing.

When questioned by Senators Hirono and Whitehouse, Bondi avoided disavowing the list or denying potential targeting of individuals like Jack Smith, Liz Cheney, and Merrick Garland.

She defended Trump’s FBI pick, Kash Patel, who previously alluded to such a list in his book, Government Gangsters.

Critics fear the Justice Department could be weaponized against political opponents under Bondi and Trump’s leadership.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Idk why you're getting so many downvotes. If Garland didn't pussyfoot around for 4 years we wouldn't be in this mess.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Especially considering the report literally says "we had enough to convict" (if we had more time we could have) but Garland decided to wait years to start out of fear of looking "political."

Well look where that got us. These chucklefucks don't give a damn about looking political, they had their state propaganda outlets cry foul for years preemptively justifying "politically motivated" retaliation.

If these people didn't live in ivory towers completely segregated from actual reality, they'd know what Fox was up to.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Garland decided to wait years to start out of fear of looking "political."

Which is the most maddening part of it from a "how stupid do they think we are?" standpoint. Bending over backwards to not "look political" is one of the most political things you can possibly do!

Especially in cases like this where something infinitely more important than optics failed because of it!

He should seriously be tried for dereliction of duty in a time of crisis, obstruction of justice, or maybe even, to quote Bluth Senior "some light treason" 🤬