this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
237 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25187 readers
2890 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
237
Pam Bondi is breaking the DOJ (www.publicnotice.co)
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by Bonus@piefed.social to c/politics@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“If confirmed, I will work to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice — and each of its components,” Pam Bondi vowed during her confirmation hearing in January. “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.”

But since her confirmation on February 4, Attorney General Pam Bondi has done exactly the opposite, weaponizing the DOJ against Trump’s political enemies and withdrawing criminal investigations of his allies. The tone was set on her first full day, when she fired off an all-staff memo threatening to fire anyone who raised ethical or legal objections to advancing frivolous arguments in court.

Literal Mob Rule:

The Civil Rights Division, which once protected victims of discrimination, is helmed by yet another former Trump lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, a culture warrior who brags about outsourcing her prosecutorial discretion to Twitter randos. Per the Wall Street Journal: Harmeet Dhillon, head of the civil-rights division at the Justice Department, wakes up around 6 a.m. and begins her workday scrolling through X, searching for claims of discrimination. A lot of them, Dhillon said, regard universities. After spotting “a list of new horrors,” she said, “I text my deputies, and we assign cases, and we get cranking.”

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 60 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I always wonder about people like her. What is it like inside her brain? How does she see the world and her place in it?

Broadly, she's obviously mentally ill - no sane and rational person could make the decisions she makes. But how specifically? Is she delusional? Does she just not live in consensual reality? If not that, then what is it? Is she amoral - entirely unable to even grasp the concept of morality? Or is she so pathologically self-absorbed that she has no principles or ethics? Or is she just so greedy and/or power-hungry that she ignores everything else? Or does she have some speck of principles or morals or empathy thatvshe silences with alcohol or drugs?

I really have no idea, but I can't help but wonder. It's just so bizarre to me that any human being could be that utterly loathsome. What goes through their heads in those unguarded moments when they're standing in the shower or sitting on the toilet or laying in bed? How can they not have at least some awareness of how foul they are?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Psychopathy.

5% of the population is psychopathic. No shame. No guilt. No fear. Zero motivations beyond their own amusement. Contrary to popular belief, people like her are born that way.

However, this type of brain damage is on a spectrum, and judging by opinion polls and various psychometric data over the last century, I would estimate at least 30% of the population to be categorically incapable of moral reasoning. A conservative estimate. This outsize fraction of humans possess rudimentary moral intuitions, like most mammals, but no inclination or capacity for abstract reflection.

They also do not exhibit any of the transcendental values that separate “persons” from animals. But we are forbidden from having that uncomfortable discussion because of some weird hang ups about dehumanization. Nevermind that Homo sapiens are literally animals and there’s nothing shocking about the fact that a huge fraction of us are nothing more than animals.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 4 weeks ago

I would estimate at least 30% of the population to be categorically incapable of moral reasoning. A conservative estimate.

Nice bit of wordplay there!

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Pretty big number you're throwing around. 5% seems like bs to me.

Where is that number from?

If i had to make a guesstimation myself, it might be 1 in 400. Maybe

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

This paper estimates that 4.5% of the population ~~is psychopathic~~ has psychopathic traits, and 1.2% is psychopathic by conventional standards of measurement. (Edited to correct my original misstatement, thanks to teslasaur's reply below.)

The meta-analytical results obtained allow us to estimate the prevalence rate of psychopathy in the general adult population at 4.5%. That being said, this rate varies depending on the participants' sex (higher in males), the type of sample from the general population (higher in samples from organizations than in community samples or university students), and the type of instrument used to define psychopathy. In fact, using the PCL-R, which is currently considered the “gold standard” for the assessment and definition of psychopathy, the prevalence is only 1.2%.

Prevalence of Psychopathy in the General Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Archive links, in case the US government deletes it along with the rest of science:

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

These numbers are extremely low. We are limited by our diagnostic capabilities, and a lot of psychopathy is simply passed off as narcissism, particularly among non-violent psychopaths.

If a psychopath is intelligent enough to simply get a job on Wall Street then how do we diagnose him? The PCL-22 requires him to engage in extreme behaviors. Following a profit motive doesn’t “count” and neither does voting for Trump.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

This paper estimates that 4.5% of the population is psychopathic:

Has psychopatic traits*

I don't understand why, but they dont account for sociopathy at all in that study.

I would agree that 5 % of people have psychopatic traits. To varying degrees. Many of those that take riskful jobs have psychopatic traits, it doesn't have to be an "evil" job. Pilots, fire fighters, police, doctors, etc all have some parts of their job that is fitting for someone with traits that allows you to ignore risk to the benefit of others.

Diagnosed psychopathy is very rare in comparison.

[–] kingofthezyx@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 weeks ago

Sociopath is not a clinically defined term. Sociopath is basically a slang term for a person with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). ASPD can be one part of a psychopathy diagnosis but they are not the same thing.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago

this type of brain damage is on a spectrum

This paper estimates that 4.5% of the population is psychopathic

Has psychopatic traits*

Also known as "on a spectrum" ...right?

I don't understand why, but they dont account for sociopathy at all in that study.

Not in the DSM as such maybe?

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago

Thanks. I corrected the misreading in my comment above.

[–] Bonus@piefed.social 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nurture ~~vs. Nature~~ her brother is in on it so one has to assume the family is horrendous.

Indeed, lobbying the administration can be quite lucrative, as Pam’s brother Brad is finding out. He currently represents Carolina Amesty, a former Florida legislator who allegedly scammed half a million dollars in covid relief funds by filing loan applications of [sic] behalf of businesses that either did not exist or were not as she described them. After filing a criminal complaint in January, the government had 30 days to indict Amesty. But since then, Brad Bondi and the DOJ have filed four requests for an extension “in the interests of justice.” Whether this is an attempt to work out a settlement or run out the clock is not entirely clear, but there’s no mistaking that Bondi is selling his services as a conduit to the federal agency run by his sister.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 weeks ago

Sort of like Erik Prince and Betsy DeVos.

Or classically, the Borgias.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Is she delusional? Does she just not live in consensual reality? If not that, then what is it? Is she amoral - entirely unable to even grasp the concept of morality? Or is she so pathologically self-absorbed that she has no principles or ethics? Or is she just so greedy and/or power-hungry that she ignores everything else? Or does she have some speck of principles or morals or empathy that she silences with alcohol or drugs?

All of the above.

Except for maybe the speck of principles or morals, we all know she has none.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 33 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

As intended.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

The DOJ has always been a kind-of weapon, intended to legitimize the use of force against enemies of the state. This is, incidentally, why incoming Presidents are loathe to use it against their corrupt predecessors. And why DOJs tend to fixate on people with virtually no political capital (minority political leadership, black market traffickers, migrants, foreign business interests, and domestic low-level con-artists) while steering well clear of sitting politicians, large cap business executives, large church leaders, and dignitaries from wealthy allied nations.

Trump's pogrom on migrants and minorities is spilling over into targeting people who aren't traditionally on the DOJ's shit list, because he's far more concerned with the raw metrics of his department (the volume of individuals arrested and deported) than the consequences of his policies (deteriorating trade relations, impact to domestic trade and travel, long term market stability, long term labor prices, etc). And his pardons and case dismissals are a more vulgar effort at self-enrichment than has historically been seen (although hardly without precedent)

What has shifted isn't the DOJ's purpose but the individuals that are now considered "fair game" in the eyes of Department leadership. One could argue that this is partially Biden's fault - he "shot at the king and missed" when the Southern District indicted Trump a few years ago. But you can go back to the Bush Era USA firing or the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre to see similar instances of Presidents using their stranglehold on the Justice Department to shape prosecutorial action.

This has been a fundamental flaw in the US political system for ages. We claim to have an independent judiciary (a joke under any extended scrutiny) but what does that mean without an independent prosecutorial agency?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The DOJ has always been a kind-of weapon, intended to legitimize the use of force against enemies of the state.

So, nobody told Merrick?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Garland was more than happy to prosecute all the goofy little J6ers, along with the traditional list of migrants and smugglers and foreign adversaries.

He just steered clear of anyone with power.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Garland was more than happy to prosecute all the goofy little J6ers

Was this a problem?

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

Chasing the small fry while the big fish swims away?

Some might argue it would have been more beneficial to flip defendants into witnesses and use them to prosecute the media organizers and financiers, not unlike how the FBI (finally, after decades of dragging their feet) broke up the East Coast mafia gangs.

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

Wasn’t that what Jack Smith was doing?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Garland waited until late November of 2022 to appoint a special counsel, after Democrats in Congress had lost their subpoena power, and put a guy with a broken leg on the case. Smith's office focused on the Mar-a-Lago documents case, which floundered for years, before his very appointment as special counsel was rejected by a Trump appointee Judge (which they recognized was a problem going into the case clung to the venue regardless).

To my knowledge, Smith didn't pursue any third party financiers or media figures responsible for organizing the J6 riot. His primary role was to fumble the Mar-a-Lago documents case. He did get a Grand Jury to indict Trump for inciting a riot, under a more-friendly DC venue, in August of 2023. But Smith never managed to bring the case to trial in the subsequent year and a half. The case was scuttled as soon as the election was over.

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

And by your reckoning that was them chasing the small fry?

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

What was the most high profile conviction Smith secured?

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

You mean in the year and a half he had two of the biggest cases in American legal history? One of them with the most obstructionist judge possible?

You're right, the DoJ totally failed the bourgeois. Or was failed by the bourgeois. Or whatever.

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

You mean in the year and a half he had two of the biggest cases in American legal history?

Sam Bankman-Fried went from "investigated" to "in jail" inside nine months. The entire OJ Simpson Trial only lasted eight months. The time between the murder, the failed criminal case, and the successful civil suit, and the conviction was less than three years. Trump's only been in office for six months and he's already taken 20 different cases before the SCOTUS.

One of them with the most obstructionist judge possible?

Seems like an experienced veteran DOJ attorney would have known to file the case in a more friendly venue. But I guess a man that loses 78% of his court cases is just too damned slick for the Garland DOJ.

You’re right, the DoJ totally failed the bourgeois. Or was failed by the bourgeois. Or whatever.

Almost as though they were set up to lose by an incompetent chief executive and his worthless cronies.

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

Golly you seem to know a lot about the federal prosecutors office. Maybe you could run for something and tell everyone to get it right so there will never be any mistakes anymore.

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

Maybe you could run for something

Sadly, I don't have any billionaires willing to put up seven digits to stack my campaign.

But hey, better luck with whatever slop the next election cycle feeds you, I guess.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Last week she dropped fraud charges against Dr. Michael Moore and his Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, who were indicted in January 2023 for running a fake covid vaccination scheme. The office destroyed $28,000 of medicine and sold fake vaccine cards for $50 a pop, netting almost $100,000. They even injected saline into the arms of kids who wanted the shots, at the behest parents who opposed them.

The case was set to go to trial this week, and a jury had already been selected. But then Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote Bondi a letter calling Moore “a hero for refusing to inject an experimental vaccine into the arms of patients who did not wish to subject themselves or their children to a human experiment.”

“The charges brought initially by the corrupt Biden Justice Department against Dr. Moore are a blatant attempt to punish dissent and silence those who question the safety of experimental vaccines,” she went on, demanding that the DOJ “immediately drop all charges.”

Which it did!

I know it's not news, but all these people are utter scumbags.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a good substack newsletter. Like Wonkette. But my Wonkette articles got deleted from this comm for not being good enough.

[–] Bonus@piefed.social 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Yes, it is.

This is an Aaron Rupar joint.

https://www.publicnotice.co/

https://substack.com/@aaronrupar

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com

Wonkette can be kind of ...reactionary, in terms of writing styles.