this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
654 points (99.4% liked)

politics

25062 readers
2165 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
 

The intrigue: The "Rule of Five" law allows any five members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to request federal agencies to provide information about "any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 214 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

Going nowhere in 3... 2...

Schumer said the files could be released with redactions because keeping the information of the victims private "must be of top importance."

Sure, keep the victims private, but don't give them free license to redact shit.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 99 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The list is released with all names redacted. Because the right would consider anyone on the list as a victim, even those who committed crimes.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 36 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

This is obviously the answer to why the victim count went up and the perpetrator count went down to 2, soon to be 1. They're interpreting Trump as a victim and trying to figure out how to argue that he is a victim, but Clinton isn't to throw meat to the wolves.

There are not 1000s of women at a brothel, but there may be 1000s of johns.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And Democrats will fall for it again. They'll go after Clinton, because that is the high road. Everyone on the list needs to be brought to whatever justice is due.

Just like the Panama papers... sigh.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

There's actually been a guy to go to prison over the Panama Papers. Sorry, he went to jail over paying to have a journalist murdered.

They still haven't had the trial yet, but the jackass spent 6 years in jail before they granted him bail.

His henchmen in the murder are all some form of sentence with one of them having turned state's witness.

The coverup is often worse than the crime. I say often because Trump is try to cover up an extremely serious crime. Or rather a bunch of them.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Ding ding ding. Nixon tapes pt 2 pedophile boogaloo

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Good news they'll just use black highlight instead of actually redacting anything.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seeing at how incompetent DOGE was. This is totally plausible.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not 100% sure he means from their redactions? I think the law only allows senators access to the files, so he might be meaning senators / senator staff releasing it after getting it then redacting victim names?

In either case, doing this still keeps it in the news which hurts Trump. Senate Dems can and should keep doing everything like this instead of Schumer's previous strategy of stuff like caving on the CR for no reason. This is notable improvement from senate dems even compared to recently

Especially because house dems have shown more fight. They were far more aggressive in trying to force votes on releasing the files which lead to Republicans just shutting down the house instead of voting on it. Which both works to show Republicans are complicit and stops them from pushing through worse bills for an extra few weeks. Senate dems tried a couple of unanimous consent votes, but didn't see it quite to the level of house dems forcing amendment votes in every committee on damn near everything

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago

What he means vs. what he said. The GOP can twist it so that they follow the letter of his words, not the spirit of his intent.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago

Honestly, I’m imagining a ridiculous scenario where the victims get protection and their names are accidentally outed in the Epstein files. Imagine all the Trumpers going off to threaten these victims and being shot dead for it. Solves so many problems all at once.

Sigh.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Someone posted this up on here a couple of weeks ago. I'll do my part to repost it:

From reddit… https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/eBjDX0zt07

https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.0-combined.pdf (verified court documents)

https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/black-book-unredacted.pdf (verified pre-Bondi) Trump is on page 85, or pdf pg. 80

Trump’s name is circled. The circled individuals are the ones involved in the trafficking ring according to the person who originally released the book. These people would be “The List “ Here is the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsiKUXrlcac

—————————other Epstein Information

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson/_TrumpEpstein/_Calif/_Lawsuit.pdf here’s a court doc of Epstein and Trump raping a 13 yr old together.

Some people think this claim is a hoax. Here is Katies testimony on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-OORRRo

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's weird that the Senate had a special centuries old rule requiring everyone produce at least once piece of child pornography before a vote can continue, but I guess the 1830s was just a different time.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 44 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

What's the plan if the files contain damming evidence against Trump? Will he be impeached? Will he be arrested like anybody else? Will there just be no consequences whatsoever? What is the protocol when the president is revealed to have committed heinous crimes? I want to know NOW!

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Oh yea, he will definitely be impeached for the third time. One more impeachment and he'll get a Writ of Reprimand. 4 of those and a Supreme Court judge literally slaps him on the wrist. That'll show him.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Will they slap him with this?

[–] turdburglar@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

no, those were recalled for slicing up people’s wrists

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago

If someone slapped me with that I'd prefer it sliced my wrists. I don't want to live knowing I've worn one.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's what happens when more than 33 senators are willing to stand by the president no matter what they do I suppose. When it came to honor/shame, no one ever thought someone so wretched wouldn't just be forcibly removed by the people around them.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

33 lmao, judging by the senate confirmation votes, there's at least 50.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

33+ is the requirement to not be removed when impeached. At that point we can basically stop counting

57 voted he was guilty on the last one (the insurrection)

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

damming evidence

Stop the flow of water, generate electricity, sustainable energy.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago
[–] g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Took me a second, but I go there

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

one possibility is people who have been ensconced in MAGA, entirely because they think every Democrat eats babies, will have their reality shattered by the completely obvious and well documented fact that Trump is a pedophile, and not even just A pedophile but THE pedophile, the final boss of 1990s human trafficking and serial rape.

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I don't have much faith they'll care. A big part of their ideology is hurting women and children. It's already well known he's a rapist, he's said as much himself. They famously don't care about truth. I think absolutely damning evidence will come out, and they'll move forward without much fuss.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

This. They'll scramble for a few days until Fox News gets the narrative ready for spoon-feeding, then calling him a pedophile will be dismissed as another facet of "orange man bad".

[–] Devmapall@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 days ago

Anecdotally I have seen evidence of Trump supporters in my own life who have fallen off their love of him. Mostly though it's because their own lives have not improved. They aren't hardcore magas just people who don't know any better, are not smart, kind of racist, or just sucked into whatever rabbit hole they've found.

I doubt it'll change much what's presented in media and functionally who's voting for him/others like him. But it's been nice not to hear people praise him day to day in my own life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Well, if 20 Republicans crossed the aisle he could be removed from office. I think more likely is we'll be seeing lots of GOP seats lost in the midterm elections.

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

if 20 Republicans crossed the aisle he could be removed from office.

I would sooner bank on 20 Dems leaping to his defense in the name of bipartisanship

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] askryan@startrek.website 6 points 4 days ago

They would 100% never let files with Trump's name in it out. This is going to absolutely backfire on the Democrats when the Republicans inevitably release a doctored list with all their political enemies on it. This is so much better for the Dems when the files are a big MacGuffin. Even if by some miracle they did release the actual list and Trump was on it, they would say it was a witch hunt by the corrupt Biden administration and MAGA would eat it up. There will never be legal consequences for any of them, ever. If they ever do get consequences it will be because of some brave Luigi.

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

Well once it really gets proven he is a pedo, which we're pretty close to, his own base will likely eat him alive and, I dunno, split off into factions?

What will happen?

Anywhere from nothing to full out civil war, pushed mostly by ~~the crazies~~ MAGA.

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

An immediate admission of an active alien invasion and the activation of the new patriot II act.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago (6 children)

How can Republicans block this...?

[–] VivianRixia@piefed.social 87 points 4 days ago (1 children)

By continuing to not follow the law or process as it benefits them like they have been. But good on Dems for the constant pressure. That's exactly what they need to do.

[–] qt0x40490FDB@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Right! It’s like when the Supreme Court told Andy Jackson that he couldn’t just forcibly deport Cherokee from their peaceful and prosperous farming communities. He just ignored the law, and brought generational shame to the US government. In a surprisingly close parallel it turns out that DJT can do the same thing, except this time even the Supreme Court doesn’t want him to follow the law. Strange times.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)

This is a commonly-told but not actually true version of events. Here's what really happened between Jackson and the Cherokee case.

The background of the case is that the State of Georgia had enacted a law forbidding the settling of Cherokee territories by whites without a licence. A man by the name of Samuel Worcester, a missionary who helped establish the first Cherokee-language newspaper (the Cherokee Phoenix or ᏣᎳᎩ ᏧᎴᎯᏌᏅᎯ), protested against this law, saying that Georgia had no power to legislate what goes on in Cherokee territory, because the Cherokee Nation was sovereign over their own territory and not subject to the law of the State. The governor of Georgia ordered the arrest of Worcester and some other dissidents who refused to apply for a licence. He was brought before a Georgia court and stood trial, was convicted, and sentenced to four years' hard labour. Some of his fellow defendants accepted pardons from the governor, but Worcester refused the pardon in order to preserve his right to appeal his conviction.

The case was brought before the US Supreme Court, which ruled in the case of Worcester v. Georgia that the Cherokee Nation had sovereignty which the State of Georgia could not abridge, and that the law banning whites from settling Cherokee land was void. President Jackson expressed disdain over this ruling, and contemporary news thought he was unlikely to help the Supreme Court if it asked him to enforce its ruling. However, the Court never asked Jackson to send federal marshals to enforce the decision, so there was nothing for him to "violate".

Georgia state officials chose to ignore the ruling and refused to release Worcester from prison. His lawyers petitioned the new governor of Georgia to offer Worcester an unconditional pardon, but the governor refused, saying that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority. Georgia officials decided to agitate for the federal government to impose a removal treaty against the Cherokees. Then, in an unrelated incident, South Carolina started a spat with the federal government by attempting to nullify a federal law that they didn't like, which caused the Jackson administration to change its tune towards Worcester's situation. His government dropped hints to the governor of Georgia that if Worcester (and another person similarly situated) were released, that the Jackson administration would arrange for a removal treaty to be imposed on the Cherokees. Worcester intended to continue pursuing his case before the federal courts but feared that doing so might provoke the government of Georgia to do something like attempt to secede or otherwise bring harm to the Cherokees. The governor and Worcester's legal representatives haggled over the wording of Worcester's petition for a pardon, and in the end, they were released the year after the Supreme Court's decision. Worcester gave up his case before the federal courts.

At the same time as this was happening, gold was discovered on Cherokee lands and the State of Georgia infringed on the Cherokees' sovereignty in other ways, including attempting to abolish the tribal government, trying to legislate away all of the Cherokees' land rights, and raffling off plots of Cherokee territory to white settlers.

In 1835 (three years after this ruling), a group of Cherokees not authorised by the Cherokee National Council or by their Principal Chief negotiated the Treaty of New Echota, agreeing on behalf the entire tribe to vacate their traditional homelands in exchange for five and a half million dollars and a reservation in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Despite the vast majority of Cherokee people opposing this treaty, its signatories having lacked the authority from the Cherokee council to negotiate it, and against the wishes of the Cherokee Principal Chief, the US Senate gave force to the treaty and President van Buren ordered the US Army to remove all Cherokees to Indian Territory in 1838.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago

They don't have to block shit. They can just ignore it.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fall back on the sovcit playbook: claim that it's outside their jurisdiction and stall for time until they come up with another excuse to protect toddler-tupper Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

I mean, if it's not blocked, who's going to force them to release?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

No fucking way

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago

Any day now...

Anyyyyyy daayyyyyyy

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Dude, now do UAP.

(By the way, I’m basically quoting Chuck here. He said the same in a tweet earlier this year. Fucking ineffectual clown.)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›