this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
88 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30202 readers
3195 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
 

The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting on Patel and called his lawsuit “meritless.”

The Atlantic article says, among other things:

On multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated, according to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials. A request for “breaching equipment”—normally used by SWAT and hostage-rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings—was made last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors, according to multiple people familiar with the request.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] artyom@piefed.social 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Libel/defamation is generally very difficult to prove in court (as it should be). You basically have to prove that they knew they were lying, as was the case in Fox News' Dominion voting lawsuit or CNN's Covington Kid lawsuit.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's particularly hilarious if they manage to prove in court that their reporting is true.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm sure if they had any proof it would have been in the story. But maybe one of their witnesses would feel compelled to blow the whistle. Unlikely but possible.

[–] CTDummy@aussie.zone 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is the second photo today I’ve seen showing this guy is capable of making faces that don’t look like a shart ambushed him. So why does he look like that the entire rest of the time? Stims?

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 14 points 2 months ago

Maybe that's what he looks like when he's been excessively drinking. I hear he does that.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 12 points 2 months ago

"Your Honor, I'd like to submit Exhibit A:"

"Exhibit accepted."

"The Defense rests, Your Honor."

"Yeah, I figured. This is going to be a quick one..."

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

What is that like one week of beer for Kash?