this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
215 points (99.5% liked)

politics

31129 readers
2917 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even the judge is screaming to release the Epstein files, lol.

“A significant and compelling reason to reject” the request “is that the government has already undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the Epstein case and, not surprisingly, has assembled a ‘trove’ of Epstein documents, interviews, and exhibits,” Judge Richard Berman wrote in a federal court ruling.

That trove of roughly 100,000 pages of files “dwarf[s] the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials,” Berman wrote.

The Trump administration does not need the courts to approve the release of its Epstein files, the judge wrote. He added that the administration had previously committed to publicly releasing those records, before reversing itself in July.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats fucking great to hear a judge say. Hope it gets to the ears that need to hear it....

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

blah...blah...blah...judges are lawyers, and lawyers liberal....blah...blah....TDS.....Woke.....puts fingers in ears

/s

[–] ApeNo1@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

I am more cynical. The judges words may sound like he is doing the right thing, but I fear the Trump team will use this as an excuse to say the overall process to release more materials is stuck in the courts. I would have approved the release of the materials and also made the comments that these materials are a drop in the ocean compared to the full mountain of information the government already holds and is able to release.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Release the Trump/Epstein files

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure Trump argued that he could declassify documents just by thinking about it. There's no need for courts here unless you're playing a game.

[–] ApeNo1@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because of impact to the victims. The Grand Jury records could be used to identify, harass, and worse to the victims.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

And the grand jury members.

You know they'd pick apart the deliberations and on the first thing they don't like they'd start hunting down jurors.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't order any diversion