this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30272 readers
2933 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 Department of Justice on Thursday declined to turn over additional information from the Epstein files as ordered by a judge, arguing the materials include sensitive victim information or were appropriately redacted as required by law.

Hours ahead of the deadline to turn over the materials or explain why they were properly withheld, Associate U.S. Attorney General Stanley Woodward asked the judge to delay the deadline by 60 days or disregard it entirely by accepting the DOJ's reasons for withholding the materials.

"Although the Government strongly disagrees with the Court's ruling that the [Epstein Files Transparency Act] is enforceable by private parties through the Administrative Procedure Act, the Government welcomes this opportunity to resolve any confusion regarding the records at issue in this case," Woodward wrote.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 51 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

...yes, appropriate for protecting Eppstein's billionaires clients and accomplices, some of whom quite obviously make up this criminal regime.

This case really shows all too clearly what a lawless oligarchy the U.S. is. A true rogue state ruled by the scum of humanity.

[–] volore@scribe.disroot.org 25 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (4 children)

don't forget, while they're giving us the runaround on the Epstein files and protecting all the people therein, there is also almost certainly a new Epstein providing the same services to the same people. Not only do we get to pay taxes to pedophiles, they still get to rape children while they lie to our faces about it! Yaaaaay!

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 12 points 5 hours ago

Trumps sons "run his businesses" according to him, and Epstein learned from Trump as he said.

I mean...is it really a conspiracy?

And then Kushner and Ivanka buy an island out of nowhere to build a resort on?

I mean...like, really?

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 8 points 6 hours ago

There was never a gap at all. You really think Epstein was the only one doing this? Just one of many.

It's like if one Starbucks closes down. People will just go to the other Starbucks across the street. And the shitty coffee still gets consoomed.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

The gun in your reaction meme isn't being aimed correctly.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

That is the likely scenario.

It is, after all, quite obvious that state power is not only being abused to protect these criminals, but that it is what makes the most serious crimes possible in the first place. That is simply how things are in a corrupt state—here, the legal system does not serve to enforce the law at all, but rather to facilitate crime, just as is happening in the U.S. on a daily basis. There are countless other examples: a secret police force in the form of ICE, life sentences for opponents of the regime based on fabricated terrorism charges, the embezzlement of billions by unscrupulous opportunists, and so on and so forth.

This country is done for, especially since its citizens have apparently resigned themselves to the status quo. If that weren’t the case, the regime would have been behind bars long ago—it would never even have risen to this position in the first place. The U.S. president has a criminal career stretching back decades. The fact that he was able to assume office at all—and twice, no less—says everything there is to know.

Now he’s doing exactly what was to be expected, and the citizens still aren’t holding him accountable—even now, when it’s completely obvious that their country is ruled by organized crime of the worst kind.

Unfortunately, this is a massive problem for the entire world, as the regime itself tirelessly demonstrates by blackmailing other countries and committing the most egregious war crimes alongside its genocidal counterpart in Israel.

It would be very much in the interest of all reasonably decent people if U.S. citizens would finally hold their inhumane overlords accountable, but that’s about as likely as the Russian people rising up against their dictator.

So we're all pretty much screwed, because this rogue state, armed to the teeth, can be defeated by no one other than its own citizens.

[–] BucketBong@p.hobo.social 19 points 7 hours ago

We can't give you those files, they're the ones with all our names in it. - U.S government.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 hours ago

Suprised_pikachu.png

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

Criminals swear to their innocence!? Shocking!

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago
[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Weren't all redaction's required to be approved by Congress?

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

They were required to be justified to Congress, with each redaction having an explanation of which of the few permissible categories of redactions it falls into.

No justifications for any redactions have been offered, despite many of the redactions very obviously not falling into any of the permissible categories.

There are also a huge number of documents that were supposed to be released, but which haven't been released at all, whatsoever, redacted or otherwise.