I think she might be going a little deaf. Anytime anyone mentions the files she just keeps asking “Pardon Me?"

  • bampop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Anytime anyone mentions the files she just keeps asking “Pardon Me?"

    She’s not going deaf. She’s just reminding Trump to hold up his end of the bargain

  • bklyn@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    then just fuckin’ do it! She damn well knew that she was breaking the law, so hold her to account! they don’t give a damn about your empty threats.

    DO SOMETHING!

    • falseWhite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That’s not how democrats work.

      First, they give a verbal warning: “we are very disappointed”.

      Then, comes a written warning: “we are really really disappointed now”

      And then they flip and flop and don’t do anything.

    • dcpDarkMatter@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Considering the Dems don’t control the House, Senate, or White House, the only power they do have currently is promising future prosecution if they take back one of the branches of government. The Republican-led congress and White House are obviously not going to do anything.

      • falseWhite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        What a ridiculous system. So basically politicians in the ruling government can’t be held responsible and prosecuted according to the law if they hold power in the government?

        I mean, I already knew the American legal system was a fucking joke when Trump got away with all his crimes and then he pardoned a ton of other criminals. Even though he shouldn’t have this kind of power, he’s the President.

        But now you’re saying that certain other people in the government cannot be prosecuted either? WTF?!

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          So basically politicians in the ruling government

          Well yes and no. If you are thinking of it like a parliamentary system don’t. We don’t require the formation of a government through a majority party of coalition.

          Each representative is elected to an existing body and they have to figure it out.

          So theoretically you can have multiple combinations on which party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. Honestly we don’t even have to have parties you could have every seat filled by politically unaligned independents.

          Currently all elected offices in the federal government are controlled by the Republicans. They will not remove their own party’s president.

          But theoretically in the mid terms the democratic party could become the majority in the House and the Senate. The president would of course still be the same. But they could then attempt to remove him from office through impeachment.

          It’s a confusing mess, but yeah that’s the US system

          • falseWhite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            That’s how it should be. But it’s literally the opposite right now. Trump is issuing orders to prosecute all of his political “enemies” and the actual criminals in the government are not being prosecuted by the justice system at all.

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              That’s what fascism is, when people want to give dear leader their power. So it’ll happen with GOP and not with Dems. Fun. So Dems are still a political party that can’t prosecute.

        • I’m no big fan of the Democrats, but historically they are willing to get rid of their own when even accused of wrongdoing. See Senator Al Franken for the silliest example of this.

          Republicans will not, in the vast majority of cases, do the same.

        • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The problem is that you have a majority on the Supreme Court that are blatantly abusing their power and ignoring the law when it advances their side’s agenda, including just declaring the president to be above the law.

          This would be the kind of thing that should lead to impeachment, but that requires a supermajority in the senate (because you don’t want whichever party has a majority to be able to easily abuse the impeachment process) but that won’t happen because every single republican with even a hint of integrity has been pushed out by Trump over the past decade. And even if there were Republicans that weren’t entirely corrupt, dismantling your own Supreme Court majority would be a tough sell politically. And even if they did remove the existing justices, it would just mean that Trump would get to appoint new ones that would be much worse and with many more years ahead of them.

          And with Trump filling the executive branch with the worst scumbags he can find, chosen specifically for their willingness to be loyal sycophants who won’t let ethics or laws get in the way of doing his bidding, you aren’t going to get any help there. Again, this is exactly why the senate has to approve appointments but they are also scumbags right now. And for the same reason, the impeachment that should be happening for basically every member of this administration are not coming.

          All that being said, there is resistance coming from both the executive and judicial branches. This administration has been firing people illegally in part because it can’t get them to do the illegal shit they want them to do. And those illegal actions and the related illegal firings have been taken to court and the administration has lost nearly 95% off the time. Sometimes the Supreme Court has stepped in to bail them out, but in most cases the ruling stands and the administration has eventually complied.

          All of which is to say that, while there are many flaws both big and small in the American system, it isn’t the system itself that is at fault here, it’s the elected officials and the corrupt assholes they appointed. There is no system that will work when every branch of government is in the hands of people who ignore their ethical and legal obligations.

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            The problem is that you have a majority on the Supreme Court

            That’s not a requirement for impeachment and removal. That’s an independent power of Congress.

            • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              If only I’d posted more than one sentence, maybe I could have addressed the issue of impeachment… even though the comment I was responding to specifically mentioned the legal system, and the point I was making was about how no legal safety mechanism can function when the people in charge of it are corrupt, which is a problem when the people at the top in all the branches of government are corrupt.

          • falseWhite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            So it is the system’s fault for allowing this. Why not make the system so that the president or the ruling party alone cannot appoint the supreme court justices.

            I mean I only spent 5 minutes thinking about this, but why not make the appointments work the same way they vote for laws? I.e. both parties, not individuals, have to vote and get a majority to appoint, and only in emergency situations could anyone appoint a justice without a vote.

            The same should be done for appointing the highest attorneys in the country.

            How fucking stupid is it to allow the ruling party to control the justice system. It’s just asking to be abused by fascists.

            Law should be politically impartial.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 hours ago

              No system will long survive players acting in bad faith. There’s no system you can come up with that is immune to conservatives and capitalists fucking with it. It might take them years, but they will never stop. They are the worst people on earth. If you could thanos-snap away conservatives, the world would become a better place overnight. Every problem we’re facing is either their fault, or made worse by them.

              And we’re never going to get rid of conservatives. There are always going to be shitty humans who believe their in-group needs to be protected and the out-group needs to be bound. Shitty, scared, little shit bags that will blame brown people or queers or whatever, anything, so they can think down familiar paths and avoid any hard introspection.

              So I don’t know. You don’t stop building a home because the elements are always trying to tear it down. But you can’t punch the wind in the fucking throat so hard they cry and vomit at the same time, so maybe it’s not quite the same as a maga hat.

            • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              So it is the system’s fault for allowing this. Why not make the system so that the president or the ruling party alone cannot appoint the supreme court justices.

              The president can nominate anyone, but they have to be approved by the senate. Every justice we had made it through that process, most before they scrapped the filibuster.

              I mean I only spent 5 minutes thinking about this, but why not make the appointments work the same way they vote for laws? I.e. both parties, not individuals, have to vote and get a majority to appoint, and only in emergency situations could anyone appoint a justice without a vote.

              The same should be done for appointing the highest attorneys in the country.

              Legislation doesn’t have to have support from both parties either. The filibuster rule makes it possible for a minority party to hold up certain things, but there is no requirement that anything be supported by both parties.

              And even if we did have a system where a majority of both parties was required to approve a judicial appointment or attorney, that would just break the system even more. It would give a veto to the Republicans for every appointment regardless of which party is in the majority and they would gladly leave half the government vacant when they don’t hold the white house, or make such extreme demands that it wouldn’t matter which party the president belongs to. This would just give the most extreme group more power to grind the government to a halt and hold the whole system hostage.

              How fucking stupid is it to allow the ruling party to control the justice system. It’s just asking to be abused by fascists.

              Law should be politically impartial.

              Yes, they should be. Unfortunately, those laws can only be written, enacted, interpreted, administered and enforced by people. Laws have no power on their own. And we have to have a process for determining who is in a position to oversee those laws. Some of those people are elected. Some are appointed. Some are hired or promoted independently within organizations that answer to elected and/or appointed officials. And there is necessarily a trade off when balancing power between elected officials (who are going to be the most politicized but also the ones who are answerable to the people directly) and those who are more independent (who can be less vulnerable to momentary political currents but also never have to answer to the general public).

              As I said, there are many flaws in the American system, some of which are very big. But we also have numerous mechanisms that should prevent situations like this. The problem is they all require someone to do their fucking job and push back. Many of those furthest removed from electoral politics have been doing a lot to uphold legal and ethical standards. But when the elected officials and their appointees at the highest levels are either actively undermining the law or simply failing to do their duty to defend the law, it isn’t the law that’s at fault.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              We already require the President and Senate to agree to appoint a Justice. The problem there is the Senate gives each state equal representation with no regard to their population (this has been an issue since before the country was a country) and there’s absolutely no way that enough rural states are going to vote to change that system.

      • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        if they take back one of the branches of government.

        You think the people blatantly ignoring the law will miraculously start listening if the Democrats take back one of the branches?

      • bklyn@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        take back one of the branches of government

        that would be doing “something”

  • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I thought the deadline was yesterday. Did we give a new deadline? What makes them think this deadline would be any different?

    Edit: the article is from yesterday.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      This article is from yesterday, presumably before the 11:59pm deadline and before the (highly redacted) files were released.

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, sorry for not being quick on the draw. Got in from a long flight and conked out.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Just release another random hundred pages of blacked out text with the appropriate headers. Would be the same as releasing the files, nobody would be able to tell the difference. Nothing of substance will be given to the public.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      On █████████, Jeffery Epstein’s communications with ████████████ and ██████████ confirmed the █████████ of ████████. In a private █████ exchange, ████████ discussed the █████████ of ████████ for ███████. The ████████ was then scheduled to ██████████ with █████████, and would then meet up with Bill Clinton at the █████████ of ██████████. Flight logs for flight ██████ corroborate the meet up between Bill Clinton and █████████.

      Further investigation into ████████ revealed the █████████ with █████████ and Bill Clinton. █████████ Obama ████████████ purchase █████████████ Bill Clinton ████████ and Do███████████████. ████████████████████████

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Face prosection from who exactly? Pam Bondi controls indictments for tampering with evidence and Congressional contempt actions are referred to the DOJ which then go to… Pam Bondi.

    • AxExRx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I dont think they have to be refered to the DOJ if congress doesnt want to. Also, Iirc, theres whats refered to as civil contempt, and congress can just vote to order the seargent at arms to lock her up (they can even keep her in some random room on premises if they want) until she releases the unredacted files.

      Not only does this bypass any dependence on the executive and judicial branches; it bypasses their ability to interfere on Bondi’s behalf- she is considered to ‘hold the keys to hwr own cell,’ (as in she can release the files at any time and be freed) and it is considered non punative- there is no right to appeal and no sentence /crime to be pardoned.

    • Maiq@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The problem with playing pat a cake with fascists while they consolidate power is that by the time you want to be taken seriously they have stripped whatever power you once had.

        • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “Get off my property before I have you arrest yourselves for trespassing”- Hacker in the show Cyberchase

      • MBech@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        And who exactly in congress has both the will, and the means to prosecute her?

        • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          They don’t do it as an individual. They appoint a special prosecutor. Though, I get your point. They did that under Trump 1, but it didn’t pan out. The only other cure I can think of is the guillotine.

          • AxExRx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 hours ago

            They can also physically hold someone in contempt.

            As in call her back in appear in front of thw house, then just have the seargent at arms lock her up in some random room ‘until she releases the unredacted files.’

            My understanding is that this is considered non punitive and therefore non-appealable or even pardonable.

            I believe all it takes is a majority vote, which considering 427-1 vote on the initial act, I could see them getting.