102
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2026
102 points (99.0% liked)
politics
31796 readers
4837 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Blame the SCOTUS for turning an unofficial Justice Department Policy into a Constitutional Principle. The Justice Department is run by the President, after all. What guarantee do we have that any investigation would be fair?
The President's bogus lawsuit against the IRS awarding him eleventy billion dollars and "settling" for a ban on auditing his finances is a perfect example. A judge threw that out, legitimately, because when the President sues an agency he is in charge of, there are no adverse parties, and any "settlement" is a sham. (That whole affair would be an impeachable offense if someone with a blue tie tried that.)
That wasn't a criminal prosecution, but imagine if Todd Blanche tomorrow announced that he had "investigated" Trump's crypto grift and found that it was entirely above board, nothing to see there, and we should all just stop talking about it. Would we believe him?
The policy of the DoJ not investigating the President was meant to protect the integrity of the DoJ, not the President.
It was always envisioned that a truly corrupt President could be investigated after the fact, by a DoJ that doesn't report to him. I have no clue why the SCOTUS saw something stricter in the penumbra of the Constitution.