this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
268 points (98.6% liked)

World News

57240 readers
1366 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

It does? Although it's not much.

Last year, they were allowed to leave Romania and flew to Florida on a private jet.

Not sure if that was added, the article does say it was updated in tiny print at the top by the date, but not what was updated. Of course.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

HOW were they allowed to, though?

Weren't they already convicted and serving prison sentences?

Or is the Romanian government as corrupt as the US one and just set them free for bribes and/or political reasons?

[–] absquatulate@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They were convicted but it didn't stick ( or someone intervened ) and afterwards i'm fairly certain they were set free and allowed to go to florida in an exchange of favours: we give you your guys and you shut up about us cancelling elections ( back then maga was particularly vocal about those elections, for good reason too). And wouldn't you know it, not a maga peep about the elections since. The tates even revisited Romania to "make investments here". Isn't it nice when crooks scratch each other's backs?

[–] timochka@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

This is not correct; they haven't been convicted of anything yet.

They're out on the equivalent of bail awaiting trial. That they are not wearing ankle tags or the like and are allowed to travel was thanks to pressure from the US Government, though.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Are they expecting Trump to let them out? If you're hiding in another country, why would you visit that country?

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Probably child rapists and sex traffickers stick together.

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 5 points 1 week ago

Well of course not, because only the most true of alpha males accept the law and it's punishment.

Probably...

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The Tates probably can't afford the bribe

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

I remember this. IIRC, shorty after they arrived back they were spotted out in Maimi nightclubs with some other right wing fools dancing to Kanye's nazi song that someone in the party had requested from the DJ.

[–] Ersatz86@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Was speaking more towards policy and process rather than mode of transport.

Disingenuous at best, blatant obfuscation at worst.

The dearth of detail highlights the editorial stance of the publication; the term that comes to mind is cowardice.

The dearth of detail highlights the editorial stance of the publication; the term that comes to mind is cowardice.

Yeah, AP has a reputation for trustworthiness through a lack of bias, but in reality their dogmatic insistence on ABSOLUTE neutrality in the face of objective reality is both cowardly and a tremendous bias itself that renders them less trustworthy than those partisan sources that don't hide their bias.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

That appears to be an open question that would be an entire article unto itself. As in, not the focus of this article.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The article was only about 4 short paragraphs when I posted it four hours ago, with zero analysis. It's got a lot more now.