this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
501 points (99.2% liked)

politics

26418 readers
2457 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge ruled DoJ engaged in ‘profound investigative missteps’ on way to indicting the former FBI director

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ruled on Monday that the justice department engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” on its way to indicting Comey. The federal judge directed prosecutors to produce to defense lawyers all grand jury materials from the case.

Fitzpatrick wrote that problems include “fundamental misstatements of the law” by a prosecutor to a grand jury that indicted Comey in September, the use of potentially privileged communications in the investigation and unexplained irregularities in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, adding: “However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JHRD1880@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Damn, maybe hiring someone just because she's a good looking blonde woman isn't the best option if you need a competent lawyer. Halligan has to be disbarred surely, everything she touches fails miserably and she obviously doesn't have the slightest knowledge of her job.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That isn't why she was hired. She was hired because she was willing to bring the case.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Exactly. Willingness to do Trump's bidding without question is the primary criteria.

Being blonde and sort-of attractive is a close second.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Just musing here.

Authoritarians think that they should have respect because they have a position. Not because they did the work to deserve respect.

In 2022, 89.5% of federal defendants pleaded guilty, and 0.4% were acquitted (source). The Trump Administration thinks you get those numbers just because you exist in the DOJ. As opposed to building a case for a long time and only going to trial when it's already airtight.