politics
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There it is...
We knew it. We're not stupid (some of us). We'll see how it plays out I guess. No surprise here. They know we know, and how obviously transparent this is.
I think our only hope is if enough MAGA drop their support, which is a lot to fucking hope for.
What do you make of this?
Since when has this administration ever followed the law?
Hopeful. Time will tell.
It's slop. Read the bill for yourself to decide what you think of it.
The entire thing is adb am active investigation so we'll get this, except for democrat names, and just enough context to imply guilt, even if they're just being indirectly referenced.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text
The bill is not long and everyone who is tracking this should take the time to read it.
Your concern is valid, but Bondi isn't given completely free reign.
So if Bondi were to follow the law, the AG's office will have to provide congress a summary and justification for everything that is redacted.
Which isn't to say that I have any faith in the AG's office following these requirements, but it should give us reason to pressure congress into holding Bondi et al. to these requirements and would give them cause for impeachement of Bondi if she does not comply.
It certainly seems to me like there's a ton of wiggle room in there to interpret things however you want.
First of all it requires the release of:
Which, holy hell, is that NEVER actually going to happen lol.
As for redactions it just requires the DOJ to submit a list of:
What does that mean exactly? Idk but it sure seems like that could be as simple as "we redacted information from these emails/memos/voicemails or whatever because it was sensitive information to the victims or pertinent to an ongoing investigation." That's a summary and the legal basis fully abiding by the bill.
I'm very very far from a government bill expert so I'd love to be wrong here but by the letter of that bill, it seems insanely easy to still redact pretty much whatever you want.
Yeah but the fix was in long ago when the 1,000 FBI agents or whatever we're removing Trump's name from the files. If his details were already redacted then they can't tie that back to Bondi, right?
This seems so obvious that I must be missing something
There's your problem. This regime has proven time and time again that laws are rules for thee, not me. If the laws help them, their hands are tied. If it hinders them, they just close their eyes and whistle until it goes away.
There are carve outs to that exception. Names of individuals who are not victims cannot be withheld.
And full summaries of all items withheld must be provided.
It will still likely end up in court.