this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
341 points (99.7% liked)

politics

28560 readers
1960 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
 

Could her lips be any more orange?

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] digitalFatteh@lemmy.ca 130 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Cannon, who in 2024 dismissed the case after concluding that Smith was unlawfully appointed, said the release of the report would present a “manifest injustice” to Trump and his two co-defendants.

Corruption at its core. No conflicts of interest to see here.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Manifest Injustice" sounds like a spell all the Republican magic users cast after every long rest.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

After a very long SUCCULENT CHINESE MEAL

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

Can this move be appealed?

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 98 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am so sick of seeing her fucking name... She's not a judge she's been Trump's personal defense lawyer the entire time...

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just wait until he puts her on the Supreme Court after Alito retires.

[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 67 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do it anyway. Consequences for violating court orders don't exist anymore.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Only if you got the (R)

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is there more than ONE picture of this monster trump appointee?

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

It's probably her official portrait thay is in the public record. Other stuff could risk invasion of privacy claims or some sort of IP stuff.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

I would like to congratulate Aileen Cannon for her future career as a member of the Supreme Court. 🫲🍊🫱

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Hot favourite for the next SCOTUS seat for sure, though perhaps Thomas would be disappointed in losing the crown of the most corrupt SCOTUS judge.

No soul behind those eyes. Jfc

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

iT’s BiDeNz FauLt!1!!

Jenosideeeeezzzzz!!

heil putin

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

I look forward to when Cannon is shot out of a Cannon.

[–] SpankyDoodle@eviltoast.org 5 points 1 day ago

At this point, fuck em. Just release it.

[–] doug@lemmy.today 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Has anyone made a site where it’s two pictures and you have to guess which picture is a Trump appointee, or maybe which one is super right wing? ‘Cause like… —and no, I’m not talking about phrenology or whatever racist science rabbit hole I might be going parallel to— it just feels like the worst ones have the deadest eyes or the most vain of portraits.

I know this isn’t a good example in the headline, but I’ve never seen her before and I could just tell I wouldn’t like her.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

A disproportionate number of them are likely true psychopaths, without functional empathy or conscience. That is certainly my theory about the dead eyes.

[–] ElectricTrombone@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

It's the eyes. She's got the crazy Kenneth Copeland eyes. Amy Coney Barrett does too.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Theres a 'dle game where you are given the picture of a us politician and you guess if theyre blue or red

[–] justsomeguy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

She's a loose cannon but a horrible officer of the law.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

You’re off YOUR case, Chief!

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I see what u did there

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Wasn’t the government’s position basically “well you didn’t give Trump the documents he stole!”?

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

I'm sure she has his swimmers stuck between her teeth.

[–] dwalin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Someone should just leak an ip on the dark web and say that there is a weak password. And let nature run its course

[–] decapitae@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

There is no justice in the regimes just-us department.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

ffs lady his pp is too short to pleasure your musty cobwebbed troll hole, you can stop worshipping his ken doll coin purse with BBs that never descended now

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

In the future I hope for, the only reason the judicial reform bill wouldn't have her name on it is because Clarence Thomas exists.