this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
300 points (99.3% liked)

politics

30545 readers
1928 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

Of course

QANON was just deflection and protection for the republican pedo rings

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is Trumpland. I'm surprised he didn't get a cabinet post like the other pedos.

That'll probably come later. First he has to go through the initiation rite.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like the only law Hawaii has on the books for this sort of thing.

Custodial interference in the second degree

The person intentionally or knowingly takes, entices, conceals, or detains a minor knowing that the person has no right to do so; or

Based on what's presented in the article he didn't say or do anything outright sexual towards the children. I think we all know what his intentions were, but us knowing and the state being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things. So I understand why the prosecution went for this as its a sure thing, but I'm disappointed they didn't even try for something more. When it's someone poor they throw every vaguely related charge at you to make you take a plea deal, but once again money and influence changes the rules

Who knows now that he's in custody maybe they'll get a warrant to search his phones and see what turns up.

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

I know it's about what they can prove, I only hope that they're able to prove something a bit more severe.

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago

It's ALMOST as if blackmailed pedophiles are being blackmailed into making sure other blackmailed pedophiles are in positions of power. ALMOST.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago

Her brother was rejected by the Trump-Epstein class so he has to do it on his own. /s

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Her brother is a transvestite?
No?
Thought so...

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The only example I can think of is that sweet doctor from the planet Transexual, in the galaxy Transylvania.

[–] Blubber28@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Very old-fashioned and now quite offensive umbrella term for transgender individuals and crossdressers. Because conservatives are too dumb to tell the difference between those groups they tend to use this term for both.

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

Republicans "protecting the children" like they normally do.