this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
164 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26151 readers
3430 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
164
Trump prosecutor melts down at reporter in text chat — then demands it all be 'off record' (www.rawstory.com)
submitted 3 days ago by just_another_person@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

🤣 W O W 🤣

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 54 points 3 days ago (3 children)

There's a kind of person where emotions create reality. They feel a thing, and will use any facts at hand to justify it. Later if they feel something else, different facts will be used.

These people are trash, honestly. That's a garbage way to live. It's dishonest and hurtful. It's immature. It's a lot of conservatives.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago

It's a lot of conservatives.

Can you cite an example of a conservative that isn't like that? I'm not convinced it isn't literally all of them.

[–] thepompe@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 days ago

It’s a lot of conservatives.

Sweetie...

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We really are living in a kakistocracy.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 3 days ago

This is the exact thought that went through my mind after reading the story, before I clicked through to comments.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Just to save a re-reporting click, here is the original Lawfare story.

The embarrassing level of unprofessionalism isn't surprising, but the only explanation for the reach-out to this reporter is the delusional-level of self-confidence that she could "play" the reporter against the NYT and WSJ to create a public narrative against James. When she couldn't, she just immediately melts down.

Halligan’s real beef seemed to be with the Times, not me, though she wasn’t saying what was wrong with the Times’s story either. I brought this up in my response, pointing out that my post explicitly credited the Times story, not my own reporting. “Did they get something wrong?” I asked.

“Yes they did but you went with it!” she said. “Without even fact checking anything!!!!”

And

“You don’t report fairly!” Halligan replied. Then she added: “I can’t discuss any potential charges with reporters. If evidence arises that warrants further charges, I’ll look into it!”

I was genuinely confused. Only the previous day, she had essentially invited me to fact-check other outlets’ reporting before tweeting about them. Now she was refusing to engage when I did exactly that. “I thought you said I was welcome to reach out to you about what other outlets are reporting,” I said.

She wrote back: “Why do you report on what other outlets are reporting? If I was you, I’d develop sources myself and out compete them all!”

I mean, at a basic level: who uses exclamation points like that in written professional communications? She just sounds like a whining teenager.

Like, we all saw Trump's post directing political prosecution, she was then appointed, and she did exactly what he directed. Nobody with a triple-digit IQ is going to think this anything but a political prosecution. But they really are going out of their way to prove the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Reading the article (and between the lines), the way this is being reported is understatement. What Trump's attorney was actually doing was harassing and threatening the journalist to try to suppress unfavorable but truthful reporting.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 18 points 3 days ago

Trump's sycophants truly can't think anything through, can they? It's no wonder he surrounds himself with them - they're incapable of showing him up.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

https://archive.is/Fjx4I

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 8 points 3 days ago

Little late for that.