Politics

1204 readers

7 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

US judge blocks White House from ‘taking any further action’ on $1.8bn settlement fund until further legal arguments heard (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge in Virginia temporarily blocked the Trump administration from transferring any money into a secretive and loosely controlled $1.8bn fund while a legal challenge proceeds.

The order from US district judge Leonie Brinkema on Friday bars the government from “taking other further action” in the creation or operation of the fund while legal arguments in a case challenging the fund continue. The order is intended “to ensure no funds are irreversibly disbursed from the Anti-Weaponization Fund”, Brinkema wrote.

The Trump administration announced it was creating the $1.776bn fund last week in order to resolve a $10bn lawsuit filed by Donald Trump and his sons over the leak of Trump’s tax returns. The government did not take preliminary steps to try to defend itself in the lawsuit, prompting accusations of improper collusion and corruption.

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I mean what if he just ignores it and takes the money anyway? It's not illegal because he's the president and the scotus already ruled that the president by definition cannot do anything illegal. Soo seems like they're just wasting a bunch of ink and paper right now.

[–] MilkToast@breakfast.haus 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What do you mean "what if"? That's the plan.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's called a rhetorical question