this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
238 points (98.8% liked)

News

32684 readers
2679 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bondi told Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) she would not discuss conversations she had with Trump about Comey's indictment.

Bondi and Trump met for dinner at the White House the night before the indictment. Bondi also redirected questions about the Epstein investigation into scrutiny toward Democrats.

Bondi asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) if he had questioned her predecessor, Merrick Garland, on Epstein. She also brought up Democratic ties to LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, an alleged Epstein associate. Between the lines: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also asked Bondi who ordered her to flag Epstein records related to President Trump.

"I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you, senator," Bondi said. Durbin responded: "Eventually you're going to have to answer for your conduct in this. You won't do it today, but eventually you will."

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 88 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bondi refuses legitimate Senate questioning and threatens Senators. She needs to be arrested by the sergeant-at-arms.

The whole thing was so performative that I was seriously expecting her to yell "This whole court room is out of order!" to distract.

Like I'm surprised somebody didn't just pull a fire alarm to get her out of there. Wtf

M'am this is a Senate hearing, not a community theater in Florida. You're supposed to be providing testimony. Nobody wants to hear your dramatic monologue, just answer the questions.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"I'm not going to discuss that"

In a senate or house hearing should be followed up with:

"Thats not a choice which is available to you"

And then the master at arms like, jingles some handcuffs.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No no it's always a choice available to you. It just comes with criminal consequences.

Or at least, it's supposed to. Liberal politicians who want to show their constituents that they're willing to ask the fascists hard questions aren't impressing me at all if they're unwilling or unable to follow it up with legal teeth. Might as well be helping them by handing them a soapbox they can shout anything from.

[–] tal@olio.cafe 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well...it depends.

First, I don't know if she was under oath.

Second, there is executive privilege. That doesn't mean that she can apply it in this case (or that she was even trying), but it's not a blanket "Congress can demand all communications, period".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.[2]

That being said, Congress is expected to perform oversight of the Executive Branch, and you don't get to just invoke executive privilege every time they require you to provide information, either. I imagine that one could wind up with court cases and more case law finding the limits of the privilege if it comes up, especially if


as I assume will most-likely be the case


the Democrats take the House in the midterm elections and then start promptly use control of the House to start sticking their nose into everything Trump's been doing.

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jesus christ these senators are so fucking spineless. Hold her in contempt

I think they would still have to vote to hold her in contempt right?

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I always thought that refusing to answer congress or senate's questions in a hearing was a contempt charge...

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

IIRC, a contempt charge has to be voted on (not happening) and if it passes it is then referred to the US attorney's office for them to pursue. And since that office is currently held by a Fox News host whose only qualifications are loyalty to Trump and a total lack of ethics, that case wouldn't go anywhere.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thanks, this comment is infinitely more helpful than the useless snot who replied in the other comment. I like people who help others a lot more than people who randomly hurt others over nothing more than their own insecurities.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Does Bondi, as USAG not have power over US attorneys?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

You always thought wrong then.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

It would be great if whoever was heading one of these hearings just said, fine, we can all sit here until you answer our questions.