711
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Shove his traitorous orange ass into a dirty solitary cell and throw the key in the ocean

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] whatupwiththat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

This ALONE is worth a million fucking years in prison ~ the rest is just gravy ~ lock this fucker up already

[-] argo_yamato@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Well he is the second biggest threat to the USA (the Republican party is number one)

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can someone read the article so I don’t have to and answer my questions instead of me having to do the bare minimum to stay properly informed and not just go with the knee jerk reaction of a buzzy headline.

Why was an Australian billionaire discussing nuclear subs with an ex president? What was the intent and purpose? And which billionaire?

Thank you in advance.

[-] Teppic@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

We need a way to summon ChatGPT.
Anyway:

According to a report by ABC News, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with an Australian billionaire named Anthony Pratt, months after leaving the White House 1. Pratt then allegedly shared this information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists 12. The potential disclosure was reported to special counsel Jack Smith’s team as they investigated Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago 2.

This report could shed further light on Trump’s handling of sensitive government secrets. Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world’s largest packaging companies

[-] Mafflez@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

Put this fucker in prison...for the rest of his god damned life!!!! It's literally that easy. He has a laundry list of shit that will land him there. Stop being ficking pussies about it!

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Not really sure what the necessary components are for proving such a crime but like, sounds like there's undisputed evidence of a crime.

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would like to order one serving of 18 USC Chapter 115 §2381, hold the prison time and fines, and send it to that orange goblin over there with my compliments. Thanks.

[-] Beowulf@unilem.org 2 points 1 year ago

Knowing Trump, it would sound a lot like "Are you sure you want to threaten me with NOT building my glorious Trump tower? We have nukes, you know. They can level your entire country. Just let me build my tower"

[-] synceDD@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Freedom of speech 🇺🇲 this is what America is all about

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

How many and how close?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
711 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers
1592 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS