219
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
219 points (97.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3608 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
President Biden had classified documents when he wasn't president. This is a no no. A special counsel was created to investigate and see if he broke the law (which requires showing a level of intent). The special counsel interviewed Biden and afterwards put out a report and was like "we shouldn't procecute this case, the jury would see him as a forgetful old grandpa" (this is not a real quote).
Now congressional Republicans want the justice department to release the audio of the interview. They say they want this to find evidence of criminal activity (as if the justice department wasn't doing the same thing?) And Merrick Garland is refusing under the reasoning that it wouldn't serve a purpose, and disclosing information on someone who hasn't committed a crime, you are going to prosecute, is bad. Imagine if the government did that to all people they didn't like, start an investigation, get a bunch of dirt, and then publish it?! It's insane to me IMHO. So then they decide to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress which is the only escalation they have in this position.
To be clear on this, they already have the transcripts. They just want to be able to chop up audio so they can put clips of it on TV.
Also, Merrick Garland is the head of the DOJ, and only the DOJ can prosecute contempt of Congress as a crime. So if Congress says that DOJ is acting in contempt of Congress, they're asking DOJ to prosecute itself.
The Republicans only want the Audio to make political commercials out of anyway.