219
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Coach@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago

thEy'rE sO cOrrUpt!

– Some MAGA asshole

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

Republicans aren't going to take "No" for an answer on this

https://floridianpress.com/2024/06/luna-circulaties-letter-hold-garland-inherent-contempt-congress/

"Inherent contempt" of Congress, a power rarely exercised and not used since the 1930s, is now being proposed as a significant measure. In this process, an offender is tried on the House floor, not by the Department of Justice. If the majority finds the offender in contempt, the House Sergeant-at-Arms arrests them until they comply with a subpoena or until the end of the legislative session. This move, historically used to coerce compliance rather than punish, is now being considered in a high-stakes political situation.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

This, certainly, won't go anywhere. Those with some sanity will realize that it's not worth up using every bit of political capital they have on a nothing burger.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

Those with some sanity will realize

All the Republicans with sanity have been run out of town. It's definitely going there.

[-] Decoy321@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

It'll go somewhere. It'll go in fuckin circles, but won't go anywhere meaningful.

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I thought the Democractic committee members and/or Pelosi said that Congress no longer has a "jail" in which the Sergeant at Arms could hold an arrestee.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

The Sergeant-at-arms doesn't need an actual jail in the Capitol itself. If they are empowered to hold someone, they can do it anywhere, even a hotel room. The Capitol Police also have a holding cell which could be used.

https://rollcall.com/2019/05/08/just-where-is-this-secret-house-jail-located/

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

"As of right now, we fully intend to bring it," Rep. Luna declared, "I don't really have much faith in the Department of Justice. And I don't think the American people do either.

Lovely how she actually pretends to speak for "the American people"

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

The House is divided and if this continues our Republic will fall.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

All this over audio they want to be able to run campaign ads.

[-] vegeta@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

How many Gym Jordans in a Garland?

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago
[-] StinkyOnions@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Ask the wrestlers Gym coached.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

For those out of the loop. What the fuck is going on?

[-] hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago

Now congressional Republicans want the justice department to release the audio of the interview.

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.

[-] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

So then they decide to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress which is the only escalation they have in this position.

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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The Republicans only want the Audio to make political commercials out of anyway.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 27 points 4 months ago

In 2008 Americans elected a black man president, and the Republicans lost their shit and went scorched earth.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

They lost their shit decades before that. I have no idea why people seem to remember a formerly rational Republican party. I think people were just younger and have a rosy recollection of politicians who served before we formed a coherent political worldview.

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

It's been a process.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

TBF, they lost their collective minds over the Clintons, too. Bill was largely a right-leaning centrist but Hillary has a tendency to speak her mind (shock! horror! she's not some decorative arm piece? Who the hell does she think she is, anyway?) Also, some people were proclaiming him to be the "first black President" and that alone probably drove them crazier.

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

The people always trying to come up with and pin fake crimes on people are gonna be upset!

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, they just wanted some dirt on Biden. This has nothing to do with anything but the cons wanting to play dirty tricks.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
219 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4662 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