this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
374 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2102 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) is forcing a House vote this week to release the Ethics Committee’s report on former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who resigned from Congress after being named and later withdrawing as Trump’s pick for attorney general.

The Ethics Committee deadlocked on making the report public, which investigates allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use.

Casten argues that resigning should not shield members from accountability, citing past cases where reports on former lawmakers were released.

Gaetz denies wrongdoing and may pursue future political roles.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hazor@lemmy.world 44 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If he was found to have done nothing wrong, it would have been released immediately and all conservative media would have been parading it out saying "look, it really is a democratic witch hunt against conservatives!"

The mere hesitancy to release it confirms what we've known all along: dude did some bad stuff, probably involving sex with minors.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago

probably involving sex with minors.

Rape. It was rape. A minor cannot legally consent to have sex with a partner of near/equal age, let alone a man decades older than them.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah let's go ahead and release that. Though it's still hard to believe people vote for him basically knowing it's fact.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Rape and sex with a minor have statues of limitations. That is how little these people care about this shit.

[–] 7toed@midwest.social 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think you mean relations with a young woman... fuck me I can't even be facetious cause our media actually reports like that.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

Relations with a women. Who was a recent graduate.

[15 paragraphs later]

She was set to graduate junior high the next year.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 weeks ago

You mean "non consensual relationship with a young female"? That is usually the reporting.

[–] DerArzt@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

It'll get shot down by exactly who you think.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can't these "fascism is coming" mfs just read the report into the record? Have some balls! If you're going tell voters to forget about things like Medicare For All and vote to save denocracy, at least make a show of putting up a fight.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

1000% read it on the fucking house floor.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

This is shaping up to be the official first shit-show of Trump's second term. Remember, if Gaetz is only prominent in Washington and under the graces of Trump because he blew up the House to oust McCarthy.

Would anyone be surprised if McCarthy was whipping votes against Gaetz?