this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
643 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3738 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
 

Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told NBC News' Kristen Welker on Sunday that according to lawyers hired by Congress, "at this point, there's not a specific crime that's been committed" by President Joe Biden in the impeachment probe against him.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 111 points 7 months ago (3 children)

“Our guy did bad things, we do bad things, so ipso facto, Biden is doing bad things.”

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

They want to imprint on the minds of their "poorly educated" base that Biden has some sort of connection to some sort of crime. Go down the list of dirty tricks - Republicans are using all of them.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

More like, “if we can accuse your guy of doing bad things, our guy(s) can do whatever they want and it’s even.”

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Its the only situation where they believe in equality

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 21 points 7 months ago

Not really, they want to get away with it while punishing Dems.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 95 points 7 months ago (3 children)

In case you need to be reminded, the point here is diluting the impact of conversations about "charges" so that they can say things like, "Biden charges didn't mean anything just like trump charges don't, America isn't interested in wasting time on this, let's move on"

Part of what fascism does is BREAK language.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 22 points 7 months ago

God this shitty red team needs to just deliver their report and go home.

And yeah, talking to fascists like they're people is playing into their shit.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would say they still failed significantly, they wanted to at least get an impeachment in to be able to say that even trumps impeachments didnt really mean much either.

They may still be able to pivot as you indicated, but the fact that the impeachment process hasn't been minimized is a win for our country in my opinion.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Haven't they tried to impeach a whole lot of people, just to make "an impeachment" somewhah normal?

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength!

[–] r0m2@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The GOP will continue dragging out this investigation anyway, until they either find some actual dirt or create an artificial precedent that all presidents are under continuous investigation, thus discrediting any future impeachment procedure against their guy. Either way, It's a win.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This didn't work the first time with Clinton.

It's not "revenge" for impeaching Trump, it's revenge for Nixon. The Whitewater investigation didn't find anything until Monica Lewinsky. She actually wasn't even working at the White House when the investigation started.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The investigation wasn't even about her, it was about real estate I believe. They just wanted whatever they could get on him and he made the mistake of lying about something embarrassing which then became the issue... Not to defend him, lying is lying especially if there are laws against it in those situations.

So naturally the Republicans now go to "purgery trap! Purgery trap!" When impeachment is aimed at them because they know what they would do...

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She actually wasn’t even working at the White House when the investigation started.

Is this actually true? This is the first time I've ever heard this, would be shocking if so.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It surprises you that Republicans don't investigate in good faith? Ken Starr was the Whitewater investigator who continued the investigation after the previous one left. He was appointed a year before Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House.

This is why Clinton's approval ratings went up after he was convicted of "perjury" for misleading an investigation into his private life. Should he have done it? No. Did the American public care? Hell no.

With the assistance of a family connection, Lewinsky secured an unpaid summer White House internship in the office of White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. Lewinsky moved to Washington, D.C. and took up the position in July 1995.

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

In August 1994, Republican Kenneth Starr[39] was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Republican Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by US attorney general Janet Reno, prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law.

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

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It surprises you that Republicans don’t investigate in good faith?

No, just the timing.

She actually wasn’t even working at the White House when the investigation started.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 41 points 7 months ago

Breaking News! The GOP is full of shit and has been for decades. They have no policies, just bullshit.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what the bill is so far?

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

It's easy money for Republican lawyers and it confuses the cult base about the real criminal trying to avoid a trial.

[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

This contrasts so well with the other candidate.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Look you have known knowns and known unknowns - that is, things that you know that you don't know - but then you have unknown unknowns - things that you don't know that you don't know.

Source: https://youtu.be/2msQwpzatQc

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Ah the ol' Rummy Defense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago

TOTAL EXONERATION !!!

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 5 points 7 months ago

They will do literally everything but acknowledge their guy's huge laundry list of crimes

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You'd think we'd have at least acknowledged the problems with impeachment after Clinton got impeached for saying a BJ wasn't sex...

But that would require Dems to fix a problem with our government rather than ignore it as soon as it's not an immediate issue.

Our political system is fucked and we need a better one.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is a bit different. I don't think he should have been impeached, but Clinton did actually lie under oath about the affair.

Trump's crimes are significantly more serious, and numerous, and the GOP will forever be responsible for refusing to vote to convict.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 22 points 7 months ago (35 children)

He didn’t technically lie— not by congress’s definition of “sex” given. But they said he lied anyway and impeached him all the same.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

Clinton did actually lie under oath about the affair.

He didn't, though. They asked if he had sex, he asked them what sex was, they told him, and he hadn't had sex based on that definition. They purposely equivocated on their definition of sex so that they could accuse him of lying.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Shocker! /s

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told NBC News' Kristen Welker on Sunday that according to lawyers hired by Congress, "at this point, there's not a specific crime that's been committed" by President Joe Biden in the impeachment probe against him.

The White House has repeatedly denied these claims, with President Biden saying that the impeachment inquiry against him is a "baseless political stunt."

Bacon told Welker on Meet the Press: "When I talked to the lawyers on the committee staff, they say at this point there's not a specific crime that's been committed."

"Why continue to waste millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money if we're going to impeach because you believe you've shown he's committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Ian Sams called the invitation for the president to testify a "sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment."

Meanwhile, Biden, the Democratic incumbent, is leading a reelection campaign against former President Donald Trump, who is the presumed 2024 Republican Presidential nominee.


The original article contains 675 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I'm just adding this comment for engagement.

Any Finns here would appreciate me joking about how my vote was the 609th? Not because of 69, but because of 609_uu

load more comments
view more: next ›