politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Here's the entire report.
Even going off the final assertions by this report and let's just toss them a bone and say 100% of what they present is EXACTLY as they say it is presented. None of this rises to criminal liability. None of it is a level that the FBI could really do anything about. Violation of House rules by House members is up to the House to vote on punishment. Violation of the standing rules of the Senate is up to the Senate is also up to the Senate to vote on how to punish. There's zero ways anyone in the judicial branch would want to take up any of this.
Even Trump diehard justices wouldn't touch this because doing so would open up ANY rule breaking in the House to prosecution, which is literally something nobody in Congress would want.
But again, that's just ignoring all the stretch allegations made. Like for example, they've indicated that Cheney reached out to Hutchinson and then apply their definition of "it went too far" when that's exactly how they've conducted several of their investigations into Hunter Biden which is exactly why we wanted a hearing in front of cameras as opposed to off-record and then on-record statements.
All of this is just Gentleman's agreements on how testimony is entered into record, there's not some "gold standard" to how committees go about this whole affair. And literally every time something like this goes down, once the power dynamic changes, it's "this is where the other team didn't do what we believe to be reasonable™".
I mean, I get it. It looks like they wanted a stronger narrative than they had, but at the same time a lot of people within the office who were loyal to Trump didn't want to testify. There was a ton of pushback from former members of Trump's team to the investigation. Remember all those subpoenas that they ignored from the House? So okay, the linkage to Trump and the J6 rioters isn't strong, but that's no surprise. I don't think anyone thought for ten seconds that the House could make a case for incitement, that's just a massive bar to clear. And the J6 Committee did indeed stop short of calling it an orchestrated coup officially. NOW that didn't stop them from making that statement in front of cameras, but at no time did the House officially call it a coup. Just "strongly hinted at it".
Now, that might sound like I'm splitting hairs here. But that's exactly what Republicans did with the whole Burisma thing. They didn't outright officially say squat. But goddamn didn't they strongly hint at it.
All of this gets really old because they are fighting over rules that they themselves skirt at nearly every chance. But none of this reaches "breaking laws" sort of how like "insider trading in Congress isn't TECHNICALLY breaking any laws." It's all silly nonsense because this song and dance is all bad-faith arguments from both sides.
I would love to see what kind of argument the FBI tries to cobble together for conspiracy for former Senator Cheney. Because boy do Congress critters really rely on that Article I Section 6 part of the Constitution that indicates.
Like that's a very core, boy do we have thousands of cases to draw precedent on, right of Congress. And gosh, this is starting to look like the 119th session is going to be doing a whole lot of the 118th missteps.