this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
124 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2957 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
 

Asking Biden to testify, and getting mad when he refuses, may signal the death rattle of the impeachment effort.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who chairs the House oversight committee, has formally asked President Joe Biden to testify in the impeachment inquiry against him led by Republican lawmakers.

In a letter to Biden on Thursday, Comer said “it is in the best interest of the American people” for the president to answer questions about whether he was involved in his son Hunter’s foreign business deals.

The White House responded by pointing to a social media post from last week where Biden spokesperson Ian Sams wrote “LOL,” alongside a “facepalm” emoji, after Comer first said he’d seek Biden’s testimony.

“Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong,” Sams wrote on March 20. “He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Did they ever even specify a formal charge?

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

I am not a lawyer, but I believe you have to have evidence of a crime in order to charge somebody with a crime.

[–] ApostleO@startrek.website 5 points 7 months ago

Also not a lawyer, but as I understand it: impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. It's a political tool to remove a president from office, regardless of reason.

Whenever a Republican is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is a murder trial, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime. When a Democrat is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is just a chance to undermine (and possibly even remove) a powerful political opponent.

It's the same as their view of the budget deficit/national debt. It's all performative and entirely disconnected from law or reality.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Prosecutors can charge someone with a crime without any evidence, but their odds of winning are extremely low unless racism or some other prejudice is involved.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 7 months ago

You do not. Ask me how I know.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

They certainly should, especially if they’d like to "win" but I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s even less important for impeachment hearings.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Wait, you think people only get arrested with evidence?! You really need to watch more true crime shows. The ones that talk about literal, IRL crime, not the fictional shows that glorify it. The US LOVES punishing even perceived criminals, let alone actual criminals.

[–] 4grams@awful.systems -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe they found undeniable proof of criminal referrals.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Like, someone pinky swore that he did crimes?

lol