887
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

Sen. John Fetterman offered a message Wednesday to House Republicans considering impeaching President Joe Biden: “Go ahead, do it. I dare you.”

Speaking to reporters in his Senate office, the Pennsylvania Democrat suggested that the impeachment push by Republicans on the other side of the Capitol was meant to deflect from the mountain of legal problems facing former President Donald Trump.

"Your man has what, three or four indictments now?" Fetterman said. “Trump has a mug shot and he’s been impeached twice.”

"Sometimes you just gotta call their bullshit," he said.

The first-term senator went on to say that a Biden impeachment "would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right,” and "would diminish what impeachment really means."

Note: As pointed out by reddig33 in comments, this is an old photo. Here's a couple examples of his new look.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

What impeachment means has been diminishing for a fucking hot minute now... like decades...

One need look no farther than two words to understand this. The words your man.

It's become a stupid junior high finger pointing game to these assholes (ALL of them. I'm not referring to either tribe, I mean government at large). Trumps impeachmet would have been far more effective if it wasn't seen as a "your team did a no-no" politics by republicans in general.

I dare you? Seriously? Come on... Please tell me people understand this is garbage leadership in every single seat...

I do agree with the man about calling out bullshit, but I disagree on the "sometimes". Should be every time :)

[-] xHoudek@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is exactly the GOP’s plan though. They want to delegitimize Trump’s impeachments by impeaching Biden for frivolous reasons. That way it seems like it’s just “both sides” bickering when there are real reasons for Trump’s impeachment

Congrats on falling for it

[-] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

He’s probably a shill man

[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Trump isn't being impeached... He's a normal person facing normal charges, and I wasn't talking about anything current involving his dumb ass...

The current "both sides" narrative is that anything moderate is a "both sides" defense of trump. The narrative is join the Democrats or you're a diesel truck owning, trump supporting, racist nazi wannabe... it's wholesale virtue signaling tribalist bullshit... Congrats on falling for it.

I'll be wasting my vote on independents until one or both tribes grow the fuck up.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago
  • Trump isn't being impeached - he's already been impeached... Twice.

  • He's not a normal person - he's a billionaire former US President.

  • He's not facing normal charges - he's been charged with election subversion, racketeering, a string of conspiracy charges, and multiple charges under the espionage act for stealing classified documents to name a few.

  • I'm not sure if you're aware of the crossover in prescriptions between the GOP, their voters, and Nazis as they relate to "sexual deviants", racial minorities, "the Jews", and so on. Also Trump is on record insisting to John Kelly that "Hitler did a lot of good things". On the other hand, how many Nazis do you think vote Democrat?

  • What cars do voters from each party drive? I wonder... I guess we'll never know

Congratulations - you with all your enlightened centrism are undoubtedly the stupidest person I've encountered today...I appreciate that you've chosen to piss away your vote.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Also: Trump could still be impeached and should be. It's within Congress's right to impeach him, and the Senate ban him from holding office.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

While this is true, the Dems are highly unlikely to expend the political capital it would take to do so - particularly when the senate has clear intent to block consequences.

I'd rather just see him in prison for the dozens of traitorous, anti-democratic charges he's committed - many openly.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I’m a leftist, so I’m not for either party either, but if you think they’ll do the same amount of damage to the country, you’re wrong. A shit sandwich is always gonna be better than a shit sandwich with glass shards. But unless you’re in a swing state, vote for whoever you like, you can’t harm anyone. I certainly do.

[-] NoStressyJessie 27 points 1 year ago

Just remember the first of those impeachment hearings was about the extortion of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy by threatening to withhold military aid in “a perfect phone call” If they didn’t run cover for the election interference allegations in the 2016 election and offer up dirt on Hunter Biden.

There is no timeline where the republicans would have received it any better.

It only took a couple of months after the invasion happened and they realized the withholding aid in the past looked like it created the atmosphere to facilitate the invasion and suddenly all the people who were praising journalists in body armor in the Middle East were criticizing journalists for wearing body armor in Kyiv, and start backing Russia for “reasons” (I still can’t really get any concrete reason from any of them).

The only reason I’ve been given why it was a “ Partisan attack” was that it was revenge for Bill Clinton being impeached for lying about a blow job under oath, as if that diminishes the levity of the situation in the first place.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Clinton out-lawyered the GOP and they were pissed. The legal definition they gave didn't include what he and Monica were doing.

Also, that relationship didn't even start (I don't think they had even met) until after the investigation had started because of a land deal gone bad.

Trying to compare Clinton's impeachment with Trump's is asinine for many reasons.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Trump and Clinton’s impeachments were so very different, absolutely.

What’s funny is that the same Republicans flipped their positions. Old 1990s Lindsey Graham said that it doesn’t have to be a literal crime to impeach a president if they disgraced the office. (Clinton did commit a felony with the lying under oath part, although Republicans cared way more about the sex scandal at the time.) 2020 Lindsey Graham said what Trump did wasn’t a felony and therefore not impeachable. He’s one of the worst slime balls in congress and that’s saying something.

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

He’s one of the worst slime balls in congress

No, you're mistaken. I can assure you, Lindsey Graham has no balls.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Clinton did commit a felony with the lying under oath part

That's my point though. The legal definition they gave him to work with didn't include what he did with Monica. What he did wasn't ok, and I'm not defending him personally, but it wasn't a lie by the legal definition of "sexual relations." The GOP was just on a fishing expedition to find anything they could on him.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Baloney. What he did counted as sexual relations or “sexual relationship” as he testified to. Then he tried to claim that since he was merely pleasuring her and didn’t orgasm himself, it didn’t count. They had to drag Lewinsky back to testify further that Clinton was still lying.

Clinton tried to split hairs to pretend he didn’t lie. It didn’t work.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

since he was merely pleasuring her and didn’t orgasm himself, it didn’t count

That's not what happened at all.

He claimed that she had sexual relations with him but he didn't have sexual relations with her because the special investigator defined it based on who touched whose genitals.

http://www.languageandlaw.org/PERJURY.HTM

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That correction doesn’t make it any better. It’s still perjury and she still had to testify that he lied even under that definition.

[-] NoStressyJessie 2 points 1 year ago

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person").

In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.

Well played…

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And she testified that under his redefinition he still lied. Don’t forget him pleasuring her with the cigar etc.

[-] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure Democrats have any chance against the all-encompassing Republican Wall of Stupidity if they don't play the same game, to a certain extent. The fact that politics in the US is polarized like it is depends in a large part on the fact that there is no room for a third option. Not by this "your guy/our guy" kind of attitude which is inevitable.

[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I've voted for third parties for 30 years with a few exceptions. I might only represent a single digit % of the population in doing so, but that number is growing. Independent voters have grown large enough in number to have had laws written to preserve the binary stupidity, we aren't many, but we're enough to have an impact

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You do know voting for a third party in a first-past-the-post electoral system is symbolic, right? It’s a system that just tends to steer in that direction, with or without extra laws around it. If you want a different system, great. But if you vote 3rd party in this one, I just hope you don’t live in a swing state.

[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Very non-swing state. My electoral representation has voted all red since 1968.

The independent count had been slowly rising since Perot, but trump kinda broke the streak. Lots of support for that clown in my neck of the woods, but it's all trump specific, so if we see a desantis or Abbott on the ticket, there's a good chance there will be a surge in libertarian votes. Could plausibly end up with a few independent electoral votes popping up again maybe.

[-] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Impeachment meant nothing from the beginning of the Clinton mess. You can thank Gringich for this mess.

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
887 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2315 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