443
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
443 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4526 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine not knowing what your own witness is going to say
I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that in court (or hearings like this one) you never ask a person a question if you don't know what they are going to say.
So either the Republicans missed Legal Questioning 101 (and have never watched a Legal Eagle video) or their "evidence" is so flimsy that "there isn't enough to impeach" was their best opening.
I'm gonna go with the unmentioned third option, which is that this was all just a petty charade from the start. They knew there was nothing impeachable here, but they're doing the bare minimum just to keep up appearances and rile up their base with the rallying cry of impeachment. They have no real intention of impeaching Biden, they just want their supporters to think they do.
But also Comer is a colossal moron.
Like I think he might actually give Boebert a run for lowest IQ.
This, so much this. Everything right niw, the Biden impeachment, the Trum court processes, the whole Speaker thing...
They want to turn the country into a circus and mock and damage the institutions of democracy and law as much as possible while rallying up their base. They hope to be able to destroy the institutions eventually and replace them with an autocracy.
No one really understands (or cares) what impeachment means, myself included.
There was a big noise about it for Trump, and he was somehow tarnished by it but ultimately nothing happened.
They can manufacture the same stink on biden without actually impeaching him.
Impeachment is saying and "proving" someone is guilty of a thing.
The problem is, it's entirely separate from the consequences... You can be impeached and also suffer nothing except for the knowledge that you are publicly guilty of what you did.
It's more like an indictment of sorts. An investigation was done and it seems that a crime has been committed. It begins a trial in the Senate that determines whether it warrants punishment.
Well, that too. They have a few tiny shreds of things which, if taken out of context and squinted at just right while ignoring all logic, might make conspiracy theorists declare a link, but even Republicans are admitting that this is far from what is needed to impeach.
"There isn't enough to impeach" implies that there actually is some evidence, instead of just GOP delusions.
Edit: I should have been clearer. By saying this the way they did, they are sending the message to their audience that there is evidence, just not enough to convict. While there is no evidence at all.
There's not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
No. It’s delusions.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean “serious crimes.” It doesn’t mean felonies. It’s the political equivalent of what we call “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.” That may be a literal crime, of course, like the multiple Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration. It could be the appearance of accepting bribes from foreign officials when they rent your real estate at exorbitant prices. It could be trying to overthrow an election. It could be strong-arming a foreign leader to manufacture dirt on your political opponent. There’s a lot of latitude there.
High crimes means that a public official, in their capacity as a public official, betrayed the public trust.
What they’re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.
Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it's flimsy af.
Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.
Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat...
So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.
Also consider the fact that "not enough evidence" can also mean none at all. That's not mutually exclusive.
Oh, there's definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they "don't have enough evidence" you know that they are reaching. They're willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isn't enough for impeachment.
Por que no Los dos?