this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
913 points (99.0% liked)

politics

24944 readers
2633 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
 

https://x.com/i/status/1948211079001051267

The GOP chair was caught off guard and scrambled—first delaying the vote, then trying to sabotage it by adding amendments to include Biden administration communications. Democrats called their bluff and agreed.

Then the GOP chair, Rep. Higgins, lied, claiming the motion FAILED until Rep. Robert Garcia forced a full roll call vote.

Ultimately, the vote passed 8-2 after 3 Republicans DEFIED their leadership and joined all 5 Democrats to pass the motion.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 267 points 2 days ago (9 children)

They even fucking lied?

Then the GOP chair, Rep. Higgins, lied, claiming the motion FAILED

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 144 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I'm not holding my breath but I'm really hoping that will help maga chuds clue in that the GOP are wholly dishonest.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 91 points 2 days ago (1 children)

10% of them saying it was wrong is the best we'll get. Him being charged with treason is what it should be

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 56 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Here's hoping that 10% are our fucking dipshit relatives eh?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It has to at least fall under this:

"§1001. Statements or entries generally Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749 ; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), 108 Stat. 2147 .)"

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=49&f=treesort&num=1262

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They don't care they just want to "win".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I get what you’re saying, but there are now two very distinct news spheres, and the one that they’re watching will simply not cover this story.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 62 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I'm guessing Roberts Rules stuff.

As a quick and dirty thing, you can call a voice vote of ayes and nays. If it's not particularly close, it'll be obvious what the outcome is, the Chair will call the result, and everyone moves on. However, any member can call bullshit on the Chair, and then it goes to a more formal process.

So without watching the whole damn video, it's probably that the voice vote went one way, the Chair said it was the other, got called on it, and the roll call vote went against him.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 2 days ago (7 children)

2 people said 'nay' and 8 people said 'aye'... It was an honest mistake anyone could have made.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 27 points 2 days ago

I did watch the video and it was blatant and ridiculous.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Decorum for thee but not for me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 22 points 1 day ago

MAGAs can't resist cheating at every opportunity. Here we are again with standard election fraud on a micro basis, but we're supposed to believe that they won the 2024 Election "Fair & Square?"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 194 points 2 days ago (4 children)

the single person who voted no: "In the opinion of the chair the nos have it"

the multiple people who voted "yes" laugh at the absurdity and call him out on it

how fucking brazen a liar

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 74 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Shouldn't that be like contempt of congress or something?

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 85 points 2 days ago

maybe if laws/rules applied to Republicans in positions of power

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Should be grounds to have his ass beat

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I feel like this would be a great addition to congress. Make C-SPAN interactive and viewers can vote on whether or not to have someone involved in a proceeding flogged with something like a 90% majority.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It would be like the scene in The Simpsons (a really old episode) where the family goes in for group therapy and the counselor hooks them up with shock collars and buttons they can zap each other with, and they just go crazy shocking the shit out of each other.

Found it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 124 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"The no has it" are you fucking kidding me.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 81 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Bruh this isn't the first time Higgens has tried this shit either. I find him specifically so infuriating.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thoughtfuldragon@lemmy.blahaj.zone 75 points 2 days ago (39 children)

Too soon to say but spine growth in the dems?

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 72 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The video was fun to watch to watch.

If my understanding is right, it just means this sub committee will now subpoena all documents. Not like it will be available to everybody, just available to the lawmakers. You must be a real pedophile-ophile to want to block your committee from having knowledge.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 42 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I think GOP wants to get rid of Trump but keep MAGA. They've simply been unable to manipulate that outcome until now.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 days ago (7 children)

The only way they can bifurcate Trump from MAGA is if they have an equally "charismatic" strongman that can take his place. It would especially help if he's young.

And it's not Vance.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] piranhaconda@mander.xyz 69 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Just browsed r/conservative for a bit to see the response there. Pleasantly surprised to see multiple posts where the top comment was something along the lines of "release everything, don't care who is affected on either side"

[–] thoon@feddit.nl 40 points 1 day ago (11 children)

They made us think it was conservative versus progressive. Democrat vs Republican.

It always was the elite versus the people

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 58 points 2 days ago

sooooo GOP chair who blatantly tried to defraud the American people in a cushy government position by abusing his position, he's tossed outta the swamp now, right?

or rather, into the new swamp down in Florida

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 56 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So this subpoena means they get to review the documents, and presumably in their original state as well?

So if they get redacted ones, that would be obstruction of justice, but the question becomes did the obstruction of justice happen as a result of his duties of office, or one of personal reasons.

This still could get worse, even if the information that needs to come out does.

[–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Obstruction of justice? In this part of the session? Located entirely within this government?

Yes.

Can I see it?

No.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 day ago (36 children)

Can someone explain to this non-american why the Democrats are treating this as a successful upset when they could have released the Epstein files during Biden?

[–] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 75 points 1 day ago (18 children)

I don't see anyone saying this yet, but the Epstein files were sealed by a court order for Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. They weren't unsealed until January of 2025. Biden couldn't have released them without violating the court order that sealed them - and possibly giving Ghislaine's lawyers a slam dunk to get her off with a mistrial.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

Because they COULDN'T release them under Biden. They were sealed by court order until January 2025.

There is a lot of desperate "both sides" nonsense going on here but the fact remains, Democrats are voting to release them and Republicans are not. If Democrats wanted to cover them up, why would they be doing that?

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 39 points 2 days ago (14 children)

I suspect a lot of the GOP also want rid of Trump now he's won for the second time.

They've put in their time. They're political lifers. They know they don't really need him any more, and frankly his health will take care of that sooner rather than later.

If he follows the rules, he can't run again anyway. If he doesn't then they don't need him to win elections for them, because there won't be any more. They're just stuffing their pockets while waiting for any opportunity to try and get in a bigger chair. Their only worry is that someday, lobbyists might not want to bribe them any more to do their jobs.

I suspect the list is being withheld for reasons other than Donald, who we all know is on it anyway. Plenty of more important shadowy figures who still have something to lose.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 37 points 1 day ago
[–] webadict@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Hey, where's all those losers that kept saying the Dems didn't actually want it released? Come on out of the woodwork, ya fucking losers.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Trust me bro one more rape charge on the rapist king and we beat fscist trust me bro. It will be a bombshell when everyone finds out what they already know and they SLAM him. One more scandal and we defeat facism trust me bro.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago

That's what really kills me about this whole thing. Dude has never, ever, ever faced a consequence for all the shit he's done. I'm done hoping, man.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A House Oversight subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the Department of Justice to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The motion passed by a vote of 8-2. Notably, three GOP lawmakers -- Reps. Nancy Mace, Scott Perry and Brian Jack -- joined with Democrats on the subcommittee to approve the subpoena, defying Republican leadership.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer must sign the subpoena before it can be officially issued, per committee rules. Comer plans to sign off on the subpoena, a Republican committee source told ABC News.

The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Summer Lee, initially offered the motion.

[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hey, that's my representative's motion!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PillBugTheGreat@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Good. Finally. Balls and spines and strategies were grown and used.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

3 Republicans: "I might be a racist, zionist(somehow), corrupt piece of shit that sits down when my fellow Americans are put into concentration camps, who is all for authoritarianism and white nationalism,.... but I ain't no pederass protector!"

a what, Walter?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

some people here dont know not to punch a gift horse in the mouth

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 day ago

When he was the only person to say no, and then claimed "the noes have it," that was the funniest gd thing I've seen all day. Hahahahahaha!

load more comments
view more: next ›