this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
113 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4282 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
 

Republicans are pushing forward with a formal investigation even though their yearlong scrutiny of the president and his family has turned up no proof of high crimes or misdemeanors.

The House voted on Wednesday to formally open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, pushing forward with a yearlong G.O.P. investigation that has failed to produce evidence of anything approaching high crimes or misdemeanors.

Republicans said the vote was needed to give them full authority to continue carrying out their investigation amid anticipated legal challenges from the White House. Democrats have denounced the inquiry as a fishing expedition and a political stunt.

G.O.P. leaders refrained for months from calling a vote to open an impeachment inquiry, given the reservations of mainstream Republicans, many of them from politically competitive districts, about moving forward without proof that Mr. Biden had done anything wrong. Instead, Kevin McCarthy, the speaker at the time, unilaterally announced one in September as he was facing pressure from the far right to deliver on its priorities, including impeaching the president.

But Wednesday’s vote underscored how the political ground has shifted, with Republicans willing to endorse an inquiry even as some emphasized that they were not yet ready to charge the president. The vote was along party lines with all Republicans voting to approve the inquiry and all Democrats opposed.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lobsticle@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At least the NYT came up with an accurate headline this time.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Would’ve been more accurate if it had said they were looking for a shred of evidence.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Hey, they have lots of evidence. In fact, I'll list it all here:

And done! See all that evidence?!!! /s

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

"do you guys have enough rope? here, let us give you some more"

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Guilty until proven otherwise.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


leaders refrained for months from calling a vote to open an impeachment inquiry, given the reservations of mainstream Republicans, many of them from politically competitive districts, about moving forward without proof that Mr. Biden had done anything wrong.

Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Rules Committee, portrayed the vote as a largely procedural step to shore up the House’s investigatory powers.

In a dramatic moment outside the Capitol on Wednesday morning, the younger Mr. Biden held a news conference in which he repeated his offer to publicly testify in the investigation into his father, but insisted again that he would not be interviewed behind closed doors.

“Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business — not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, not my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad and certainly not as an artist.”

Since winning the majority, House Republicans have been investigating myriad aspects of President Biden’s family and administration, hunting for evidence that could be used to prove he is corrupt and should be impeached.

Mr. Jordan suggested that false statements the president had made about his son’s business interests — such as his claim that Hunter Biden had not received any money from China — could constitute obstruction.


The original article contains 1,502 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!