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
[–] 272 points 1 year ago (9 children)

They even fucking lied?

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

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 146 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 58 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 64 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 199 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Should be grounds to have his ass beat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 127 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 78 points 1 year ago (39 children)

    Too soon to say but spine growth in the dems?

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • load more comments (39 replies)
    [–] 74 points 1 year 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"

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 74 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 43 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 60 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 48 points 1 year ago (40 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?

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (38 replies)
    [–] 40 points 1 year ago
    [–] 40 points 1 year ago (15 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 34 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 34 points 1 year ago (6 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hey, that's my representative's motion!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 31 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
    load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 19 points 1 year 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!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›