politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
No, you're mistaken. I can assure you, Lindsey Graham has no balls.
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.
Well played…
And she testified that under his redefinition he still lied. Don’t forget him pleasuring her with the cigar etc.