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 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

I'm sure he lied and tried to pull a fast one because everyone involved is totally innocent.

  • source
  • [–] 267 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    They even fucking lied?

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

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] [S] 144 points 1 year ago* (11 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 11 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 57 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 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
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Actually they just want to "own the libs". They'll all scream to have the Epstein files released if you hint that AOC might be in there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (12 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 12 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I bet the voice vote was more like 5-5, and the Republicans changed when they knew their vote was being recorded.

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

    Why does this have so many upvotes? I mean the information is mostly accurate, but for this particular 8-2 vote it sounds like it's just trying to make an excuse for the treasonous Higgins saying the vote failed.

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

    It's not making an excuse. It's explaining to people how he was able to lie. If it was an roll call vote it's next to impossible to lie about it, so it'd be confusing to some people who don't know how the process works. It's still blatant lying. It's just helping to educate people.

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

    I am puzzled by your incredulousness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 200 points 1 year ago (10 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 10 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Should be grounds to have his ass beat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 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 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 126 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 74 points 1 year ago* (9 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 41 points 1 year ago (8 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 8 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    That's why I keep my eye on Joe Rogan. I mean, folks tell me I'm nuts to think that a charismatic entertainer could make the transition to being President, but I'm not so sure. (/s, to be extra clear) I notice that he's taking care to distance himself from the regime's more-unpopular actions, but not break with it wholly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not convinced it can be anyone. Trump is a remarkable combination of horrible, stupid, and snake-oil-salesman charismatic. Anyone less stupid, and the base can tell that he's just pretending to be like them, and they don't like it. Anyone less charismatic can't sell the con. Anyone less horrible would actually be less horrible, so that'd actually be better for all of us, but again I think then the base would turn on them for being insufficiently horrible.

    About the only one I can think of on the public stage right now who checks all those boxes is Marjorie Taylor Greene, and she's a wOmAn, which also disqualifies her for a good chunk of the Trump base.

    But then again, this is the stupidest timeline, so for all I know they'll just decide that Ron DeSantis is their new god when Trump finally exits the scene and deny that they ever hated Ron's stupid fucking guts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's a cult of personality, there is no MAGA without HitlerPig. The moment he assumes room temperature, the knives will come out, and the Dems can sit back and watch the bloodbath.

    Which brings up another point - the Republicans Party is dead, fully replaced by the MAGA Party, and the Dems should make that their policy. They should call an official press conference, declare the Republican Party to no longer exist, and start calling it the MAGA Party in ALL communications. The Republican Party should only be referred to in a historical context, like the Whigs.

    Kill the Republican Party, then watch them flail to revive it when MAGA collapses following HitlerPig glorious death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 72 points 1 year ago* (14 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 14 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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

    It always was the elite versus the people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, you are supposed to hate conservatives 🫵😲

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Are we supposed to forget they put Trump in power twice? A few people on the internet hardly encompasses conservatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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 (3 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
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

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

    Yes.

    Can I see it?

    No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hey, that's my representative's motion!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 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
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›