135
I wonder if those four will join against Thomas for the impeachment?
That takes 2/3 of congress still, doesn’t it? Mike Johnson won’t ever let it near the floor.
The house requires a simple majority to impeach him. The senate conviction requires a 2/3’s votes
In the process, “impeachment” is really more like the “indictment” of a grand jury, where the house is the jury, and it just needs a majority.
You’re right that Johnson won’t let it go anywhere… but if those 4 jump ship… caucus with the dems… he wouldn’t have a say.
Don’t wake me. It’s a lovely dream, okay?
The house requires a simple majority to impeach him
And the assent of the speaker to even let it come to a vote. Which won't happen as long as the Jericho Johnson has the gavel.
but if those 4 jump ship… caucus with the dems… he wouldn’t have a say.
Incorrect. The speaker has full dictatorial control of what comes up for a vote in the first place.
It could have 75% support and it still wouldn't get past that fundie bastard.
Incorrect. The speaker has full dictatorial control of what comes up for a vote in the first place.
If they flipped, and caucused with the dems as independents… Johnson wouldn’t be speaker, now would he? Jeffries or whoever would be.
It’s a pipe dream, but it’s such a very lovely pipe dream because it’s actually possible.
Oh yeah, missed that part somehow lol, sorry about that!
Jeffries might not let it go ahead either, though. He's quite right wing and EXTREMELY pro-corporate, so he may well have some owner donors in common with the six judicial disgraces 🤷
I mean it’s possible, but we’re asking republicans to do the right thing here; and I’m pretty sure they haven’t run out of other things to try yet, so, it’s gonna be a while.
Republicans or Hakeem Jeffries*
Not that there's that much of a difference 🤷
Well, it might take him less time. I think we can rely on him to skip over things like “child sacrifice” and “ritual orgy”
True.
Count them.
There are FOUR Republicans that have a grasp on reality.
Usually it's less
It allows for the person held in contempt to be taken into custody to be brought before the House or Senate and allow for a “trial” to determine guilt or innocence
Kangaroo Court.
“Why should the attorney general of the United States be held to a different standard. No one is above the law.”
Fucking rich, you two faced piece of shit. Wonder how she feels about that statement with regards to trump
Inherent contempt?
Is that even a thing?
My contempt for Republicans is pretty inherent at this point.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An attempt to hold Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress failed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after four Republicans joined every Democrat to table the motion.
A motion to refer a resolution by Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida to the House Rules Committee to hold Garland in inherent contempt of Congress.
Luna’s resolution would have held Garland in “inherent contempt,” which would have required him to pay $10,000.
The House accused Garland of contempt after he defied a subpoena to turn over audio tapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would sue the Department of Justice afterward.
“If an American is presented with a lawful subpoena, he or she is expected that they comply or face the consequences of their defiance,” she said.
The original article contains 217 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 36%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)
politics
18601 readers
3594 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS