this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
397 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26808 readers
3649 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said Monday that some Republicans are "on board" with potentially impeaching Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Department of Justice's (DOJ) failure to release all of its files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by the congressionally mandated deadline.

Pointing out that Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, would be "leading" the effort if it moves forward, Khanna said during an interview with Morning Joe on MS Now that "there are a few Republicans who are on board with it." However, he noted that this would not be the first step to pressure Bondi and the DOJ, highlighting that they'd first move forward with pushing to hold her in contempt of Congress.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago

If someone is doing something that's impeachable, the practical thing to do is the president should fire them, cuz otherwise the president is at fault and we should just skip the middleman and directly impeach the president.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 111 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'll believe it when I see it.

Do we even have a majority of Democrats on board with impeachment?

[–] Ininewcrow@piefed.ca 44 points 1 day ago

One thing I've learned about American politics is that hope doesn't exist any more.

Don't tell me things about US politics until after they've happened.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Democrats will come up with some shit like "we have to be better than this" and abstain.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

That's a low bar. Most of them would be more useful fertilizing crops.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They passed the bill to release the files, stands to reason that the same people would vote for impeachment.

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 17 points 1 day ago

You would think.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They passed a bill riddled with loopholes that would allow these extended redactions. Stands to reason the same people will make a lot of noise about how disappointed they are, then kick the can through the next election cycle until its not their problem anymore.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

They think they can get by on show because a significant portion of the Democratic base accepts pageantry in lieu of meaningful action.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good, so get on with it! No more talk, no more grace periods, she intentionally failed to comply with the Epstein file release legislation. No more waiting, talking, waffling. Start impeaching NOW, as in TODAY.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

You realize impeachment isn’t the same as removing them from office, right?

I.E. Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Correct but impeachment is the first step towards removing from office. I'd still prefer the House impeach those deserving of removal and it failing in the Senate rather than the House just shrugging it off entirely because people expect the Senate won't follow through.

[–] sidelove@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Yup, plus it normalizes the action of starting to hold people accountable. If you get to the point where you're regularly impeaching the corrupt bozos in this administration, it's more likely that some of them will stick with convictions.

[–] stretch2m@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago

I've been hounding my representative about this. DO SOMETHING. IT MATTERS. He keeps yammering about how it's not the right time. "It gives the opponent ammunition in claiming persecution." Blah blah blah.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And then his best bros, the senate comes to his aid to acquit him, twice...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

67 votes in the Senate is a high bar. It is doubly complicated by a fundraising system where Senators relying on their party's president and his sway over donors to fund their next election.

Trump's a symptom of much deeper problems we've been ignoring for decades

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 3 points 1 day ago

My point proven.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Sadly, yes... otherwise the Orange One would be out.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"There are a few Republicans who are on board with it. But we're not going straight to impeachment. We're starting with contempt," Khanna said. "And the idea would be that you'd get a 30-day grace period, which is already in violation of the law, 30 day grace period to get the documents out."

If it's already in violation of the law, then why is inaction acceptable? This is exactly what Trump acolytes know - every deadline can be ignored until there are consequences.

[–] paranoid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

I imagine this grace period was negotiated to get more republicans on board with impeachment

I don't quite see it as inaction, as it's a step forward. But it's a very, very small step forward, and quite disappointing

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

"We're gonna count to three.....one...two...two and a half....two and three quarters......two and seven eights......two and fifteen sixteenths"

[–] zzz711@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago

This will end up exactly like the Trump impeachments from his first term. The house will impeach Bondi but the votes will not be there in the Senate to convict and remove her.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not gonna happen. Republicans just can't help themselves. They will bend the knee to Dear Leader.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Republicans are known to readily throw loyal lackeys under the bus to protect their ringleaders. This could happen, but the person she is acting entirely on behalf of — Donald “The Rapist” Trump — will continue to get off scott-free.

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 day ago

Unless he is literally flayed on live tv within the next couple months, his continued existence is an affront to the entire concept of karma. He's already so old, and so influential, and so insulated by sycophants, he's already crossed the finish line. He won. He has lived a life seemingly entirely devoid of regrets. He is potentially the greatest rapist of all time. Of women, of children, of society, of the nation, and of the future itself.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago

She should lose her law license.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[–] NorthoftheBorder@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Less talk more action. Otherwise it’s just not real.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Look at the democrats dance. Dance little performing monkeys, dance.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

"some" "on board with" "potentially".

Good, fuck that bitch!

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every GOP Congressmember and a third of the Senators will be up for re-election next year.

Dropping the hammer on Bondi [and Trump] will be a smart way for them to try and stave off a Blue Wave.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They're still trying to work out if Trump can get full unchecked power in time or not.

When it happens, it will go from a trickle to a panic sprint to the exits, quickly.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I think of it this way.

If an alcoholic can't get booze they're way more likely to look for pot or meth or anything else, rather than go to treatment.

Same thing with MAGA. Even if they dump Trump they aren't going to want to quit the movement.

Genii isn't going back in the bottle.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They'll capitulate if their told to. Zero spines in any of their weak corrupt lil bodies.

[–] MOARbid1@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

And they will replace her with someone just as awful. They have these fascist fucks loaded up like a Pez dispenser. You pull one out and another loads in place.

[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

But will they follow though?

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Considering it's a party of dickless cowards, I doubt it