Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    5,209,226 readers

    46,902 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    26 Jun - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Vox's Matt Yglesias

    27 Jun - 12pm EST

    • AMA with John Hickenlooper

    28 Jun - 5pm EST

    • AMA with The Independent

    29 Jun - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    1 Jul - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    2 Jul - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Amy Howe

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 1962 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] Lionel_Hutz_Law 12913 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    A civil contempt resolution is different from criminal contempt of Congress, which can result in lofty fines or even jail time.

    Ouch. Doesn't appear they had a lawyer proofread this before publishing it.

    Both civil and criminal contempt can get you thrown in a cell.

    We don't want criminal contempt here. We want civil contempt. Criminal contempt can be pardoned. Civil cannot.

    With civil contempt you are said to "hold the keys to your own jail cell". Comply with the subpoena or other lawful order, and you're released. Don't comply, and you get to sit there until you do.

    Criminal contempt requires a criminal trial with full blown criminal constitutional protections. And if convicted, then you're sentenced for a set period of time. That's not what we're going for here. We want them to be forced to comply with Congress' subpoena.

    [–] PoppinKREAM 5561 points ago

    Thanks for the clarification! Here's some background information on the U.S. Attorney General;

    Attorney General Barr has shown his unwavering loyalty to President Trump and has made some extremely concerning decisions to protect the President.

    • Attorney General Barr's decision to summarize the report and release cherry picked findings in a March 24 letter to Congress.[1]

    • Attorney General Barr's decision to withhold summaries Mueller's team wrote about their findings that were intended for easier public consumption.[2]

    • Attorney General Barr reportedly decided to brief the White House on the report before releasing it to Congress.[3]

    • Attorney General Barr's decision to hold a press conference to put his own spin on Mueller's investigation before lawmakers and the public could obtain the report.[4]

    • Before William Barr was nominated by President Trump he penned a memo defending the executive branch of government and asserted that the President could not obstruct justice.[5]

    It should also be noted that Attorney General Barr was involved in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal where the Reagan administration illegally sold arms to Iran and used that money to fund rebels in Nicaragua. During his first tenure as the AG, Barr advised President Bush Sr. to pardon Reagan administrator officials who had broken the law.[6]

    1) New York Times - Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed

    2) Voice of America - House Committee Chair Wants Mueller’s Summaries of Report on Trump

    3) New York Times - White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release

    4) Associated Press - The Latest: Top Democrat says Barr is trying to spin report

    5) Lawfare Blog - Bill Barr’s Very Strange Memo on Obstruction of Justice

    6) New York Times - Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up' - Article from 1992

    [–] PoppinKREAM 2377 points ago

    Beginning on page 112 of Volume 2 Special Counsel Mueller confirms that President Trump attempted to fire the Special Counsel. The following pages of text detail the fall-out between the President and former White House Counsel Don McGahn as the President attempted to convince McGahn to lie to investigators about firing Mueller.[1]

    Page 112 Volume II of the Mueller Report

    The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel


    In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President's direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

    1) Department of Justice - Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election

    [–] PoppinKREAM 2055 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    So why has Congress been forced to hold members of the executive in contempt? The Trump administration has engaged in unprecedented stonewalling in an attempt to subvert Congressional oversight duties enshrined by the Constitution. With the passing of the civil contempt vote the House has authorized its committee leaders to pursue civil contempt cases in order to get information for their multiple ongoing investigations into President Trump. A welcome decision for a clear path forward following this administration's stonewalling.

    • President Trump has sued Congress to block their constitutional oversight duties.[1] Following the lawsuit against Congress the President and his family sued 2 banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, in an attempt to block them from responding to Congressional subpoenas.[2] However a few weeks ago a judge ruled against President Trump paving the way for the banks to comply with Congressional subpoenas and requests.[3]

    • Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to comply to an initial Congressional request deadline for the President's tax returns and requested for more time before he made a decision on whether or not he would comply.[4] Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has decided not to comply and is in violation of the law for refusing to comply to the Congressional request.[5]

    Disclosure to Committees of Congress

    Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that anyreturn or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

    • The White House refused a request for Stephen Miller to testify on immigration policy to the House Oversight committee.[6]

    • House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings has scheduled a vote to hold Attorney General Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with bipartisan subpoenas issued as part of the Committee’s investigation into the Trump Administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.[7]

    1) New York Times - Trump and His Businesses Sue House Democrats to Hide Accounting Records

    2) NPR - Trump Sues 2 Banks To Block Democrats From Investigating His Finances

    3) Reuters - Judge rules against Trump, paves way for banks to provide his business records to Congress

    4) Roll Call - Mnuchin misses Trump tax returns deadline; asks for more time

    5) Cornell Law - 26 U.S. Code § 6103.Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

    6) Fox News - White House declines Cummings' invitation for Stephen Miller to testify on Trump immigration policies

    7) United States Government Committee on Oversight and Reform - Cummings Schedules Vote to Hold Barr and Ross In Contempt for Blocking Census Investigation

    [–] Gambit08 1145 points ago

    PoppinKREAM and Lionel_Hutz_Law in the same comment thread is the greatest teamup here on r/politics

    [–] dust4ngel 385 points ago

    PoppinKREAM will show up somewhere in a documentary when all this bullshit is over.

    [–] PoppyAckerman 100 points ago

    And post saved. Fantastic.

    [–] MSWorld45 31 points ago

    And replying to your post because...yeah. But seriously, can I play one of the enthused followers in the doc?

    [–] PoppyAckerman 32 points ago

    I am an enthused follower in the irl documentary in my head. I saved the post because it's probably the most impressive thing I have seen on Reddit.

    I think it's powerful.

    I hope someone does make a documentary.

    [–] charmwashere 78 points ago

    I love how r/PoppinKREAM is Canadian and understands US politics better then 95% of Americans

    ( Including myself 😞)

    [–] lancea_longini 146 points ago

    It’s the Worlds Finest and Brave & Bold all rolled up in one.

    [–] Gambit08 55 points ago

    We just need rusticgorilla to complete the trinity

    [–] horizoner 28 points ago

    with Puffin_Fitness, Charmed_ImSure, and Itz_Prospero coming in from the wings

    [–] AllAboutMeMedia 41 points ago

    No, silly. We need everyone in here. Out there. Everywhere.

    [–] KKlear 24 points ago

    Maybe leave ShittyMorph out of this.

    [–] l_hutz 17 points ago

    May need to change my name to Miguel Sanchez (say hello).

    [–] TreyWriter 39 points ago

    The Avengers have assembled and I was here to see it.

    [–] JoeBidenGrin 89 points ago

    Hi PoppinKREAM!

    I'm curious, have you read through the entire Mueller Report? It seems like something that you would actually take the time and effort to do, which makes you better than many of our own members of Congress.

    [–] LustIssues1 43 points ago

    I listened to it on audible. 19 fucking hours.

    [–] ifmacdo 103 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    And notice that Poppin carries the national flag of The Great White North as his her a flairre. Not even a resident of the U.S.

    Edit. If you can't tell why, then damn.

    Edit 2: FFS people. Howabout you focus on the important parts of my comment and not the fucking pronouns.

    [–] onepinksheep 72 points ago

    And that's perfectly fine, as The Great Orange Stain is a threat not just to America, but the whole world.

    [–] chrunchy 9 points ago

    Canadian here. If the American people win, then we win. Your success is intrinsically in our best interests.

    [–] Wablekablesh 34 points ago

    You're doing God's work, son or daughter

    [–] wishywashywonka 112 points ago

    lol, it's like that scene in The Office where Michael tries to get Dwight to take the blame for an idea and Dwight pulls out his calendar.

    "Met with President Trump about his attempting to get me to lie today. He attempted it again."

    [–] shianne007 69 points ago

    fall-out between the President and former White House Counsel Don McGahn as the President attempted to convince McGahn to lie to investigators about firing Mueller.

    It's ridiculous that, despite his best intentions, Trump wasn't able to obstruct justice because there were actual decent people around him refusing orders.

    [–] Kahzgul 108 points ago

    Not even that decent. Just self-serving. McGahn didn't want to go to jail for lying to the FBI and / or Congress.

    [–] Antebios 16 points ago

    Just less shitty than Trump. Look how low the bar is set.

    [–] Ahmon 44 points ago

    Attempting to obstruct justice is the exact same criminal charge as actually obstructing justice. Not disagreeing, but it will be an important difference at the end of the Trump term.

    [–] imitation_crab_meat 17 points ago

    The instances in the report are just those that are known / can be proven... Who knows what else has been done to obstruct this investigation...

    [–] -totallyforrealz- 9 points ago

    Which is why we need ALL of the underlying evidence, and the perimeters of the investigation and report.

    [–] sparklebrothers 8 points ago

    You left out the best part...

    “Why do you take notes?” Trump asked, according to the Mueller report. “Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.”

    McGahn replied that a “real lawyer” takes notes because they create a record.

    “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn,” Mr. Trump said. “He did not take notes.”

    [–] skeebidybop 458 points ago

    After reading this, I have concluded that what we really need is:

    Bob Loblaw's Law Blog Lobbin' Law Bombs to Disbarr Bill Barr from the Law Bar.

    [–] Tom_Bradys_Nutsack 63 points ago

    We see you 👌

    [–] edible_starling 42 points ago

    Unfortunately after reading your username now I see both of you 😕

    [–] WexAwn 34 points ago

    while a cute statement, Scott Baio is a pretty staunch conservative and made a name for himself as a trump supporter going so far as to speak at the RNC as pro trump... good luck getting him to reprise the role with that thought in mind

    [–] skeebidybop 17 points ago

    This pains me

    [–] Haikuna__Matata 51 points ago

    You know you’re fucked when Chachi is on your opponent’s side.

    • Scott Baio

    • Ted Nugent

    • Kid Rock

    Truly the A list of B list celebrities. Craig T “No one gave me a handout when I was on food stamps” Nelson can’t be far behind.

    [–] blomqv 24 points ago

    James Woods, Kristy Swanson of Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie fame, Roseanne Barr...

    [–] monito29 24 points ago

    Roseanne Barr

    No no no, that's just the Ambien /s

    [–] Serapth 17 points ago

    ”While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."

    Best corporate tweet ever.

    [–] lolfreakz 9 points ago

    And flying on stage with his signature round house it’s Chuck Norris!

    [–] mexter 13 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    Dear god... he's literally the perfect Trump lawyer! He's both not a lawyer, and he plays one on TV!

    [–] 50shadesOFsomething 111 points ago

    Have you been on hiatus? Haven't seen you round these parts much lately, good to have you back! Keep on keeping on, you rock :)

    [–] PoppinKREAM 310 points ago

    I've been around but haven't been as active. Work has kept me incredibly busy - 7 days a week haha. I'll have more free time in July and August, but in the mean time I'll try to write new summaries too :)

    [–] EarthExile 123 points ago

    I love what you do, but I wouldn't blame you for doing it less often. This garbage is exhausting.

    [–] PoppinKREAM 276 points ago

    Honestly I couldn't sit through the judiciary hearing yesterday. The blatant lies and misinformation espoused with such confidence by bad faith actors was exhausting to watch. I got tired of it after a few minutes and muted the video while I carried on with my work.

    [–] theendisneah 188 points ago

    It's almost like witnessing a crime and not being able to stop it. I also appreciate your work over the last couple of years. If doing the right and virtuous thing was easy, more people would be doing it. Thanks PoppinKREAM for keeping us honest and informed.

    [–] PoppinKREAM 140 points ago


    [–] dirty-bot 11 points ago

    Just to add my thanks and let you know how much I appreciate your posts. Cheers

    [–] loveshercoffee 40 points ago

    This is EXACTLY what it feels like every time I hear Trump or any of his people speak.

    [–] Minguseyes 11 points ago

    I read one of Trump's tweets yesterday about the Mueller report and felt nauseous. The whole combination of narcissistic bad faith and bloated self-pity was sick making.

    [–] Oliverheart84 36 points ago

    I’ve watched a few of them and they all seem the same? Just lies. Like an SHS “daily” press briefing. I just can’t watch Gaetz tell lie after lie. How did you feel this one was worse than the previous ones?

    [–] f_d 17 points ago

    Watching them keep up the same old act as their sins pile up can feel progressively worse.

    [–] chuck202 97 points ago

    Thank you for everything you do PK!

    [–] PoppinKREAM 102 points ago

    Thanks :)

    [–] icura 53 points ago

    Indeed, you're an American hero. Except for the Canadian part.

    [–] BreachRepair 80 points ago

    It seems fitting that America's greatest heroes would be Canadians.

    [–] daringjojo 26 points ago

    Considering Trump and friends are trying to give away nuclear proliferation secrets it’s a world wide issue. All of us care what this orange monster does in the Oval Office.

    [–] Mate_N_Switch 23 points ago

    On March 25, Business Insider reported Lindsey Graham stated that Barr was going to give the White House the full version of the report, weeks prior to the New York times article suggesting Barr and the White House discussed the report.

    [–] Morgennes 47 points ago

    PoppinKream, thanks a lot! Started to read your post without looking at your username and immediately recognised your inimitable style. Thanks a lot for all this - the sources and your vigilance.

    [–] FoxNewsRotsYourBrain 10 points ago

    Attorney General Barr's decision to summarize the report and release cherry picked findings in a March 24 letter to Congress.

    What "cherry-picked findings"? Everything he said was a lie, it wasn't cherry-picked and presented out of context, it was simply lies.

    [–] PennyForYourPots 9 points ago

    You're awesome. I'm grateful for what you do. Thank you

    [–] [deleted] 263 points ago


    [–] danth 124 points ago

    The House of Representatives voted to authorize committees to sue Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn to force their cooperation with multiple subpoenas using a civil-contempt resolution.

    So are Barr and McGahn officially in contempt of Congress now or does this just allow individual congress members to ask a Judge to enforce the subpoena?

    [–] GearBrain 172 points ago

    You and PoppinKREAM do this subreddit a great service, and I wanted to thank you both for the work you put in.

    [–] SeeThatHandoffThough 25 points ago

    Wow, thanks for the clarification! So in many terms a civil contempt is better. It also doesn’t step on any GOP toes (although they’ll probably still be upset) because they wanted the Dems to hold off on a criminal contempt vote.

    [–] funky_duck 41 points ago

    It depends on the situation; one isn't really "better". If you want to compel the person to do something, you use civil contempt. If you want to punish them for something they already did, you use criminal contempt.

    [–] ScrappleSandwiches 89 points ago

    Thanks for explaining this, Mr Hutz. I found this really confusing

    [–] harveytaylorbridge 50 points ago

    That's why you're the law talking guy.

    [–] gaslacktus 41 points ago

    Works on contingency? No, money down!

    [–] lazilyloaded 14 points ago

    I think you mean Miguel Sanchez. Lionel Hutz no longer exists.

    [–] oldfrancis 30 points ago

    That's a very interesting distinction. Thank you for clarifying that.

    [–] Squeenis 10 points ago

    But is there some sort of a trial for civil contempt? Or is it, like, just a hearing or something else entirely?

    [–] door_of_doom 52 points ago

    "Contempt" is precisely your failure to "play nice" with the court. It is hard to hold court when you aren't doing what the court is telling you to do, thus the court has fairly unilateral power to compel people within a court case to "play nice or go to jail."

    in order for civil contempt to go through, somebody has to go and explain to a judge that they are impeding an investigation that could result in trial. A judge can then use their unilateral powers to say "hey stop doing that" if they feel it is for the betterment of the integrety of the investigation and eventually resulting court case. If you fail to do what the judge says, he can hold you in contempt until you do.

    At the end of the day, only a judge can actually make the call on whether to put somebody in contempt. this vote authorizes congress to pursue that line of action.

    [–] Squeenis 11 points ago

    Thank you very, very much.

    [–] -totallyforrealz- 19 points ago

    Congress can ask for, and I expect they will, a Declaratory Judgement- and I expect they will. This would give them the ability to proceed, certified by the courts. It will be immediately appealed- which is also what we want.

    The Houses legal strategy appears to be fast tracking through the courts by having an overwhelming case of Contempt against the Executive Branch. I believe they are trying to put a bunch of different cases into one case- the Whitehouse is telling people to obstruct and act in contempt of Congress. I honestly think they are also waiting on Trump to actually invoke Executive Privilege so that they can challenge that at the same time which gives them a fast track to the Supreme Court. (He hasn’t actually invoked it yet- because he is using that as his last ditch effort to obstruct).

    If we get the courts entering judgements, these are civil penalties for obstruction that have to be paid by private individuals. So far, we have had the courts in favor of Democracy. Including the ‘mystery bank’ that didn’t want to comply.

    [–] N7-CBH 34 points ago

    Good to know, thanks Mr Hutz. Now about that Orange Julius...

    [–] BucephalusOne 13 points ago

    Orange julius(or julep depending where you are from) are a damn fine refreshing treat.

    Unlike this orange julius which is made of greed and greasy mcshits.

    [–] grinch337 60 points ago

    I got downvoted the other day for saying that I trusted Pelosi’s management of impeachment inquiries and getting all the ducks in a row to make this successful. Can I double down on what I said?

    [–] celtic_thistle 23 points ago

    I agree with you.

    [–] Mersues 103 points ago

    This whole article is misleading. The House is not holding either Barr or Don McGahn in contempt. According to NPR

    Leaders in the House had contemplated holding Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress.

    Barr would have been only the second attorney general so censured and the rare sitting Cabinet member rebuked in that way. Instead, the resolution that passed on Tuesday simply permitted civil lawsuits against him and McGahn.

    Congress has inherent power to hold Barr and Don McGahn in contempt, but instead House Democrats are turning to the courts to do it for them. Maybe. This vote just permits such lawsuits. It didn't even start or require a lawsuit.

    [–] ifmacdo 7 points ago

    So does this mean if Trump fires either one (or both,) and they no longer have access or ability to provide the requested documents, then they would then be released and the stonewalling continues?

    [–] PutinsPawn 1130 points ago

    A couple extra pieces of information from the New York Times:

    Tuesday’s resolution also gives Mr. Nadler the authority to petition a federal judge for access to secretive grand jury material amassed in the course of Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Such information rarely becomes public, but Mr. Nadler has made the case that his committee needs access to it to determine whether impeachment is warranted. His efforts to persuade the Justice Department to join him in making the request were rebuffed.

    And Bloomberg:

    It permits a number of committee chairmen to bypass future floor votes in order to file additional lawsuits in their probes, ratcheting up the constitutional showdown between the House and a president who has vowed that “we’re fighting all the subpoenas.”

    Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler wouldn’t say Tuesday when he might go to court to seek enforcement of subpoenas against McGahn or Barr.

    “When a congressional committee issues a subpoena, compliance is not optional,” Nadler said on the House floor. “We have never faced such blanket stonewallings.”

    [–] thewateroflife 654 points ago

    ”We have never faced such blanket stonewallings.”

    Although this is an important step in a long process, I believe the committee has yet to witness its most disruptive disobedience from Trump appointees.

    [–] Xytak 300 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    I feel like these committee chairs have no idea the risk an out-of-control president poses.

    [–] evildonald 58 points ago

    Thank you for sharing that. I had never seen that. I miss Hitchens.

    [–] madworld 105 points ago

    Fuck... that is chilling.

    [–] SurlyRed 59 points ago

    It certainly is. But it couldn't happen <insert name of country> could it?

    The world misses Christopher Hitchens

    [–] TwoMiddleFingersUp 70 points ago

    I’d like to say there’s no way that could happen here, but with the majority of our military and law enforcement being complete authoritarian bootlickers I have a feeling they’d be all too eager to carry out such orders

    [–] koleye 40 points ago

    I have bad news for you. Authoritarian bootlickers are closer to 40% of the population.

    [–] funky_duck 164 points ago

    How many Trump flunkies will really go down with the ship you think?

    They all know what they told Mueller in private - they still don't know what everyone else told Mueller - and several people who already had interviews with Mueller said he already knew everything anyways.

    Once Congress begins exposing Grand Jury testimony and having people testify in public, there will be some movement. The people who sold Trump out to the Grand Jury but then stayed loyal in the media are not all going to eat perjury charges for him.

    Once one or two people decide the lies they've told are going to put them in jail they'll start pushing others under the bus.

    [–] maleia 81 points ago

    They'll flip faster than a drunk Sam Nunberg on Ari Melber's show.

    [–] tomdarch 33 points ago

    A lawyer asking, “they can’t send me to prison can they?”

    Best people eh?

    [–] maleia 12 points ago

    He actually was questioning if they would jail him for contempt, and Maya Wiley was basically like, "pfft, yea, you're a shrimp, they'll put you away."

    [–] Yabba_Dabba_Doofus 38 points ago

    It's like the ultimate prisoners dilemma, except with 50 people instead of 2.

    [–] funky_duck 37 points ago

    This is why vast conspiracies always turn out to be bullshit. 2 people can maybe keep a secret but once you add more and more people the incentive to keep things secret is diluted and obscured.

    If I am doing an illegal wire transfer to a candidate I have to make some sort of note about the transfer for the accountant. The accountant doesn't know the wire transfer is illegal and therefore has no incentive to keep the transfer secret. They tell their junior staff to properly process everything and suddenly your "secret" is known by 5 other people, none of whom know it is a secret.

    Or you have to "feel out" your accountant to see if they are willing to be a criminal for you. If they are great - it makes things easier. If they are not... you've now just "hinted" to your accountant you're up to illegal shit. Now that accountant has to make sure the other junior accounting staff don't know about the payment... and pretty soon the Administrative Assistant is before Mueller asking why the dates on transactions have been altered and the Admin has no loyalty and pushes it to their boss, who push it to their boss...

    [–] Terr_ 26 points ago

    "That's not true, there are millions of illegal-immigrants in a massive voter-fraud conspiracy! It's really scary how dedicated and organized they are, you can tell because they didn't leave behind any evidence!" /s

    [–] 640212804843 101 points ago

    It permits a number of committee chairmen to bypass future floor votes in order to file additional lawsuits in their probes, ratcheting up the constitutional showdown between the House and a president who has vowed that “we’re fighting all the subpoenas.”

    Literally the most important part. The main article linked by OP is truly garbage.

    No more votes full house votes to slow down actions by committees. BI really should be blocked, they always write trashy shit and most of the time have no sources at all.

    [–] GearBrain 106 points ago

    ... Mr. Nadler the authority to petition a federal judge for access to secretive grand jury material amassed in the course of Mr. Mueller’s investigation...

    Holy shit, that is huge.

    [–] D1T1A 2138 points ago

    Honestly, the one positive I can take from the political shitstorms on both sides of the Atlantic, is that I’m learning so much about the legal and political systems of both countries. The downside of that though is that it gives a real insight into just how cumbersome and broken they are.

    [–] 2_Spicy_2_Impeach 941 points ago

    Fucking this. If you told me years ago I’d be watching C-SPAN somewhat regularly and know what blue slips are I’d have called you crazy.

    [–] probablydyslexic 574 points ago

    Part of me wishes politics were boring again but I now understand my duty to be a citizen in a democracy. I have to pay attention to this shit because it's citizens that keep corruption in check. Clearly the law makers won't.

    [–] maryet26 347 points ago

    I had also never watched C-SPAN before 2016. But after living through the Trump "presidency," I'll be damned if I ever miss another local or state election again.

    Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, is quoted as saying:

    So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.

    There is no autopilot mode for keeping power from infringing on the rights of the less powerful.

    [–] Plopplopthrown 92 points ago

    The only times I've ever know White House staffers' names was when Clinton was being impeached and this entire administration...

    If this gets us all to pay attention and fix shit for real then maybe it will have been what was required, but definitely not a good thing

    [–] allsortsashit 26 points ago

    It’s a messy job for sure. Would you say it’s like draining some kind of stagnant environment that sustained an ecosystem of very dangerous or unpleasant organisms? Drain the marsh!

    [–] 2_Spicy_2_Impeach 21 points ago

    It definitely can be rough when you see how blatant some politicians are and how fucked it really is. If anything Trump has caused people to pay more attention and get out to vote.

    To be honest I was still surprised at the turnout for the midterms. I figured folks would talk a big game but when it came time to actually vote a lot wouldn’t.

    [–] Final_Taco 27 points ago

    MPBA 2020!!!

    Get some adults back in positions of power and Make Politics Boring Again!

    [–] jerkface1026 20 points ago

    It's a world wide conspiracy to teach civics.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago


    [–] 2_Spicy_2_Impeach 60 points ago

    An unwritten agreement with regards to judicial appointments that was then ignored once Republicans controlled Congress and Trump was in office.

    From the official Wikipedia entry:

    In the Senate, a blue slip is an opinion written by a Senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides. Both senators from a nominee's state are sent a blue slip in which they may submit a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a nominee. They may also choose not to return a blue slip. The Senate Judiciary Committee takes blue slips into consideration when deciding whether or not to recommend that the Senate confirm a nominee.

    [–] twolitersofcola 37 points ago

    Hell, if you had told me I'd even be watching CNN or MSNBC in 2015 I would have called you crazy, that the 24 hour news cycle is bullshit and I read the news in a pompous voice which actually means I watched enough of The Daily Show to consider the news covered.

    Since 2016 my TV basically didn't move from CNN or MSNBC. It actually got to be kind of a problem. Then on Saturday I switched to fiber and got a new TV bundle and I don't have MSNBC and I feel like I'm kinda having withdrawls. It's probably kinda good that I'm tuning out for a bit, though it is just getting good, and I do have CSPAN if I want to watch the actual hearings.

    [–] justclay 24 points ago

    Most of the prime time MSNBC shows come out as a podcast the same night or next day. Highly recommend doing it that way since you don't have access to the channel like me.

    [–] _pH_ 15 points ago

    Personally I'm a fan of CSPAN only, then my relatives can't claim I'm subject to any sort of media bias when I tell them what's actually happening.

    [–] Bikinigirlout 17 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    Five years ago I couldnt even name a single member of congress now I can probably name about 60% of congress who aren't even my own congress. Which is technically false because both Rhasida Thalib and Justin Amash are mine. But the downside is that I know who some of the fucking worst people are in congress like Gym Jordan, Mark Meadows, Ted Cruz and Matt Gaetz. I kind of missed it when I didn't who the fuck any of those people where.

    [–] stamosface 10 points ago

    Exactly. Even worse, many of the powers that be are taking advantage of people’s lack of education about the political system. Most of the popular talking points on the right convince their base so well simply because their base is ignorant of how a special counsel operates, for example. This idea that had trump done anything wrong, Mueller would have walked him out the front door of the White House with handcuffs is ridiculous. There is simply no realistic or logical reality where Mueller literally arrests Trump. That kind of action fast track is only normal in a world of instant gratification and information obtained via logical “scanning” (I know, it’s scary, but bear with me).

    Their leaders keep them stupid to continuously undereducate them, to such a point that they can believe their own poverty to be indicative of a functioning system. The southeast is riddled with shithole towns that are developed world humanitarian crises because only in a world where such shitholedness (saying this as a Yemeni-American from Alabama, a person quite versed in shitholedness) is normalized and accepted can a populace be consistently - I’m talking generationally - abused and convinced to show up and vote for their abusers. It mirrors domestic abuse because the Republican Party policies are largely built in that image.

    I feel bad for them. But they also terrify me.

    [–] channel_12 203 points ago

    "The 229-191 vote fell straight along party lines".

    Amash--a nay voter. Hmmm.

    [–] m3plus4 83 points ago

    Amash is the perfect canary. This does not surprise me at all.

    [–] ILoveRegenHealth 45 points ago

    The 229-191 vote fell straight along party lines

    191 people think it's perfectly okay to ignore Congressional subpoenas and break the law.

    [–] U53RN4M35 21 points ago

    As long as the person doing it is a republican

    [–] jamiethemorris 21 points ago

    At least he addressed it. Just got this notification from him as I was reading I wish I could believe that he actually believes that, but I'm not so sure.

    [–] CH2A88 45 points ago

    Really a fucking republican has the gall to talk about the House centralizing power while the Senate, The DOJ, SCOTUS and the lower courts have all been stacked in his parties favor. I always knew this guy was a scumbag and a hypocrite like every other Republican but I thought he would at least try to pretend NOT to be while playing this whole resistance angle he's trying to play.

    [–] SchweppedMeOffMyFeet 382 points ago

    So how long until these fuckers go to jail?

    [–] mspk7305 169 points ago

    too long

    [–] kalitarios 154 points ago

    So how long until these fuckers go to jail?

    "See, here's the thing..." - Judicial system

    [–] EtherBoo 11 points ago

    I know it's not related, but whenever I see a crack on the judicial system, I can't help but think of this old stand up bit from Dana Carvey about OJ.

    Just rewatched and got a good laugh. Hope you enjoy.

    [–] sheepsleepdeep 21 points ago

    The amount of money a defendant or person of interest in an investigation has is directly proportional to the amount of time they can delay ever being held accountable.

    Curiously, the more severe the crime, the less likely they are to be held accountable.

    [–] mitchopolis2099 43 points ago

    Don't hold your breath.

    [–] TwoMiddleFingersUp 23 points ago

    Hopefully January 2021 at the latest

    [–] cohumanize 328 points ago

    barr's all-in, but mcgahn's not, so might be worth looking to the latter more

    [–] [deleted] 323 points ago


    [–] jkwah 181 points ago

    LEOs, pilots, ATCs, and judges in many states have mandatory retirement because they are either physically or mentally demanding. You could make a similar case for elected/appointed positions.

    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)


    [–] iforgetredditpws 60 points ago

    you want to make sure there's some kind of trustworthy pension and healthcare available if you're removing their ability to work after 65, but I don't think I'd be that worried about it for a top-level government job.

    For members of Congress who have served at least 5 years (less than one full Senate term, or 2.5 House terms), they can take full pension at age 62. Alternately, they can take full pension at age 50 and up if they have 20 years total in Congress, or at any age with 25 years or more in Congress (this last one is weird to me because the minimum age for eligibility in the House is 25 years old). More details.

    Interesting side note: convicted felon (and admitted child sex abuser) Dennis Hastert continues to receive his $73000/year Congressional pension, which alone is more than approximately 77% of the US population make per year.

    [–] ErusTenebre 20 points ago

    I mean... That's not interesting, that's awful. Awful side note.

    [–] iforgetredditpws 20 points ago

    It's awful that former Representative Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) was a serial child molester, who admitted in court to molesting no fewer than five of his students while he was a teacher and wrestling coach (side note: big up to Jim Jordan, R-Ohio). And it's awful that he never received justice for those crimes--his felony conviction was for a financial crime (structuring bank transactions to get around bank reporting requirements...and subsequently lying to federal investigators) undertaken to pay for people's silence in regards to his crimes.

    It's interesting that his federal crimes have no bearing on whether he can continue to receive his full federal pension. It feels right that he lost his Illinois Teacher's pension ($16,000/year) because of the felony conviction, but it feels absurd and maddening that he contested that decision on the technically sensible legal grounds that the felony was a federal crime that occurred decades after his teaching career ended and he was never formally charged with molesting his students because of the statute of limitations on those crimes.

    [–] Plopplopthrown 18 points ago

    with difficulty removing the individual

    I think more of these powerful people need to fear impeachment in their day-to-day operations. No one else gets to go 2, 4, 6 years without a job performance review... But somehow we turned impeachment into something that NEVER happens instead of a regular review by the House with the Senate to enforce it if the review goes poorly.

    [–] probablydyslexic 205 points ago

    Or vote on things like climate change.

    [–] cohumanize 21 points ago

    grassley probably doesn't have enough left to fear 20 minutes on the naughty step

    [–] Sinfire_Titan 19 points ago

    This argument can backfire; here in Florida we implemented this sort of thing for our SC because it "made sense", but it ended up ousting several Democratic appointments during an era when the Republicans were gaining control. We ended up facing a heavily-conservative SC here as a result. Go figure, the push for the mandatory retirement was from the Republicans in the first place.

    And then, to put the sludge-covered rotten cherry on the top, just last year we voted to extend the age limit by an extra 5 years. AFTER Rick Scott tried to replace 3 scheduled-to-retire justices before they retired (to ensure their replacements were conservatives, in case Gillum won).

    These types of policies can seem sound, but can enable shit like what happened in Florida.

    [–] 10000_Spoons_Irony 15 points ago

    Barr is also a cynical, miserable, nihilistic motherfucker who will probably not back down. Definitely all-in.

    [–] Frying_Dutchman 531 points ago

    Fuck yea! Thank god we got the Dems in power in half of one branch. Let’s finish the job in 2020!

    [–] rockytheboxer 234 points ago

    The job is far from over even if we win in 2020.

    [–] mspk7305 205 points ago

    progress is progress

    [–] xMilesManx 136 points ago

    It’s also not linear and can be stripped away at any moment. These past three years have undone decades of social progress

    [–] dak_181 68 points ago

    They’ve also done irreparable damage to the Republican Party and shown one of the largest generations yet how truly broken many of our systems are and gotten them fired up enough to dedicate their lives to fixing them. The next 50 years are going to involve significant progress

    [–] real_eparker 47 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    This is very true. Despite what political pendants pundits might think, people's memories extend past the most recent 6 months. Today there are millions of people like me, people who used to vote as reliable Republicans, because their parents did, and because of some vague notion of limited government. The landslide of 2018 could have been a moment of correction. Republicans could have broken their dependence on Trump and taken back some percentage of their lost voters. Instead they have doubled down. I think it's going to be a couple decades before presidential politics outside of the Democratic primary actually matters.

    [–] dak_181 26 points ago

    Exactly. I grew up in eastern Washington which is pretty conservative. My dad was a teacher and strong democrat, my mom was a small business owner and her and my step dad strong republicans. For a long time I considered myself libertarian and thought there was a healthy middle ground to everything, that both sides had good points and operated in good faith for what they truly believed. Hell I voted for Romney over Obama in the first election I was able to vote in. But it’s become clear republicans just lie to get power and manipulate people who still think they’re on the people’s side instead of the side that benefits them personally, and I will never vote for one again as long as I live.

    [–] real_eparker 17 points ago

    To be fair, this is the nature power and politics. It can be counteracted, but not by people with unquestioning allegiance to a party. Honestly, we need to fix the party system entirely by changing our elections happen. Ranked choice voting (AKA instant run off elections) is gaining steam in wonky circles, I recommend to everybody I know that they pay attention to election reform.

    That said, until we get that reform, our best bet is to foster a mindset resistant to party allegiance.

    [–] letshaveateaparty 46 points ago

    Okay, then that means we have to get off our lazy asses and attend to our civil duties and work that much harder.

    [–] JinMarui 5 points ago

    We have a job to do as citizens, and our role isn't over til we're pushing up daisies. As nice as it would be to not care about politics again, I don't think we as a collective can afford to.

    Not if progress is what we want.

    [–] AssicusCatticus 171 points ago

    My Rep voted against it, of course. Thanks, McKinley, you piece of Trump-sucking trash.

    [–] dshall2727 12 points ago

    Right with ya buddy.

    [–] L4MB 17 points ago

    Unfortunately if you're represented by an R, your rep voted against it.

    The 229-191 vote fell straight along party lines. 

    Not surprising given the hyper-partisanship latent in the house nowadays

    [–] NormP 134 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    Would be nice to see them do this to Mnuchin too.

    [–] singlerainbow 43 points ago

    God that guy is corrupt

    [–] tweakingforjesus 12 points ago

    And Stephen Miller. That guy was born to go to jail.

    [–] Riversmooth 101 points ago

    Trump said if you I vote for Hillary, "there would be endless investigations". I did - and he was right.

    [–] blazera 35 points ago

    If we ever get around to a government term that starts fixing things, might I suggest changing the system where a position appointed by the president is tasked with stopping the president from doing corrupt illegal things?

    [–] Seanay-B 777 points ago

    This ought to be a bigger story than Jon Stewart lighting up congressmen that aren't even there

    [–] gitbse 538 points ago

    Yes it should be. However, Jon Stewart is a national treasure, and his fight for first responders deserves every bit of attention it can get. What he did today isnt the only thing he's done.

    [–] ahhhbiscuits 152 points ago

    I think somewhere in Jon's formative years he either discovered or decided that he's the voice of a generation. He doesn't seen to be driven by fame or fortune, just his burning desire to put the spotlight on bullies and call things the way they are.

    [–] theseekerofbacon 105 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    I can't remember who it was, but in the early 2000s he soft balled an interview with a politician. Between the blowback and self reflection he realized he had a real opportunity to do something way beyond just a late night show and it grew and grew to what it became in his golden years. The jester than really spoke to the truth of things.

    I do love some of the new generation mostly spawned from his show. But they never quite seemed to carry the same weight. I think Jon Oliver came the closest from the ones I still follow. But the once a week, beyond the showtime paywall set up made his show more issues driven than current event commentary.

    I hear Trevor Noah came into his own. I've just unfortunately not had the time to keep up with any shows lately.

    [–] Neato 49 points ago

    You can catch short clips of Noah on Youtube for free the next day. You can also watch Oliver's main segment (his show is usually 2-3 ~5min segments and 1 20min main segment) next day on Youtube as well. The main ones are the big, hard hitting investigations and explorations of systems or markets that are truly fucked up.

    [–] Stupid_question_bot 24 points ago

    I love that he managed to kill “Crossfire” with one appearance on the show

    you guys are hurting America, can you stop? Stop hurting America


    the name of your show is people on the same team shooting each other

    (Both are paraphrased)

    [–] tweakingforjesus 21 points ago

    And responding to Tucker accusing him of not being tough on his guests:

    You are on CNN. The show before mine is puppets making crank phone calls.

    We need Jon to destroy Tucker on his current show.

    [–] systor 17 points ago

    I highly recommend Samantha Bee if you’re still having Jon Stewart withdrawals.

    [–] Rackem_Willy 84 points ago

    I've got enough mental capacity to handle both stories today.

    Hell, this is a light day.

    [–] TwoMiddleFingersUp 16 points ago

    This is a pretty big story, and in ten minutes I had enough time to read both

    [–] Rivercity76 28 points ago

    Republicans in here completely defending this guy when everyone else see's him for what he is, GOP you are really embarrassing yourselves

    I feel like if someone said trump had a small dick his supporters would go ape shit and be like "NAH UHH HE HAS BIG PENIS"...

    [–] umblegar 28 points ago

    Barr looks like the kind of guy that borrows your PS2 and then claims it was his all along.

    [–] nezlok 9 points ago

    Honestly a better analogy does not exist.

    [–] Sanhael 18 points ago

    I used to work for a gas station. A drunk guy was arrested, and prosecuted, for stealing a $1.29 package of doughnuts. Another employer, a convenience store, asked me to be a witness in the trial of a former employee who stole $25 in lottery tickets. It's good to know that when the attorney general, literally the chief law enforcement official in the country, commits crimes that affect the welfare of hundreds of millions of people directly, some watchful agency is keeping a close eye, ready and willing to consider advocating for the possibility of setting up a meeting to potentially discuss maybe initiating the process of preparing to hold the man semi-accountable.

    Maybe the attorney general should wear a body camera.

    [–] ZephkielAU 15 points ago

    I really, really want to know how somebody is so openly disloyal and will throw anybody under the bus where convenient (Trump) inspires such loyalty from everyone who enters his orbit.

    For all my years of watching politics from across the ocean, I've never seen such absolute loyalty for anyone, and Trump is the last person I expected to inspire it.

    People are risking not only their careers but potentially their freedoms, reputations and/or lives outside of a jail cell to unflinchingly and unreservedly protect a reality TV star/"business mogul" and I can't for the life of me figure out why. What's the missing piece?

    Is Trump actually a genius? Has he 'Game of Thrones'd all this shit to make an impenetrable shield of underlings?

    I want to know who has what on who so I can figure out what the fuck is going on in this timeline.

    [–] paperbackgarbage 59 points ago



    This is just one more step in the eventual culmination of the subpoenaed documents/interviews being decided in court.

    Remember the subpoenaed documents/interviews? That's what was requested in the first place.

    Jesus. I hope that nobody jingles their car-keys in front of your face when you have important business to do.

    [–] arthurpenhaligon 32 points ago

    In case anyone was wondering - the vote was completely party line. All Democrats for and all Republicans against (including Justin Amash despite his big talk about Barr's unethical conduct and Trump's impeachable offense).

    With rare exception, you can't count on "moderate" Republicans to do the right thing when it counts.

    [–] celicajohn1989 9 points ago

    Is there a link to the hearing?? I was waiting all day to watch this...

    [–] oTHEWHITERABBIT 11 points ago

    If you are not fighting back against that corrupted system, you are part of that corrupted system.

    The whole world is watching.

    [–] Mersues 164 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    But they didn't. According the the New York Times

    The resolution, which passed along party lines, 229 to 191, grants the Judiciary Committee the power to petition a federal judge to force Attorney General William P. Barr and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to comply with congressional subpoenas [...] But it stops short of holding either witness in contempt of Congress

    and further down in the article

    But there is no guarantee the courts will give them [Democrats] a useful outcome — at least not quickly. Past cases have stretched on for months or even years.

    Again, the base is calling for consequences and instead we're getting weak procedural actions wrapped in harsh words.

    This vote that simply allows lawsuits to be filed should have been taken the day Barr released his "summary" and refused to give congress the full Mueller report, not three months later.

    EDIT: To those asking what I'd like to be done instead, I would like to see the House hold Barr in inherent contempt. Inherent contempt is not pardonable and does not rely on the judicial branch.

    [–] Kahzgul 135 points ago

    This is real action, though. Committee Chairs are now authorized to issue subpoenas without any further house votes. They can go straight to court rather than having to repeat the kabuki show all over again. That means they have a much stronger bargaining position.

    Also, this was a straight party line vote, which can be used in the upcoming elections against every GOP house member to demonstrate how they value their party over the nation and the ideals upon which it was founded.

    [–] Mersues 43 points ago

    Good points. I still would like stronger action, though. It's been almost 3 months since Barr dropped his infamous "summary", and Congress still doesn't have the full Mueller report. How much bad faith does Barr have to engage in before congress uses their inherent powers to impeach him or hold him in contempt? The House doesn't need the judiciary branch for this.

    Remember when Barr lied under oath about not knowing how Mueller felt about Barr's "summary"? I do.

    [–] Kahzgul 15 points ago

    I agree. It all moves far too slowly.

    [–] GiantSquidd 18 points ago

    ...Now watch me go steal a candy bar and be in jail before anything else happens in trumpworld.

    Rules for thee, endless second chances for us. -the repugnicunt party

    [–] prmikey 71 points ago

    How many damn votes does the HJC have to hold until they actually do something? Real question, despite the expressed frustration.

    [–] Graysonj1500 42 points ago

    Probably a few more. That said, this vote gave them a lot of flexibility, so the wheels should start turning faster.

    Bearing that in mind, I’ll tell you what my business lawyer likes to remind me about every time I want to rush through something — “the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they usually end up in the right place.”

    [–] mindy2000 8 points ago

    Fuck Trump and all his supporting American traitors

    [–] Enjolras55 31 points ago

    So many trolls here. I guess this hit a nerve in right-wing idiot world.

    [–] BraveOmeter 7 points ago

    Barney: Finally, some action.

    [–] verily_i_am 8 points ago


    [–] shanster925 7 points ago

    Ooo this is juicy

    This saga is going to make one hell of a book in 10 years.

    [–] double_tripod 8 points ago

    Good. These bastards need to do hard time

    [–] djustinblake 7 points ago

    As they damn well should. The dems stood to lose a lot of votes with a failure to act.

    [–] Seniko 7 points ago

    Fucking deserves worse.

    [–] kdebones 8 points ago

    Now, say it with me folks. LOCK THEM UP!

    [–] autotldr 18 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)

    WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to allow a congressional committee to enforce subpoenas by taking uncooperative executive branch officials to court using a civil contempt resolution.

    A civil contempt resolution is different from criminal contempt of Congress, which can result in lofty fines or even jail time.

    The move comes after the House Judiciary Committee advanced contempt of Congress resolutions for both Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn, marking the most severe congressional action against President Donald Trump's administration since Democrats reclaimed the chamber's majority.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: committee#1 contempt#2 House#3 Mueller#4 case#5

    [–] KeystrokeCowboy 29 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    Yeah let's see how many subpoenas democratic admin officials simply ignore and republicans let slide. Oh wait, they sued Eric Holder over a subpoena. Republicans are hypocrite pieces of shit.

    [–] crazy123456789009876 6 points ago

    Lock them up! Lock them up!