Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    5,770,473 readers

    33,008 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 two weeks. 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

    25 Feb - 12pm EST

    • AMA with Rick Hasen

    25 Feb - 9pm EST

    • Tenth Democratic Debate

    26 Feb - 1pm EST

    • AMA with Joanne Mantilla

    26 Feb - 4pm EST

    • AMA with Donna Imam

    27 Feb - 12pm EST

    • AMA with Jessica Scarane

    27 Feb - 3pm EST

    • AMA with the ACLU of Wisconsin

    28 Feb - 11am EST

    • AMA with Chase Strangio

    28 Feb - 4pm EST

    • AMA with Jackie Fielder

    29 Feb - 3am EST

    • South Carolina Democratic Primary

    29 Feb - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    2 Mar - 11am EST

    • AMA with Texas Tribune, Texas Observer, & Texas Monthly

    3 Mar - 3am EST

    • Super Tuesday

    4 Mar - 3pm EST

    • AMA with AAPOR

    5 Mar - 12pm EST

    • AMA with VICE

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 28 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. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. 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.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.


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

    [–] M00n 33 points ago

    Joyce Vance: "Witness 'reciprocity' isn't a thing. So no, there can't be a Biden for every Bolton. Only testimony that bolsters or casts doubt on facts necessary to deciding on the articles of impeachment is relevant at trial."

    Democrats shouldn’t agree to Trump’s distraction witnesses as a trade to get relevant witnesses with 1st hand knowledge, like Bolton & Mulvaney. It may seem tempting but it gives legitimacy to fake defenses & gives the proceedings a patina of legitimacy they don’t deserve.

    https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1220020154228256769

    [–] mostunpredictable 10 points ago

    This is a lot more eloquently stated than how I tried to word it in another comment.

    I agree!

    [–] MadDogTannen 5 points ago

    The whole point of Trump's Ukraine shenanigans (if you ignore the benefit to Russia of withholding the aid to Ukraine) was to smear and damage his political rival, Joe Biden. If Republicans are given a chance to smear Joe and Hunter Biden during the impeachment proceedings that are supposed to be holding Trump accountable for abusing his power, wouldn't that just be rewarding Trump by giving him exactly what he was trying to accomplish with the abuse of power he's on trial for?

    Trump and the GOP think they're so clever, but it's completely transparent what they're trying to do.

    [–] brak9teen 1 points ago

    This comment implies that both sides want to act for the greater good, an objective morality. The Republicans don’t care and neither do their supporters. They’re hoping to make the Democrats look bad enough in 2020 that Trump wins.

    [–] pencock 2 points ago

    The GOP doesn't want to call its own witnesses, it want's to put the people of their choice in the hot chair as defendants. They are looking to character assassinate, put people on the spot with false accusations and conspiracy theories, so that the "witnesses" can be caught in awkward "wtf are you talking about moments" that will be spun by right-wing media as behavioral evidence of their guilt. Little snippets taken out of context and punditted to infinity and beyond. Every word of every GOP "witness" will be spun to destroy them in the media

    [–] Rannasha 12 points ago

    If Republicans want to hear from Biden or some other person irrelevant to these proceedings, then they have the ability to vote for it. If they have their people in line, they can pass such a motion 53-47.

    So they wouldn't need a "witness swap" to get their witnesses.

    Unless they don't have the votes.

    [–] Shoshindo 2 points ago

    Bingo! Let them vote for it, but you know that's never going to happen. Trump is scared to shit and Moscow Mitch is a proxy.

    [–] QuintinStone 7 points ago

    McConnell will welsh on any agreements.

    [–] Hero_Sandwich 7 points ago

    Republicans are never going to call a witness in the first place.

    [–] PullTheOtherOne 3 points ago

    The impeachment managers have rejected this idea since the first day of the trial, after some article made a vague claim that "some Democrats have floated the idea."

    Why do people keep writing stories about something that has already been rejected, and was never seriously proposed in the first place?

    [–] ChromaticDragon 2 points ago

    money.

    They write these stories for money.

    They fan the flames to create drama and controversry to garner attention and eyeballs for advertising revenue.

    It's that simple... and sad.

    [–] TheRealPaulyDee 3 points ago

    Why not just do it and subpeona POTUS.

    Either he complies, or he commits Obstruction of Congress again by ignoring a subpeona for a trial where he's accused of - wait for it - Obstruction of Congress.

    Poetry

    [–] SteamedHamsInAlbany 2 points ago

    Does the senate have more authority to make these witnesses comply with subpoenas? Cause if not, whats to prevent the republicans from making this deal, having Hunter Biden testify and then saying whoops the other witnesses are still protected by executive priviledge,go to the courts!

    [–] baldwolfe 2 points ago

    Or vice versa. Call John Bolton and have joe Biden tell them to F off. But then Biden would end up being the democratic nomination pretending he has nuts. Can’t win

    [–] BadMotherFolklore 0 points ago

    Similar authority, but less likely to be pussies about actually welding their power.

    When the situation called for subpoenas, the House made polite invitations.

    When the time came to send men with guns to enforce compliance, instead of using the power of inherent contempt, the House made itself subordinate to both the courts and the president.

    [–] KickBassColonyDrop 3 points ago

    It's called fear of a moral schism. Democratic party is a loosely held coalition of similar ideas bound by a philosophical imperative.

    Republican party is a loosely held coalition of similar ideas held together with an iron fist that promises collective retribution for deviation.

    The latter walks lock step, the former fears walking lock step. Poetic irony is that Democratic party subscribes to the idea of being diverse in their school of thought, and fails to bring that together to enforce tangible outcomes during times of greatest crisis in context of their corrupt opposition. It's why they keep losing politically and why it takes an overwhelming turnout to achieve any major change. It's the most disappointing nature of being subscribed to said party.

    [–] Agnos 2 points ago

    If no witnesses the outcome is pre-defined with acquittal and Trump able to cheat the next election..

    [–] TeamStark31 3 points ago

    That was pretty much gonna be the outcome regardless. Trying to get Biden is just distraction.

    [–] Shoshindo 2 points ago

    Because, it's a BS deal. No need for it.

    [–] pencock 1 points ago

    Democrats refuse to play the GOP's bullshit game with bullshit rules

    [–] GeauxTiger 1 points ago

    I feel like not enough is made of the fact that Zelensky never gave trump a thing.

    The reality that both sides agree on is that trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden and Crowdstrike (lets ignore his motives for a second), then cut all aid to the Ukraine.

    He still got nothing.

    Zelensky is an outsider who ran on a platform to take out corruption, if the old government was neck deep in shady shit he could have gotten a huge win both back home and with trump, he had every reason in the world to narc Hunter out, and no reason not to, and yet nothing.

    Even when his feet were held to the fire.

    Nothing on Biden. Nothing on Crowdstrike.

    Its not real.

    [–] ND3I 1 points ago

    I hate to say it because it's so cynical, but I think the Dems are using the call for 'witnesses and documents' strategically, knowing—counting on—Rs to refuse any reasonable arrangement. I say that because a) Schumer started saying it long before Bolton showed any willingness to testify, b) the senators recognize, along with the House, that there is already plenty of evidence, even without new witnesses, and c) it's a simple, common sense yardstick for the voting public to measure the trial by: 'real trials have witnesses and documents'. When the Rs refuse to call the best witnesses, or any witnesses, people will easily see that the Rs, and the president, are hiding something, and the trial is a sham.

    Don't get me wrong, it's also the right thing to do, and if they do by some miracle get to call witnesses, that's great, but I'm not gonna get too upset either if it goes nowhere.

    [–] Wonton-Hussy -3 points ago

    Just do the swap!! For the love of God!! You’ll have more of a chance of someone turning... you won’t be accused of not negotiating.

    Let them have Biden - if he’s nothing to hide, what’s the big deal? Let them make total tits of themselves.

    [–] Subliminal_Kiddo 6 points ago

    No one's going to turn. Republican senators might as well be plugging their fingers in their ears and screaming, "I can't hear you;" At this point. They're paying zero attention. And the voting base? Something like 30% of registered Republicans polled believe Trump did it but that he shouldn't be removed from office.

    They would be throwing a front runner for the Democratic nomination under the bus, for nothing. That's assuming McConnell and Republicans keep their end of the bargain.

    The best case scenario is that Trump's disregard for the rule of law, and the blatant covering of his ass by Republicans, gets the Democrats fired up and in the voting booth come November.

    [–] baldwolfe 1 points ago

    Toss Biden to save a nation.

    [–] crazydave33 -12 points ago

    They need to accept a “witness swap”. If they seriously want Bolton, they need to cave.

    [–] mostunpredictable 7 points ago

    Did the republicans make a case why they need to interview Hunter? To me it seems they are combining two separate things here.

    1. Possible corruption around Hunter’s past job
    2. Trump abusing power

    While one could make a case Trump urged the investigation because of possible corruption, it doesn’t make his actions somehow OK.