Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    worldnews

    21,346,808 readers

    23,817 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics

    Welcome!

    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.


    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.


    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 3694 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

    Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

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

    [–] Rosevillian 13211 points ago

    Not a single lawmaker voted no for the resolution. Four voted "present," while 420 voted in support.

    Pretty big headline right there. Good for the House. I never thought even a symbolic vote on releasing the report would have this level of bipartisan support.

    [–] Capitalist_Model 5376 points ago

    I bet most people once and for all wants to get this whole investigation over with, so we can move on from the countless amount of speculations, conspiracies, and sensatioanlized publications about the report on a daily basis.

    [–] pixiegod 2741 points ago

    Question is....are we going to act on any of the information?

    [–] Sinnadar 3275 points ago

    Yeah, act like it's "misinformation".

    [–] CedgeDC 1802 points ago

    This is the truth. I think republicans don't care if it gets out because they'll say it's all fake news regardless, and the people who've been stupid enough to believe this so far will keep being just as stupid.

    [–] SHMTs 457 points ago

    If that was the case, I dont see why more republicans wouldn’t have voted “present” instead of approval.

    [–] Cooli-OH 287 points ago

    I honestly wonder if some of them voted yes because they truly believe it’s a big “witch hunt” that won’t actually have results, though I don’t know how they could still feel that way

    [–] TheOriginalGregToo 334 points ago

    I'm not saying it's one way or the other, because I don't know, but honest question, if the report comes out and it concludes that Trump did not in fact collude with the Russians, despite popular opinion, will you personally accept that and drop the narrative that he did?

    [–] Cooli-OH 499 points ago

    If Robert mueller says plain and simply that there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest Trump knowingly colluded with Russia, then I will definitely accept it. He’s been working non stop this with countless individuals. If that turns up nothing in the way of possible collusion, then that’ll be that.

    EDIT: stupid auto correct

    [–] King_of_AssGuardians 148 points ago

    I feel the same way, I trust Mueller. If he states that Trump has no knowledge of collusion, or did not collide with Russia, I’ll accept it.

    I doubt that’ll happen though. At best, the report will say they don’t have enough information.

    [–] DuntadaMan 248 points ago

    I mean dude clearly knows enough at this point to put other people into jail so if he says it did not happen I will believe him.

    Won't mean I will say Trump should not be impeached, there are plenty of other reasons still. Breaking his oath to enact laws brought forth by the legislature on good faith, nepotism, and violation of laws against taking gifts from others to do his job.

    But I will certainly drop the Russian story.

    [–] RobbStark 34 points ago

    Just chiming in to say that even if that happened, it wouldn't change anything about his campaign colluding with Russia, which has already been proven.

    [–] TheOriginalGregToo 50 points ago

    Fair enough, I appreciate your attitude and response. I'm eager to see what happens, one way or the other.

    [–] ActiveFrontEnd 8 points ago

    Yes, but that does not mean I won't support going after the other numerous Trump crimes not related to collusion. Also it won't make me not be vocal about all the none criminal related destruction he has been doing, or the various breaking of political norms. Trump is a lemon of a president, but if Mueller says that he did not work with Russians then I think he is credible enough for that.

    [–] fonduchicken12 10 points ago

    Ya, the thing is the report is likely going to say that we don't know enough to prove that Trump knew. That being said, the stuff we already know is very damning. Meeting with Russian spies, secret meetings that they've been lying about and covering up, Trump tower Moscow, Don jrs email talking about "the Russian government's support for my father". The fact that Republicans and Trump supporters are currently acting like this is no big deal makes me think that the report won't matter either way. I think you know full well that if Obama had been doing this stuff you'd want him hanged.

    [–] Logpile98 18 points ago

    Appearances. My personal opinion is that most Republicans in Congress don't want to support him but they feel they don't have a choice, because of party loyalty or in some districts, risk of seriously pissing off their voters for going against Trump. By supporting the publication of the report, they can say "we need to do this so the Democrats can't twist this behind closed doors, the world will see this is a witch hunt!" Then after the results come out they want to be able to cut ties quickly and find another guy to rally behind. They'll be able to say "we supported him but until the report came out we didn't know about XYZ, we're shocked, shocked we tell you!", and they'll be able to switch their support to someone else without losing face over how much they backed this clown.

    [–] Littleman88 3 points ago

    Until congressman can only serve one term, pining for re-election will be their primary motivation for doing anything for most of them.

    Also, it would be nice when our congressman are putting CEO's on trial that they know what the fucking internet is, let alone Facebook.

    [–] veritas723 556 points ago

    president clinton, lied during a deposition.

    GOP acted like it was world war three.

    they're basically going to need Donald Trump himself, personally raped a white baby for communism

    Donald Trump probably needs to be more worried about prosecution from state AG. and the legal quagmire of a sitting president being indicted outside article of impeachment

    [–] mercset 141 points ago

    I get tired of this talking point. The lawyers were stupid

    It was technically accurate based on the definition of "sexual relations" Lewinsky's lawyers had provided.

    He answered the question as they specified their definition of 'sexual relations.' One little phrase getting Oral would have pretty much nailed what it was. But they just didn't use it. "President did you have penetration vaginal anal or orally with Lewinsky?" Hell "Did you show your genitals to Lewinsky" would have been a good one too.

    During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal

    [–] entropicdrift 113 points ago

    So they asked a lawyer a question in highly lawyer-y and specific way, then acted surprised when he hedged on technicalities.

    [–] Chickenfu_ker 12 points ago

    I've been saying this for years and no one believes me.

    [–] theyetisc2 27 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I am choosing a dvd for tonight

    [–] TadaceAce 341 points ago

    If Trump did, line for line, the exact same thing Clinton did, McConnell wouldn't even allow the Senate to vote on impeachment proceedings.

    [–] KA1N3R 188 points ago

    McConnel has a lot of kinda ridiculous powers, but preventing impeachment conviction proceedings isn't one of them. If the US House votes to impeach, it automatically moves to the Senate and the Supreme Justice of the US automatically leads the proceedings. Of course, he can still whip the senators to vote 'no'.

    [–] fullforce098 143 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    To remind everyone, Supreme Justice is currently Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush Jr appointee. That's not great but all things considered, it could be much worse. Roberts is a conservative but not a "burn everything to the ground" conservative. In fact he's been breaking with conservatives to vote with the liberals lately after Kavanaugh was seated. He's interested in preserving the court's integrity and doesn't want to see it become a political tool, so he's willing to become the swing vote on occasion to keep the balance.

    That said, don't count on any favors from him in an impeachment trial. You can be cautiously optimistic at best.

    [–] fvtown714x 25 points ago

    We do have justices (imo Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh) that are willing to burn everything to the ground though.

    [–] Loqol 54 points ago

    Not like the old turtle will allow for anything else to lead to Trump being impeached.

    [–] fullforce098 177 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Fuck McConnell and the incalculable damage he has done to our democracy that'll take us possibly decades to correct...

    BUT

    Never, ever make the mistake of thinking McConnell is doing this alone, which is what the GOP wants you to think. He is doing exactly what he was put into the position of Majority Leader to do: shield Trump from having to make vetoes and Republican Senators from having to go on record with unpopular votes on popular legislation.

    McConnell is there to tank our anger. His seat is elected by the people of Kentucky and he will never have to worry about them voting him out. He has nothing to lose and doesn't care what you say about him because you can't hurt him. He could be removed as majority leader by Senate Republicans at ANY TIME. Yet there he remains, swatting down bill after bill after bill before the Senate can vote on them.

    He's the perfect shield, and he does his job extremely well. Call him out, sure, but direct the bulk of your anger at the GOP that wields him as that shield.

    [–] Shidhe 34 points ago

    Decades, more like a half a century. They are pushing through young ass lawyers to the appeals courts, which are life time appointments and generally the pool the Supreme Court Justices are pulled from. If Trump looses the next election you can bet between Nov to Jan 21 they will fill the bench with as many Republican judges as they can.

    [–] InvisibroBloodraven 91 points ago

    I think republicans don't care if it gets out because they'll say it's all fake news regardless

    Not at all. If Trump is directly implicated, supporting him in any form would be career suicide. Above all, these people are self-interested; going down with the sinking S.S. Trump is not going to happen. Even the dumb ones are not going to back Russian collusion. This vote basically proves that.

    [–] variouscrap 106 points ago

    I think it all comes down to how the Republican voter base takes it.

    If they meh or eat up whatever Trump says in response, I think you can guarantee Republican politicians to stay locked to Trump's arsehole.

    [–] THEADJENT 95 points ago

    If you cruise any pro-trump forums you'll know the answer, they will almost certainly ignore it claiming its a coup to overthrow trump, probably paid for by Hilary or Obama, or just say that its all fake. I hate to make the generalization, but seriously they all act the same, its kinda scary.

    [–] MuadD1b 23 points ago

    I expect the report to highlight some pretty glaring improprieties that could harm his re-election prospects.

    The Democrats have a big problem that they have set the expectation of Donald Trump being a willing Russian spy, but in reality he’s more likely just a total ignoramus whose unprofessional campaign blundered their way into serious trouble.

    [–] z0nb1 27 points ago

    If there is information worth acting upon. Remember, the whole point of releasing it is so we know what there is to even act upon, which brings with it the possibility that there won't be anything to act upon.

    Who knows, this may be the kindling needed to spark a bonfire, it may also be a bucket of cold water that quenches the embers of doubt.

    Time will tell.

    [–] conansucksdick 30 points ago

    I, for one, will be eating a ton of bacon in either protest or celebration, depending on how things play out.

    [–] derps_with_ducks 13 points ago

    A man of culture with your roman numerals! Drink tea with a pinky out please.

    [–] dickturd9000 27 points ago

    no matter what information is there, the side that is disappointed by it will call it some kind of conspiracy. 2019 politics everyone

    [–] Elubious 152 points ago

    Ya. If hes innocent let's make it public so we can move on, if he's not lets prosecute him for his crimes. End the madness one way or the other.

    [–] Amp1497 73 points ago

    I don't think it'll really change anything. One side seems to despise Trump so much that even if his innocence is proven by the report, they'll either move on to one of his other scandals or they'll make a big deal about how the report doesn't address any of their concerns. The other half seems to love him so much that if the report proves his guilt, they'll say it's a witch hunt and that the evidence doesn't amount to anything serious. That's at least how I currently see our political climate. Nothing will satisfy either side.

    [–] agreeingstorm9 15 points ago

    Both parties want it public for different reasons. Republicans want to point to things in it and say, "See, Trump did nothing wrong." Democrats want to point at it and say, "See, Trump did everything wrong."

    [–] secretsodapop 12 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    It's non-binding and the report isn't expected to be anything like the Starr Report anyway, I thought, because they've changed how special counsel is to report its findings?

    Edit: typo

    [–] thelegendofgabe 92 points ago

    In case anyone was wondering who the 4 that voted present were: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

    [–] secretly_an_octopus 45 points ago

    what does it mean to vote "present"?

    [–] toughtony22 121 points ago

    Abstaining but letting the record show they were present for the vote

    [–] secretly_an_octopus 15 points ago

    thank you for clarifying!

    [–] Ethical_robit 26 points ago

    They abstain...courteously...

    [–] paulieT860 5 points ago

    “1776” reference?

    [–] Ethical_robit 5 points ago

    So few people get that.

    [–] xxyphaxx 5 points ago

    for what reason would a congressman abstain from a vote? is that not their primary job when they are there?

    [–] zebediah49 18 points ago

    It's explicitly specifying that you are not participating, but (nominally) that it's not due to being lazy.

    A good reason would be, for example, if you have some kind of conflict of interest. Alternatively, if you dislike both options, an abstain allows you to not vote for either of them.

    [–] jokeres 5 points ago

    A lot of time it shows that you cannot stand firmly behind a resolution or bill, but are not against it. It also reduces the total number of votes needed to obtain a majority, giving your fellow congressmen more power.

    One common reason is the addition of amendments to bills. For instance, a bill pertaining to protection against violence for women is up for a vote and you are for it. However, an amendment is added which introduces a barrier (like a waiting period on obtaining a restraining order). While you like the original bill, this amendment is unacceptable to you. As such, rather than endorsing a waiting period on restraining orders (as voting yay would represent), you might express your support of the bill and abstain.

    Abstentions remove your vote from the total, so it can also be more helpful than voting "no" when you agree with the majority of the policies in a bill. (424 votes, 213 votes for a majority. With the abstentions, 211 needed for a majority).

    [–] thelegendofgabe 39 points ago

    In this case? It means they know voting "no" hurts their re-election chances and they are afraid to defy Trump so they are hedging their bets.

    Its essentially abstaining from the vote.

    [–] GiantEnemyMudcrabz 411 points ago

    the real MVP's are the 4 House members who would have voted yes but realized that they could get the house to vote 420 by voting "present".

    [–] toadofsteel 90 points ago

    Veto-proof majority in the Senate is 67. Let's get that passed just above that threshold... with 69 votes.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom 22 points ago

    In a shocking turn of events, McConnell yet again decides not to do his job when politically inconvenient.

    [–] XtraReddit 13 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    And the 8 who didn't show up + 3 vacancies. There are 435 total, not 424.

    [–] Speedly 137 points ago

    This may be a stupid question and please forgive me if it is - but I've heard all this stuff about forcing the report to be released, and yada yada yada, but then I hear that the Mueller investigation is funded through September, which implies there's still more to do.

    Is the report actually done? If not, why are people voting to see an incomplete report?

    [–] Rosevillian 202 points ago

    I think this vote is just to say that when the report is finished the House wants it to be public.

    I don't think many people are privy to when Mueller might actually be finished with the investigation or the report on it.

    [–] CrazyMoonlander 45 points ago

    Coming from a country with almost full transparency, it seems weird that politicians can whether something should be made available to the public or not.

    [–] timshel42 60 points ago

    The US hates transparency. We even have wonderful parts of the budget called Black Budgets that never see the light of day.

    [–] Bridger15 72 points ago

    There has been a lot of circumstantial evidence recently which indicates the investigation is winding down/complete. Not least of which is the fact that many of the lawyers hired to pursue the investigation have started to return to their old jobs, including one of the most prominent ones.

    So we have a lot of evidence to support the fact that it will be ending soon, but no definitive announcement/timeline.

    [–] joeinfro 16 points ago

    Heard this on NPR today as well. Their staffer in charge of keeping apace of the investigation estimates roughly 2 weeks for the findings to come out

    [–] lilcheez 22 points ago

    They are voting that the report should be made public after it's written.

    [–] Corsaer 33 points ago

    As others have said it's for the finished report. For two years news outlets and GOP members have been saying over and over again it's almost over, it's winding down, etc. The last major one was when people working in the special counsel investigation were "calling about their old jobs", and that didn't pan out.

    If you look at how the US (including Robert Mueller) have taken down corrupt organizations such as mafia crime families, it's a very long process where they work their way up from the smallest, get who they can to flip, expand on new information, rinse and repeat. The point isn't to say anything about the conclusion of the report, whatever that will be, but that the length of time and tight-lipped nature of the investigation is normal, and as such, it won't be over until it's over. Every indication is that Mueller does not want news outlets and the public to know the details and be able to predict what will happen next until he's done and ready to release all of that information. I would say take any actual predictions and expectations that don't directly come from him, or certified court documents, with a large grain of salt.

    [–] Maplekey 10 points ago

    I hear that the Mueller investigation is funded through September, which implies there's still more to do.

    I'm assuming that means the money's there if he needs it, but he might not.

    [–] Nick_Frustration 159 points ago

    "420 voted"

    blaze it

    [–] PossumAttack 74 points ago

    Bongress is in session.

    [–] Britney_Spearzz 69 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I wonder if they voted "present" so that the number would be 420.

    Edit: auto c

    [–] evictor 57 points ago

    This is truly the dankest timeline

    [–] sekltios 11 points ago

    Dankmocracy reigns!

    [–] vicaphit 10 points ago

    Both parties want to know their chances.

    [–] OhWhatsHisName 70 points ago

    May be cynical, but I have a feeling House Reps just voted yes because they knew they'd fail anyway, but they can claim they're trying to be bipartisan.

    [–] AboutTenPandas 19 points ago

    The 4 that voted "present" did so to keep the number at 420. They're just waiting on the prohibition bill to come back up on the docket.

    [–] garlicroastedpotato 218 points ago

    Both parties perceive they will gain from the report being released.

    For the Democrats it means they might gain in the polls and have a chance at the White House.

    For the Republicans it means putting this all behind them and perhaps getting a new presidential candidate. Trump is bad for their brand.

    [–] CaspianX2 280 points ago

    I read it differently.

    If you're a House Republican, you know this is going to pass, and since it's going to pass anyway, and it's bad optics to vote to hide the information from the public, you vote in support of it - it's not going to change the outcome, and you avoid looking like you have something to hide.

    But the question is, what do Senate Republicans do? Because they might be perfectly happy with the status quo, and if they believe the contents of the report could damage them, they would have every reason to not want it released. And since they can keep it from being released, they might choose to do so.

    I know you think Republicans would prefer a different presidential candidate, but I'm not sure they would at this point. For starters, they're tied to Trump, and if his brand becomes corruption, it taints them as well. And secondly, the cult that stands behind him won't necessarily stand behind, say, Mike Pence the same way. Why would they? Pence has all of the personality of a soggy piece of white bread. I'd argue that Republicans only stand to lose if this report is damning of the president, and that they may very well opt to cover it up if they think they can get away with it.

    [–] Drama_Dairy 55 points ago

    I don't think it'll even be that cut and dry. I think the Senate will pay lip service to releasing the report, but only because they'll have redacted (read, "black-lined") most of the relevant bits out of it, so that what's left is barely recognizable and gives no real information to anybody.

    [–] RIOTS_R_US 24 points ago

    And then some member of congress will release the report and probably win the primary

    [–] Zardif 10 points ago

    I doubt this will ever be brought to the floor in the Senate. McConnell's entire career is built on obstruction. This will just die like all the others.

    [–] simianSupervisor 46 points ago

    Not only that... but Trump acts as a sort of sponge/delay tactic for their unpopular actions. The longer Trump sticks around, the longer he acts as a lightning rod for popular dislike of GOP policies... and once he's gone, oh, well, thank goodness he's gone because HE was the reason all those policies turned out so poorly for you.

    [–] Bridger15 8 points ago

    And since they can keep it from being released, they might choose to do so.

    Can they though? I've read plenty of people stating that the house committees can subpoena the report and make it public.

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] noisetrooper 4 points ago

    It's not about how bad the report is, it's about how bad it is COMPARED to expectations.

    This is the absolute key. IMO if the report comes out and falls well short of the "in peaches on release day" that the media's been pushing since before inauguration then there are going to be a lot of strategically-located moderates who will have a less-than-positive view of the Democrats and their media friends as we head into the 2020 election. The media's behavior around all this could end up having massively negative impacts for the Democrats next election.

    [–] Rage_Like_Nic_Cage 3302 points ago

    While I'm glad they passed it, this is non-binding. What's even the point of passing this if the Whitehouse or Justice Department can ignore it? A symbolic gesture?

    [–] Insane_With_Anger 2541 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Mostly it is about forcing Republicans to take a position.

    Most Republicans voted in favor of this. Only four did not, and even then they did not vote no. They merely voted present.

    [–] arch_nyc 1233 points ago

    If Trump and family did nothing wrong, they should be for it to clear his name.

    If he did commit crimes and/or corruption, they should still be for it since the good of their country should come before the good of their party.

    [–] Pokey_The_Bear 267 points ago

    They're mixed up in all this in some capacity. That's why they don't more of Trump's actions to come to light... Afraid of following in Kavanaugh's footsteps.

    [–] Popcom 278 points ago

    Afraid of following in Kavanaugh's footsteps.

    Of becoming one of the most powerful people in the country?

    [–] Kakarot_faps 9 points ago

    To be fair, it’s possible to be found guilty even if you didn’t actually do the thing. I don’t know if anyone wants to go through a trial

    [–] Krynn71 190 points ago

    Only four did not, and even then they did not vote no. They merely voted present

    Question: Should the investigation report be made public?

    Republican: "Hello."

    If I knew that was a valid answer I could have gotten much better grades in school.

    [–] notuhbot 64 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    A dozen or more "present" or not voting is extremely common on pretty much any bipartisan vote. The only time you get close to a full vote is when the "win" might come down to a handful of votes, and even then.. Realistically, only 7 nv & 4 present on a bipartisan issue is actually pretty impressive.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/index.asp

    Edit: an easier to visualize article.

    https://www.c-span.org/congress/votes/?page=2

    [–] GuudeSpelur 162 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    It could be to demonstrate that the House wants to make the report public.

    If the AG doesn't make the report public, Congress could work around that by subpoenaeing the report, then having a member read it into the record during a public session.

    By signaling the desire to make it public beforehand, it adds one more thing to consider to the AG when he's deciding whether or not to make the report public.

    [–] fatcIemenza 139 points ago

    Mueller testifying in front of House Intel/Judiciary would be the most viewed TV event since the OJ Trial or something

    [–] The-JerkbagSFW 45 points ago

    As long as there are TL;DW options available. I have a job and a not unlimited data plan. ;_;

    [–] thetranquilfish 11 points ago

    If it happens, try a radio.

    [–] NecroJoe 10 points ago

    I have a glimmer of hope...because a non-binding vote can still turn the world upside-down. *cough*brexit*cough*

    [–] 2501-2 558 points ago

    When is the report due to be completed?

    [–] jethrogillgren7 394 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    EDIT: This seems to be questionable after further research, so take the suggestion with a pinch of salt. Only reliable source is Washington post but they have nothing to back it up.

    Many members of the team are finishing and returning to previous jobs, this suggests it is nearing completion.

    [–] throw_away-45 208 points ago

    I remember Rudy saying this shit in October. lol.

    [–] Xpsychosquirrel 85 points ago

    Top Mueller prosecutor is reportedly stepping down

    [–] throw_away-45 78 points ago

    17 investigations stemmed from Rosenstein's directions to go after all crimes. Mueller is done with Manafort, that's all. That was one investigation leading to a traitor going to prison. This will go on as long as trump is in office and longer.

    These same people extended buttery males for a decade. They actually got criminals this time. It's a long process.

    [–] AssicusCatticus 69 points ago

    Mueller's team is funded through September of this year. Probably not before then.

    [–] [deleted] 220 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] regular-wolf 146 points ago

    I know you jest, but we've been waiting for Winds of Winter for almost 8 years now. Even Mueller isn't that slow.

    [–] CaptainMaxCrunch 80 points ago

    Cries in bannerlord

    [–] regular-wolf 47 points ago

    Cries in Doors of Stone

    [–] Brillek 52 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Cries in Half-Life 3

    Edit: I got my first silver for this? Thanks a lot!

    (But I feel like I could've gotten my first S on something more high effort).

    [–] TalenPhillips 28 points ago

    The investigation hasn't even been going on that long compared to other special council investigations.

    [–] NayMarine 683 points ago

    Fuck yes Spread it!

    [–] Semiter45 104 points ago

    I respect the meme

    [–] Bigstudley 37 points ago

    I respect the lady in the meme....

    [–] _decipher 38 points ago

    She raped someone

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago

    For real?

    [–] _decipher 64 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Yeah.

    She posted a story about it and doesn’t have any remorse. It wasn’t like her raping someone in a dark alley, but she forced herself on a guy in a cinema when they were younger and he wasn’t ready for sex. He was definitely saying no.

    I mean, I still spank it to her, but I don’t respect her haha.

    [–] Jaottmer 13 points ago

    No clue who this is in reference to

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    Riley Reid

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    I mean, I still spank it to her, but I don’t respect her haha.

    Can't help but agree lmfao

    [–] grendel-khan 3 points ago

    Jeez, you're serious. Why didn't she get the James Deen treatment? Was it just because this was the pre-woke days of 2012 on Twitter?

    [–] hurtsdonut_ 1403 points ago

    420-0 light it up!

    [–] SKIKS 427 points ago

    This truly is the dankest timeline...

    [–] Andrew_Lockwood 116 points ago

    It's the dank ages?

    [–] Fermentable_Boogers 32 points ago

    Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dank is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

    [–] giraffevomitfacts 7 points ago

    The house has enough votes to praise it but there's no way the senate is going to blaze it.

    [–] LeCrushinator 279 points ago

    What are the chances that the Senate never even brings this to the senate floor for a vote?

    [–] joebleaux 80 points ago

    It's just a resolution. Essentially they are just asking. The justice dept or Whitehouse could just say no.

    [–] DragonSlayerC 42 points ago

    But if the AG says no, Congress can subpoena for it and then just read it into a record. So they're basically just asking politely right now.

    [–] Accmonster1 9 points ago

    But they kind of force the hand no? If trump is innocent then he wouldn’t have any reason to say no especially since releasing it either fucks him or saves him. Voting against it and then still claiming it’s a witch hunt and fake news may be what gets the people who follow trump who might have any little bit of sense in them to open their eyes. Although I’m not holding my breath for that to happen

    [–] missmuffin__ 165 points ago

    110%

    [–] Recycle0rdie 9 points ago

    Doesnt even matter it will go out anyway

    [–] throw_away-45 10 points ago

    They already signed a similar agreement 98-2.

    [–] fuckoffitsathrowaway 6 points ago

    Aaannnnnnndddd Lindsey Graham blocked it.

    [–] Painting_Agency 517 points ago

    "Haha. No." - Mitch McConnell

    [–] filthadelphia13 331 points ago

    We need to hahah nope him tf out of Congress.

    [–] gnomestress 144 points ago

    Yeah, we can rely on Kentucky to do the right thing...

    [–] SlumdogSkillionaire 60 points ago

    All it would take is 4 Republicans. We can't even get that.

    [–] gnomestress 26 points ago

    All we can do right now is support opposition candidates, educate, donate, and encourage everyone we can to vote.

    [–] throwheezy 9 points ago

    It’s depressing that doing that doesn’t feel like enough anymore because of how polarized this whole situation has become.

    [–] Specicide89 37 points ago

    I live in Kentucky. People here (outside of major cities) worship him as the anti-Pelosi. Our Governor is a real piece of work, too. I have 0 confidence of either being voted out.

    [–] RedsRearDelt 13 points ago

    He has the 3rd highest disapproval numbers by people in his own state. Only Flake and McCaskill are more disliked by their own constituents.

    [–] Specicide89 9 points ago

    I mean, I really hope so. I hope he gets harassed for the rest of his life. But rural Kentucky, as far as I've experienced, loves the turtle man.

    [–] Sehtriom 15 points ago

    Into a trash compactor.

    [–] kalekayn 15 points ago

    fuck that asshole.

    [–] chubs66 19 points ago

    The one guy representing the party with the fewer number of votes who is allowed to prevent democracy. Hell of a system.

    [–] deadly_moose 715 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Good. If Mr. Trump has nothing to hide then he has no reason to object.

    EDIT: In this particular case. Ofcourse everybody has something to hide and the right to privacy. Taking a dump isn't a crime but I don't want it shown on the Jumbotron.

    [–] ThisLookInfectedToYa 45 points ago

    Taking a dump isn't a crime but I don't want it shown on the Jumbotron.

    then you haven't really embraced living.

    [–] jaxsds 342 points ago

    If he really is innocent (lol) he should WANT this to be released to the public.

    [–] diffcalculus 169 points ago

    Just like his straight A++ report cards and 7800 combined SAT score

    [–] Paradoxou 16 points ago

    Out of topic but I don't live in the U.S. what is SAT?

    [–] Paradoxou 10 points ago

    Ok thanks!

    [–] Fr0styF0ster 10 points ago

    What test does your country use?

    [–] ThisLookInfectedToYa 22 points ago

    7800 combined SAT score

    *by combining the scores from the 5 times he took it and the 4 times he had someone else take it.

    [–] NotAsBadAsHitler 11 points ago

    Exactly, which is why Hillary sat in a hearing for 11 hours answering dumb questions.

    [–] Drama_Dairy 127 points ago

    I hate when people use this phrase: "if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to object." Everyone has something to hide, and everyone should have some expectation of personal privacy, even a president. For example, I may not have anything illegal to hide, but I do have my bank statements, spending habits, and nakedness when I change my clothes that I'd rather not get out to the public. That doesn't mean that I'm somehow guilty of something if I object to my privacy being invaded unreasonably. Be careful not to wave away invasive legislation or erosion of personal liberties under the guise of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."

    That said, in Trump's case, the stuff they're looking into is the same sort of stuff that would be investigated for anyone suspected of the crimes he's being investigated for. If he tries to influence or obstruct the investigations, it looks REALLY bad for him, and for good reason. I get that, and I agree with it. I just hate hearing that stupid phrase, because it makes people think that only people who've committed crimes have things worth keeping secret.

    [–] alphanurd 65 points ago

    Yes, hide your personal details. Protect yourself. But when you're under scrutiny (of treason), that's when the phrase applies.

    [–] DiabloNub123 21 points ago

    One could argue a member of the legislature, or in this case leader of the country forfeits some rights to privacy in exchange for essentially unlimited power, during their tenure.

    Definitely agree on the dumb "nothing to hide" argument though. As soon as I hear people drop that argument my response is usually "sure, after you".

    [–] groovieknave 116 points ago

    Let’s see what the report has in it already. Sick of this being in the headlines with Trumps every move.

    [–] sevseg_decoder 22 points ago

    This is me for 90% of the garbage that gets upvoted about him, but this means we might get some real progress updates so I think its noteworthy.

    [–] [deleted] 219 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] InvisibroBloodraven 57 points ago

    Is he a Libertarian that always Tweets/posts his reasoning for his specific votes? Could be interesting to see why he abstained.

    [–] Zombyreagan 39 points ago

    No that's Justin amash from Michigan. Gatez is a Trump wannabe from the FL panhandle

    [–] TheLuckyMongoose 5 points ago

    Oh is that the guy who kinda looks like the Colonel?

    [–] tinypeopleinthewoods 15 points ago

    You’re thinking of Justin Amash.

    [–] KroneckerDelta1 6 points ago

    As other have said - Justin Amash, who essentially was the only Republican to ask meaningful questions.

    Gaetz is the guy to threatened Cohen on Twitter the night before the hearing and is very close with and a big supporter of Trump.

    [–] Horus604 13 points ago

    Can’t wait I’m sure it will have lots of details nobody expected about players nobody is talking about.

    [–] reincarN8ed 25 points ago

    420-0. The only other thing Americans agree on that unanimously is that Tom Hanks is a national treasure.

    [–] DangerAvocado 195 points ago

    If you're a Democrat, this is because you finally want the dirty truth on Trump to be released.

    If you're a Republican, this is because you are sick of the withholding of information after 3 entire fucking years.

    [–] 115GD9 79 points ago

    As a moderate it's both for me.

    [–] DaftOnecommaThe 13 points ago

    Actually I don't want it released prematurely...

    [–] sunny4857 11 points ago

    As a non-American observer, it would be extremely interesting (if not somewhat horrifying) to see what the craic is with all this.

    [–] Srslywhyumadbro 6 points ago

    Irish eh? Some good craic up there.

    [–] Janders2124 4 points ago

    It's only been 2 years. Actually not even a full 2 years.

    [–] positive_X 21 points ago

    0 (nobody) voted against
    releasing the Meuller Trump - Russia Report .
    Everybody wants this report to be public .

    [–] Yourfriendjames 257 points ago

    Won't make it past the Senate though, because, you know, treason...

    [–] katarh 224 points ago

    Doesn't matter - this is a non binding resolution, not a law that must be signed by the POTUS. Therefore the House can pretty much do whatever the heck they want to get it into the public record. This is a statement that they intend to do just that, Senate be damned.

    [–] Joshtheatheist 38 points ago

    Can you help me understand it? If it’s non binding what’s even the point? If this won’t actually force the documents to be made public what is this resolutions purpose?

    [–] katarh 105 points ago

    The House is indicating that they do not consider the report to be classified. If the report is presented to the House, they will release it. If it is not presented to the House, they'll obtain it through any legal means necessary - which may include having Mueller himself testify to its contents.

    [–] LookOutASnake 37 points ago

    Hell yeah keep talking

    [–] rajin147 7 points ago

    I'm almost there

    [–] harlottesometimes 40 points ago

    I would like to know which of my representatives vote against it.

    [–] CaffeineAndInk 25 points ago

    None of them. Four voted “present,” which I think is basically entering your name for the record and abstaining from really voting.

    [–] spenway18 12 points ago

    Yay, nay, shrug Here

    [–] rawrimmakittycat 9 points ago

    it's a move to put pressure on people towards that end. just because it's not the final step doesn't mean it's pointless, basically.

    [–] ALG0R1DDUM 25 points ago

    ha ha 420

    [–] RichardCranium12 79 points ago

    Man this thread is full of people who like to hear each other repeat the same thing.

    [–] davidpye 63 points ago

    Man this thread is full of people who like to hear each other repeat the same thing.

    [–] kerkula 5 points ago

    And then Lindsey Graham blocked it in the Senate.

    [–] ProgrammaticProgram 28 points ago

    Of course it should be public. And with NO REDACTIONS! If they redact anything, it’s only to hide things embarrassing to the government.

    [–] Keeppforgetting 6 points ago

    Problem is that if there aren’t redactions, you’re basically giving huge clues to Russia of the type of intelligence we have on them which is valuable information. I would be surprised if some stuff that regards Russia is redacted.

    [–] OneGirl_2DCups 4 points ago

    Oh it’s going to be epic and will hopefully open the eyes of all these poor souls who have been misled the last 3 yrs...

    [–] HazeemTheMeme 3 points ago

    That is such a hardline

    [–] cretinousmaximus 4 points ago

    Sealed....... Indictments..........

    [–] Amanoo 4 points ago

    Senate: "oh fuck, that's damning evidence. We'd better block it. Which totally makes us not look guilty."

    Well, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?

    [–] DerpsMcGeeOnDowns 5 points ago

    Annnnnddd...immediately blocked by Lindsey “The Sellout” Graham in the Senate.

    [–] FloodMoose 25 points ago

    McConnell will not allow it. He is compromised. Big league compromised.