this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
265 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4547 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings.

Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry: David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney who has long investigated the case.

But on Friday, after Mr. Garland elevated Mr. Weiss to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted publicly not with triumph, but with outrage. “David Weiss can’t be trusted and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption,” Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

The reaction was a notable political development, one that underscored both how Mr. Weiss, a Republican, has fallen in conservative circles, and how deeply it has become ingrained in the G.O.P. to oppose the Justice Department at every turn.

“The reality is this appointment is meant to distract from, and slow down, our investigations,” said Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri and chairman of Ways and Means, one of three congressional committees looking into the Biden family’s finances.

...

Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who had once called for Mr. Weiss to be made special counsel, said he no longer stands by that belief. “Given the underhanded plea deal negotiated by the U.S. attorney from President Biden’s home state, it’s clear Mr. Weiss isn’t the right person for the job,” Mr. Grassley said.

But Democrat-aligned groups saw something else in the Republicans’ about-face: disingenuousness.

“House Republicans’ opposition to Trump appointee David Weiss’s appointment as special counsel is nothing more than another political stunt,” said Kyle Herrig, the director of the Congressional Integrity Project, an advocacy group that defends President Biden from congressional investigations. “After months of calling for this, their dismay makes clear that they will stop at nothing to weaponize Congress to interfere with an ongoing investigation and harm Joe Biden.”

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 100 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They never wanted one, they wanted the lack of one as a political talking point. They know the special counsel is unlikely to discover anything beyond what we already know about him.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is only one outcome the GOP would find satisfactory in all this: finding President Biden guilty of some crime, impeaching him, throwing him in jail, and making Trump president for life.

No other outcome would be satisfactory and any outcome OTHER than that outcome must somehow be working against their agenda.

All evidence we have seen suggests that Joe has acted properly even if Hunter didn't. All evidence we have seen suggests that all the investigations against Hunter have been impartial and reasonable and that everyone has cooperated above and beyond any legal requirement to do so.

All the braying and whining out of conservatives is only to serve the agenda of giving them power. Any interpretation that they have reasonable concerns is ridiculous. The appointment of this special council can be completely explained and justified by the desire of progressives to see a fair and impartial process happen, even knowing it is actually impossible to satisfy the prejudiced conservatives of such.

[–] orphiebaby@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump President for life? So like... six months?

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

then it's just Trump jr. taking up the throne, you know, like his friends in N.Korea

[–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the brains of the GOP

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you there.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Don't short sell them friend, they accomplished what they set out to do decades ago. They just also now lost control of their electorate, so the brains of the party don't have much to do with where the party is going now.

Like the other person said, I don't think the brains of the party actually wanted the win, they just became the dog that caught the car and now are entirely lost trying to figure out how they're really the victim in the situation they created.

[–] TheRealTurducken@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am so confused why a federal special counsel is being appointed to investigate a guy who is not an elected official. Is it really just because his dad is president, and that's it? That's the bar? Why isn't this just being investigated in the normal justice channels?

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, because his dad is a political leader. There are a bunch of laws that restrict the direct family of elected officials from doing a lot of things.

Also yes, it's because it's a Democrat President and Republicans need to scream Boogeyman at the top of their lungs no matter how ludicrous the claims. Because no small section of their voting base ends up smoking it to get high off outrage. Like a meth head getting out of rehab, every time.

[–] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Laws really don't mean jack shit to the party of "law and order", especially after the literal orange crime syndicate family we had in office for four years. It's just a tool for them to try to get their way.

There are a bunch of laws that restrict the direct family of elected officials from doing a lot of things

Didn't stop Ivanka or Jared or the rest of Team Orange.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because they don't ACTUALLY want an investigation, or facts, or god forbid an exoneration.

They just want to keep talking nonsense until the election. It's Benghazi all over again.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

They saw what happened when they got their way with abortion.

They don't want the noise, not the signal.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

This makes perfect sense when you start from the premise that "everything a Democrat does is wrong." Merrick Garland, AG under the Biden administration (even though there is a strong separation between the Justice Dept and the rest of the executive branch), and Obama's SCOTUS nominee (even though he was blocked by McConnell), made the appointment. Therefore, the appointment is wrong.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Remember when Orrin Hatch said that Obama didn't have the guts to nominate "well-respected" Merrick Garland to replace Scalia? And when Obama nominated Garland, Republicans started calling him a far-left extremist?

This is just that, all over again.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it makes sense when you start from the premise that republicans are self-serving liars and bullies who will claim victimhood no matter the circumstances in an attempt to villainize their opponents against whom they have no real, substantive arguments.

hell, even in 2016, when Trump won the election, he still claimed that it was rigged!

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They also can't complain about him not having special counsel status any more. It hurts the sideshow they want to kick up in the media.

Even more important, they now know that this investigation will probably be handled quickly and uneventfully, undermining everything they've been squawking about for the past couple years.

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 15 points 1 year ago

Republicans are literally petulant children. With guns and power to make laws.

Oh boy this hunter Biden character sure seems suspicious.

We should really vote him out of office and ban him from politics!

/s

[–] PretentiousDouche@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love this. I tuned in to a little Sean Hannity on the radio on my drive home Friday and heard him rail against the selection of Weiss multiple times, while throwing out vague bullet points about why he's unacceptable.

My first reaction was that they're laying the groundwork for when this investigation comes up with nothing, or some really boring crimes (like firearms charges? The Republicans are about gun control now?) and they have to lay the blame on someone so the conspiracy machine can keep pumping out outrage.

Knowing this is a guy they wanted for the job until he started doing it makes it even more delicious, but as we know when Republican's beliefs come up against reality it's the reality that gives, so they'll have no problem ignoring that this was even ever a thing.

[–] overzeetop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

like firearms charges?

I heard this morning that a very similar firearms charge against someone else was adjudicated to be unconstitutional just this week. So now they have nothing but a couple years of tax evasion charges which,iirc, he’s already paid.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Trump said not paying taxes means he's smart. Shouldn't that also apply to Hunter Biden?

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can’t removed about there not being one now

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm genuinely curious what you genuinely thought was a serious enough word to censor that fits this grammatical context

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I actually didn’t sensor myself. I use Voyager and it seems to be censoring any profanity by default? Haven’t figured out how to disable it.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's actually because you're on lemmy.ml. They have a a filter of banned words, it's ridiculous.

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Ahh, that explains it. Thanks

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That makes way more sense lol. I was really confused by why someone would want to swear, but also believe censoring it is necessary

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s really fucking annoying, hah

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Weird it didn’t sensor that one. removed, that’s the word I used last time.

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Ok, so apparently I can use the word fucking but not bitch?

[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of the Key and Peele sketch about Obama meeting with the GOP.

https://piped.video/watch?v=B46km4V0CMY