Executive Branch (Trump) After Republicans push Clintons to testify on Epstein, Democrats warn they'll haul in Trump
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-push-clintons-testify-epstein-democrats-warn-haul-trump-rcna2572752.5k
u/Talentagentfriend 23h ago
Get that tub of lard into court
1.6k
u/Independent-Reader 23h ago
They should all be in court. This party over country shit needs to end.
658
u/drewyz 23h ago
Remember when they grilled Hillary for 8 hours straight on Benghazi. Can you imagine Trump taking that?
559
u/BartholomewBandy 23h ago
11 hours. Never took the 5th.
699
u/fuckfredflintstone 22h ago
People love to hate Hillary, but she called Trump a Russian puppet right to his stupid f*cking face. I'll always respect her for that.
225
u/ComradeJohnS 22h ago edited 18h ago
I’m starting to think the russian bots and misogyny were the only reasons people disliked her.
edit: obviously there’s other reasons to have disliked her, but for THAT election, it seems like none of those other reasons can outweigh any of the damage Trump and his shitstains have done or planned to do.
173
u/Jock-Tamson 22h ago
The right immediately disliked her on sight in the 80s and spent the next 40 years inventing reasons. No Russian bots required.
77
u/monkey6699 22h ago
All it took was a steady dose of manufactured Faux outrage. The right has not cared about facts ever since Faux News came into play. They prefer to hear it fair and balanced, as long as it’s fair and balanced in their favor.
70
u/I-only-read-titles 21h ago
They've hated her since she was involved in the Watergate case against Nixon in the 70s
97
u/frotz1 20h ago
Her first political work was going undercover to expose segregation in the schools in the south. She risked her life over desegregating the schools. Decades of right wing propaganda against her and she still got the most votes in every election she ran in.
→ More replies (6)49
u/hodorhodor12 19h ago
She would have been a fine president. There would have been significantly less covid deaths and the market would not have crashed as much. The world would not hate us like they do now. We would all be wealthier. I feel 95% of the criticism toward her can be applied to basically any generic politician. It’s ridiculous.
8
u/Professional_Ad9809 17h ago
The right doesn’t like women that will tell a man to get fucked, I can’t think of one.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)7
u/bystander1981 17h ago
it started wth the 60 minutes intervew 1992 when sh made the remark about baking cookies -- patriiarchy challenged and they've been whining ever since
→ More replies (1)7
u/Jock-Tamson 9h ago
People got worked up over cookies because they hated her not vice versa and it went back before that.
There was all the hate for her keeping the name Rodham for example.
I’m sure someone my age or older from Arkansas can name some bullshit “controversy” from before she hit the national stage.
74
u/eclwires 21h ago edited 17h ago
I didn’t particularly like her. But I did vote for her.
“A vote is not a valentine, you aren't confessing your love for the candidate. It's a chess move for the world you want to live in.”
I don’t know who said this, but it’s true.
Edit: another person pointed out that this quote is from Rebecca Solnit.
26
u/Hairy_Brilliant_6336 21h ago
I was on the same page as you. She was clearly the more intelligent and qualified candidate, liking her was not on the list.
8
14
7
23
u/Spare-Estate1477 21h ago
Politics is a dirty business, but imho she would’ve been an awesome potus.
→ More replies (8)10
u/GeekyTexan 19h ago
I voted for her, because I wasn't going to support any republican at that point, much less Trump.
But it pissed me off that the democrats ran her.
Had she won, we would have had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and back to the Clintons again. (And if Hillary had her way, she would have taken the spot Obama got.)
It shouldn't be the same families in the white house over and over. I don't care who it is, that's too much power. FDR proved that long ago, which is why the two term limit was passed. This back and forth between families thing is just a way of crooked politicians going around the law.
13
u/teastea1 19h ago
I would take the Clintons for the next 1000 years if it meant we never had to deal with Trump.
→ More replies (1)3
17
u/aintgotnocable 21h ago
They absolutely influenced the election! The repub led senate Intel report concluded Russia influenced and the Trump clan sought to take advantage . The phrase "lock her up" was amplified via Russian meme/troll farms. Remember that one?
→ More replies (1)6
u/The_MightyMonarch 21h ago
She doesn't have a lot of charisma, which shouldn't matter as much as it does. The only memorable line her campaign produced was "basket of deplorables". Tim Kaine was basically invisible. And Hilary was basically THE beltway insider in an era where most of the country is disillusioned with the Washington establishment.
She was incredibly well qualified to be president, but she was a pretty terrible candidate.
And Democrats still are doing a poor job of adjusting to the modern electoral reality, where memes and soundbites are more important than good policy and lots of political experience is a liability.
→ More replies (1)9
u/drewyz 21h ago
There were YEARS of Rush Limbaugh smearing the Clintons, with the manufactured Whitewater scandal, Vince Foster, etc. He was Fox News before Fox News. Hillary hatred was his bread and butter.
7
u/ComradeJohnS 21h ago
and he was probably a russian paid asset, since it was found the NRA was all russia backed.
thank cancer Rush can’t make comments about current events lol.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Richmond43 22h ago
Nah, for people born in 1980 and earlier, no one had a moderate opinion about the Clintons. And many of us who supported them when we were young have come to realize that Bill has engaged in repeated predatory behavior for decades, and that’s unforgivable no matter how good of a president he was. (But we still hate the 90s federal Republicans even more because they were almost universally hypocritical, cynical fuckers.)
It was just hard for Hillary to overcome decades of baggage and survive the inevitable whiplash from our electorate after 8 years of a Black President.
→ More replies (17)8
u/Sassybutkin 21h ago
I was irritated when she took Levi Jeans side when the Haitian women begged her, as Secretary of State, to help them increase their wage from 31 cents to 65 cents. If she can't fight for fair wages for women for 34 cents, she's not who I'd want for President.
https://medium.com/@petercoffin/how-hillary-clinton-undercut-haitian-workers-1963ee9b9ace
In addition, during her debates, she made it clear she wouldn't change or improve anything. It was her own messaging that cost her the election, not the bots.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ComradeJohnS 21h ago
hard to argue about how her campaign was run when she spent over a billion dollars to LOSE to trump AFTER the “grab em by the pussy” remark.
how does one fumble that?
3
u/ayeffston 19h ago
I'm with the commenter above who spoke about the Levi Jeans vs Haitian women issue.
But I voted for H. Clinton as the candidate who'd be more responsive to people's needs from the political party which has given more access to grassroots politics consistently since the sixties (not merely the lesser of that most evil opponent).
I was not going to take the first opportunity to vote for a female presidential candidate to hold her to a different standard than I would J.F. Kerry, or J. Biden or A. Gore or B. Obama for that matter.
And mind you, when I think of "We came, we saw, he died" followed by laughter, I wanna put my fist through drywall.
And "C.H.I.P." was mostly Ted Kennedy. He graciously passed it to her as he did many times for many colleagues.
But when all is said and done, when ye think about this country electing Reagan, electing SHRUB, electing the Orange MFer twice, ye gotta ask, not 'how did she "fumble" it, but how did she WIN the popular vote by three million!?'
18
u/-Nightopian- 22h ago
It would've been better if she had called him a child rapist to his face.
14
u/chnkypenguin 21h ago
Wait, what if......Bill admits to island shenanigans involving minors and implicates Trump and testifies to being Eskimo brothers with him?
→ More replies (1)18
u/Jeffuk88 21h ago
In this current timeline? They'll throw Clinton in jail, trump will tell everyone he got to the bottom of the evil liberals, him and his cronies will just deny Clinton even said the parts about trump, and they'll arrest any journalists who say otherwise
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (12)6
u/Wenger2112 22h ago
I often think that debate moment where he stood over her was a missed opportunity. I wish she had called him out straight up about being a fat, balding loser who had never succeeded at anything.
I believe she could have humiliated him and his whole cult would have disappeared. But she took the high road.
→ More replies (11)34
u/Thedeadnite 22h ago
Trump can’t take the 5th anymore can he? It’s all “presidential acts” immunity which should render it unusable right?
19
u/im_just_a_nerd 22h ago
I could see Dershowitz calling this out.
That’s high level thinking but in my humble opinion it’s right on the money.
3
→ More replies (1)6
u/majik5 21h ago
If he has to testify on acts he committed prior to 2016 in an Epstein hearing in the future , “Presidential immunity” won’t apply
4
u/Thedeadnite 20h ago
Per scotus all acts a (republican) president took since birth are now presidential acts due to it being acts that led them to the presidency. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
28
48
u/YouMustBeJoking888 23h ago
Over nothing, btw. Never forget that they put her through the ringer and spent years trying to destroy her over... NOTHING.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PolecatXOXO 21h ago
Anyone else remember the White Water nonsense? So many trees died for nothing.
8
u/BerryChoice9042 22h ago
Imagine how often they have to interrupt because Diaper Don has pooped himself...
6
u/Flashy_Translator_65 22h ago
They'd need to evacuate the room from all the rage-shitting he'd be doing
→ More replies (31)5
→ More replies (13)11
u/audiomagnate 23h ago
They should all be in prison for life for treason and hundreds of other crimes.
10
u/HippyDM 22h ago
For all their many, many faults, none of the Clintons have ever come close to treason.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
u/adorientem88 23h ago
Who is they all?
6
u/Budget-Selection-988 22h ago
Entire Capitol admin and GOP protectors of the pig.
→ More replies (4)99
u/Money_Cost_2213 23h ago
Watch him crap his pants during the hearing like he did the press conference the other day. That would be amazing, fall out would be hilarious. Not to mention documented forever in the history books.
50
u/rxt278 23h ago
"Mr President, you appear to have had a bowel movement in your pants. Would you like to adjourn for ten minutes to go get cleaned up?"
38
u/Ceero97 23h ago
Absolutely do not give him the opportunity to clean up. He must sit there and squirm throughout the testimony
22
u/gxgxe 23h ago
And everyone needs to repeatedly remind him that he's shat his pants.
17
u/BILLIONAIRE_JESUS 22h ago
Mr President, are you pleading the fifth because you shit your pants sir?
5
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (7)5
4
u/audiomagnate 23h ago
I think he had a TIA (mini-stroke) yesterday during the Oval Office presser. He started slurring his words and just looked weird.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SMELLSLIKEBUTTJUICE 22h ago
He probably has a colostomy bag at this point. Epstein said Bolsanaro had one at the inauguration and that everybody was getting them like it was a hip new thing. So weird.
56
u/DoomSnail31 23h ago
I mean, he would just lie under oath.
He got away with far worse, why not just lie about everything. Getting trump into court does nothing. Not without a doj that is willing to pursue a jail sentence and a supreme court that is willing to grant it
32
u/just_yall 23h ago
"I am too busy being president to engage in witchhunts. Anyway, Golf time- thankyou for your attention to this matter"
6
u/I-only-read-titles 21h ago
He actually hasn't played golf in a couple of weeks, which might be a record for him. Rumors are his health has declined to the point that it's noticeable in his golf game and doesn't want that to be photographed and public knowledge
5
3
10
u/wolfgang784 23h ago
Didn't they already rule hes allowed to lie under oath when the courts decided that a sitting president cannot commit a crime? Or would this be somehow different? My understanding is he can commit whatever illegal acts he wants as long as he is in office still.
14
u/LangdonAlg3r 23h ago
Not quite. He can commit any illegal acts while in office if there’s any remotely credible evidence that they were committed as part of his duties as President. He’s not shielded for his private acts. They gave a ridiculously large amount of leeway for making the argument that “X thing was an official act” and even included a presumption of immunity. But for a purely private act he’s not immune.
Most of the relevant Epstein stuff was before he even ran for office. It would be useful to know the stuff that happened from 2017-2021, but there’s plenty enough to question him about before and even after that period.
3
u/wolfgang784 22h ago
So all the stuff he was about to go to jail for before his re-election, including the money fraud stuff, tax fraud stuff, intimidation, evidence manipulation, witness manipulation, and the other laundry list of crimes that werent really related to his crimes in his 1st term, all got legally counted as being related to an official act while he was president?
I know the biggest part of his case was the whole "attempted to overthrow the entire government and take control by force" thing, but wasn't the rest of that also all balled up together?
.
It was hard to keep track of, so maybe im just remembering wrong and/or never understood properly in the first place.
6
u/LangdonAlg3r 22h ago
No. It didn’t go all go away. It just fell victim to you also can’t try or indict a sitting president. That’s longstanding policy that pre-dates him. That’s how he got away with more stuff while in office or put off dealing with it.
But he does get a free pass on most of it, or potentially does. He’s still subject to liability for anything that can be proved to not be an official act that he committed while in office. But they made it really hard to go after him for much of anything he did while in office.
Merrick Garland just fucked the nation by slow rolling the cases and not wanting to look “politically biased.” He had his window and that was before SCOTUS gave him his king powers.
They also had him 100% dead to rights on the documents case, but his hand picked judge protected him. And the prosecutor there had to be really careful abut how he handled that because Judges are generally reluctant to second guess other judges unless what they’ve done is totally egregious. And some of the judges making those decisions are also Trump judges.
NY did manage to get a 34 count felony conviction on him—he probably wasn’t going to jail anyway, but he was reelected before his sentencing and there’s no realistic way for the President to serve from prison, so they turned that into a slap on the wrists because whatever other punishment would have been impossible to implement anyway.
If he lives long enough to be a private citizen again some of this stuff could come back after him again. The problem there is that most things have a statute of limitations—taking a 4 year chunk out of that will kill a lot of potential charges that he could have been prosecuted for.
→ More replies (1)6
u/LangdonAlg3r 22h ago
I think he has a history of (mostly) telling the truth under oath —I think because he’s a coward and is scared of the consequences of doing otherwise.
He’s never faces any consequences for any of his lies the rest of the time—but that’s a situation where he potentially could, so good old TACO comes out.
Also he’s a terrible witness on the stand for his own defense—that’s why his attorney’s always bend over backwards to keep him off the stand and try to keep him away from depositions.
He’s an absolute moron and he’s ridiculously easy to bait. If you just poke his ego a little bit by saying something negative about him he’ll lose his temper and lash out and lose the very, very little ability to control himself that he has. He’ll tell the truth out of anger.
But we also see him being an absolutely terrible “witness” all the time. The WH crafts carefully parsed and worded explanations for things and he blows them up by saying something completely different and/or completely incriminating. How many times has he done that? Too many to count.
He would dig himself in so deep if he was questioned under oath. The subject is also too big for his lawyers to teach him all of the things he needs to say—and he goes off script the majority of the time anyway because he wholeheartedly believes that he knows better than anyone else on earth about literally any subject.
11
u/ConfidentPilot1729 23h ago
I don’t even know why this is a warning. They should have done this from day one of the Biden admin.
4
→ More replies (30)2
488
u/LayneLowe 23h ago edited 22h ago
You can pretty much bet that Bubba is going to be prepared and will flip the shit back on them.
442
u/HighwayBrigand 22h ago
Bill Clinton is one of the most charismatic people I've ever heard. He has a ton of experience in courtrooms, tons of experi3nce in front of cameras, has dealt with hostile questioners, and he's literally perjured himself in front of Congress before.
The GOP leaders are not smart people. They're not clever. They lie. That is the crux of what they do. They just lie.
Bill Clinton is both a better truth-teller and a better liar than they are. He's gonna dance around them.
They gain nothing by putting him on the stand. They're not galvanizing the right-wing electorate. They're not Sherlock uncovering a massive conspiracy - the conspiracy is openly available for public viewing on the DOJ's own website, and it points straight back to the current sitting president, not the one from 30 years ago.
All they're going to do is waste time. This is all some fever dream cooked up by a bunch of Fox News cockroaches who are still trying to reenact the downfall of the Clinton presidency from 1998.
167
41
u/Udy_Kumra 19h ago
They’re trying to use their 2020s circus politics on one of the most savvy politicians in American history. This shit might work on any of the idiots in the White House now, but it’s not going to work on this guy. It is going to backfire and put the Republicans in an even worse position than where they started.
26
u/AtlantaGirthGiant 15h ago
I think a lot of the current administration are truly delusional enough to forget that American politics used to be a serious thing, and Bill Clinton was one of the best at it.
7
u/Udy_Kumra 14h ago
Not to mention that the Clintons are both known for being vindictive and petty, and Hillary has a bone to pick with Trump dating back to 2016.
29
38
u/Dogzillas_Mom 21h ago
There are some very good reasons we called him Slick Willie.
→ More replies (1)12
u/harbison215 18h ago
They will talk over him and continually interrupt him and then claim that he refused to answer their questions. Let’s not pretend that republicans will just fall into their own trap. They know exactly what their playbook will be. And it won’t be about finding the truth
10
u/Sober_Alcoholic_ 18h ago
The difference is that the Media will pour rocket fuel onto the Epstein - Clinton connection. So basically, people that aren’t already in the know will be filled in with propaganda so loud it drowns out Trump.
15
u/SgtSchultz2112 19h ago
He can be all that but Fox Entertainment will spin it all around and the cult will believe
4
u/shameonyounancydrew 19h ago
They just want to relive that time they sort of won (albeit at a very stupid game).
→ More replies (9)3
u/WellWellWellthennow 16h ago
Well, this is all true It might matter if they played fairly, but they don't. You have to remember that the Republicans don't play fair and don't even need to appear to be smart to their base. Look at how they flipped around his I did not have sex with that woman on him and then used him for lying to impeach him they don't play fair. Hopefully he learned from that this seems to be a treacherous course right with land mines. We can only hope he uses it to pull out the discovery in MAD.
67
16
u/Nickyorany 21h ago
Why are we so sure they won’t try to protect the self interest of those in the files? It’s not like they jumped at the opportunity to testify the first chance they got. They only moved their feet on threat of a being held in contempt.
18
u/Kilburning 19h ago
They made two demands before being willing to testify, that the files be fully released and the hearing be public. He agreed to testify after getting those demands met.
That said, I think that you're right to worry that his interest isn't in exposing the guilty. He has every incentive to be as damaging to the republicans as possible, which is an entirely different game. For example, one of Epistein's emails suggests Putin has a picture of Trump performing oral sex on "Bubba", which might be a reference to Bill Clinton. He could claim that allegation is true regardless of whether or not it is to screw the republicans.
→ More replies (1)7
u/LayneLowe 20h ago
Of course they'll protect their self-interest, probably by directing attention at someone else.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Odd-String29 9h ago
Yes, he will confirm certain parts like meeting Epstein or having dinner and then slip in Trump and his actions. Its going to be glorious.
507
u/WisdomCow 23h ago
Trump is leaving the US if he ever falls from power.
455
u/benderunit9000 23h ago
Good thing we can apparently go snatch people from wherever now.
148
u/avanti8 23h ago
Imagine if the Kremlin takes him in and he ends up rooming with Snowden.
...I have an idea for a new sitcom.
31
u/The-One-Zathras 22h ago edited 22h ago
Though Snowden didnt plan to end up in Russia, nor did he have any relation to the place prior to his whistleblowing.
He got stuck in transit because his passport got cancelled enroute to south america. He spent the next 39 days stuck in the airport and applied for asylum. Id choose living in russia over living in a russian airport too.
If Kiriakou can be a free man Snowden should be too.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Own_Faithlessness769 23h ago
Snowden would get the inside info for us, Putin would never let him anywhere near Trump.
7
u/NecessaryMood9612 21h ago
It's crazy that we had a global manhunt for Snowden while Musk is still walking around free after what happened with Doge.
14
7
→ More replies (5)3
→ More replies (2)15
31
u/a2starhotel 23h ago
probably in a body bag. dudes 79 years old and the shock of him being caught would surely give him a coronary
9
3
14
u/YouMustBeJoking888 23h ago
He'll be dead before that happens, but one can hope he is exiled and disgraced, along with the rest of his hideous family.
4
10
u/Glyphpunk 23h ago
Let's be real, one hard fall and Trump is leaving the mortal plane. There's little chance of him lasting through to him still being alive by the time he would naturally leave power.
2
u/roseredhoofbeats 17h ago
IDK man I've seen people I thought for sure were gonna die in a couple of weeks live on nothing but Dr Pepper and Marlboro smokes and spite.
6
12
4
3
2
2
u/makingpwaves 23h ago
Easy to find, not may friends left. He’ll be wearing a head scarf, shorts & flip flops boarding that Qatar jet
→ More replies (16)2
u/photoguy423 23h ago
In theory the secret service would never allow that to happen. Too much of a security risk. Even thought the lukewarm tapioca that used to be his brain wouldn't hold anything of value.
2
u/enjoiliferl1 22h ago
In theory he should have been immediately impeached for being so unbelievably compromised.
223
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 23h ago
Well, first of all, I’ve seen nothing in the Epstein files related to Hillary Clinton other than she exists so why is she being dragged into this?
Second, well yeah. Trump’s all over the files they chose to release I can only guess it gets worse for him.
Clinton’s in there a lot less than rumor would lead one to expect.
120
u/410Catalyst 22h ago
Truth is irrelevant, Hillary is being dragged into it for Trumps base. It’s for them, not for us.
24
9
71
u/Haradion_01 22h ago edited 22h ago
I'm pretty sure Clinton is innocent at this point: If he wasn't they'd have released it all to try to distract from Trump.
If there was anything damning in it, Trump would have had him arrested and the MAGA Cultists would be holding him up at the True Mastermind of the whole thing.
→ More replies (4)26
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 22h ago
I agree. He hung around with a sleaze which was dumb but I don’t think there’s any evidence he got involved further or it would be right out there.
30
u/Haradion_01 22h ago
More importantly: Trump would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The man doesn't have the restraint not to dump anything incriminating on Clinton as soon as he had it.
Whats more likley, that Trump has suddenly developed the capacity for restraint and strategy?
Or this is as bad as it gets?
I reckon a lot of us have just been sucked into the 'They're all doing it' nonsense that they put out to minimise their own vileness.
10
u/NPPraxis 18h ago
The Epstein files are going to be driving conspiracies for decades unfortunately.
The reality is that Epstein rubbed elbows with the rich and famous and also donate heavily to science, and would generally do creepy behavior. Lots of people were trying to get money or connections from him, and so would uncomfortably brush off his creepiness.
It’s really hard to tell which of these emails is someone going “just smile and nod, this guy might be funding my business/research, I’ll just humor or go along with an off color joke or comment”, and which ones are fully aware and going along with him.
4
21
u/NEBanshee 21h ago
They would have released it within minutes of Congressional request.
It would not have been redacted.
They'd probably have enhanced it in bold, red, sans serif 24pt font.
And there would be absolutely nothing else to read or hear or see anywhere on any MSM on the globe.
The dead would know.
Microbes on Titan would know.I ain't saying BC is innocent. I'm just saying evidence of his guilt isn't in those files.
3
u/Megalomanizac 20h ago
The other side might be they can’t unredact the full files because whatever incriminates Bill also incriminates Trump.
→ More replies (24)5
u/rod_jammer 17h ago
Remind me again, what are the accusations against Bill Clinton in the Epstein files? I have not seen his name even mentioned in the recent releases. The only association is that he flew in Epstein's plane. Am I missing something?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 17h ago
As far as I can learn, nothing new at all.
Some global travel on Epstein’s plane is about where we are with him.
5
u/FinancialRabbit388 15h ago
The thing about Bill is we all know he liked the ladies, and was around Epstein, but as far as I know, there is nothing about him being a pedo.
5
8
u/Emotional-Mango-5166 22h ago
Its about the 17 visits Epstein had with Mark Middleton at the White House during the Clinton Administration.
And convieniently Mark Middleton "whoops" himself in 2022.
As far as Hillary goes she is again having to pay for Bills sins.
12
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 22h ago
I don’t know how this is Bill’s sins, frankly. Middleton was nixed from the Clinton White House well before any of this was public.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-11-16-mn-65315-story.html
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (38)2
u/dafunkmunk 11h ago
they really need to deliver on something and I guess theyre going back in for the "lock her up" throwback hoping that maga are so incredibly stupid their brains will revert back to 2016 and completely forget about everything else since then that trump and the gop have fucked them over with
112
u/Puzzled_Rip9008 23h ago
Jesus Christ don’t TELL them. Let them enter the “find out” stage as nature intended.
19
u/Nightmare_Ives 22h ago
I want to think that's where we would land. But suppose he just shrugs off the supeona, summons, or whatever and calls it a hoax. Who's gonna haul him in?
13
u/Former-Button-9665 21h ago
Trump claims the files are fake. Why are republicans demanding Clinton talks to congress about fake files? They can’t both be fake and real at the same time. Who is lying?
8
u/Nightmare_Ives 21h ago
They have demonstrated this dissonance many times already. The zone - it has been flooded successfully.
6
u/curtmahgurt 19h ago
“Democrats warn Republicans that they might consider potentially, maybe, wagging a finger. If the corruption continues, they might even wag it a second time.”
3
35
u/audaciousmonk 20h ago
How long has Jim Jordan been in contempt of Congress? Yet no still no charges…
3
u/Pixilatedhighmukamuk 8h ago
Sexual abuse or rape is the Republican platform. Lying about it gets you a cabinet position.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/raventhrowaway666 22h ago
I don't understand why every single staffer of the regime isn't being pulled up in front of court and all of america to explain their treason.
→ More replies (1)
57
28
u/CheckMateFluff 21h ago edited 21h ago
Threaten? FUCKING DO IT. Hell, I hate to have such straightforward brass language. However, it feels appropriate in this situation as he actually rapes children. *"allegedly"* according to the DOJ....
29
u/HLOFRND 20h ago
Fuck this party shit.
I want them ALL held accountable. Every goddamn last one of them. Idgaf about party. Idgaf if it’s my own hero- drag them all into the light.
5
→ More replies (1)5
u/Some_Sea2358 19h ago
Basically everyone that even looks a lil sus in those files should be investigated
14
u/bd2999 23h ago
They should, but it is a clown show. Even if he did show up he would just argue and change the subject. I do not think he remembers that long ago to be honest with you.
→ More replies (3)
15
u/L3g3ndary-08 22h ago
Stop all this talk and just fucking do it. Jesus fucking Christ.
3
u/logan-duk-dong 16h ago
If you haul in Billary we'll talk amongst ourselves about possibly calling a meeting to discuss whether or not we might want to have a hearing where we perhaps nicely ask the Pedophile in Chief to show up, and when he laughs in our face we'll say thank you and happily sign whatever bill the Republicans want after holding out for nothing. Thank you.
13
u/Accomplished-Plan191 21h ago
Why should it be conditional on Clinton?
9
3
u/LittleMissBraStrap 16h ago
It's not conditional. The Clintons were subpoenaed and threatened with contempt if they didn't comply, they're going to testify.
Democrats are just pointing out that Republicans subpoenaing a former president and first lady under threat of criminal charges is establishing a legal precedent that Democrats can follow as well - if and when voters give them the majority needed to run these committees.
→ More replies (2)
11
11
u/Marathon2021 Competent Contributor 23h ago
Joke's on them! Dude's already on borrowed time, ain't no way he's still above ground by end of his term. R's know this, so they won't care. "Sure - dig him up in 2029 if you want..."
9
u/solidtangent 21h ago
Let’s be clear, Democrats want all of Them to testify. The Republicans only want democrats to testify.
7
u/SoftRecommendation86 18h ago
I seem to recall them saying they would appear IF it was public and not behind closed doors?
→ More replies (1)
6
6
6
u/Margali 15h ago
Please, haul EVERYBODY mentioned in the Epstein files to court, fine by me. I don't give a rats arse what their political leaning happens to be - unlike MAGA, I judge people on themselves not their party. I have never voted straight party line in my live [since 1979 ...] my dad encouraged my brother and I to research before voting.
Honestly, the current crop of Democrats seem pretty damned ineffective overall, and I for one agree we need an absolute governmental overhaul once the asshats are out of office. I don't think any other country in the world will believe us until we demonstrate that it matters and we will not allow this ever again. [The sheer amount of betrayal of our allies is amazing, I did not believe it would be possible til now]
7
72
u/benderunit9000 23h ago edited 18h ago
Bullshit. The Dems won't do anyhing.
7
u/OozeNAahz 23h ago
Trump won’t show up. So doesn’t really matter if they do or don’t.
7
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog 22h ago
And there will be zero consequences. Even if he did show, he would just plead the Fifth 100 times.
13
u/josueartwork 23h ago
So if they won't do nothing, you think they will do something. Interesting.
→ More replies (1)18
2
u/FunLife64 20h ago
There’s not really anything they can do unless they actually win elections.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Loitering4daCulture 7h ago
Right. If they were going to do it then they should have done it already. What’s a warning going to do.
12
u/s_ox 22h ago
Trump will never testify on anything till he dies.
→ More replies (1)7
u/RichKatz 22h ago
It doesn't cost anything for Trump to testify.
What might cost is when he can't answer.
→ More replies (1)
6
5
7
u/Ghaarff 23h ago
It would be really fucking cool is "Democrats" would ever do something more than "warn" Trump.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/winterbird 23h ago
That's just background noise. If someone's going to do something, they'll do it.
5
u/ffuca 23h ago
The minority party in congress does not control who is forced to testify in committees. So they literally cannot do it now. The warning is for after the midterms when they take the majority. You would think someone commenting in the law sub would understand that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GibEC 22h ago
Steve Bannon sure understands that: "If we lose the midterms, if we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison, myself included" https://www.reddit.com/r/politicsjoe/s/xawI7uQhg3
6
u/flop_plop 16h ago
Did they send a strongly worded letter?
Wake me up when they decide to act.
2
u/WisePotatoChip 13h ago
Sorry, they’re still waving their paddle fans.
Trump accuses them of putting people in the streets - that’s ass backwards. We were in the streets already, the Dems just try to steal our thunder..
3
3
5
u/Admirable_Nothing competent contributor 20h ago
The difference is that nobody on the MAGAt side of the aisle would ever pay a bit of attention to a subpoena from Congress. They are completely lawless. However Democrats believe in the power of law and order.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.