this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
102 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19115 readers
3537 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
 

Summary

Sen. Lindsey Graham defended Matt Gaetz, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, saying allegations of sexual misconduct should not disqualify him based on “a media report.”

Gaetz denies the claims, which include sexual misconduct with a high school student, drug use, and improper gifts, asserting they were part of an extortion plot.

While the FBI convicted someone for extortion related to the allegations, Gaetz was not charged.

Some Senate Republicans, like Sen. John Cornyn, are pressing for the release of a bipartisan House Ethics Committee report on the matter.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fluxion 15 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

WTF does disqualify anyone for anything at this point? Let me guess... being a Democrat? Not bending over quickly enough when Trump walks up behind you?

[–] CharlesDarwin 9 points 3 hours ago

LOL, this is the party that was demanding a long form birth certificate from Obama based on their crazy conspiracies.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 hours ago

Someone should absolutely be disqualified from being a DA when they can't be a prime example of being a law-abiding citizen.

[–] Hobbes_Dent 82 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

...a bipartisan House Ethics Committee report...

See, thing is, that's not a media report.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

the fact he's a raging asshole who likes to pay underage girls for sex isn't, either. it's just straight facts.

[–] alquicksilver 13 points 5 hours ago

You can't argue facts with the party of feelings. They claim to be strong but they're so terrified of losing their positions of power (socially, politically, etc.) that they have no choice but to deny the truth. They've turned the truth political. (The recent pathetic (predominantly social media) responses to the 60 minutes opening about his cabinet picks is an excellent example of this.)

[–] Rottcodd 60 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Lindsey Graham can always be counted on to suck up to whichever Republican is currently getting the most headlines.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Lindsey Graham can always be counted on to suck the dick ~~of whichever Republican is currently getting the most headlines.~~

[–] Rottcodd 7 points 6 hours ago

Sorry - I edited that because I could just see some tight-assed mod getting all twisted up over it, and I wanted the underlying message to not get deleted, and only saw your response after the fact.

But now that you mention it...

[–] Ledivin 27 points 6 hours ago

I actually totally agree, here... Instead of relying on various media spin, we should be basing our opinions on the official report from the House Ethics Committee. Release the fuckin' report.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Lmao. This fucking guy.

Gríma Wormtongue had more redeeming qualities than this toady. And he ate a fucking hobbit!

[–] Xanis 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

And he ate a fucking hobbit!

W-wait. Hold up. No way...

Edit: IMPLIED. Somehow I'm relieved. Given the character I'm not wholly sure why.

[–] phoneymouse 14 points 6 hours ago

How about an FBI investigation with Venmo receipts?

[–] Plum 12 points 6 hours ago

Vocabulary word of the day: Quisling

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes they abso-fucking-lutely should.

[–] Nightwingdragon 18 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

No, he's right. Nobody should be disqualified for a media report. All that would do is lead to everybody throwing wild accusations against everybody else.

However, reports from FBI investigations and the House Ethics Committee absolutely should be grounds for disqualification.