this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
323 points (98.8% liked)

politics

20340 readers
3985 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Democrats attacked Elon Musk during the first House Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee hearing, accusing him of illegally expanding his influence over federal agencies.

Representative Melanie Stansbury challenged Musk to testify under oath, while others criticized his access to sensitive government data and his role in firing five inspector generals investigating his companies.

Representative Greg Casar highlighted Musk’s $3 billion in federal contracts, contrasting it with Social Security benefits.

Marjorie Taylor Greene defended spending cuts, but Democrats mocked her leadership, with Robert Garcia sarcastically calling Musk “President Elon Musk.”

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong 187 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Hearings don't mean shit. Hold him in contempt of congress and put him in the clink.

[–] MegaUltraChicken 54 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have to imagine the sergeant at arms wants to use that ass whooping stick he's been carrying around all these years...

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah the majority of the congress is down with this shit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Loving the username

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Oh come on, can’t you let us live with the fantasy for a second?

[–] Red_October 4 points 1 week ago

Again. Third time's the charm I guess, not that it'll have any consequences this time either.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Charge him with terrorism and send him to gitmo. We've sent people there for less.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

We are currently sending people there for much less

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I don't understand the US law etc but my understanding is to do that they need to get the US martial to bring him in. Which unfortunately are under the executive branch (run by the president)

[–] Sir_Simon_Spamalot 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They can roast all they want. They still lost.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They still lost.

America lost. This "finding out" phase is really hard to watch. Is his term over yet?

[–] Bahnd 8 points 1 week ago

Its been three weeks... Three very long weeks...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

He's still alive, so no.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Did they SLAM him? It's not a real victory if dude wasn't slammed. We gotta resist harder! \s

[–] thedeadwalking4242 8 points 1 week ago

Some part of me feels that we made a mistake by only giving one branch the power to enforce the law. How can the legislature or judiciary really have any weight behind their words if the executive actually controls all the resources…