• TehWorld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 days ago

      That takes 2/3 of congress still, doesn’t it? Mike Johnson won’t ever let it near the floor.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        9 days ago

        The house requires a simple majority to impeach him. The senate conviction requires a 2/3’s votes

        Source

        In the process, “impeachment” is really more like the “indictment” of a grand jury, where the house is the jury, and it just needs a majority.

        You’re right that Johnson won’t let it go anywhere… but if those 4 jump ship… caucus with the dems… he wouldn’t have a say.

        Don’t wake me. It’s a lovely dream, okay?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          The house requires a simple majority to impeach him

          And the assent of the speaker to even let it come to a vote. Which won’t happen as long as the Jericho Johnson has the gavel.

          but if those 4 jump ship… caucus with the dems… he wouldn’t have a say.

          Incorrect. The speaker has full dictatorial control of what comes up for a vote in the first place.

          It could have 75% support and it still wouldn’t get past that fundie bastard.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Incorrect. The speaker has full dictatorial control of what comes up for a vote in the first place.

            If they flipped, and caucused with the dems as independents… Johnson wouldn’t be speaker, now would he? Jeffries or whoever would be.

            It’s a pipe dream, but it’s such a very lovely pipe dream because it’s actually possible.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Oh yeah, missed that part somehow lol, sorry about that!

              Jeffries might not let it go ahead either, though. He’s quite right wing and EXTREMELY pro-corporate, so he may well have some owner donors in common with the six judicial disgraces 🤷

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 days ago

                I mean it’s possible, but we’re asking republicans to do the right thing here; and I’m pretty sure they haven’t run out of other things to try yet, so, it’s gonna be a while.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 days ago

    It allows for the person held in contempt to be taken into custody to be brought before the House or Senate and allow for a “trial” to determine guilt or innocence

    Kangaroo Court.

  • Gustephan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 days ago

    “Why should the attorney general of the United States be held to a different standard. No one is above the law.”

    Fucking rich, you two faced piece of shit. Wonder how she feels about that statement with regards to trump

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    An attempt to hold Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress failed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after four Republicans joined every Democrat to table the motion.

    A motion to refer a resolution by Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida to the House Rules Committee to hold Garland in inherent contempt of Congress.

    Luna’s resolution would have held Garland in “inherent contempt,” which would have required him to pay $10,000.

    The House accused Garland of contempt after he defied a subpoena to turn over audio tapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would sue the Department of Justice afterward.

    “If an American is presented with a lawful subpoena, he or she is expected that they comply or face the consequences of their defiance,” she said.


    The original article contains 217 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 36%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!