politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Part of me thinks that the files are weakened by including baseless allegations from anonymous tips and that it would be better to have some hard evidence for this. But another part of me doesn't want to have that hard evidence emerge because I dread seeing how many people will flatly deny or even try to justify or excuse it.
Other presidents have resigned for less.
I'm pretty sure each and every single week of Trump's presidency has had things bad enough that they have ended other political careers before, and he just doesn't stop.
He is a THOROUGHLY shameless man and that is what every dipshit in the country admires about him.
He’s not referring to anything baseless. The allegations I’ve read about are serious and credible.
Can you share specific credible reports? The stuff I've seen has been anonymous tips to the FBI tipline that were included in the files. Salacious and maybe even true, but little more than "trust me bro." Heck, even witnesses that come forward can have questionable credibility -- remember Biden accuser Tara Reade, who has since defected to Russia? I want to see persuasive evidence (though again, I kind of dread it).
I’ve read it as the same. Maybe not anonymous but certainly just a tip line that seemingly anyone could have reported to, with very little corroborating evidence.
The real crime is that it wasn’t followed up on and has been actively suppressed.
So what would have to happen for the evidence to be credible, if a mountain of testimony isn't? Are you going to stay skeptical until you see full unredacted video of Trump raping a child?
One person's testimony, in isolation, may be suspect, but this is a lot more than one person with a "Trust me bro" story.
I don't think that the files are weakened by allegations from anonymous tips. But, if that's the pillar they're using to build their case against Trump, that's pretty worrisome. Holding a press conference about allegations from an anonymous tip line is the equivalent of an attack ad with ominous music and vague, unprovable statements.
If that's what they're going to lead with, they better at least take the angle "and it's very telling that nobody followed up on these incredibly disturbing claims. Why weren't they investigated?"
And that's what Lieu did.
It was something he mentioned in passing. But, the focus of his press conference was the same as the headline here: "There are allegations"
And not all anonymous tips are baseless. Hard evidence doesn't just show up at investigators' doorsteps except in vanishingly rare cases. Some people are rightly afraid of retaliation. That's why allegations are investigated, unless the threats are flagrant nonsense ("it wuz alien lizards!!") or the justice system is captured by criminals as it is now.
But, many anonymous tips are baseless. That's why there normally isn't a press conference when those allegations haven't yet been investigated and verified.