Just browsed r/conservative for a bit to see the response there. Pleasantly surprised to see multiple posts where the top comment was something along the lines of "release everything, don't care who is affected on either side"
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
941 points (99.0% liked)
politics
25004 readers
2551 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They made us think it was conservative versus progressive. Democrat vs Republican.
It always was the elite versus the people
load more comments
(11 replies)
They even fucking lied?
Then the GOP chair, Rep. Higgins, lied, claiming the motion FAILED
I'm not holding my breath but I'm really hoping that will help maga chuds clue in that the GOP are wholly dishonest.
10% of them saying it was wrong is the best we'll get. Him being charged with treason is what it should be
Here's hoping that 10% are our fucking dipshit relatives eh?
It has to at least fall under this:
"§1001. Statements or entries generally Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749 ; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), 108 Stat. 2147 .)"
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=49&f=treesort&num=1262
load more comments
(2 replies)
I get what you’re saying, but there are now two very distinct news spheres, and the one that they’re watching will simply not cover this story.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm guessing Roberts Rules stuff.
As a quick and dirty thing, you can call a voice vote of ayes and nays. If it's not particularly close, it'll be obvious what the outcome is, the Chair will call the result, and everyone moves on. However, any member can call bullshit on the Chair, and then it goes to a more formal process.
So without watching the whole damn video, it's probably that the voice vote went one way, the Chair said it was the other, got called on it, and the roll call vote went against him.
2 people said 'nay' and 8 people said 'aye'... It was an honest mistake anyone could have made.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I did watch the video and it was blatant and ridiculous.
load more comments
(4 replies)
MAGAs can't resist cheating at every opportunity. Here we are again with standard election fraud on a micro basis, but we're supposed to believe that they won the 2024 Election "Fair & Square?"
This is unsurprising.
But forcing a recorded count does get those Republican Nays on record so they can be punished later.
load more comments
(5 replies)
the single person who voted no: "In the opinion of the chair the nos have it"
the multiple people who voted "yes" laugh at the absurdity and call him out on it
how fucking brazen a liar
Shouldn't that be like contempt of congress or something?
maybe if laws/rules applied to Republicans in positions of power
load more comments
(3 replies)
Can someone explain to this non-american why the Democrats are treating this as a successful upset when they could have released the Epstein files during Biden?
I don't see anyone saying this yet, but the Epstein files were sealed by a court order for Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. They weren't unsealed until January of 2025. Biden couldn't have released them without violating the court order that sealed them - and possibly giving Ghislaine's lawyers a slam dunk to get her off with a mistrial.
load more comments
(20 replies)
Because they COULDN'T release them under Biden. They were sealed by court order until January 2025.
There is a lot of desperate "both sides" nonsense going on here but the fact remains, Democrats are voting to release them and Republicans are not. If Democrats wanted to cover them up, why would they be doing that?
It’s all bread and circuses until the 1% have extracted the last iota of capital from the rest of us and the country finally collapses.
load more comments
(37 replies)
sooooo GOP chair who blatantly tried to defraud the American people in a cushy government position by abusing his position, he's tossed outta the swamp now, right?
or rather, into the new swamp down in Florida
"The no has it" are you fucking kidding me.
Bruh this isn't the first time Higgens has tried this shit either. I find him specifically so infuriating.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I suspect a lot of the GOP also want rid of Trump now he's won for the second time.
They've put in their time. They're political lifers. They know they don't really need him any more, and frankly his health will take care of that sooner rather than later.
If he follows the rules, he can't run again anyway. If he doesn't then they don't need him to win elections for them, because there won't be any more. They're just stuffing their pockets while waiting for any opportunity to try and get in a bigger chair. Their only worry is that someday, lobbyists might not want to bribe them any more to do their jobs.
I suspect the list is being withheld for reasons other than Donald, who we all know is on it anyway. Plenty of more important shadowy figures who still have something to lose.
load more comments
(15 replies)
The video was fun to watch to watch.
If my understanding is right, it just means this sub committee will now subpoena all documents. Not like it will be available to everybody, just available to the lawmakers. You must be a real pedophile-ophile to want to block your committee from having knowledge.
I think GOP wants to get rid of Trump but keep MAGA. They've simply been unable to manipulate that outcome until now.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Hey, where's all those losers that kept saying the Dems didn't actually want it released? Come on out of the woodwork, ya fucking losers.
load more comments
(7 replies)
When he was the only person to say no, and then claimed "the noes have it," that was the funniest gd thing I've seen all day. Hahahahahaha!
So this subpoena means they get to review the documents, and presumably in their original state as well?
So if they get redacted ones, that would be obstruction of justice, but the question becomes did the obstruction of justice happen as a result of his duties of office, or one of personal reasons.
This still could get worse, even if the information that needs to come out does.
Obstruction of justice? In this part of the session? Located entirely within this government?
Yes.
Can I see it?
No.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What does this actually mean?
Republicans are hypocrites — and have to be forced onto the record defying Dotard Trump — even though he’s a rapist and a pedophile.
load more comments
(4 replies)
3 Republicans: "I might be a racist, zionist(somehow), corrupt piece of shit that sits down when my fellow Americans are put into concentration camps, who is all for authoritarianism and white nationalism,.... but I ain't no pederass protector!"
a what, Walter?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Trust me bro one more rape charge on the rapist king and we beat fscist trust me bro. It will be a bombshell when everyone finds out what they already know and they SLAM him. One more scandal and we defeat facism trust me bro.
load more comments
(6 replies)
A House Oversight subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the Department of Justice to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
The motion passed by a vote of 8-2. Notably, three GOP lawmakers -- Reps. Nancy Mace, Scott Perry and Brian Jack -- joined with Democrats on the subcommittee to approve the subpoena, defying Republican leadership.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer must sign the subpoena before it can be officially issued, per committee rules. Comer plans to sign off on the subpoena, a Republican committee source told ABC News.
The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Summer Lee, initially offered the motion.
view more: next ›