Sen. John Fetterman offered a message Wednesday to House Republicans considering impeaching President Joe Biden: “Go ahead, do it. I dare you.”

Speaking to reporters in his Senate office, the Pennsylvania Democrat suggested that the impeachment push by Republicans on the other side of the Capitol was meant to deflect from the mountain of legal problems facing former President Donald Trump.

“Your man has what, three or four indictments now?” Fetterman said. “Trump has a mug shot and he’s been impeached twice.”

“Sometimes you just gotta call their bullshit,” he said.

The first-term senator went on to say that a Biden impeachment "would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right,” and “would diminish what impeachment really means.”

Note: As pointed out by reddig33 in comments, this is an old photo. Here’s a couple examples of his new look.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Clinton did commit a felony with the lying under oath part

    That’s my point though. The legal definition they gave him to work with didn’t include what he did with Monica. What he did wasn’t ok, and I’m not defending him personally, but it wasn’t a lie by the legal definition of “sexual relations.” The GOP was just on a fishing expedition to find anything they could on him.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Baloney. What he did counted as sexual relations or “sexual relationship” as he testified to. Then he tried to claim that since he was merely pleasuring her and didn’t orgasm himself, it didn’t count. They had to drag Lewinsky back to testify further that Clinton was still lying.

      Clinton tried to split hairs to pretend he didn’t lie. It didn’t work.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        since he was merely pleasuring her and didn’t orgasm himself, it didn’t count

        That’s not what happened at all.

        He claimed that she had sexual relations with him but he didn’t have sexual relations with her because the special investigator defined it based on who touched whose genitals.

        http://www.languageandlaw.org/PERJURY.HTM

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That correction doesn’t make it any better. It’s still perjury and she still had to testify that he lied even under that definition.