Silence, hypocrite.
You could only be talking to Pelosi and the Dems.
Silence, hypocrite.
It is quicker to destroy than create. We will be in the land that Bush created for many many years to come
The smart folks saw it coming and were prepared. The rest are scrambling and blaming (blaming illegal immigration, the gays, the Democrats).
But instead of blaming, they should be helping.-Mike
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:Right, and Congress rightly censured him for it. Why are you digging this up?
This thread does need a fork in it before it's driven into the ground.Can someone put a fork in this thread already?
This thread does need a fork in it before it's driven into the ground.
Well since you asked, here ya go. :biggrin:
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.
Funny how there hasn't been a single mention as to how the GOP modified the Ethics Rules back when Tom Delay was the House Majority Leader. Precisely, a rule that would have forced him to resign if he was indicted for criminal acts in his home state. But I guess when that happened, that wasn't supposed to be a sign of weakness or a sign that they couldn't "meet high ethical standards" either. Or was it? I'm not sure anymore... so many people have been spinning so much they can't even form a statement without getting dizzy.
But hey... Democrats are evil, right? That's the only thing that matters until Obama is out of office, right?! Rah, rah, sis boom-bah! Three cheers for political hypocrisy!!!
Can someone put a fork in this thread already?
Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!
First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - from the Washington PostUndercutting OCE's authority would be backsliding. The point of creating an outside watchdog was to prevent the ethics committee from sweeping things under the rug; all those on the committee are members of Congress. The panel is too often inclined not only to dismiss a complaint but to do so quietly, without airing the evidence. Lawmakers are understandably concerned that the ethics process not be used to tar them unfairly, providing fodder for attack ads in the next election, but there is also a public interest in full disclosure and robust enforcement. So far, the OCE -- which is made up of former members of Congress and experts chosen by the speaker and minority leader in equal numbers -- has proved a helpful force, and the ethics panel's unhappiness with the arrangement only underscores its importance.
Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
The Hill.comAt the meeting, which was also attended by CBC lawmaker and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), sources said Pelosi heard complaints about the OCEs new powers and investigation tactics.
Pelosi and Clyburn were sympathetic, because the OCE has produced some unintended consequences, according to two sources in the room.
Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress
The Hill.comBipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCEs creation at Pelosis urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group.
The Hill.comThere was a problem a few years ago with corruption in this institution, and thats why it was created, Davis said. I would hate to see the leadership walk away from this commitment as I look back as a private citizen. No member should be threatened by a more vigilant ethics system.
Topic - on point. Thread - backed up by articles from The Hill, the Washington Post and Talking Points Memo.Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.
Next.
Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!
First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.
Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress (quote):
"Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group." Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules - TheHill.com
Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.
Next.
TPMWill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand up and defend her signature "drain the swamp" ethics initiative from members of her own party? Doesn't look like it.
/But Pelosi's in a bit of a bind on this one, on a couple of levels. The Fudge resolution may go to far, but she can't say she opposes it entirely. Likewise, for political reasons, she'd have a hard time admitting that the Democrats might hamstring the ethics board when it's only been up and running for a year. And in the meantime, Republicans are keeping quiet, enjoying the bind they think Democrats created for themselves.
^Pelosi has done nothing but placate certain members of her caucus with sterile platitudes that are functionally meaningless, but you'll be damned if that's going to stop you dishonestly from applying Rep. Fudge's personal concerns directly to Pelosi herself.
I love it when you lie your ass off like this, and cite articles that say one thing, and then unethically assert that they say something quite different...
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.