House of Representatives 2: Nancy is in Charge

[GreyhoundFan]

Jordan is such a nasty ass

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wish they'd do more than admonish him: "House Ethics panel admonishes Gaetz over Michael Cohen tweet"

Spoiler

The House Ethics Committee formally admonished Rep. Matt Gaetz for a threatening tweet about President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer — the lightest form of punishment that the panel can take.

While the 10-member panel determined that the Florida Republican’s “actions did not reflect creditably upon the House of Representatives,” the committee also concluded in its report that he “did not violate witness tampering and obstruction of Congress laws” and declined to issue more severe sanctions against the Florida Republican.

Furthermore, the report noted that the House Ethics Committee “is not the social media police” and “not every social media misstep requires Committee action” — a testament to how much the panel’s work has had to evolve in the social media age.

The Ethics panel, which is chaired by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), released its findings on Friday.

The case stems from an incident on February 2019, when on the eve of Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress, Gaetz vowed to release embarrassing information about allegations of Cohen's infidelity. The tweet sparked immediate backlash on Capitol Hill, with Democrats accusing Gaetz of witness tampering.

“Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat,” Gaetz wrote. “I wonder if she’ll remain faithful to you in prison. She’s about to learn a lot.”

Gaetz deleted the tweet and apologized, but he blew off an initial review of the complaint. After the House Ethics Committee opened a formal inquiry into his behavior, however, Gaetz cooperated with the probe; he testified that he was not comfortable with the language he used, acknowledged that he acted improperly and said he was sorry for his actions.

The report also pointed out the Florida Bar — which had also launched an investigation into Gaetz’ tweet — found the post to be “unprofessional, reckless, insensitive, and [that it] demonstrated poor judgment,” but did not determine that his behavior warranted any disciplinary action.

“The ISC joined Representative Gaetz and the Florida Bar grievance committee in finding Representative Gaetz’s tweet to Mr. Cohen did not meet the standards by which Members of the House should govern themselves and recommended that the Committee admonish Representative Gaetz for his conduct,” the report stated.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Eric is so on point here:

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Eric is so on point here:

 

How exactly would that work? There is a snowball's chance in hell for the dems to loose the majority in the House. Does he believe he can influence the Dems choice of Speaker? Is he just posturing? To what end, when he knows he'll fail? No matter how you look at it, he looks the fool. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm sure that nasty ass Collins won't listen to Ms. Delgado because he probably doesn't believe women should speak unless directed by their husbands or fathers.

 

[fraurosena]

Makes you wonder what he's afraid of.

McCarthy threatens motion to oust Pelosi if she moves forward with impeachment

Quote

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday threatened to introduce a motion to oust Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) if she attempts to impeach President Trump or Attorney General William Barr as a delay tactic to prevent the Senate from confirming Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Some have pushed for Pelosi to impeach Barr or Trump, for a second time, as a stall tactic to keep empty the seat vacated by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the presidential election. Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Pelosi said, “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now.” 

McCarthy blasted the comments and said he believes the president is correct in moving forward with a nomination ahead of the election. 

“The president is supposed to move forward and they will. The Senate is supposed to take the action and they will — it's their constitutional right and they are following through,” he told reporters at a press briefing on Wednesday. 

“And I will make you this one promise, listening to the Speaker on television this weekend, if she tries to move for an impeachment based upon the president following the Constitution, I think there will be a move on the floor to no longer have the question of her being Speaker. She may think she has a quiver — we do too,” he added.  

Democrats have been highly critical of the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) decision to move forward, arguing they are breaking the precedent they themselves set in blocking the confirmation of former President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. Republicans argue that since the White House and the Senate are held by the same party, the circumstances are different and they should proceed. 

Even prior to the Supreme Court vacancy, members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus were advocating for McCarthy to introduce the motion to vacate — essentially a motion to oust the Speaker — with some arguing it could be an effective way to demonstrate to voters that they are pushing back against Pelosi's agenda and critical remarks about Republicans. 

The topic was discussed during a closed-door House Republicans meeting on the upcoming election at the Capitol Hill Club Wednesday morning. Lawmakers emerging from the meeting said the discussion was civil and that McCarthy mostly just listened to the various arguments from the Freedom Caucus and other members. 

"It was civil, and considering we're so many days from Election Day, it was very civil," Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.).

But sources in the room said McCarthy also warned colleagues that forcing a floor vote to oust Pelosi before the election could give frontline Democrats, those facing the toughest reelections, a free pass to vote against Pelosi and distance themselves from the Speaker — something that could be politically advantageous for them this fall. 

Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), said they did not think McCarthy would pursue the motion to vacate before the election.

Other senior GOP sources said that the likelihood of moving forward is unlikely due to a lack of quorum within the House Republican Conference. 

Why does he think his motion will succeed anyway? 

Also, why does he think ousting Pelosi would help? It's not like the other Dems in the House would not do the same thing he's so afraid Pelosi will do.

Ergo, he's just posturing. 

[fraurosena]

Sadly, this will only be yet another piece of paper sent to languish in McConnell's dust-gathering drawer. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I despise Jordan. I wish the people of Ohio would stop foisting him on us:

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I despise Jordan. I wish the people of Ohio would stop foisting him on us:

Gym forgets that Trump is only four years younger... and has less than 4 years political experience. 

[fraurosena]

Katie Porter is one of my favourite reps. Here's why:

 

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

Here's the whole interview:

 

[fraurosena]

She's wasn't being facetious, but quite serious.

(thread)

[formergothardite]

Like discussed in the Pence thread this really feels like some sort of a stunt that will go nowhere and do nothing but stir up Trump's base and make it harder for some democrats to win. Unless she can, in the next day or so, bring irrefutable evidence that Trump is no longer capable of making decisions, then she needs to drop this fast. It isn't going to help democrats at all and might hurt some vulnerable ones.  

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Like discussed in the Pence thread this really feels like some sort of a stunt that will go nowhere and do nothing but stir up Trump's base and make it harder for some democrats to win. Unless she can, in the next day or so, bring irrefutable evidence that Trump is no longer capable of making decisions, then she needs to drop this fast. It isn't going to help democrats at all and might hurt some vulnerable ones.  

I'm not sure why it would damage democrats chances though. Things are pretty polarised, and I don't think anything would change people's minds about who to vote for, not even this. Are there even undecideds left? And if so, is their number high enough to actually have a decisive impact?

 

[formergothardite]

11 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I'm not sure why it would damage democrats chances though. Things are pretty polarised, and I don't think anything would change people's minds about who to vote for, not even this. Are there even undecideds left? And if so, is their number high enough to actually have a decisive impact?

 

At this point we need every single vote. 2016 showed us what happened when people just didn't go vote. That was one of the problems is that there was a low voter turn out. We cannot think for one second that any of these races can be easily won.

I have a friend who has recently began working with one of the local democratic politicians going door to door talking to people and she was surprised how many people she talked to disliked Trump, but equally disliked the democrats because they viewed all the time spent investigating Trump and really getting nowhere as signs that all they care about is playing politics. The Russia investigation and the impeachment was brought up a lot and not in a positive way.  These people would rather just not vote because they view it as two parties that only obsessed with maintaining power.

This close to the election starting something like the 25th amendment that goes absolutely nowhere, will just cement in the minds of these voters that the democrats didn't want to accept the election so they spent four years trying to undo it. Maybe on a national or state scale these people won't have an impact, but on a local scale it does. 

The local democrats in my area cannot win any of the races if they can't inspire people like this to go vote. This is putting them in a tricky spot because they have to try to appeal to these apathetic voters who will just skip the election again if it seems like the options are between corrupt republicans and corrupt democrats. Unless she already knows that there is solid evidence that Trump is so sick that he can't make any decisions, she needed to have held off for the next month and then dealt with it. But anything that stretches on for weeks with no real evidence being provided just makes it look like the democrats have a case of sour grapes and are desperately throwing stuff around to bring Trump down and hoping something sticks. And that is going to turn off the voters that vulnerable democrats desperately need, especially in the small, local elections. 

[fraurosena]

Thanks for the insight, @formergothardite. Always good to get inside information when you're looking at things from afar, as I am. 

17 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

This close to the election starting something like the 25th amendment

As to the quote above, as far as I understand it, what Pelosi is doing is not invoking the 25th. She and Raskin are introducing a bill (to instate a commission on presidential capacity to discharge the powers and duties of office) on clarifying what to do in case a president is incapacitated and the vice-president is also incapacitated or refuses to (or cannot) invoke the 25th. From what I gather the amendment is not clear about these circumstances.

Raskin has had the idea for this bill for some time, and I think current circumstances with Trump getting covid and the possibility of Pence also having/getting it and both of them becoming incapacitated, has prompted Pelosi to fast-track the introduction of the bill. 

[formergothardite]

31 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

As to the quote above, as far as I understand it, what Pelosi is doing is not invoking the 25th.

From that twitter thread:

Quote

This is not a bill that's going to go anywhere anytime soon. But it is certainly going to provoke Trump, who has already tweeted about it today.

It just feels like a political stunt that won't really accomplish anything besides poke at Trump. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Poor Matty, his lord and master can't get his name right.

 

[Becky]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Poor Matty, his lord and master can't get his name right.

 

Isn't that the guy who professed his actual love for Trump last week?  HAHAHAHAHAhahaha!  Best laugh of the day.

Oh, yeah, and tell us how Joe Biden is mentally incompetent again - projecting much?  

[GreyhoundFan]

Not surprised that Matty has come down with Covid. Maybe he should have continued to wear the gas mask.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Matty will never waste an opportunity to kiss up to his lord and master:

 

[Becky]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Matty will never waste an opportunity to kiss up to his lord and master:

 

Ew.  How inappropriate.  And gross.  

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Matty will never waste an opportunity to kiss up to his lord and master:

 

What about Gaetz's "son" Nestor?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, Becky said:

Ew.  How inappropriate.  And gross.  

When I saw it, I thought that no woman with taste would give Matty a second look, but then I remembered she’s a Trump, so good taste isn’t a factor.