this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
93 points (82.5% liked)

politics

24944 readers
2218 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a report released Friday, the committee said that Ocasio-Cortez “proactively took steps to comply” with House rules, including using personal funds to rent apparel that would typically be gifted or loaned to Met Gala attendees.

But the report states that, despite Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s significant attempts, the Committee found that she failed to fully comply with the Gift Rule by impermissibly accepting a gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for her partner and by failing to pay full fair market value for some of the items worn to the event.”

The ethics panel said it did not find evidence that Ocasio-Cortez “intentionally underpaid” for costs related to the event, and that “in many instances,” she had relied on a campaign staffer to handle discussions of payment and the advice of her counsel to determine the amounts.

. . . The ethics committee also released a separate report related to Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, and allegations that his wife may have bought stock in a steel company based on confidential or nonpublic information he learned in his role as a congressman.

The committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”

But the report said that the panel did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.”

The report concluded by saying that “Representative Kelly should ensure that he and Mrs. Kelly divest of all shares of Cleveland-Cliffs before taking any further official action relating to the company.”

This some bull shit right here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 84 points 18 hours ago (21 children)

Fascism going after its political enemies.

[–] LilB0kChoy@piefed.social -3 points 18 hours ago (20 children)

Did you read the entire article?

The committee called on Ocasio-Cortez to “make additional payments of personal funds to compensate for the fair market value of certain expenses.”

A spokesperson for Ocasio-Cortez said that the congresswoman intends to “remedy the remaining amounts.”

“The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process,” her chief of staff Mike Casca said in a statement provided to CNN.

The House Ethics Committee is bipartisan and reviews matters referred to it by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is “a nonpartisan, independent entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members of the House of Representatives and their staff and, when appropriate, referring matters to the United States House Committee on Ethics.

It’s also worth noting that “the OCE was created by House Resolution 895 of the 110th United States Congress in March 2008, 191 in the wake of across-the-board Democratic victories in the 2006 elections. It was created under the leadership of then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi as part of her effort to clean up what she called the "culture of corruption" in official Washington, which had garnered so much attention in the preceding congressional sessions.”

This specific incidence is less “fascism” and more “checks and balances working as intended”.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I don't really understand what you're getting at.

There's loads (almost all ?) of public institutions which have become tools for the authoritarian regime.

This institution is not "working as intended" if it asks a democrat to repay an event ticket but gives a republican a free pass on insider trading.

I'll remind you that insider trading is theft. If a stock is worth $x on the open market but you know that due to upcoming legislation or regulator actions it's really worth $x + $y then when you buy that stock you deprive everyone else in the market of that $y.

One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars and the other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars.

[–] LilB0kChoy@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

There's loads (almost all ?) of public institutions which have become tools for the authoritarian regime.

Yep, there sure are. Anything to support that the OCE (a non-partisan independent board) or House Ethics Committee (a bi-partisan committee made up of 5 members of each party) is one of them?

This institution is not "working as intended" if it asks a democrat to repay an event ticket

OCE referred it to the HEC, they reviewed it and found that while AOC made full effort to abide by the gift policy there were a few things missed. They asked her to rectify it and she agreed. She also acknowledged their findings (“She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process“). What’s not working there?

but gives a republican a free pass on insider trading.

“the committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”

Any actual tangible proof or evidence they’re lying? Or maybe you have a view like the MAGAs and want to suspend due process for those you don’t like?

One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars and the other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars.

Do you notice how you worded this?

“One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars”

“other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars”. Possibly.

The committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”

But the report said that the panel “did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.”

I think it’s very likely they engaged in insider trading, but if they have nothing to actually prove it, what are you expecting from the process?

I'll remind you that insider trading is theft.

It sure is. Who handles financial crimes? The DoJ and the SEC, yet no investigation was opened. Probably because those organizations have been hamstrung and stacked with loyalists at positions of power? Although the case for Rep. Kelly was referred to House Ethics in 2021…

On July 23, 2021, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Rep. Mike Kelly.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)