I think I’ll just report you and block you. Bye.
LilB0kChoy
Maybe that’s where you should be. Personally, I don’t like misinformation but since you do I’m guessing your values would align nicely with c/conservative.
Why? There’s plenty of actual fascism going on that misinformation and fear mongering about this specific situation isn’t needed.
If only we could determine when the OCE refferred the case to the House Ethics Committee…
On June 23, 2022, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
That’s about what I thought.
Anything, beyond your supposition, to support something different in this specific instance?
It’s probably rented out for events like air shows, maybe film and tv use too.
Odd non sequitur but, yes, he very likely does.
In case you’re confused though, that is also not fascism, it’s paedophilia.
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”.
My misunderstanding. I read the first sentence of your original comment as “this is good for me” and then the rest as “It’s counter to their recent actions and I want to get off the rollercoaster”.
Sounds like we’re on the same page though
I saw this same story from another source in a different post (https://archive.is/sZYDO).
There’s one specific paragraph in that article that is not covered in this one:
New York City has begun a crackdown on e-bikes and scooters riders. It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.
It isn’t to your advantage because it’s performative.
Also, the current administration’s fuckery with tariffs, deregulation push on AI and overall unpredictability and inconsistency has probably done more to hurt tech sector hiring than outsourcing.
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?
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?
“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?
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.
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?
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…