Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) has requested a solid timeline from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) through which the House Ethics Committee is expected to complete its probe into Rep. George Santos’ (R-NY) alleged unlawful activity and other malfeasances.
It works like this:
Rep. Horribly Corrupt Piece of Shit ( R ) …only the ( R ) matters.
clarify the timeline by which we can expect the Ethics Committee to ‘move rapidly’
I trust that @geographyjones can explain the timeline McQ and the Ethics (sic) Committee have in mind.
Not just quick, but super-quick.
The House Ethics Committee posts its standards of conduct. Clearly the focus would be on the campaign and financial disclosure declarations, matters that could be resolved in a matter of hours. The slowdown, if the ethics committee wanted to dwell on it, would be Santos and non-US donors, particularly the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, who is currently under sanctions. Imagine if it were possible for foreign governments and rich persons to buy favor with members of Congress!
I am glad that Santos got to vote! Wouldn’t want to seem too selfless.
Suggested edit:
“I trust that (even) @geographyjones can explain the timeline…”
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” ― Elie Wiesel
As opposed to the odd @geographyjones?
Two sides of the same coin.
“I think we can look at this very quickly and come to a conclusion on what George Santos did and did not do through ethics, a safe bipartisan committee,” the speaker said."
“Very quickly” means this method is as slow as Kevin can find. As slow as possible assists Kevin and his goals. Kevin’s lips are moving, so he is lying. Let’s all try to keep up, please…
Procedural question. Would the Ethics Committee not put its investigation on hold pending resolution of the criminal charges? Just, you know, anyways? Or does the speaker have to come out and ask them?
McCarthy’s vision:
The operative word is “safe.” The ethics committee has 10 members, five from each party. Rule 10 of the committee rules provides that “actions shall be taken only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee.”
ETA:
Rule 14(a): “the Committee may exercise its investigative authority when . . . (4) a Member, officer, or employee is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct . . .”
To answer the question asked to McCarthy by this stories headline:
If McCarthy were to give an honest answer it would take two words, “I don’t”.
He meant “half fast”.
I’ve said it before, Qevin McCardboard, Squeaker of the House. A man with a spine made of Jello.
Frankly, the criminal investigation is irrelevant. He lied on every part of his resume, or C.V. as it were, and has confirmed it, so what matters, re expulsion, does his criminal behavior have?
The lies should be, and are, more than sufficient to kick his lying scumbag ass out of the House. The criminal charges are criminal charges and should be pursued and applied to the max. 20 years in prison and as large of fines as possible.
Congressman Daniel Goldman on The Last Word Wednesday evening explained R thinking to us.
House Republicans, even those who say George Santos should resign or be expelled, blocked a Democratic effort to vote for his expulsion and “punted it to the Ethics Committee.” Rep. Daniel Goldman tells Lawrence O’Donnell why that is insufficient to hold Santos accountable and how Republicans are avoiding the issue because “all they care about is his power” in Congress.
R thinking. Is that a thing?
They seem to be a lot more the Following orders types then the thinking types.
George Santos - International Man of Bullshit.