Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    (Don't always believe what you read, this publication will have some outrageous articles and some serious. Obviously, this could argued to be in the outrageous category) Is Lady Jacky Secretly Black? Recently, California Republican Congresswoman “Lady Jacky” Jacky Williams made a comment to the San Diego Union-Tribune that she thinks Black America “deserves better than a family that uses rampant nepotism to gain power. That's not how the system is supposed to work. One day we will have a Black president, and it won't be a 'King.” That is of course in reference to the recent appointment by Speaker of the House King’s appointment of his brother, Reginald King, to the chair position of the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committee. However, those comments in particular have led to speculation in the beltway about why Jacky Williams thinks Black America deserves better when she herself is not black. Could she actually be black? Could she be like Ellen Ripley in last July’s sci-fi hit, Aliens? Maybe she has been rescued by a deep salvage team after being in hypersleep for 57 years. A hidden part of the movie could have been that Ellen Ripley was actually black before being in hypersleep. Is Jacky Williams here from the past, or in this case 1929, where she was actually a black woman living in America? We will keep you updated on this story, and more importantly, the latest speculation as we get it.
  2. 6 points
    I want to address the issue with the Nepotism hearings and the rationale of the AB in response to the process. The hearings were pursued essentially like a witch hunt, which was realistically neither called for nor appropriate. The AB is doing it's best to simulate realism and the conduct of the hearing was... not realistic. I apologize that we did not address this sooner.
  3. 5 points
    I usually do not try to criticize the AB publicly, but I think the last 24-72 hours have shown us that there are some things which need to be fixed. I think there is an AB backlog which needs to be resolved ASAP. Today's issues would have been made a lot better if there was an AB member there to provide guidance on how to handle this situation. I understand Baudin is on LOA right now, so I am not blaming him as he has a legitimate reason to be away. Not to mention, there are things we are still waiting on from the AB which have been requested for. A game calendar, IVS (the House already has votes which need tallied, so this needs to be a top priority), and technical requests are among those things. We have players literally going on rage LOA due to the AB backlog. We should be lucky they aren't ragequitting. Again, I do not want to criticize you guys and I do understand you have a real life, but I am afraid things are just starting to fall a little too far behind right now. Thank you for taking the time to read this and resolving the issues.
  4. 5 points
    Mr. Chairman, I second the motion by the Gentleman from Nebraska. I yield.
  5. 4 points
    Folks, I've got some updates for everyone: The AB will be ruling on the nepotism issue by tomorrow along with the publishing of the updated IVS. An official OOC calendar for 1987 will be released by Wednesday so players can be made aware of the timing of the round. The offer for applications to join the AB remains open and I'd encourage interested individuals to send a PM to me.
  6. 4 points
    When people think that playing a scenario in the late 80s means anybody gives a damn about "Compton" when it was a commonly accepted term for political, racial catcallers well into the 00s without penalty:
  7. 3 points
    Name: Michael Marshall Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Cherryville Tribune "I am glad the leadership of the Democratic Party has now admitted nepotism has occurred, and have now removed Reginald King as Chairman of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. I am thankful that they have rectified this ethical dilemma and now we can move on."
  8. 3 points
    Dear Chairman King and Ranking Member Williams, I am writing to you today as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, a body which I believe is in order to establish a clearer timeline of events regarding the internal Democratic Party processes relating to the assignment of members - and in this particular case, the Chairman - of a committee. This is in relation to the ongoing House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (comprised of the members of the House Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary) into allegations of nepotism by the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Chairman - three Representatives who happen to be closely related. I find a few claims made by the Majority Leader, Mr. Augustus King, to be particularly suspect. First, the Majority Leader claims that he gave everyone a "fair and equal chance to apply." This may be true, but what was not indicated in this statement was the fact that not everyone had a fair or equal chance to serve on a committee. Without divulging the inner workings of our Party, I can state that six (6!) members of our caucus expressed interest in chairing the House Committee on the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary. I was one of those who applied to serve on this Committee, and who offered to Chair it. Second, it is factually inaccurate that Chairman King was the first individual to sign up requesting to Chair this Committee. One individual, who I will allow to remain private unless s/he decides to come forward, requested to Chair this committee prior to Chairman King. Third, with all due respect to Chairman King, if pure experience in this chamber, or in private experience, was taken into account, I would present my background as being competitive. I served in the United States Army during the depths of World War II - qualifying myself in the armed services element of this role. I was admitted to practice law in 1952 - three years before Chairman King. Of course, I admit that experience is subjective, but I have also served in this chamber for 6 years prior to Chairman King's first election to the House. I also take offence at the so-called criteria used by Majority Leader King, which appear to have been designed to eliminate a single individual - me - from the running of chairing a committee. Simply running for a leadership position at the start of this Congress does not eliminate my extensive qualifications from potentially chairing a committee. Whether nepotism was involved, I can only indicate that the King political machine appears to be very much alive and well in California, and now - with their taking on the positions of Speaker, Majority Leader, and Chair of this prominent committee - of the United States Congress. I hope you understand the potential risks that my coming forward have for my own political future. But I believe that nepotism is a serious enough offence - in fact, it is illegal under the laws of our great nation - to make this story heard. I am willing to testify before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, if that should be deemed necessary. Sincerely, /s/ Douglas Seymour Democratic Representative for South Carolina's 3rd District
  9. 3 points
    Marshall concerned regarding Democrats latest policy endorsements WASHINGTON DC - Republican Chairman Marshall spoke to members of the press today over what he called "questionable policy endorsements" regarding members of the Democratic leadership. "You know, I'd be real concerned right now if I was a rank and file Democrat following the endorsement of the Gender Equity in Education Act. Just like that, the leadership of the Majority Party in Congress have echoed their support for a legislative proposal that will alienate millions of families and individuals across the country. The agenda setters have made their intentions clear this Congress, and it isn't to help the American people. Instead of focusing on the big issues like the economy or cutting taxes for Americans, we have decided to direct our focus to promoting sexual orientation and gender identity. This is absolutely nonsense and I question the motives of some of the folks on the other side of the aisle that want to include this type of language in federal statute. It is abhorrent and we should reject it. Let's get back to the issues and push policies which help people, not fall back on some type of identity or dog-whistle politics. Not too long ago, the American Psychiatric Association classed these types of people with having a mental disorder, so why on earth are we wanting to increase education opportunity and awareness surrounding them? I call on other members of the Democratic Party to reject this piece of social nonsense."
  10. 3 points
    Character Name: Reginald Guy Hughes Political Party: Democrat Faction: Progressive Seat Held: Texas 2nd Congressional District Date of Birth: August 17, 1933 Place of Birth: Wichita Falls, Texas Place of Residence: Lufkin, Texas Race/Ethnicity: White Gender: Male Religious Affiliation: Undisclosed Faction Affiliation: I'd rather not do this at all, but I guess Progressive Family Information: Claudia Hughes (formerly Gaines, married in 1962) James Edward Hughes (Son, born 1968) Marjorie Anne Hughes (Daughter, born 1970) Randolph Gaines Hughes (Son, born 1972) Elizabeth Fiona Hughes (Daughter, born 1974) Eva Sophia Hughes (Daughter, born 1974) (These last two are twins, obviously) Educational History: Wichita Falls High School (grad. 1950) BA in History, Midwestern University (grad. 1956) MA in History, University of Texas (1958) PhD in History, University of Texas (1963) Occupational History: United States Army (1950-1954) Graduate Student, University of Texas (1956-1963) Instructor of History, University of Texas (1963-1965) Assistant Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1965-1969) Associate Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1969-1975) Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1975-1982) Political History: President of the Angelina County Democrats (1967-1969) Lufkin City Council (1969-1971) Texas State Senator, District 3 (1971-1981) Texas Democratic Party Executive Committee, (1981-1983) Senior Policy Advisor, Mark White Campaign (1982) Commissioner, Texas Education Agency (1983-1986) United States Representative, Texas Second Congressional District (1987-Present) Publications: Brown Haze: Health and Disease on the Great Plains (1964) Guy Hughes was born on August 17, 1933 in Wichita Falls, Texas. His parents had relocated to Wichita Falls from nearby Lawton, Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl, and were still in pursuit of gainful employment at the time of his birth. His childhood was economically destitute until his father found permanent work in the oil fields around Wichita County and his mother opened a daycare center. Despite this difficult background, Hughes excelled in both academics and athletics and planned to enroll at Midwestern University after graduation. This early foray into academia was cut short, however, by the decision to join the United States Army due to the ongoing Korean War. After basic, he was assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, and in this role participated in the Battle of Seoul and subsequent operations. After the Korean Armistice Agreement, Hughes began taking a series of correspondence courses and laid the plans to return to university. Hughes did not renew his enlistment in 1954. Returning to Wichita Falls, Hughes doubled down and received his BA in 1956. He was soon after accepted into the University of Texas, where he pursued both his MA and PhD in history. During this time Hughes established himself as an expert on the then growing field of public health history and medical history, and became recognized as a rising academic star. While at the University of Texas he married Claudia Gaines, who attended UT’s law school. Hughes took an adjunct position at the University of Texas while Gaines finished her law degree, finishing his first academic text (Brown Haze: Health and Disease on the Great Plains) and participating in the civil rights activism that defined the period. After Claudia’s graduation the two relocated to Lufkin, Texas where he took a tenure-track job at Stephen F. Austin University and Claudia opened a private law practice. Hughes academic career shifted to publishing a series of articles rather than full-length books, and he spent more and more of his time in political activism, specifically advocating for black rights and healthcare reform. This activism brought him into contact with the local Democratic Party establishment, and after two years of volunteer work, Hughes was elected President of the Angelina County Democrats. In this role, Hughes found himself in the middle of a power struggle between the conservative, segregationist U.S. Representative John Dowdy and his progressive, libertine rival, then-State Senator Charlie Wilson. Hughes became a fully entrenched member of the Wilson camp, and he participated in the larger effort to shift Lufkin away from its segregationist past. This activism and his affiliation with a popular local politician attached a rocket to Hughes’ newly developing political aspirations. Taking advantage of the part-time nature of Texas governing, Hughes joined the Lufkin City Council in 1967 and served for two years. John Dowdy, who Hughes considered his arch-enemy, was brought down by corruption charges in 1973. Hughes’ ally, Wilson, ascended from the State Senate to the United States House of Representatives, while Hughes was elected to Wilson’s old spot in the State Senate. Hughes established a reputation for health and education advocacy and a broad policy of pursuing state support for local initiatives. After Bill Clements, a Republican, took the Texas Governor’s mansion in 1979, there was an active effort by the Democratic Party to restructure so that they could better reflect the changing political scene. These changes saw Hughes become a member of the Texas Democratic Party’s executive committee and join the campaign staff of Mark White in the 1982 gubernatorial election. After White’s victory, Hughes was appointed as the Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency, a position that he held until 1986. In early 1986, Wilson departed the House of Representatives in order to work as a lobbyist for his foreign policy causes. Hughes took the opportunity to announce his own candidacy for the United States House of Representatives. Hughes easily won the Democratic nomination and the general election.
  11. 3 points
    VGS Reset 2 has officially begun! Players are free to begin work in the House and posting in their press offices. Be sure to have a voting record and bank account. Have links to your material in your bio.
  12. 3 points
    Me, after DNC leadership elections and before the round has even started:
  13. 2 points
    Post your hilarious or dumb campaign ads you've seen!
  14. 2 points
    Representative Lawson, for himself, Mr. Blackstone, Mr. Clay, Mr. King, Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Roberts, submits the following A RESOLUTION To censure Representative Jacky Williams Section 1: Short Title: A. This resolution shall be referred to as the “Censure of Representative Williams” Section 2: Findings A. That Congresswoman Jacky Williams convened a House Select Committee with neither a proper motion nor following proper parliamentary procedure. She also blatantly ruled proper motions out of order, convened hearings without proper authority, and issued potentially illegal subpoenas. She also maliciously maligned and sullied the good character of her fellow Representatives including Augustus King, Reginald King, and Ted O’Brien. B. Per House rules, all motions must be debated and voted upon, all proper motions must be recognized by the Chair, and subpoenas must fit the three guidelines outlined by the Supreme Court. C. None of these actions are becoming of a United States Representative , the United States House of Representatives, or the United States of America. Section 3: Censure A. Be it resolved, Representative Jacky Williamsare hereby censured by the United States House of Representatives. B. Nothing in this censure shall be construed as an act of judicial punishment, nor shall it absolve them of any legal liability for their actions.
  15. 2 points
  16. 2 points
    I'm signing out. There are too many bad personalities for this to be worth the time anymore.
  17. 2 points
    Name: Michael Marshall Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Cherryville Tribune The Select Committee on Ethics is a step in the right direction, but historically the ethics committee has been made of members from both parties in equal numbers, preventing party line votes and removing a conflict of interest on matters which may be investigated. I will be voting no on the creation of this committee if both parties do not have equal representation on it. No party should have an effective veto over matters which may need looking into.
  18. 2 points
    I'm not sure what you're referring to Kirk, maybe you ought to take a breather.
  19. 2 points
    Seymour pens explosive letter to Armed Forces, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committee A public letter written by South Carolina Democratic Representative Douglas Seymour is creating a firestorm in the case of the King nepotism inquiry. The inquiry is related to the appointment of Reginald King, by his brother, House Majority Leader Augustus King, to the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary. The letter essentially argues against the narrative given by Majority Leader King during his recent testimony before the House Standards of Conduct Committee. The letter starts off with his wish to "to establish a clearer timeline of events regarding the internal Democratic Party processes relating to the assignment of members - and in this particular case, the Chairman - of a committee." He several aspects of the Majority Leader's narrative, the first of which being that everyone had a fair chance to serve on the committee. "First, the Majority Leader claims that he gave everyone a 'fair and equal chance to apply.' This may be true, but what was not indicated in this statement was the fact that not everyone had a fair or equal chance to serve on a committee," Seymour said. "Without divulging the inner workings of our Party, I can state that six (6!) members of our caucus expressed interest in chairing the House Committee on the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary. I was one of those who applied to serve on this Committee, and who offered to Chair it." Seymour takes offense to the criteria that Majority Leader King used, even saying that he personally was singled out by King. "I also take offence at the so-called criteria used by Majority Leader King, which appear to have been designed to eliminate a single individual - me - from the running of chairing a committee," Seymour said. "Simply running for a leadership position at the start of this Congress does not eliminate my extensive qualifications from potentially chairing a committee." He later even goes on to attack the King "political machine" and offer his testimony before the Standards of Official Conduct committee. "Whether nepotism was involved, I can only indicate that the King political machine appears to be very much alive and well in California, and now - with their taking on the positions of Speaker, Majority Leader, and Chair of this prominent committee - of the United States Congress," Seymour said. "I hope you understand the potential risks that my coming forward have for my own political future. But I believe that nepotism is a serious enough offence - in fact, it is illegal under the laws of our great nation - to make this story heard. I am willing to testify before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, if that should be deemed necessary." Seymour also spent time in the letter dogging the experience narrative by touting his own experience in Vietnam. House Majority Leader King, when asked for comment by Beltway Insiders, said that he did give everyone a fair chance and is sorry that Seymour feels the way he does. "I am sorry Congressman Seymour feel the way that he did," King said. "I have spoken to him plenty of times regarding setting the agenda for the party and enlisting his help to unite the progressives, bol weevils, and establisment democrats. I gave everyone a fair chance, including those who opted not to run for party leadership. Any accusation of nepotism is false." Republicans have already come out supporting the letter, including the person running the House Official Standards of Conduct inquiry into the matter, Jacky Williams. "Congressman Seymour's letter is a bombshell that confirms our worst fears about the King family and their nepotistic actions - which Lady Jacky believes to be illegal," Williams's Chief of Staff said. "It also exposes Augustus King as a liar before the American people and before the Congress of the United States. Furthermore, it gives insight to the depths that members of the Democratic party have gone to obstruct the truth from coming out - from trying to end this hearing to trying to subvert the rightful and legal subpoena for documents issued via the hearing." Also coming forward to comment on the Republican side was Virginia Republican James Jefferson. "I recently received a copy of the letter that Congressman Seymour wrote to Congressman King and Congresswoman Williams and I applaud Congressman Seymour for shining some much needed light into this whole controversy," Jefferson said. "According to the letter my democratic colleague from the great state of South Carolina wrote, I take it that nepotism did occur during the selection of the Committee chair and that House Majority Leader King did, in fact, not tell the truth to the American people when defending his pick for the chairmanship of such a prestigious and important committee in the House . In my opinion, Congressman Seymour would've been a better choice as Chair, just on experience alone. I'm deeply saddened by what has came to light from the Democratic Party and I hope the Ethics committee investigates further into this and we can move on and get to work." We will continue to keep you updated on this story.
  20. 2 points
    Lawson: "Shut this down", Williams declines to recognize motion, censure talk arising *Correction from previous column: House Majority Leader Augustus King did not leave the committee room, however the committee briefly was in recess* The House Standards of Official Conduct Committee hearing continues to advance on with the hearing into the King nepotism matter. The nepotism accusation comes from the appointment of Reginald King, by his brother, House Majority Leader Augustus King, to the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary. As concerns from Democrats over the validity of the hearing continues, one Democrat made a stark statement during the latest around of action. That Democrat was Nebraska Representative Robert Lawson. "This committee is out of order, the Ranking Member is out of order and the Minority members of this committee are out of order. House Rules are clear that a time for debate shall be firmly established. The witness has asked multiple times for those rules to be followed," Lawson said. "The Minority, lead by the Ranking Member, have abjectly failed to follow the rules of this House. This committee should not exist. There was not vote, there was no debate. This committee is nothing more than a star trial worthy of Stalinist Russia with a verdict already decided regardless of evidence or truth. Shut this down Madame Ranking Member." Lawson also asked about the timeframe of the hearing and made a motion to adjourn the hearing, which Representative Jacky Williams declined. Williams is running the hearing currently on behalf of House Republicans. "As long as is necessary, Mr. Lawson - as long as is necessary to find the truth and to find justice," Williams responded. "We disagree that the subpoenas are illegal - in fact, Mr. King himself followed the first subpoena by being here to testify. Nevertheless, if the Kings and your party have nothing to hide, just turn over the information. Release the documents. Why must you need the subpoena to cooperate? If you have nothing to hide, abide! Your motion to adjourn is not recognized." This led to a standoff between Williams and Lawson. "This committee will follow the regular order of the House," Lawson said. "A motion has been made. 24 hours are required for a second before the motion is voted upon. You cannot rule it out of order. Nor can you not set a time for debate, a time limit to testify, or an overall timeline for this hearing. I again motion to adjourn." Congresswoman Williams proceeded to rap the gavel three times and call Lawson out of order. "Congressman Lawson, you are out of order! The testimony of Augustus King must continue," Williams said. "This is not a time for debate! Mr. King did you have any personal conversations with your brother, Reggie King, about appointing him to chair this committee?" Wisconsin Republican Ted O'Brien broke party line to second the motion for the hearing to come to a close. It is to be determined if Williams will actually recognize the motion. Even more moderate members of the Democratic Party are now calling out Representative Williams. One of those members is Indiana's Jackson Clay. "Congresswoman Williams has lost all credibility as a member of Congress," Clay said. "She has run an extra-legal hearing, with no authority to subpoena, and is making a mockery of this House. She should resign, so the good people of California can have a representative who doesn't get bogged down in the craziness Representative Williams has created." Also, joining the chorus of Democratic calls against Williams is House Majority Whip Thomas Blackstone of Massachusetts. "It is unfortunate that Representative Williams would use her position of power to send illegal subpoenas, and to make a mockery of protocols in order to try to execute some sort of political vendetta on a colleague in the House," Blackstone said. "It is however a pleasure to see, that even in such dire circumstances, our democratic processes and rules of order still protect us from one person's disruptive and toxic agenda." Regardless of these calls, Jacky Williams is holding strong in her convictions, according to her Chief of Staff. "Lady Jacky will do all she can to protect the hearing from obstruction," the Chief of Staff said. "She believes very strongly that the hearing must continue as we seek the truth and justice with respect to nepotism - which is serious and shouldn't be overlooked. The Democrats seen the poor performance, incompetence, and disgrace of Mr. King's testimony and are now swooping in to end a probe they themselves set up. Speaker King, who is Speaker-designate King, as he hasn't been voted in by the full House, should have no place in this investigation other than helping to provide the relevant documents sought out by the subpoena sent from the Ranking Member's office. If they have nothing to hide, they ought to abide." In another development, according to members of the House of Representatives, there is now talk of potentially censuring Jacky Williams for her behavior in running the hearing. That could have the potential to be a major undertaking for the House. The last House members censured were Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds for their role in the 1983 congressional page sex scandal. We will keep you updated on this matter as more unfolds.
  21. 2 points
    Democrats clutch at straws over King hearing WASHINGTON DC - Republican Chairman Marshall spoke to members of the press regarding latest Democratic Party attempts to derail the hearings into their Majority Leader. "The latest scoop from the Democratic Party members is that Republicans set up this hearing; we did not. The latest scoop is that we aren't following rules; we are following rules from the previous Congress as every Congress before us has done. The House Committee on Ways and Means has existed since 1795, and guess what, the chairman of that committee has the unilateral authority to issue subpoenas. If Congressman King can't answer the questions we pose to him because it would make him look bad, that isn't on us. We aren't asking him difficult questions. Congressman King can just not answer our questions or continue to claim his human rights are being violated, or allude to something more than nepotism. But these all sound like excuses. The Republican line of questioning is simply trying to understand why he appointed his brother to a powerful house committee, it is ridiculous to suggest that we are levying criminal charges on him or anything like that. And it's also quite funny to see us being labelled as dictators for asking questions, I wasn't aware this was the case. Members of both parties can ask questions of the House Majority Leader. We do now however see members of the house majority rally around their leader in what is a very serious concern, violation of ethical standards and one that we still need to find the answer of. With lame excuses and procedural questions which hold no weight and are completely irrelevant to what is happening in Congress at the moment, we see the Democratic Party cast a dark cloud over this process in an attempt to divert the attention away. If Democrats are seriously suggesting that there isn't an issue appointing your brother to a powerful institution in the house, then I don't really know what to say on that front."
  22. 2 points
    Kaine Calls for Select Ethics Committee To Oversee King Corruption Concerns HML King Should Not Choose Democratic Members Reverend Anderson Kaine (R-IL-20) has called for the creation of a House Select Committee on Ethics to handle the concerns that the King family has broken the law in appointing family to leadership posts within the Democratic Caucus. The current House committee with jurisdiction is the ASJAF Committee, which is chaired by none other than Reggie King (D-CA), the person whose appointment is what is under investigation. Despite Chairman King's correct choice to step aside for the hearing, the committee is still flooded by several conflicts of interest, says the Reverend. "The Democrats on that committee are hand-selected by the Democratic Leader being investigated. Even Republicans on the committee will need to cozy up to Chairman King if they want their legislation considered. Neither party is free from conflicts of interest, and we can't have an impartial ethics investigation while the people conducting the investigation are beholden to the people they are investigating," Reverend Kaine said. "We need a Select Committee on Ethics to investigate this, and other corruption charges. And so long as this issue is before the committee, the House Majority Leader should have another Democrat in leadership choose their party's members on such a committee." Reverend Kaine has campaigned extensively on eliminating corruption in Washington from both sides of the aisle, and is considered a leader on good government within the Republican Caucus. In prior press events, he has called for greater House oversight into the Iran-Contra Affair that broke last November on the eve of the election, believing that fully investigating the White House and Defense apparatus is necessary.
  23. 2 points
    Name: Paul Cavalieri Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Orange County Register I will confess I do have my concerns about the actions of the leadership of the Democratic House caucus engaging in what appears to be nepotism. The King family may well be qualified congressmen, but to have them appointing their own brother to be the chairman of a powerful committee – a committee which plays a major role in oversight and ethics, no less – that's definitely a concern for me. I see this more as the fault of the Republicans, frankly. Thirty plus years in power in the House is making the DNC complacent, and that's how we're seeing this form of dynastic politics develop. The GOP must offer viable, credible opposition to check the worst excesses of one-party rule in the House, and under my leadership I can promise you that's what we'll deliver.
  24. 2 points
    Jacobs calls for investigation into Democratic Party nepotism Upon hearing that Reginald King (D-CA-9) had been appointed as House Judiciary Committee Chair, Congresswoman Jacobs called for an immediate House Ethics Committee investigation into the appointment. "Traditionally the Speaker of the House controls committee appointments," noted Jacobs, "and in this case the Speaker of the House is the chair's brother. The Ethics Committee should look into how much influence Speaker King had into this appointment, and whether the House Majority Leader, a third King brother, was involved also." "If the committee appointment was made on the basis of familial ties rather than merit then all three King brothers should immediately step down," Jacobs continued. "I don't know how they do things in Compton but I know that in all my years of government service in Northern Michigan I've never seen anything like this."
  25. 2 points
    Guessing the Dems are still battling it out (or fracturing the party) amongst each other for Whip, but otherwise all I need is the Whips and the Minority Leader to start us off.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.