Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tilsley

SEC Hearing on King Appointment

Recommended Posts

Just now, Conrad said:

 

Can you tell me the names of the 4 people that were left?

Definitely. Congressman King, Congressman Clay, Congressman Garvey and Congressman Tisley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Storm said:

Definitely. Congressman King, Congressman Clay, Congressman Garvey and Congressman Tisley.

 

Before I begin to cross reference their resumes on the experience criteria you listed, can you unequivocally state that this criteria was not manufactured to purposefully exclude anyone based on any other reason (from the reasons you've listed)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conrad said:

 

Before I begin to cross reference their resumes on the experience criteria you listed, can you unequivocally state that this criteria was not manufactured to purposefully exclude anyone based on any other reason (from the reasons you've listed)?

 

I can 100% guarantee that my criteria were not manufactured in a way to exclude anyone for  of any reason that I did not previously state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Storm said:

 

I can 100% guarantee that my criteria were not manufactured in a way to exclude anyone for  of any reason that I did not previously state.

 

Thank you Congressman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conrad said:

 

Thank you Congressman.

 

Thank you for your questions Congressman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Congressman King (@Ollie), 

 

Can you describe any communication you may have had with your brothers, both Leader King and former Speaker King, about your desire to be named a Committee Chair? 

 

I never had a conversation with House Majority Leader King about my desire to be Chairman of any committee outside of my initial, formal request to be named to a committee -- listing my preferences as well as my willingness to Chair a committee as has already been talked about in this committee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Representative King, 

 

To your knowledge, was there any essential duties of the leadership position you were appointed to that you would have not been able to carry out to the appropriate and expected levels required of serving in that position? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Conrad said:

I second this motion if necessary Mr Chairman. 

 

The motion to extend to 72 hours is recognized and seconded. Debate will continue during this time. 

 

24 hours to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ollie said:

 

I never had a conversation with House Majority Leader King about my desire to be Chairman of any committee outside of my initial, formal request to be named to a committee -- listing my preferences as well as my willingness to Chair a committee as has already been talked about in this committee. 

 

Representative King, 

 

And did you have such conversations with then-Speaker King about your desire to chair a committee? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Leader, 

 

You've consistently obscured your answer to my colleague's questions regarding qualifications. You've listed qualities you sought and then insisted that other, unspecified issues also mattered... Can you define your exact criteria by which you've selected committee chairs? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Mr. Leader, 

 

You've consistently obscured your answer to my colleague's questions regarding qualifications. You've listed qualities you sought and then insisted that other, unspecified issues also mattered... Can you define your exact criteria by which you've selected committee chairs? 

 

 

Thank you for your question Congressman. I believe I answered this question to the best of my ability. I’vs stated the criteria used, I’ve stated that experience played apart but wasn’t the only deciding factor. As no one who ran for a congressional leadership position was not going to be selected for the chair. There is no congressional standard or rules that states what exact qualifications are needed to appoint a chair. 

 

I believe that my picks have all been qualified and would like to know your opinion on the matter, but then again that is a duty reserved for the HML and Hml to suit the needs of their respective caucuses. I, myself have never heard of an house election process when it came to picking committee members.

 

I do however would like to know exactly what the specific question has to do with this specific hearing when it comes down to the question of nepotism. 

 

If you would like we could compare the DNC selection process to the GOP’s selection process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Chair,

 

As I have given all of my documented records regarding this hearing, is there any evidence or statements that says I have engaged in nepotism or tried to use my powers in a corrupt way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now having had the time to cross reference your criteria with those that applied for the chairmanship, it would seem that the criteria you applied eliminated someone perhaps more qualified than your brother, which is Rep. Seymour. So then we are left with a pool of candidates which any reasonable bystander would say places your brother as the most qualified candidate. And I want you to consider this point for a moment because it's important. Did you create and manufacture this criteria to eliminate people more qualified than your brother, so your appointment of your brother "on the merits" would ring true and absolve you of any allegations of nepotism?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Conrad said:

Now having had the time to cross reference your criteria with those that applied for the chairmanship, it would seem that the criteria you applied eliminated someone perhaps more qualified than your brother, which is Rep. Seymour. So then we are left with a pool of candidates which any reasonable bystander would say places your brother as the most qualified candidate. And I want you to consider this point for a moment because it's important. Did you create and manufacture this criteria to eliminate people more qualified than your brother, so your appointment of your brother "on the merits" would ring true and absolve you of any allegations of nepotism?

 

 

Congressman, thank you for your question. As I stated before, there are no set criteria of what is qualified to be a committee chairman. It just doesn't exist. Congressman Seymour ran for the position of whip, which he lost. With maintaining my idea of spreading the opportunity for leadership around he was not given priority. In fact, Congressman King was not even the first choice for chair, it was, in fact, the current Speaker of the House Benjamin Welles, who indicated that he did not want to chair ASFAJ. 

 

My criteria in no way resemble anything of nepotism. Not only did I not commit nepotism, but congressional committees are not apart of the House agency's or establishments listed upon the Nepotism act of 1967 or definition updates of the law which was passed just last year. As I also stated earlier every HML and Hml have their own subjective views as to who should serve as a chairman. You're Hml had his way and I have mine. Just like the Hml and HML's of the past had their own set criteria. 

 

I would much rather you say that you personally would have preferred Congressman Seymour as the ASFAJ chair rather than trying to link him to not being appointed to chair as nepotism, It's not much of a connection. 

 

Congressman Seymour has a truly impressive record, but he ran for the position of whip. Not only that but Congressman Seymour had rifts with people within the Democratic party within his own Bol Weevil faction and other factions as he tried to implement a system which would have weighted caucus votes and silence the voices of others. Aside from him not getting priority as he ran for a house position, I could not in any good faith have appointed Congressman Seymour with his current relationship with many people who served upon ASFAJ or even the people who will serve later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Storm said:

 

 

Congressman, thank you for your question. As I stated before, there are no set criteria of what is qualified to be a committee chairman. It just doesn't exist. Congressman Seymour ran for the position of whip, which he lost. With maintaining my idea of spreading the opportunity for leadership around he was not given priority. In fact, Congressman King was not even the first choice for chair, it was, in fact, the current Speaker of the House Benjamin Welles, who indicated that he did not want to chair ASFAJ. 

 

My criteria in no way resemble anything of nepotism. Not only did I not commit nepotism, but congressional committees are not apart of the House agency's or establishments listed upon the Nepotism act of 1967 or definition updates of the law which was passed just last year. As I also stated earlier every HML and Hml have their own subjective views as to who should serve as a chairman. You're Hml had his way and I have mine. Just like the Hml and HML's of the past had their own set criteria. 

 

I would much rather you say that you personally would have preferred Congressman Seymour as the ASFAJ chair rather than trying to link him to not being appointed to chair as nepotism, It's not much of a connection. 

 

Congressman Seymour has a truly impressive record, but he ran for the position of whip. Not only that but Congressman Seymour had rifts with people within the Democratic party within his own Bol Weevil faction and other factions as he tried to implement a system which would have weighted caucus votes and silence the voices of others. Aside from him not getting priority as he ran for a house position, I could not in any good faith have appointed Congressman Seymour with his current relationship with many people who served upon ASFAJ or even the people who will serve later on.

 

My preferences don't matter here, and it is relevant because on the face of what is before us here today, it appears that you have created criteria to exclude who I think was the most qualified to lead the committee which then left your brother as the most qualified among the pool of candidates left. Why did you make this criteria in such a way that made your brother appear as the most qualified candidate to chair the ASFAJ committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conrad said:

 

My preferences don't matter here, and it is relevant because on the face of what is before us here today, it appears that you have created criteria to exclude who I think was the most qualified to lead the committee which then left your brother as the most qualified among the pool of candidates left. Why did you make this criteria in such a way that made your brother appear as the most qualified candidate to chair the ASFAJ committee?

 

Congressman, I believe that is an accusation which doesn't have much of a merit to stand on, and you are asking this question in a way in which you are directly trying to imply that I created this criterion to purposely exclude  Congressman Seymour, and you yourself have labeled him as the most qualified candidate. Which is a subjective statement but also I believe to be a very biased comment.  If you were the HML you could have chosen Congressman Seymour and whomever you wanted based on your criteria.

 

Congressman Seymour's and DNC Chair Bryant Wolfe's application came a few minutes before the Whip race ended. Congressman Seymour probably applied after he realized he may not win whip and I posted the committee list to the Democratic caucus a few minutes before the whip race ended too, as I was set within my criterion. I did manage to place Congressman Seymour onto the HELP committee because he is a qualified member who deserves to serve on a committee. 

 

As I have stated before I have not violated the Nepotism Act of 1967, nor am I guilty of any act of corruption. As much as I appreciate your questioning, I believe I asked if there is any incriminating hard evidence of nepotism rather than trying to link together a conspiracy theory. The chair of a committee is not a paid position , the sole requirement is that the person is an elected congressman/woman, nor is it listed under the House agency or establishment clauses. Hence under federal laws, the act of nepotism has not been committed.

 

 

I will ask once again if there is any hard evidence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Storm said:

 

Congressman, I believe that is an accusation which doesn't have much of a merit to stand on, and you are asking this question in a way in which you are directly trying to imply that I created this criterion to purposely exclude  Congressman Seymour, and you yourself have labeled him as the most qualified candidate. Which is a subjective statement but also I believe to be a very biased comment.  If you were the HML you could have chosen Congressman Seymour and whomever you wanted based on your criteria.

 

Congressman Seymour's and DNC Chair Bryant Wolfe's application came a few minutes before the Whip race ended. Congressman Seymour probably applied after he realized he may not win whip and I posted the committee list to the Democratic caucus a few minutes before the whip race ended too, as I was set within my criterion. I did manage to place Congressman Seymour onto the HELP committee because he is a qualified member who deserves to serve on a committee. 

 

As I have stated before I have not violated the Nepotism Act of 1967, nor am I guilty of any act of corruption. As much as I appreciate your questioning, I believe I asked if there is any incriminating hard evidence of nepotism rather than trying to link together a conspiracy theory. The chair of a committee is not a paid position , the sole requirement is that the person is an elected congressman/woman, nor is it listed under the House agency or establishment clauses. Hence under federal laws, the act of nepotism has not been committed.

 

 

I will ask once again if there is any hard evidence?

 

 

I'm saying that he is the most qualified candidate based on his qualifications in the areas you talked about before. And I want to know why you created and applied criteria to exclude him from that process to put your brother as the obvious, most qualified candidate to chair the ASFAJ committee?

 

Congressman I don't think it would be in your best interests to attack members of this committee for asking questions in an attempt to substantiate and discover the issues which this hearing has been formulated to address. In response to your professed innocence regarding the nepotism statute passed in 1967, would you be open to having an opinion submitted to the committee regarding the facts of this case and whether or not they think it violates that statute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conrad said:

 

I'm saying that he is the most qualified candidate based on his qualifications in the areas you talked about before. And I want to know why you created and applied criteria to exclude him from that process to put your brother as the obvious, most qualified candidate to chair the ASFAJ committee?

 

Congressman I don't think it would be in your best interests to attack members of this committee for asking questions in an attempt to substantiate and discover the issues which this hearing has been formulated to address. In response to your professed innocence regarding the nepotism statute passed in 1967, would you be open to having an opinion submitted to the committee regarding the facts of this case and whether or not they think it violates that statute?

 

Congressman, I am sorry but as you have stated before your preferences do not matter here and what you find qualified is subjective to what I find qualified or match the needs of the Democratic caucus. Now you are also stating that I purposely excluded him, specifically. Which goes back to my earlier statement of innocent until proven guilty, that is a fundamental principle within our democracy. You are directly accusing me of corruption, without any evidence, statements or testimonials. 

 

I have yet to attack anyone on this committee but instead, correct an assumption that is being unfairly pinned on me without any hard evidence, which is once again against the principle that I am innocent until proven guilty. I'll be open for an opinion issued by the Department of Justice on whether nepotism was committed, as I stated before under 5 USCS Appx § 12, a congressional committee is neither an agency of establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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