Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tilsley

SEC Hearing on King Appointment

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Storm said:

 

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.

 

I'm talking about the importance that you have placed on what makes someone qualified, not my own preferences. I think that each of the points I have made resonate into a sufficient case of res ipsa loquitur. Let's discuss this principle for a moment in terms of what we're discussing here today.

 

My staff will give you a definition of this principle. 

 

I think we can both agree that we would not be here today if you did not appoint your brother as Chairman of ASFAJ. I think we sufficiently meet the first test.

 

Would you say that you have complete control over the appointment process of committee members and chairs? I would say you do, we meet the second test. 

 

Would you say that without your criteria, you would perhaps not have appointed your brother as chairman of the ASFAJ committee? Given other candidates would have been made available?

 

I don't think anyone else contributed to what happened here, except you. So I would see we meet the third test. It was your duty to ensure that you did bring into question your integrity. 

 

With that being said, I request that Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper be subpoenaed to give us his opinion on the anti-nepotism statute of 1967. @Tilsley 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I'm talking about the importance that you have placed on what makes someone qualified, not my own preferences. I think that each of the points I have made resonate into a sufficient case of res ipsa loquitur. Let's discuss this principle for a moment in terms of what we're discussing here today.

 

My staff will give you a definition of this principle. 

 

I think we can both agree that we would not be here today if you did not appoint your brother as Chairman of ASFAJ. I think we sufficiently meet the first test.

 

Would you say that you have complete control over the appointment process of committee members and chairs? I would say you do, we meet the second test. 

 

Would you say that without your criteria, you would perhaps not have appointed your brother as chairman of the ASFAJ committee? Given other candidates would have been made available?

 

I don't think anyone else contributed to what happened here, except you. So I would see we meet the third test. It was your duty to ensure that you did bring into question your integrity. 

 

With that being said, I request that Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper be subpoenaed to give us his opinion on the anti-nepotism statute of 1967. @Tilsley 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congressman, I will note for  res ips to work, a law would have had to have been broken and I would have had to be negligent A law wasn't broken in this matter. Your statements so far have been non sequitur especially as you stated that I was innocent earlier. I do however await the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General. 

Share this post


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

 

Congressman, I will note for  res ips to work, a law would have had to have been broken and I would have had to be negligent A law wasn't broken in this matter. Your statements so far have been non sequitur especially as you stated that I was innocent earlier. I do however await the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General. 

 

Let's not prejudice the outcome of the proceedings Congressman. As stated before we haven't done it and neither should  you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Chair,

 

I do find it extremely worrisome that there is a nitpicking of which legal codes that some people choose to follow. I have provided the definition of both agency and establishment in regards to the legal codes, that lists the agencies which are under the establishment of the Nepotism Act of 1967, and nowhere does it say the congressional committee, but yet that seems to be ignored by some people in this committee because it doesn't satisfy their own motives.  

 

I have been nothing but cooperative during these "investigations". I have given time to an illegal hearing prior to this, I have motioned for the creation of this committee, given away my appointing powers for this committee to ensure that I wasn't biased, and have released all the information asked for me. I have requested multiple times for evidence or anything to help me, help out with these investigations but instead of that, I have been accused of targeting a single member of my caucus, despite my criteria being applied equally across the board. No one who serves on leadership or who runs for leadership was placed as committee chair, and I remained consistent on that front.  I have been told that I pick wrong, simply because someone feels like someone else was qualified to lead, despite my criteria.

 

I remain committed to transparency and ensuring that we really answer the questions that need to be answered. 

 

Along with an opinion from the Assistant Attorney General, I request for an opinion from a non-partisan investigative source also. I believe at this time, we are beating around something that has no been proven to have no merit and just a conspiracy. 

Share this post


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

 

Let's not prejudice the outcome of the proceedings Congressman. As stated before we haven't done it and neither should  you. 

 

I share your same concerns Congressman, but with all due respect, you have already prejudice these investigations by stating that Congressman Seymour is the most qualified person to be ASFAJ chair. 

Share this post


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

 

I share your same concerns Congressman, but with all due respect, you have already prejudice these investigations by stating that Congressman Seymour is the most qualified person to be ASFAJ chair. 

 

From your self-made criteria yes. And my statement on Rep. Seymour doesn't prejudice the outcome of this hearing whatever it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To be honest, 

 

Would the Assistant AG submit to the committee his opinion on the matter in writing? I will also welcome a non-partisan opinion as requested by Mr. King also in the same manner. That is if they are welcome to do that in lieu of making an appearance in front of the committee. 

 

Edited by Tilsley
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

From your self-made criteria yes. And my statement on Rep. Seymour doesn't prejudice the outcome of this hearing whatever it may be.

 

Congressman, I need to correct you there. Under my criteria, Rep.Seymour would not be qualified, as he ran for House Congressional leadership. You are basing this entirely off of his experiences, which may well be your criteria. But you aren't apart of the Democratic Caucus and not apart of the majority so your criteria would not stand. If you are basing it off of my criteria, which is my under my power as House Majority Leader, then-Rep Seymour would not be qualified.]

 

If you rather Representative Seymour than anyone else in the Democratic Caucus, then just say so, but don't make your own wants the needs of my caucus or the laws of this country and certainly do not try to pin an act of corruption,  that you stated that I was innocent of earlier. I clearly stated that my criteria were based on giving everyone a fair shot at being apart of the House Democratic Caucus leadership. Unlike the Republican party and except for one of my leadership members, the Democratic leadership has yet to serve on either the ASFAJ or HELP committee simultaneously. Even those who ran and did not win, are also placed on committees, and we have a wide variety of different views serving as chairs and on our committees. It was created solely for the needs of the caucus and whom I felt will perform best where based on their experiences.  You may disagree with me and you have every right to do so, but that is not your jurisdiction.

 

I have yet to hear anything or be shown anything that proves I willfully committed nepotism. If you want to analyze something, analyze the entirety and don't nitpick what you want to hear and what you don't want to hear. I provided a clause that list the definition of agency and establishments in regards to the Nepotism Act of 1967 and you willfully ignored it. So right now I am concerned.

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?  @Ollie

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Chairman,

 

Thank you for listening to my requests. I would like to also ask for a non-partisan fact-checking organization and for the Assistant Attorney General also test my claims of my criteria being consistent across the board and giving everyone a chance to lead and be apart of the caucus leadership. I believe that if my criteria aren't consistent that may show some type of evidence of possible nepotism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Chair,

 

I will also make it known to this body that only reason House Majority Whip Blackstone got to serve was due to the fact we went through the list of people who signed up, and either people of my caucus did not sign up or were already serving.  

Share this post


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

 

Congressman, I need to correct you there. Under my criteria, Rep.Seymour would not be qualified, as he ran for House Congressional leadership. You are basing this entirely off of his experiences, which may well be your criteria. But you aren't apart of the Democratic Caucus and not apart of the majority so your criteria would not stand. If you are basing it off of my criteria, which is my under my power as House Majority Leader, then-Rep Seymour would not be qualified.]

 

If you rather Representative Seymour than anyone else in the Democratic Caucus, then just say so, but don't make your own wants the needs of my caucus or the laws of this country and certainly do not try to pin an act of corruption,  that you stated that I was innocent of earlier. I clearly stated that my criteria were based on giving everyone a fair shot at being apart of the House Democratic Caucus leadership. Unlike the Republican party and except for one of my leadership members, the Democratic leadership has yet to serve on either the ASFAJ or HELP committee simultaneously. Even those who ran and did not win, are also placed on committees, and we have a wide variety of different views serving as chairs and on our committees. It was created solely for the needs of the caucus and whom I felt will perform best where based on their experiences.  You may disagree with me and you have every right to do so, but that is not your jurisdiction.

 

I have yet to hear anything or be shown anything that proves I willfully committed nepotism. If you want to analyze something, analyze the entirety and don't nitpick what you want to hear and what you don't want to hear. I provided a clause that list the definition of agency and establishments in regards to the Nepotism Act of 1967 and you willfully ignored it. So right now I am concerned.

 

The appendix you gave us relates to the Inspector General Act... I might be wrong and you may wish to correct me, my absence of addressing it is rooted in the fact that I believe it isn't relevant to this hearing. And no... before in this hearing you mentioned the life accomplishments of your brother which formulated a basis for his appointment... irrespective of the criteria you mentioned in respect of him not running for leadership. I also wonder why you are attacking the Republican Party and making this a partisan affair when it doesn't have to be. We can all agree nepotism is wrong and we are trying to come to conclusions on your actions which, on the face of it, looks like nepotism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Tilsley said:

To be honest, 

 

Would the Assistant AG submit to the committee his opinion on the matter in writing? I will also welcome a non-partisan opinion as requested by Mr. King also in the same manner. That is if they are welcome to do that in lieu of making an appearance in front of the committee. 

 

 

Mr Chairman, 

 

I don't have any objections to that.

Share this post


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

 

The appendix you gave us relates to the Inspector General Act... I might be wrong and you may wish to correct me, my absence of addressing it is rooted in the fact that I believe it isn't relevant to this hearing. And no... before in this hearing you mentioned the life accomplishments of your brother which formulated a basis for his appointment... irrespective of the criteria you mentioned in respect of him not running for leadership. I also wonder why you are attacking the Republican Party and making this a partisan affair when it doesn't have to be. We can all agree nepotism is wrong and we are trying to come to conclusions on your actions which, on the face of it, looks like nepotism.

 

Congressman once again, you misconstrue my criteria. I set strict criteria, I personally don't know what you are not grasping in the matter. If I stated that I only based my selection on "resume experience", then you will be correct, but I made my criteria to ensure inclusion into the Democratic House Caucus. I'm not sure where you see that  I attacked the Republican party, but you are now accusing me of being partisan. 

 

The Statute also states 

 
Quote

 

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.
(c)
An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced

 

 
 
 
Congressman Reginald King is a fellow public official just like us. The House of Representatives is not an agency nor are any of the committees. Congressional committee members are also not paid and are not civilian positions apart of any agencies established by the Legislative branch. Representative Reginald King has not been paid for his time as chair nor does any committee member receives any special benefits or pay for sitting within that position.
 
I will also state that when I announced the sign up for the committees, I have a notification that the committee list would be completed by the end of the day, respective of the party elections. 10 minutes before I posted the official list, Congressman Seymour sent in his application, which I processed and gave him the final seat in HELP for the Democratic caucus. 
 
As you can see Congressman from the list I provided, there is a big difference in time between the people who applied when I announced and when Representative Seymour applied. I also believe that an apology should be given to Representative Reginald King, as you have insinuated throughout this entire hearing that he wasn't qualified to chair ASFAJ. In my opinion and to the opinion of many others he is qualified. Representative Seymour could have been chair if he wasn't not a contestant for leadership.
 
You have also accused me numerous times of nepotism and for using my powers to directly make rules to exclude Congressman Seymour. Such accusations are wrong, malicious and dangerous. I understand if you would rather work with Congressman Seymour, and you have every right to state that, but to accuse me of nepotism simply because you didn't like my pick is extremely dangerous.

Share this post


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

 

Congressman once again, you misconstrue my criteria. I set strict criteria, I personally don't know what you are not grasping in the matter. If I stated that I only based my selection on "resume experience", then you will be correct, but I made my criteria to ensure inclusion into the Democratic House Caucus. I'm not sure where you see that  I attacked the Republican party, but you are now accusing me of being partisan. 

 

The Statute also states 

 
 
 
Congressman Reginald King is a fellow public official just like us. The House of Representatives is not an agency nor are any of the committees. Congressional committee members are also not paid and are not civilian positions apart of any agencies established by the Legislative branch. Representative Reginald King has not been paid for his time as chair nor does any committee member receives any special benefits or pay for sitting within that position.
 
I will also state that when I announced the sign up for the committees, I have a notification that the committee list would be completed by the end of the day, respective of the party elections. 10 minutes before I posted the official list, Congressman Seymour sent in his application, which I processed and gave him the final seat in HELP for the Democratic caucus. 
 
As you can see Congressman from the list I provided, there is a big difference in time between the people who applied when I announced and when Representative Seymour applied. I also believe that an apology should be given to Representative Reginald King, as you have insinuated throughout this entire hearing that he wasn't qualified to chair ASFAJ. In my opinion and to the opinion of many others he is qualified. Representative Seymour could have been chair if he wasn't not a contestant for leadership.
 
You have also accused me numerous times of nepotism and for using my powers to directly make rules to exclude Congressman Seymour. Such accusations are wrong, malicious and dangerous. I understand if you would rather work with Congressman Seymour, and you have every right to state that, but to accuse me of nepotism simply because you didn't like my pick is extremely dangerous.

 

As we are seeking an outside opinion on the statute and its application to the facts of this case, I won't talk about the provisions which are included in Title 5 until such communication is received and analysed by the committee. Congressman you're attacking me for trying to get to the bottom of this case and you're now trying to say that I am resorting to accusations of nepotism because "I didn't like your pick". Let's remember that you're here because you appointed your brother to a position of power within the House of Representatives. That sir, is the textbook definition of nepotism. I can't speak for the rest of the members of this committee but I would say that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I'm trying to weigh up your appointment of Reginald as the most qualified from the pool you created with your criteria with the possibility that you could have created this criteria to make it so that the only person reasonably acceptable to chose from was in fact your brother. 

Share this post


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

 

As we are seeking an outside opinion on the statute and its application to the facts of this case, I won't talk about the provisions which are included in Title 5 until such communication is received and analysed by the committee. Congressman you're attacking me for trying to get to the bottom of this case and you're now trying to say that I am resorting to accusations of nepotism because "I didn't like your pick". Let's remember that you're here because you appointed your brother to a position of power within the House of Representatives. That sir, is the textbook definition of nepotism. I can't speak for the rest of the members of this committee but I would say that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I'm trying to weigh up your appointment of Reginald as the most qualified from the pool you created with your criteria with the possibility that you could have created this criteria to make it so that the only person reasonably acceptable to chose from was in fact your brother. 

 

Congressman, once again you stated I committed the textbook definition of nepotism. However, I would like to talk about Title 5 as that is the main statute of the law. A committee chair is not a civilian position and it is not even paid, along with the House of Representatives not being a committee. 

Share this post


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

 

Congressman, once again you stated I committed the textbook definition of nepotism. However, I would like to talk about Title 5 as that is the main statute of the law. A committee chair is not a civilian position and it is not even paid, along with the House of Representatives not being a committee. 

 

I think both of us have very different opposite views on the issue of Title 5 and I would like to avoid going round in circles, so lets wait until we get the information which I mentioned before to the committee. You don't think you did? What's your definition of nepotism Congressman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C

3 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

I think both of us have very different opposite views on the issue of Title 5 and I would like to avoid going round in circles, so lets wait until we get the information which I mentioned before to the committee. You don't think you did? What's your definition of nepotism Congressman?

 

Congressman, are you saying I committed nepotism?

Share this post


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

C

 

Congressman, are you saying I committed nepotism?

 

I think what I said was pretty clear. What's your definition of nepotism?

Share this post


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

 

I think what I said was pretty clear. What's your definition of nepotism?

 

Congressman, are you stating that I came into this hearing with the presumption of being guilty before innocent? and that your presumption of being corrupt was the very fact that I appointed anyone but Congressman Seymour?

Share this post


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

 

Congressman, are you stating that I came into this hearing with the presumption of being guilty before innocent? and that your presumption of being corrupt was the very fact that I appointed anyone but Congressman Seymour?

 

I will repeat what I said, if it helps you. 

 

"I think both of us have very different opposite views on the issue of Title 5 and I would like to avoid going round in circles, so lets wait until we get the information which I mentioned before to the committee. You don't think you did? What's your definition of nepotism Congressman?"

 

Now that is out of the way, what's your definition of nepotism?

Share this post


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

 

I will repeat what I said, if it helps you. 

 

"I think both of us have very different opposite views on the issue of Title 5 and I would like to avoid going round in circles, so lets wait until we get the information which I mentioned before to the committee. You don't think you did? What's your definition of nepotism Congressman?"

 

Now that is out of the way, what's your definition of nepotism?

 

Congressman, I think we should take a deep breath. There is no reason to be testy or overly anxious about the situation. I simply want to know what changed your mind from me being innocent to guilty? I understand you are passionate about Congressman Seymour, and he is a good man and very good Representative for his constituents. But me not appointing him is no basis to say that I am corrupt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Storm said:

 

Congressman, I think we should take a deep breath. There is no reason to be testy or overly anxious about the situation. I simply want to know what changed your mind from me being innocent to guilty? I understand you are passionate about Congressman Seymour, and he is a good man and very good Representative for his constituents. But me not appointing him is no basis to say that I am corrupt.

 

 

 

Since you're unable to answer the question, let me provide the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, I'm sure that is a source we can all agree on. 

 

"The showing of special favour or unfair preference to a relative in conferring a position, job, privilege, etc." 

 

Or...

 

"unfair preferment of or favouritism shown to friends, protégés, or others within a person's sphere of influence."

 

In the context of this definition, do you believe your appointment of your brother to fit this definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conrad said:

 

Since you're unable to answer the question, let me provide the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, I'm sure that is a source we can all agree on. 

 

"The showing of special favour or unfair preference to a relative in conferring a position, job, privilege, etc." 

 

Or...

 

"unfair preferment of or favouritism shown to friends, protégés, or others within a person's sphere of influence."

 

In the context of this definition, do you believe your appointment of your brother to fit this definition?

 

Congressman, we both know that webster definitions and legal definitions or entirerly different. After that statement I think it is best we await the reports.

Share this post


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

 

Congressman, we both know that webster definitions and legal definitions or entirerly different. After that statement I think it is best we await the reports.

 

You're disputing the authenticity of the definition of nepotism from the Oxford English Dictionary, which has been the premier principal historical dictionary of the English language since the 1800s? 

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.