TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

What I see is somebody in politics for too long; he thinks he's beyond the laws of this country. Walking out of his own hearing shows he's lost his mind.

Agreed.

No; by that tactic, he may well have impaired the Committee 's ability to collect
or to understand information that 'd be harmful to him.

It might be (maybe) a clever tactic.
(Not being an expert on his case, I cannot speak definitively.)

It has ofen been the case that convictions have been obtained
only upon the testimony of defendant.

Chances r pretty good that he knows that.





David

"A House panel found senior Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel violated ethics rules on 11 of the 13 counts against him."

Another shellacking.

Are you Brand X, renamed?

Cycloptichorn

Obama democrat Charlie Rangel found Guilty!

Ethics Panel Finds Rangel Guilty on 11 Violations of House Rules

He'll get a slap on the wrist, but what will happen to Obama democrat Maxine Waters?

Yes, as I stated back when A2K revamped I couldn't get my old account to reboot so I said WTF....and just added that.

farmer, I don't know, but I suspect the devil may be in the details here. Boehner may recognize the fact that the ethics committee can be subverted and misused, and that perhaps a better vehicle to identify and prosecute fraud in Congress might be available. I don't know that, but given time I will read up on this and try to find out what the details of this is. Often, what appears on the surface is not always accurate or the most important.

What it shows me is that fact - that he will self-incriminate if he stayed and talked. I don't know what the rules of congress is on these matters, but if they have evidence of his ethics or criminal wrong-doing, they should throw the book at him.

Sure enough, farmer, what did I say? It appears that the Congressional ethics committee may be toothless, worthless, and used wrongly in partisan ways much of the time. Take a look at the following, which indicates we also have an Office of Congressional Ethics, which invesitigates and sends cases to the Congressional Ethics Committee, which then enters its practice of partisanship, either by ignoring it or concentrating on insignificant matters:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020521-503544.html
"It is the most toothless committee in Congress. It never goes after anybody. It really exists just to give members a pass. Congress can say it cares about ethics by having an ethics committee, but the ethics committee never finds anybody did anything wrong."
To fix the problem, in 2007, Congress created an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. An even split of Democrats, led by former Congressman David Skaggs of Colorado, and Republicans, led by former CIA Director Porter Goss. The independent Office investigates cases and refers them to the House Ethics Committee... which decides whether to bring charges.
But just look at how it's turned out: in eleven out of twelve cases referred by the independent Office, the House Ethics Committee decided not to charge any members. Sloan says the insiders are thumbing their noses at the independent Office.

So again, it turns out that Boehner may be entirely on the right track, but the mainstream media again drops the ball and does not do its job by reporting the complete and accurate story surrounding this issue. Typical shoddy reporting by the mainstream press that people are used to, with some of us recognizing it and some not.

So naturally the reaction is to scrap the whole thing.... Wouldn't it meet the needs of the voters more if we increased the powers of the independent office?

I don't know that, Drewdad. Besides, I think Boehner has probably studied this issue a great deal and has much knowledge of this from his observations over the years. Obviously, it will be debated, but to automatically assume his move is without merit and unjustified, is again an example of the press mis-reporting or not reporting the issue fully or accurately. In other words, I don't think it is a knee jerk reaction, but probably instead based upon much more than that. Perhaps your statement that it is a knee jerk reaction might be nothing more than your knee jerk reaction. Your point about keeping it and increasing the powers of the independent office should also be debated, and it probably will be.

Is that somewhat similar to what Boeher and the GOP did when they turned into the "No Party?" What are they expecting from the "other side?" Cooperation? LOL

Cicerone, Are you suggesting that the Democrats either expected or even tried to get cooperation from Republicans dfuring the last Congress?

Or that the Democrat House minority will cooperate with the majority during the new Congress?

Yes, the president did. I believe I have posted proof of this before, but will look again for it if you wish.

Does being "pro-victim of crime" mean you want to see the number of victims increased?

You can not say how the FFs would have reacted to the drug scourge. That would mean you are no longer an Originalist.

Obama democrats do want to see the number of victims increase.

Interesting post, farmerman, but I am not certain what it means, other than the conservatives are the borg. I posted some stuff about rail traffic, the high speed proposals and the economy of the Economy thread that reflects some of their borgishness.

The only freedom you are pro is your own. If you were truly pro freedom, you wouldn't post 90% of the stuff you do here which is oppressive to others. You would accept what others say.