Examples of GOP Leadership
- Thread starter injinji
- Start date
compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
In the internet-age age, there’s 1000 suckers *caught* every minuteThere's a sucker born every minute.
printer
Well-Known Member
Jordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into climate-conscious investing.
Jordan accused the group of an illegal conspiracy in the name of advancing a left-wing political agenda.
“Corporations are collectively adopting and imposing left-wing environmental, social, and governance [ESG]-related goals,” Jordan wrote.
“The Committee is concerned that As You Sow appears to facilitate collusion that may violate U.S. antitrust law.”
In antitrust law, collusion happens when market competitors secretly and illegally work together to fix prices, either by formal agreement, dividing up markets or restricting supply.
The letter marks an escalation of long-running Republican attacks on the ESG movement, a campaign that The Hill has reported likely originated with and was funded by the fossil fuel industry. The movement is an outgrowth of “socially responsible investing” that seeks to account for the costs — to the environment, to the public good and to social justice — traditionally left off of corporate balance sheets.
One Republican-led bill opposing ESG passed in March but was the subject of President Biden’s first veto. Other legislation in the same vein is unlikely to go anywhere due to Democrats’ control of both the Senate and the White House.
The committee still has the power to probe the ESG movement, however.
As You Sow President Danielle Fugere said Wednesday that her organization would “answer reasonable questions.”
But she said “the subpoena is flawed, with demands that are inapplicable to As You Sow, and is so broad as to be virtually unbounded.”
She added that “the antitrust allegations at the heart of the Committee’s argument twists both the facts and the law.”
As You Sow is part of a broad civil society and financial services movement that seeks to help society reach climate goals by engaging with corporations, rather than government.
“Corporations are responsible for most of the pressing social and environmental problems we face today,” the group writes on its website.
“We believe corporations must be a willing part of the solutions. We make this happen.”
By “making this happen,” Jordan argued, As You Sow and other organizations may be committing financial crimes.
On Aug. 1, the Judiciary Committee similarly accused a network of financial groups of “potentially violating U.S. antitrust law” in their attempt to cut corporate fossil fuel emissions.
How? “By entering into agreements to ‘decarbonize’ corporations and reduce emissions to net zero,” Jordan and three other Republican representatives wrote.
The achievement of such emissions reductions would mean “potentially harmful effects on Americans’ freedom and economic well-being,” Jordan added.
As You Sow is one of several organizations that the committee has targeted with subpoenas as part of its probe into the ESG movement.
Jordan also sent subpoenas in August to Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the world’s two largest proxy advisory firms — consultancies that advises shareholders on how to vote on resolutions at shareholder meetings; Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund that led the successful 2021 campaign to replace members of ExxonMobil’s board, who it argued were insufficiently prepared to adapt the company to face the risks of climate change; Arjuna Capital, an investment firm focused on ESG investing; and Trillium Asset Management, an activist investor group that seeks to push companies it invests in towards a lower carbon footprint.
In their August letter to Trillium, House Republicans implied that the company’s unwillingness to invest in fossil fuels was part of a broader strategy they argued would undermine the economy.
Jordan and the committee members criticized Trillium executives for their calls for steep declines in fossil fuel use to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That benchmark is widely considered by both climate scientists, the U.N. and much of the financial industry to be the minimum viable goal to achieve a safe climate.
Calling that goal itself “draconian” and “radical,” Jordan’s committee charged that following it would “deprive businesses of investments and consumers of choices.”
“The potential consequences for American freedom and economic well-being are far-reaching,” they added.
By working together to push companies to lower their carbon footprints, the Judiciary Committee alleged, Trillium was acting “coercively” on consumers, who were deprived of the option to choose fossil fuel power.
Quoting a 1983 Supreme Court decision, the committee members argued that “any [c]oercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives is inherently destructive of competitive conditions and may be condemned.”
ESG advocates — a group that includes most of the Democratic Party — argue that the reverse is true: Climate-concerned investors need the information these organizations fight to obtain if they are to have any choice at all.
“ESG, in essence, is a free-market, organic, investor-driven movement, to ask firms to disclose information about the factors associated with their future cash flows or cost of capital,” Columbia University accounting professor Shivaram Rajgopal told the House Oversight Committee in June.
Investors “would be derelict of their fiduciary responsibility if they did not consider the material factors while making an investment decision,” which included climate factors, Rajgopal added.
Fugere of As You Sow argued Wednesday that the House Judiciary Committee was operating under a bold new legal theory: that shareholders requesting or acting on information about a company’s consideration of climate risk was a violation of antitrust law.
Making that argument, she argued, “inappropriately injects the Committee’s judgment into private sector business decisions.”
thehill.com
If a consumer wants power from non-renewable sources they can just fire up the old generator. So they have a choice.
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into climate-conscious investing.
Jordan accused the group of an illegal conspiracy in the name of advancing a left-wing political agenda.
“Corporations are collectively adopting and imposing left-wing environmental, social, and governance [ESG]-related goals,” Jordan wrote.
“The Committee is concerned that As You Sow appears to facilitate collusion that may violate U.S. antitrust law.”
In antitrust law, collusion happens when market competitors secretly and illegally work together to fix prices, either by formal agreement, dividing up markets or restricting supply.
The letter marks an escalation of long-running Republican attacks on the ESG movement, a campaign that The Hill has reported likely originated with and was funded by the fossil fuel industry. The movement is an outgrowth of “socially responsible investing” that seeks to account for the costs — to the environment, to the public good and to social justice — traditionally left off of corporate balance sheets.
One Republican-led bill opposing ESG passed in March but was the subject of President Biden’s first veto. Other legislation in the same vein is unlikely to go anywhere due to Democrats’ control of both the Senate and the White House.
The committee still has the power to probe the ESG movement, however.
As You Sow President Danielle Fugere said Wednesday that her organization would “answer reasonable questions.”
But she said “the subpoena is flawed, with demands that are inapplicable to As You Sow, and is so broad as to be virtually unbounded.”
She added that “the antitrust allegations at the heart of the Committee’s argument twists both the facts and the law.”
As You Sow is part of a broad civil society and financial services movement that seeks to help society reach climate goals by engaging with corporations, rather than government.
“Corporations are responsible for most of the pressing social and environmental problems we face today,” the group writes on its website.
“We believe corporations must be a willing part of the solutions. We make this happen.”
By “making this happen,” Jordan argued, As You Sow and other organizations may be committing financial crimes.
On Aug. 1, the Judiciary Committee similarly accused a network of financial groups of “potentially violating U.S. antitrust law” in their attempt to cut corporate fossil fuel emissions.
How? “By entering into agreements to ‘decarbonize’ corporations and reduce emissions to net zero,” Jordan and three other Republican representatives wrote.
The achievement of such emissions reductions would mean “potentially harmful effects on Americans’ freedom and economic well-being,” Jordan added.
As You Sow is one of several organizations that the committee has targeted with subpoenas as part of its probe into the ESG movement.
Jordan also sent subpoenas in August to Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the world’s two largest proxy advisory firms — consultancies that advises shareholders on how to vote on resolutions at shareholder meetings; Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund that led the successful 2021 campaign to replace members of ExxonMobil’s board, who it argued were insufficiently prepared to adapt the company to face the risks of climate change; Arjuna Capital, an investment firm focused on ESG investing; and Trillium Asset Management, an activist investor group that seeks to push companies it invests in towards a lower carbon footprint.
In their August letter to Trillium, House Republicans implied that the company’s unwillingness to invest in fossil fuels was part of a broader strategy they argued would undermine the economy.
Jordan and the committee members criticized Trillium executives for their calls for steep declines in fossil fuel use to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That benchmark is widely considered by both climate scientists, the U.N. and much of the financial industry to be the minimum viable goal to achieve a safe climate.
Calling that goal itself “draconian” and “radical,” Jordan’s committee charged that following it would “deprive businesses of investments and consumers of choices.”
“The potential consequences for American freedom and economic well-being are far-reaching,” they added.
By working together to push companies to lower their carbon footprints, the Judiciary Committee alleged, Trillium was acting “coercively” on consumers, who were deprived of the option to choose fossil fuel power.
Quoting a 1983 Supreme Court decision, the committee members argued that “any [c]oercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives is inherently destructive of competitive conditions and may be condemned.”
ESG advocates — a group that includes most of the Democratic Party — argue that the reverse is true: Climate-concerned investors need the information these organizations fight to obtain if they are to have any choice at all.
“ESG, in essence, is a free-market, organic, investor-driven movement, to ask firms to disclose information about the factors associated with their future cash flows or cost of capital,” Columbia University accounting professor Shivaram Rajgopal told the House Oversight Committee in June.
Investors “would be derelict of their fiduciary responsibility if they did not consider the material factors while making an investment decision,” which included climate factors, Rajgopal added.
Fugere of As You Sow argued Wednesday that the House Judiciary Committee was operating under a bold new legal theory: that shareholders requesting or acting on information about a company’s consideration of climate risk was a violation of antitrust law.
Making that argument, she argued, “inappropriately injects the Committee’s judgment into private sector business decisions.”
Jordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into c…
thehill.com
If a consumer wants power from non-renewable sources they can just fire up the old generator. So they have a choice.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
The concept of “stakeholders” - entities affected by & necessary to private business decisions - has disappeared: shareholders are everything now. It’s not new: we saw it when the auto industry abandoned the Detroit/Gary area: southern states spent the sixties & seventies offering insane blandishments to encourage corps to open shop on their turf. Right-to-fire laws, too-generous easements, & tax vacations eventually led to US industry selling China our manufacturing capacity. This encouraged the exploitation of employees there & hereJordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into climate-conscious investing.
Jordan accused the group of an illegal conspiracy in the name of advancing a left-wing political agenda.
“Corporations are collectively adopting and imposing left-wing environmental, social, and governance [ESG]-related goals,” Jordan wrote.
“The Committee is concerned that As You Sow appears to facilitate collusion that may violate U.S. antitrust law.”
In antitrust law, collusion happens when market competitors secretly and illegally work together to fix prices, either by formal agreement, dividing up markets or restricting supply.
The letter marks an escalation of long-running Republican attacks on the ESG movement, a campaign that The Hill has reported likely originated with and was funded by the fossil fuel industry. The movement is an outgrowth of “socially responsible investing” that seeks to account for the costs — to the environment, to the public good and to social justice — traditionally left off of corporate balance sheets.
One Republican-led bill opposing ESG passed in March but was the subject of President Biden’s first veto. Other legislation in the same vein is unlikely to go anywhere due to Democrats’ control of both the Senate and the White House.
The committee still has the power to probe the ESG movement, however.
As You Sow President Danielle Fugere said Wednesday that her organization would “answer reasonable questions.”
But she said “the subpoena is flawed, with demands that are inapplicable to As You Sow, and is so broad as to be virtually unbounded.”
She added that “the antitrust allegations at the heart of the Committee’s argument twists both the facts and the law.”
As You Sow is part of a broad civil society and financial services movement that seeks to help society reach climate goals by engaging with corporations, rather than government.
“Corporations are responsible for most of the pressing social and environmental problems we face today,” the group writes on its website.
“We believe corporations must be a willing part of the solutions. We make this happen.”
By “making this happen,” Jordan argued, As You Sow and other organizations may be committing financial crimes.
On Aug. 1, the Judiciary Committee similarly accused a network of financial groups of “potentially violating U.S. antitrust law” in their attempt to cut corporate fossil fuel emissions.
How? “By entering into agreements to ‘decarbonize’ corporations and reduce emissions to net zero,” Jordan and three other Republican representatives wrote.
The achievement of such emissions reductions would mean “potentially harmful effects on Americans’ freedom and economic well-being,” Jordan added.
As You Sow is one of several organizations that the committee has targeted with subpoenas as part of its probe into the ESG movement.
Jordan also sent subpoenas in August to Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the world’s two largest proxy advisory firms — consultancies that advises shareholders on how to vote on resolutions at shareholder meetings; Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund that led the successful 2021 campaign to replace members of ExxonMobil’s board, who it argued were insufficiently prepared to adapt the company to face the risks of climate change; Arjuna Capital, an investment firm focused on ESG investing; and Trillium Asset Management, an activist investor group that seeks to push companies it invests in towards a lower carbon footprint.
In their August letter to Trillium, House Republicans implied that the company’s unwillingness to invest in fossil fuels was part of a broader strategy they argued would undermine the economy.
Jordan and the committee members criticized Trillium executives for their calls for steep declines in fossil fuel use to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That benchmark is widely considered by both climate scientists, the U.N. and much of the financial industry to be the minimum viable goal to achieve a safe climate.
Calling that goal itself “draconian” and “radical,” Jordan’s committee charged that following it would “deprive businesses of investments and consumers of choices.”
“The potential consequences for American freedom and economic well-being are far-reaching,” they added.
By working together to push companies to lower their carbon footprints, the Judiciary Committee alleged, Trillium was acting “coercively” on consumers, who were deprived of the option to choose fossil fuel power.
Quoting a 1983 Supreme Court decision, the committee members argued that “any [c]oercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives is inherently destructive of competitive conditions and may be condemned.”
ESG advocates — a group that includes most of the Democratic Party — argue that the reverse is true: Climate-concerned investors need the information these organizations fight to obtain if they are to have any choice at all.
“ESG, in essence, is a free-market, organic, investor-driven movement, to ask firms to disclose information about the factors associated with their future cash flows or cost of capital,” Columbia University accounting professor Shivaram Rajgopal told the House Oversight Committee in June.
Investors “would be derelict of their fiduciary responsibility if they did not consider the material factors while making an investment decision,” which included climate factors, Rajgopal added.
Fugere of As You Sow argued Wednesday that the House Judiciary Committee was operating under a bold new legal theory: that shareholders requesting or acting on information about a company’s consideration of climate risk was a violation of antitrust law.
Making that argument, she argued, “inappropriately injects the Committee’s judgment into private sector business decisions.”
Jordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into c…
If a consumer wants power from non-renewable sources they can just fire up the old generator. So they have a choice.
Somewhere in there, there was a change in laws governing fiduciaries, requiring any fiduciary to act on behalf of shareholders ONLY. Every one/thing else can hang until relieved (if ever)
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
Let's certainly not bring up the oil subsidies that tilt the market. Or the inherent irony in trying to squelch a market choice based on need of more - uhm - market choice.Jordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into climate-conscious investing.
Jordan accused the group of an illegal conspiracy in the name of advancing a left-wing political agenda.
“Corporations are collectively adopting and imposing left-wing environmental, social, and governance [ESG]-related goals,” Jordan wrote.
“The Committee is concerned that As You Sow appears to facilitate collusion that may violate U.S. antitrust law.”
In antitrust law, collusion happens when market competitors secretly and illegally work together to fix prices, either by formal agreement, dividing up markets or restricting supply.
The letter marks an escalation of long-running Republican attacks on the ESG movement, a campaign that The Hill has reported likely originated with and was funded by the fossil fuel industry. The movement is an outgrowth of “socially responsible investing” that seeks to account for the costs — to the environment, to the public good and to social justice — traditionally left off of corporate balance sheets.
One Republican-led bill opposing ESG passed in March but was the subject of President Biden’s first veto. Other legislation in the same vein is unlikely to go anywhere due to Democrats’ control of both the Senate and the White House.
The committee still has the power to probe the ESG movement, however.
As You Sow President Danielle Fugere said Wednesday that her organization would “answer reasonable questions.”
But she said “the subpoena is flawed, with demands that are inapplicable to As You Sow, and is so broad as to be virtually unbounded.”
She added that “the antitrust allegations at the heart of the Committee’s argument twists both the facts and the law.”
As You Sow is part of a broad civil society and financial services movement that seeks to help society reach climate goals by engaging with corporations, rather than government.
“Corporations are responsible for most of the pressing social and environmental problems we face today,” the group writes on its website.
“We believe corporations must be a willing part of the solutions. We make this happen.”
By “making this happen,” Jordan argued, As You Sow and other organizations may be committing financial crimes.
On Aug. 1, the Judiciary Committee similarly accused a network of financial groups of “potentially violating U.S. antitrust law” in their attempt to cut corporate fossil fuel emissions.
How? “By entering into agreements to ‘decarbonize’ corporations and reduce emissions to net zero,” Jordan and three other Republican representatives wrote.
The achievement of such emissions reductions would mean “potentially harmful effects on Americans’ freedom and economic well-being,” Jordan added.
As You Sow is one of several organizations that the committee has targeted with subpoenas as part of its probe into the ESG movement.
Jordan also sent subpoenas in August to Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the world’s two largest proxy advisory firms — consultancies that advises shareholders on how to vote on resolutions at shareholder meetings; Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund that led the successful 2021 campaign to replace members of ExxonMobil’s board, who it argued were insufficiently prepared to adapt the company to face the risks of climate change; Arjuna Capital, an investment firm focused on ESG investing; and Trillium Asset Management, an activist investor group that seeks to push companies it invests in towards a lower carbon footprint.
In their August letter to Trillium, House Republicans implied that the company’s unwillingness to invest in fossil fuels was part of a broader strategy they argued would undermine the economy.
Jordan and the committee members criticized Trillium executives for their calls for steep declines in fossil fuel use to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That benchmark is widely considered by both climate scientists, the U.N. and much of the financial industry to be the minimum viable goal to achieve a safe climate.
Calling that goal itself “draconian” and “radical,” Jordan’s committee charged that following it would “deprive businesses of investments and consumers of choices.”
“The potential consequences for American freedom and economic well-being are far-reaching,” they added.
By working together to push companies to lower their carbon footprints, the Judiciary Committee alleged, Trillium was acting “coercively” on consumers, who were deprived of the option to choose fossil fuel power.
Quoting a 1983 Supreme Court decision, the committee members argued that “any [c]oercive activity that prevents its victims from making free choices between market alternatives is inherently destructive of competitive conditions and may be condemned.”
ESG advocates — a group that includes most of the Democratic Party — argue that the reverse is true: Climate-concerned investors need the information these organizations fight to obtain if they are to have any choice at all.
“ESG, in essence, is a free-market, organic, investor-driven movement, to ask firms to disclose information about the factors associated with their future cash flows or cost of capital,” Columbia University accounting professor Shivaram Rajgopal told the House Oversight Committee in June.
Investors “would be derelict of their fiduciary responsibility if they did not consider the material factors while making an investment decision,” which included climate factors, Rajgopal added.
Fugere of As You Sow argued Wednesday that the House Judiciary Committee was operating under a bold new legal theory: that shareholders requesting or acting on information about a company’s consideration of climate risk was a violation of antitrust law.
Making that argument, she argued, “inappropriately injects the Committee’s judgment into private sector business decisions.”
Jordan subpoenas climate group for alleged ‘collusion’ and antitrust violations
On Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the head of the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanded documents from the climate group As You Sow as part of a broader investigation into c…
If a consumer wants power from non-renewable sources they can just fire up the old generator. So they have a choice.
They parody themselves, and I wish they could experience self-awareness and shame - at least enough to overcome the greed for power/money/sex.
printer
Well-Known Member
Effort to expel George Santos from the House fails
A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from office failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to stay in the House despite mounting legal and political trouble.
The chamber voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to oust Santos from office, far short of the two-thirds threshold needed to expel a member of Congress. Twenty-four Republicans voted to expel Santos while 31 Democrats voted against the resolution.
Only five lawmakers have been expelled from the House in its history, three of whom were booted for being disloyal to the Union during the Civil War.
Wednesday marked the second attempt this year to remove Santos from office. In May, the House voted to refer a Democrat-led expulsion resolution to the Ethics Committee, a decision that was largely regarded as redundant because the panel had been looking into the congressman for months.
But this week’s try — which came during the first full week of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) tenure — was significant.
The effort was led by a group of Santos’s fellow freshman New York Republicans, and it comes as he faces 23 federal charges and stares down a September 2024 trial start date.
It also comes a day after the House Ethics Committee announced it would reveal its “next course of action” in the months-long investigation by Nov. 17.
The freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — moved last week to force a vote on the resolution, setting the stage for Wednesday’s vote. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.
In a departure from May, House leadership did not motion to refer the expulsion resolution to committee which, if successful through a majority vote, would have shielded the chamber from having to weigh in on the legislation directly. Leadership also declined to move to table the legislation.
The New York Republicans signaled last week that they would have opposed any effort to delay a vote on the expulsion resolution, which likely would have been enough to sink a motion to refer or table.
The group said the catalyst for forcing the vote was a guilty plea from Santos’s former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with the then-candidate to fraudulently inflate his campaign finance reports.
Federal prosecutors charged Santos on 10 new criminal counts shortly after Marks entered a plea deal, accusing the congressman of inflating his campaign finance reports and charging donors’ credit cards without authorization.
The superseding indictment brought the total charges against Santos to 23. In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.
Santos pleaded not guilty to all charges and has remained defiant in the face of growing legal troubles, reiterating as recently as last week that he has no plans to resign.
“Three points of clarification: 1. I have not cleared out my office. 2. I’m not resigning. 3. I’m entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking. God bless!” he wrote last week on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
thehill.com
I found it odd that the democrats would not all vote him out. Mind you, keeping him around seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from office failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to stay in the House despite mounting legal and political trouble.
The chamber voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to oust Santos from office, far short of the two-thirds threshold needed to expel a member of Congress. Twenty-four Republicans voted to expel Santos while 31 Democrats voted against the resolution.
Only five lawmakers have been expelled from the House in its history, three of whom were booted for being disloyal to the Union during the Civil War.
Wednesday marked the second attempt this year to remove Santos from office. In May, the House voted to refer a Democrat-led expulsion resolution to the Ethics Committee, a decision that was largely regarded as redundant because the panel had been looking into the congressman for months.
But this week’s try — which came during the first full week of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) tenure — was significant.
The effort was led by a group of Santos’s fellow freshman New York Republicans, and it comes as he faces 23 federal charges and stares down a September 2024 trial start date.
It also comes a day after the House Ethics Committee announced it would reveal its “next course of action” in the months-long investigation by Nov. 17.
The freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — moved last week to force a vote on the resolution, setting the stage for Wednesday’s vote. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.
In a departure from May, House leadership did not motion to refer the expulsion resolution to committee which, if successful through a majority vote, would have shielded the chamber from having to weigh in on the legislation directly. Leadership also declined to move to table the legislation.
The New York Republicans signaled last week that they would have opposed any effort to delay a vote on the expulsion resolution, which likely would have been enough to sink a motion to refer or table.
The group said the catalyst for forcing the vote was a guilty plea from Santos’s former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with the then-candidate to fraudulently inflate his campaign finance reports.
Federal prosecutors charged Santos on 10 new criminal counts shortly after Marks entered a plea deal, accusing the congressman of inflating his campaign finance reports and charging donors’ credit cards without authorization.
The superseding indictment brought the total charges against Santos to 23. In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.
Santos pleaded not guilty to all charges and has remained defiant in the face of growing legal troubles, reiterating as recently as last week that he has no plans to resign.
“Three points of clarification: 1. I have not cleared out my office. 2. I’m not resigning. 3. I’m entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking. God bless!” he wrote last week on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Effort to expel George Santos from the House fails
A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to remain in the House despite mounting legal and political troubles.…
thehill.com
I found it odd that the democrats would not all vote him out. Mind you, keeping him around seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
printer
Well-Known Member
Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours?
31 Democrats vote to keep Santos in Congress
A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker.
The lower chamber on Wednesday voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to expel Santos, marking the second unsuccessful attempt this year to eject the first-term lawmaker from the House. A two-thirds threshold is needed to expel a member of Congress.
A total of 31 Democrats and 182 Republicans voted against the resolution, while 24 Republicans and 155 Democrats voted to expel Santos.
The effort to oust Santos was spearheaded by a group of freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — who moved last week to force a vote to expel Santos in the wake of his mounting legal battles. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.
Santos faces a total of 23 federal charges of his trial, slated to begin in September 2024.
He pled not guilty last week to a set of 10 new criminal charges in a superseding indictment alleging he inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors’ credit cards without authorization.
In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.
Santos admitted earlier this year to embellishing parts of his background while campaigning, but he has reiterated he will not resign despite his legal troubles.
Here are the 31 Democratic House members who voted to keep Santos in Congress:
thehill.com
These Republicans helped kill a resolution to censure Tlaib over Israel criticism
More than 20 Republicans on Wednesday voted to kill a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her criticism of Israel after Hamas launched a deadly attack against the country last month.
The 23 Republicans joined all House Democrats in a 222-186 vote in favor of a procedural motion that blocked the disciplinary resolution from reaching the floor.
The nearly two dozen Republican votes were somewhat unexpected as Tlaib has come under harsh criticism from the House GOP over her statements about Israel. Tlaib is the only Palestinian American member of Congress.
Conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) last week moved to force a vote on the censure resolution, accusing Tlaib of “antisemitic activity” after Tlaib voiced concern over U.S supplying arms to Israel and called for “lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance.”
The resolution also accused Tlaib of “leading an insurrection” after the Michigan Democrat participated in an anti-war protest last month at the Capitol that called for a cease-fire. The protest was organized by two Jewish groups.
Israel launched a major bombardment of Hamas-controlled Gaza following the terrorist group’s attacks on Oct. 7 that left more than 1,400 people in Israel dead, including hundreds of civilians. More than 8,500 Palestinians in Gaza have died so far in the violence, the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry reported.
Calling the group of Republicans who voted to kill her resolution “feckless,” Greene wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: “This is why Republicans NEVER do anything to stop the communists Democrats or ever hold anyone accountable!! PATHETIC.”
Here are the 23 Republicans who voted to kill the resolution to censure Tlaib:
thehill.com
31 Democrats vote to keep Santos in Congress
A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker.
The lower chamber on Wednesday voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to expel Santos, marking the second unsuccessful attempt this year to eject the first-term lawmaker from the House. A two-thirds threshold is needed to expel a member of Congress.
A total of 31 Democrats and 182 Republicans voted against the resolution, while 24 Republicans and 155 Democrats voted to expel Santos.
The effort to oust Santos was spearheaded by a group of freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — who moved last week to force a vote to expel Santos in the wake of his mounting legal battles. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.
Santos faces a total of 23 federal charges of his trial, slated to begin in September 2024.
He pled not guilty last week to a set of 10 new criminal charges in a superseding indictment alleging he inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors’ credit cards without authorization.
In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.
Santos admitted earlier this year to embellishing parts of his background while campaigning, but he has reiterated he will not resign despite his legal troubles.
Here are the 31 Democratic House members who voted to keep Santos in Congress:
- Rep. Collin Allred (Texas)
- Rep. Jake Auchincloss (Mass.)
- Rep. Ed Case (Hawaii)
- Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (Mo.)
- Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas)
- Rep. Sharice Davids (Kan.)
- Rep. Chris Deluzio (Penn.)
- Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (Texas)
- Rep. Jared Golden (Maine)
- Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.)
- Rep. Steven Horsford (Nev.)
- Rep. Jeff Jackson (N.C.)
- Rep. Hank Johnson (Ga.)
- Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
- Rep. Susie Lee (Nev.)
- Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)
- Rep. Seth Magaziner (R.I.)
- Rep. Morgan McGarvey (Ky.)
- Rep. Rob Menendez (N.J.)
- Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
- Rep. Marie Perez (Wash.)
- Rep. Katie Porter (Calif.)
- Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.)
- Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.)
- Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.)
- Rep. Kim Schrier (Wash.)
- Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)
- Rep. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.)
- Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.)
- Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.)
- Rep. Nikema Williams (Ga.)
31 Democrats vote to keep Santos in Congress
A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress on Wednesday, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker. The lower cham…
thehill.com
These Republicans helped kill a resolution to censure Tlaib over Israel criticism
More than 20 Republicans on Wednesday voted to kill a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her criticism of Israel after Hamas launched a deadly attack against the country last month.
The 23 Republicans joined all House Democrats in a 222-186 vote in favor of a procedural motion that blocked the disciplinary resolution from reaching the floor.
The nearly two dozen Republican votes were somewhat unexpected as Tlaib has come under harsh criticism from the House GOP over her statements about Israel. Tlaib is the only Palestinian American member of Congress.
Conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) last week moved to force a vote on the censure resolution, accusing Tlaib of “antisemitic activity” after Tlaib voiced concern over U.S supplying arms to Israel and called for “lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance.”
The resolution also accused Tlaib of “leading an insurrection” after the Michigan Democrat participated in an anti-war protest last month at the Capitol that called for a cease-fire. The protest was organized by two Jewish groups.
Israel launched a major bombardment of Hamas-controlled Gaza following the terrorist group’s attacks on Oct. 7 that left more than 1,400 people in Israel dead, including hundreds of civilians. More than 8,500 Palestinians in Gaza have died so far in the violence, the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry reported.
Calling the group of Republicans who voted to kill her resolution “feckless,” Greene wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: “This is why Republicans NEVER do anything to stop the communists Democrats or ever hold anyone accountable!! PATHETIC.”
Here are the 23 Republicans who voted to kill the resolution to censure Tlaib:
- Rep. Kelly Armstrong (N.D.)
- Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.)
- Rep. John Duarte (Calif.)
- Rep. Chuck Edwards (N.C.)
- Rep. Morgan Griffith (Va.)
- Rep. Glenn Grothman (Wis.)
- Rep. Harriet Hageman (Wyo.)
- Rep. Bill Huizenga (Mich.)
- Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
- Rep. Dusty Johnson (S.D.)
- Rep. Doug LaMalfa (Calif.)
- Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.)
- Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.)
- Rep. Richard McCormick (Ga.)
- Rep. Max Miller (Ohio)
- Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa)
- Rep. John Moolenaar (Mich.)
- Rep. Chip Roy (Texas)
- Rep. Austin Scott (Ga.)
- Rep. Victoria Spartz (Ind.)
- Rep. Michael Turner (Ohio)
- Rep. Derrick Van Orden (Wis.) — Greene later said that Van Orden voted “yes” mistakenly and changed his vote.
- Rep. Timothy Walberg (Mich.)
These Republicans helped kill a resolution to censure Tlaib over Israel criticism
More than 20 Republicans on Wednesday voted to kill a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her criticism of Israel after Hamas launched a deadly attack against the country la…
thehill.com
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
Politically odd, definitely. But there is something compelling about the due-process argument. Could be a calculus for vulnerable districts, too.Effort to expel George Santos from the House fails
A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from office failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to stay in the House despite mounting legal and political trouble.
The chamber voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to oust Santos from office, far short of the two-thirds threshold needed to expel a member of Congress. Twenty-four Republicans voted to expel Santos while 31 Democrats voted against the resolution.
Only five lawmakers have been expelled from the House in its history, three of whom were booted for being disloyal to the Union during the Civil War.
Wednesday marked the second attempt this year to remove Santos from office. In May, the House voted to refer a Democrat-led expulsion resolution to the Ethics Committee, a decision that was largely regarded as redundant because the panel had been looking into the congressman for months.
But this week’s try — which came during the first full week of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) tenure — was significant.
The effort was led by a group of Santos’s fellow freshman New York Republicans, and it comes as he faces 23 federal charges and stares down a September 2024 trial start date.
It also comes a day after the House Ethics Committee announced it would reveal its “next course of action” in the months-long investigation by Nov. 17.
The freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — moved last week to force a vote on the resolution, setting the stage for Wednesday’s vote. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.
In a departure from May, House leadership did not motion to refer the expulsion resolution to committee which, if successful through a majority vote, would have shielded the chamber from having to weigh in on the legislation directly. Leadership also declined to move to table the legislation.
The New York Republicans signaled last week that they would have opposed any effort to delay a vote on the expulsion resolution, which likely would have been enough to sink a motion to refer or table.
The group said the catalyst for forcing the vote was a guilty plea from Santos’s former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with the then-candidate to fraudulently inflate his campaign finance reports.
Federal prosecutors charged Santos on 10 new criminal counts shortly after Marks entered a plea deal, accusing the congressman of inflating his campaign finance reports and charging donors’ credit cards without authorization.
The superseding indictment brought the total charges against Santos to 23. In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.
Santos pleaded not guilty to all charges and has remained defiant in the face of growing legal troubles, reiterating as recently as last week that he has no plans to resign.
“Three points of clarification: 1. I have not cleared out my office. 2. I’m not resigning. 3. I’m entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking. God bless!” he wrote last week on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Effort to expel George Santos from the House fails
A Republican-led effort to oust Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress failed Wednesday, allowing the embattled GOP lawmaker to remain in the House despite mounting legal and political troubles.…
I found it odd that the democrats would not all vote him out. Mind you, keeping him around seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Odd, maybe, but predictable: there was simply no chance the rage monkeys would CHOOSE to reduce their tiny foothold on the majority
The oddness for me lies in the Dems who voted *against* his expulsion (Zoe Lofgren, Jaime Raskin)…and in the GOP who voted down the censure of Tlaib (Hageman & Issa among them)
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The GOP house is useless anyway, they will be lucky to keep the lights on FFS. The democrats want to keep him around like a millstone around their necks, he won't resign he wants the money and pension, so he will finish his term in prison and off the floor anyway. The republicans had enough votes to get rid of him, just like they had enough votes to elect Maga Mike as speaker.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Seems like a good investment to me and America should be making more of it. Maga Mike wants to cut IRS enforcement on the rich as his first act as speaker, taking the money from it for Israel. It doesn't matter to the base however, because "they are taking over" and LGBTQ people want human rights, they have culture war priorities that override them being screwed and conned. Another reason why some of the super-rich want republican minority rule and if they can't get that they will settle on government gridlock with treason.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
If Donald is disqualified and convicted, Desantis has a chance at the nomination, but I expect Trump would say the nomination was stolen and hopefully mount a write in his name on the ballot movement among the base. Joe is doing the same thing because they changed the order of the New Hampshire democratic primaries, and it should give Donald ideas if he is disqualified by the SCOTUS. If he mounts his own run, in defiance of the SCOTUS he will attack Desantis and the other republican wannabes and will be endorsing candidates for the house and senate. It depends on how much money he has too, because by the time NY and his various lawyers are done with him it might not be much. It also depends on if he is jailed pretrial for fucking up his conditions of release, jail comes with a pretty big muzzle.
Budzbuddha
Well-Known Member
Welp….
*just lock up this idiot.
When Judge Arthur Engoron, one of the most overturned, on Appeal, Judges on the “bench,” stated that a Billion Dollar House is only worth 18 Million Dollars, & made numerous other mistakes, as well, he is the “Fraudster,” not me - He is just doing this out of his personal “Hatred of TRUMP,” his love of the publicity that this case is getting him, & his lack of respect for the Appeals Court (He is in total violation of their order ending much of this Witch Hunt right now. He refuses to do what they say he must!). Engoron is a wacko who is having a great time endlessly sanctioning, fining, & pushing around “TRUMP,” hurting my very good children, & working to damage & defame me for purposes of Interfering with the 2024 Presidential Election, all this while never admonishing our failed & corrupt Attorney General, whose “Star Witness” admitted he lied, & that I did NOT tell him to inflate values, a total reversal. Their whole case was based on this single LOSER, so it should be dismissed!
*just lock up this idiot.
When Judge Arthur Engoron, one of the most overturned, on Appeal, Judges on the “bench,” stated that a Billion Dollar House is only worth 18 Million Dollars, & made numerous other mistakes, as well, he is the “Fraudster,” not me - He is just doing this out of his personal “Hatred of TRUMP,” his love of the publicity that this case is getting him, & his lack of respect for the Appeals Court (He is in total violation of their order ending much of this Witch Hunt right now. He refuses to do what they say he must!). Engoron is a wacko who is having a great time endlessly sanctioning, fining, & pushing around “TRUMP,” hurting my very good children, & working to damage & defame me for purposes of Interfering with the 2024 Presidential Election, all this while never admonishing our failed & corrupt Attorney General, whose “Star Witness” admitted he lied, & that I did NOT tell him to inflate values, a total reversal. Their whole case was based on this single LOSER, so it should be dismissed!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Hey Donald, it's the judge who is trying your case, not the public and it is he who controls the total on the adding machine, not social media opinion. I imagine the receiver will have to make a report to the judge and that should be made public before the judge cleans him out!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
After they are done with them in civil court, the NY AG will indict them on criminal charges, that's what comes next, you don't do this shit without committing crimes too. Then there are possible federal tax charges stemming from this, but they might not bother piling on if there is nothing left.