House of Representatives
The photo was posted by a CNN political reporter, Tal Kopan, so this was not a gotcha shot.
She is simply showing the Congressional Black Caucus (that is, the ones who didn’t boycott the speech entirely) as the reacted to Pres. Trump announcing a record-low black unemployment number.
The CBC members frowned and sat on their hands–no matter the good news for their voters.
But there is a political logic to their grumpiness, beyond their hatred for Pres. Trump.
Trump is, in effect, contrasting their approach to helping constituents with his own: tax cuts and deregulation.
It is not a comparison that favors the Congressional Black Caucus.
Served there for 53 years.
Who does he want to succeed him? It’s a shocker:
He endorsed his eldest son, John Conyers III, to succeed him in Congress. –Detroit News
Comment: Btw, I think Nancy Pelosi upped the pressure on him because of next Tuesday’s Alabama election. Better for the party to go into that election without that albatross.
He’s Blake Farenthold (R-TX). $84,000 settlement.
Name ’em. Shame ’em.
Shame the party if they don’t cut off campaign funds to him.
Transparency on the whole thing so the voters (primary and general) can decide whether to keep him, if he doesn’t resign in disgrace.
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva quietly arranged a “severance package” in 2015 for one of his top staffers who threatened a lawsuit claiming the Arizona Democrat was frequently drunk and created a hostile workplace environment, revealing yet another way that lawmakers can use taxpayer dollars to hide their misbehavior on Capitol Hill.
While the Office of Compliance has been the focus of outrage on Capitol Hill for hush-money payouts in sexual harassment cases, the Grijalva payout points to another office that lawmakers can use to sweep accusations under the rug with taxpayer-funded settlements negotiated by the House Employment Counsel, which acts as the attorney for all House offices. –Washington Times
Media bias alert: The article appears–and is fairly reported–in the Congressman’s local paper, Tucson.com and The Arizona Star (link here).
But, so far, NO mainstream media have run it.
Comment: Now comes the hard question for Nancy Pelosi. Is Raul an icon?
Second question: What’s the over/under on time until Conyers and Grijalva play the “oppressed minority, unfairly treated” card?
Roberts made her comment on ABC’s This Week. (Transcript here)
PALMER: I don’t think that the culture has — we haven’t seen major shift, right? And I would also just point out, members policing themselves, a very bad track record of it, whether it’s about these kind of scandals, whether it’s about how they use their finances. There is — nobody is saying that they’re going to change the whole process by which this is done, that they’re going to throw out members if they actually have sexual harassment cases. This is a big problem for them.
ROBERTS: The fact that people are willing to be public can change things. I mean, we all talked about for years.
RADDATZ: A little bit at a time.
ROBERTS: Don’t get in the elevator with him, you know, and the whole every female in the press corps knew that, right, don’t get in elevator with him. Now people are saying it out loud. And I think that does make a difference.
Comment: She apparently did not recognize that her admission is as damning to the cozy DC press as it is to Conyers.
She was casually reporting that, even after the Weinstein scandal, no one in the Washington Press corps was willing to expose what all insiders knew.
Btw, I didn’t see other news outlets picking up Roberts’ admission and broadcasting it widely.
Media bias involves omission, as well as commission.
Comment #2: If Conyers’ conduct was habitual and well-known, then Nancy Pelosi’s defense of him is even more noxious.
Comment #3: Please note that I have written extensively on Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. This post about Conyers is not a partisan one.
Here’s a headline you don’t see very often.
Charlie Rose is quoted as saying, “It’s like we coordinated or something!”
Conyers’ attire reminds me of a Will Ferrell sketch on SNL:
Link here to the sketch: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/patriotism-short-shorts/2872698?snl=1
Lawmakers in both parties say members of Congress shouldn’t be allowed to use taxpayer money to settle harassment claims without being named.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) proposed legislation Wednesday that would mandate public disclosure of sexual harassment settlements — and ban Congress from footing the bill for such deals in the future. Within a few hours of introducing his bill, DeSantis had been contacted by several Republican and Democratic lawmakers asking to sign on.
“It’s taxpayer dollars at issue; taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent,” DeSantis said in an interview.
Comments: This is public money, and the public has a right to know how it is spent.
Given the public outrage, I suspect legislators from both parties will rush to have their names listed as co-sponsors.
- I don’t see how some version of this proposal doesn’t pass. The only way to kill it would be in back rooms, and I think the pressure is too great to do it. In fact, that’s part of what the public is angry about: background deals to protect themselves.
- The bill should deal with non-disclosure clauses, as well.
- The problem is not limited to the legislative broach. We need to know whether such payments have been made in the Executive Branch and the Judiciary.
- I suspect we will see similar initiatives in state legislatures–for the same reasons.
- Finally, we need to have a debate about whether public money should even be used for these purposes. The victims need to be compensated, but why should taxpayers, rather than the victimizers, pay?