In aĀ report released Friday,Ā the committee said that Ocasio-Cortez āproactively took steps to complyā with House rules, including using personal funds to rent apparel that would typically be gifted or loaned to Met Gala attendees.
But the report states that,Ā ādespite Representative Ocasio-Cortezās significant attempts, the Committee found that she failed to fully comply with the Gift Rule by impermissibly accepting a gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for her partner and by failing to pay full fair market value for some of the items worn to the event.ā
The ethics panel said it did not find evidence that Ocasio-Cortez āintentionally underpaidā for costs related to the event, and that āin many instances,āĀ she had relied on a campaign staffer to handle discussions of payment and the advice of her counsel to determine the amounts.
. . . The ethics committee alsoĀ released a separate reportĀ related to Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican,Ā and allegations that his wife may have bought stock in a steel company based on confidential or nonpublic information he learned in his role as a congressman.
The committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and ādid not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.ā
But the report said that the panelĀ ādid not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.ā
The report concluded by saying that āRepresentative Kelly should ensure that he and Mrs. Kelly divest of all shares of Cleveland-Cliffs before taking any further official action relating to the company.ā
This some bull shit right here.
I donāt really understand what youāre getting at.
Thereās loads (almost all ?) of public institutions which have become tools for the authoritarian regime.
This institution is not āworking as intendedā if it asks a democrat to repay an event ticket but gives a republican a free pass on insider trading.
Iāll remind you that insider trading is theft. If a stock is worth $x on the open market but you know that due to upcoming legislation or regulator actions itās really worth $x + $y then when you buy that stock you deprive everyone else in the market of that $y.
One person received a benefit of a few hundred dollars and the other received a benefit of possibly a few million dollars.
Yep, there sure are. Anything to support that the OCE (a non-partisan independent board) or House Ethics Committee (a bi-partisan committee made up of 5 members of each party) is one of them?
OCE referred it to the HEC, they reviewed it and found that while AOC made full effort to abide by the gift policy there were a few things missed. They asked her to rectify it and she agreed. She also acknowledged their findings (āShe accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as sheās done at each step in this processā). Whatās not working there?
āthe committee said that it reviewed allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Conduct and ādid not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.ā
Any actual tangible proof or evidence theyāre lying? Or maybe you have a view like the MAGAs and want to suspend due process for those you donāt like?
Do you notice how you worded this?
āOne person received a benefit of a few hundred dollarsā
āother received a benefit of possibly a few million dollarsā. Possibly.
I think itās very likely they engaged in insider trading, but if they have nothing to actually prove it, what are you expecting from the process?
It sure is. Who handles financial crimes? The DoJ and the SEC, yet no investigation was opened. Probably because those organizations have been hamstrung and stacked with loyalists at positions of power? Although the case for Rep. Kelly was referred to House Ethics in 2021ā¦