I have to get the ridiculous Congressman Grimm on the record so he’s eligible for the “Worst of Ethics 2014” awards coming up in just a week or so.
You’ll remember the charming Rep. Grimm from this post, when he threatened to kill a reporter for asking him a question.
Now, after winning re-election in November (Staten Island and South Brooklyn, hang your head) despite being indicted on 20 criminal counts mail fraud and perjury, he has pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion and will be sentenced in June. He could spend from 24 to 30 months in prison.
So far, Grimm has indicated that he will not resign, which is where the “incompetent” comes in: he’s nuts. The nation can’t have convicted felons making its laws, or even sitting in the halls of Congress. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for Grimm to be thrown out; for once she’s right. It is likely that republican leadership will move against him quickly if he continues to be stubborn.
The House’s code of conduct could force him to abstain from congressional activities. There is a House rule that states that a member who has been convicted of a crime “for which a sentence of two or more years’ imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation” in committees and from “voting on any question at a meeting of the House,” until the member is “reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.”
The man has embarrassed himself, his office, his district, his constituency, anyone who voted for him, his party, his state and his nation and its system of government. Of course he has to resign.
I must say, though, if Grimm believes the same bozos who elected him in November won’t abandon him just because he’s wearing an orange jumpsuit while running, you can hardly blame him.
UPDATE: Grimm will resign.
______________
Sources: NPR, Washington Post
Ethics Alarms 
…. just wondering how mad, bad or dangerous to vote for were his opponents. Both elections. If not, how did they die?
This kind of thing isn’t just for the Democrat machine any more.
“Should” not “Shall”. The leadership can request his resignation all it likes, but throwing him out is another matter.
The “he’s doing a good job” reminds me of the liberal defenders of Clinton during the Monica Mess who kept say that Clinton was a brilliant politician. Congressmen doing good jobs don’t end up in jail, and brilliant politicians don’t get themselves impeached.
When the electorate tolerates corruption, only the corrupt get elected.
For once we agree. But all we’re doing is stating the obvious. The question is, what do we do about it?
Absolutely nothing, politically. A base an immoral people will tolerate corruption. The secularists asked for this, they don’t get to complain.
In a discussion about gun control yesterday, my ‘combatant’ complained that “any idiot can get a gun.” Forget the long discussion of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, my later proposition to her was to reinstate tests (e.g., done for a different reason half a century ago) for the ability/privilege to vote. People who can’t name the 3 branches of government or name the current vice president really shouldn’t be in the mix, don’t you think? We all know that people vote either along straight party lines or based on the most recent charlatan they’ve heard from. We have become a nation of morons, and more than once I have begged my own sister to PLEASE not vote, because she does not keep up with the issues and can’t explain why she has cast any vote at all. Great system, don’t you think?.
Sounds good to me. Be prepared, though…almost any system you propose is going to be labeled “racist” and fought tooth and nail by the far left. The uninformed and irrational vote almost exclusively Democrat (the good Mr. Grimm one of several exceptions).
This is going to be brief. I’m incredibly angry about an example of extreme lack of ethics in my personal life right now and do not want to risk this ire spilling over in a reply to anyone else’s comment. All I will say is that this kind of lunacy has NEVER been the exclusive domain of Democrats, nor even of politicians, in general.
I propose a Constitutional amendment that forbids felons from holding elected office (national or otherwise).. Of course, we’d have at least 100 resignations on the table in short order, probably, and of course a new rule like this would do nothing to help us get rid of the liars, cheaters and bigots who are now key to running the show.
Or maybe felons wouldn’t be as bad as the oh-so-legal representatives we have now. See Oliver Wendell Holmes’ essay, “The Bad Man” (circa 1890) wherein he discusses the man who never breaks the law (finds ways around it), but is greedy, immoral, unethical, and yes, a BAD man. No criminal record, but still, not vaguely worthy of respect as an honorable human being.
A conundrum no one seems to care about. But with Michael Grimm it is cut-and-dry, and absolutely beyond the pale.
There’s also the danger that those in power can get rid of inconvenient political opponents by trumped-up charges.
More representatives. MORE OF THEM. I don’t care if there are 10,000 of them. The smaller the constituency, the more accountable to the people and less accountable to monied interests. There will be the occasional corruption, but more ethical ones to counterbalance.
More Civics lessons. They don’t teach those any more…did you know that? Now it is Social Studies and Political Science (aka, courses on how to win elections Leftist style)
Of course, it’s widely known by now that Grimm DID resign. If he hadn’t, he’d have been tossed out by the House Republicans. It’s only too bad that a number of others in Congress who are far bigger crooks than he (including his loudest denouncer) couldn’t accompany him to Gitmo- where such persons belong.
BTW: Where did we lose the once commonly known procedure of denying convicted felons the right to vote and hold public office as a consequence of their crimes, barring a pardon?
About four or five states still ban felons from voting. The prohibition is now widely condemned as racist.
Sure. Because young black men are so crime prone, we must put up with felons of every stripe corrupting our society further with their vote. No felon should see the inside of a voting booth until they’ve proven their worth by staying out of jail and off the welfare rolls. About 20-25 years ought to indicate this, one way or the other.
We haven’t lost it here, have we? I mean in Texas? This is one of those things I should know, but don’t.
As it stands now, a convicted felon regains his right to vote only after the completion of his punishment or after a pardon. Personally, I think that’s too damn lenient. However, I think that a federal court ruling had a lot to do with it.