Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: frog in a pot
First, I'm going to ignore the personal attack that I "flood with irrelevancies."

Second, you say that "I say" when I actually cited the House resolution establishing the J6 Commission with the rules for naming the members of the commission.

Third, you again say that "I say" when I quoted (without citation) the House "RULE I - The Speaker" that lays out the Speaker's power regarding committee assignments.

In order to avoid flooding you with irrelevancies, why don't you first address what the rules are in the actual resolution and in the House rules, and then provide your own citation as to which rule Pelosi "altered when she became Speaker" so that we can both be discussing this from the same frame of reference?

What is it specifically and as succinctly as possible that you "hate to say"?

That Pelosi was following the letter of the rules.

Now it's your turn. Show me the altered rules.

-PJ

18 posted on 06/23/2024 7:15:37 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too
That Pelosi was following the letter of the rules.

Ok, I maintain she misread the letter of the rules and assumed more authority than was granted to her.

Now it's your turn. Show me the altered rules.

I will concede for the moment that you may be correct, since the prior Subcommittee rules that could be used for comparison don’t immediately pop up on my search of government archives.

Nonetheless, even if pre-Pelosi editions of the Rules contained similar language and there was no alteration by Pelosi as I claimed, it is clear to me she violated the letter, meaning and intent of the Rules used by her party for her Speakership. That is clear to many national observers and it is a shame (as you opine) that McCarthy left it simply as “an egregious abuse of power”.

Those rules gave her the authority to hire and fire at her pleasure. But the rules did obligate her to “consult with the Minority leader”. His role at the least was to nominate members from his party. She could fire them immediately (which may have been why he stopped nominating them) but nowhere did she have the right to select them.

Finally, she was obligated to strike a balance of majority and minority reps that approximately reflected the balance of power by each party in the House. With that obligation she was bound to accept at least some number of Minority members. She did, but only after she selected them as having a public record of being anti-Trump. (A more productive move for McCarthy to have taken her down to the last few R members who were the most notable Rino's making sure the American public was aware of her pettiness.)

Instead of using “altered”, I should have used “intentionally and patently misused”, but it was a busy weekend.

Most importantly, what I did use in the post you jumped in on arguably conveyed the same meaning.

Have a nice week.

20 posted on 06/24/2024 10:25:05 AM PDT by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson