Nancy Mace introduces resolution to expel Cory Mills from Congress: ‘Protected for far too long’

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution on Monday to expel Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) from the House of Representatives over allegations of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, stolen valor and profiteering from federal contracts as a member of Congress.

Mills has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee since November, when an effort by Mace to censure the congressman failed, and the slew of allegations against the Florida Republican were referred to the panel.

“The swamp has protected Cory Mills for far too long and we are done letting it slide,” Mace said in a statement.

“We tried to censure him and strip him from his committee assignments. Both parties blocked it, but we are not backing down,” she continued.

While the House Ethics Committee has yet to release its findings in the Mills probe, Mace argued the evidence against the congressman is “overwhelming.”

She accused Mills of “beating women and telling them to lie about it, cyberstalking women, lying about his military service, and profiting off his seat.”

“Any Member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud,” the South Carolina Republican asserted. “He needs to be expelled immediately.”

Mace’s resolution comes a week after former Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) both resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Who keeps the file ? Speaker Johnson ? Locked in his desk drawer ? /s

If an official needs the services of the Slush Fund , who would the official have to approach ? If there a form involved , is it kept on file ?

Yes, more so than the Epstein files, let’s learn more about the Slush Fund.

Those bastards and bitches that make up the house and senate , 99.9%. crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

They are there for one purpose , self enrichment , perhaps with a side order of sexual shenanigans on the side .

The probability is very high that there are people on both sides of the aisle who should be booted. The tricky thing is always to vet the accusations, because the modern media culture will automatically convict anyone — or at least any Republican — on the basis of unfounded and highly dubious charges. But put that aside.

So Nancy Mace surveys the field and picks ONE person to expel, who ... surprise, surprise ... is another Republican in the House, where Mike Johnson has the nearly impossible task of getting anything done with a microscopic majority.

If Nancy Mace wants to take scalps, fine ... but she should come up with a list from both parties. The only selection criterion she seems to have used here was to pick a lone vulnerable Republican. The fratricide strategy. Kneecapping one of your own is always easier than taking on a democrat.

Since the media will be all-in on fratricidal accusations by other Republicans, this is how some people think they can grab headlines and prove their relevance. I wonder if Rand Paul at this point was wishing he were in the House; he could do more damage that way.

I’m surprised Hakeem Jeffries isn’t already Speaker. Then Trump could again be fighting impeachment rather than Iran.

I know a lot of freepers are critical of Mike Johnson and the House GOP caucus. But the reality is that, in the crunch, Johnson can count on solid support from almost the entire caucus. Keyboard warriors should spend less time damning the solid conservatives and more damning the headline grabbing saboteurs. How the heck is Mike Johnson or anyone else in the caucus supposed to hold the Nancy Mace types in line?

He has a small group of RINO’s to deal with, but that’s a relatively easy problem. We can at least understand their political problems back home and that some of them have principled positions on some core issue. Even when I might disagree with them, I can respect a strong position consistently held over the years.

But Mike Johnson also has to wrangle the attention whores who would happily make Jeffries the Speaker in exchange for a few headlines. The principled RINO’s one can at least see coming and negotiate quietly. The attention whores specialize in tossing their bombs unexpectedly and as publicly as possible.

This is a serious constitutional violation, and not just via the rulemaking clause of Article I § 5.

This is a serious 10th amendment violation.

The 10th amendment reserves to the states, or to the people, rights not delegated to the federal government.

The right to choose their own representation is a right of the people. When Maxine Waters' vote is being cast via proxy by Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the people of Waters' district are no longer be represented; Maryland is voting in California's name.

The proxy vote is not Waters' to give away, the vote belongs to the people of her district who selected Waters - not Raskin - to vote in their name. The 10th amendment does not give a member of the House the right to trade their vote as if it were a commodity; if she cannot vote it herself, the people of her district have the right to ask her to step down and let another representative from the district be elected to vote the interests of the people being represented - the people of her district and not Raskin's.

-PJ

“This is a serious constitutional violation, and not just via the rulemaking clause of Article I § 5.”
This is a serious 10th amendment violation.

————————Serious—————————

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The rules cannot be in violation of the Constitution.

Proxy voting violates the qourum requirement of Article 1 § 5. Hiding one's absence via a proxy vote denies quorum and compelled attendance.
Article I Section 6: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The "privilege from arrest during their attendance... and in going to and returning from the same..." implies that voting must be made in person. Otherwise, why extend the privilege to traveling to and from the session? This also infers that a member who votes by proxy or votes remotely loses the privelege because they neither traveled to/from their respective houses, and did not attended the session in person.
Since this violates the "privilege from arrest" clause, the rule on proxy voting is unconstitutional.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.