The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) could be captured incriminating himself on tape? Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?
I paraphrased comments made by a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct back in 1980 in that matter. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) has violated the House rules not only as an individual who happened to be a public servant, but as a public servant who traded upon that very elected office.
There is no one who disputes that the gentleman has fought aggressively for his constituents in the 17th Congressional District of Ohio. I daresay that 435 Members who come here every week do the same for constituents back home across this land, and yet we come here in the public good, not to enrich ourselves for private profit.
To my colleagues who were sworn in in this Chamber on January 7, 1997, in the 105th Congress, what an interesting tenure we have had. Our first vote for Speaker of the House, who had an ethics cloud hanging over his head; our last vote as freshmen members on the impeachment matter of a sitting president; and here we are again tonight with the lens of history trained upon us.
There are some who have been fretting about this vote and that we are debating it in prime time, of all things. Well, my colleagues, I believe that tonight is going to be one of this institution's finest hours.
To the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), I absolutely agree with his statements on the previous motion. It should take extraordinary wrongdoing to override the wishes of a voter in a Congressional district. I believe that. And I believe this is one such case.
Sometimes when we walk in darkness, we are overcome with the brilliant light of truth. A little over 300 days ago, we assembled as a body on the darkest day of our Nation's history, and we sent a glimmer of light to the people we represent that you can extinguish thousands of American lives, but you will not extinguish the American spirit. And yet when you destroy that fragile bond of trust between the elected and the electorate, expulsion is the only appropriate remedy, regrettably, and I ask for that vote.
This dopey statement will HAUNT Hulshof until the end of his political career (hopefully soon). So he believes that the of lack of evidence means that the accused was just too clever to get caught? Has it even crossed DUMBK-HOFF's mind that maybe lack of evidence means the accused is innocent? I shall be watching Mr. Hulshof? I shall be reporting on him. And, Mr. Hulshof, don't even think of trying to become a Senator or Governor or anything else because your own IDIOTIC words will come back to haunt you again and again and again.
To: PJ-Comix
“…The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) could be captured incriminating himself on tape?
Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?”…
# 52 by toenail
Let’s re-word that, shall we, toenail?
“Should we let a criminal go, just because we have no evidence that he’s guilty?”
Congressman Kenny Hulshof thinks that we shouldn’t. Congressman Kenny Hulshof believes that if we know a man is guilty, we should convict him. Evidence isn’t important, what’s important is that we know he’s guilty.
Congressman Hulshof asked that question before the full House, thereby giving his opinion that there was no real evidence against Traficant.
Congressman Hulshof also said that members shouldn't let the fact that there was no evidence influence their vote.
That doesn’t sound like a “conservative” Congressman to me.