this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
131 points (85.4% liked)

politics

24958 readers
2669 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a report released Friday, the committee said that Ocasio-Cortez “proactively took steps to comply” 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, despite Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s 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.”

The ethics panel said it did not find evidence that Ocasio-Cortez “intentionally underpaid” for costs related to the event, and that “in many instances,” 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 also released a separate report related to Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, 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 “did not find evidence that he knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information.”

But the report said that the panel did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.”

The report concluded by saying that “Representative 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.”

This some bull shit right here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly, was it more than the jumbo jet? No? Then when Trump gets punished. You can punish AOC for her bullshit.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like they are flagging her mostly for getting discounts on her clothes for the gala despite taking efforts to do it the right way. Those discounts though went through her staff who she relied on to correctly handle the expenses. So her crime was trusting her staff to relay the costs and make sure that they were fair market price. At the very least, without further evidence that there was intentional or knowing favor taken specifically by her, that is not a violation of ethics on her part. Maybe her staffer was negligent in determining fair price, or maybe they knowingly accepted or solicited discounts for their boss, but that isn't AOC's fault even if that is the case. Sounds like maybe they also got her partner in for free, but given how dubious the other concern is, I want to hear more about how that happened. Either way, this is as minor of a concern for me as it comes.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

maybe they knowingly accepted or solicited discounts for their boss, but that isn't AOC's fault

I think the AOC complaint was overall ridiculous, but this particular excuse shouldn't fly. She ought to be responsible for properly training , instructing, and managing her staff.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

My former CEO got fired after being chewed out by Congress for exactly this, so apparently, yes.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"Exactly this"? He was unknowingly getting discounted prices for things via his staff despite believing he was paying full price? Or do you mean his company made unethical decisions that he either knew about or reasonably should have known about in his role and did nothing to stop, because those are different things, not "exactly" the same.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No, for the behavior of staff that he never directly condoned and in-fact provided training and policies against. He didn't monitor or enforce (well enough anyways) and maintained a culture of competition that indirectly incentivized ripping off customers.

Again, I see that it's entirely clear that AOC's over-all case is very different. I said that right at the start. Her's is a case of imperfect compliance with rules that she and her staff clearly tried to follow, and she immediately worked to correct the issue.

All I'm saying is that she isn't innocent by virtue of "my staff did it, not me". Just imagine how the shittiest Republicans you can think of would abuse that loophole.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Didn't say she was innocent because her staff did it. I said she was innocent of it because her staff did it without her knowledge, consent, counter to the example she set, and she had no reason to suspect any unethical behavior, nor did she put in place any policies that would expectedly incentivize such unethical behavior. I wouldn't hold a Republican any more responsible under similar circumstances.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, if her staff took it upon themselves to do something unethical without her knowledge or consent, that does not reflect negatively on her. Particularly as she was demonstrating good ethical behavior by paying for things others were allowed to borrow, trying to pay market price, etc. If she became aware of that sort of behavior and THEN did nothing to correct this, then THAT would reflect poorly on her.

No one is responsible for the unintended, unauthorized and unethical behavior others take upon themselves to do without that person's knowledge. And the entire point of having the staff is to be able to rely upon them to do things for you which requires an amount of trust. Because if you're directly involved with, and/or reviewing and confirming that everything they do is exactly right, you may as well be doing it yourself.

My wife's family owns a fireworks store. We do not specifically train people not to steal, not to hit customers, not to sell drugs in the store, etc. We are not standing over the shoulders of every employee validate their every action nor viewing the cameras every minute of every day to verify they did everything right. That doesn't mean we are responsible for their actions if they do those sorts of things without our intention, consent or knowledge. If we find out about any of those things, that person is dealt with appropriately. Failing to hold them accountable would be to implicitly permit it, which would make you negligent and indirectly responsible. But only once you know about it and fail to correct it is that the case.