Rep. Conyers: ‘I am retiring today’

[Dashinka 24,828]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/05/conyers-retire-resign-says-relative/108325662/

[bcking 3,157]

Isn't he endorsing his son or something? I have a laugh when I read that.

[Dashinka 24,828]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Isn't he endorsing his son or something? I have a laugh when I read that.

Actually at first, the GOP governor can appoint the replacement, but of course there will be an election in 2018.  It will be interesting to see who gets appointed.

 

We often see a lot of family members carry on the political offices here in Michigan.  We had John Dingall retire a few years ago then endorse his 28 year old younger wife to fill his open seat which she won.  I am surprised Conyers didn’t endorse his wife Monica.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Actually at first, the GOP governor can appoint the replacement, but of course there will be an election in 2018.  It will be interesting to see who gets appointed.

 

We often see a lot of family members carry on the political offices here in Michigan.  We had John Dingall retire a few years ago then endorse his 28 year old younger wife to fill his open seat which she won.  I am surprised Conyers didn’t endorse his wife Monica.

I don't find familial endorsements (particularly parents endorsing children) all that meaningful. Of course they endorse their children, they are their children. I can't really expect an unbiased opinion of the son from his father.

 

It's like using your father as a reference...

Edited December 5, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,828]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't find familial endorsements (particularly parents endorsing children) all that meaningful. Of course they endorse their children, they are their children. I can't really expect an unbiased opinion of the son from his father.

 

It's like using your father as a reference...

I should correct my error, Debbie Dingall is 28 years younger than John Dingall, she is not 28 years old.  As a humorous aside, when Katya came over, I introduced her to the concept that women never progress beyond 29, so right now she is 28 until January.  

 

Anyway, I tend to agree relative to familial endorsements, but I think a lot of folks feel they are sort of electing the person that is retiring when they elect a family member to replace them.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Congress needs a bad conduct discharge with loss of benefits 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Congress needs a bad conduct discharge with loss of benefits 

Agreed (See we can get along ;))

 

Though that would require a vote and realistically I would expect something like 2/3's. A simple majority would make it too easy for a party in power to just mess with their opposition.

 

Question though - Would "bad conduct" prior to entering office be excused?

[Dashinka 24,828]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Congress needs a bad conduct discharge with loss of benefits 

I completely agree with that, and they need to make public the settlements made (with taxpayer money) in secret for these issues regardless of who it might impact.  They also need to rescind the NDAs they forced on these people filing complaints and accepting settlements.

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Agreed (See we can get along ;))

 

Though that would require a vote and realistically I would expect something like 2/3's. A simple majority would make it too easy for a party in power to just mess with their opposition.

 

Question though - Would "bad conduct" prior to entering office be excused?

If proven, sure.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If proven, sure.

We all know that is a tricky though. Without someone admitting to it, these cases are difficult if not impossible to prove regardless of the political slant of the accused. 

 

Doesn't Conyers continue to deny the accusations? Have they been proven? They paid a settlement, that doesn't "prove" that he is guilty. 

 

If the system only impacted those who were PROVEN to have committed "bad conduct" (Sexual harassment), the bar would be too high and it wouldn't impact anyone at all. 

 

I'm glad Conyers is "retiring" and I believe the accusations, but I can't claim that the accusations have been proven, at least to my knowledge. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by bcking

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Isn't he endorsing his son or something? I have a laugh when I read that.

I laughed as well when I read it as well and not in a good way. 

[Dashinka 24,828]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

We all know that is a tricky though. Without someone admitting to it, these cases are difficult if not impossible to prove regardless of the political slant of the accused. 

 

Doesn't Conyers continue to deny the accusations? Have they been proven? They paid a settlement, that doesn't "prove" that he is guilty. 

 

If the system only impacted those who were PROVEN to have committed "bad conduct" (Sexual harassment), the bar would be too high and it wouldn't impact anyone at all. 

 

I'm glad Conyers is "retiring" and I believe the accusations, but I can't claim that the accusations have been proven, at least to my knowledge. 

It may be tricky legally, but the people and voters of the respective districts and states (not sure if the Senate has the same settlement slush fund as the House) have a right to know.to make an informed decision.  As with all the discussion in the Roy Moore threads, it will ultimately be the voters of Alabama that will make the decision just as it should with any others that have had accusations or have reached settlements for similar issues.  If there is still time on the statute of limitations and the the allegations can be proven then of course legal prosecution should also be included.

[bcking 3,157]

30 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It may be tricky legally, but the people and voters of the respective districts and states (not sure if the Senate has the same settlement slush fund as the House) have a right to know.to make an informed decision.  As with all the discussion in the Roy Moore threads, it will ultimately be the voters of Alabama that will make the decision just as it should with any others that have had accusations or have reached settlements for similar issues.  If there is still time on the statute of limitations and the the allegations can be proven then of course legal prosecution should also be included.

I was talking more about once someone is in office. I agree with the sentiment NB made about a "dishonorable" discharge. The problem is if you require irrefutable proof, that can be tricky and it will miss many offenders.

 

Prior to election though you're right. Ultimately it's up to the voters.

 

Interestingly in Moore's case there were several claims that he would be "cast out" once elected (if). But in guessing at this point we won't hear about that ever again. That is why I asked if allegations from before an election would count in our "imaginary" punishment scheme for congressmen.