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.
“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.
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.
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.