Is there a roll call of the Ethics vote today which

[Eric J in MN]

allows either party to stop an ethics complaint from being investigated?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7236762

[justiceischeap]

1. Yeah, it passed (n/t)

[Pirate Smile]

2. It was straight party - repubs for/ dems against.

[Ian David]

3. You know what we should do now?

Dems should intentionally violate house ethics rules, and then force a deadlock.

Is physically assaulting a Republican member of The House Ethics Committee an ethics violation?

I bet if it happened often enough, the rule would change...

[Pirate Smile]

4. LOL. That is a pretty funny idea but would be a great attention getter.

Some ridiculous PR stunt that they acknowledge ahead of time so it isn't taken seriously.

Not assault though.

[housewolf]

5. This was an important vote today... also Homeland Security Committee

It was almost straight party-line, with a defector or two on each side (don't remember the exact count).

But there is another point here: the vote included a provision to streamline the Homeland Security oversight, giving it its own permanent committee. This has been an issue that's gotten a lot of attention because the 9/11 commission and families have been pushing hard for it.

So what happened is that in voting "no" on the ethics rules, reps also voted "no" on the homeland security committee.

Great. Just great. (sarcasm). Think about how that is going to fly in 2006 when all the dems get slammed for having voted against the homeland security committee. Grrrrrr..... I just hate the way these republicans do business!

[Ian David]

6. Turnabout is fair play

They should propose a bill to change the ethics rules back to what they used to be, and in the same bill also propose the homeland security committee themselves!

[Ian David]

7. Short of assault, what "ethics violations" would PERSONALLY harm Repugs?

So, let's pretend, hypothetically, that a bunch of Democrats announced that tomorrow they were going to intentionally violate the house ethics rules, and then refuse to allow it to be prosecuted.

What house ethics rules could they intentionally violate that would:
1) Significantly, PERSONALLY harm individual Republican members of the ethics committee?
2) Not harm the American people?
3) Not constitute assault?
4) Not be prosecutable by law enforcement?

If I recall correctly, there was a scandal a few years back involving the congressional bank. Some congressmen (I think New Gingrich among them) were intentionally over-drawing their accounts and not paying-off the negative balance. If I'm not mistaken, the whole thing was dismissed because they decided the congressional bank was not a "real" bank, and more like the "canteen fund" you have at summer camp.

If that is true, could the Democrats write bad checks to steal money from the Republican's personal "fake bank" congressional accounts?

It might be best, though, if it was something that would look good on C-SPAN.