Yep, it’s a Farce

Hate to say I told you so but… told you so.

However, Little Ronna campaigning for her uncle Willard? That is just okie dokie…

Because, you know, road funding vote$ is priority or, “unity” or, whatever smoke you’d like blown up your posterior.

H/t Me

You Betcha! (28)Nuh Uh.(1)

  9 comments for “Yep, it’s a Farce

  1. Jason
    September 1, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Love this comment from Bill on fb:

    " Ronna Romney McDaniel "This violation of their oaths of office is unacceptable and they should immediately resign." If that's the bar Ronna—that congressmen and congresswomen violating their sacred oaths of office, to uphold both the Federal and State Constitutions should immediately resign (It should be!), then let’s go clean out the House and Senate along with numerous other departments demanding that these villainous violators of our trust all immediately resign. That should clear out 90% of the criminal cabal of All the politicians running MI.

    You Betcha! (14)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Tim Bos
    September 1, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    Ohhhhh, the sweet taste of irony!

    The love birds betrayed the Conservative grassroots and the Norm Hughes For State Chair campaign with a nearly last minute endorsement of Ronna- earlier this year no less, and then she piles on after getting a phone call or two from the puppet masters.

    Thanks for picking that slowly healing scab, Ronna- because it just hurts so good!

    You Betcha! (10)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Kevin Rex Heine
      September 2, 2015 at 8:20 am

      And let's not forget that Rep. Courser and Rep. Gamrat were two of the three incoming representatives whose votes broke the tie and awarded the speakership to Rep. Cotter instead of Rep. Pscholka. More than one scab being picked apart by irony here.

      You Betcha! (4)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • Corinthian Scales
        September 2, 2015 at 10:10 am

        Pscholka? Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree.

        Remember, "unanimous".

        They all suck.

        You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. Kevin Rex Heine
    September 2, 2015 at 8:39 am

    "Following the release of the House Business Office’s investigation into state Reps. Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, ..." (RRM, in her official capacity as MRP chair)

    Let's be really clear about something, shall we? The "report" released by the House Business Office back on Monday is a redacted, abridged, and sanitized version of what is believed to be a 100+ page full report. Brandon Hall characterizes the released report as only about 12 pages of information and accusation, and 28 pages of rehashing House rules. The summary report contains no witness testimony, and no actual evidence, yet draws four conclusions, and is now being hyped by the MRP/MIGOPe professional political establishment as sufficient justification to warrant further demands for resignation and/or an Article IV § 16 expulsion resolution and/or a two-pronged recall campaign. I suspect that most reasonable people share my opinion, but I speak only for myself when I say that I'm not buying it.

    Moreover, because of the way that Michigan's FOIA laws are written, the business offices of the House, Senate, and Governor aren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so the full report is exempt from public records laws, as the Detroit News found out last Friday, because the report isn't pertinent to the chamber’s financial records. The disturbing part is that, as the News' Op-Ed yesterday points out:

    "This process is very likely to set precedent for future expulsion actions. If the House is not completely forthcoming with the evidence to support removal of the lawmakers, it will call into question the fairness of the process."

    . . . and for what my opinion is worth, I agree.

    Look, I get that "trial by media" is not how the process is supposed to work. And I certainly recall from my experience working on Herman Cain's campaign four years ago that "trial by media" is the typical resort of an adversary who knows that his case won't hold up to an actual court process with proper rules of evidence and testimony. So the question thus is whether the summary report is being sensationalized because a rush to judgment via a kangaroo court is the only way to achieve the desired predetermined end goal (preferably before the Mackinac Conference later this month), or whether the full report is being temporarily withheld from public view so that the empaneled special committee (which does have subpoena power) can conduct their business without having potentially sensitive information compromised by a public more interested in schadenfreude than in impartial justice.

    That's a question that really does need to be answered, toot sweet, if the veneer of trustworthy process is to be maintained.

    You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(1)
    • KG One
      September 2, 2015 at 2:02 pm

      I haven't heard back from my sources, but maybe you can fill in some gaps.

      Even though the general public is barred from viewing the report that we essentially paid for, can individual House members still request it?

      Or were they told to go pound sand?

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • September 2, 2015 at 4:28 pm

        Uncertain. I do know that the committee members can see it, and I would presume that the Article I § 20 protections would require that Courser and Gamrat should have opportunity to review the evidence (though maybe not, as this isn't necessarily a "criminal prosecution"), but as for the rest . . . I don't know for sure.

        You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
  4. September 2, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Apparently the special committee can release the substantiating evidence. Rep. McBroom is a decent man. I hope he decides to release pertinent evidence for the sake of transparentcy. I don't see why phones can not be made to his office urging him to do just that, does anyone?

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.