The new House leader lists no bank accounts, including checking or savings, on financial disclosure forms going back to 2016.
In the week since Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House, we’ve learned a tremendous amount about the Louisiana Republican, and virtually none of it has been good. For instance, the man the GOP just elevated to one of the most powerful jobs in the federal government tried to help Donald Trump steal a second term, is virulently antiabortion, thinks America doesn’t have a gun problem, very possibly does not believe in evolution, definitely doesn’t believe in separation of church and state, has claimed homosexuality is “sinful” and “destructive,” and is married to someone who founded a company that equates being gay with bestiality and incest. And now, for something totally different, we’ve learned the new House Speaker…doesn’t have any bank accounts listed on his financial disclosure forms.
The Daily Beast reports that in financial disclosures dating back to 2016, the year he joined Congress, Johnson never reported having a savings or checking account in his name, his spouse’s name, or in the name of any of his children. In his latest filing, which covers last year, he doesn’t list a single asset either. Which, given that he made more than $200,000 last year—in addition to his wife’s salary—is more than a little odd.
Why is no one checking these things? 7 years of irregularities but it takes the guy becoming second in line for the presidency for someone to turn this up? That’s insane.
Once they did a sting investigation against members of congress to try to bribe them. It was called Abscam. Seven members of congress were convicted as a result.
So it was highly effective and seems like it would be a good thing to continue doing, right? Nope. Somehow, there's just not ever any money in the budget for these types of operations anymore.
You know how you always hear stories about police investigating themselves only to find that they did nothing wrong? Congress prefers to police themselves, as well, and for the same basic reasons.
The rules around campaign finance violations are similar. It's the only law where ignorance of the law is a valid defense. And that's the standard that the people that write the laws want to be held by.
The idea is that we don't just investigate as fishing expeditions. Abscam wasn't created to go after political figures.
You say "fishing expedition," but it's a common police tactic called a sting operation. It's hard to imagine a better use of taxpayer money than to try to stop corruption in government.
I think that when Jared Kushner got his 2 billion dollar "investment" from the saudi prince MBS, he should have been shitting himself thinking it was probably a set up. If you imagine how you could pull of an impossible stunt like that to trick Kushner into thinking he was dealing with MBS when he wasn't (This was after he left office. I wouldn't want police interfering with actual diplomacy.), then you'll understand the lengths that I think our law enforcement should go to in order to root out corruption.
We've given our politicians a great deal of power, and so they should expect a great deal of scrutiny.
I'm not really arguing about what needs to or should be done, I tend to agree with you.
However, my understanding is that sting operations start with a suspect already under investigation. They don't start with the sting. It's a pretty important distinction because otherwise you get into entrapment territory. We're interested in obtaining and and maintaining appeal proof convictions against wealthy and well defended people here.
If you want more direct scrutiny over congress critters, you need stronger ethics and disclosure laws to be passed with real teeth.
General sweep stings happen all the time without any known suspects before the operation. Prostitution and human trafficking stings are a couple of examples that are often reported on in local news.
I fully admit that I'm no expert here, I'll have to look into it more. Thanks for the civil discussion.
Listen, if they start scrutinizing this guy they're going to need to start scrutinizing everyone. And they don't want that.
No, no. Like trump said, "if they can indict me on fraud, election blah,blah,blah,(91 total) they can go after you! I'm the guy on the wall! You need me. Now give me money. Also, totally a billionaire.
Well, examining your bosses' finances might not be a good idea for your employment prospects, especially when your bosses are Congress.
"Checks and balances" are an illusion.
Keeping sending the checks to inflate their balances.