"Not the way we do things": Johnson will ask Ethics Committee to bury Gaetz report

[marmar]

(Salon) House Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to keep a report on Donald Trump's prospective attorney general under wraps.

Johnson told reporters on Friday that he's going to ask the House Ethics Committee to keep a tight lid on any of their findings from a years-long probe into former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

“I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report because that is not the way we do things in the House, and I think that would be a terrible precedent to set,” Johnson said.

The committee had been investigating Gaetz over allegations of drug use and sexual misconduct. Gaetz was previously the subject of an investigation by the Department of Justice over allegations that he had sex with a minor. The DOJ declined to charge Gaetz with any crime, and the ex-congressman has denied any wrongdoing. ..............(more)

https://www.salon.com/2024/11/15/not-the-way-we-do-things-johnson-will-ask-ethics-committee-to-bury-gaetz-report/?in_brief=true

[Walleye]

1. Mike, you don't have to worry about setting a precedent if you don't support sexual predators

I can only conclude that the Republicans approve of this deviant behavior

[Autumn]

2. Of course you always protect corruption and fight anything that uncovers the rot.

All you do is enrich yourselves and hide the filth about yourselves.

[onecaliberal]

3. The republican speaker is covering sex crimes against children. Period. Someone should ask him why.

[republianmushroom]

4. Not the way things are done to a republican member, must up hold the virtue of the republican party,

but, it would be OK to release report if it was a democrat.

[PCIntern]

6. It would have a series of graphs

Delineating his dick length vs flaccidity and time scales in reference to the “hotness” of the female who would also be named.

[karynnj]

5. Is there a precedent for hiding a report when the Congressman are n question retires his seat a few days before

BUT is also going to be nominated to a high post? What is the precedent to this?

The nomination SHOULD demand that the report be made public so everything knowable is known before confirmation. Not to mention, he likely knows what is in the report and if we're even close to an exoneration he would be putting it out himself.

Therefore we know it contains at least some negatives... and as they are hiding it, it seems fair to assume the worst!