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, weāve 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 doesnāt have a gun problem, very possibly does not believe in evolution, definitely doesnāt believe in separation of church and state, has claimed homosexuality is āsinfulā and ādestructive,ā and is married to someone who founded a company that equates being gay with bestiality and incest. And now, for something totally different, weāve learned the new House Speakerā¦doesnāt 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 spouseās name, or in the name of any of his children. In his latest filing, which covers last year, he doesnāt list a single asset either. Which, given that he made more than $200,000 last yearāin addition to his wifeās salaryāis more than a little odd.
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, thereās 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. Itās the only law where ignorance of the law is a valid defense. And thatās the standard that the people that write the laws want to be held by.
The idea is that we donāt just investigate as fishing expeditions. Abscam wasnāt created to go after political figures.
You say āfishing expedition,ā but itās a common police tactic called a sting operation. Itās 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 āinvestmentā 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 wasnāt (This was after he left office. I wouldnāt want police interfering with actual diplomacy.), then youāll understand the lengths that I think our law enforcement should go to in order to root out corruption.
Weāve given our politicians a great deal of power, and so they should expect a great deal of scrutiny.
Iām 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 donāt start with the sting. Itās a pretty important distinction because otherwise you get into entrapment territory. Weāre 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 Iām no expert here, Iāll have to look into it more. Thanks for the civil discussion.