What is this in reference to? The map doesn’t say.
NIN10DOXD on
I was mad when this first happened, but apparently the bill as written wouldn’t have censored the names of accusers. They should vote on n amended version that addresses that issues since it was the most cited reason for voting against, Then we can see how many were just using it as an excuse for voting against it.
donut_koharski on
Some sexual conduct is legal. Do you mean misconduct?
akheady907 on
Sorry, sexual conduct??
AeonOfForgottenMoon on
Eric Swalwell voted for 😭😭what was bro cooking…
AuraMaster7 on
They „killed“ it (sent it to committee) because it would make reports and interviews given by victims under the assumption of confidentiality public, which could discourage victims from coming forwards in the future.
Confidentiality and anonymity is a *key* factor in getting victims to speak up.
Mat_At_Home on
Here is the statement on the vote from the chair/ranking member of the ethics committee, who actually handle allegations of misconduct:
> “Here and elsewhere, perpetrators of sexual misconduct should never be shielded from responsibility for their misdeeds,” Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., said.
> But, they added, “victims may be retraumatized by public disclosures of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits. And witnesses, who often only speak to the Committee confidentially or on condition of future anonymity, could fear retaliation if their cooperation is made public.”
Mace forced this vote because she is running for governor and it’s good political theater. The way to handle sexual misconduct is not to sloppily release reams of paperwork, putting accusers in a position they never asked or wanted to be in. There is good reason why sensitive matters like this occur behind closed doors, and there’s a reason why the overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress voted against this
Electronic-Baker-283 on
Kudos to my congressman for something for once.
justdisa on
I don’t think you’re being entirely honest. As AOC wrote to Mace:
“Lady, your sloppy resolution would have doxxed victim statements that had identifying info. It redacted names & NOTHING else. House empl. records can match statements to reverse ID names. Take your job seriously. Fix your messy loopholes & I’d vote YES. You know that. Not hard!”
12 Kommentare
Well I’m glad to see my representative voted for releasing.
Based on the numbers, I assume you’re referring to this:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-kills-effort-release-congressional-sexual-misconduct-harassment-rcna261679](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-kills-effort-release-congressional-sexual-misconduct-harassment-rcna261679)
But your title is really vague.
Is it surprising? Really?
What is this in reference to? The map doesn’t say.
I was mad when this first happened, but apparently the bill as written wouldn’t have censored the names of accusers. They should vote on n amended version that addresses that issues since it was the most cited reason for voting against, Then we can see how many were just using it as an excuse for voting against it.
Some sexual conduct is legal. Do you mean misconduct?
Sorry, sexual conduct??
Eric Swalwell voted for 😭😭what was bro cooking…
They „killed“ it (sent it to committee) because it would make reports and interviews given by victims under the assumption of confidentiality public, which could discourage victims from coming forwards in the future.
Confidentiality and anonymity is a *key* factor in getting victims to speak up.
Here is the statement on the vote from the chair/ranking member of the ethics committee, who actually handle allegations of misconduct:
> “Here and elsewhere, perpetrators of sexual misconduct should never be shielded from responsibility for their misdeeds,” Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., said.
> But, they added, “victims may be retraumatized by public disclosures of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits. And witnesses, who often only speak to the Committee confidentially or on condition of future anonymity, could fear retaliation if their cooperation is made public.”
Mace forced this vote because she is running for governor and it’s good political theater. The way to handle sexual misconduct is not to sloppily release reams of paperwork, putting accusers in a position they never asked or wanted to be in. There is good reason why sensitive matters like this occur behind closed doors, and there’s a reason why the overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress voted against this
Kudos to my congressman for something for once.
I don’t think you’re being entirely honest. As AOC wrote to Mace:
“Lady, your sloppy resolution would have doxxed victim statements that had identifying info. It redacted names & NOTHING else. House empl. records can match statements to reverse ID names. Take your job seriously. Fix your messy loopholes & I’d vote YES. You know that. Not hard!”
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/aoc-fires-back-nancy-mace-032451623.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/aoc-fires-back-nancy-mace-032451623.html)