Should Democrats intentionally violate house ethics rules in protest?

[Ian David]

As you probably know, yesterday the Repugs voted to change the house ethics rules so that either party could veto ethics violation charges.

So, let's pretend, hypothetically, that a bunch of Democrats announced that tomorrow they were going to intentionally violate the house ethics rules, and then refuse to allow it to be prosecuted.

What house ethics rules could they intentionally violate that would:
1) Significantly, PERSONALLY harm individual Republican members of the ethics committee?
2) Not harm the American people?
3) Not constitute assault? (Although god knows they deserve it!)
4) Not be prosecutable by law enforcement?

If I recall correctly, there was a scandal a few years back involving the congressional bank. Some congressmen (I think New Gingrich among them) were intentionally over-drawing their accounts and not paying-off the negative balance. If I'm not mistaken, the whole thing was dismissed because they decided the congressional bank was not a "real" bank, and more like the "canteen fund" you have at summer camp.

If that is true, could the Democrats write bad checks to steal money from the Republican's personal "fake bank" congressional accounts?

It might be best, though, if it was something that would look good on C-SPAN.

[MsConduct]

1. Yes, it must look good on C-Span, or why bother doing it. Love

the idea though. Thanks for the laugh.

[WildClarySage]

2. I don't know about you

but to me that's still stealing and is still wrong. One of the reasons I consider myself a progressive dem is that I don't want to be involved with a party that takes such a low road. Throwing mud around hoping to stick some on republicans isn't a great idea, IMHO, because there is plenty of dirt already available, and we don't need to condescend to that level in order to find it. It would only, forgive me, muddy the waters around us.

[OneBlueSky]

3. the Democrats should do something -- ANYTHING -- to show . . .

that they are indeed the opposition party . . . right now, they're nothing more than Republican Lite . . . and, given the choice, voters will opt for the genuine article every time . . .

[blondeatlast]

4. No. We mustn't play their game.

Perhaps a silent dissent can be arranged, but this would be a catastrophic mistake.

Imagine how it would play in the MSM.

No way should they do such a thing.