Let's see is Pelosi (and Dems) do the right thing with Rangel

[harold_bush]

Charlie Rangel ruling puts Nancy Pelosi in a jam - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

They all called for Tom Delay to step down when he was admonished. Hopefully they will not be partisan and have Rangel, whose a far bigger crook than Delay, step down. Also, Rangel's problems are just beginning, it isn't stopping w/ this issue.

[BettorsChat]

The other article reports on the House Ethics Committee’s move to clear legislators who served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, despite a contrary conclusion of the Office of Congressional Ethics:

In a harshly worded report that closed out its inquiry into the charges, the Office of Congressional Ethics — created in 2008 as an independent, professionally staffed monitor of internal ethics questions — found that private contractors who received millions of dollars in defense industry earmarks from the seven lawmakers generally believed that their political contributions to the members facilitated the financing their companies received.

The ethics office found that two of the lawmakers — Peter Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana, and Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas — may have tacitly tied requests for campaign donations to earmark requests in violation of House rules.

. . .

The ethics office appeared to be hindered in its review because, unlike the committee, it is powerless to issue subpoenas or compel witnesses or lawmakers to testify. Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Visclosky refused to speak to investigators.

. . .

The ethics office said it found evidence that Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Tiahrt might have known their campaigns were tying contributions to earmarks.
You might think that a congressman who refused to cooperate with an investigation would at least seem a little contrite after the investigation nonetheless found his campaign had violated House rules. Mr. Visclosky, who still faces a criminal investigation, kept quiet, which is the least he could do.

But Mr. Tiahrt, who is running for the Senate in Kansas, seems to have no sense of shame at all.

“Today I received absolute vindication,” he said in a statement. “This comes as no surprise because there was never anything to justify a review in the first place.”
Let me translate that for you. Why would anyone seek a seat on Defense Appropriations if not to get campaign contributions? There is nothing to be ashamed of because that is the way the campaign contributions market works. Other members of the House understand that, which is why the Ethics Committee can see nothing wrong. Only some unrealistic bureaucrats would see a problem.
Mr. Tiahrt’s statement also says the Ethics Committee “released a report confirming Tiahrt had cooperated” with the Office of Congressional Ethics. And he dismisses the office as “a shadow committee established by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)”

Let’s do some fact-checking on that.

First, the Office of Congressional Ethics was established by a vote of the House, with Mr. Tiahrt voting no. Second, half the members are appointed by the House Republican leader, albeit with the consent of the speaker. We are not told how each of the six members voted, but the vote of the OCE was four to refer the case and two abstaining. That means that at least one of the Republican appointees joined in the vote, and none opposed it.

As for the Ethics Committee “confirming Tiahrt had cooperated with the OCE,” he seems to be referring to a footnote laden with doublespeak: It appears, the report states, “to have been OCE’s judgment that these members failed to cooperate in OCE’s preferred manner. OCE apparently did not conclude that either Representative Tiahrt or Representative Visclosky failed to cooperate.”

If you read the office’s report, it is hard to see how the members did not conclude that. It reports that Representative Tiahrt refused to testify, and ordered his aides not to talk to the committee either. He did send in a statement saying he had done nothing wrong, which the congressman’s lawyer makes clear should have been enough for the office to stop seeking evidence. The fact that some of the firms that received earmarks from him also refused to testify is not important either, the lawyer says. (His letter is in the Ethics Committee report.)

Having claimed vindication, Mr. Tiahrt claims the high moral ground:

“What’s more important than my vindication is that we have prevented political smear attempts from slowing us down as we fight for Kansas jobs. So today, just like every other day, we will keep doing the right thing and will keep on fighting for Kansas families. There are too many important problems facing our country to waste time being distracted by unscrupulous organizations that have no regard for justice or any interest in making our country better. My hope is that those who have engaged in spreading the political slurs of Washington will find better things to do.”
The Kansas seat is open because Sam Brownback, the Republican incumbent, is retiring. It is highly likely that the Republican nominee will win.

If Mr. Tiahrt does become a senator, watch to see if his fellow Republicans put him on the Appropriations or Armed Services Committees. If so, you will know their ethical standards are every bit as high as those of the House Ethics Committee.


Two Markets: One to Blame, One to View as Normal - Floyd Norris Blog - NYTimes.com

Well, hears a Democrat and a Republican that violated ethics. Wonder if either of them is going to be asked to step down.

[flarendep1]

Rangel belongs in jail.

[BOBBY5ACES]

so does chenney and king george the 2nd (hopefully the last bush)

[BOBBY5ACES]

belong in the big house

[BettorsChat]

Rangel belongs in jail.

There's lots of the in Congress and the Senate who belong in Jail.

[BettorsChat]

Sander Levin: Pete Stark Relinquishes Ways And Means Chairmanship To Sander Levin

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) will take over the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee, the Michigan Democrat told reporters on Thursday.

"At this point I'm acting chairman," Levin said, according to the Associated Press.

Levin will replace Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who had initially been named to succeed Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who turned in his gavel under a cloud of ethics problems.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday Levin added: "I think you know my close relationship with Charlie."

Top Democrats reportedly had reservations about giving the chairmanship to Stark, according to Roll Call:

The leaders' original plan -- to keep the chairmanship in Stark's hands -- met stiff resistance Wednesday from committee members who feel the unpredictable Californian is too great a liability to helm the powerful tax-writing panel.
Politico first reported the news that Levin would succeed Stark.

Sander Levin: Pete Stark Relinquishes Ways And Means Chairmanship To Sander Levin

[10DimeBry]

Rangel is a POS scumbag.