So Tired of the "It's Both Parties" Denial/Dismissal - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-22-2007, 07:50 AM

Here's the challenge......if you believe that democrats and republicans are equally corrupt.....that when it comes to politicians elected to federal office, "they all do it"......here is your opportunity to post your argument. Tell us how the crimes of Rep. Jefferson of NOLA are as serious and impactful as the bribe taking in exchange for pressuring the DOD to buy defense related products/services that it wasn't interested in......the admitted crimes of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Post an example that equals or exceeds the proven crimes committed by former OVP COS, Irwin Scooter Libby, convicted of lying to FBI investigators and a grand jury impaneled to find the source of the leak of information concerning the employment of a CIA employee who was a manager of a group assessing the WMD threat level of Iran.....

Share with us anything that approximates this.....done by any democrat who served as US Attorney:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://ww...erland&emc=rss

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: April 11, 2007

.......In a separate development, Senate Democrats asked Mr. Gonzales to turn over documents related to a prosecution of a state contracting official in Wisconsin. In a case involving corruption charges brought by Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee, the official, Georgia Thompson, was convicted.

But last week, after an appeals court heard oral arguments, a federal appeals court took the unusual step of ordering Ms. Thompson’s immediate release from prison. The senators sought all documents at the Justice Department in connection with the case, which was the subject of intense political advertising last fall against Gov. James E. Doyle, a Democrat......

Quote:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-3676_015.pdf

ARGUED APRIL 5, 2007—DECIDED APRIL 5, 2007—
OPINION ISSUED APRIL 20, 2007
____________
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and
WOOD, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. In 2005 Wisconsin selected
Adelman Travel Group as its travel agent for about 40% of
its annual travel budget of $75 million. The selection came
after an elaborate process presided over by Georgia
Thompson, a section chief in the state’s Bureau of Procurement.
Statutes and regulations require procurement
decisions to be made on the basis of cost and service rather
than politics. Wis. Stat. §§ 16.70-16.78; Wis. Admin. Code
§10.08. Thompson steered the contract to Adelman Travel,
the low bidder, even though other members of the selection
group rated its rivals more highly. A jury convicted

2 No. 06-3676

Thompson of violating 18 U.S.C. §666 and §1341. The
prosecution’s theory was that any politically motivated
departure from state administrative rules is a federal
crime, when either the mails or federal funds are involved.
Thompson was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment
and compelled to begin serving that term while her appeal
was pending. After concluding that Thompson is
innocent, we reversed her conviction so that she could be
released......

.........Faced with a choice between a broad reading that turns
all (or a goodly fraction of) state-law errors or political
considerations in state procurement into federal crimes,
and a narrow reading that limits §666 to theft, extortion,
bribery, and similarly corrupt acts, a court properly uses
the statute’s caption for guidance. That plus the Rule of
Lenity, which insists that ambiguity in criminal legislation

8 No. 06-3676

be read against the prosecutor, lest the judiciary create,
in common-law fashion, offenses that have never received
legislative approbation, and about which adequate notice
has not been given to those who might be ensnared. See,
e.g., Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 n.17
(1994).
Imagine how the prosecutor’s reading of §666 would
apply to a state official charged with implementing the
Medicaid program. Someone applies for payment of
medical expenses; a state employee approves; later it
comes to light that the applicant made just a little too
much money to be eligible, so the decision was erroneous.
A violation of regulations and perhaps of some statutes
has occurred, but is the error a crime? As we read §666,
the answer is no unless the public employee is on the take
or the applicant is a relative (for indirect benefits are
another form of payoff). An error—even a deliberate one,
in which the employee winks at the rules in order to
help out someone he believes deserving but barely over
the eligibility threshold—is a civil rather than a criminal
transgression. Likewise the sin is civil (if it is any
wrong at all) when a public employee manipulates the
rules, as Thompson did, to save the state money or favor a
home-state producer that supports elected officials......

The two preceding quote boxes shed more light on the accusation that the republican presidential administration has politicized the US DOJ to an unprecedented degree.....a civil servant, convicted on questionable charges and evidence by an US attorney anxious to demonstrate to Karl Rove and DOJ superiors that he is conducting the "right kind" of prosecutions toi avoid being kept on the "US attorneys to be fired" list, Georgia Thompson, a person with no prior criminal record, is immediately sent to prison for 18 months, ignoring her requests to remain free, pending the outcome of her appeal. Imagine the reaction if Scooter Libby received such treatment, after his conviction?

As you can see.....the burden of proof to support what you believe, has not been set too high here. Give us your best "stuff". Tell us how the questionable real estate dealings of a democratic congressman from WV are on the sc ale of the corruption alleged of Rep. Doolittel (R-CA), and his wife.....related to Jack Abramoff.

Tell us why you think equally poorly of democrats as you do of republicans. Do the "dems" spend as irresponsibly as the "repubs"? Show us your proof. Which party has demonstrated fiscal restraint and dramatic federal deficit reduction.

Are the "crimes" of the Clintons still rankling you? Consider that $100 million was spent to investigate the Clinton's, by a highly partisan special prosecutor, installed by a 3 judge panel of partisan 4th Circuit federal judges, to replace a special prosecutor considered by republicans to be not "partisan enough".
Consider what the Starr investigation found for the money that it spent, and the way it leaked it's investigative details to the press, compared to the way Scooter Libby was treated by the silent prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald.

What it comes down to.....is how much of your "both parties are equally corrupt" belief is based on "feelings", and how much of it can be supported by examples that you take the time and effort to post on this thread.

If you don't have examples to back your opinion, is your opinion reduced to "feelings"......and is it fair or accurate, constructive or counter productive?

EaseUp · 04-22-2007, 10:56 AM

Sorry about your fatigue. Randy Cunningham was removed from office. If there was a Republican fighting for him to remain, it did not make it to any media outlets in my area.

William Jefferson is still in office. Alcee Hastings is still in office.

Business as usual, apparently.

dc_dux · 04-22-2007, 04:39 PM

Randy Cunningham, the all-american boy and model for the Top Gun character, did not resign from the House until AFTER he pleaded guilty to taking more than $1 mllion in bribes. Most recently, former repub COngressman Bob Ney resigned AFTER he pleaded guilty to corruption charges. Why should Jefferson do otherwise? We still have a presumption of innocence (even though you and I may agree he is guilty).

THe FBI fucked up the case against Jefferson by raiding his COngressonal office (something never done in the history of Congress. The raid was authorized by Alberto Gonzales because of "unique circumstances." One can only wonder what made it more "unique" than the investigations of Cunningham or Ney) As a result, constitutional issues have been raised (even many repubs including the former Repub Speaker said the raid violated separation of powers). I would do the same as Jefferson and wait until this constitutional issue has been resolved.

Alcee Hasting was impreached as a judge 18 years ago, even though he was not found guilty in a court of law. You dont believe in second chances? What has he done while in office as a congressman that would justify his removal from office? It really is shameful to bring up Hastings, unless you know something I dont know.

reconmike · 04-22-2007, 04:51 PM

Why just federal office Host? When state and local corruption affects me and most people more. You see I live in Jersey the most corrupt democratic state in the union, I can cut and paste 5 pages of the shit that they pull in Jersey.

Willravel · 04-22-2007, 04:58 PM

The Republicans are broken. The Democrats are incompetent. I'd not equate one with the other because they suffer from different problems and at different levels of said problems. The Republicans are in a very bad place right now where they are led by, for all intents and purposes, madmen. The Democrats are not run by madmen, not by a long shot, but the greatest strength of the Republicans, resolve, is something that's been missing from the Democratic party for 6 years. I'll be eagerly watching the Dems over the next few years to see if they can earn my votes. The Republicans have lost my votes for a long, long time. They have a lot to answer for and a lot to make reparations for.

host · 04-22-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Why just federal office Host? When state and local corruption affects me and most people more. You see I live in Jersey the most corrupt democratic state in the union, I can cut and paste 5 pages of the shit that they pull in Jersey.

Let's see it, reconmike.....walk us through it, for comparison's sake.....

As far as the federal parties comparison, I'm going to start with the Cunningham corruption "linkage", and the mostly unrelated corruption of Rep. Doolittle and his wife, after I comment about Alcee Hastings. I am going to make my arguments about impact and co-ordination....the web of corruption and it's consequences and potential consequences, because I think that those are the two things, besides the sheer numbers of corrupt republicans, that set the examples in each party, apart......

RE: New Jersey, New Sopranos episode is on HBO, now. I'll be back just after 10:00 pm EDT.....

My goal is to separate substance from feelings......I can't say it enough.....

....and willravel, I cannot agree with you about the democrats being "broken".
To be sure, there are "money party" democrats....the Clintons....and now, probably....Obama, as well. But there are democrats who have almost no peers in the republican ranks....men like Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and even Howard Dean....politicians who have not "sold out".....remember the "Fancy Ford" website designed to attack Harold Ford's masculinity and to set him apart from voters, because of his race...(ethnicity)?

I posted about the "Fancy Ford" attack in March, 2006....
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102077

Seven months later, a new thread dealt with it as if it was comical:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109936

That is what republican strategists are good at...they certainly can't run on their record:

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/...y-digby-i.html

Tarzan, Jane and Cheetah

by digby

I think that one of the reasons the conservatives are mostly hanging tough with Coulter is at least partially due to what she specifically said. She used the word "faggot" to describe a Democrat. This is the premise that forms the entire basis of the Republican claim to leadership and lies at the bottom of the media's continuing ridiculous assumption that the Republicans are more natural leaders than Democrats. For forty years the Republicans have been winning elections by calling liberals "faggots" (and "dykes") in one way or another. It's what they do. To look too closely at what she said is to allow light on their very successful reliance on gender stereotypes to get elected......

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/...-there-is.html
Man Up

by digby

I see that there is a little argument going on in the comments of this post over at Election Central as to whether John Edwards was asking for the Republicans and the Queenbee to go after him when he spent $400 on a haircut. Some people believe that he is a hypocrite because his campaign is based on the "two Americas" theme and his spending so much money makes him look bad.

I don't know if that's the case, but I do know that's not what the Republicans and the Queen Bee are getting at. It's not about how much the haircut cost --- it's about the fact that he gets his hair cut by a fancy "hairdresser" instead of a butch barber like a real man would. They are basically calling him a "faggot" just like Coulter just as Coulter did.

They are feminizing him, the same way they feminized Gore with his earth tones and Kerry with his "flip-flopping" you-know-what.They tried to do it with Clinton but couldn't really get at him very well because he was a womanizer --- so they said his wife was a dyke instead.

The Republicans start these memes and pass them around to their little insider pals because they know it amuses the sophomoric punditocrisy during homeroom. But it is also a way for them to get the media to subtly identify with the manly virtues they covet or admire, thus furthering the GOP goal of alienating the legions of insecure white males (and the women who love them) in this country from the Democratic party. They've been doing it for years, ever since the 60's when Ronnie was talking about how you couldn't tell the girls from the boys anymore.

Don't confuse this with money. These people are all millionaires. This is about social hierarchy and high school archetypes being used to sell Republicans --- and the dupes or agents in the press who help them. If they haven't signed on to GOP politics directly, the Queen and all her followers in the media at least signed on to the idea that if they treat the Dems like a bunch of feminized losers, tripping them in the halls, knocking over their lunch trays and putting "kick me" signs on their backs, the awesome BMOC's will finally invite them to the party. Why do you think they kissed that macho jerk Don Imus's butt all those years?

and....the "freepers" loved the "the Queenbee's" "hit piece"......

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821156/posts
Running With Scissors (Dowd Takes Down Edwards)
New York Times ^ | 21 April 2007 | Maureen Dowd

Posted on 04/21/2007 5:23:01 AM PDT by shrinkermd

...Americans have revered such homely leaders as Abe Lincoln. They seem open to balding pates like Rudy’s and flattops like Jon Tester’s. They don’t want self-confidence to look like self-love.[If this is original with Dowd, it is a very good summary of human nature]...

...Someone who aspires to talk credibly about the two Americas can’t lavish on his locks what working families may spend on electricity in a year. You can’t sell earnestness while indulging in decadence......

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...42&postcount=2
Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant
October 6, 2005, Thursday
By BOB HERBERT (NYT); Editorial Desk

......Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.'s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act
and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And he began his general
election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in
Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered
in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: "I believe
in states' rights.".........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
.......Atwater on the Southern Strategy

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to historian Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N-word, N-word, N-word.' By 1968 you can't say 'N-word' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.....

I cannot believe that people here who I respect for other reasons, can post an opinion that the two parties are ALL the same. The democrats are flawed, to be sure....but they are not, in the majority, completely sold out to narrow interests, and they are not, as of this writing, appearing as an organization that is indistinguishable from an organized crime operation.....

dc_dux · 04-22-2007, 07:41 PM

The reign of corruption that resulted from 10+ years of Republican control of Congress can be summed up in 3 word...

... K Street Project

Nothing before it even comes close.

host · 04-23-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EaseUp

Sorry about your fatigue. Randy Cunningham was removed from office. If there was a Republican fighting for him to remain, it did not make it to any media outlets in my area.

William Jefferson is still in office. Alcee Hastings is still in office.

Business as usual, apparently.

Okay....let's examine why EaseUp thinks that "both parties" are "just as bad"; I've quoted his justification, and I invite him to counter my research:

Quote:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1066080426784
The Power of the Pardon

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
October 16, 2003

Former D.C. criminal defense lawyer William Borders Jr. makes no excuses for the crimes he committed 22 years ago that led to his disbarment. Caught in a Federal Bureau of Investigation sting operation, he was found guilty of conspiracy to bribe then-federal Judge Alcee Hastings. He spent three years in prison.

But when President Bill Clinton pardoned Borders on his last day of office in 2001, Borders thought his long path of repentance and rehabilitation had finally brought him to a point where he could resume his law practice -- and redirect it toward helping young people and the community.

The D.C. Court of Appeals did not agree, ruling that the pardon did not automatically entitle Borders to reinstatement.....

<h3>....Two powerhouse lawyers who are ideological opposites joined to write Borders' petition: Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree and former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
</h3>
"This man has spent two decades apologizing and rectifying a serious error he made years ago. He knows the tarnish will be there forever," says Ogletree. "I can't think of a single reason why he should not have a second chance."

The case puts Starr, a partner in the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis, in the position of defending a pardon given by Clinton, whose administration he investigated relentlessly. "We felt this case presents very important constitutional issues on core questions of executive power," says Kannon Shanmugam, a Kirkland associate who worked with Starr on the brief.

The National Bar Association has also filed a brief with the Court on behalf of Borders, who was president of the black lawyers organization in 1980, just before his downfall.

To former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, Borders' case has a spiritual quality to it. "Being pardoned by the president is like being pardoned by Jesus," says Fauntroy, a longtime friend of Borders. "Your sins are dropped into a sea of forgiveness, like they never happened. It is the only power a president has that cannot be challenged -- except in D.C., apparently."

D.C. lawyer disciplinary agencies have opposed Borders' reinstatement for more than 10 years -- long before the pardon. <b>The bar brief notes that Borders has repeatedly refused to testify about his role in the bribery of Hastings, who was acquitted of criminal charges, but was impeached and now serves in Congress.</b> ......

.....<b>Clinton's pardon of Borders was not one of the controversial, fast-track pardons Clinton also granted that day</b>. Ogletree and Fauntroy made application for it in the traditional fashion, supported by numerous letters from black members of Congress and others.

"There was no short circuit to it," says Borders. "The FBI did a full background check, spoke to people I knew, everyone. The process took a year."

Borders declines to revisit the subject of the crimes he committed, describing it as a time "when I had gotten away from the church." But since leaving prison, Borders "made a pact with God," he says, to return to church and to rebuild his life......

Quote:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BOPWatch/message/1713
washingtonpost.com

Pardoned but Still Disbarred

By William Raspberry

Monday, June 23, 2003; Page A21

....A brief history: Twenty-two years ago Borders, a Washington lawyer, and Hastings, a judge on the U.S. District Court in Miami, were accused of conspiring to arrange a $150,000 bribe to reduce the sentences of two brothers who had been convicted of racketeering and sentenced by Hastings.

Hastings was acquitted, though he was later impeached by Congress and removed from the bench. He subsequently was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he now serves.

Borders, tried separately, was convicted of conspiracy, sentenced to a five-year prison term and disbarred.....

.....to sum up the Alcee Hastings justification...."the crime" is 26 years old. The man accused of setting up the bribe for Hastings was the beneficiary of a pardon...five years ago, by Bill Clinton, that is described as "non-controversial", and indeed....none other than rabidly partisan lawyer Ken Starr, in 2003, attempted to convince the SCOTUS to restore the right to practice law, to the William Borders, the only person convicted in Hasting's "crime", and Starr supported Borders, who has refused for 22 years to reveal what he knows about Hasting's bribe taking.....

The democratic congressional leadership has reacted to Hastings bid for a key committee post and to Rep. Jefferson..... considering that Hastings was long ago acquitted in a criminal trial and not barred by the US Senate from holding federal elected office.....even though they had the option to bar him when a Senate committee impeached him in 1989....and the fact that Jefferson has not been indicted....in a much more reasonable way than the republican leaders who allowed both republican Reps. Tom Delay and Bob Ney to remain in office as long as they liked, after both were indicted, and even after Ney plead guilty in federal court to selling the influence of his office to Jack Abramoff:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112900503.html

Pelosi Passes Hastings for Intel Chair

By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; 9:07 AM

WASHINGTON -- In a decision that could roil Democratic unity in the new House, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi passed over Rep. Alcee Hastings Tuesday for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, currently the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, had been aggressively making a case for the top position, supported by members of the Congressional Black Caucus.....

....Critics pointed out that he had been impeached when he was a federal judge and said naming him to such a sensitive post would be a mistake just as the Democrats take over House control pledging reforms......

....The chairman of the Black Caucus, Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina, said Hastings' statement showed "an unequivocal commitment to our nation's security, selflessness and true statesmanship. He would have made an outstanding intelligence chairman, and we still hope he will at some point in our nation's future."....

....Hastings, who came to Congress in 1992, was charged in an FBI bribery sting but acquitted by a federal jury in 1983. Some judicial colleagues said Hastings fabricated his defense, and their allegations led to his impeachment by the U.S. House in 1988. He was removed from the bench by the Senate the following year.

In 1997, the Justice Department found an agent had falsely testified against Hastings, but no action was taken to reopen his case......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022801945.html
House GOP Pushes Floor Vote For Rep. Jefferson Appointment

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; Page A04

......Pelosi ousted Jefferson from his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in June after federal investigators raided his Capitol Hill office. In an earlier search of his home, $90,000 was found in a freezer. The money allegedly was accepted in a bribery sting involving an African technology company. Jefferson, who has not been charged, has maintained his innocence and was elected to a ninth term in December after a runoff election........

Please consider that Cunningham is out of office and in a federal prison, but that he was bribed by Brett Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, and that their "activities" have been tied to the following. <b>If you have a comparable example of democrats described in any way similar to the following, during a "time of war", no less.....please post what you've got to share with us.....</b>

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1n12lewis.html
By Jerry Kammer and Dean Calbreath
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE / STAFF WRITER

May 12, 2006

WASHINGTON – Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, angrily denied yesterday that he or his staff had engaged in any misconduct in dealing with lobbyists or in “earmarking” federal money.

But a federal government source told The San Diego Union-Tribune that investigators were probing Lewis' dealings with lobbyist and former Republican Rep. Bill Lowery of San Diego. The source said the investigation was a spin-off from the corruption probe of now-imprisoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

“Investigators are clearly interested in what role the congressman (Lewis) may have played in steering earmarks to certain entities,” said the source, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity.

The investigation is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, which has issued subpoenas, the source said. A second government source confirmed the investigation..........

Quote:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070321/D8O07EA80.html
Senator Eyes Another Attorney Departure

Mar 20, 8:06 PM (ET)

By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she wants answers about the departure of the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, who resigned last October before the Justice Department's dismissal of eight other U.S. attorneys sparked controversy.....

......A Gibson Dunn spokeswoman issued a statement on Yang's behalf Tuesday night. "Debra Wong Yang's decision to leave her post as U.S. attorney to pursue a private practice was entirely her own, and she had many options to choose from. We are delighted that she chose Gibson Dunn," it said.

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Yang was not asked to leave.

"Debra Yang was a highly regarded and well-respected prosecutor for the Justice Department," he said.

Feinstein noted Tuesday that there are numerous names blacked out in documents the Justice Department has released in recent days in response to the controversy. Feinstein did not specify what her concerns were about Yang, but she has complained repeatedly that six of the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed last year were in the midst of prosecuting public corruption cases, mostly focused on Republicans.

<h3>About five months before Yang's departure, her office had opened an investigation into ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and a lobbyist. Gibson Dunn, the firm that hired her, is also the firm where Lewis' legal team works,</h3> but government rules required that she step aside in that case or any other she was involved with while a government prosecutor.

The Lewis case is connected to the corruption investigation in San Diego that began with the 2005 conviction of former GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is serving jail time for bribery. Former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego, who was among those dismissed last year, was prosecuting that case. Feinstein contends that Lam's dismissal had something to do with the her role in the Cunningham investigation, though the Justice Department denies it.

.....In the months after Cunningham pleaded guilty, Lewis resisted an independent investigation of Cunningham's activities on the Appropriations Committee. He said he did an informal review of Cunningham's earmarks over several years and was satisfied that they were all legitimate.

Lewis said in his written statement yesterday that he would “welcome a thorough review of these projects.”

His office did not respond to requests that it release the results of his informal review. Copley News Service requested a list of the earmarks, the companies that benefited from them and the amount of money involved.

A former director of the committee's Democratic staff called on Lewis to be more forthcoming about Cunningham's actions.

“I think he has an obligation to explain what happened here because his committee . . . was used for corrupt purposes,” said Scott Lilly, who left the committee in 2004.

According to government and defense industry sources, Lewis and Cunningham worked together to help Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes as he pursued contracts on Capitol Hill. Cunningham admitted taking bribes from Wilkes, who has been identified as co-conspirator No. 1 in Cunningham's plea agreement.

On April 15, 1999, three months after Lewis was named chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, he received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes and his associates. At the time, Wilkes was vying for a project to digitize military documents in the Panama Canal Zone, which the United States was about to return to Panama.

“If you can't go to people on Capitol Hill, it's very difficult to remain viable as a government contractor,” said one of Wilkes' associates who contributed money to Lewis at the time. “You have to talk to people. And to talk to people, you have to give money.”

But the Panama project hit a snag. The Pentagon did not want to give Wilkes as much money as he requested.

On July 6, 1999, Wilkes wrote to Cunningham saying “We need $10 m(illion) more immediately . . . This is very important and if you cannot resolve this others will be calling also.”

Wilkes' memo – contained in federal documents accompanying Cunningham's guilty plea – then named two people whose names were blacked out by the prosecutors.

According to military and defense industry sources, Lewis and Cunningham got the money for Wilkes, founder of ADCS Inc., by using their clout to threaten the funding of the Pentagon's F-22 fighter jet.

The jet had been criticized as an expensive boondoggle by budget hawks on Capitol Hill. But it had the support of many lawmakers – including Cunningham – until it reached Lewis' committee.

During a closed-door meeting in July 1999, the committee voted unanimously to clip $1.8 billion from proposed funding for the F-22. The move was led by Lewis and Cunningham, who said at a public meeting that month, “I would not want to fly the F-22.”

“Once Lewis and Cunningham stopped the F-22, they trained the Department of Defense to understand their power,” said the former San Diego defense contractor. “So they were able to tell people that if you want to do any document conversion project, you'd better buy from ADCS.”

A Pentagon official told the Los Angeles Times this week that the Pentagon shifted roughly $10 million to Wilkes' flagship company, ADCS Inc., after the F-22 was threatened.

“The Defense Department spends $1 billion a day, so the (ADCS) contract was like a rounding error,” the official said. “It just wasn't worth putting our big programs at risk.”

Funding for the F-22 was quickly restored. And the next year, when Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon tried to cut F-22 funding, Cunningham went to the floor of the House to call him a “socialist.”

“Our kids are going to die, and it's amendments like this that have stopped our military from surviving,” he said.

Lewis has maintained there is no connection between the F-22 funding cut and aid for Wilkes.

<h3>Since 1993, Lewis has received $88,252 in contributions from Wilkes and his associates. Only two other legislators received more: Cunningham and Republican Rep. John Doolittle from the Sacramento suburbs, both of whom have admitted steering millions of dollars in contracts to ADCS.</h3>

During the same period, ADCS received more than $90 million in federal contracts, most of it through earmarks from the Appropriations Committee.

“From the standpoint of the average American citizen, that smells,” said Ned Wigglesworth, executive director of TheRestofUs.org, a liberal political watchdog group in Sacramento. “It's good to see that federal investigators have broadened the investigation into Lewis. His relationship with Wilkes has many of the same hallmarks that Cunningham's relationship had.”....

....so it's looking like Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is being protected by the very firm that has hired the former US Attorney who initiated an investigation against him for his Randy Cunningham related activity....and if that is not enough....remember the republican "fixer", the man who lied to the senate judiciary committee in 2001, concerning his role in creating the "Arkansas Project", the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/">Richard Mellon Scaife financed, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.</a> managed plan to eliminate the Clinton presidency....(I covered him in my earlier TFP politics thread:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=92438">Are Ted Olson and Al Zarqawi both "Supermen"?</a> .....yeah the "Ted Olson" whose name is mentioned as Gonzales's replacement as Atty. General:

Quote:

Administration officials say Gonzales should step down - CNN.com
White House aides say Gonzales hurt himself during testimony Thursday ... One name that consistently comes up is Ted Olson, former solicitor general. ...
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/gonzales/ - Apr 21, 2007 - Similar pages

Yup.....Ted Olson's here, too....he'll be working with Deborah Yang, at "the firm", to presumably protect "Jerry Lewis, et al":

Quote:

http://www.gibsondunn.com/news/firm/...pubItemId=8231
U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang Joins Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles

October 17, 2006

Los Angeles. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce Debra Wong Yang, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, will join the firm as partner in the Los Angeles office.

<h3>At Gibson Dunn, Yang will co-chair the firm’s Crisis Management Practice Group, along with Washington, D.C. partner Theodore B. Olson,</h3> the former Solicitor General of the United States, and New York partner Randy Mastro, the former New York Deputy Mayor of Operations. In addition, Yang will play a central role in the Business Crimes and Investigations Practice Group.

“Debra Wong Yang is one of the most respected U.S. Attorneys in the country. <h3>She has done a remarkable job in leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, which handles some of our Nation’s largest and most difficult cases,” said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.</h3> “She was selected to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a small group of U.S. Attorneys that I consult on policy matters, and she served in this and other capacities with great distinction. She is an energetic leader and has an amazing ability to build connections with community leaders at all levels.”....

and there is "plenty more", over at the "Why did Goss Resign?" thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104278

....and I posted this, 13 months ago:<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2022717#post2022717">What Are We Going to do About Terrorism?</a>

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=51
........Is it "odd" that, if not for a newspaper reporter in San Diego, who "broke" the story that Randy Cunningham was taking massive bribes to sell his influence on Pentagon procurement decisions, to Wilkes and his protege, the now guilty Mitchell Wade, it would still be "business as usual"....Cunningham would still be in congress....pressuring the Pentagon to buy things that it didn't need to defend our country, in exchange for more cash from Wilkes and Wade.

Isn't it odd that the chairman Jerry Lewis of the congressional Defense Appropriations committee, even now avoids launching a formal inquiry into the damage to our defense....in wartime"... that Randy Cunningham actaully cost, or to find if other members of congress were also accepting bribes?

Isn't it odd that the White House <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000058.php">refuses to disclose</a> just what it paid Mitchell Wade's company...with the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701856.html">people's money</a>. for? Or....why <b>Tom Delay or his pastor and former chief of staff, Ed Buckham, won't disclose what influence Brent Wilkes bought with the more than $500,000 that Wilkes paid to Buckham's ASG lobbying entity, which employed Delay's wife, Christine, to not perform a "no show" job.</b>

<b>Did congressman Bob Ney act "oddly"</b>, when he entered praise for Brent Wilkes in the congressional record, oddly reminiscent of a similar action that he performed on behalf of convicted lobbyists Abramoff and Michael Scanlon?

Isn't it odd that two scandals, "Abramoff" and "Cunningham" can involve so many government officials and so much money, with a commonality that much of the money enriched members iof the ruling politcal party and their election campaigns, but almost nobody here talks about them? Is it just easier to chat about a vague "war on terror" that does not change the behavior of those charged by the American people to manage it as quickly, efficiently, and as inexpensively, and...of course,
<b>AS OPENLY</b> as possible, with more serious enforcement of all laws, and with the stiffest possible penalties for those who break the law and weaken our security or are "war profiteers"? Isn't actually undermining the "war effort", a crime that deserves to be examined, discussed, and railed against, more vigoroulsy with the attention and vitriol directed against those who merely ask questions like the ones I am asking, or engage in peaceful protest and dissent as they lawfully conduct themselves as per past constitutionally guaranteed precedent?

Why, then the silence, the acceptance, the lack of curious comment, the lack of outrage, the blind, lockstep, recitation of conservative republican official talking points? Odder still, when we observe that the "support" for failure, duplicity, and by intentional negelect....open, unchallenged and uninvestigated corruption committed by key intelligence, defense, and congressional officials, duing wartime, and at the expense of all of us, even those who once called themselves "small government, "fiscal conservatives"!

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=17

From 1991 to 1993, a young lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve was working as a program manager in a Pentagon intelligence office. His name was Mitchell John Wade. His boss, the assistant secretary of defense for command, control, communications and intelligence, was Duane P. Andrews. Andrews's job at the Pentagon was essentially to serve as intelligence advisor to the secretary of defense. The secretary of defense at the time was someone that Andrews knew well and respected immensely: Dick Cheney.....

.......In 1993, at the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency, Cheney went on to become CEO of the oil services giant Halliburton; Andrews joined the massive government contractor SAIC, where he would rise to become CIO; and Wade, then 40 years old, moved to form his own defense contracting firm, MZM, Inc. But it wasn't until 2002 that MZM would get its first federal government contract: a peculiar one-month, $140,000 contract from the White House, later revealed to be for providing computers, office furniture, and specialized computer programming services to the Office of the Vice President.

<p>Wade's company would later get three more contracts from the White House and tens of millions of dollars in contracts from the Defense Department and other federal agencies, many of them for classified intelligence work. In the summer of 2005, of course, it all began to unravel for MZM, after journalist Marcus Stern of the <em>San Diego Union Tribune</em>/Copley News service noticed that San Diego congressman Duke Cunningham had sold his house to a company that listed as its name a Washington, D.C. street address, 1523 New Hampshire Ave. This was the address of MZM. After an extensive investigation that led to a sprawling federal probe run out of the San Diego U.S. attorney's office (the now-fired Carol Lam), Wade pled guilty last year and is awaiting sentencing on charges related to bribing Cunningham, who himself pled guilty on bribery-related charges and is serving out an eight year prison sentence. In February, three more indictments were issued in the case, this time against a San Diego-based defense contractor and Bush/Cheney Pioneer with whom Wade had closely worked, Brent Wilkes; Wilkes's longtime friend-turned-CIA executive director Kyle Dustin Foggo, who is accused of steering Wilkes CIA contracts and has since resigned; and the nephew of a Greek American businessman who is accused of laundering some of Wilkes's and Wade's bribes to Cunningham......

Quote:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007..._123_28_07.txt
Last modified Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:02 PM PDT

......Waxman released a letter he wrote to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton, wherein Waxman asserted that in July 2002, MZM received a White House contract. The $140,000 contract called for providing computers and furniture for Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

"To date ... there has been no examination of the circumstances surrounding MZM's initial federal contract and the role that White House officials played in the award and execution of the contract," Waxman's letter stated.

In the letter, Waxman asked the White House to provide the documents to the committee by April 6, including:

- all contracts, subcontracts and task orders between MZM and any associated firms,

- all invoices and payments made,

- all reviews of MZM's performance and contacts with its employees and

- communications between MZM, the White House, the General Services Administration and the Departments of Defense and Interior and members of Congress or their staff.

White House officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.....

....and reconmike.....this is why, if it still isn't clear.....<b>WHY IT MATTERS:</b>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002582.php
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

Last week, Congressman Emanuel sent you a letter requesting that former U.S. Attorney in San Diego Carol Lam be appointed as outside counsel to finish her work on the Duke Cunningham Case. Unfortunately, your office has not yet responded to that letter.

<b>Two days ago, Lam's investigation continued to bear fruit as a federal grand jury charged Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and Brent Wilkes with at least 11 felony counts related to their involvement with Cunningham.</b> As Elana Schor's article in The Hill yesterday points out, "Justice Department officials have praised the Cunningham probe as the linchpin of their growing pursuit of public corruption cases, yet prosecutor Lam is nonetheless slated to step down[Thursday] after the Bush administration cited unspecified 'performance' issues in requesting her resignation late last year. Six other U.S. attorneys, several involved in ongoing corruption investigations, were dismissed at about the same time."

As you know, of those seven fired U.S. Attorneys, Lam was not the only one investigating sitting public officials before being dismissed. For example, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona were dismissed while their offices were conducting probes concerning elected officials.

Schor's article also notes that Deputy U.S. Attorney General Paul McNulty was scheduled to brief members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday with information on the decisions to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. During last week's public Senate hearing, Deputy U.S. Attorney General McNulty confirmed that Bud Cummins III, the former U.S. attorney for Eastern Arkansas, was dismissed without cause to install Timothy Griffin, a former aide to White House adviser Karl Rove.

Carol Lam's indictments of Foggo and Wilkes underscore the importance of last week's request and the need for an explanation of why these diligent public servants were dismissed. It is vital that U.S. Attorneys be able to prosecute wrongdoing free from political pressure. We are pleased that the Department of Justice has also agreed to brief members of the House Judiciary Committee on the dismissals of Carol Lam and other U.S. Attorneys. <h3>We look forward to further details regarding the date for that briefing and your response regarding the request to appoint Carol Lam as an outside counsel to finish the Cunningham and related investigations.</h3>

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. We look forward to hearing from your office.

Sincerely,

Rahm Emanuel
Member of Congress

Howard Berman
Member of Congress

John Conyers
Chairman, Judiciary Committee

Linda Sánchez
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

I've "studied" this "mess" for the last 18 months.....this is a ticking time bomb, and if republicans think that they can "defuse" it, by bringing "Ted the Fixer" in to replace Gonzales, right after he installs the prosecutor, Deborah Yang who was investigating Jerry Lewis, onto Lewis's criminal defense team, consider what "Ted" once told the SCOTUS justices:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9291-2002Mar20

......a conflicting statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson to the Supreme Court on Monday has the ring of perverse honesty.

It is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out," the Justice Department's senior trial lawyer said to the justices, who are weighing Jennifer Harbury's claim that she had the right to the truth about the torture and murder of her Guatemalan revolutionary husband by CIA-financed Guatemalan forces in 1993. .......

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...posts?page=181
Mayor Giuliani Annouces Theodore [Ted] Olson as Chair of Justice Advisory Committee
joinRudy2008.com ^ | 3/1/07 | Campaign press release

.....“Ted Olson is a renowned Constitutional expert, one of the very best lawyers in the United States and I am honored to have his support," Mayor Giuliani said. "Judith and I are even more honored by his friendship."......

UNPLUG YOUR NEW "Express" SCROLL WHEEL, reconmike.....go back to the beginning of this post.....read it slowwwwwly.....note the names tied into this, Abramoff.....Delay....Buckham....Ney....Doolittle....Cheney....Olson....Foggo

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 07:31 PM

More K Street Project fallout and Repub corruption and influence peddling:

Quote:

ocuments filed in federal court today for Mark Zachares, a former Bush administration official and House GOP aide who is expected to plead guilty tomorrow on a federal corruption charge. Zachares will reportedly plead to one felony count of conspiracy for accepting "a stream of things of value from Abramoff and his lobbyists," which in return for Zachares "took a stream of official action" to benefit Abramoff and his clients. The conspiracy between the two men allegedly ran from 2000 to 2004, and Zachares, according to the criminal information document filed by the Justice Department today, offered to help Abramoff's clients in return for a job "warranting a high annual salary" when Zachares left Capitol Hill...

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who went to St. Andrews in Scotland with Abramoff in August 2003, finally made the case as "Representative #3." This is not good news for Feeney, and the FBI is reportedly looking into his dealings with Abramoff, according to the St. Petesburg Times. At the direction of the House ethics committee, Feeney has already agreed to pay a fine of $5,643 for improperly reporting the trip.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...ctivities.html
.

....and more

This one has a different twist to it.

Quote:

Two Bush administration officials who have been linked in scandal are now linked in wedlock.

The union of former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge could have implications for the investigation into Griles’s ties to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

They were married March 26, three days after Griles pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his relationship with Abramoff and a previous romantic partner. Wooldridge was the top environmental prosecutor at the Department of Justice (DoJ) before she resigned in January.

Legal experts note that people can refuse to testify against their spouses, and that in some cases, people can prevent their spouse from testifying against them.
...

Wooldridge was a senior aide at Interior, then became solicitor, the department’s top lawyer. She moved to the environmental enforcement job at Justice in 2005.

As a senior staffer, Wooldridge provided ethics advice to Griles during an investigation by the Interior Department’s inspector general, according to published reports.

The investigation concerned whether Griles had used his official position in dealings with clients of his former lobbying firm even as he continued to receive payments from the firm amounting to more than $1 million.

Investigators learned after their report was issued in 2004 that Griles and Wooldridge had been dating since February 2003.

Wooldridge also advised then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton on the allegations raised by the inspector general. Norton cleared Griles of wrongdoing on two key matters raised by the probe.

In his guilty plea, Griles admitted lying to a Senate committee investigating the Abramoff matter about the extent of his ties with Abramoff, who lobbied the Interior Department on tribal casino issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-04-19.html

reconmike · 04-23-2007, 07:48 PM

Sure Host here you go,
Can you explain how a Governor can appoint his homosexual lover to post as important as homeland security for the state, when he had no credentials for the position or wasnt even an US citizen?

Quote:

http://observer.com/20060925/2006092...s_wiseguys.aspBy Steve Kornacki

New Jersey’s Democratic elite has developed a well-worn reputation for cockiness.

And for good reason: Since 1972, only two Republicans—Tom Kean Sr. and Christine Todd Whitman, each elected and re-elected governor—have won statewide elections in New Jersey, and only once did their victory margin exceed one percentage point.

But cockiness also explains the predicament that Garden State Democrats now face: Six weeks before what figures to be the most Democrat-friendly midterm election in a generation, it is very possible—if not probable—that they will squander what should have been one of their party’s safest Senate seats.

Through scandals that would have killed off an ordinary state party, New Jersey’s Democrats thrived this decade, growing more confident with each win that they’d found a recipe for immunity. But now there is fear that they overreached and, in 2006, nominated the one man to whom their misdeeds will actually stick.

The national implications couldn’t be more dire: If Robert Menendez, New Jersey’s appointed Democratic incumbent, fails to hold off Republican Tom Kean Jr., Euclid himself couldn’t devise a majority-producing formula for the Democrats.

For now, the Menendez-Kean race is essentially a tie, something of an achievement in its own right for New Jersey’s G.O.P., which typically enjoys all the September success of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. What’s more, the most recent polls haven’t even measured the impact of a recently revealed federal criminal investigation of Mr. Menendez, the consequences of which Democrats privately describe with words ranging from “pretty bad” to “fatal.”

That quiet angst, though, isn’t entirely owed to the investigation itself, which was launched by U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie two weeks ago. It has more to do with context. Just consider what else is in the news in New Jersey these days.

There’s Jim McGreevey, some 22 months after skipping town with federal investigations into his gubernatorial administration swirling, who barged back into our lives last week to let us know that the sexual affair with the unqualified Israeli sailor he appointed as his state’s homeland-security advisor actually began while Mrs. McGreevey lay in a hospital bed clutching the couple’s newborn daughter. If that’s not enough, Golan Cipel, Mr. McGreevey’s supposed romantic partner, has himself re-emerged—to declare that the governor had actually liquored him up with Jägermeister and tried to rape him.

There’s also John Lynch, the onetime New Jersey Senate president (and Mr. McGreevey’s political godfather), whose plea agreement on federal corruption charges landed on the front page of last Friday’s Star-Ledger—right next to the news that Mr. McGreevey had been smitten with Mr. Cipel “from the first kiss.”

And then there’s this week’s report from a federal monitor essentially charging Wayne Bryant, a powerful state senator and loyal cog in the feared Camden County Democratic Committee, with shaking down administrators at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey to secure a no-show job for himself.

And those are just the biggies.

It may be hard for someone in, say, Kansas to understand this, but this is far from the first time that New Jersey Democrats have handed Republicans political ammunition this potent. But it has never mattered—until now.

In last year’s governor’s race, Republicans tied Jon Corzine, through his obscene personal campaign contributions and politically reckless business dealings, to a host of unseemly—and even indicted—characters. But Mr. Corzine won by 10 points: Few voters believed that the former Goldman Sachs C.E.O. would dirty himself doing business with ward-heelers.

The same goes for 2002, when Democrats switched a wheezing, wounded Robert Torricelli out of a Senate re-election race that he was about to lose, instead coasting home with the innocuous Frank Lautenberg.

Mr. Menendez may not be so lucky.

The public, even before word surfaced that U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie was probing his past role as a Union City landlord, already seemed inclined to tie Mr. Menendez to the sins of his party. The Senator has since intimated that Mr. Christie, a G.O.P.-appointed prosecutor, is motivated by politics and swears that the matter is overblown. It may well be.
But Mr. Menendez was always playing a risky game, betting that he—and, more importantly, New Jersey’s voters—had heard the last of some of the uglier chapters from his days as Hudson County’s Democratic boss.

Like earlier this decade, when he used his fierce and unforgiving muscle to paralyze the government of Jersey City. And why? To teach a lesson to the mayor, a man named Glenn Cunningham, who had run afoul of Mr. Menendez.

Tragically, Mr. Cunningham died two years ago. The city shut down for his funeral, and some 4,000 residents made their way to the armory for the ceremony. Mr. Menendez was barred from coming anywhere near it. But who delivered a eulogy? Why, Chris Christie. Of course.

Maybe, for both New Jersey Democrats and Mr. Menendez, the old saw is true: What goes around, comes around.

Now a wee bit of US senator Torricelli's foleys and how the very upright and ethical state of New Jersey handled it.

Quote:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI...ace/index.html TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Buffeted by scandal and trailing in the polls, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-New Jersey, announced Monday he was dropping his bid for re-election -- a move that could prove pivotal in Democratic efforts to maintain control of the Senate.

"I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate," the embattled incumbent declared. Calling it "the most painful thing" that he's ever done, Torricelli said he was asking attorneys to go to court to have his name removed from the ballot.

"Don't feel badly for me. I've changed people's lives," an emotional Torricelli, 51, said. With typical self-confidence, Torricelli rattled off what he considered to be his political and legislative accomplishments, and relayed how Democratic leaders had tried to dissuade him from his decision.

The withdrawal from the race, just five weeks before the midterm elections, complicates Democratic efforts to hold onto the Senate. Republicans need just one more GOP senator to wrest control of the chamber from Democrats.

Torricelli's race had once been viewed as an easy win for his party, but Republicans have successfully made the incumbent's ethics troubles -- stemming from illegal 1996 campaign donations and questionable gifts -- a campaign issue this year.

Torricelli's decision sent Democrats scrambling for a replacement to face Republican Doug Forrester in November. Democratic Gov. James McGreevey, who attended the news conference, said party leaders will make a replacement decision by Wednesday.

But Republicans vowed to challenge any effort to remove Torricelli as the official Democratic candidate, noting the state deadline for such a change had passed. According to the New Jersey attorney general's office, the vacancy deadline is 51 days before the general election. As of Monday, the general election was 36 days away.

"The laws of the state of New Jersey do not include 'we-think-we're-going-to-lose-so-we-get-to-pick-someone-new' clause," Forrester said at a news conference, blasting the "desperate attempt to retain power."

The question of who would be on the ballot appeared to be destined for the courts.

Even before Torricelli's announcement, party officials were looking at possible alternative candidates, including U.S. Reps. Robert Menendez and Frank Pallone. Former Democratic Sens. Bill Bradley and Frank Lautenberg, a longtime rival of Torricelli, were also among those political figures party strategists were considering as replacement candidates, sources said.

Bradley, a popular figure in New Jersey politics, was being courted to enter the race, party sources said. But people close to Bradley expressed doubts that the onetime basketball star and Rhodes scholar would enter the race.

A former congressman, Torricelli had replaced Bradley in the Senate with his 1996 election. He proved to be an effective fund-raiser for his party, especially as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the last election cycle.

Earlier in the day, Torricelli's campaign had called reports of his possible withdrawal "misleading rumors," but, after a day of rampant speculation about his political future and talks with party leaders, Torricelli decided to throw in the towel.

Torricelli's campaign has been hurt by an ethics controversy, and new polls showed him trailing Forrester by double digits. A weekend poll by the Newark Star-Ledger placed Forrester ahead of Torricelli by 13 percentage points.

Torricelli was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee this summer, following an investigation into whether he had improperly accepted gifts from businessman David Chang, a campaign contributor who earlier this year pleaded guilty to violating federal election laws.

Torricelli, who once served in the office of Vice President Walter Mondale, said he made mistakes, but insisted he was not guilty of all the charges leveled against him.

"When did we become such an unforgiving people?" he asked.

He had earlier apologized to voters for his behavior. In July, he delivered a speech on the Senate floor, citing "lapses of judgment" and vowing to take "full personal responsibility" for what happened. (Full story)

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle praised Torricelli as "an untiring fighter for the families of New Jersey" and said "his voice will be missed" in the Senate.

Before Torricelli's announcement, a source close to Menendez said that he is torn about whether he would run.

Menendez is in a close leadership race for the Democratic caucus chairman in the House and he is concerned about jumping into a battle that, the source said, is already set up as a "losing proposition."

On the other hand, the source said that Menendez knows how important the Democratic majority is in the Senate.

A combative and aggressive politician, Torricelli made news both on the campaign trail and off. His romantic life was often in the spotlight. He dated prominent women, including Bianca Jagger, a human rights activist and the former wife of rock star Mick Jagger, and Patricia Duff, a wealthy Democratic donor.

Written by CNN Producer Sean Loughlin with reporting from CNN Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and Political Editor John Mercurio.

How can a candidate pull out after the ballot deadline, and thenthe state and national democratic party can get a new candidate on the ballot when by New Jersey law they should have been SOL. I can tell you, the NJSC which is controled by go figure democrats.

Now Host like I said earlier I CAN post more than 5 pages of the shit the democrats have pulled in Jersey but I have neither the time or energy to do so.

I truly hope these do not count as "feeling" posts becuase I have given you a few examples of how this state works. I am suprised you do not live here, this
is a democrats wet dream state, next to Washington DC that is, where you can be a convicted crack smoking felon and still get elected to a council seat as long as that 'D" is infront of your name.

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Now Host like I said earlier I CAN post more than 5 pages of the shit the democrats have pulled in Jersey but I have neither the time or energy to do so.

Mike......Not to minimize the Dem corruption in NJ, but it would take far more than 5 pages just to list the details of one Repub scandal alone...the illegal and/or unethical contribtuions to Jack Abramoff in return for political favors.

...and thats just one scandal!

tecoyah · 04-25-2007, 09:39 AM

All I can say to all this back and forth fingerpointing....is I will eagerly watch in the coming years to see if the Dems can manage to screw things up as badly once they have the power to do so. Both partys are corrupted by influence, but right now the Republicans seem to be getting caught alot more, and doing far worse things. Likely its just a matter of opportunity that comes with position....somehow I doubt the Dems will be much better in this, but we shall see.

LazyBoy · 04-25-2007, 08:49 PM

Gotta remember, in politics, its not who is "evil".....its simply who is "evil" by comparison...

Or more possibly, the lesser of two (or more) evils....

-Will

host · 04-25-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Sure Host here you go,
Can you explain how a Governor can appoint his homosexual lover to post as important as homeland security for the state, when he had no credentials for the position or wasnt even an US citizen?

Now a wee bit of US senator Torricelli's foleys and how the very upright and ethical state of New Jersey handled it.

How can a candidate pull out after the ballot deadline, and thenthe state and national democratic party can get a new candidate on the ballot when by New Jersey law they should have been SOL. I can tell you, the NJSC which is controled by go figure democrats.

Now Host like I said earlier I CAN post more than 5 pages of the shit the democrats have pulled in Jersey but I have neither the time or energy to do so.

I truly hope these do not count as "feeling" posts becuase I have given you a few examples of how this state works. I am suprised you do not live here, this
is a democrats wet dream state, next to Washington DC that is, where you can be a convicted crack smoking felon and still get elected to a council seat as long as that 'D" is infront of your name.

reconmike....here are the "stats" from states around the nation, since 2000:

<b>2004: Sitting Connecticut Governor John Rowland, republican</b>. Admitted receipt of bribes

for selling the influence of his office in exchange for a plea deal that sent him to a one

year jail sentence in a federal prison....

<b>2005: Sitting Ohio Governor Bob Taft, republican.</b> "Pled Guilty to Ethics Violations -

Fined
On August 18, 2005, Bob Taft pled "no contest" in Franklin County Municipal Court to

charges for failing to disclose 47 golf outings, five dinners, and 29 other favors paid for by

friends. Taft was charged the maximum financial penalty for each of his crimes, totaling

$4000. <h3>Among the violations were three trips to Toledo's Iverness Club with Tom Noe</h3>,

who paid for at least one of the outings.

Gov. Taft was the first Ohio governor ever to be convicted of a crime.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ohi...ocket.php#Taft
(take a look at the descriptions of the other ten people associated with Gov. Taft who were convicted in criminal prosecutions, and or recieved fines in connection with the "ethics violations" of the governor.) One of the ten, Thomas Noe, is pictured with this description:

Quote:

Thomas Noe - Convicted - Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison and Ordered to Pay $16.7 Million
Thomas Noe has been indicted in two separate, but overlapping investigations for a

variety of corrupt activities in Ohio and in national politics.

On October 27, 2005, Noe was indicted in a federal investigation on three felony counts of

Conspiracy, Conduit Contribution Violations, and False Statements.

In that investigation, Noe was accused of funneling $45,400 to the Bush-Cheney 2004

re-election campaign through other donors. After already donating the maximum $2,000 to

Bush-Cheney '04, he pledged to raise an additional $50,000 at an fundraising dinner in

October, 2003. Noe recruited 24 friends as "conduits," advancing them money or reimbursing

them for contributions to Bush's campaign. Additionally, Noe gave $20,000 to two friends to

act as "super-conduits" by recruiting their own friends and performing the same scheme. The

Bush campaign later named Mr. Noe a "Pioneer" for raising at least $100,000 overall

On October 31, 2005, Noe pled not-guilty to all three felony charges. However on May 31, 2006,

Noe changed his plea to guilty to all three charges.

On February 13, 2006, the Lucas County District Court of Ohio charged Noe with embezzling at

least $1 million and laundering more than $2 million from a $50 million rare-coin investment

that he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. Noe pled not guilty to all 53

felony counts, including Racketeering, Theft, Forgery, Money Laundering, and Tampering with

Records. On August 22nd, a judge consolidated 8 charges into a single theft charge, reducing

the charges against Noe to 46.

There are suspicions that Noe used some of the rare-coin money to pay his conduits for the

Bush campaign or to donate to other political candidates. It's been reported that he used

between $4 million and $6 million from the coin investments to pay off debts as well as

purchase a house, boats, and cars.

Noe was convicted on November 13 of 29 counts. On November 20th, Noe was sentenced to prison

for 18 years. On November 27, Noe was ordered to pay the state of Ohio $13.7 million in

restitution, and must pay an additional $3 million, the cost of the probe into Noe's actions.

<b>2006: <b>Former Illinois Governor George Ryan,republican</b> convicted by Scooter Libby

prosecutor and US attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald. Ryan received an 8 year sentence after his

federal trial on corruption charges. We covered the conviction here at TFP, last year:
<b> Ex Illinois Gov Ryan Convicted & Liberal Press Hides His Party Affiliation</b>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103553

<b>2006 Sitting Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, republican</b> indicted on midemeanor

corruption charges:

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n18682840

Lexington Herald-Leader, February, 2007
premium Content provided
in partnership with premium

As Yogi Berra famously said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." And events last week reminded us

that Gov. Ernie Fletcher's BlackBerry Jam ain't over.

Yes, he cut a deal last summer to get the misdemeanor indictments against himself dropped.

Yes, he pre-emptively pardoned a host of cronies and underlings.

And yes, the special Franklin County grand jury ended its 18-month investigation in November,

issued its report and went home.

But there's still Sam Beverage.

And Dan Druen.

Beverage, a former Transportation Cabinet official, faces a perjury trial scheduled to begin

Feb. 19. He allegedly lied to the grand jury the day after Fletcher's Rotunda Pardoning Party.

Last week, a Virginia judge told Druen, also a former Transportation Cabinet official, that he

must return to Kentucky to testify at the Beverage trial......

Quote:

http://www.topix.net/content/kri/162...60653582635242
Fletcher not first governor to be indicted

By Ryan Alessi

Lexington Herald-Leader

May 21, 2006

Immediately after the May 11 indictment of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky officials began

wringing their hands about how it made Kentucky appear to the rest of the country.

Some called it 'an embarrassment' and said it would stain the state's reputation.

But Fletcher is hardly alone among U.S. governors, at least a half a dozen of whom have found

themselves embroiled in legal troubles in the last few years.

'We're just joining the crowd,' said Scott Lasley, assistant professor of political science at

Western Kentucky University. 'I'm not convinced this is a major blight on the state.'

As for Fletcher's political future -- that may be a different story.

Few governors in history have been able to withstand that type of an image hit and salvage

their political careers. And a review of recent governors slapped with legal charges shows

that the opposite party typically gains the upper hand in the next election.

'That often happens,' said Larry Sabato, the national political observer and professor at the

University of Virginia Center for Politics. 'But you can also have the same party win by

dumping the incumbent -- if they can find a strong candidate that can prove independence' from

the tarnished governor.

The three misdemeanor charges against Fletcher -- conspiracy, political discrimination and

official misconduct -- stem from a yearlong investigation into the administration's hiring

practices.

If convicted, Fletcher could face jail time and have to leave office.

Lasley said such a patronage investigation isn't as damaging in the minds of voters as, say,

trading government favors for money or a sex scandal. But it still registers higher on that

rough scale than a political scandal, which might include receiving improper campaign

donations, he added.

Joining the club

For the last year, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been investigated by the U.S. attorney's

office for improper hirings based on political connections instead of qualifications -- eerily

similar to Fletcher's situation.

Blagojevich, unlike Fletcher, hasn't been charged. Still, the investigation has hung like a

cloud over the Democrat's re-election bid this year.

Last month, a jury convicted Blagojevich's predecessor, Republican George Ryan, on charges of

taking bribes and misusing the governor's office. Blagojevich played up Ryan's problems in the

2002 governor's race by trying to link the embattled incumbent to his Republican opponent,

who, in an unfortunate coincidence, shared the last name Ryan.

Last summer, Ohio's Republican Gov. Bob Taft pleaded guilty to violating ethics laws for not

disclosing golf outings paid for by a campaign donor.

Now, Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland is the early favorite to win this fall's open

governor's race because Taft has become so unpopular, said Herb Asher, political science

professor at Ohio State University.

'What's been interesting here is that (Republican candidate) Ken Blackwell is trying to tap

into that and paint himself as an agent of change, even though he's been part of the

establishment for years,' Asher said.

That race could be 'a good road map' for Kentucky Republicans if Blackwell pulls it off, Asher

added.

Recent problems

Other governors' problems and the subsequent fallout include:

Democratic New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey, who, in August 2004, resigned after announcing

he was gay. It was later revealed he had an affair with man he hired as the state's homeland

security adviser, even though that aide had few credentials.

Democrats kept the position last fall when U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine defeated Republican

businessman Doug Forrester in an expensive, contentious race.

In June 2004, Connecticut's Republican governor, John Rowland, resigned after it was revealed

he improperly accepted gifts. He was later sentenced to a year in prison.

Rowland's lieutenant governor, M. Jodi Rell, took over and distanced herself enough from the

scandal to build relatively high approval ratings. Sabato, from the University of Virginia,

said she is 'way ahead' in her bid for re-election this fall.

Former Alabama Gov. Don E. Siegelman, a Democrat, is on trial on charges of racketeering and

accepting bribes during his term from 1999 to 2003. Siegelman narrowly lost to Republican Bob

Riley in 2002, as rumors of corruption bubbled up. Siegelman is running again this year to try

to unseat Riley.

In Kentucky's history, only two other sitting governors have been indicted. In 1929, Flem

Sampson, a Republican, was charged with receiving improper gifts.

The charges stemmed from a textbook scandal and were later dropped. But Republicans didn't win

the governor's race again until 1943.

Before that, Republican Kentucky Gov. William S. Taylor was indicted in connection with the

January 1900 assassination of Democratic Kentucky Gov. William Goebel.

As for Fletcher, his future remains in doubt as supporters and GOP strategists continue to

survey Kentucky's political landscape to test his chances of winning again in 2007.

'At the end of the day, Fletcher's fate will be determined by his fellow Republicans,' said

Lasley, from WKU. 'You can survive hits from the opposition party. It's when you lose major

support in your party is when you're in trouble.'

To sum things up, reconmike, since 2004, 3 sitting republican governors and a fourth, recent

republican governor, were convicted or pled guitly to corruption charges, and two of them

received federal prison sentences of one year or more. The two sentenced to prison were

prosecuted by US attorneys appointed by president Bush.

In your New Jersey examples, even with Bush appointed US attorneys presumably examining the

evidence of corruption against Gov. McGreavy and former US senator Robert Torricelli, both

democrats, neither politician committed offenses that were deemed serious enough to merit

indictment or prosecution, even though we now know that all US attorneys were pressured to

aggressively and speedily investigate and prosecute democratic politicians between 2004 and

2006....as a condition for continuing as US attorneys.

The "record" in the first six years of the "00's" decade, when measured by indictments and

convictions of governors and their "associates" and political patrons, even in an era and

atmosphere of a highly politicized, partisan US DOJ, clearly demonstrates that repulican

governors, just as their federal office holding fellow party members, are much more corrupt

than their democratic opponents.

I would welcome a discussion on the history and background of the charges in the failed first, and then in the second, successful prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don E. Siegelman, a democrat convicted of corruption charges last year....but acquitted, in two criminal trials of huge numbers of other criminal charges brought by a politically motivated and extremely zealous, republican appointed US Attorney. Siegelman was successfully defended against almost all charges....there were so many, in both trials, that it was probably close to impossible to totally escape any convictions.

Contrast Siegelman's prosecutions....and Starr's Whitewater investigation with the restrained.....very few charges brought, only one strong indictment of one suspect, no hype or publicity from the prosecutor; prosecution of Scooter Libby by special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, or Fitzgerald's prosecution of ex-Gov. Ryan, compared to Siegelman's prosecutions in Alabama.....

hiredgun · 04-29-2007, 09:35 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wL0m7Js_ERY

The video speaks to the topic of the OP; Bill Maher vs. O'Reilly on the subject of whether the two major parties are roughly equivalent in terms of corruption or self-servingness.

37OHSSV · 04-30-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Alcee Hasting was impreached as a judge 18 years ago, even though he was not found guilty in a court of law. You dont believe in second chances? What has he done while in office as a congressman that would justify his removal from office? It really is shameful to bring up Hastings, unless you know something I dont know.

There appear to be several matters you don't know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...uption_scandal

Quote:

The Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, soon launched a separate investigation into the matter which lasted nearly four years. Ultimately, the council (which was led by former Watergate prosecutor John Doar and comprised of the active appeals court judges for that circuit and three U.S. District judges) found that Hastings not only had solicited a bribe, but also repeatedly lied during his trial. Following this report, the House Judiciary Committee approved seventeen articles of impeachment against Hastings. Sixteen dealt with the bribery case, while one centered around Hastings' improper revelation of sensitive government information obtained through a federal wiretap in 1985. In late 1988, the articles passed the House by a vote of 413-3. [COLOR="yellow"The Senate, following a trial by a twelve-member committee, chose to convict Hastings [/COLOR]on eight of the articles, but opted not to restrict him from seeking federal elected office in the future (which it had the authority to do). In 1992, a federal judge remanded Hastings' conviction back to the Senate, arguing that Hastings should have received a trial by the full Senate. The Supreme Court, however, had ruled in a similar case that the courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, and Hastings' conviction was therefore upheld.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Not found guilty in a court of law.

(404 Credibility Not Found.)

A "second chance" is not appropriate for Randy Cunningham, and it was not appropriate for Alcee Hastings.

host · 04-30-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 37OHSSV

There appear to be several matters you don't know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...uption_scandal

(404 Credibility Not Found.)

A "second chance" is not appropriate for Randy Cunningham, and it was not appropriate for Alcee Hastings.

We've covered that already.....in post #8 :

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112900503.html

Pelosi Passes Hastings for Intel Chair

By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; 9:07 AM

WASHINGTON -- In a decision that could roil Democratic unity in the new House, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi passed over Rep. Alcee Hastings Tuesday for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, currently the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, had been aggressively making a case for the top position, supported by members of the Congressional Black Caucus.....

....Critics pointed out that he had been impeached when he was a federal judge and said naming him to such a sensitive post would be a mistake just as the Democrats take over House control pledging reforms......

....The chairman of the Black Caucus, Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina, said Hastings' statement showed "an unequivocal commitment to our nation's security, selflessness and true statesmanship. He would have made an outstanding intelligence chairman, and we still hope he will at some point in our nation's future."....

....Hastings, who came to Congress in 1992, was charged in an FBI bribery sting but acquitted by a federal jury in 1983. <b>Some judicial colleagues said Hastings fabricated his defense, and their allegations led to his impeachment by the U.S. House in 1988. He was removed from the bench by the Senate the following year.</b>

In 1997, the Justice Department found an agent had falsely testified against Hastings, but no action was taken to reopen his case......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022801945.html
House GOP Pushes Floor Vote For Rep. Jefferson Appointment

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; Page A04

......Pelosi ousted Jefferson from his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in June after federal investigators raided his Capitol Hill office. In an earlier search of his home, $90,000 was found in a freezer. The money allegedly was accepted in a bribery sting involving an African technology company. Jefferson, who has not been charged, has maintained his innocence and was elected to a ninth term in December after a runoff election........

The senate commitee that convicted Alcee Hastings in the impeachment trial could have barred him from holding federal elected office, but didn't.

Post #8 also details Ken Starr's efforts to persuade the SCOTUS to reinstate the privelege to practice law of the only person convicted in the Hatings corruption case....the man who acted as the "bag man"....soliciting the bribe and collecting the bribe money on Hastings' behalf. Even though he was convicted and refused for 18 years to talk about Hasting's complicity in the crimes, Clinton,pardoned him in an action not seen as controversial, and Ken Starr took up his cause......

I hardly think that Hating's "crimes" can be compared to Cunningham's treasonous pressuring of the pentagon to buy rhings it did not want or need, while troops were deployed during war time, and lacked bullets to train with and full body and vehicle armor, in exchange for an itemized list of bribery items, and a yacht and many thousands in cash.

Why do you feel so strongly about Hastings 15 year old alleged crimes, while you give the crimes Cunninhham and his co-criminals.so little concern, when they undermine the defense efforts of our military, and Cunningham has already admitted many of them, in explicit detail, and his bribers have documented links to the former #3 at CIA, and to the VP's offive, and to many other republican members of vongress, including Catherine Harris of Fla and Rep. Doolittle of California, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, still reported to be under investigation in the Cunningham matter,

Hastings is the elected rep. from a congressional district in Fla., and Nancy Pelosi refused to appoint him to a committee chair. His crimes are 18 years old and he was aquitted in a criminal trial, 14 years ago, and the DOJ, ten years ago, said that one of it's agents gave false testimony against him.

If you want to add something persuasive to the discussion, comparing Hastings trial and impeachment to the damage from the last six years of republican corruption, isn't they way to go about it. It seems to strengthen the depth and breadth and seriousness of republican corruption in this era, and makes a case for the democrats being free of serious crorruption for a long time, now.....since the Hastings case in the early 80's.

With the DOJ completely politicized into a partisan repulican "witch hunter" bent on a broad recent agenda of of prosecuting democrats, can't you find better examples of democrats doing things like Cunningham, Wilkes, Wade, and Foggo did, or as dc_dux posted.....things like "K Street project"?

dc_dux · 05-01-2007, 06:25 AM

37OHSSV....If its still not clear to you, Hasting was acquitted of all charges in a criminal court. The action of the Judicial Conference did not overturn that decision. Its finding led to the impeachment, which is a quasi-judicial process.

And as your article noted, the impeachment charges "opted not to restrict him from seeking federal elected office in the future?"

What part of these facts dont you understand?

host · 05-01-2007, 11:41 AM

Lieberman is a real piece of work:

Quote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...-apconnecticut
Lieberman says third-party 2008 candidate could emerge
By ANDREW MIGA
Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2007, 5:28 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Monday a third-party candidate could emerge to shake things up in the 2008 presidential race unless the two major parties tackle the growing problem of "partisan polarization" that alienates many voters.

"I think the public is fed up," he said at a forum on civility and politics on Capitol Hill. "If the two major parties don't hear this going into '08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy -- and watch out if that happens."

Extremists in both parties are driving debate in the 2008 primary contests, said Lieberman, who was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000 and unsuccessful candidate for the party's 2004 presidential nomination.

The fastest growing political party in America, he said, is "no party."....

Contrast his propaganda with the recent polling analysis from CONSERVATIVE pew Research:

Quote:

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=315
Democrats Fail to Impress in First 100 Days
Government Faulted on Vets' Care, Military Ratings Slip Post-Walter Reed

Released: March 29, 2007

Summary of Findings

.......Party Images

The Democratic Party's image advantage over the Republican Party – which helped them win a majority in the 2006 midterm elections – has continued to widen. The percentage saying the Democrats are better able to manage the federal government has risen from 39% roughly a year ago to 44% just prior to the election to 47% today; the Democratic Party currently holds a 16-point advantage over the GOP in this area.

<h3>Similarly, by a margin of 43% to 25% more Americans say the Democratic Party, rather than the Republican Party, governs in a more honest and ethical way. This compares to a slimmer 36% to 28% Democratic edge a year ago.
</h3>
The most striking shift in evaluations of the parties comes in ratings of the leaders themselves. Despite trailing the Democrats on a number of issues and traits, Republican leaders were consistently rated as the "stronger" leaders throughout the 2006 election cycle. But this wide advantage has now vanished – with slightly more saying the Democratic Party's leaders are stronger (41% vs. 36%). Similarly, 44% say the Democratic Party has "better" leaders while 29% say the Republican Party does. In the buildup to the 2006 midterm, Republicans had a slim edge on this measure.

These relative advantages reflect negative feelings about the Republican Party as much as positive feelings about the Democrats. As shown in Pew's recent report "Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats," the favorability ratings of the Democratic Party have not improved, despite steep losses in Republican Party identification and a decided shift in values over the past few years. It is views of the Republican Party that have changed dramatically in a negative direction........

Once....again, this is a period of unprecedented political scandals and corruption, it is a one party problem, a republican problem, and the American people know it, despite the spin from the republican propaganda apparatus. Even Pew Research could not blunt it's findings on public perceptions, even with a title to it's research piece that "Denocrats Fail to Impress".....

ubertuber · 05-01-2007, 11:54 AM

Yeah, Joe doesn't know what he's talking about. If there's a viable third part candidate, it won't have anything to do with him.

The only halfway persuasive thing I've heard about that is the possibility of Michael Bloomberg using his billions to run as an independent in '08.

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 08:45 AM

Here is somthing interesting, I wonder when the left is going start talking about this the way they talked about Haliburton.

Quote:

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.

The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket—the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

http://www.conservative.org/columnis...e/070430dk.htm

Just for the record this is more about a double standard than anything else. Cheney did not wrong with Haliburton, but took a great deal of heat for it. I am betting this gets ignored by the left.

dc_dux · 05-02-2007, 09:33 AM

Its clear she had a conflict of interest but its hard for me to understand how she had any control over contracts approved by the Milcom subcommittee when she was in the minority from 2001 to 2005.

She should have abstained from any votes in which her husband''s company may have been a beneficiary. But, the Senate Ethics Committee under the Repubs saw no reason to initiate an ethics investigation against her.

So... ace...do you have any links that show how she "may have directed" any decisions by the subcommittee or that she was "up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (he took $1 million in bribes) in the slammer"?

Willravel · 05-02-2007, 09:41 AM

Old news, and something this liberal didn't ignore. She resigned back in March from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee as there was suspected of allowing her husband's company to profit from her position (the 'vet-care' scandal). Has Dick Cheney resigned from his role as Vice President? Has he taken himself from governmental decision making around Haliburton? No? Think about that.

All this tells us is that we need legislation that prevents conflicts of interest like these. Whether they're guilty or not (Feinstein was probably not, Cheney probably is), the opportunity for corruption should be taken away.

dc_dux · 05-02-2007, 09:50 AM

ace.....you're reaching here llke you did when you went after Pelosi and the minmium wage bill that supposedly had an exclusion for a company headquartered in her district: (link)

Quote:

I tried looking for the bill with the exclusion, I could not find it. Anyone have a link? (you couldnt find it because there was no exclusion)

This is hypocracy on many levels. Not only is Pelosi protecting big business in her backyard at the expense of what they call a living wage for working people, the Democrats had to pay their union dues. Unions are the primary backers of minimum wage increases. On top of that Pelosi is going to stand up in her $20,000 pearls and proclaim how hard she is working to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots.

ace...you need facts, not unproven inuendo from right wing sources.

Did Cheney have any lnflluence in the awarding of Iraq reconstruction to Halliburton? He said "absolutely not"

..."as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."

What does the paper trail say?

Quote:

Both he and the company say they have no ongoing connections. But TIME has obtained an internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official—whose name was blacked out by the Pentagon—that raises questions about Cheney's arm's-length policy toward his old employer. Dated March 5, 2003, the e-mail says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. The e-mail says Douglas Feith, a high-ranking Pentagon hawk, got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his boss, who is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. RIO is one of several large contracts the U.S. awarded to Halliburton last year.

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...644111,00.html

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its clear she had a conflict of interest but its hard for me to understand how she had any control over contracts approved by the Milcom subcommittee when she was in the minority from 2001 to 2005.

She should have abstained from any votes in which her husband''s company may have been a beneficiary. But, the Senate Ethics Committee under the Repubs saw no reason to initiate an ethics investigation against her.

So... ace...do you have any links that show how she "may have directed" any decisions by the subcommittee or that she was "up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (he took $1 million in bribes) in the slammer"?

The key issue in my view is the conflict of interest. Cheney took heat for the appearance of a conflict of interest, Feinstein will get a pass. Cheney took steps to minimize the appearance of a conflict of interest and still took heat.

I can not support Cunningham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Old news, and something this liberal didn't ignore. She resigned back in March from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee as there was suspected of allowing her husband's company to profit from her position (the 'vet-care' scandal). Has Dick Cheney resigned from his role as Vice President? Has he taken himself from governmental decision making around Haliburton? No? Think about that.

All this tells us is that we need legislation that prevents conflicts of interest like these. Whether they're guilty or not (Feinstein was probably not, Cheney probably is), the opportunity for corruption should be taken away.

The point of the OP was that it is both parties.

I don't think we need more legislation to police ethics, we need term limits in my opinion. Conflicts of interest will always be a problem, but it is worse with long-term career politicians.

Is the Reid "land deal" old news as well?

Willravel · 05-02-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The point of the OP was that it is both parties.

Which is like saying that I am the same as Jack the Ripper because I jay walk. There are levels of corruption that should be carefully examined so that an apt comparison can be made. For example: Feinstein really didn't have the power to do what she's bee accused of by a second rate media source. None of the accusations have backing. While some of the decisions by the subcommittee did benefit her family, there's no evidence to suggest that she was fully responsible for the decisions (frankly, she didn't have the power at the time). For Cheney, we're looking at a very different picture. Evidence exists to suggest that Cheney's own stock options for Haliburton rose 3281% in one year. Cheney was directly responsible, as well as Bush, for the war in Iraq. His is a classic story of the revolving door between corrupt politicians and the military industrial complex. Haliburton has been accused, with evidence, of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books, and yet still is able to get huge bids in the wars that it's former CEO is responsible for. Compare those. Cheney is Jack the Ripper and Feinstein is the jay walker. That's blatantly clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think we need more legislation to police ethics, we need term limits in my opinion. Conflicts of interest will always be a problem, but it is worse with long-term career politicians.

I'm against that because term limits with the president lead to decisions that only have considered effects for 4 years. Can you imagine a president that makes decisions that consider effects 10, 20, 100 years down the line? We call those Democrats.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The key issue in my view is the conflict of interest. Cheney took heat for the appearance of a conflict of interest, Feinstein will get a pass. Cheney took steps to minimize the appearance of a conflict of interest and still took heat.

If it is indeed true that Feinstein resigned from her committee, and as we know, Cheney has not resigned, it would appear that this statement is exactly incorrect.

I agree, it is hard to support Cunningham. No one would want to own that mess - understandable.

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Which is like saying that I am the same as Jack the Ripper because I jay walk. There are levels of corruption that should be carefully examined so that an apt comparison can be made. For example: Feinstein really didn't have the power to do what she's bee accused of by a second rate media source. None of the accusations have backing. While some of the decisions by the subcommittee did benefit her family, there's no evidence to suggest that she was fully responsible for the decisions (frankly, she didn't have the power at the time). For Cheney, we're looking at a very different picture. Evidence exists to suggest that Cheney's own stock options for Haliburton rose 3281% in one year. Cheney was directly responsible, as well as Bush, for the war in Iraq. His is a classic story of the revolving door between corrupt politicians and the military industrial complex. Haliburton has been accused, with evidence, of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books, and yet still is able to get huge bids in the wars that it's former CEO is responsible for. Compare those. Cheney is Jack the Ripper and Feinstein is the jay walker. That's blatantly clear.

I'm against that because term limits with the president lead to decisions that only have considered effects for 4 years. Can you imagine a president that makes decisions that consider effects 10, 20, 100 years down the line? We call those Democrats.

Cheney as no control over the funding of the Iraq war. Cheney did not give Congressional approval for military action against Iraq. I have not seen evidence that Cheney had influence over Haliburton getting Iraq military contracts.

When are the Congressional hearing going to start on Haliburton, I am very interested in seeing what the real evidence is.

It also seems to me that Feistein would have influence over the things where you say she has no influence. At the very least didn't she have an ethical obligation to disclose? I guess (using the logic from another thread) she is a lier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

If it is indeed true that Feinstein resigned from her committee, and as we know, Cheney has not resigned, it would appear that this statement is exactly incorrect.

I agree, it is hard to support Cunningham. No one would want to own that mess - understandable.

The equal would be that she resign from the Senate. However, even I don't think that she should. Again the point is the double standard. To me it is obvious both parties have lapses in judgement, ethics, and sometimes violate the law. The left down plays it when it is their guy and the right down plays it when it is their guy. Life goes on, those are the rules of the game in Washington. The only problem is that too many pretend it is not one of the unwritten rules.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3, post 28

I have not seen evidence that Cheney had influence over Haliburton getting Iraq military contracts.

[wayne's world sound effects]doo-doo-doot, doo-doo-doot, doo-doo-doot[/wayne's world]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux, post #24

The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids. TIME located the e-mail among documents provided by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...644111,00.html

host · 05-02-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The key issue in my view is the conflict of interest. Cheney took heat for the appearance of a conflict of interest, Feinstein will get a pass. Cheney took steps to minimize the appearance of a conflict of interest and still took heat.

I can not support Cunningham.

The point of the OP was that it is both parties.

I don't think we need more legislation to police ethics, we need term limits in my opinion. Conflicts of interest will always be a problem, but it is worse with long-term career politicians.

Is the Reid "land deal" old news as well?

The "point" of the OP, is that it is NOT "both parties".....

The Reid "land deal" was a BS "hit piece" by former AP reporter, John Solomon.
Solomon was recently hired by the WaPo, where he proceeded to write the highly ridiculed, and equally ridiculous, non-story about the John Edwards, "house deal", remember that one?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012601571.html
Accurate, but Not the Whole Story

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 28, 2007; Page B06

Accurate stories can be misleading. Two recent Page 1 stories -- one on the Fairfax County libraries and the other on the sale of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards's Georgetown house -- brought complaints that there was less there than met the reader's eye.

The Edwards story, by John Solomon and Lois Romano, was controversial even in the Post newsroom and was attacked by Edwards, his staff, liberal-leaning blogs and about 50 readers......

There was no "there", "there", just as the "Reid land deal" was baseless pablum for people who thirst for scandal that does not exist:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php
AP's Reid Story Doesn't Add Up
By Paul Kiel - October 11, 2006, 11:10 PM

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) "collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years," the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KMJ8I00&show_article=1">AP reports</a>.

Except that's wrong. Reid made a $700,000 profit on the sale, not $1.1 million. Also, the story, by the AP’s John Solomon, makes it sound as if Reid got money for land he didn't own. But that's not the case.

It’s not the first time that Solomon has published a misleading story about Reid. This is the third such story by Solomon over the past six months. Each time, Solomon has hit Reid for taking actions which might create the appearance of ethical impropriety. But because Solomon writes for the most powerful news organization in the land, these very gray-shaded stories pack a wallop. It doesn’t help that on numerous occasions, he has missed or distorted key details – missteps that help blow up his stories.

This story is no different. It purports to show that Reid collected $1.1 million on the sale of land he didn’t own.
Yet, as Solomon obliquely acknowledges, Reid, who had bought the land along with a friend in 1998, transferred his ownership in the land to a limited liability company in 2001. The company, which was composed solely of this land owned by Reid and his friend, in turn sold the land in 2004. That's when Reid collected his $1.1 million share of the sale. Since Reid had originally put down $400,000 on the sale, his profit was $700,000, not the full $1.1 million, as Solomon states in his lead.

Solomon persists in straightforwardly describing the 2001 land transfer as a sale, even though no money changed hands; Reid's share of the land after the transfer was the same as before. In his financial disclosure forms, Reid did not disclose his transfer of the land to the LLC, although he did continue to disclose his ownership of the land through 2004, when it was sold.

So what's the story here? Well, it's not clear that Reid broke any ethical rules -- let alone any laws. Solomon cites one expert as saying that Reid should have disclosed the transfer to the LLC, because "[w]hether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress." The thing is, of course, that no money moved in the LLC transaction. Reid still owned the same amount of land - it was just under the cover of the LLC.

Now, members of Congress should go out of their way to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The purpose of financial disclosure is for the public to gauge whether lawmakers might run into a conflict of interest. By that higher standard, Reid should have disclosed his involvement in the LLC. And although Solomon is unable to make any specific allegations of wrongdoing, the informality of the LLC arrangement is potentially open to abuse. Reid's office, in a statement on the matter, says they're willing to go back and make such "a technical correction" to the financial disclosures if the Ethics Committee sees fit. One wonders why they don't go ahead and make the correction anyway so as to be above reproach.

That said, let's put this in context.

On two earlier occasions, Solomon has over-inflated his stories on Reid. TPM readers might remember his expose on Reid's involvement with Jack Abramoff (which, after exhaustively detailing an Abramoff’s associate’s contacts with Reid’s office, failed to mention <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007660.php">that Reid didn't vote the way Abramoff wanted him to)</a> and his stories on Reid's acceptance of passes to a boxing match from the Nevada Gaming Commission (which managed to expunge <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000791.php">a host</a> of <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000788.php">mitigating</a> ......<a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000772.php">details</a> too plentiful to name here).

There's an old saying in journalism that three examples make a trend. I think we have a trend here. Solomon’s apparent weakness for detail is one issue. But most curious is the fact that we live in the muckiest times in recent memory, and yet Solomon, at the helm of the most powerful news agency in the country, persists in roaming the wide ocean of Congressional corruption in a Captain Ahab-like hunt for Reid's ethical missteps.

time....after time, ace....you cite things to back your arguments that come from dubious and discredited sources....and we proceed to let you know it, yet you persist.....and do it again.....why?

Willravel · 05-02-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Cheney as no control over the funding of the Iraq war. Cheney did not give Congressional approval for military action against Iraq. I have not seen evidence that Cheney had influence over Haliburton getting Iraq military contracts.

He and the president both spoke at length publicly and privately pushing for war with Iraq. As for evidence of association, Cheney has unexcercised stock and deterred salary (retained ties), despite the fact that he has been quoted multiple times saying that he "severed all ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." Back in 2004, a Pentagon email was found and covered in Time Magazine. The March 2003 Pentagon email says action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. I'll try to find the link, but it's Time Magazine, for god's sake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When are the Congressional hearing going to start on Haliburton, I am very interested in seeing what the real evidence is.

When pigs fly, I'm afraid. They have plenty of evidence, but impeachment is not on the table right now, so it won't be pursued at least for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It also seems to me that Feistein would have influence over the things where you say she has no influence. At the very least didn't she have an ethical obligation to disclose? I guess (using the logic from another thread) she is a lier.

She may, although it's not likely, have used her position to benefit her family. She resigned. Did Cheney resign from anything?

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 11:22 AM

All reid has to do is answer a few questions and the matter goes away.

Why did he transfer the land to the LLC? One reason people do this is to hide ownership, there are other reasons but that is one.

Did he disclose his ownership?

Did he have any influence on the re-zoning?

Did he pay his capital gains taxes?

Etc.

host · 05-02-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

All reid has to do is answer a few questions and the matter goes away.

Why did he transfer the land to the LLC? One reason people do this is to hide ownership, there are other reasons but that is one.

Did he disclose his ownership?

Did he have any influence on the re-zoning?

Did he pay his capital gains taxes?

Etc.

...ace....did you even read the reporting, and the links that I posted....there is not "land deal" controversy? It is a Solomon fueled fantasy, and he did it again, after he joined the WaPo, with his "Edwards sells his house" non-story....

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He and the president both spoke at length publicly and privately pushing for war with Iraq. As for evidence of association, Cheney has unexcercised stock and deterred salary (retained ties), despite the fact that he has been quoted multiple times saying that he "severed all ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." Back in 2004, a Pentagon email was found and covered in Time Magazine. The March 2003 Pentagon email says action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. I'll try to find the link, but it's Time Magazine, for god's sake.

When pigs fly, I'm afraid. They have plenty of evidence, but impeachment is not on the table right now, so it won't be pursued at least for now.

She may, although it's not likely, have used her position to benefit her family. She resigned. Did Cheney resign from anything?

Let me say one thing in general. Washington politicians are often very wealth with complex business interests. If we made an issue of every instance of a potential conflict, that is all that we would do. In Feistein's case her husband sold is interests in the businesses and she removed herself for the committee (after making millions). I don't doubt contracts were legit and her husbands company provided the services, just like Haliburton. There won't be hearings on Haliburton because there is no substance to the charges.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Let me say one thing in general. Washington politicians are often very wealth with complex business interests. If we made an issue of every instance of a potential conflict, that is all that we would do. In Feistein's case her husband sold is interests in the businesses and she removed herself for the committee (after making millions). I don't doubt contracts were legit and her husbands company provided the services, just like Haliburton. There won't be hearings on Haliburton because there is no substance to the charges.

Maybe, maybe not. However, the ethically correct thing to do is dissolve the potentially conflicting ties - by selling stock in advance and placing the proceeds in a blind trust administered by another party. Deferred stock options and salary aren't even in the same category.

I agree that this, in and of itself, is not impeachable. However, it's part of a rank and putrid whole.

aceventura3 · 05-02-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...ace....did you even read the reporting, and the links that I posted....there is not "land deal" controversy? It is a Solomon fueled fantasy, and he did it again, after he joined the WaPo, with his "Edwards sells his house" non-story....

Gee, I read it. My first question is why did he transfer the land to the LLC? Fabricated or not, now that the issue is on the table, I think it would be nice if he told us, don't you agree. People don't do things, like that for no reason. Right now i am speculating what the reason was.

Martha Stewart went to prison for a trivial matter in my view. This has the potential to be a real problem, if he used "insider" information to defraud the person he purchased the land from, or if he used his office to influence zoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Maybe, maybe not. However, the ethically correct thing to do is dissolve the potentially conflicting ties - by selling stock in advance and placing the proceeds in a blind trust administered by another party. Deferred stock options and salary aren't even in the same category.

I agree that this, in and of itself, is not impeachable. However, it's part of a rank and putrid whole.

So, if I owned a family farm and became a Senator you would want me to do what?

In my book it is o.k. for a farmer to go to Washington and represent farmers and participate in those issues. I think the most important thing is disclosure. Everyone knew of Cheney's past with Haliburton, noone knew about Feinstein's issue.

Willravel · 05-02-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Let me say one thing in general. Washington politicians are often very wealth with complex business interests. If we made an issue of every instance of a potential conflict, that is all that we would do. In Feistein's case her husband sold is interests in the businesses and she removed herself for the committee (after making millions). I don't doubt contracts were legit and her husbands company provided the services, just like Haliburton. There won't be hearings on Haliburton because there is no substance to the charges.

This is a bit of a non-response. When Clinton has his nob serviced, it was no one's business. When he LIED, then it was everyone's business. Cheney LIED (admittedly not under oath, but again a lie is a lie) about severing ALL financial ties from Haliburton. Also, what say you about the common knowledge of the Times article? I remember reading the article, and I remember there being a discussion here, even. There was a leaked email published in Time Magazine linking Cheney to getting non-bid contracts for Haliburton. That paints a very dark and specific picture.

Did Feinstein resign? Yes. Did Cheney? Absolutely not.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, if I owned a family farm and became a Senator you would want me to do what?

In my book it is o.k. for a farmer to go to Washington and represent farmers and participate in those issues. I think the most important thing is disclosure. Everyone knew of Cheney's past with Haliburton, noone knew about Feinstein's issue.

I think a "family farm" is not the same as millions upon millions of dollars worth of compensation from a military contractor. If you were Frank Purdue, there'd be something worth talking about! I guess I'd have to think about where the line goes for myself, but the law is actually clear about this. My father is an ethics official for the NTSB and he spends a lot of time advising appointees about how to manage conflicts of interest upon appointment. If I think about it, I'll ask him tonight.

And you are right in that disclosure/nondisclosure adds a whole other depth to the problem. People get busted pretty hard for nondisclosure because it tends to look much more like criminal or unethical intent.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 07:55 AM

The House recently passed a bill, The Accountability in Contracting Act, to address potential contracting abuses like those found in the no-bid contract to Halliburton.

Among other provisions, the bill requires specified executive agency heads to develop and implement plans to minimize the use of: (1) noncompetitive contracts; and (2) cost-reimbursement type contracts; requires agencies to make justification and approval documents for noncompetitive contracts, including defense agency contracts, publicly available; and requires agencies to submit quarterly reports on unjustified contractor costs and audits identifying deficiencies in contractor performance.

The vote in the House - 347 ayes, 73 noes (all Repubs). Its on to the Senate, where it likely will pass ...then we'll see if Bush signs.

Willravel · 05-03-2007, 08:11 AM

DC, I look forward to Bush explaining why he's going to veto this and maybe, just maybe, the Senate can overrule him.

04-22-2007, 04:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Randy Cunningham, the all-american boy and model for the Top Gun character, did not resign from the House until AFTER he pleaded guilty to taking more than $1 mllion in bribes. Most recently, former repub COngressman Bob Ney resigned AFTER he pleaded guilty to corruption charges. Why should Jefferson do otherwise? We still have a presumption of innocence (even though you and I may agree he is guilty). THe FBI fucked up the case against Jefferson by raiding his COngressonal office (something never done in the history of Congress. The raid was authorized by Alberto Gonzales because of "unique circumstances." One can only wonder what made it more "unique" than the investigations of Cunningham or Ney) As a result, constitutional issues have been raised (even many repubs including the former Repub Speaker said the raid violated separation of powers). I would do the same as Jefferson and wait until this constitutional issue has been resolved. Alcee Hasting was impreached as a judge 18 years ago, even though he was not found guilty in a court of law. You dont believe in second chances? What has he done while in office as a congressman that would justify his removal from office? It really is shameful to bring up Hastings, unless you know something I dont know. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-22-2007 at 08:11 PM..

04-22-2007, 04:51 PM	#4 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Why just federal office Host? When state and local corruption affects me and most people more. You see I live in Jersey the most corrupt democratic state in the union, I can cut and paste 5 pages of the shit that they pull in Jersey. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

04-22-2007, 07:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The reign of corruption that resulted from 10+ years of Republican control of Congress can be summed up in 3 word... ... K Street Project Nothing before it even comes close. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-25-2007, 08:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
LazyBoy Insane Location: Memphis Area	Gotta remember, in politics, its not who is "evil".....its simply who is "evil" by comparison... Or more possibly, the lesser of two (or more) evils.... -Will __________________ Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between...

05-01-2007, 06:25 AM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	37OHSSV....If its still not clear to you, Hasting was acquitted of all charges in a criminal court. The action of the Judicial Conference did not overturn that decision. Its finding led to the impeachment, which is a quasi-judicial process. And as your article noted, the impeachment charges "opted not to restrict him from seeking federal elected office in the future?" What part of these facts dont you understand? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-22-2007, 10:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
EaseUp Upright Location: SoCal, beeyotch	Sorry about your fatigue. Randy Cunningham was removed from office. If there was a Republican fighting for him to remain, it did not make it to any media outlets in my area. William Jefferson is still in office. Alcee Hastings is still in office. Business as usual, apparently.

04-22-2007, 04:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The Republicans are broken. The Democrats are incompetent. I'd not equate one with the other because they suffer from different problems and at different levels of said problems. The Republicans are in a very bad place right now where they are led by, for all intents and purposes, madmen. The Democrats are not run by madmen, not by a long shot, but the greatest strength of the Republicans, resolve, is something that's been missing from the Democratic party for 6 years. I'll be eagerly watching the Dems over the next few years to see if they can earn my votes. The Republicans have lost my votes for a long, long time. They have a lot to answer for and a lot to make reparations for.

04-25-2007, 09:39 AM	#12 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	All I can say to all this back and forth fingerpointing....is I will eagerly watch in the coming years to see if the Dems can manage to screw things up as badly once they have the power to do so. Both partys are corrupted by influence, but right now the Republicans seem to be getting caught alot more, and doing far worse things. Likely its just a matter of opportunity that comes with position....somehow I doubt the Dems will be much better in this, but we shall see.

04-29-2007, 09:35 AM	#15 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	http://youtube.com/watch?v=wL0m7Js_ERY The video speaks to the topic of the OP; Bill Maher vs. O'Reilly on the subject of whether the two major parties are roughly equivalent in terms of corruption or self-servingness.

05-01-2007, 11:54 AM	#20 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Yeah, Joe doesn't know what he's talking about. If there's a viable third part candidate, it won't have anything to do with him. The only halfway persuasive thing I've heard about that is the possibility of Michael Bloomberg using his billions to run as an independent in '08. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-02-2007, 09:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its clear she had a conflict of interest but its hard for me to understand how she had any control over contracts approved by the Milcom subcommittee when she was in the minority from 2001 to 2005. She should have abstained from any votes in which her husband''s company may have been a beneficiary. But, the Senate Ethics Committee under the Repubs saw no reason to initiate an ethics investigation against her. So... ace...do you have any links that show how she "may have directed" any decisions by the subcommittee or that she was "up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (he took $1 million in bribes) in the slammer"? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-02-2007 at 09:41 AM..

05-02-2007, 09:41 AM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Old news, and something this liberal didn't ignore. She resigned back in March from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee as there was suspected of allowing her husband's company to profit from her position (the 'vet-care' scandal). Has Dick Cheney resigned from his role as Vice President? Has he taken himself from governmental decision making around Haliburton? No? Think about that. All this tells us is that we need legislation that prevents conflicts of interest like these. Whether they're guilty or not (Feinstein was probably not, Cheney probably is), the opportunity for corruption should be taken away.

05-02-2007, 11:22 AM	#32 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	All reid has to do is answer a few questions and the matter goes away. Why did he transfer the land to the LLC? One reason people do this is to hide ownership, there are other reasons but that is one. Did he disclose his ownership? Did he have any influence on the re-zoning? Did he pay his capital gains taxes? Etc. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-03-2007, 07:55 AM	#39 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The House recently passed a bill, The Accountability in Contracting Act, to address potential contracting abuses like those found in the no-bid contract to Halliburton. Among other provisions, the bill requires specified executive agency heads to develop and implement plans to minimize the use of: (1) noncompetitive contracts; and (2) cost-reimbursement type contracts; requires agencies to make justification and approval documents for noncompetitive contracts, including defense agency contracts, publicly available; and requires agencies to submit quarterly reports on unjustified contractor costs and audits identifying deficiencies in contractor performance. The vote in the House - 347 ayes, 73 noes (all Repubs). Its on to the Senate, where it likely will pass ...then we'll see if Bush signs. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-03-2007, 08:11 AM	#40 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	DC, I look forward to Bush explaining why he's going to veto this and maybe, just maybe, the Senate can overrule him.