Back to Basics

There’s little that’s more infuriating than when malfeasant politicians issue demands:

Sources tell FOX 32 News that Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is willing to give up his 2nd Congressional District seat if he’s given disability when he steps down.

Jackson Jr. was re-elected to his tenth term but last month, sources say, he applied for a disability package — what could be his only income if he resigns [heaven forbid he get an actual job -- DP]. It is expected to take a couple of weeks for Congress to approve or deny the request.

His house on 72nd Street in Chicago is part of the federal government’s investigation into allegations that Jackson Jr. misused campaign funds. Sources say Jackson allegedly spent $20,000 to renovate and buy furniture for the family’s home in Chicago, not their 5-bedroom Victorian home in Washington D.C.
[...]
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the congressman’s wife, Alderman Sandi Jackson, is now being investigated because she is a consultant for Jackson’s campaign operation and is paid monthly. Sources say that the alderman met with the Justice Department one time and was asked a couple of questions unrelated to any federal investigation involving her or her husband.

A Rolex watch is also part of the case against the congressman. Our sources say that the federal agents want to know where Jackson got $42,000 to pay for the watch he purchased for the woman he was having an affair with.

Sounds like the reason given to justify Jr’s lifetime disability payments might be “bad back caused by lugging around bags of campaign funds to spend illegally.” Or possibly “permanent injuries sustained after getting run over by his own chariot.”

Chicago News and Weather | FOX 32 News

She didn’t get a slap on the wrist. She got a kiss on the lips.

Two years after being charged with multiple ethics violations related to her meddling in minority-owned OneUnited Bank, Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of California is walking away without a scratch. The financial institution, in which her husband had invested, received $12 million in federal TARP bailout money after Waters’ office personally intervened and lobbied the Treasury Department in 2008. Here’s the bullcrap the House Ethics Committee swallowed and regurgitated today:

A House ethics panel has determined there is no evidence that Calif. Rep. Maxine Waters violated congressional rules when she called Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2008 on behalf of minority-owned banks, despite her husband’s financial stake in one troubled institution.

The finding concludes a two-year investigation in Waters’s actions that were disrupted by allegations of misconduct within a previous committee probing her conduct. A new panel created to review Waters’ sactions ultimately took the highly unusual step of hiring an outside lawyer to conduct the inquiry.

At a rare public hearing Friday, members of the committee indicated they were prepared to accept the findings of an outside lawyer hired to examine her conduct. The lawyer, Billy Martin, found that Waters believed she was intervening on behalf of all minority-owned banks—and not directly on behalf of OneUnited Bank of Boston, in which her husband held stock.

He therefore found no evidence that she knowingly violated House rules. When she learned that OneUnited, on whose board her husband once sat, was seeking federal bailout funds, she ended her involvement, Martin concluded.

Do you smell a rat? If you’ve been paying attention to my reporting here, you already know the game was rigged. The House Ethics Committee is a joke. Earlier this year, SIX House members recused themselves from the case after nearly two years of doing nothing. Flashback:

The House Ethics Committee suffers from dysfunction by design. It is chronically understaffed and underfunded. The panel most recently went without a staff director for four months. Its investigative backlog was compounded by the partisan-charged suspension of two staff attorneys last fall who were knee-deep in the Waters’ probe. And the panel’s ranking Democratic member, California Rep. Linda Sanchez, is bogged down with her own ethical conflicts of interest.

Sanchez’s chief of staff, Adam Brand, is the son of the lawyer handling Waters’ ethics defense. That lawyer, Stan Brand, also represented Sanchez and her sister, Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, in a separate ethics case. The sisters engaged in smelly hiring shenanigans after an aide to Loretta embezzled money from the office account in 2006. Short of funds, Loretta “borrowed” three aides from Linda’s staff. House rules ban members from paying people to do work in offices other than their own. Miraculously, Loretta’s embezzling aide avoided jail time, and the Sanchez sisters escaped any sanctions for their payroll-sharing collusion. The House ethics opinion on the matter remains confidential.

Intended to boost voters’ confidence in Congress (now at an all-time low), the committee’s stubborn secrecy and predictable wrist-slap punishments (see “Rangel, Charlie”) only make matters worse. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: House-soilers can’t be cleaners.

This blog has chronicled the dirty dealings of California Dem Rep. Laura Richardson since May 2008, when she bailed on her half-million-dollar-plus, second-home mortgage. She was also a tax-dodger and utility bill welcher. A few weeks later, it turned out that she had defaulted on three home loans while lending her campaign $77,500. A few weeks after that, three defaults turned into six defaults. The unpaid debts kept piling up, but Richardson held on to her job. And Congress looked the other way…

…until 2009, when the House announced a probe into her failure to disclose required information on her financial disclosure forms and alleged special treatment from a lender.

In 2011, she was cleared of “knowingly” accepting favors, but became subject of a second probe into using employees on government time to work on her political campaign.

Last month, Richardson lost her primary re-election bid to fellow Dem Rep. Janice Hahn and will face off against her again on Nov. 6.

Today, the House Ethics Committee announced a belated wrist-slap in the second probe against Richardson:

Pursuant to House Rule XI Clause 3(q)(2)(D), today the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, Representative Jo Bonner, and the Ranking Member, Representative Linda T. Sánchez, submitted a report to the House of Representatives in the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Laura Richardson. The full Committee report includes the report of the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) in this matter, along with the responsive views of Representative Richardson. The full Committee report also addresses the concerns and arguments made by Representative Richardson in her views.

At the completion of its investigation, the ISC unanimously concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Laura Richardson violated the Purpose Law, 31 U.S.C. § 1301; House Rule XXIII clauses 1, 2, and 8; Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service; and other standards of conduct, by improperly using House resources for campaign, personal, and nonofficial purposes; by requiring or compelling her official staff to perform campaign work; and by obstructing the investigation of the Committee and the ISC through the alteration or destruction of evidence, the deliberate failure to produce documents responsive to requests for information and a subpoena, and attempting to influence the testimony of witnesses.

As part of a resolution Representative Richardson negotiated with the ISC, Representative Richardson agreed to admit to all seven counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation, accept all other terms of the ISC’s recommendations, and waive all further procedural rights in this matter provided to her by House or Committee Rule. On July 31, 2012, the full Committee unanimously accepted the ISC’s recommendations that the Committee submit a public report to the House, and that the adoption of that report by the House serve as a reprimand of Representative Richardson for her misconduct and impose a fine in the amount of $10,000 to be paid no later than December 1, 2012.

Hastings is arguably the most corrupt man in the U.S. Congress. according to Beltway observers. Credits: Congressional Press Office Archive

A congressman who was impeached and removed from the federal bench in Florida,  and who is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, has been exposed by a Beltway watchdog group for yet another  transgression — nepotism.

Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is one of only six federal judges to be removed from the bench following an impeachment trial in which even members the group — the Congressional Black Caucus — condemned his corruption as a jurist when he claimed he was being targeted because he was an African American judge.

In addition, Hastings is under investigation for sexually harassing and molesting a female subordinate.

According to a report on the Judicial Watch blog, Hastings “is in a class of his own when it comes to nepotism.”  Hastings is also on the 2011 Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list.

This month Congressman Hastings achieved the rank of No. 1 out of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives for paying salaries and fees to family members. The sordid details are included in a government watchdog’s study of how members of Congress abuse their position to benefit themselves and their families.

The results were neatly packaged in a 300-plus-page report, titled “Family Affair.” Virtually every member of the House is mentioned and Hastings leads the pack for paying his girlfriend/deputy district director more than half a million dollars in salary and other expenses from 2007 to 2010.

Hasting’s girlfriend, Patricia Williams, draws a generous six-figure salary from his congressional office and gets reimbursed for “travel and event expenses,” according to the report. The ten-term congressman, who serves on several powerful committees, also owes his gal pal, who is a lawyer, up to $1 million for defending him during his impeachment trial, according to the Judicial Watch blogger.

Under House rules, members aren’t supposed to hire family but Hastings says that doesn’t apply to him because he’s not legally married to Williams and he’s not related to her. And so the reports are inaccurate  Hastings told a local newspaper in his south Florida district.

“I have never had any family members employed in my Congressional office,” Hastings stated, stressing an official dictionary definition of “family” to include spouses and blood relatives but not girlfriends.

The veteran Democrat lawmaker, who got impeached as a judge after being embroiled in a bribery scandal, has quite a history mixing work with romance. In fact, last spring Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hastings on behalf of a female employee named Winsome Packer, who was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching” and retaliation when Hastings chaired the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, led to a House Ethics Committee probe as well, according to Judicial Watch.

This probably isn’t enough to earn the censure-worthy Charlie Rangel yet another portrait in the halls of Congress, but the year ain’t over yet.

The New York Post outlines how Rangel has again been slapped on the wrist for being, quite literally, low rent:

Charlie Rangel is one lucky congressman: A federal panel is citing him for election-law violations but fining him a mere $23,000 — pocket change that likely won’t even come from his own pocket.

Average New Yorkers should be so lucky.

After all, this wasn’t over some minor technicality. No, the Federal Election Commission found that the Manhattan Democrat for years illegally used a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office.

Instead of paying $1,700 or more a month — the going rate in the W. 135th Street building, where he also lives — Rangel’s campaign committee paid a well-below-market $630 rent.

Rangel can’t claim ignorance, either; turns out he not only signed the original lease (which required him to use the unit “for living purposes only”) but renewal leases “and all other renewal forms.”

Which means, said the FEC, that he knowingly accepted what amounted to an illegal in-kind campaign gift from his landlord (who was fined $19,000).

And Rangel kept the deal even as the landlord vigorously moved to evict other tenants for violating rent-control rules.

Given what he got away with, the $23,000 fine isn’t much of a hit. No wonder an aide calls it basically a nuisance fee.

Chollie Rangel: Stark reminder of a swamp left woefully undrained.

Mmm, mmm, mmm. The culture of corruption.

When last we revisited the House ethics case of Maxine “OneUnited Bank” Waters…nothing and more nothing was happening.

Readers of this blog will recall that I pointed out some of the incestuous ties on the House Ethics committee that muddied the Waters case last June:

The House Ethics Committee suffers from dysfunction by design. It is chronically understaffed and underfunded. The panel most recently went without a staff director for four months. Its investigative backlog was compounded by the partisan-charged suspension of two staff attorneys last fall who were knee-deep in the Waters’ probe. And the panel’s ranking Democratic member, California Rep. Linda Sanchez, is bogged down with her own ethical conflicts of interest.

Sanchez’s chief of staff, Adam Brand, is the son of the lawyer handling Waters’ ethics defense. That lawyer, Stan Brand, also represented Sanchez and her sister, Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, in a separate ethics case. The sisters engaged in smelly hiring shenanigans after an aide to Loretta embezzled money from the office account in 2006. Short of funds, Loretta “borrowed” three aides from Linda’s staff. House rules ban members from paying people to do work in offices other than their own. Miraculously, Loretta’s embezzling aide avoided jail time, and the Sanchez sisters escaped any sanctions for their payroll-sharing collusion. The House ethics opinion on the matter remains confidential.

Intended to boost voters’ confidence in Congress (now at an all-time low), the committee’s stubborn secrecy and predictable wrist-slap punishments (see “Rangel, Charlie”) only make matters worse. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: House-soilers can’t be cleaners. Voters, not Washington politicians, are the ultimate ethics committee.

Now, the Friday news dump brings us word that an unprecedented SIX House members have recused themselves from the case after nearly two years of doing nothing:

The House Ethics Committee announced today that six committee members have voluntary recused themselves from the matter involving Rep. Maxine Waters and that six alternates have been appointed to hear the California Democrat’s case.

The announcement, which was delivered as a letter from Ethics Chairman Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and read on the House floor, comes on the heels of an independent attorney’s six-month probe into whether the actions of current and former ethics panel members and staffers botched the Waters investigation by violating her due process rights.

The committee made no further statement about the status of the Waters probe or when it will continue.

…“Outside counsel has discovered no evidence indicating bias or partiality on the part of former Members or requiring the exclusion of any former Members of the Committee from serving as substitute Members. However, out of an abundance of caution and for the same reasons as the current Members volunteering their recusal, [outside counsel] Mr. [Billy] Martin has recommended that no Member who served in the 111th Congress should serve as a substitute Member in this matter,” the letter said.

Besides a congressional investigation, Rep. Hastings faces a lawsuit by a woman who says he sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her when she rebuffed his advances. Credit: Newsbusters

Impeached judge now U.S. lawmaker, Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) received some bad news from his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as from a public-interest group that investigates and exposes government and political corruption in Washington, D.C., and throughout the 50 states.

“We are very pleased that the Office of Congressional Ethics report validated Ms. Packer’s allegations against Rep. Hastings. Now the House Ethics Committee needs to get its act together and punish Rep. Hastings for his reprehensible treatment of Ms. Packer. Given the grave nature of the allegations and the other laws he evidently violated, the Department of Justice ought to investigate the allegations against Rep. Hastings as well.

“In the meantime, Judicial Watch will proceed with its lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Packer.

“Rep. Hastings’ attacks against Winsome Packer are disgraceful and beneath the office he holds. His response calls to mind his corrupt behavior that resulted in his impeachment and removal from the federal bench.”

Hastings’ Legacy: Bribery, Perjury, Impeachment

Prior to his election to congress, Hastings worked as a private-practice attorney, a civil rights activist, and a Florida judge. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American federal judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years. He’s still called “Judge” by some of his colleagues, but one would think he’d rather forget his days on the federal bench.

In 1989, Judge Hastings was impeached by the US House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. Hastings said the charges against him smacked of racism.

He distinguished himself by being only the sixth Judge in US history to be removed from office by the US Senate. So damning was the evidence against him that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a founding member of the CBC, favored impeaching him.

Conyers, who is also black, said he “found no trace of racism during the investigation.” He urged his colleagues to remove Hastings from the bench. He said, “[Hastings] is unfit to serve.”

His impeachment was remanded back to the Senate by Judge Stanley Sporkin after Hastings filed lawsuit claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial.

But the US Supreme Court had ruled in a similar case, regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed. The SCOTUS stated that the courts had no jurisdiction to review Senate impeachment procedures and Hastings’ impeachment and removal were reinstated.