Invoking Abramoff, NY Times editorial calls for subpoena power for new House Ethics Office
An editorial in today's NY Times supports the call for subpoena power for the new House Ethics Office. CREW agrees. We want outside groups to be able to file complaints, too. The Times reminds us all of the relationship between Rep. John Doolittle and Jack Abramoff -- and how little the House Ethics Committee did to investigation Abramoff-realted matters. Very little.
Congress can't -- and doesn't -- police itself. That's why the new office needs real power:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly determined to move ahead with the proposal for a new oversight office employing six nonpartisan outsiders, appointed by the two party leaders. This would be a definite step forward — one that so far the Senate has shown no interest in emulating. The office would vet allegations of members’ misconduct and refer serious cases to the ethics committee for, we hope, conclusive investigation. The office would also be required to make a public accounting of what it refers to the committee, to make it harder to sweep its work under the carpet.
Unfortunately under the current plan, the new ethics office would be denied the subpoena power it needs to do a thorough job. Most House members, whose enthusiasm for house cleaning has clear limits, want it that way. A few members of both parties — particularly Democratic freshmen — are pressing the subpoena issue. We encourage them to fight on.
These newcomers, elected in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, understand the voters’ revulsion against corruption. Ms. Pelosi, who owes her leadership to these same forces, should listen and ensure that this badly needed oversight office has all the credibility and all the investigative power it needs.
Hmmm
Time to FOIA telecoms for info on or communications about government agreements/contracts, 2000 - 2009 (including any undeleted e-mails and their attachments), before telecom immunity gets passed?
Ethics of Clintons Cashing Out Presidency, Again
. . . as they try to move back in no less.
This is getting disgusting. Okay we know that the Clintons say Bill is just like any old spouse campaigning for their mate. And they are right of course, except that he was the President of the United States!
Now we learn that Clinton is raking in another $20 mil from a multi-billionaire friend for admittedly throwing around his Commander-in-Chief influence to benefit some investment fund. Of course Bill won't disclose the details of his investment, just like he and Hillary won't disclose the details of their $500 million dollar "charity" which employed some of their key campaign staffers and to which their campaign contributors have donated tens of millions of dollars. Just like Hillary won't disclose the official records of her experience as First Lady which she says makes her more qualified than the other candidates. How can they stand for transparency when they obfuscate to mask their greed??
I am sick of this. It's disgusting. The Clintons have cashed out the Presidency to the tune of Dick Cheney money. When is America going to call them on this?? This is not leadership. It's greed. Pure and simple. And it's part of a pattern of smarmy questionable gains - see them in Hillary's bio on Wikipedia, including the amazing $100,000 she made in 10 months on a $1,000 investment, the $1 million blind trust when Bill took office in 1993 that the Clintons rapidly turned into a whopping $23 million.
If they were simply investors, I would have no problem with these gains. It's capitalism baby. But that's not what they ran on. That's not what they told us. Surprise - another lie! Their platform was not to lead our Nation to get the big bucks. They did not run to not lead our Democratic Party - where have you been Bill for anyone but yourself over the past 7 years?? It's to the point where even the Democratic Party elders have gone public to tell Bill to grow up.
It's time to end this. It's time to end the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. I am a Democrat. A staunch Democrat. But I am for them because I think they are more moral and have better values. If it's Hillary versus McCain I just don't know. I was having doubts before Bill did the pile on Obama and cashed out his Presidency for this additional $20 mil, and now I really don't know . . . This is the kind of stuff that turns my stomach.
Obama is worth just over a million. This Rezko stuff is a tiny droplet in the ocean compared to the massive Clinton greed and scandals. Obama has run a clean campaign. He's been far ahead on POLICY - he was against the Iraq war from the start and he didn't fall for the patently idiotic Bush bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists" (Clinton lost my respect when she voted for that one, unbelievably, just last Fall). Clinton is playing catchup to Obama on policy, whether it's her bailout plan or saying we should be more aggressive in going after bin Ladin. Clinton is a bonfire wherever she goes. She will never unify America - she can't even unify her party. She will burn us up. And without unity there can be no real change, only another leg in the Bush-Clinton saga.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/HillaryClintonMidasTouchAtWork.aspx?page=1
Syndicate this content
Who Killed Gus Boulis?
Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan were charged with the theft of Boulis's Sun-Cruz Casino Ships (31 million dollar value) Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio was busted for his involvement in the theft. Why have the FEDs and the Florida Attorney General refused to investigate the murder of Gus Boulis? What has happened too the three Mafia-types charged with the Boulis murder, that were hired by Kidan & Abramoff for an un-forfilled "Catering "Comtract for $250,000. Do you suppose that there might be a "cover-up" to protect the GOPers?i.e, 30 or 40 "persons of interest and un-indicted co-conspirators" ???
Lwayno