Dozens in Congress under ethics inquiry

[Former McDowell Resident]

By Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 30, 2009

House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.
--
The 22-page "Committee on Standards Weekly Summary Report" gives brief summaries of ethics panel investigations of the conduct of 19 lawmakers and a few staff members. It also outlines the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a quasi-independent body that initiates investigations and provides recommendations to the ethics committee. The document indicated that the office was reviewing the activities of 14 other lawmakers. Some were under review by both ethics bodies
---
-- Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.)
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

[Ole BDT]

I don't care which party they represent, I just hope they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if found guilty. If we don't begin strictly enforcing the law of the land against politicians, why even bother to investigate?

[Carolina]

Certainly a difference from the days of republican rule where no investigations or oversight hearings were held unless they were of a partisan nature.

[Ole BDT]

Carolina wrote:

Certainly a difference from the days of republican rule where no investigations or oversight hearings were held unless they were of a partisan nature.

Well, looky here! You wasn't saying this during the Clinton years, Carolina. In fact, you were saying the exact opposite. Why have you so suddenly and conveniently changed your mind? LOL!

[WDRussell]

Ole BDT wrote:

I don't care which party they represent, I just hope they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if found guilty. If we don't begin strictly enforcing the law of the land against politicians, why even bother to investigate?

Have to agree with that point.

[Carolina]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>Well, looky here! You wasn't saying this during the Clinton years, Carolina. In fact, you were saying the exact opposite. Why have you so suddenly and conveniently changed your mind? LOL!

Probably for the same reason YOU have. As I recall, you weren't saying much about investigations and oversight during the Bush years either. LOL!

[Carolina]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>Well, looky here! You wasn't saying this during the Clinton years, Carolina. In fact, you were saying the exact opposite. Why have you so suddenly and conveniently changed your mind? LOL!

But look on the bright side......when all is said and done, you can whine and cry over your perceived lack of punishment for democrats and whine and cry if any republicans are punished at all...in other words, you'll have 2 more reasons to whine and cry! LOL!

[Former McDowell Resident]

The document also disclosed that:

-- Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker's top aide and his son
The Justice Department has told the ethics panel to suspend a probe of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose personal finances federal investigators began reviewing in early 2006 after complaints from a conservative group that he was not fully revealing his real estate holdings
-- The committee on June 9 authorized issuance of subpoenas to the Justice Department, the National Security Agency and the FBI for "certain intercepted communications" regarding Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
The panel said Thursday, however, that it is ending a probe of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) after finding no ethical violations, and that it is investigating the financial connections of two California Democrats.
The committee did not detail the two newly disclosed investigations. However, according to the July document, Rep. Maxine Waters, a high-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, came under scrutiny because of activities involving OneUnited Bank of Massachusetts, in which her husband owns at least $250,000 in stock.
The other, Rep. Laura Richardson, may have failed to mention property, income and liabilities on financial disclosure forms.

All from the article.

[Demonrat]

What's the problem? What do you expect? These are bona fided elected public offical liars and thieves. We put them where they are,,,lets get rid of them.

[Demonrat]

What was it that Charlie Rangel said to the person trying to interview/question him? I remember. "Mind your own G@d D@mn business". Whose business is it?????

[Ole BDT]

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably for the same reason YOU have. As I recall, you weren't saying much about investigations and oversight during the Bush years either. LOL!

If you recall, when Bush and the Republicans were in power, the Democrats had more investigations going against the Republicans than Carter has little pills. LOL!

[Ole BDT]

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
But look on the bright side......when all is said and done, you can whine and cry over your perceived lack of punishment for democrats and whine and cry if any republicans are punished at all...in other words, you'll have 2 more reasons to whine and cry! LOL!

Be no crying here, Carolina. Of course, to see corruption go unpunished would me more apt to bring tears to my eyes. Then again, maybe not. The corruption politician's have went unpunished for years now.

[sonofabullcreeke r]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>If you recall, when Bush and the Republicans were in power, the Democrats had more investigations going against the Republicans than Carter has little pills. LOL!

kinda funny that there are a lot (D) after the names in the article. and the one (R) there is, the investigation is ending with a finding of no wrongdoing. I am not saying there are no republicans in it at all, just that I havent seen any yet. I will keep looking though. just to be fair to those in denial.

[Carolina]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>If you recall, when Bush and the Republicans were in power, the Democrats had more investigations going against the Republicans than Carter has little pills. LOL!

You do know it isn't required that you prove just how totally clueless you are on a daily basis don't you?
The party in power controls the investigations and oversight. They do so by virtue of having the majority of members on the committee as well as the chairmanship......geeeeeeeezzz zzzz! LOL!

[Sundog512]

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know it isn't required that you prove just how totally clueless you are on a daily basis don't you?
The party in power controls the investigations and oversight. They do so by virtue of having the majority of members on the committee as well as the chairmanship......geeeeeeeezzz zzzz! LOL!

One reason why there might be more democrats under investigation than there are republicans is because there are more democrats.

[Demonrat]

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
One reason why there might be more democrats under investigation than there are republicans is because there are more democrats.

Not for long.

[Former McDowell Resident]

sonofabullcreeker wrote:

<quoted text>kinda funny that there are a lot (D) after the names in the article. and the one (R) there is, the investigation is ending with a finding of no wrongdoing. I am not saying there are no republicans in it at all, just that I havent seen any yet. I will keep looking though. just to be fair to those in denial.

That was the only (R) I noticed and I read the entire thing several times. That doesn't mean there aren't some being investigated.

[Ole BDT]

Carolina wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know it isn't required that you prove just how totally clueless you are on a daily basis don't you?
The party in power controls the investigations and oversight. They do so by virtue of having the majority of members on the committee as well as the chairmanship......geeeeeeeezzz zzzz! LOL!

LOL! I'm not sure what might be causing your lack of memory, Carolina, but the Democrats were in control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush Administration. Are you gonna sit there and tell me that you're not aware of ongoing investigations initiated by the Democrat Congress even as we speak? Sheesh! You're cluesless, my friend.

[Ole BDT]

Sundog512 wrote:

<quoted text>
One reason why there might be more democrats under investigation than there are republicans is because there are more democrats.

Dog, surely, you meant this for a joke, right?

[Sundog512]

Ole BDT wrote:

<quoted text>Dog, surely, you meant this for a joke, right?

Do the math BDT.

Besides, how many republicans have been busted lately for extra-marital affairs?

This is all nonsense and desperate straw grabbing...LOL. But I guess you'll take comfort wherever you can find it.