Monday, January 01, 2007

Incoming Juciciary Committee Chairman Given Hand Slap For Ethics Violation

Former staffers of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, accused him of requiring his congressional staff to perform political work on government time, using government resources for political work and compelling staffers to perform personal errands for him. The House Ethics Committee said the assertions "implicate[d] a number of laws and House rules applicable to Members [of Congress]." Rep. Conyers, in the course of the investigation, "acknowledged what he characterized as a 'lack of clarity' in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions." His punishment from the House Ethics Committee according to The Hill: "[Conyers] agreed to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign andpersonal work by congressional staff. We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement."

The standard for punishment applied to Conyers appears to be one that says if you accept the possibility you may have violated federal law and House rules, then we'll let you off with just a slap of the hand. There are no calls by Democrats for him to resign. There are no calls for the Justice Department to investigate. They aren't even demanding that he give up the coveted chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Last year, Conyers said he would begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush if Democrats recaptured the House and he led the Judiciary Committee. Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, however, has told her Democratic colleagues that impeachment is off the table. Will the new Democratic majority prove to be as ethically-challenged as the outgoing Republican majority?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your question was rhetorical correct Gary?

Of course the answer is yes, with a addition of "even more lacking of ethics than ever before".

Anonymous said...

So what's new. Julia has been our "Fool on the Hill" far too long! She is a disgrace to congress and an embarassment to Indiana.

Wilson46201 said...

There are over forty African-American Congresspeople - all Democrats. No Black Republicans whatsoever.

AI can keep itself happy and busy by running attack and smear stories on all those Black Democrats in Washington - that is when it isn't trying to find more attack and smear stories on local Black Democrats. It takes an Indianapolis white Republican lawyer to keep the voters informed on all those Black rascals!

Advance Indiana said...

Leave it to Wilson to be the first to interject race into the debate. Anyone who criticizes an African-American is automatically judged a racist by him.

Anonymous said...

Wilson, you are so full of shit. AI is one of the few blogs which actually even-handedly criticizes Republicans and Democrats and without reference to race. Matt Tully, Ruth Holladay, Abdul and other bloggers have expressed their disdain over your petty, partisan comments. If I were AI, I would permanently ban you from making posts here. I hate to agree with IndyErnie, but you really do stink up the place.

Wilson46201 said...

By the way, 85% of the voters in Conyer's District voted for him - he's a rather popular guy in his home District - nevertheless it looks like a few Republicans in Indianapolis look askance at him....

Wilson46201 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Advance Indiana said...

Using public employees and public resources is not only unethical, it is illegal, not that you, Wilson, would appreciate that. William Jefferson was re-elected despite evidence he took bribes, including a more than $70,000 cash stash in his freezer. Richard Nixon was elected by one of the biggest margins of all times after the Watergate break in. Popular elections do not erase crimes under our legal system.

Advance Indiana said...

Wilson, you are banned from making any further posts on this site until you issue an apology.

Wilson46201 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
indyernie said...

"I hate to agree with IndyErnie, but you really do stink up the place."

How in Hell did I get involved in this exchange?

But its reassuring to know that someone agrees with me.

Damm Gary banned Wilson, I'm gonna miss him...a little.

Fed up said...

When a person can give you a "headache" over the internet then they should be banned.

When a person's communication style online is akin to shouting and banging on the desk to drown out everyone else, then you should be banned.

Otherwise, they are just highjacking your blog.