Now It's a Scandal - New evidence that a House GOP leader offered a bribe

[radfringe]

Now It's a Scandal
New evidence that a House GOP leader offered a bribe.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003, at 2:56 PM PT

Acting Deputy Attorney General James Comey told reporters yesterday that he had not seen the request for the investigation, but added whenever the department gets such a request, "we read it carefully and then make an evaluation. We will review the letter."
—Newsday, Dec. 5, 2003

Q: There have been some pretty serious allegations laid out by Rep. Nick Smith that he was offered $100,000 for his son's campaign in exchange for his vote on the Medicare bill. I know Democrats have sent some letters to the Justice Department. Where are you in reviewing those letters? And is an investigation in the pipeline?

---snip---

Yes, bribery can be difficult to prove. But Smith's allegation that somebody offered "$100,000-plus" for his son Brad's campaign to succeed him in Congress—provided Smith the Elder voted "yes" on the Medicare drug bill—comes wrapped in a pretty bow. Smith told Kevin Vandenbroek of WKZO, "he first offer was to give $100,000-plus for his campaign and endorsement by national leadership." To listen to it on tape, Mr. Attorney General, click here. In a separate interview, Smith told WKZO's Vandenbroek that the source of the cash was "pharmaceutical business groups." To listen to that on tape, click here. The Washington Post, which finally jumped on the story today, offers a third piece of important evidence narrowing the field of potential suspects:

According to two other congressmen who were present, Smith told that House Republican leaders had promised substantial financial and political support for his son's campaign if Smith voted yes.

[bobbieinok]

1. didn't Smith take back the charge??

..

[radfringe]

5. yes he "tried" to take it back

but the feces was already heading for the rotating blades

and according to the original story, Smith wasn't the only repug that they tried to bribe or threaten

Plus, Tommy Thompson was on the floor during the vote - according to the rules no cabinet member etc is allowed on the floor or in the room during a vote --- so why was he allowed to be there?

this also brings up another question - if Smith is now saying that there was no attempt at bribery, why did he say there was attempted bribery in the first place? My "assumption" is that there was bribery/threats going on, and he was further "threatened" after making the original statement in order to get him to recant

[radfringe]

13. snippet on backpedaling by Smith

Published December 23, 2003
Investigation into Medicare vote bribery allegation stalls
Justice Department, House won't say if they'll probe matter
http://www.lsj.com/news/local/031223_smith_2b.html
By Katherine Hutt Scott
State Journal correspondent

snip---- Smith said in a Dec. 1 radio interview that he was promised more than $100,000 for his son Brad's congressional campaign in exchange for voting yes during the Nov. 22 vote to add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled. Smith didn't identify who made the offer, but in a Nov. 24 interview with the same radio reporter, he said that "pharmaceutical business groups" who supported the bill offered "substantial campaign support" for Brad Smith if he voted yes.

One day after the calls for an investigation, Smith backpedaled on his claim, releasing a Dec. 4 statement that he was told a yes vote would result in interested groups giving substantial "support" to the campaign, but that "no specific reference was made to money."

He said there was no need for either an ethics or criminal investigation.

Smith has said all along that other lawmakers threatened to work against his son's campaign if he voted against the Medicare bill, a Bush administration priority. Smith is retiring in January 2005 after six terms, and his son and four other Republicans are running to replace him.

[librechik]

23. "two other congressmen were present"

he can backpeddle only so much

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. damn it this is now tea pot

rolled into Watergate and many other scandals of US History

This is the worst scandal in US history folks

This will be known as a very dark period in US history

[proud patriot]

4. The darkest ever

We will be remembered as those who
led America out of the darkness .

A proud 8 percenter on 9/12/01

[Melodybe]

10. My hubby and I were part of that 8% and we are very proud of it

Everyday I think about the hard year ahead and I am proud to be campaigning and talking and doing my best to make this a country my children can be proud of. Screw these repugs the pot is already boiling over and people are FINALLY waking the hell up. What is that now like 3 repug bribery cases going on at once? Ha Ha the gig is up!

And YAY this in number 300!

[aquart]

35. Nonsense. How can it be dark if it never sees the light?

Really now. Who will investigate it? Republicans? Ashcroft?

Nothing happened. There's nothing to see. Move along.

Scandal indeed. There is no proof whatsoever that there is scandal in this pure and godly administration and let me assure you, no one will ever be allowed to find any.

Eyewitness testimony and documentation don't count. I'm talking real proof. Yes, I am.

[proud patriot]

3. hee hee

Now Let's play , Mr. Attorney General..
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha:D

[Myra]

6. Think this was timed to come out when few are watching the news?

eom

[proud patriot]

7. they will be watching tomorrow

A lot of people get the day after
Christmas off

[imhotep]

8. it will be forgotten

just like every other "scandal>"

[dutchdemocrat]

9. Scandal?

Scandal? What scandal?

After Rove slipping out of the Plame Affair, I lost hope in the system.

There's a new oxymoron in my lexicon now.

American Justice.

[The Zanti Regent]

11. Justice means Just-Us Rich White RepubliKKKaans can do what we want!

I have never seen such Nazis in my lifetime as these Republicans!

[R Hickey]

12. Bribe-ocracy at work.

The GOP Congress is milking our Greatest Generation into early graves. Now Republicans have banned importing affordable drugs from Canada, thus condemming countless senior cash-cows to death, while cynically pretending to protect them and do them a favor. Some favor, the only thing they are doing is exploiting their misery. Euthanasia would be more merciful.

Now that the drug corporations have successfully bribed congress to play 'keep away' with needed drugs, the time has finally arrived to do away with these extortionists.

The time has arrived for the US to "nationalize" the corrupt drug-dealing industry. These exploitive corporations do not deserve to exist.

Mr. Tommy Thompson is a governor-turned-ganster. What was he doing on the congressinal floor? Was he directly offering bribes, or just orchestrating them? Ganster 'Tommy-gun' Thompson should be impeached and jailed, along with his Boss-of-Bosses.

The CEO's and board members of these drug-pushing corporations should all be rounded up and SHOT, and their family's loot should be confiscated. Why do corporate drug dealers get a free ride when crack dealers go to jail? I only see one difference, and that only difference is congressional-bribery.

[0007]

14. This a sham at its very best!

And no indeed knows exactly what the medicare bill contains, other than what is known isn't good for anyone, except HMO's, pharmaceutic's and some insurance companies.

[Occulus]

18. I see these kinds of things as

an indictment of corporate personhood. More than anything else, big multinational businesses being granted the same rights as you and me was a very, very destructive decision.

[Zhade]

28. Yep - a decision that wasn't legally made.

From Project Censored:

It was back in 1886 that a Supreme Court decision (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company) ostensibly led to corporate personhood and free speech rights, thereby guaranteeing protections under the 1st and 14th amendments. However, according to Thom Hartmann, the relatively mundane court case never actually granted these personhood rights to corporations. In fact, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “We avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision.” Yet, when writing up the case summary —that has no legal status—the Court reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, declared: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” But the Court had made no such legal determination. It was the clerk’s opinion and misrepresentation of the case in the headnote upon which current claims of corporate personhood and free speech entitlements now rests.

For scans of official correspondence between Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite and court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis, in which Waite states clearly that the court avoided the Constitutional question of corporate personhood, go here. (Davis had atrocious handwriting, incidentally, which may make reading the letter difficult.)

[54anickel]

21. Tommy is bailing next year. We don't want him back either! He was

a gangster governor as well. He was at the top then, having others do his bidding. He obviously doesn't like being the one to get his hands dirty, would rather be the one above that role instead.

Now we have a dem governor and folks aren't any too happy with him as he tries to clean up the mess Tommy left us. WHEN a dem takes the presidency back in 04, he/she will have the same problem on a much bigger scale.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Isn't it illegal for a member of the cabinet

to be on the floor of the House during a vote? If that is still true, then WTF was Tommy Thompson doing there?

[radfringe]

39. illegal? no - but against the Senate rules

however, as we all know rules and laws do not apply to the Bushies

[xchrom]

15. it was a scandal

to begin with
that it didn't have legs to begin with is simply an example of the control the facists have over the media -- or it simply exposes the which side the statist media is on.
and maybe that is where the real scandal is.

[snippy]

16. Right after the vote, Smith wrote a column describing the crimes.

I never see this mentioned anymore but it seems relevant to me.

Going toe-to-toe on Medicare

Commentary by Nick Smith

The House passed a deeply flawed Medicare prescription drug bill by a vote of 220-215 at 6 a.m. Saturday.

Votes in the House usually last 15 minutes plus a traditional two-minute cushion, but because the leadership did not have the votes to prevail, this vote was held open for a record two hours and 51 minutes as bribes and special deals were offered to convince members to vote yes.

I was targeted by lobbyists and the congressional leadership to change my vote, being a fiscal conservative and being on record as a "no" vote.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert talked to me for a long time about the bill and about why I should vote yes.

Other members and groups made offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son, Brad, who is running for my seat. They also made threats of working against Brad if I voted no.

. . .

http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2003/11/28/news/news08.txt

[markus]

17. Q for Bush* supporters

If this was such a great bill, why was the Republican leadership offering open bribes on the House floor to pass it?

[SayitAintSo]

19. Oh this is beautiful .... Thanks for the post ... makes my day

BTW ... love the Sherpa thing .... cool

[radfringe]

20. :)

...more sherpa items to come...!!

It's not who wears the pants, it's who carries the load

[loudnclear]

22. Tried to take it back? Just shows you how ingrained the GOP loyalty is

There is plenty of honor among these thieves.

[TacticalPeek]

24. Too bad the Ethics Committee is in mothballs . . . heheh.

Guess that leaves only criminal prosecution.

:evilgrin:

[dusty64]

25. I expect little to

become of this, they are rethugs afterall.

[Cocoa]

26. talk about teflon..

this guy says it on the radio, and writes a column about it, and it's STILL disputed whether it happened.

For a criminal prosecution, of course, that's not proof, but for an ethics action, or for a political scandal, that SHOULD be a smoking gun.

Not these days, I guess, for the republicans...

[0rganism]

29. Thesaurus entry for "teflon" lists "republican" as a synonym

Scandal? What scandal?

[proud patriot]

30. revisionist history in the making

the repukes are so good at it .

[UTUSN]

27. Kick for Keep This on Page 1 n/t

[pinniped]

31. Kick AHOLE BULLshyt out of DC.

:kick:

[pinto]

34. yo. Medicare vote got bought, and I don't mean lobbyists...kick

[Atman]

32. Nothing will happen

Who will bring charges? There are no dem committee chairs, not dem anything. Republicans will not prosecute republicans, no matter what the charge. They are devoid of ethics. It is part of the party platform. Republican SCOTUS. Ashcroft in Justice. Who the hell does anyone expect is going to do anything when republicans are running the whole show? No one, that's who. And Tim Russert and Peter Jenning and Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel will just wipe the gooey dribbles of lies from their chins and say "Please Mr. Bush, may we report anything else positive for you today?"

It may be hopeless in the short term. That is what happens when America votes all republicans into every branch. It is a dark time.

[RainDog]

33. Bribery of Public Officials

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/201.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > Sec. 201.
Sec. 201. - Bribery of public officials and witnesses


(a)

For the purpose of this section -


(1)

the term ''public official'' means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;


(2)

the term ''person who has been selected to be a public official'' means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and


(3)

the term ''official act'' means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.


(b)

Whoever -


(1)

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -


(A)

to influence any official act; or


(B)

to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or


(C)

to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;


(2)

being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:


(A)

being influenced in the performance of any official act;


(B)

being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or


(C)

being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;


(3)

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;


(4)

directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.


(c)

Whoever -


(1)

otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty -


(A)

directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or


(B)

being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;


(2)

directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;


(3)

directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.


(d)

Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.


(e)

The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title

[aquart]

36. kick.

[radfringe]

37. GOP's Pressing Question on Medicare Vote

GOP's Pressing Question on Medicare Vote
Did Some Go Too Far To Change a No to a Yes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22782-2003Dec22.html
By R. Jeffrey Smith -- Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A01

About 20 Republican congressmen -- all fiscal conservatives -- gathered nervously in a back room at the Hunan Dynasty restaurant on Capitol Hill on Nov. 21, trying to shore up their resolve to defy President Bush. It was the night of the big vote on the Bush administration's Medicare prescription drug bill, which they had concluded was too costly, and they began swapping tales about the intense lobbying bearing down on them.

Over egg rolls and pu-pu platters, one complained that a home-state politician had insinuated that he would run against him in the next primary unless the lawmaker voted for the bill. Another said House leaders had warned that if the bill was defeated because of his no vote, he might lose his subcommittee chairmanship. Several recalled being telephoned by insistent lobbyists from the health care industry.

But the most dramatic account was given by Rep. Nick Smith (Mich.), who is to retire next year and hopes his son will succeed him. According to two other congressmen who were present, Smith told the gathering that House Republican leaders had promised substantial financial and political support for his son's campaign if Smith voted yes. Smith added that his son, in a telephone call, had urged him to vote his conscience, and with the support of dissident colleagues, Smith stuck to his no vote.