Ethics truce unravels: Speaker and Pelosi to appoint pool of investigators

[NewJerseyDem]

http://www.thehill.com/news/031104/ethics.aspx

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will take a crucial step toward ending the unofficial ethics truce in the House by appointing a pool of lawmakers ready to form an investigative committee at a moment’s notice.

That would allow the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct to conduct more aggressive investigations.

Hastert told The Hill yesterday that he would appoint five lawmakers to the pool, and Pelosi’s office confirmed that she would do the same.

Such pools have existed in previous Congresses but not in this one.

[Jack The Tab]

1. When was this "truce" called?

The time for "truces" ended January 20, 2001

[NewJerseyDem]

3. The truce has been since 1997

There was an ethics war where both sides launched ethics investigations, whether there was evidence of any wrongdoing or not, back in 1997, I believe. Since then, both sides have avoided launching ethics investigations for fear of another war that could hurt both sides.

[whatelseisnew]

7. I think it is more complex than that, the pubs tore up some ethics rules

They reinstated the food and travel gift allowances, at least, since 2002 I think.

We need links, it is all in the DU archives

[Oilwellian]

2. I think it ended

after the republican congressman was bribed for his vote on the Medicare Bill.

[buycitgo]

4. you're right

nick smith

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092153/

I heard a story on radio about this

the pugs have ALL KINDS of wormy cans that would be open by now, were it not for the likes of Ashcroft, who, himself could/should(?) be the subject of various campaign-financial investos

from the slate:

To review: Late last month, Smith said that "bribes and special deals were offered to convince members to vote yes" on the Bush administration's Medicare prescription-benefit bill. Smith is retiring from Congress at the end of this term, and his son is running for the GOP nomination to succeed him. Smith said that somebody—he wouldn't specify who, but an Associated Press report said it was "House GOP leaders," and a Smith press release issued the day after the vote seemed to hint it was House Speaker Dennis Hastert or Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson—"made offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son Brad who is running for my seat." Smith, a fiscal conservative, resisted the offer (or offers) and voted against the Medicare bill. A few days later, Robert Novak wrote—in a column that Smith, speaking via his chief of staff, told Chatterbox was "basically accurate"—that Smith had been told Brad's campaign would receive $100,000 from "business interests" if Smith voted yes. If that really happened, then Smith was the recipient of an unambiguous attempted bribe, punishable under federal law.

Until this past Thursday, Smith stood by his accusations, but declined to identify the person (or persons) he was accusing, except to say that it wasn't Hastert, Thompson, or Majority Leader Tom DeLay. For his part, Hastert is quoted saying in the Dec. 6 New York Times (in a beat-sweetener by Carl Hulse about Hastert's emergence as a forceful legislative leader), "e didn't give away a dime."


Smith backed off on Dec. 4, just as he was starting to feel some heat from the growing prospect of a Justice Department investigation. "No specific reference was made to money," he said. "I was told that my vote could result in interested groups giving substantial and aggressive campaign 'support' and 'endorsements.' "

Chatterbox pointed out yesterday that Smith's new line contradicts what he said earlier about "extensive financial campaign support" and his son's recollection, as related to the Lansing State Journal, that Smith had told him "interest groups and key Republicans" had offered "financial contributions and endorsements." Smith tried to finesse this by telling the Associated Press that his recollection that money had been offered had been "technically incorrect."

But what about the $100,000? It's pretty hard to see ambiguity in the offer of so specific an amount of money.

LOTS more

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=nick+smith+bribery

this could ve VERY bad for pugs, were they not in control of everything

[buycitgo]

5. I left out the best part of that slate story (fair use)

they have Smith on TAPE, specifically mentioning the $100K amount.

article goes on to jokingly demonstrate the huge hole Smith has dug for himself...one of those "Well, when were you lying, the first time you mentioned the specific amount of money, or the time you denied mentioning it?"

could be fun

[BR_Parkway]

6. Don't forget the computer hacking, that's still illegal too n/t