the incoming head of the judiciary committee admits to breaking the law- any bets as to whether pelosi will let him keep his post? http://www.thehill.com:8888/thehill/opencms/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121306/conyers.html [rquoter]Conyers accepts responsibility for possible ethics violations By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Jackie Kucinich Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has "accepted responsibility" for possibly violating House rules by requiring his official staff to perform campaign-related work, according to a statement quietly released by the House ethics committee late Friday evening. The top Republican and Democratic members on the ethics panel, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), said in a statement that Conyers acknowledged a "lack of clarity" in communicating what was expected of his official staff and that he accepted responsibility for his actions. "[Conyers] agreed to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff," they stated. "We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement." The finding by the ethics panel could spark debate, and perhaps eclipse, the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority’s plans to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers’ standing to chair the Judiciary Committee. On Dec. 14, Conyers sent a letter to his supporters from his campaign website announcing that he had been elected as chairman-designate of the House Judiciary Committee. Berman is the second-ranking Democrat on the panel. A spokesman for Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Conyers will remain chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The House ethics committee conditions that Conyers has agreed to must be complied with throughout the 110th Congress. Conyers had alarmed Democrats, poised to recapture the House after 12 years in the minority, by indicating that he would begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. In May, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that she told her Democratic colleagues in a closed meeting, "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it." The ethics inquiry began in December, 2003 when former staff members complained to the ethics panel, formerly named the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, that Conyers had required his official staffers to work on campaigns, babysit his children, and run personal errands. Conyers subsequently hired Stanley Brand, a well-respected defense lawyer with a long track record of defending public officials implicated in corruption cases. In 2003, Reps. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) headed the ethics committee. The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers’ aides alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill. They also sent the same materials to the House ethics panel, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office. House rules allow the chairman and ranking member of the ethics panel to initiate informal inquiries into allegations of misconduct in the absence of a formal complaint. Hastings and Berman said in their statement that Conyers provided information and documents to the panel. Committee staff also interviewed witnesses. They also said that Conyers agreed to take six steps to ensure that the matter remain closed. First, he agreed to prohibit his personal congressional staff, other than his chief of staff, from engaging in any voluntary campaign-related work in the 110th Congress unless that staff members takes a leave of absence and obtains prior approval from the wthics Committee. He also must take several additional steps to make it abundantly clear to his government-paid aides that they need not work on campaigns to gain employment or stay employed in his office. In addition, he will have to maintain a detailed time-keeping system that he implemented during the course of the committee’s inquiry. "Provided that the above requirements are complied with, this matter will remain closed, and the Committee will take no further action on it," Hastings and Berman said. The following is the text of the House ethics committee statement regarding Conyers: December 29, 2006 Statement of Chairman Doc Hastings and Ranking Minority Member Howard L. Berman Regarding Representative John Conyers The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), initiated an informal inquiry in December 2003 into reports that members of the congressional staff of Representative John Conyers had performed campaign activity on official time and in some instances using official resources, and that some staff members may have been compelled to do campaign work or personal work for Representative Conyers. The assertions in the reports, if true, could implicate a number of laws and House rules applicable to Members, including: House Rule 23, clause 1 (requiring the conduct of a Member or employee to reflect creditably on the House of representatives); House Rule 23, clause 8 (requiring that congressional staff perform official duties commensurate with compensation); 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and corresponding regulations of the Committee on House Administration (providing that official funds may be used only for the purposes appropriated); and 18 U.S.C § 606 (prohibiting adverse personnel action or intimidation to secure a "contribution of money or other valuable thing" including services, for a political purpose). Committee Rule 18(a) permits the Committee, in the absence of a filed complaint, to consider "any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct . . ." The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such a potential violation unless and until an investigative subcommittee is established. During the course of their inquiry, the Chairman and Ranking Member asked for and received information, including documents, from several sources, including Representative Conyers. Committee staff also interviewed witnesses regarding the allegations. In the course of providing information to the Committee, Representative Conyers 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. Representative Conyers also provided the Committee with documents indicating that he had begun taking steps to provide clearer guidance to staff regarding the requirement that campaign work and official work be separate. After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff. Representative Conyers has agreed to the following conditions: 1. Prohibiting his personal congressional staff (other than his Chief of Staff) from performing any campaign-related work, including work done on a voluntary basis, during the 110th Congress, unless the staff member takes a paid position on his campaign while on leave without pay status and obtains prior written approval from the Committee. 2. Informing staff members in writing of the prohibition set forth above against the voluntary performance of campaign work. 3. Distributing a memorandum to each member of his personal congressional staff which clearly sets forth all House rules concerning (1) the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members and (2) the prohibition against the performance of any campaign-related work being conducted in either his congressional or district offices. Additionally, this memorandum will explicitly state that the performance of campaign or other non-official work by staff members may not be required as a condition of their employment. 4. Directing that meetings of his personal congressional staff be held annually in which the House rules concerning staff participation in campaign activities are discussed and explained. In addition, a description of these rules will be made a part of the orientation for all new staff employees. 5. Continuing to maintain the detailed time-keeping system initiated by Rep. Conyers during the course of the Committee’s inquiry. 6. Requiring that all members of his congressionalstaff attend a briefing conducted by Committee counsel on the application of, and compliance with, applicable House rules concerning the performance of campaign and other non-official work by congressional staff members. Provided that the above requirements are complied with, this matter will remain closed, and the Committee will take no further action on it.[/rquoter]
wow he is stone cold busted. He might as well rape some 15 year old boys for good measure before he goes down in flames.
*yawn* Democratic scandals: *asking staff to work on his campaign which violates "ethics" *accept brib and stuff it in a freezer (ie not millions of $$$) *blow job between consensual adults *lie about blow jobs to a grand jury Republican scandals: *Organizing illegal PACs to illegally redistrict Texas to sway the balance of power for the entire country *Embezel campaign funds between state and federal orgs and steal millions from native Americans to fund golfing trips *child molestation and child p*rnography *lie about WMD and initiating a war killing thousands upon thousands of lives Gotta give it to the Repubs, when they have a scandal its all or nothing. C'mon Dems, if you are gonna have a scandal ...AT LEAST MAKE IT WORTHWHILE.
the reaction is fairly typical, but not surprising, since it's clear that the democrats merely want to pay lip service to the idea of reform, all the while making sure they're gettin' theirs now that they have unfettered access to the till. not surprising, but still sad.
Really? It seems that it was a bi-partisan(which includes Dems) effort to uncover what we know of so far. I would say that is pretty good, and already above and beyond the way the GOP handeled scandal.
if conyers did anything wrong he should be held accountable, but i find it laughable that a bush supporter like basso would criticize others over inproprieties and "scandals". you have no credibility basso.
What "till" did Conyers raid? He had his aides work on his campaign and babysit/drive his children around. There is no extortion, bribery, theft, or any kind of financial gain involved here at all. Apparently, you could use the same reading comprehension course I keep offering to t_j. krosfyah's response was SOOOOOO apt. When Dems have a "scandal," it has been extremely minor compared to the corruption the GOP has exhibited over the past six years. I will jump on board and condemn anyone, Dem or Rep, for actual corruption (like the Dem who stuffed cash in his freezer), but this "scandal," which has been resolved by the Ethics Committee, is a molehill compared to, say, Tom DeLay's transgressions.
you don't think other reps hve required their official staff to perform some form of campaign-related work?
and alot less weird compared to GOP scandals. aside from mark foley, i guess basso thinks its normal and not scandalous for the white house to plant male prostitutes in the press corp to ask the president easy questions? and i guess basso thinks its normal and not scandalous for said male prostitutes to make dozens and dozens of visits to the white house. seriously, have we ever had a president who has so closesly associated with male prostitutes?
I'll preface this by saying this is a relatively minor offense and I suspect is relatively widespread among both parties. That being said, according to the article, his aides are government paid (which I assume means our tax dollars are used). This means then that we are technically paying for his aides to run errands with his kids. That is certainly financial gain as he is not paying for someone out of his own pocket to make sure his kids get to where they need to be going.
Granted, but this is not exactly synonymous with the image brought up for most people when accusations of "raiding the till" are brought up. There was some financial gain, but it is not bribery, extortion, steering government contracts, or any of a dozen other ways for congressmen to line their own pockets. This was a relatively minor offense (as you said) and has already been investigated and corrected by the Ethics Committee.
It sounds like Conyers is admitting to this and abiding by the Ethics Committee decision. It seems to me that the scandal is being addressed. For Conyers offense about the only thing else needed is a censure and fine to his campaign to recover the money the government spent on his staff. I don't know what the rules are for the Judiciary Committee but I'm guessing that rank is determined by seniority so Pelosi might not have much leverage to remove him even if she wanted to.
Vomit. You need to work the adjective "presidential" or the pronoun "President" into some of these I'd like to see some evidence that the child molestation and p*rnography were Republican initiatives-- meaning "pertaining to the Republican Party and not just some individual person who happens to be a member of the party.
Well you have the chief of staff who is also a GOP member talking about how he brought the problems to Republican leadership, and Republican leadership tried to keep the whole matter quiet rather than address it. That is certainly pertaining to the Republicans and not just a single member.
A plague on all Congressional houses. I'm not swayed by arguments about which party's graft, crime and lack of ethics is worse. It's all bad, regardless of degree. I'll be impressed when Congress puts heat on the Pork Barrel Kings like Robert Byrd. With so much money, they can't control themselves. George Washington Plunkett, a New York City alderman around the turn of the last century, once defined the difference between "honest graft" and "dishonest graft." Congressmen today can't even make that distinction.
True but that was more about politics than pedophilia. The indictment is made to sound as if the Republican Party stands squarely behind "child molestation and child p*rnography."
i wouldnt say the entire party does, but the the republicans havent done a very good job of distancing themselves from not only child molestation and p*rnography, but sex and crystal meth with male prostitutes (ted haggard). or the white house planting male prostitutes posing as press corp reporters. for you to claim it had to do with politics is correct in that the republican leadership knew about foley's inapproriate behavior, and rather than put a stop to it, either ignored or hid it. why? - to avoid political damage. rather than do the right thing your republican leaders kept a sexual predator in their fold. but we do know where they stand when it comes to gay male prostitutes, dont we?
They certainly don't stand behind it, but they apparently are so weak about going after it that they put more emphasis on politics than weeding it out.
