Will Proposed Ethics Reforms Make A Difference?

---

POLITICS / PROMISES OF ETHICS REFORMS

---

Can we really trust members of Congress to enforce these new rules when they openly flouted the old ones without consequence?

Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Jim McDermott, and Patrick Kennedy, and Alan Mollohan (a former co-chair of the Ethics Committee!) are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House despite evidently violating rules already on the books.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to lead “the most ethical Congress in history,” which is eerily similar to Bill Clinton’s hollow pledge to run the "most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.” (We all know how that turned out.)

January 5, 2007

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Will Proposed Ethics Reforms Make A Difference?

As the 109^th Congress begins, Democrats at least appear to be making an attempt to institute ethics reform in the House of Representatives. A new package of rules unveiled by the Democrats yesterday target financed travel, gifts and earmarks (special interest funding “hidden” in other legislation). It was passed by a vote of 430 to 1. Overall, the rule changes seem to be a step forward, but without any ethics enforcement to back them up, the new rules may mean nothing in the end.

The rules changes mean:

• House members will no longer be allowed to travel on lobbyists’ or their clients’ dollars, and all travel financed by outside groups will be subject to pre-approval by the House Ethics Committee. Also, all travel on corporate jets will be set at market value cost.

• Representatives will also be subject to a total gift ban, prohibiting them from accepting gifts from lobbyists. The previous ethics rules placed a $50 cap on all gifts, leaving lobbyists open to offering sports tickets and other gifts often purchased for less-than face value in order to evade the cap.

• With respect to earmarks, committees would have to make the requests public and identify the requesting lawmaker under the new rules. Other legislative ethics changes include shorter voting windows, the inability to revise already-signed conference reports, and the inclusion of elected members into conference committee meetings.

That’s all well and good, but can we really trust members of Congress to enforce these new rules when they openly flouted the old ones without consequence?

Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Jim McDermott, and Patrick Kennedy, and Alan Mollohan (a former co-chair of the Ethics Committee!) are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House despite evidently violating rules already on the books. Just last week, the House Ethics Committee let Michigan Congressman John Conyers off the hook even though he violated House rules by forcing his staff members to serve as his personal servants, valets, and as campaign staff while on the government payroll. And earlier this week, only two congressmen were fined for violating travel rules, despite the fact that dozens of members had flouted the rules. How much has changed in a few days?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to lead “the most ethical Congress in history,” which is eerily similar to Bill Clinton’s hollow pledge to run the "most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.” (We all know how that turned out.) Given the fact that Pelosi and company are at least half responsible for the breakdown of the ethics process in Washington, it’s going to take more than a few rule changes to convince me they’re serious about cleaning up corruption on Capitol Hill. The sheer number of seemingly corrupt members still in the House is staggering. Let’s hope that the Justice Department continues aggressive investigations and prosecution of corrupt members of Congress.

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Oregon Undersheriff: "F*** The Public"

---

LAW ENFORCEMENT / OREGON UNDERSHERIFF: "F*** THE PUBLIC"

---

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

“F--- The Public” Says Brian Anderson

Affidavits cite Anderson as saying,“citizens get what they pay for”

Sheriff Candidate Brian Anderson

~ By Ron Lee
Investigative Reporter
US~Observer

Josephine County, OR - Recently, several ex-Josephine County sheriff deputies along with one on-duty officer have stepped forward with affidavits claiming that on many occasions Brian Anderson, current undersheriff, made disparaging remarks toward the public in briefings to his staff saying, "F--- 'em. They get what they pay for." According to an affidavit Anderson even went on to say that he would release the prisoners of the jail if the public didn’t want to fund it and let them deal with the criminals. In the affidavits Anderson also instructed deputies not to respond to anything other than emergency calls. Included as well was information alleging Anderson allowed "false investigations against deputies to proceed despite his knowledge the deputies were innocent," because they didn't belong to the "A Team" - a group some in the department call the good-old-boy club that currently exists. One of the affidavits even cites specific criminal misconduct. The US~Observer has also obtained a recent letter written by Grants Pass Chief of Police Joe Henner stating that the city police will no longer back the sheriff's department unless it is an absolute emergency. This is because there are no procedures in place within the sheriff's department to take care of many situations they face. In his letter Henner specifically mentioned that he had previously brought this to the attention of Undersheriff Anderson, but that no procedures have as yet been adopted. These affidavits and the letter by the city police chief come at a pivotal point for Anderson who is seeking to be elected as the county sheriff in the upcoming election on the grounds that he is well qualified for the position and has been doing a good job as undersheriff.

On October 10, 2006, US~Observer investigative reporter John Taft called Anderson for comment on the allegations stated in the affidavits, specifically that of him saying, "F--- the Public." Anderson at first responded that his remarks were taken out of context but later recanted saying that he never used the F-word. However, commenting on the grounds of anonymity one high-ranking public official stated that he had heard Anderson say this many times.

One of the affidavits reads in part, "... Brian Anderson a patrol lieutenant ... came in to briefing and told ALL of us, 'I want all of you to only go out on emergency calls and do NO patrolling f--- the public they don't want to give us any money then f--- them go out on the emergency call and come right back to the office.' ... We were not allowed to go to burglary or theft calls and many more."

The evidence supporting that Anderson told his staff in briefings to only work on emergency calls comes in the form of the department's own published reports on burglaries in 2004. The report says that they had received 516 burglary calls but that only 95 of these cases were reviewed and only 43 were actually investigated, something many, especially in the outlying county areas, know all too well. One resident stated that she had called the sheriff's department when her home was burglarized but didn't hear back and it was only after several calls and almost a week when they actually responded by sending out officers. According to this woman who wished to remain anonymous, when they did respond they were rude and never investigated the crime.

Anderson has, in part, based his platform on running for the position of sheriff that there needs to be an individual in the top position who has budgetary experience as funding is, according to Anderson, the biggest law enforcement challenge this county faces saying, "we don't have stabilized funding so we end up losing a lot of our officers to other agencies because they might not have a job next year. And to me you can't fight the meth problem and any of those other issues if you don't have the staff to do it. You need detectives. You need deputies out there handling calls. You need directors for when people call in. You need the jail, a jail that's adequately funded to house people. I think funding is the biggest issue." But mismanagement of funds is one of the many issues the affidavits address calling into question Anderson's ability to head the department, one which obviously has more issues than previously known. As for “budgetary experience;” any experience Anderson does have is for naught given the excessive amount of lawsuits (most successful) that have been filed against the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office while Anderson and Dave Daniel have overseen the department, or in better terms, failed to oversee the department.

The authors of the affidavits all feel the public need to be informed of what is going on in the department. One of the affidavits reads in part, "In making these statements, it is not my will or intent to bring disfavor upon the Josephine County Sheriff's office. I still have many friends there that are good people that work hard. I simply want the citizens to know the truth about what has been happening ..." Another even says, "I do not believe that the public would want someone like this (Anderson) to be our sheriff for Josephine County."

With the election now days away the effects of these affidavits remain to be seen. As for Gil Gilbertson, Brian Anderson's opponent in the election, he had no comment when asked if he had any opinion on the effects the affidavits might have.

Editor's Note: It has come to light that the editor, Denis Roler, of the Grants Pass, OR local news publication, the Daily Courier, also has the affidavits and has yet to publish any kind of story. Is Roler trying to protect Anderson by remaining silent, or does he feel that it isn't worthy news for their readers? Whatever the answer, it makes one wonder.

Denis Roler at the Daily Courier can be reached by calling:
(541) 474-3700
or by e-mail at newsdept@thedailycourier.com

To voice your opinion to Brian Anderson, he may be reached by calling the Josephine County Sheriff's Department:
(541) 474-5123
or by e-mail at jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

© 2006, US~Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Pelosi Faces Ethics Test In "Culture Of Corruption"

---

POLITICS / RADICAL LIBERAL EXTREMIST PELOSI EXPANDING DEMOCRAT'S "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is under investigation by the F.B.I. regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

He is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."

Pelosi Faces Ethics 'Litmus Test' With Mollohan Case, Analyst Says

~ By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
December 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - For the third time in as many weeks, House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi faces what one analyst called a "litmus test" of her stated commitment to ethics, as a congressman whose finances are being examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in line to head the panel that determines the FBI's budget.

Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies, which oversees the Department of Justice, including the FBI. Other than Mollohan, no Democrat has announced an intention to seek the chairmanship.

However, the FBI is investigating the 63-year-old lawmaker regarding accusations that he funneled taxpayer money into nonprofit organizations he helped to set up and which support him with campaign contributions.

Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that Mollohan's leadership aspirations were a "litmus test" of how serious Pelosi was when she and fellow Democrats campaigned this year on "draining the swamp" in Congress of what they called a GOP "culture of corruption."

"Somebody under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have any leverage over his investigators," Boehm said. "If Pelosi or the new majority in Congress doesn't understand that, then they don't have a clue as to what the 'culture of corruption' is because it's staring them in the face."

Noting that Pelosi made ethics in government "the absolute, number one issue" in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, the NLPC chairman said her decision regarding Mollohan is "going to be pretty telling," especially since the speaker-designate has suffered two political setbacks in recent weeks.

On Nov. 16, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer was overwhelmingly voted in as the new majority leader despite Pelosi's efforts supporting Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha for the post.

Murtha, whose war hero status and Abscam involvement came under scrutiny earlier, was supported by Pelosi because of what she called his "courageous leadership" in the national debate over the war in Iraq.

"Is that the type of person she wants as majority leader?" Boehm asked. "Apparently, her own caucus - by a vote of 149 to 86 - rejected that.

"If she can't sell her own caucus on putting a sleazy member of Congress into a position of authority, then how is she going to sell that [the Mollohan post] to the public? I don't think she will," Boehm added.

On Nov. 28, Pelosi announced she would not elevate Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) - her original choice for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - because of concerns over his impeachment while serving as a federal judge in 1989. Instead, she named Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas to the post.

Because of the Murtha and Hastings setbacks, Pelosi's decision on Mollohan will be "a big, underappreciated test" of her leadership, Boehm noted.

'Integrity versus corruption'

According to documents obtained by the NLPC, Mollohan and his wife, Barbara, reported under $550,000 in assets in 2000. That figure soared to more than $8 million just five years later.

On April 10, the NLPC accused the West Virginia Democrat of violating more than 250 House ethics rules.

Eleven days later, Pelosi announced that Mollohan would step down from the ethics committee while defending himself against the allegations.

On June 13, Mollohan filed two dozen corrections to his past six annual financial disclosure forms, asserting that his accountant had uncovered several unintentional errors. He attributed his substantial rise in assets to prudent real-estate investments.

However, Boehm said that the congressman had admitted to other ethical breaches as well.

Mollohan should not serve on the subcommittee that handles appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the NLPC chairman said, because he "has a history of using earmarks in HUD to direct tens of millions of dollars to a group run by one of his business partners" who used to be a member of his staff.

"Wouldn't anybody who wants to 'drain the swamp,' as Nancy Pelosi has so elegantly put it, think that somebody who's shown time and again he'll abuse the appropriations process should be taken off the committee, and pronto?" Boehm asked.

Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday: "I don't have any thought that Mr. Mollohan ought to step down at this time."

The liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has recommended that "no member under federal investigation be involved in the oversight or appropriations of any agency involved in investigating that member."

Boehm welcomed CREW's stance. "This shouldn't be a conservative-versus-liberal issue, a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. This is an issue of integrity versus corruption.

"The standard that Nancy Pelosi has set for the 110th Congress is that this is going to be the most ethical one ever," Boehm added.

"She is being called upon to use her position to make a decision, and the decision ought to be in favor of what's right and what's ethical and the way Congress can be, especially in light of the fact that that's been her mantra for the past year," Boehm said.

Calls seeking response from Pelosi and Mollohan were not returned by press time.

Make media inquiries or request an interview with Randy Hall.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Randy Hall.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Harry Reid's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / HARRY REID'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Abramoff Finally Behind Bars

Soon-To-Be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Allegedly Accepted More Than $30,000 Of Abramoff-Tainted Money, Failed To Report A $700,000 Land Deal.

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff is finally behind bars. On November 15, Abramoff reported to a federal prison in Maryland to begin his 5-year, ten-month sentence for defrauding banks of $23 million in Florida in 2000. This, of course, far from closes the book on Abramoff and his congressional co-conspirators. He remains at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice that, in the end, could involve as many as a dozen members of congress.

The web of influence peddling scandals involving Abramoff has already claimed more than a few politicians. First, former Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay resigned earlier this year rather than face Abramoff questions at election time. You also may recall that Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November, three weeks after pleading guilty for his role in an Abramoff-related scandal. Ney was the first Abramoff-connected Congressman to be convicted of a crime in the Abramoff matter. He may not be the last. Reports suggest Abramoff has been cooperating with authorities and naming names, including soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

Abramoff, who hobnobbed at the highest levels of government while living lavishly, will have to work in food service and similar jobs that pay anywhere from 12 to 40 cents an hour. His federal inmate number is 27593-112. It is good to know that sometimes crime doesn’t pay.

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Pelosi's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / PELOSI'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

JW To Pelosi: Hastings Unfit For Leadership Position

On November 15, I sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, urging the House Speaker to reject Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. According to a number of press reports, Hastings is Pelosi’s choice to assume the chairmanship when the new Congress convenes in January.

For Speaker Pelosi, who has been an outspoken critic of what she has mislabeled “the Republican culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill, Hastings is a terrible choice for this sensitive leadership post. As I noted in my letter, Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated “staggering liabilities” ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000.

Here’s an excerpt from my letter. (You can read it in its entirety by clicking here.)

“Any ordinary citizen with Rep. Hastings’ demonstrated record of lack of integrity, ethical misdeeds and financial problems would be denied a security clearance. Respectfully, you should not put our nation’s security at risk by placing Rep. Hastings at the head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“That (Hastings) was elected to Congress simply does not mean he meets the high standards that might entitle him to committee leadership posts, let alone ‘select’ committee posts that concern highly secret national security information. I am confident there are other members of your caucus who could serve as head of the Committee.”

Some background on Hastings: On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against then-Judge Hastings. After a trial, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989, for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. As The Washington Post reported in 1989, the Senate found that Hastings “engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his [criminal] trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal.”

Moreover, according to his most recent financial disclosure statements, Hastings indicated that he has no more than $15,000 in assets … while listing millions of dollars in liabilities in the form of legal fees.

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---