Rep. Adam Smith told KUOW's Ross Reynolds (The Conversation, m-f, 1-2p) Friday that there "absolutely" should be an investigation of Rep. Doc Hastings, after former U.S. Attorney John McKay testified that Hasting's chief of staff Ed Cassidy caused him "concern and dismay," by improperly calling to ask whether his office was investigating allegations of Democratic voter fraud in the gubernatorial election.
This is in direct violation of house ethics rules; as Hastings probably knew- he was Chairman of the House Ethics Committee at the time!
Smith said, "... [to have] made calls on specific investigations- clearly trying to pressure them to pursue Democrats, or Republican interests- a line has clearly been crossed."
Cassidy’s call to McKay, at Rep. Hastings’ behest violates chapter 7 of the House ethics manual, which prohibits members from contacting executive or agency officials regarding the merits of matters under their formal consideration.
Melanie Sloan from the liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics told Reynolds that the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs is the proper liaison between Members and officials for such inquiries.
"Requesting 'background information' or a 'status report,'" she said, "can be an insidious pressure unto itself." (Listen to the KUOW interview here).
Will House sanctions happen against Hastings ? It's doubtful.
Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other.
"And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
A congressman from Alabama once told her, "It's hard to ask a colleague for a vote one day and sit in judgment of him the next."
As examples Sloan cited recently convicted Republican congressmen, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney- there has yet to be an ethics complaint filed against either them- or Democrat William "cold cash" Jefferson, who's liable to be indicted any time.
We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.
I agree that this s/be investigated and pressed to the nth degree. Also, I would like to see our Pres Bush called up before some committee and questioned about the Walter Reed hospital debacle. That really infuriates me; why hasn't he visited and inspected since this came out?
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 02:07 PM
because he doesn't support the troops.
Posted by: prancer | March 10, 2007 at 02:37 PM
...I think may be he's afraid of them also.
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 02:41 PM
That will never happen, Michael. Truth is, there should be clear rules and they should have consequences but the Dems (even though they are currently proud of themselves for dealing with ethics) haven't dealt with anything.
There needs to be an outside oversight committee represented equally by Dems and Republicans with the mandate to investigate any impropriety that is suggested by any source. Followed up by public disclosure of the investigation.
Just like the police investigating themselves. Doesn't work.
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 04:04 PM
DUH! What a novel approach!
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Are you agreeing Duff? Wondering why nobody thought of it? Hmm?
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Yes, I AM agreeing; as long as you don't want an 'independent' investigative force from the UN; now you wouldn't want that, would you?
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Joanie..in a purely unrelated question: in your opinion how does the public school system of Oregon compare with that of Washington?...have any idea on that? [I have grand-children in public school in both states], and I w/be interested in your opinion.
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Duff, I don't know anything more about Oregon's schools than the fact that they give teachers paid days to get in and out of their classrooms. In Seattle, we have one paid day to do all our paperwork and organize our classrooms before leaving for the summer. Portland used to give teachers a week. Don't know about now.
That doesn't help much, does it? Sorry.
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 05:46 PM
That's fine...thank you for answering. In visiting with my g/kids I get interesting questions and very different questions - so I was just wondering. [I get the impression that Oregon stresses the environment more?...don't know but too early to tell, I guess - my g/kids are in early grades]
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 05:50 PM
You should ask Sparky about this because she has worked in areas quite close to Oregon from time to time and knows a lot about Oregon's voting patterns and schools.
I can tell you that I saw a report on Oregon that looked at how the people of Oregon were really starving social services and that probably affects the schools as well. The info I offered in my last post was probably ten or more years ago.
Things may have changed. Lots of tax issues down there . . .
Sparky . . . give us your opinion, please. I'd like to know.
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 06:12 PM
I know this, Joanie - they (parents) certainly have to support the school's athletics more than they do here -both in terms of $ and parental time...at least in our experience.
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Well, that is part of the tax issue down there. I saw a documentary, Duff, that demonstrated how talk radio in Oregon had moved to the right and riled people up and that their social services took a drastic hit. Schools probably got included.
Remember the land issue . . . removing the zoning laws and allowing for development? Well, Oregonians are paying the price and hating it. They are trying to reverse some of it.
That's the problem with hate radio that spews only one side of issues.
I suppose you will say it couldn't all be talk radio but I don't know . . . if people don't find out the facts for themselves, talk radio can be mighty persuasive.
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Interesting, cause (at least in my circle of friends and relatives in Oregon), I can think of no one who listens to what I would classify as 'conservative' talk radio (and I'm assuming here that's what you mean by hate radio). (Course the folks I know down in Oregon are just too busy to be listening to radio...period...ha)
Sparky, indeed if you would weigh in on this, I'd appreciat it.
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 06:31 PM
I taught in oregon for 6 years, but it was a long time ago...oregon schools dont have the testing infrastructure that WAshington does....they dont have a WASL like ours but they do have competency requirements for graduating from high school....but their funding is problematic and the people of oregon are very fickle whenit comes to voting for taxes for schools...and its totally a tax issue, not a dissatisfaction with the school system itself. Portland parents had to come up with a neighborhood levy with their own money to keep the schools open until June three or four years ago..the schools had to close around the middle of April or May because they ran out of operating money and the last area levy they could run had failed.
As far as Oregon emphasizing the environment more...it just depends on the individual school district..most have some sort of environmental studies in science...
Posted by: sparky | March 10, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Very informative, thank you - I appreciate your insight.
Forgive me for getting off-topic, but was interested in your perspective.
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 06:35 PM
My info comes from my sister-in law who teaches in oregon and observing my two nephews. I havent taught in oregon since 1985.
I hope Bla'M can ferret out who is using your name on here, Duffman. Of course, I have my suspicions already. :-)
Posted by: sparky | March 10, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Interesting, Sparky. I, too, remember the funding problem. Didn't they go to a four-day work week for a while?
I bet those teachers don't get a paid week at the end of school anymore.
Posted by: joanie | March 10, 2007 at 06:53 PM
I think all of that is long gone, joanie...
Posted by: sparky | March 10, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Interesting Washington Post article on the impact on journalists over the Libby trial.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 10, 2007 at 07:33 PM
Lead editorial in the NYTimes tommorow calls for impeachment of Gonzales.
Posted by: sparky | March 10, 2007 at 08:05 PM
I think that's warranted; he never should have been in that position in the first place.
Pres Bush needs to start answering some heavy questions...not down is Brazil 'dancing?'
Posted by: Duffman | March 10, 2007 at 08:07 PM
“It seems that every time the American people entrust the Bush administration with some new power, it not only abuses that power but also seizes additional powers without our knowledge”
Posted by: sparky | March 11, 2007 at 09:45 AM
Peasant, find them IP addresses yet.
Also, what are you going to do if and when Hillary or Obama are elected President and do the same thing?
Posted by: Steve | March 11, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Me, I'll say good for them.
Posted by: Steve | March 11, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Steve
Snarky and Ph(J)oanie are hot on the trail. Here is a pic of both of them in action. Snarky and Ph(J)oanie
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 11, 2007 at 08:14 PM
Puts, LMAO.
Phil the "News Junkie" had some gal on talking about the Energy Offset thing and everyone who called in said they thought it was a scam. I don't think Phil was expecting that. He seemed flat when they posed their opinion of it.
Posted by: Steve | March 11, 2007 at 09:17 PM
The following is a portion of my pursuit of this issue. A. and B. are properly give credit to the above post, but C my Url.
WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW? A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan. B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders. ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS!
THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.
End Subject: Election Fixes
BTW: Yes, a Goldy v. Dori may bring me back, I took my blathering elsewhere.
BTW: First time visitor, long time blatherer.
Posted by: Roger | March 11, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Is this better Earl?
Told you I was a first timer.
Posted by: Roger | March 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM
My computer cannot keep up with me but I apologize for the many Urls to Election Fixes, but I will add a comment on the Energy Offset thing. That is way above my pay grade but if that held people back... Oops! I think I made a point already. About looking very carefully at the numbers overall, because like the economy, well that is a deep subject too, but not necessarily a scam. It is about who gets what out of it. And is money really like energy, and you can't get it from nothing?
Well that is the best I can do without head hurting atom spitting. But really my point is that we can input our intentions into any system we create, like the economy and or our government, even corporations. Energy may be another matter. Hmmm? Speaking of connections, my actual field to be? "cultural physicist"
Posted by: Roger | March 11, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Gee, Steve and puts, I see you haven't garnered many responses . . . maybe if you publish your carbon trading research, puts, people might find you more interesting . . .
Just a thought.
Posted by: joanie | March 12, 2007 at 01:39 AM
Ph(J)oanie
Empty pajamas...you make charges then when called on can't back 'em up. It would have been refreshing to have you come back to the board and at least admit you were wrong.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 12, 2007 at 05:07 AM
Ah, Puts has resorted to posting jpegs now. Good to see you use pathetic tactics when words fail ya.
Posted by: coiler | March 12, 2007 at 09:10 AM
Just in- Limbaugh Calling Edwards "The Breck Girl" at Every Opportunity" (T-8 News Service) Disgusting Repuglican gasbag Rush Limbaugh, like a typical taunting schoolyard bully, is trying to make headway with the conservative rabble, by constantly calling the good-looking Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "The Breck Girl". Actually, this tactic has the stink of a Rovian type Repug strategy since at least one other Republican ideologue talkhost,Laura Ingraham, seems to have gotten the same memo. Ingraham, whose modus operandi seems to be touting her Ivy League law degree, and generally feeling superior and disdainful to others, especially callers, has also been heard to constantly refer to Edwards as The Breck Girl. This tactic by the aforementioned Repub hacks and sleazebags combined with "lizardwoman Ann Coulter's recent hate attck on Edwards seems to show that Republicans are more threatened by Edwards condidacy than they let on.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Keeping the gop machine lying awake at night is essential. We have the plans in place for the final solution. Rush and others can put on comic shows entertaining other detainees awaiting their fate...
Posted by: coiler | March 12, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Everyone knows that Edwards is a vainglorious poofter. Hope he's nominated so his prancing in the darkness will be exposed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold | March 12, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Edwards isn't a pufta - he's an ambulance chaser and shister lawyer with the foofy hair.
Ann Coulter put herself in the potty mouth league with Al Franken and Randi Rhodes - shame, shame.
Posted by: KS | March 12, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Hey Tommy and Sparky..Stuff your mock outrage and just be the mindless, delusional little libs you are and read about what your gawd Clinton did back when...
ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. March 24, 1993, Wednesday
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the ...
To read this archive article, upgrade to TimesSelect or purchase as a single article.
Posted by: PeakLimiter | March 13, 2007 at 05:06 PM
Thanks PeakLimiter for yet another ass out of you and me remark. This time, assuming that any liberal/progressive equates Clinton with Cthulu.
Far from it.
I find any/all executive power-grabs to be extremely disturbing - Clinton/Reno included. Where or where have we seen this historical cycle of doom before:
republic/empire/collapse
But obviously Peaklimiter wants to ignore the broader historical implications and play the classic spoiled-little-shit-brat-in-the-sandbox game crying "Mommy mommy mommy, that bad kid did it first"
So go ahead Peaklimiter, orbusmax, drudge et al. A over-powerful Chief Executive loves all his apologist dupes. But your country demands better.
Posted by: mercifurious | March 13, 2007 at 05:42 PM
Our country demands better. BS. Is that why we are seriously considering another Clinton in the White House. Maybe she gets in and after she gets out, we can look at Jeb to run.
The left hates Bush(es) and the right hates Clinton(s).
Maybe it is time to stop this crap and find a new family or two for us to love or hate.
Posted by: chucks | March 13, 2007 at 05:59 PM
peak, you are so last week with your Republican talking points...come on--catch up!
That has already been analyzed, discussed, explained and tossed aside even by Republican-leaning pundits.
Oh, and nice touch to source an article that must be paid for to read....lol....
On the website www.judiciary.house.gov, Kyle Sampson, the #2 who just resigned, admitted in this email to Harriett Meyers:
"...once confirmed by the Senate and appointed,U.S. Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinitely (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose terms had expired, but instead permitted those U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision. There are several likely explanations for this: in some cases Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. Attorneys, who, after all, they had appointed. In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. Attorneys, find suitable replacements (i.e., seek the "advice" of the home-state Senators), complete background investigations, and secure Senate confirmations. "
Posted by: sparky | March 13, 2007 at 06:03 PM
Couldn't peak go back a little further than 93', as in all incoming administrations ask for the resignation of all prosecutors,along with other cabinet memebers. This has been going on for decades. Can't the right admit they don't believe in research AND education, ya know? Quick, get Roosevelt on the phone!
Posted by: coiler | March 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Brilliant, upchucks.
Rebuke my rebuke of PL's shit-stupid assumption by providing 2 more shit-stupid assumptions:
"The left hates Bush(es) and the right hates Clinton(s)."
"Is that why we are seriously considering another Clinton in the White House"
A.) I hate and will always seek to destroy all executive branch & Fed overreaches. Bush is currently in charge and he fulfills executive overreach perfectly. Hate, Seek, Destroy - and for our country's sake, so should you.
B.) Clinton part II faces the same uphill climb as Giuliani. Both popular & has some $$$, but face the real probability that their moderated bubbles will be popped during primaries.
Note: Has anyone here in the Bla'M fam actually given an endorsement for Hillary?
Posted by: mercifurious | March 13, 2007 at 06:24 PM
Not from me.
Posted by: sparky | March 13, 2007 at 06:51 PM
chucks . . . your inability to see beyond the conservative tunnel mystifies me. Is there any conservative you don't like? Hmm, probably Romney.
Posted by: joanie | March 13, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Joanie, your inability to see out the front opening of your cave still mystifies me being educated and all. Did you listen to Randi lie again today. About the morale waiver bit.
Posted by: Steve | March 13, 2007 at 08:20 PM
Poor Kirby Wilbur. awww he's now calling Gonzales and Bush wimps for not combatting the dems over Judgegate, reduced to mindlessly repeating over and over that Clinton fired all U.S. Attorneys the first month of his first term, and playing tapes from old Arnold Schwarzenegger warrior movies to try to rally the KVI "torches and pitchforks" rabble.. Old news, and it has already been dismissed as an argument by fair repubs and dems alike. Every admin. puts their own people in at the start of their reign. Apples and Oranges, Kirbster. These were Bush'es own handpicked people, interfered with and fired during the middle of their duties. I think in his heart old Kirby knows this stinks but he lacks the moral courage to admit it. Sad, really.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 14, 2007 at 06:08 AM
As a talk show host, Kirby Wilbur is a good real-estate appraiser!
Posted by: Duffman | March 14, 2007 at 06:16 AM
Tommy..in the past, the right has been able to repeat something over and over until a lot of people believed it was true. This time around it has proved more difficult but for the few die hard believers. People like Kirby dont know what to do when the spin no longer works.
Posted by: sparky | March 14, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Should Gonzales resign? I think so. (Actually would prefer to see Pres Bush resign, but since that wont happen in this life time, I'll take Gonzales)
Posted by: Duffman | March 14, 2007 at 08:34 AM