CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Dems embrace culture of corruption -- support Rangel in corruption scandal

Democrat, or should that be Corruptocrat, leaders, including Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Governor David Patterson and Governor wannabe Andrew Cuomo, are throwing a big fundraising birthday party for ethically challenged Charles Rangel.

The Corruptocrat Rangel bash is being thrown despite the fact that the House ethics committee, after a two-year investigation, finally revealed 13 "major" charges of ethical violations against Rangel, which the committee said it substantiated in a 41-page Statement of Alleged Violation. 

Rangel now faces a formal public trial before a House ethics subcommittee for the alleged violations.

The last House trial of a member was for James A. Traficant, Democrat of Ohio, in 2002. Traficant, convicted on criminal corruption charges, expelled from Congress and served a prison term.

Rangel is charged with violating the letter and spirit of House rules by engaging in conduct that:

• Violated the solicitation and gift ban;
• Violated the code of ethics for government service;
• Violated the House gift rule;
• Violated U.S. Postal Service laws and Franking Commission regulations;
• Violated House Office Building Commission’s regulations;
• Violated the Purpose Law and the Member’s Congressional Handbook; and,
• Violated the Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI.

The charges themselves are grouped into four categories.

1. That Rangel solicited money for his nonprofit “Rangel Center for Public Service” from people doing business before his committee.
2. That Rangel repeatedly filed inaccurate and misleading financial-disclosure statements.
3. That Rangel used for campaign purposes a New York City rent-controlled apartment that was only supposed to be used as a residence.
4. That Rangel failed to report and pay taxes on rental income he received from a vacation property he owns in the Dominican Republic

Will Corruptocrat, leaders throw a fundraiser for Maxine Waters next?

You can read a list of the Rangel Charges here and the response from Rangel's lawyers here.

The Times Violates Its Policy on Ethics in Journalism

As revealed by my RedState colleague Soren Datyon, Ed Morrissey catches the New York Times attempting to extort an invitation to a presser with the McCain campaign:

It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate, and they decided not to extend an invitation to the Times for the media pool at the release of the medical records on Friday. According to my source close to the part of the campaign that deals with these issues, they have invited a variety of media outlets, including national-reach newspapers, wire services, and cable-news networks into the pool, but told the Times that they would not receive any credentials for the event.

This prompted a conversation between one Times editor and the campaign staff. Again according to the source, the editor told the campaign that the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.

The McCain campaign did not cave, in the face of the Times threats and promises. That is clear from the Elisabeth Bullimer and Lawerence K. Altman hit job just published on the Times website.

The news organizations in the pool, selected by the campaign, include ABC News, The Arizona Republic, The Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, Reuters, The Washington Post and, possibly, a newsmagazine.

Each organization is allowed two representatives and is expected to file a “pool report” for other reporters detailing the information in the records.

The so-called news organization took a "negative view about the release of the records," just as Morrissey reported the Times threatened to do.

As if extortion isn't bad enough, in some cases it can be a crime, this unprofessional conduct constitutes a clear violation of paper's Policy on Ethics in Journalism:

A2. How We Gather the News

21. We treat news sources fairly and professionally. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone's personal life. We do not threaten to damage uncooperative sources, nor do we promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. We do not pay for interviews or unpublished documents: to do so would create an incentive for sources to falsify material and would cast into doubt the genuineness of much that we publish.

The McCain campaign certainly has plenty of reason not to trust the Times. Remember, the Times held a story for months, endorsed McCain to be the Republican Presidential nominee, and when he became the presumptive nominee the Times published a gutter story implying, with so little evidence -- none except two unnamed, disgruntled campaign workers -- that the Times' unprofessionalism became the story, the Senator engaged in some sort of impropriety.

Then there was the story falsely alleging McCain lost his temper, which was discredited by this video.

Finally, there is the earlier "news article" and an editorial attacking McCain over his medical records.

Is it not way past time for the Times to comply with its "Rules of the Road" and "uphold the highest journalistic, business and personal ethics?"

Also posted at Right Side Politics.

Spitzer Follows Familiar Script

Washington Post correspondent, Libby Copeland, reminds us that we have seen it all before:

First, we watch the news conference. There's Spitzer, with his wife by his side. He says, "I want to briefly address a private matter." Then he expresses remorse (albeit vaguely) and promises to "dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."

Then, we call Mark Geragos, the high-profile criminal defense attorney, who -- as it happens -- has not actually seen the news conference. He proceeds to describe the news conference that he has not seen.

"You've got to have the dutiful wife and you have to have the 'it's a private matter,' " Geragos says. "And remorse for the past and plans for the future."

[. . .]

"If you don't have the spouse with you, the signal sent is one of abject debauchery and guilt," says Eric Dezenhall, a crisis management consultant. "When the wife or the family is with you, that suggests, well, somebody close to this person loves them and thinks they're worthwhile."

The early signs suggest that, unlike former New Jersey Governor McGreevy, Spitzer will pull a Clinton and fight to remain in office.

Governor Spitzer's Sex Scandal

By now I'm sure you have heard about New York Democratic Governor Spitzer's Sex Scandal.

The New York Times was first to break the story that Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet at a Washington hotel room with a prostitute from a call-girl business known as the Emperors Club VIP.

The following video report from "NBC Nightly News" summarizes what is now known about Spitzer's fall:

I fell sorry for Spitzer's wif and three daughters. I have no sympathy for Mr. Spitzer. As they say, he made his bed . . . .

Will Spitzer resign like former New Jersey Governor McGreevy, or will Spitzer pull a Clinton and fight to remain in office?

Democrat Of Hypocrisy Chris Murphy Continues To Break Promises

Last year, when he was running for Congress, Democrat Chris Murphy railed against special interest money in Washington.

Now that Murphy represents Connecticut's 5th Congressional District, he's changed his tune. Radio spots are taking the liberal freshman to task for his hypocrisy:

"In 2006," a stern-voiced announcer says, "Chris Murphy preached against special interest money in Washington."

The ad then runs a clip of Murphy urging voters to "get lobbyists' money and special interest money out of elections."

The announcer returns, saying that "Chris Murphy got to Washington and changed his tune," taking cash "from the same type of special interests he preached against."

You can listen to the radio spot here.

According to the Hartford Courant, Murphy so far this year has received $347,600 from political action committees, the political arms of corporations, labor unions and politicians.

The New Britain Herald reports that Murphy's "total haul from special-interest and lobbyist money is over $450,000."

Ken Spain, press secretary for National Republican Congressional Committee, which sponsored the Murhpy spots, said that "whether Chris Murphy is taking money from Washington lobbyists hand over fist or missing a key vote on ethics and lobbying reform, he continues to break the promises he made to Connecticut voters on the campaign trail every day." Spain stressed that Murphy "promised change, but so far, all he has delivered is business-as-usual in Washington. It's time to hold him to account."

Murphy fancies himself as an ethics and campaign finance reform leader. But, in true hypocritical form, he initially missed the lobbying reform bill vote even though during the 2006 campaign he stated that missing any vote was “inexcusable.”

Murphy continues his hypocrisy offering several tall tales excuses for the “inexcusable” missed vote:

“Inexcusable” Excuse 1:
Murphy had first explained that he “got caught up in conversation off the floor.”

“Inexcusable” Excuse 2:
However, Murphy then told the Hartford Courant “he did not remember where he was.”

“Inexcusable” Excuse 3:
Murphy's latest inexcusable excuse for missing the vote is that he had “no idea how I missed the vote" on the lobbying reform legislation.

There is hope that Murphy's promise breaking hypocrisy can be brought to an end. Republican State Senator David Cappiello is challenging the Democrat of hypocrisy in the 2008 Congressional election.

Pelosi Commits Dems To Ethics Reform First

Speaker-to-be Pelosi released a statement today committing the Democrats to ethics reform as "the first order of business" in the 110th Congress.

This from the Democratic leader who forgot about the culture of corruption when she endorsed John Murtha, called one of the most unethical members of Congress byCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics, to be Majority Leader.

Pelosi is likely to find real reform to be easier said than done. Just two days ago, the Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required) reported that while the Democrats are promising big changes in lobbying rules, they are divided over whether to create an outside investigative office to review ethics complaints or leave enforcement to members

An independent office of Public Integrity that would vet Senate ethics complaints and investigate those it deemed serious was proposed earlier this year by now "Independent Democratic" Senator Lieberman and Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins. That proposal was soundly rejected by the Senate in a 70 to 30 bipartisan landslide. Among those opposing such an independent office was incoming Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Democratic leaders are discussing new ethics rules that include bans on gifts and meals from lobbyists and lobbying organizations, and more frequent disclosure reports:

Former members who become registered lobbyists would be prohibited from seeking help on legislation from their congressional colleagues for two years and denied access to the House and Senate floors. Today, lawmakers-turned-lobbyists can mingle with their former colleagues inside the chambers during debates and votes.

The proposed packages in both the House and Senate would curtail, if not ban, travel paid for by lobbyists and organizations that lobby. House leaders say they would prohibit lawmakers from using corporate planes for official travel. Both chambers are expected to require members to identify hometown projects they insert into spending bills.

House and Senate leaders are mulling creating an office to monitor lobbyists' disclosure reports, or enhancing the powers of existing offices to take on that job.

The Wall Street Journal reports that earlier this year Pelosi proposed enhancing the powers of Congress's inspector general's office to handle lobbyists disclosure reports, but wasn't willing to extend that office's jurisdiction to ethics allegations against members of Congress. Pelosi is now considering backing the idea of a stronger independent office. Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan are considering an independent review if Pelosi doesn't include it in her ethics-overhaul agenda.

An "independent office" isn't any more likely to control ethics than the Federal Election Commission has been able to control campaign funding.