So, where was the Ethics Committee?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:08 pm

Cunningham as admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes in the last 5 years - cars, boats, mansions, antiques, cash, you name it - and apparently didn't make much of an effort to hide what he was doing (the largest previous bribery case in Congress was Rostenkowski's $500,000). And yet it took a reporter from the San Diego Union Tribune to ask questions about his real estate deal and break the whole thing open.

Isn't the Ethics Committee supposed to be watching out for these kinds of things? If something of this magnitude can slip under their investigatory radar then what good are they? Apparently there's some kind of quid pro quo dealio between the Reps and the Dems, sort of a "I won't investigate you if you won't investigate me" kind of thing. Can these idiots be charged with criminal conspiracy for helping to cover up this kind of corruption?

You have to know that Cunningham isn't the only one, in either party, who's on the take in one way or another. Apparently he's cooperating and spilling his guts right now. What's the over-under on how many more Congressmen get caught up in this?

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:24 am

Mikey wrote:Cunningham as admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes in the last 5 years - cars, boats, mansions, antiques, cash, you name it - and apparently didn't make much of an effort to hide what he was doing (the largest previous bribery case in Congress was Rostenkowski's $500,000). And yet it took a reporter from the San Diego Union Tribune to ask questions about his real estate deal and break the whole thing open.

Isn't the Ethics Committee supposed to be watching out for these kinds of things? If something of this magnitude can slip under their investigatory radar then what good are they? Apparently there's some kind of quid pro quo dealio between the Reps and the Dems, sort of a "I won't investigate you if you won't investigate me" kind of thing. Can these idiots be charged with criminal conspiracy for helping to cover up this kind of corruption?

You have to know that Cunningham isn't the only one, in either party, who's on the take in one way or another. Apparently he's cooperating and spilling his guts right now. What's the over-under on how many more Congressmen get caught up in this?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If they can sweep this quietly under the rug without consequence, why should we be surprised. Like mvscal said...Duke will be doing time! Meanwhile, has anyone heard anything on Berger lately...didn't think so :wink:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:41 am

ChargerMike wrote:

If they can sweep this quietly under the rug...

The Sandy Berger document incident was swept "quietly under the rug"?

Dude, the story made the news here in Canada.

You seriously need to clean the smegma out of your ears and turn of the McNews.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:16 am

Martyred wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:

If they can sweep this quietly under the rug...
The Sandy Berger document incident was swept "quietly under the rug"?

Dude, the story made the news here in Canada.

You seriously need to clean the smegma out of your ears and turn of the McNews.

Bwaa....IT MADE THE NEWS IN CANADER!!...That's epic. How long was Berger on the hot seat for his seditious treasonous act? What price has he paid? Like I said, swept under the rug..

Get back to fixing Canader's unemployment problem. :wink:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:23 am

It made the news. Nobody cared.

You lose.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:03 am

Isn't the Ethics Committee supposed to be watching out for these kinds of things?

No.

They are supposed o invesigate allegations brough before them, not to 'watch out' for anything.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:13 am

Martyred wrote:It made the news. Nobody cared.

You lose.

You made my point...nobody cared.
Now, if it had been...say Trent Lott or Ka-newt who got caught with drooping drawers and confidential documents........wait, those two got run didn't they?

I know you get the "double standard message" Marty, so I guess we can close this one oot..ey!

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:40 am

ChargerMike wrote: I know you get the "double standard message" Marty, so I guess we can close this one oot..ey!

Look comrade, I'm only gonna call this as I see it...

...the current administration is breaking the sound barrier of corruption.
I believe the Abramoff incident, where a crooked lobbyist thought he could play the Christian Right for a bunch of saps* to the delight of his gambling interests is fucking
sickening. Why you idiots can't see beyond the veneer of magnetic ribbons, profit mongering
disguised as free enterprise and Neo Jacobin hucksterism is beyond me.

* (Don't try to spin your way out of this one by claiming I'm being hyper-cynical,
because you know this is exactly how it went down.)

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:51 am

I agree that the Ethics Committee is probably a joke and only looks at something that is brought up under their noses. Got that.

But the neo-Jacobin thing got me wondering. Martyred, are you really serious about that?

http://fpri.org/pubs/orbis.4703.ryn.ide ... empire.pdf

Seems like a reach to me, but what do I know?

Then again there is.....

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050505.asp

1. In Profiling Abramoff, CBS Skips How He Paid for Democrats Too
On the very day the Washington Post reported that "lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid at least a portion of the expenses for two Democratic members of Congress...during a pair of trips in the mid-1990s to the Northern Mariana Islands," CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer set up a Wednesday "Inside Story" look at Abramoff by explaining that "many of the allegations against [House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay revolve around foreign trips he took that were paid for by" Abramoff, as indeed they do, but he and Gloria Borger ignored the fresh information about how Abramoff also paid for the Democratic members. Following Borger's review of Abramoff's dealings with Indian tribes, Schieffer prompted her: "Gloria, this is going beyond Tom DeLay now, isn't it?" But instead of raising the names of the two Democrats and tying them back to Abramoff, Borger just noted that Democrats are "beginning to discover that these rules that say that lobbyists cannot pay for travel are something that perhaps they didn't understand."

I guess that corruption doesn't count if you don't understand that it's wrong.

I'll try that next time the IRS asks me for taxes. I can see it now..."I was just beginning to discover that these rules apply....perhaps I didn't understand".

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:39 pm

That would be expected. I'm sure he'll be audited, or they'll find some skeleton in his closet to drag out.
Just like when the philippines pulled out of Iraq, the BA will find some way of retribution towards those who question him and or his policies.

Gunslinger · Post by **Gunslinger** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:20 am

Martyred wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:

If they can sweep this quietly under the rug...
The Sandy Berger document incident was swept "quietly under the rug"?

Dude, the story made the news here in Canada.

You seriously need to clean the smegma out of your ears and turn of the McNews.

Didn't you guys just recently hold your leaders to the fire?

We are Americans, we know no such things. We will tell you your military is weak and laugh at you for making your leaders look like fools, but please don't tell us that our government would look worse if we has the ability.

I cry and weap as American. IT hurt!

T1B

So, where was the Ethics Committee?

So, where was the Ethics Committee?

Re: So, where was the Ethics Committee?

Re: So, where was the Ethics Committee?

Re: So, where was the Ethics Committee?

Re: So, where was the Ethics Committee?