Yesterday, the Washington Post broke a blockbuster. A memo was leaked detailing all the current House Ethics Committee investigations. And guess what, most of them are Democrats. In fact, the only Republican mentioned in it was Sam Graves, who has been cleared by the Committee.
So what did we learn? The Post says, regarding the inquiry of lawmakers tied to PMA, a now defunct lobbying shop, that “the inquiry was broader than initially believed”. And we learned that there is yet another investigation of Charlie Rangel:
Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker’s top aide and his son. Rangel said he spoke with ethics committee staff members regarding a conference that he and four other members of the Congressional Black Caucus attended last November in St. Martin. The trip initially was said to be sponsored by a nonprofit foundation run by a newspaper. But the three-day event, at a luxury resort, was underwritten by major corporations such as Citigroup, Pfizer and AT&T. Rules passed in 2007, shortly after Democrats reclaimed the majority following a wave of corruption cases against Republicans, bar private companies from paying for congressional travel.
This is in addition to all the other problems that Rangel has, including his not disclosing bank accounts, breaking New York City laws about rent control, and his holding hostage Puerto Rican grandmas for his rum buddies.
David Corn at Politics Daily has a smart take that Rangel will ultimately become a symbol of a corrupt Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi’s broken promise to drain the swamp.
Why might the Post article and this widening investigation of ties between lawmakers and lobbyists — neither of which relate to Rangel — matter for him? Though the probe has not yet found any of these House members guilty of wrongdoing, this episode will place pressure on Pelosi and her colleagues to show they’re not a party of sleaze. Consequently, Rangel is more vulnerable to the Republican’s campaign against him. If the PMA investigation heats up, he would make a great sacrificial lamb. And if the GOP continues to pursue Rangel, his party, burdened by this other ethics investigation, will have a tougher time protecting him.
7 Comments
neil · November 5, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I don’t claim to know anything about whether your claims are true or not, but didn’t the Clintons undergo a rather substantial financial investigation throughout the ’90s which failed to turn anything up?
ee2793 · November 5, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Dear pro-amnesty Hillary lover,
To the reasonable viewer, the ad highlight’s MR’s experience. Way to miss the point.
eye · November 5, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Stop being deliberately ignorant. This is the third time this attack has happened.
We will lose if we do this.
We need candidates who don’t roll around in the mud with the pigs.
Ankle Biting Pundits · November 6, 2007 at 6:51 AM
[…] Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy ask suggestively in yesterday’s New York Times whether there are “[d]ifferent rules when a rival is a woman?” Having worked in politics for a long time I can tell you that there most certainly is a different set of rules (for example, unfunny jokes about her husband’s sex life should be off limits, if a Republican victory is the goal). That said, playing the victim card is always a risky push back strategy. Nevertheless, the Hillary forces play it for all it’s worth: Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are accusing rival candidates and the questioners of “piling on,” to use the words of the Clinton campaign, at the debate, which rattled the Clinton camp. They noted that John Edwards had been especially critical of Mrs. Clinton. […]
Because She’s a Woman? | No Hillary Clinton · November 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
[…] Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy ask suggestively in yesterday’s New York Times whether there are “[d]ifferent rules when a rival is a woman?” Having worked in politics for a long time I can tell you that there most certainly is a different set of rules (for example, unfunny jokes about her husband’s sex life should be off limits, if a Republican victory is the goal). That said, playing the victim card is always a risky push back strategy. Nevertheless, the Hillary forces play it for all it’s worth: […]
eyeon08.com: “Mitt Romney should be ashamed of himself, not that he’s capable of that. And not that he’s at any risk of winning the presidency anyways.” « who is willard milton romney? · November 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM
[…] Nov 7, 2007 in 2008, GOP, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, campaign management, election 2008, gaffs and pratfalls, incompetence, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreasonTags: blaming, eyeon08.com, language of blame, president bill clinton, scolding, Sen. Hillary Clinton … “Romney is classing this election up by attacking Hillary Clinton over sex with his “internship” line. I want to be clear about something, writes eye in an eyeon08.com post titled Romney plays for the gutter; attacks Hillary over sex We will lose with this kind of behavior. We will get crushed with this kind of behavior. […]
eyeon08.com » How to Beat the Bitch · November 13, 2007 at 6:05 PM
[…] Where "bitch" clearly means "Hillary Rodham Clinton." John McCain gives the answer. With respect and dignity. Unlike Mitt Romney’s attacking her over sex. […]
Comments are closed.