« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Watchdog Files Ethics Complaint against Hastings, Staffer
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed its third ethics complaint of the prosecutor purge scandal. And this one's a doozy -- it's against Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), the ranking member of the ethics committee, and his former chief of staff Ed Cassidy.
CREW is calling for Hastings to "step down from his position on the committee pending an investigation into his conduct.”
The complaint, of course, involves former U.S. Attorney John McKay's testimony that Ed Cassidy (who currently works for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)) called him about whether his office was investigating charges of voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election. You can see McKay's testimony here.
From CREW's press release:
Mr. Cassidy’s call to Mr. 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. House rules also state that if a member wants to affect the outcome of a matter in litigation, the member can file a brief with the court, make a floor statement, or insert a statement into the Congressional Record. Directly calling officials to influence an on-going enforcement matter is not an option.Moreover, the rules state that a member may not claim he or she was merely requesting “background information” or a “status report” because the House has recognized that such requests “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.”
As I noted before, CREW's complaint does not automatically trigger an investigation. But it certainly puts the issue squarely before the Dem leadership -- should Hastings remain on the ethics committee?
Comments (6)
too stupid ot hold office wrote on March 8, 2007 2:08 PM:Rep. Doc Hastings.... What a goof.
I'm waiting for the guy to say next: "but we always lean on people, it's how we run Washington!"
It's pretty clear he broke an important rule, a rule he's supopsed to oversee on the ethics committee, and is apparently too intellectually and/or ethically challenged to even realize it.
He needs to go. Rule #1 of the ethics committee should be: chair it with people who actually know, respect, and follow: the rules. (duh)
Glenn wrote on March 8, 2007 2:27 PM:But it certainly puts the issue squarely before the Dem leadership -- should Hastings remain on the ethics committee?
Why is this a question for the Dem leadership? Isn't it up to the GOP to decide who its members on the Ethics Committee are?
bob wrote on March 8, 2007 2:48 PM:committee membership is decided ---->
Many Republicans had immediately voiced their displeasure with Rep. Hefley and the Ethics Committee after their admonishment DeLay in October 2004. [35] When Congress reconvened in 2005, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) replaced Hefly as committee chairman, citing House Rules 10.(5)(a)(3)(C) and 10.(5)(a)(3)(D). In his place Hastert installed Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.). Hastings was known to be a staunch ally of Hastert and the Republican leadership and had received money from DeLay's PAC.[36] Hefly had anticipated the move, stating that he did not expect to retain the chairmanship given his role in the DeLay admonishment. [37] He was quoted as saying that there was a “bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did.” [38]
do a search for house rule X on google and reference the above rule numbers....the rules for picking members are on the web.
dj wrote on March 8, 2007 2:54 PM:Is it actually true that the FIRST U.S. Attorney fired by the neo-Tammany hall is not a prominent part of the current story?
This older chapter of the story has a lot more than just congressmen going to jail, tying in all of the fun parts of recent scandals, and even providing some material for the national media to be shocked, shocked, I say, at appalling conditions (with little U.S. Flags sewn onto them).
After all, "...Jack Abramoff wanted to take the credit for getting rid of the chief federal prosecutor for U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean", from a story "Abramoff sought credit for work he didn’t do", MSNBC, Joel Seidman, June 30, 2006.
Frederick Black was the interim U.S. attorney for the territories. The story also said "Black told FBI agents investigating the wide-ranging influence-peddling scandal spawned by Abramoff that he was replaced because he stirred political controversy by starting his own, earlier probe of Abramoff."
And Hastings was involved in this for along time, see Lawmaker in DeLay Inquiry Tied to Lobbyist", AP, June 8, 2005. Also, the Charlie Brown congressional campaign (ran against Dolittle) sent out a bit of info on these issues, see "Campaign 2006: Brown Campaign releases records...", Sept. 27, 2006.
Hey-- Talking Points Memo was where I found out about this MAJOR scandal.
focus on Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 3:02 PM:SPECTER! PATRIOT ACT!
TPM and all blogs, please, focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!
He's the embodiment of 'conflict of interest.' He's essentially investigating himself as his PATRIOT provision was the corner stone of this whole scandal, intentional or not.
He's clearly attempting to downplay/stonewall the scandal, as he did Iglacias, to cover his own ass.
This needs immediate media attention before the media forgets or investigators lose their nerve and let Specter and everyone else off the hook.
Focus on the backstory of Specter and the PATRIOT act now, and call his impartiality directly into question, so he stops stonewalling!
Lame Man wrote on March 9, 2007 11:58 AM:Seems like this could be shorthand for an era (or post-era, whatever):
So corrupt that the head GOP ethics committee guy had ethics complaints about him.