Tag Archives: ethics

national news, political news

'Schock and awe' probe could expose others

Aaron Schock is about to leave his congressional office.

The Illinois Republican quit his House seat amid swirling controversy over how he spent lots of public money on extravagant outings around the world. The young man has expensive taste and now it might be that he accepted gifts illegally … allegedly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/aaron-schock-fbi-probe-spending-116257.html?hp=r1_3

A grand jury is looking into it. Congress should examine it, too.

Indeed, the Aaron Schock story suggests there might be a giant iceberg under that ethical tip.

Is he the only member of Congress to live large? Might he be the lone member of either legislative chamber to, um, take staffers on outings that go far beyond their official duties?

A part of me seriously doubts he’s alone in this kind of alleged misbehavior.

I don’t intend here to beat up on Aaron Schock. He’s going to face authorities back home in Peoria, Ill. What’s more, his resignation from the House stunned his colleagues; Speaker John Boehner didn’t know Schock was leaving until he actually announced it publicly.

The one-time rising GOP star, though, is leaving some questions that need answers.

Is he the only one who has done the things he’s been accused of doing?

I doubt it. Is Congress ever going to look inward and start a thorough House-and-Senate cleaning?

 

Uncategorized

The Perry indictment does matter

Glenn Smith directs Progress Texas PAC and believes the indictment handed down by the Travis County grand jury against Gov. Rick Perry matters.

He’s explained why in the essay attached here:

http://tribtalk.org/2014/08/18/why-the-indictment-matters/

Buried in this item is an interesting tidbit that Perry’s supporters need to ponder: The grand jury was not run by a horde of Democrats out to “get” the Republican governor; furthermore, the special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, was selected precisely because he is not a Democratic official. He’s a seasoned lawyer.

That’s an important distinction that should be held up as a reason to treat the indictment seriously and dismiss notions that it’s merely a partisan witch hunt, as Perry himself has implied in his counterattack.

Smith writes: “Lost in all the mooing is the simple thought that savvy, experienced special prosecutor Michael McCrum likely agrees that Perry has the right to veto things he doesn’t like, such as appropriations for the state’s public integrity unit at the Travis County district attorney’s office. McCrum wouldn’t stand by and let the grand jury indict the Constitution. He and the grand jury clearly have something else in mind.”

As for Perry’s public response, let’s also note that the governor has actually threatened the grand jury and the prosecutor by declaring they would be “held accountable.”

The indictment, in my view, won’t result in jail time for the governor. I seriously doubt he’ll get tossed into the slammer. I’m not yet convinced that this case even will go to trial.

The indictment, though, does suggest that a governor’s veto power has its limits. Perry threatened to veto money for the Travis County district attorney’s office public integrity unit after DA Rosemary Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunk driving. As Smith notes, Lehmberg is elected to her office by Travis County voters and is not a Perry appointee. He demanded her resignation. She declined to quit. Perry then cut the funds.

Smith writes: “Then the real fun began. Perry dispatched his agents to offer a series of enticements to Lehmberg — long after the veto was a historical fact and unavailable as possible legal cover for his actions. The law is pretty clear that a public official cannot offer things of value to another public official in return for an official action that benefits the ‘offering’ party.”

Yes, indeed. This drama is going to be fun to watch — with or without a trial.