Lofgren's Silver Lining
Jay is right; the leak itself is a bad thing. But can I just say there is some terrific news in here? The Ethics Committee is doing its job! As you might recall, that was not the case all that long ago.
UPDATE: I just chatted with Fred Wertheimer, president and founder of the watchdog group Democracy 21, and he agrees: "The lead here is it shows a remarkable amount of activity in the Ethics Committee compared with the past." And for that, he credits the new Office of Congressional Ethics:
That office was established in 2008, as part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise in the 2006 election to "drain the swamp." Up until then, the Ethics Committee had become a place where corruption allegations went to die -- generally without a trace. The idea was to give an independent group the authority to review ethics allegations and make recommendations to the committee--and to give the committee a strong incentive to at least take a serious look at these matters. If the committee failed to act, the Office of Congressional Ethics' report would become public.
The whole point of the new procedures was to provide "a new form of transparency and accountability" to the Ethics Committee, Wertheimer said. "They're in a very different situation than they were in the past."
Here's how the process works, once the office gets a complaint:
• Preliminary reviews are initiated by 2 Board members (one nominated by the Speaker, one nominated by the Minority Leader) submitting written notice to all other board members. Board must notify both the person who is the subject of the review and the Ethics Committee at each step in process. Preliminary review phase is 30 calendar or 5 legislative days, whichever is longer. 3 Board members must vote affirmatively to move forward to second-phase review. Otherwise, the preliminary review is terminated and no publication is required.
• A second-phase review is 45 calendar or 5 legislative days, whichever is longer, with one extension of 14 calendar days possible. All matters subject to a second-phase review must be referred to Ethics Committee for its review.
• Referrals to Ethics Committee will be accompanied by two documents: (1) a Report, which recommends dismissal, further inquiry, or states that the Board vote was a tie, and (2) Findings of fact. Neither document shall contain conclusions regarding the validity of the allegations or the guilt or innocence of the person subject to the review – such matters are the sole purview of the Ethics Committee.
From there it goes to the Ethics Committee itself, where this happens:
Committee has 45 calendar or 5 legislative days from date of referral to review the matter, whichever is longer. One extension of 45 calendar or 5 legislative days is available. On most matters, at the end of the time, the Ethics Committee must issue commentary on status, along with the Report and Findings of the Board.
• On matters both the Board and Ethics Committee agree should be dismissed, no publication is required. If the Ethics Committee defers its review of a matter at the request of an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority (e.g., Justice Dept.), an announcement of such deferral is required.
• If the Ethics Committee establishes an investigative subcommittee, only that fact is publicized. If no conclusion after one year, the Board's Report is published. Board Findings are published at close of that Congress.
• If the Ethics Committee requests that the Board refer a matter prior to completion of its review, it is still subject to the time limits and reporting requirements set forth above.
A number of commenters have challenged my assertion that leaks are a bad thing in the course of this process. Given the fact that many of these allegations in the past have been made for political rather than substantive reasons, it does seem reasonable to create a process in which the initial investigation is done in private. Additionally, confidentiality is likely to make it easier for witnesses to come forward with evidence.
-
1
Thanks, KT. I had commented at Jay's post about leak concerns and sloppy security – lost laptops / drives, etc., let alone careless handling, good example below (I presume you, Jay, and Amy don't do this). Both seriously and rhetorically (sorry for often asking impossible questions), how many govt./ biz leaks happen daily? …and happy Halloween to you and your colleagues. What's your costume for Beggar's Night and upcoming parties?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30068005-
1.1
From my point of view? Not nearly enough leaks!
.
I was thinking of dressing up as Octomom, but I haven't gotten my costume (or my act) together. Also, I'm afraid I would scare the little kids who come to my front door. -
1.2
…that would be hilarious, go for it! (at Jay's post I guessed you'd be Emma Peel / Diana Rigg from “The Avengers”, sorry about that). Here's a great Octomom DIY outfit – http://uncommonpics.com/pic-5113-Octomom-Halloween-costume
-
1.3
I can see why villagers need leaks, they don't do so well connecting dots with information already out in the public, beyond the GOP talking points that seem to be all the rage. Perhaps if they let Jon Stewart set the agenda in the same they let Matt Drudge we'd be alright. If nothing else they would probably ask a few more pointed questions, and it would be okay to simply print the answers. I can see it now, Senator Lieberman, you claim to be taking a stand to do what is right for your constituency who would that be exactly? Do you think its ethical to openly pledge to stump for Republican candidates, when voters in your state clearly demonstrated that they no longer wanted members of the GOP in office when they voted them out? If annually nearly 45,000 Americans die from no health insurance, how many live in Connecticut? So how many will die if you oppose health reform legislation? Can you 9imagine the answers to those questions - hm I don't know, that's not the point, that's not what's important etc. How specifically do Connecticut voters benefit from your opposition to health reform? Is it ethical to support an industry that financially benefits both your campaign and your family coffers? that's right, they could use a few more when did you stop beating your wife questions -- news flash: they are wife beaters!
-
-
2
"Jay is right; the leak itself is a bad thing."
.
You must be kidding or sarcastic? Why?
.
Nothing that protects the American public from the corruption in Washington can ever be "a bad thing".-
2.1
I'm only speculating here Rusty, but I think your chances of catching a criminal are better when the criminal doesn't know you're watching. Divulging who is under investigation probably compromised all of the cases. Since the majority of these are against Democrats, I'm surprised you're not more upset.
-
-
3
"The Ethics Committee is doing its job!"
.
Maybe so, but Pelosi, who promised to drain the swamp isn't so long as Rangel is still chairman of Ways and Means. -
4
"The Ethics Committee is doing its job!"
.
I'm sorry but I don't see this as the ethics committee doing its job. Its' job is done in way too much secrecy and the people they are investigating are accountable to the voters of the districts that put them in the congress in the first place.
.
Until it can explain to me why the voters having to hope for a leak to find out what is really going on is a good thing I will call bullsh*t on the entire facade.-
4.1
Yes!!! gysgt. I totally agree!!! Amen!!!
.
The problem with the Press in general. They see this as something that is against the "House rules". Well unfortunately, House rules are simliar to those in Las Vegas. Whatever benefits the "House" is what should be done.
.
Forget about what is in the best interests of the people in the districts of the Congress person.
.
This is one clear example how the Press fails us. How our so-called Representatives fail us. And how they both work together, the Press and Representatives in a clear example with Karen's agreement with JNS that this was a "bad thing" because it was "leaked".
.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Karen Tumulty, and swamplanders should demand an apology! -
4.2
Guys, I think you're being a little unfair to KT. Clearly, there is a need for secrecy, lest publicity obstruct fairness. That said, I don't really care. Nice to see pols get theirs.
-
-
5
KT
"The Ethics Committee is doing its job!"
So Time is turning into a comic magazine? I will grant you it make take awhile to dig through the sludge to get to the bottom of Countrywide and Dodd and Conrad. Throw a dart at any IRS agent , give them 15 minutes and Charlie Rangel would be history- but not with the ethics committee.
-
5.1
That's right freeinpa, the real question, since Rangel's dealings are an open book, is why the NY State Tax Dept and the IRS haven't gone after him.
Both the IRS and NYState have means by which tax fraud can be reported. People should overwhelm these entities with requests to nail this tax cheat. I've done it. Will others?
-
5.2
If you guys want to pursue tax cheats then you also want to pursue those rich folks who hid their money in UBS and other Swiss banks, yes?
-
5.3
Absolutely deconstructiva. Anyone who is not fullfilling their obligation to pay their fair share of taxes should be castigated.
.
The easiest solution. Pass a flat tax rate for all people and businesses. PERIOD! -
5.4
rusty, I agree with you on the flat tax. Lest those on the Left think it's just a RW / Steve Forbes issue, remember that flaming liberal Jerry Brown has been a fan of the FT for years. Above a minimum income floor, *everyone* pays their fair share, no exceptions, no loopholes. That's the key. Beats the crappy system we have now.
-
5.5
I'm glad that you agree D. I wish more people on the left and right would do more, at least on this one issue.
.
We are all getting screwed royally by those in leadership in Washington. In my attendance and activity within the Tea Party movement, this is the one issue that you can get agreement and see both Democrats and Republicans alike protesting.
.
Perhaps this is one issue that we can get to the forefront again, and elect honest decent people who have our interests at heart and not the special interest groups. -
5.6
Wow. This particular comment has turned into a lunatic fringe circle.....
-
-
6
deconstructiva, I want the tax code enforced, period. Full stop.
.
Will you be sending a note to the IRS about Rangel. I have.-
6.1
The newest Tea Party protests ARE collecting letters to take to our representatives in Washington, pehaps you can meet the bus, deconstructiva to send your letter that way!
-
-
7
Only in our village would a leak about possible corrupt politicians, (lets be honest here, under ethics investigation is a pretty cover word for corrupt) be seen as a bad thing. The leak is a good thing. The toothless ethics committee, secrecy and enabling by the press is a bad thing.
-
7.1
So gunny, the IRS has means by which taxpayers can report, anonymously, on tax cheats. Will you be sending one in about Rangel. I have.
-
7.2
Gunny: I think a leak is a bad thing if it involves an incomplete investigation. This is why grand jury proceedings are secret.
-
7.3
Good point, KT. Violation of grand jury secrecy is contempt of court and can get you room and board in the slammer. Note, however, that in the federal system the persons who testify to the grand jury are not ordinarily bound by secrecy, only the jurors and government officials working with them. The court can and does impose additional secrecy in an appropriate case, but that happens only rarely.
As for reporting tax cheats, you get no bonus points for tattling on someone for behavior that's already well known, so reporting Rangel to the IRS accomplishes nothing. The IRS wants to hear from you about your high-living neighbors who are proud of hiding their income from the taxman. That's right, folks -- rat out your friends and neighbors. (Even if that's a good idea, it's not what spob is doing with Rangel.)
-
7.4
Thanks for the response KT-But why? This isn't like a grand jury, besides we often know grand juries are investigating this or that and who might be involved.
.
These people are public servants and knowing they are under investigation is not the same as knowing they are guilty of something, but it is important to know. -
7.5
Sometimes these allegations against elected officials are politically motivated. My comment earlier about leaks was meant as a joke. I do think that the committee should be able to do its work in secrecy, so that it can sort out what are and aren't legitimate allegations. To let them out is playing into the hands of people who make false chargest for political reasons. That said, I'm assuming you actually have a functioning Ethics Committee, which isn't always the case.
-
-
8
"Gunny: I think a leak is a bad thing if it involves an incomplete investigation. This is why grand jury proceedings are secret."
.
First KT, this isn't a "grand jury". This is a group of other Congressmen and women who are investigating another, fellow Congressman or woman. The unfortunate thing is that we all know that these proceedings are done in total private and outside of the voter / citizen view. In doing it this way, they save further scrutiny within their own districts.
.
Should we have our courts of law also held in secret? I believe in fairness, and someone is innocent until proven guilty. However, what we are talking about is exposing corruption. Perhaps if the public knew more, and the "hearings" were more in public, then the public will demand more from their elected Representatives.
.
The "hearings" will be held every November, on election day.
.
If you can even say that this was a "bad thing", then you must also believe that Watergate was also a "bad thing" and deep throat should have never disclosed to Post journalists Bernstein and Woodward. Is that what you are saying KT? Please tell me the difference.-
8.1
This is an investigation. Once the committee decides whehter to proceed, there is a public process for disciplining members. Please see my comment above this one.
-
8.2
Another reason to do this in secret is to encourage witnesses to come forward without fear of reprisal--which is no small concern, considering that you are dealing with charges against very powerful individuals and interests.
-
8.3
Also, I didn't cover Watergate, but I did cover Iran-Contra. The Walsh investigation was done in secret, as was much of the initial congressional investigation.
-
8.4
Again, we can agree to disagree. The rules in the House and Senate are what rule the day for secrecy or openness. I just happen to believe in a democracy that affords openness. .
.
Secrecy usually will allow the guilty to get off scot free for their transgressions. I know political games can be played, but all politicians know that going into that game. Exposure in my opinion or the threat of exposure usually will keep them honest, and acts as a deterrent to corruption.
.
I am a firm believer if you are doing everything as a politician on the up and up, then you should also have no fear of anything to hide in secrecy.
.
You mix judicial appropriateness with how a fully open and democratic government should be run.
.
But, I do thank you for your responses to comments. It does provide for livelier debate. -
8.5
rustyreturns "UPDATE":
."C. Referrals to the Ethics Committee
No matter has reached the end of a second-phase review as of the date of this report. As a result, the Board has not yet voted on whether to refer any matter under review to the Ethics Committee.".
Hopefully once the "secrecy veil" is lifted, someone at TIME will afford us the opportunity to review the report that finds any wrong doing in our Congress!
.
Or, will I be so old as to read anything because of my macular degeneration?
.
I rest my case.
-
-
9
Thank you KT for your comments under #8. I also think the investigation should be private (as is the case with District or US attorneys, for example) and once it is decided that charges are warranted, all further proceedings should be public. I also agree that secrecy at that point allows witnesses to come forward that might not otherwise be willing to.
In my opinion Iran-Contra is an example of an investigation that began properly, but was so politicized as to be meaningless after it was public.
-
10
KT's right. The secrecy of witnesses is very important.
-
11
I have to agree with KT on this one. I know we get frustrated by with the perception that all are doing wrong -- Just remember that's because our system is based on the premise that we'd prefer the guilty go free than mistakenly lock up an innocent person. Well I've see a lot of innocent people released after many years and I hear Rick Perry still dodging questions about the innocent guy they killed in Texas. So when we claim that we don't care about secrecy and fairness, just remember that's fine as long as you are talking about somebody else ask the folks in Gitmo about what happens when its you? In this country we are innocent until proven guilty. It's already hard enough to defend yourself when the assumptions is supposedly innocence. If we start leaking partial and information then what -- we do have a tendency to be judgemental and jump to conclusions. Right now you have prosecutors in Illinois issuing subpoenas to journalism students in Illinois because of the innocence project, pissed off that got some innocent guy off after 20 years on death row. If the government wants to come after you legally, you have to align some pretty powerful resources to combat it, let's not advocate giving them anymore power otherwise the whole place could start looking like Gitmo.
-
12
I just chatted with Fred Wertheimer about all this. Update going up shortly.
-
13
Clearly, there is a need for secrecy, lest publicity obstruct fairness.
.
Surprisingly enough spob and I agree on something. Accusations are incredibly easy to make. Ditto reprisals against accusers. If there's something there, then disclosure is in order but not before an independent determination has been sought.... -
14
Freeinpa,
I think we can see the ethics committee is doing its job because:
A) There are ethic complains
B) They are currently investigating them.Things you would expect to find in a large organisation such as the government. Now, if the staffers computer had been hacked and there was proof that the ethics comittee had been actioning very few ethics complaints or quickly closing them along political lines, I think you could argue they were not doing their job.
As for if it should be done in secrecy, I agree with both rusty and KT. I think in a more perfect world, or a world where politicians tried to live up to some code of ethics public hearings would make sense. Staffers would not worry about getting dismissed if they brought breaches to the Ethics committee. Nobody would lodge a complaint with the ethics committee that was politically motivated.
It would be nice (and make great reading) to be fully informed of what is happening. Unfortunately, that appears not to be an accurate depiction of reailty. Like KT said, secrecy makes people forward to testify. I assume political offices sometimes operate like companies, even if it's the truth and even what they are doing is illegal or wrong, the person who mentions it can lose their job.
I mean, if your political masters are willing to question Obama's birth certificate or say the free market is perfect despite what happened last year, it's highly likely that they won't lose any sleep over a creative dismissal of an employee for being 'too honest' to the ethics committee.
-
15
"Additionally, confidentiality is likely to make it easier for witnesses to come forward with evidence."
.
"Preliminary reviews are initiated by 2 Board members (one nominated by the Speaker, one nominated by the Minority Leader) submitting written notice to all other board members. Board must notify both the person who is the subject of the review and the Ethics Committee at each step in process."
.
So, if the subjects of the review are notified how are witnesses protected by this? Is there a way for committee to protect the witnesses?"A number of commenters have challenged my assertion that leaks are a bad thing in the course of this process. Given the fact that many of these allegations in the past have been made for political rather than substantive reasons, it does seem reasonable to create a process in which the initial investigation is done in private."
.
KT-A lot of folks in this country are accused of crimes and even arrested on false allegations all the time. Every thing from rape to child abuse. Some have their kids taken from them on false allegations and it all happens in public. So I don't see as compelling that allegations are made for political rather than substantive reasons as an excuse for this process happening in secrecy. If that is a problem than it should be addressed.
.
all of the issues you raise are important and should be of concerned however, there is nothing in my opinion that assures me that what Wertheimer said is happening now is actually happening. The rules changed or ignored without our knowledge.-
15.1
Again you point out great concerns that I have as well, gysgt.
.
Possibly the disagreement is between keeping investigations "secret" versus the complaints or allegations. I see it as two separate issues.
.
Investigations in both the judicial sense and in the case of investigating a Congress person can and should be kept as secret as possible to avoid KT's concerns of witnesses not coming forward to testify.
.
But, if an allegation or complaint is made, then this should be made public as soon as possible, simply for the fact that someone out there may know of some other act committed, and come forward with the information knowing that this Congress person is under investigation.
.
Openness in any democracy in my mind trumps anything else.
.
"If you fear the time, don't do the crime" -
15.2
"If you fear the time, don't do the crime"
.
Rusty-I think when you are an elected official or an appointed official, judge, serving on a jury, school teacher, clergy, police officer and I'm sure we could probably agree or more, it should be incumbent on you by virtue of the special level of trust that you enjoy in that position to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest and or doing something inappropriate. In positions like these you have great amount of power and influence. Is it really asking that much?
.
Is not ethics all about avoiding the appearance that people can't trust you?
.
And yes the details of the investigation should be kept secret (who you are talking to or what docs or evidence you are reviewing) but not the nature or who is being investigated. Didn't some of these new rules come about in part because of the botched Foley incident?
-
- ktumulty freshman senators are on the senate floor trying to put more "reform" in the health bill. will they get 60 votes? #hcr http://bit.ly/8HTPuq - 15 hours ago
- ktumulty Is swine flu turning out to be the Y2K of epidemics? - 17 hours ago
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill" - http://tinyurl.com/ykwdygf - 1 day ago
Most Popular »
- Sex and 'The Saboteur': Dev Talks Nudity in New Game
- My Life as a "Science Fetishist"
- Top 10 Shows of 2009: The Best, and the Rest
- Is the Public Option Dead? Plus, Amendments That Might Actually Matter
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- A Jobs Speech with Elbows
- The Top 10 Games of 2009
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- That Viral Thing: Facebook's Secret Code
- College Degrees More Expensive, Worth Less in Job Market
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- India's Friends: Dinner in the U.S., Dessert in Moscow
- Afghanistan War Surge: Might the Taliban Compromise Now?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS