« Fairy tales can come true... | Main | Ruffini's Back in Business »

More on Nancy Pelosi's Promise to Clean up the House

Today's Vent with Michelle Malkin is must see TV. Her subject is Corruptocrat John Conyers and most recent his ethical violations.

Here's the House Ethics statement on Conyers, which was released over the holidays in order to minimize its media publicity.

Check out the NY Post's article published just today on the details of John Conyer's violations:

According to published reports, Conyers used several staffers as his personal servants - requiring them to babysit and tutor his children, chauffeur him to personal events, help his wife with her law-school classes, work on his campaigns and pay restaurant and motel bills.


One staffer was even ordered to move into Conyers' home for six weeks and serve as a live-in nanny to his kids.

Sound familiar? It should.

New York's state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, just lost his job and pleaded guilty to a felony for doing a lot less with taxpayer-funded employees.

But John Conyers isn't losing anything.

Not the chairmanship of the judiciary committee, which Pelosi reiterated last Friday would go to the Michigan congressman despite his transgressions.

Nor is he facing any other kind of sanction from the House.

In fact, he didn't even really admit any wrongdoing - just a "lack of clarity" in explaining to his staffers what they are and aren't required to do.

Whatever that means.

Sure, Nancy. I believe you when you say this will be "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

Previous:

Bipartisanship is a Thing of the Past
Democrats' Ethics Proposals Not So Impressive


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Nancy Pelosi's Promise to Clean up the House:

Comments (52)

One or more of our trolls w... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

One or more of our trolls will find a way to justify the mendacity and corruption of the Democrats; they always do.

You actually expected bette... (Below threshold)
Matt:

You actually expected better?

It will be qualified as the most open, honest, ethical Congress in history because the Democrat "leadership," says so. They will be backed up by the MSM for proof.

They will probably even get an endorsement from Jamal Hussein.

The GOP boots any of their ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

The GOP boots any of their own for their wrongdoing, corrupt Dems promote em.

Hot Air is right. Malkin's ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Hot Air is right. Malkin's whiny, petulant piece of tabloid "gotcha" self-indulgence illustrates perfectly the sum and substance of the new righty strategy: we've got nothing so we're going to do nothing but spend the next two years faking our moral superiority and taking the politics of personal destruction to gutters not yet explored.

Face it, your ideology was rejected by the American people. See if this crew can do a better job. If they do, most of you would never acknowledge it but why not give it a shot? Let America be America.

Other examples are easy to ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:
"Nor is he facing any ot... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Nor is he facing any other kind of sanction from the House."

That would be the Republican-led House that failed to sanction him, correct?

That would be the Republ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

That would be the Republican-led House that failed to sanction him, correct?

That's a very good question to ask. But, I believe a more relevant question is whether you believe sanctions are in order based on the ethics statement as published. Do you?

BTW, the statement was only... (Below threshold)
Clay:

BTW, the statement was only released 5 calendar days ago (2 business days). My thought is that it falls to the incoming Congress to act upon it. I'd say the ball is in Pelosi's court.

OXYMORON:Campaign ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

OXYMORON:

Campaign promise.

"That's a very good ques... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"That's a very good question to ask. But, I believe a more relevant question is whether you believe sanctions are in order based on the ethics statement as published. Do you?"

I have faith that Pelosi and the House Democrats will do the right thing. Until she doesn't, this is just more immature whining from the ethically-challenged hypocritical right... who have now resorted to whining in advance of wrongdoing.

How appropriate, for Republicans to project wrongdoing based on their past record of screwing the American public for the 14 years. You guys just don't think there is any other way, do you?

and I was right - -this is ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and I was right - -this is the doing of the Republicans. Emphasis on the truth:

Washington Times

The Republican-led House ethics committee -- in possibly its last action before Democrats take over Congress -- closed the three-year investigation of Rep. John Conyers Jr. after he agreed to stop using staffers for campaign work and personal errands.

So this whining from the Malkintents (tm) is over a decision made by REPUBLICANS.

You asshats crack me up.

So typical of an "asshat" l... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

So typical of an "asshat" like Lee to cherry pick things from an article that seem to support his/her/its fabricated reality.

I wonder why Lee didn't post these from the same article?:

"the ethics panel, which is comprised of five Democrats and five Republicans."

"Democrats on the committee blocked punitive action against their colleagues"

hmmmm........ nope can't see why a memeber of the fabricated reality based community like Lee would fail to see the whole story here...

That he was called on his m... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

That he was called on his misbehaivor by the republicans makes it any less wrong, Lee?
We'll find out in short order, now that the investigation is closed, if Pelosi leaves Conyers in his plum posistion or not. My money is on her leaving him where he is.
Ethics and Pelosi have never gone hand in hand, in my mind.

As usual, the trolls have g... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

As usual, the trolls have got us off message. Nancy Botox I believe state that even with the ethics problems, she will appoint John Reparations Conyers to chairman. Way to go Nancy. Clean it up good. Your first hour looks bad. Keep it up. If Conyers was a Republican, their fellow party members would have asked him to resign, like Delay, Gingrich to step down from leader, etc. I expect that from republicans, but Conyers and Jefferson will just go on and on. Expected and not disappointed.

Democrats caring about ethi... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Democrats caring about ethics.

Bwahahahahahahaha

And: "It cert... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And:

"It certainly brings into question the Democrats being strong on ethics," said the lawmaker, who did not want to be identified discussing ethics cases. "In this case [against Mr. Conyers], they are clearly not willing to sanction their own Democratic members."
Promises of ethics reforms were key to Democratic wins in the midterm elections that gave the party the majority in Congress, but ethical concerns have dogged House Democrats as they prepare to take leadership."

hmmm...........

Performing campaign activ... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Performing campaign activity on official time?!! Son of a bitch!

That fucking MSM wasting their air time to such pithy stuff like war, elections, school shootings and healthcare crises instead of this blockbuster stuff? The nerve!

Lee's right this being a em... (Below threshold)

Lee's right this being a embarrasingly sucky decision, and that the House Republicans are to blame. So when the Dems take over the House in a few days, I expect an outraged Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate her absolute and total commitment to high ethical standards in the House by asking for, nay, demanding that either John Conyers resign in disgrace or that this sham of an investigation be reopened and further sanctions meted out. And furthermore, I fully expect that our resident lefty troll, Lee, pure-minded ethics expert that he is, to complain loudly and bitterly when Pelosi doesn't follow through on any of this.

Do Conyers' staffers get to... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Do Conyers' staffers get to apply for slavery reparations?

Do you really think old "pu... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Do you really think old "pucker puss" (lee lee) will do that? Do you think that a UFO will visit you tonight? One of the same.

"That he was called on h... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"That he was called on his misbehaivor by the republicans makes it any less wrong, Lee?"

The fact that he wasn't called on his misbehavior by the Republican-led ethics committee, and that Republicans are here on Wizbang calling for sanctions to be taken, is the height of stoopidity.

Your hypocrisy is so ingrained that you chaps and chappettes can't even see the insanity you spew.

Luckily, the American voters saw through it this time, and voted your asses out of control of Congress. Next, the White House.

Lee's hypocrisy is so ingra... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Lee's hypocrisy is so ingrained that he can't grasp the truth that HALF the members of the committee were Democrats[sic] and that those members BLOCKED the committee from sanctioning Conyers.

That's the claim of some <b... (Below threshold)
Lee:

That's the claim of some anonymous Republican who apparently refuses to go on record.

Now why is that, Paul? Why would a Republican member of the ethics committee not be willing to go on record on that?

I suspect he's lying scum, like many of his Republican colleagues - but you believe what you want Paul, if it helps you sleep better.

Hmm I don't see <a href="ht... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Hmm I don't see this one on the front pages either...

Must have been expenses for his WMD hunt.

Where are those WMD's anyway?

The GOP boots any of the... (Below threshold)
Frizzy:

The GOP boots any of their own for their wrongdoing, corrupt Dems promote em.

Hastert, Cheney, Armitage...sure they do, moron (Yeah, I know. Lets argue that these three have never done anything in office worth being fired for).

You've had 6 years of little prick who NEVER fired anyone (Rumsfeld) until the Congress changed and he was, finally, challenged.

Get a grip.

The GOP boots any ... (Below threshold)
Larkin:
The GOP boots any of their own for their wrongdoing, corrupt Dems promote em.

Oh yeah...downright saints of virtue those Republicans are.


GOP tosses ethics rule so DeLay can keep post

(11-18) 04:00 PST Washington -- House Republicans adopted a rule change Wednesday that would allow their powerful majority leader, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, to keep his post if he is indicted on state corruption charges stemming from a fund-raising scandal that has already involved three of his associates.

Read the whole story.

As a non-American, I'll con... (Below threshold)
cat:

As a non-American, I'll continue to keep my nose out of American domestic politics. But what's with this "holidays" business? I thought it was Christmas.

PELOSI PROMISES TO CLEAN UP... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

PELOSI PROMISES TO CLEAN UP THE HOUSE yeah sure i have heard that before, It will remani as dirty as its always been justa little more donkey manure then before

lee. you're wrong on this o... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

lee. you're wrong on this one.

one of the reasons that the republican is saying this anonymously may be because they are still in congress and has to work with the other side. but still wanted to get the truth out. i thought you liberals liked anonymous whistle-blowers?

or it could be as simple as the tipster wanted the truth to come out unencumbered by the baggage of who it came from. premptivly stifling the smear attack.

doesn't really matter why it is anonymous. do you seriously doubt that the democrats blocked punitive action on Conyers? How about McDermott in Washington, who has admitted and been convicted of passing along an illegally interecepted and recorded cell phone conversation.

larkin, in regards to Delay, a couple of points. first being that the Republicans at least had a rule in place, which i don't believe the Democrats yet have. secondly, Earle showed just how vulnerable that rule is to abuse by a politically motivated DA.

other than that, name a Republican congressman or woman that has kept their position after a serious ethical violation since 1994. if there are any, i want to know. but i just can't remember any off the top of my head.

On topic: Is this the best ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

On topic: Is this the best "you" can do??? Off topic (and as a friend): Incorporate Wizbang Politics into the main page. The contributors might not be considered "masthead material", but they're posts are at LEAST as good as Kim's and Peggy Hill 2"s (sorry Lori; original thoughts count, or at least someone else's thoughts in your own words. If link + "heh" is what's called for, there's "Powerline", and you DON'T wan't to challenge HIS web-surfing and typing skills, DO YOU?? no.) Plus Wizbang and Wizbang Politics are both POLITICS. Scrolling's easy, getting comments is hard when there's only 3 CRAP-TACULAR posts on the main page. And the contents are easy to miss when stuck in nigger town. FRONT OF DA BUS! FRONT OF DA BUS!

Apparently Lee can only man... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Apparently Lee can only manage to read the first paragraph of a new story.

This is not the first time, Lee Pucker Puss.

Lee is as predictable as the clock going off in the morning, the roosters crowing, and my dog taking a dump in the back yard thereafter.

BryanD, probably none of my... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

BryanD, probably none of my business but since it doesn't seem to stop you, there is a link to contact the folks here directly if you have concerns about format. Why you chose to relay your "off topic" concern in public is beyond me. What is your problem, did Lorie dump you in the past or something and you can't get over it????

"doesn't really matter w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"doesn't really matter why it is anonymous. do you seriously doubt that the democrats blocked punitive action on Conyers? "

Since the statement that it was blocked came from an anonymous Republican who has no reason to remain anonymous, Yes - most definitely.

You see, if the Republican in question went on the record then the facts could be argued... Now why would that Republican not want the facts argued? Perhaps because it's yet another partisan lie that can't hold up under the light of attribution and debate?

Yep.

On October 25, 2006, just two weeks before the election, the President of the United States informed the American public that we were winning the war in Iraq.

That was a bold-faced lie... told in an attempt to gain votes for the Republican party in the election.

Are you going to tell me that even though the Republican President is willing to lie on the record, I'm supposed to accept as truth something a Republican congressman says -- when he will only say so anonymously?-- because it would be subject to debate?

Republicans have no credibility in my world, ke_future. When the highest ranking Republican in the country lies on the record - anything that a Republican says in anonymity is subject to high suspicion.

Time to buy a clue my friend. The answer is "no way".

DaveD, I've been stood up, ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

DaveD, I've been stood up, but never dumped. As for e-mailing Lorie: a semi-flaming in the comment box or an unsolicited e-mail? Think about it. Poindexter.

Uh, Lee, the Ethics Committ... (Below threshold)

Uh, Lee, the Ethics Committee is evenly split between the parties. That means, nothing happens without members from both parties participating. And THAT means all the Democrats had to do--even in a Republican-led Congress--is stonewall and vote "no" in committee and nothing will move forward on on an investigation against a Democrat. Like with Conyers.

By the way, did you know Conyers staff members went to a Detroit food bank a few years back, took sixty turkeys they were supposedly going to give to the poor, then never accounted for them? I'm sure that it was just a coincidence that several people reported Conyers staffpeople giving them free turkeys just afterwards. And I'm sure the story would have been just as obscure had it been a Republican senior member and committee leader, right?

John,Since when do... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

John,

Since when do facts about their own ever matter to the lib trolls in here?

They're only here to get the attention no one else offers them, not their parents, teachers, babysitters, bosses, and probably for some, the priests who dont let them sit on their laps for an hr 'confessional' anymore.

... who have now r... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
... who have now resorted to whining in advance of wrongdoing.

Consider that a pre-emptive whine.

I have a whole bag of whine here with your name on it.

So BryanD, put it on Lorie'... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

So BryanD, put it on Lorie's thread, you bozo.

DaveD, Are you gay?... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

DaveD, Are you gay?

Nah, just another happy guy... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Nah, just another happy guy. How could I be gay and a Republican at the same time???

so, lee, you say that back ... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

so, lee, you say that back in Oct we weren't winning the war in Iraq? i could point to a lot of indicators that we were at that point. just as i am sure you could point to other indicators that we weren't. I'm still not convinced that we are losing. especially if you factor in the entire country, and not just Baghdad. it's a matter of opinion and what indicators you use.

just because someone says something that you disagree with, does not make that person a liar. that is something that liberals in general need to learn. and you specifically.

when did it become unfashionable among the so-called defenders of diversity and tolerance to actually have a conversation and debate issues?

oh, as for the tongue and cheek....you can be both a republican and gay at the same time. it's a matter of belief in the individual and not the group as the primary source of empowerment and legitimacy.

Lee caring about ethics whe... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lee caring about ethics when it involves democrats??

Bwahahahahahahahahha....

WASHINGTON (<... (Below threshold)
Lee:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's choice to take over the Pentagon, said on Tuesday America was not winning in Iraq and warned that the Middle East could explode into violence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended unanimously that Gates be confirmed as successor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after just a day of questioning the former CIA director, who said all options for stabilizing Iraq were on the table.

Asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan if the United States was winning in Iraq, Gates replied: "No, sir."

Gates' answer contradicted a declaration by Bush on October 25 that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted Gates shared Bush's goals in Iraq but had been brought in to take a fresh look at policy.

Bush lied.

"Asked point-blank by Sen. ... (Below threshold)
engineer:

"Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."

At the outset of an afternoon session of questions about Iraq and other subjects, Gates began by telling the committee he wanted to amplify on his remark about not winning in Iraq. He did not withdraw the remark but said, "I want to make clear that that pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole.""

Maybe Gates lied, not Bush. Or should we just take a poll. Did Bush lie or did Gates lie? Majority vote wins.

Bush said we're winning, Ga... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Bush said we're winning, Gates said we're not.

Bush lied.

Note that Lee can't be both... (Below threshold)

Note that Lee can't be bothered to address the fact that the ethics committee can be stopped by either party, no matter who controls Congress, and that his multiple assertions otherwise on this thread are dead wrong.

Much easier to play Chinese menu with the Democratic talking points.

wow, lee. you are a tool. s... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

wow, lee. you are a tool. someone disagrees with Bush, so you immediately declare that Bush lied. using that logic....we disagree, therefore, you lie.

Do you get the impression t... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Do you get the impression that old "pucker puss" (lee lee) and some of the other kos kiddie rejects want the USA to lose? Don't they still hang traitors?

good old "teeny dick" jhow6... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

good old "teeny dick" jhow66 coming out to question other people's patriotism again. don;t you ever get tired of this act? don;t you ever feel like some new material would be cathartic even? it's so boring. i know you can do better than simply riling up trolls. except that is what you are good at, and that is all you really want. so have fun with your big dick contest, old teeny dick, and get out the gallows pole to hang the traitors, mr judge, jury and executioner. this is is apparently your idea of freedom. which you are so interested in "giving" the iraqis. good ole jhow66 teeny dick, a perfet mate for his pucker puss. pucker up, teeny dick!

Definition: Patriot, a pers... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Definition: Patriot, a person who supports the government AND ITS' POLICIES. Any dictionary will do. Oh, trolls don't possess books of higher learning.

hmmmm, so how patriotic wer... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

hmmmm, so how patriotic were you when Clinton was president? should you all have been hung back in the 90s?

should you all have been... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

should you all have been hung back in the 90s?

According to Monica, he already was.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy