Nine days ago, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary committee, John Conyers, promised to stop using his congressional staff as personal servants and campaign aides, something he had been doing for years. (Here's the statement from the House ethics committee and here's my post on the scandal, with the main facts.)
Now the question for lawyers: Assuming that the description of these abuses is correct, did Congressman Conyers break any laws, as well as House rules? (The statement of House ethics committee implies that he did, but does not recommend prosecution, which is why I ask.)
Bonus question, which you don't need to be a lawyer to answer: Would this scandal have gotten more attention if Congressman Conyers were a Republican?
Posted by Jim Miller at January 07, 2007 03:14 PM | Email ThisThe only laws I've seen referenced that Conyers might have violated are USC 31 Sec. 1301 and USC 18 Sec. 606, neither of which strikes me as particularly impressive ammunition against Conyers.
The answer to your second question is, "Well, duh."
Posted by: ScottM on January 7, 2007 04:00 PMI suppose you'd have to ask Chairman Doc Hastings or the other Republican members who made up the majority of the committee. Or, you could ask the Republican leadership of the Republican majority 110th Congress, under which the Conyers investigation and ruling were conducted.
That darn GOP -- always covering up for Dems!
Posted by: scottd on January 7, 2007 04:58 PMSo any committee action requires at least some measure of bipartisanship.
I'll just add that I saw (or heard?) a report that the Republicans wanted to do more but were unable to get a single Democrat to support them.
If you read my post, you will find my explanation for the December 29th date.
(i corrected two mistakes in this comment , after I first posted it -- if you are wondering.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 7, 2007 05:33 PMConyers just happens to be Black, but more important he is one of the elites. Elites are often characterized by a sense of entitlement and a view that rules apply to everyone but them. Note the number of elites against public school choice who send their children to private school.
It is probably correct that this story is not getting the ink in the MSM or whatever they are called because they have an agenda. They don't want questions asked about ethics or morality regarding elites of either party because they are moral relativists and they don't want their own behavior questioned. Further, secular progressives thrive by having a permanent victim class. Many of them are leaders solely because there is a permanent victim class. These includes not only "leaders" of color, but others. I believe it was last year that one group helping the homeless was considering going out of business because in order to receive funds they had to provide identification information about the clients they served. I'm sure many of the "leaders" had a roof over their heads, but their ideology prevented them from helping someone without a roof over their head. My point is, stories like this are a mix of ideology and elite entitlement.
As I have said many times, secular progressive ideology has pretty much destroyed the Black community. The moral relativism that will probably let Conyers skate is part of that ideology. Slowly, there are a number of leaders out there, who don't get much air time are urging their flock to get back to the basics of what helped Black people survive in the past. Those basics are church and family.
Sadly, Conyers, Jackson, and Sharpton are not part of that solution.
Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2007 05:33 PMAbsolutely without a doubt YES. As it is, it would not fit the leftist agenda the press tries to put out, so we had to learn about this via blogs like Michelle Malkin's. Thanks for mentioning it.
I was particularly shocked to learn on her blog that he would force his staff members to LIVE in his house and care for his kids while his wife attended law school. I don't know why these people didn't blow the whistle sooner on him.
Posted by: Michele on January 7, 2007 05:44 PMThe Dems are now in power because of the ineptness of the Republicans led by the President. In order for this cycle to be broken, the Republicans will have to be bold and stand for conservative (and not neo-conservative) causes and champion a solution to the major issues. The choice is their's. Right now, I am from Missouri and Republicans will have to show me and millions of Americans !!
Posted by: KS on January 7, 2007 09:13 PMAnd, if it was, President Bush is in charge of the AG's office, the FBI, and the FEC.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on January 8, 2007 09:38 AM