I've been hearing more about McCain and the Keating Five scandal lately. Pretty much none of it is true. There's not a lot of recollection about it, so here's the basic facts.
In 1991, Democratic Senators Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle were found by the Senate Ethics Committee (of the Democratic-led Congress) to have substantially and improperly interfered with an investigation of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, run by Charles Keating.
Two other Senators, John McCain (R) and John Glenn (D) were completely exonerated of any wrongdoing. The record shows that McCain severed all ties with Keating immediately upon the revelation that he was under a criminal investigation. The Ethics Committee said McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."
McCain's only sin was in meeting with regulators on behalf of Keating at all, not because he exerted undue influence -- which did not happen -- but because it could have given that appearance. Basically, he made a rookie political mistake (one he has obviously learned from). But he did nothing actually wrong.
Some Democratic members of the Ethics Committee said that McCain should not even be investigated, because there was no evidence against him. Some people say he was included by the Democrats only to make it look less like the scandal was all Democrats, and that in response to McCain's improper inclusion in the investigation, the Republicans pressed to get Glenn included as well.
The bottom line is that McCain did nothing wrong, and everyone who uses the Keating Five as an example of corruption against McCain either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is being intentionally deceptive.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 29, 2008 01:59 PM | Email ThisAnd I doubt this is something that would come from the DNC or MoveOn or anything, because it is so easy to discredit it. It's one of those things that the Dems will try to insinuate slowly in comments and "blog" posts.
Bottom line is that EVERYONE who makes these claims fail to provide any links to any documentation backing them up. The claims, as best I can tell, not only have no evidence backing them up, but actually contradict the known facts.
The basic claim is that McCain "wet-started" his plane which shoots out a fireball from the tail, which set off the missile, which started the fire. The problem is, the F-4 (110) was to the front and right of McCain's (416), so that's impossible.
This false story was likely borne out of some account that McCain's plane was "in front of" the other plane, so someone made up facts to make McCain the cause of the accident. But while his plane was "in front" of the F-4 in relation to the flight deck, they were on opposite sides of the deck, both facing inward.
It is, of course, irresponsible to just throw out claims you think you may have heard as a way to try to impugn someone.
THat describes all the moonbats that post here.
Posted by: pbj on July 29, 2008 03:34 PMThe Rezkos and Obamas? Hmmm... Yeah.
Posted by: AD on July 29, 2008 05:00 PMThat said, the reason I have not ever discussed Rezko before now is because until there is evidence, I just don't care. And that is how it shall remain ...
Indeed, highlighting the "poor judgment" part is, in fact, necessarily agreeing with me that he did nothing wrong: if what he did amounted to any actual wrongdoing, instead of presenting a mere appearance of potential wrongdoing, then he WOULD have been sanctioned for it, rather than merely criticized for "poor judgment."
Let's see what the Comittee actually said: McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. ... Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."
That is far more than saying he merely did nothing "actually illegal." He did nothing actually wrong. This is a simple and true fact. The Committee did not in any way sanction him, because there was nothing to sanction him for.
The independent counsel himself -- the person who was doing the investigation -- recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation, and for the first time in history the recommendation of the independent counsel was ignored (which is part of why it seems so likely that McCain's inclusion was primarily political).
But I'll give you one more chance: tell us what McCain DID that was ACTUALLY WRONG. The Ethics Committee couldn't tell us, but maybe you can!
Nice that congress has time for witch hunts but no time for an energy policy.
indicted means suspected of something wrong---
meanwhile the dems have
...defaulted on home mortgages while shuffling cash into their campaigns (see malkin's blog)
...gotten sweatheart loans
...gotten sweatheart real estate deals ie Rezko/Obama (as mentioned above)
...gotten tons of 3k cash contributions from chinese dishwashers who earn minimum wage
...gotten caught with cash in the freezer.
9% approval rating is too high for this congress.
Posted by: Andy on July 29, 2008 07:14 PMTo paint the Democrats with such a broad brush, and assume that the Republicans are immune from this is pretty disgusting.
No party should be immune from scrutiny, but given the volume of Republicans that have been indicted or otherwise scrutinized for shady deals (during a Republican administration!), I'd be careful about throwing too many stones.
Posted by: demo kid on July 29, 2008 07:22 PMOh I thought so, the social service!
Posted by: gs on July 29, 2008 09:38 PMRepublicans have received "sweetheart loans"
Name them. We've got Dodd, Obama, and many others...
And it doesn't stop there! William J. Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana. Indicted DEMOCRAT legislator, still serving!
Ever notice before an indictment even happens, the Republican actually resigns? Yet the DEMOCRAT hangs on for dear life.
Even our own Jim McDermott is found guilty of leaking wiretaps, and the DEMOCRATS support him.
Nancy Pelosi promised to run the most ethical Congress ever, and clean it up. Yet we're seeing more corruption than ever (including her own - sitting on committees handing out billion-dollar contracts to her husband's companies).
Think of the log in your own eye before you worry about the mote in the Republican party...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2008 09:53 PMOf course, that gift was repayment for the gift the DalaiBama gave Rezko while in the Senate and before on all those housing projects. On second thought, repayment may instead have been the promotion of the DalaiBama's wife from a 100k do-nothing job to a 350k do-nothing job. So, the house gift may have been repayment for something we don't know yet.
Posted by: swatter on July 30, 2008 07:58 AMLook at Kerry (JFK) is back in trouble again...LOL
http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/29/john-kerry-for-party-president/
LOL, good point. But 18 to 21 yrs olds. Please Kerry your NO woman killer.
You notice the straw the young lady is using...
"telling"
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 30, 2008 09:02 AMI earned my wings in June of 1978, and flew the A-7E and TA-4J. So while I didn't fly the A-4E that McCain was flying at the time of the fire, these are my observations.
1. A pilot could not plan, setup, or deliberately create a "wet start" (as far as I know). A "wet start" is where the engine failed to ignite the fuel in the turbine. We were trained how to deal with a "wet start" but never told how to create one. A "wet start" would only happen if the engine ignitors failed to work. If one thinks about it, jet engine manufacturers would design the system that the fuel valve would not open unless the ignitors had been triggered to start. In all my hours of flight time I never had a "wet start" and don't even remember hearing about one happening in any the squadrons I was assigned to.
2. A "wet start" would have most likely mandated that the aircraft in question would have been subjected to an engine inspection to ensure that there was no damage, and thus unavailable for that launch.
3. One thing that pilots closely monitor is the engine's Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT). If the EGT goes over the maximum allowed, the engine has to be immediately shutdown and undergo an inspection before the next flight. One of the things that will cause the EGT to spike is if the air entering the engine is too hot, and the easiest way to make that happen is for a plane in front of you point its exhaust in your direction. On the carrier flight deck they work hard to ensure that one plane's exhaust doesn't point directly at another plane's intake. To suggest that McCain would deliberately direct a plume of flame at the F-4's intake is absurd.
4. For the reason above, planes are spotted on the flight deck with their tail pipe pointed over the edge of the flight deck. Also, a jet's exhaust is, even at idle, fairly strong and can easily blow someone off his feet which is quite dangerous. Follow pudge's links; one can see how the planes were spotted at the time of the accident. McCain's tailpipe was pointed out over the ocean, not at another plane.
5. Munitions are designed so that they don't cook-off immediately when exposed to fire. Weapons must be exposed to a very hot fire for a few minutes before they will cook-off. A "wet start" exhaust flash fire is not very hot (as fires go) and lasts but a second or two, and is not enough to cause a munition to cook-off. Zuni rockets are carried inside a rocket pod which would have protected it from the direct effects of the "wet start."
6. If a pilot did what McCain was falsely accused of they would have been subjected to severe sanctions, at least a temporary grounding, and possibly have lost his wings.
7. McCain was a LCDR, one of the senior officers in the squadron, and was in a leadership position. That would have made his transgression even more serious, and most likely would have ended his career, in addition to the punishment listed above.
8. Also claimed is that McCain was transferred to another ship. While I don't know if that's true or not, it's highly unlikely. Pilots aren't assigned to a ship, they're assigned to a squadron. Squadrons are grouped into an Air Wing, and the Air Wing commander is a department head on the carrier. Removing a pilot from one squadron and assigning him to another in the middle of a war just won't happen. His commanding officer and Air Wing commander would have dealt with him had he done what he was accused of. They wouldn't have simply transferred him to another ship.
9. The flight deck is a very dangerous place to work, one of the most dangerous in the world. As much as we loved to play jokes on each other, once on the flight deck it was all business.
Those are the first things that come to mind. I was on the USS Forrestal for about two months in 1975, and I never once heard anything other than it was a anything other than a horrible accident.
I've been in aircraft since the 1970, like you. When ever we had a (hot-start) and flame would jump out the back and EGT would go thur the roof. Then you would shut her down and it was engine check after that.
I did read the McCain hard moved to another ship, not because of anything he did, but to get back into fighting because the Forrestal had to return for repairs.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 30, 2008 10:25 AMpudge, you are an apologist for this event.....
mccain was formally rebuked by the ethics committee. the committee did not "fully exonerate" mccain, but rather mccain interpreted the committee's actions as a full exoneration.
mccain did:
1. John McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company. Years later, when the IRS noticed Keating’s company had written off the gifts to McCain as business expenses, McCain fessed up and admitted filing false returns and made a “donation” to the U.S. Treasury to cover the amount he defrauded American tax payers. (Committing tax fraud is one of the least offensive things John McCain has done over his career, but this article just focuses on his role in the Keating Five, and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980’s-early 1990’s).
2. John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, along with her father, made a $359,000 investment in retail property owned by Charles Keating in 1986, a year before John McCain first met with federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Keating was later convicted on 73 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and other crimes. Years later, Cindy McCain sold her investment for $15,000,000.
http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6
this site links to a more detailed article in slate regarding this episode.
so, i was confusing lying with filing false tax returns. whoops, irresponsible me.
Posted by: dinesh on July 30, 2008 12:33 PM"pudge, you are an apologist for this event....."
Not for the event, but for McCain's role in it. Yes, absolutely. Since the facts show he did nothing wrong, I explain that fact in the face of lies to the contrary. This is what an apologist does.
"mccain was formally rebuked by the ethics committee."
You are lying. They did no such thing. On the contrary, they said quite explicitly that there would be no institutional action against him. A formal rebuke is institutional action. It never happened.
"John McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns ..."
You are lying. While he did neglect to include gifts, there is no evidence or statement that shows he did that intentionally.
Come back when you stop lying, dinesh.
The money to the U.S. Treasury, $112,000, was completely separate from the gifts/taxes issue: it was the money that Keating raised for him ... something he was under no obligation to do, because he did not do anything wrong in taking the money in the first place.
As usual, dinesh, you are just spreading lies.
but calm down pudge--your apologist credentials remain intact.
when did mccain pay keating back?
what was mccain's arrangement with the IRS?
what was the total amount of gifts that mccain forgot to report?
what was cindi mccain's relationship with keating?
lucky ken starr wasn't around to investigate these issues? perhaps if mccain gets elected, starr can investigate mccain like he did the clinton whitewater deal?
Posted by: dinesh on July 30, 2008 02:34 PMYou admitted to one lie already. Now please admit to the others, and we can continue.
if you want to identify liars, ask yourself whether bush lied when he said "we do not torture."
ask yourself if al gonzales lied to congress.
ask yourself whether cheney lied when he stated the insurgency was in its last throes.
ask yourself whether the administration lied about the "intelligence" regarding wmds.
grow up and answer the questions from this and the previous post.
if you want to whitewash mccain's involvement with keating, don't expect everybody to just accept what you say as gospel.
i find it troubling that he conveniently failed to report so many keating gifts to the irs. afterall, he's no rube, he has access to accountants and lawyers. what gives?
Posted by: dinesh on July 30, 2008 04:40 PMyou throw around some big words for a partisan writer.
How does that make sense? Are you implying that there is something wrong with being partisan, that means I should not use "big words"? If so, what would that be?
i am not lying (which implies intent to deceive).
Yes, I do imply intent to deceive. Let's go over what happened: you parrotted the words of a "partisan writer," obviously without doing ANY fact-checking, and presented those words as fact. This is, at BEST, a careless and reckless disregard for the truth in an attempt to smear John McCain. To me, this is indistinguishable from an intent to deceive: you may not have known it was false, but you clearly didn't care whether it was true, and you intended to present it as fact regardless.
So yes, you did intend to deceive, you just didn't know or care whether you were actually being deceptive.
And again, when you admit your other lies -- as a reminder, your other lies were that McCain intentionally filed false tax returns, and that he donated money to the Treasury as a result of that -- then I will consider answering your other questions.
As to the rest of what you wrote, it is unrelated to me or the topic of this discussion. You've resorted to slanderous and false innuendo, flat-out lies, and now misdirection. What dishonest tactic will you use next?
Since Navy Attack Squadrons were losing pilots it makes sense that McCain would have been assigned to another squadron, most likely because a department head had been shot down.
My point was that that McCain would not have been reassigned solely to protect him from disciplinary action of his "wet start."
McCain's assignment to another squadron is another reason to discount the proposition that he was transferred because his father and grandfather were Admirals.
Had he been accused of the misconduct of a deliberate "wet start," his family ties would have been of no use.
One concept that the left is unable to understand is that of "honor." Had Senator McCain done something as foolish as create a "wet start" on the deck of a carrier, his father and grandfather would have been ashamed of him. Such an act would have been extremely unprofessional.
Yes, John McCain may be a rebel, a maverick. But, there is no evidence, other than that which emanates from the fevered brows of moronic left wing truthers, and left wing smear merchants, that John McCain did anything to cause the fire on the USS Forrestal.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 31, 2008 01:37 AMyou are pathetic. you are trying to whitewash an entire subject (mccain's involvement in the keating five). while mccain exercised "poor judgement" in his relationship with keating vis a vis the S&L matter, his and his wife's larger relationship with keating created other issues, not the subject of the keating 5 matter.
those subjects include:
his irs-tax reporting problem;
his 'donation' to treasury (how can i get a deal like that?);
his delayed return of the value of 'keating gifts';
cindi's sweetheart relationship with keating.
so who's lying (i.e. intent to deceive)? a partisan writer trying to minimize his candidate's involvement in a particular scandal or someone pushing at that 'prepackaged' story which leaves out details?
the republican party has a credibility problem. in my estimation, you share that problem.
Posted by: dinesh on July 31, 2008 09:07 AMI await -- without holding my breath -- your admission that McCain did not, in fact, ever admit to intentionally filing false tax returns.
You are lying. Admit your lie, or don't, but you won't get anywhere unless you do.
Posted by: pudge on July 31, 2008 09:18 AMI assume we can expect to see you excoriate the chosen Obama any day now for his involvement with Rezko? Or how about Chris Dodd for his sweetheart loan deals? Or Nancy Pelosi for the billions in government contracts she funneled to her husband's companies? Or Harry Reid's illegal land speculation? Or William Jefferson with his frozen stacks of cash? Or Gregoire getting her hundreds of thousands in kickbacks from the tribes?
Need I go on? McCain was investigated, and exonerated. And adjusted his tax returns accordingly, and per the law (you know you DO get the right to adjust your old returns if the data used was wrong).
Now when can we expect you to pin the Obama one to the ground over his involvement with CONVICTED FELON Tony Rezko?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2008 05:40 PM