Conyers comes clean on ethics violations...

Just a few years late

from JoeUser Forums

Drag it out, drag it out, drag it out and just pretend you didn't do anything wrong.  Yup, that's the m.o. (modus operandi) of the Democrats, or at least one Democrat: U.S. Representative John Conyers (Michigan).

Conyers, who will be ascending to the throne, uh, I mean chairmanship of the House Judiaciary Committee is "on the record" as having desires to Impeach President Bush.  For what, who knows, and who cares (at least in the minds of the Michael Moore, Move-on.org, liberal wing of the Democrat party).  Anything that can be used is good enough for Conyers and his friends on the loony left.

Except for one small problem.  Conyers has more than a few problems in his own history.  Some of which should have resulted in his getting sent packin' a long time ago.  Unfortunately he holds office for an area where any Democrat will win, never mind concerns over possible ethics lapses.  As long as there isn't an "R", "GOP", or other indicator of being a member of the Republican party on the ballot with the candidate's name, the Democrat will win.  And, in the case of Conyers, the fact that the person that is running is well known for the bacon, pork, and other earmarks that have been added into the federal budget to the benefit of the citizens of Michigan is just gravy on top of it all.

Conyers should be an embarassment to his party.  Note I said should be.  He isn't (for the reasons I've listed above).  Instead, he's a hero to his constituents.

Anyway, it seems that Conyers has finally decided to "own up", "fess up", and take responsibility for mistakes made in his not so distant past.  Not so distant as in 2003 time frame.

Check the article here at The Hill (the newspaper for, and about, Capitol Hill): Conyers accepts responsibility for possible ethics violations. By the way, kudos to "The Hill" for not sensationalizing the headline and calling it only "possible" violations. In my book there was no "possible" about it. It was definite violations, but of course, again, it doesn't matter since it came from a Democrat in an area where the chances of a Republican winning are about the same as seeing a snowball battle undertaken in hell.

I'll clip just a few words from the article and put them in the comments area.  Continue reading there for more.

politics
2,041 views 1 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

A few clips from the original linked source:

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has "accepted responsibility" for possibly violating House rules by requiring his official staff to perform campaign-related work, according to a statement quietly released by the House ethics committee late Friday evening.

The top Republican and Democratic members on the ethics panel, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), said in a statement that Conyers acknowledged a "lack of clarity" in communicating what was expected of his official staff and that he accepted responsibility for his actions.

"[Conyers] agreed to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff," they stated. "We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement."

The finding by the ethics panel could spark debate, and perhaps eclipse, the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority’s plans to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers’ standing to chair the Judiciary Committee.

On Dec. 14, Conyers sent a letter to his supporters from his campaign website announcing that he had been elected as chairman-designate of the House Judiciary Committee. Berman is the second-ranking Democrat on the panel.

more:

Conyers had alarmed Democrats, poised to recapture the House after 12 years in the minority, by indicating that he would begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

In May, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that she told her Democratic colleagues in a closed meeting, "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it."

and just a little more:

The ethics inquiry began in December, 2003 when former staff members complained to the ethics panel, formerly named the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, that Conyers had required his official staffers to work on campaigns, babysit his children, and run personal errands. Conyers subsequently hired Stanley Brand, a well-respected defense lawyer with a long track record of defending public officials implicated in corruption cases.

{ snip}

The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers’ aides alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children.  Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.

They also sent the same materials to the House ethics panel, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office.  ... {snip}