Rangel takes on The New York Times

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F548F410-18FE-70B2-A88F5613BE283A40

Rangel takes on The New York Times
By: John Bresnahan
December 2, 2008 09:28 AM EST


He may fear “death by a thousand cuts” — a stream of damning newspaper stories, private grumblings from Democratic colleagues, a pending ethics investigation — but insiders say House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel has no intention of giving up his powerful post.

To the contrary, the New York Democrat is launching a concerted counterattack against The New York Times, which reported last week that Rangel helped retain a multimillion-dollar tax loophole for an oil drilling company at the same time that the company’s CEO was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, is denying GOP charges that she has interfered with the House ethics committee’s investigation into Rangel by promising that the panel’s probe would be completed by the end of the 110th Congress.

Although Pelosi said last week that she’d received “assurances” that the committee would finish its investigation before Jan. 3, her office says she was referring to assurances from her own staff that the committee typically completes its investigations that quickly — and not to any inappropriate, inside communication she received from committee members themselves.

That Pelosi’s office felt obliged to respond to the GOP complaints underscores the degree to which the continuing furor over Rangel — with new allegations of improprieties now surfacing regularly — has become a major problem for the speaker and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership. Republicans have tried to tie Democrats to Rangel, and some Democrats have begun to say privately that Rangel should step down in order to allow them to press ahead, undistracted and untainted, with President-elect Barack Obama’s plans for dealing with the economy.

Rangel’s ethics problems grew significantly worse last week after the Times reported that Rangel met on Feb. 12, 2007, with Eugene Isenberg, the CEO of oil drilling company Nabors Industries, about retaining a tax loophole worth millions of dollars to the company. On the same morning, the Times said, Rangel and Isenberg discussed Isenberg’s $1 million pledge to the Rangel center.

Isenberg first made a $100,000 donation to the Rangel center in December 2006 and followed that up with another $100,000 on Feb. 7, 2007, according to the Times.


Rangel has vehemently denied any link between Isenberg’s donation and his committee’s action — or even that he was aware of Isenberg’s contribution, — and aides to Rangel have raised questions about the accuracy of the Times story. Rangel, however, has yet to fully explain why he met with Isenberg and his lobbyist, Ken Kies, on the same day as a committee markup. Neither Isenberg nor Kies, considered by many to be the top tax lobbyist in Washington, were available for comment on Monday.

Kies and Isenberg have never donated to any of Rangel’s fundraising committees, although Kathleen Kies, Kies’ wife, gave $4,000 to Rangel’s reelection campaign on June 29, 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records.

On Monday, Rangel’s aides said that the Ways and Means Committee in 2007 never considered eliminating the loophole that benefited Nabors. Thus, they say, Rangel could not have blocked the measure.

“The New York Times reporter repeatedly ignored facts and statements provided by tax policy experts that Chairman Rangel played no role in defending this tax loophole,” said Matthew Beck, communications director for the Ways and Means Committee. “In fact, the Nabors Corp. was grandfathered into the benefit by those who negotiated the 2004 Republican Jobs Act, a group that did not include Chairman Rangel.”

The Senate Finance Committee did include the so-called “inversion” provision in its own tax bill in early 2007, but it later dropped the measure prior to a House-Senate conference, according to Beck.

“Contrary to the reporter’s assertion, the 2007 attempt to retroactively change the law did not come before the Ways and Means Committee and was voluntarily dropped by Senate Finance Committee staff before final deliberations on the minimum wage and small business tax relief bill. Attempts to suggest otherwise are more than irresponsible; they are patently false,” Beck added.

The Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It is unclear whether the ethics committee is looking into this latest allegation against Rangel — or if it was even aware of the matter before it was reported. Ethics committee investigators have been interviewing Rangel’s staffers for the past several weeks, according to people close to the congressman. Rangel’s lawyer did not return a call seeking confirmation on whether Rangel himself has met with the panel, although such interviews typically take place late in the ethics process.

“They have spoken to many of us. ... They have gotten to some people who are really low down on the totem pole,” said a Rangel associate who was interviewed in mid-November. “They are really serious. They almost never go that deep, I’m told.”

The ethics committee is looking into Rangel’s control of multiple rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, as well as $75,000 in income from a Dominican Republic vacation home that Rangel failed to disclose or pay taxes on. But for Republicans, any Rangel probe that does not include review of the allegations set forth in the Times story would be incomplete.

“How serious can an ethics investigation be when you receive ‘assurances’ that it will be done in short order even though there are new allegations coming to light almost every week, and especially when the most devastating allegation — a direct quid pro quo for a donor — came to light just [last week]?” asked a House GOP aide. “It doesn’t pass the straight-face test.”

This source also said that Republicans on the ethics panel may not agree to end the probe by Pelosi’s deadline. With the ethics committee having five Democrats and five Republicans, there is no way for the panel to vote to end the investigation — or recommend action to the House — unless GOP lawmakers agree to do so.

Conversely, Republicans cannot force the investigation to continue into next year, which Democrats believe is the GOP’s real intention, without Democratic support. A stalemate between the two sides could result in the investigation fizzling out with no final report issued by the ethics panel, a move that would be a public relations disaster for the committee, Rangel and Democratic leaders.

Rangel is concerned that the recent revelations — which take the questions around him from the realm of sloppy bookkeeping to an alleged quid pro quo — could sour Pelosi’s support for him. Still, one adviser said, he has no plans to give up his chairmanship.

When asked whether Pelosi had any contact with Democrats on the ethics committee or staffers on the panel, Pelosi’s spokesman denied any such discussions had occurred.

“The speaker was relying on assurances from her staff that the ethics committee, in the past, has tried to wrap up matters pending at the end of a Congress,” said Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s communications director.

Another Democratic insider said Pelosi has “received no secret information” from the committee but did say the speaker was “very interested” in when the panel will complete its Rangel investigation.

Glenn Thrush contributed to this story.

 

They're all corrupt. This guy is more powerful than most, thus more corrupt.

And he got caught.

 

Oddly, Rangel didn't make CREW's list of most corrupt politicians until 2008.

CREW's not biased... RIGHT. /sarcasm

 

Judicial Watch gained fame as a right wing organization out to get Clinton in the 1990s. Since 2000, they've been after Bush. Maybe not so biased after all?

Anyhow, here's their list of top 10 most corrupt politicians for 2007:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judici...on-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

December 19, 2007

 

Judicial Watch sued the administration numerous times for FOIA.

 

oops!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/halliburtonprimer.html

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]A Halliburton Primer [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica] [/FONT] <!--plsfield:byline-->
<!--plsfield:credit--> <!--plsfield:disp_date-->Thursday, July 11, 2002

<!--plsfield:description--> Following President Bush's demand for more corporate accountability, public interest group Judicial Watch, Inc., filed suit against Vice President Cheney and the Halliburton Company, alleging accounting fraud during Cheney's stewardship of Halliburton in the 1990s. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Halliburton's accounting practices.

 

Oops!

Federal Court Dismisses Judicial Watch Lawsuit Against Halliburton

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="649"> </table>​

<!-- #BeginEditable "release" -->
HOUSTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Halliburton announced today that a
federal court in Dallas, Texas, has dismissed a state law fraud and statutory
fraud lawsuit filed in July 2002 by the Washington, D.C. based political group
Judicial Watch. The case had been filed based upon the allegation that,
beginning in 1998, Halliburton's reported revenue on long term fixed price
construction projects was materially overstated and misleading. Among other
things, the court held that the plaintiffs' complaint did not allege facts
which indicate that the revenue reported was wrong or that it was false.

When the original action was filed in July of 2002, the company issued a
statement saying that the Judicial Watch claims were "untrue, unsupported and
unfounded."

In May, Halliburton announced that it had entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle approximately twenty shareholder class action lawsuits
based upon similar allegations while admitting no wrongdoing.

Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of
products and services to the petroleum and energy industries. The company
serves its customers with a broad range of products and services through its
Energy Services and Engineering and Construction Groups. The company's World
Wide Web site can be accessed at http://www.halliburton.com.

Contact
Cedric Burgher
cedric.burgher@halliburton.com
Vice President, Investor Relations
(p) 713.759.2688

Wendy Hall
wendy.hall@halliburton.com
Manager, Public Relations
(p) 713.759.2605

<!-- begin SiteCatalyst code version: H.4. -->

 

My bad. I thought Cheney was a conservative, too.

http://www.rense.com/general39/feoi.htm

<dl><dt>[SIZE=+1]WASHINGTON[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] DC -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.' The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.[/SIZE]</dt><dd>
</dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>
</dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Judicial Watch has been seeking these documents under FOIA since April 19, 2001. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.[/SIZE] </dt></dl>

 

Maybe it's the mad cow, but JW won numerous cases against the administration, including the one in post #15.

They also went after Tom Delay and the RNC in 2001 for selling meetings with Bush administration officials for $20K donations.

They went after the administration's visitor logs to get at how many times Abramoff visited officials.

Seems like they're trying to prove your conspiracy theories, but they don't lead very far.

 

There's plenty more like this on their WWW site.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2007/oct/millions-more-bush-connected-firm

Millions More For Bush Connected Firm
Fri, 10/26/2007 - 17:18 — Webmaster Three months after a medical services company hired a Bush appointee who for years was in charge of Pentagon health programs the firm got a $790 million government contract to do work that two other firms proposed doing for millions less.

Wisconsin-based Logistics Health Inc got the lucrative government contract to provide immunizations and physical and dental exams for reservists and National Guard members even though a pair of equally capable firms entered bids that ranged from $80 million to $100 million less.

Inevitably, the speculation is that the Wisconsin company charging taxpayers millions more has a powerful connection in its new consultant, a former longtime assistant Secretary of Defense for health affairs in the Bush Administration.

A few months ago, Logistics Health Inc. hired the former high-ranking Defense Department official, William Winkenwerder, as a director and consultant and now a Congressional investigative unit is looking into conflict of interest accusations. Incidentally, the head of Logistics Health happens to be another former Bush official, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson.

One complaint from a competing firm claims that the Wisconsin firm performed questionably under previous agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services and actually "put reservists and National Guardsmen at possible undue risk".