Ms. Sloan makes some valid points as she make references of other lawmakers who had violated the Senate ethics in misconduct. This is not simply just Craig possibly violating the Senate ethics. It leaves to question how many other current Senators that may have violated the Senate ethics. The Senate ethics manual and all Senators in their jobs should be re-examine.From CREW:
Larry Craig's lawyers want the Senate Ethics Committee to dismiss the ethics complaint filed against him by GOP leaders in that body. However, in a letter to those GOP leaders, the Chair and Vice Chair maintain they do have jurisdiction and are pursuing the case according to The Hill:
Yet in their letter sent to GOP leaders this week, Ethics Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) effectively confirmed their jurisdiction over Craig’s case, while noting that the inquiry would close if he resigns.
“The Senate ‘may discipline a member for any misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not relate to official duties …’” Boxer and Cornyn wrote.
“The Senate ‘may discipline a member for any misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not relate to official duties …’” Boxer and Cornyn wrote.
Despite the outcome of Craig’s Minnesota court challenge, most agreed that the Capitol ethics probe is unlikely to resolve itself by Sept. 30.
“It’s usually more deliberative than that,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former Ethics Committee chairman. “It’s a process.”
The committee may have ample time to do its work. Some Craig staffers say they believe he regrets caving to the intense pressure from GOP leaders last week that led to his resignation announcement Saturday.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, pointed out some issues with Brand’s assertions:
1) Senate committee intended “improper conduct” to be quite broad. The ethics manual states “certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be unethical and improper even though such conduct may not necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or regulation.” Purposefully, the Senate did not attempt to “delineate all types of conduct or the guidelines which should be followed in determining which actions by a member would constitute ‘improper conduct.’” The fact that there is no specific precedent for investigating Craig for sexual misconduct is not dispositive under Senate rules.
2) House has very similar standard to Senate – “conduct which does not reflect creditably on the House.” That standard has been used by the House ethics committee to discipline members for personal conduct not involving their offices, for example: Donald Lukens (R-OH), after he was convicted of misdemeanor for having sex with a 16 year old girl , Gus Savage (D-IL) for fondling a peace corps volunteer, and Barney Frank (D-MA) for a relationship with a male prostitute.
3) In the Senate, David Durenberger was found to have violated the rule in part based on his financial arrangements in connection with a condo he owned in Minneapolis – not altogether about official misconduct.
4) Members take an oath to uphold the laws, not just those punishable as felonies.
5) Craig did use his office improperly – he gave his Senate card to the officer and asked if the officer was aware of Craig’s identity.
The committee may have ample time to do its work. Some Craig staffers say they believe he regrets caving to the intense pressure from GOP leaders last week that led to his resignation announcement Saturday.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, pointed out some issues with Brand’s assertions:
1) Senate committee intended “improper conduct” to be quite broad. The ethics manual states “certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be unethical and improper even though such conduct may not necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or regulation.” Purposefully, the Senate did not attempt to “delineate all types of conduct or the guidelines which should be followed in determining which actions by a member would constitute ‘improper conduct.’” The fact that there is no specific precedent for investigating Craig for sexual misconduct is not dispositive under Senate rules.
2) House has very similar standard to Senate – “conduct which does not reflect creditably on the House.” That standard has been used by the House ethics committee to discipline members for personal conduct not involving their offices, for example: Donald Lukens (R-OH), after he was convicted of misdemeanor for having sex with a 16 year old girl , Gus Savage (D-IL) for fondling a peace corps volunteer, and Barney Frank (D-MA) for a relationship with a male prostitute.
3) In the Senate, David Durenberger was found to have violated the rule in part based on his financial arrangements in connection with a condo he owned in Minneapolis – not altogether about official misconduct.
4) Members take an oath to uphold the laws, not just those punishable as felonies.
5) Craig did use his office improperly – he gave his Senate card to the officer and asked if the officer was aware of Craig’s identity.
1 comment:
Craig has to deal with this like a man but Boxer should treat others the same way. Vitter is acting like he is safe after years of paying prostitutes for services. Then it's the Senator from CT. who plead guilty to threats and Coloado Senator who threaten voters. The list goes on as you noted below with new names of the loafer group.
Post a Comment