E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has had at least one meeting with a former congressional aide who is suing Florida Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings for sexual harassment, according to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
The group confirms that it was approached by the ethics office in May of this year, as was the former aide, Winsome Packer.
Packer alleged in a March lawsuit that she was “forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments and unwelcome touching” from her boss.
Hastings has vehemently denied the charges, calling them "ludicrous" and "bizarre."
The OCE is NOT the House Ethics Committee, but it makes recommendations to the Ethics Committee on matters that they believe should be investigated further. It is a non-partisan group.
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, tells NBC News that the House Ethics Committee itself has not approached the organization and that Fitton's group did not make a formal complaint to OCE.
The OCE "is an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the United States House of Representatives and, when appropriate, referring matters to the House Committee on Ethics."
Congress created the OCE in 2008 under Pelosi in an effort to "drain the swamp." Members of the public and outside organizations can suggest to the OCE things or situations that should be investigated. After conducting an initial review, if the OCE decides to to recommend to the House Ethics Committee that the matter should be investigated further, this will be publicly posted.
Neither Hastings' lawyer or chief of staff have responded to inquiries from NBC News.
UPDATE: Hastings' lawyer, Tonya Robinson, tells NBC:
Mr. Hastings is deeply disturbed by the allegations contained in the lawsuit now pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and, in the strongest terms, denies the charges. Mr. Hastings has stated unequivocally that the plaintiff's claims are untruthful and without merit.
Incidentally, the plaintiff's charges already have been the subject of extensive counseling and mediation, as the plaintiff acknowledges in her complaint. In that context, the plaintiff's allegations were fully aired and found to be meritless, and will be shown to be meritless in court as well.
Preliminary ethics inquiries are confidential matters under the relevant rules.
Leave a Comment:
Bev. dear, just what does THinkProgress go on this topic?
Man this is three articles in a row - libbies not having a good day here on FR
Spanky-
Bev. dear, just what does THinkProgress go on this topic?
Man this is three articles in a row - libbies not having a good day here on FR
If you think that's bad ; wait until all the corruption of the GOP/ t-baggers hits the wires.
Start with the dardnest things the welfare queen Michelle Batwoman who takes government money for her farms.
Her spending tax dollars from her campaign.
Newt's Breakfast Tiffanny's problems are looming.
There's diaper wearing sex John, David Vitter, being asked to step down.
Rick Perry's tax dollars his campaign did at "La Te Da" in Key West, Florida, a "well-known destination for gay travelers.
There are lots more; darling.
It looks like a pretty big 'drain the swamp' task for Nancy Pelosi on the Democratic side.
In my experience, this is a signal to keep looking. Nothing generally comes from nothing, as we discovered in the Weiner case. An accused perpetrator who claims NOTHING happened is much less credible than one who admits that something happened, but not exactly what the Complainant is saying.
Sometimes, the most bizarre allegations turn out to be the true ones. When the facts seem odd or imperfect, you have to ask yourself why the person wouldn't have made up better facts. Clarence Thomas, the hair, and the Coke can always come to my mind in that regard. Anita Hill, a law professor, would have known how to make up a better story. The one she told was preposterous on its face, which in my experience -- and I mean my REAL experience -- tends to suggest that it might just be true. I have seen exactly those kinds of cases over the years. Prominent man accused of harassment, denies all allegations and heaps criticism and blame on the accuser. Probing begins, and fact by fact, the truth comes out, often almost identical to what the Complainant has alleged. Again, just like the Weiner case.
My real question, though, is when is the House ethics committee going to get past its obsession with sex-related cases and look at other issues that are out there and unresolved, some of them for years. I believe it was Rachel Maddow who did a run-down of these the other night. Congress ought to be ashamed of the extent to which it tends to sweep stuff under the rug.
And we ought to throw Congress out and start over. Couldn't be any worse.
Bev - Is Newt really that relevant to you? Everybody on the Planet Earth with an average IQ knows that Newt never had the prerequisite "Fire in the Belly" to be President.....so what's the big deal and why are you even "interested" in Newt?........"Key West is a well known Gay Traveler's destination".....really.....how do you know? Or are you also homophobic too? Just because Michelle is happily married, a good mother, very intelligent, popular, accomplished and successful is no cause to chastise her at every opportunity.........why do you hate her so much? Do yuo really think that anyone here takes your comments more seriously than hers?..Are you really bringing up Vitter again???.....how well did that "strategy" work for you during the Weiner's texting his private parts to college girls scandal? Looks like Weiner is gone for good and Vitter is still here to me. Bash, bash, bash, bash.....maybe someone can help you with that. Life is good.....open a window....get some fresh air...hug a child....it's a big beautiful world out there.
Everyone here should ease up a little.
This is the United States of America and there are laws on our books. Try to remember that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Why not just wait for the outcome of an investigation and/or trial before pouncing on anyone.
inthemiddle, while it's true that Hastings should be presumed innocent, you should remember that he is a convicted crook. I believe that he was impeached when he was a bribe taking judge.
Always faithful,
All this cr*p coming from old bev is just that, she's the same old gal that called Herman Cain a Lawn Jockey. I'd say she is the perfect example of a libbie
This is what happens when you elect someone who has already been impeached as a Fed. Judge
he is known in fl for a lot of crooked things.
In the middle - but, but, but this is a liberal site run by liberal jr editors they can spin it anyway they wish!
<end sarcasm>
Just Democrats being Democrats! We shouldn't be surprised, the democrats a long time ago set a very low bar for what they consider ethical!
For a minute there I thought we were talking about Justice Thomas again with the sexual harassment stuff. No he was cleared and confirmed. Nope, this is just another Democrat who is going to be asked to resign.
More Weiner jokes now welcome.
Justice Thomas has he own set of ethics problems and from my perspective a lot worse that Alycee Hastings.
As with Justice Thomas, sexual harassment, was a he/she said incident and it would be nice to wait until the hearing is over. Maybe he too will be cleared, however in Justice Thomas present problems, there is a lot more to consider with the stakes being a lot higher.
And then there is David Vitter the republican Senator from Louisana, who consorted wih prostitutes, an illegal act, and still serves in the Senate, being recently reelected. He apparently may have another problem on his plate though, allegations of bribery against a Cabinet Officer. But I guess it is Ok as long as it is a republican spouting family values and being a so called family man and good Christian.
Thomas was never "cleared," merely confirmed. Big difference, as I'm sure you'll agree. Bill Clinton was impeached but never convicted. Was he, in your mind, "cleared"? OJ Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial, which should have "cleared" him, and yet found liable in a civil trial.
I could go on, but I suspect you get the point.
Not convicted of perjury?
He was "just" found to have committed said perjury and disbarred.
How is Anita Thomas doing today? Did she ever file a civil suit?
Same as the OJ Simpson case. The disbarment was a subsequent civil matter in front of a state panel, not a court of law. I don't think he fought it very hard, either.
Thomas never had to face Anita Hill in a lawsuit, Spanky. Probably because the statute of limitations had long since passed. Not every victim of harassment sues. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just like you're all so fond of telling me about voter fraud.
Is this deflect the article from Hastings to Thomas? Off topic, aren't we?
Do you liberals get together to plan these attacks from the Dems to the GOP?
What this demonstrates to me is that we have a group, congress, that feels it is above the laws of this nation..and can do as they please...the ethics of all politicans is in the trash can as far as I can telol. They all accept funds from lobbyist...that alone creates a conflict of interest. Many are on committees that oversee investigations or inquires that they have a vested interest in. None of these people are above lieing to get elected or to protect themselves.
Okay another Democrat is 'facing' ethics charges... BFD!
Can we at least wait to hear the findings BEFORE we throw him under the bus?
PS: At least it was with a woman - something of a 'foreign' concept amongst the family values freaks!
Feisty,
at least it was a woman....
So you're cool with sexual harassment?
No double standard there, right?
Roselle,
Are you saying that it is worse if the ethics charge involves homosexuality? What would your homosexual friends think of this comment?
Feisty? But, but Vitter...Ensign....fill the blank for one of a million of you and your libbie friends comments about ethics charges.
Any port in a storm, eh old gal?
Say where are you friends today? Drive By? NewDay? Clara Bell? I missed you over on the CBO thread.
What's the matter, insolvency and dem. ethics not your alls' bag?
They would be just fine with it! Thanks for asking!
My Gay/Lesbian friends are well aware that there are MANY right wing religous fanatics in Congress who are on the 'down low'!
Yes, but you implied that a homosexual ethics violation is worse than a heterosexual one. Homo - bad Hetero - not so bad......
So go tell your Gay/Les friends that you think a congressman having a gay relationship is worse that having a non-gay relationship. They just might ask you why...
Um NO - that's NOT what I implied only how YOU construed it...
Oops, hard to backpeddle when your words are written above:
At least it was with a woman - something of a 'foreign' concept amongst the family values freaks!
What did you mean to imply by this statement?
Back peddle - you wish! lol
The film shines an especially unflattering spotlight on Florida Governor
Charlie Crist, devoting much of its time to the
stories that have already been told (by alternative press) about the
governor, and his various relationships with women which have fallen
conveniently during campaign periods. It also asks why mainstream media has
refused to cover them.
The filmmakers attempted to talk to Kelly Heyniger (pictured, with Crist),
Crist's last girlfriend before marrying wife Carole Rome in the run-up to
McCain's VP pick. His relationship with Heyniger ended in 2007. The filmmakers
wanted to ask her about his sexuality.
Heyniger told them: "I think I'll just keep my mouth shut...call me in 10
years and I'll tell you a story."
You really should check out the movie: 'Outrage' sometime, it's positively jaw dropping! ;o)
Feisty, you really ought to quit digging yourself this hole. Pretty soon your friends aren't going to want to talk to you anymore.
Yes, good point. You would never concede that you are actually a bigot or a homophobe. Unfortunately for you, your subconscious showed through a little more than you would like. Just keep pointing out that there are Republicans that are gay. That will prove that you don't think sexual orientation makes any difference...
I agree with WCAW. Roselle, maybe you can go get your FR friends to vote for your comment to prove that it is actually a good thing.
Don't worry I will! ;o)
The problem is these men are engaging in the VERY same activites they're waging a war against!
I don't know what you call it, but in MY book it's hypocrisy!
PS: You're right about one thing (feel better now)?
I would NEVER concede to being a bigot or homophobe because nothing is further from the truth!
JC in G
Yes, good point. You would never concede that you are actually a bigot or a homophobe.
I agree with WCAW. Roselle, maybe you can go get your FR friends to vote for your comment to prove that it is actually a good thing.
The Majority of the hypocrites and phobias lie in the GOP/T-BAGGERS you can bet on that. You could probably start with your perceptions. Feisty is not a hypocrite and she doesn't LIE like most of the nutso right wingers here.
Feisty - I would NEVER concede to being a bigot or homophobe because nothing is further from the truth!
You may not concede to it, but your last few posts certainly paint you as one.
Feisty is doing just fine and she is still our girl.
Right wing phobias
Fear of China...
Fear of Muslims..
Fear of Mosques...
Fear of Teachers...
Fear of Libya...
Fear of Free Arabs...
Fear of Democracy..
Fear of Unions...
Fear of Science..
Fear of Hispanics...
Fear of 3 Black guys by a polling station
Fear of Taxes...
Fear of Ideas.
Fear Iran...
Come on JC in G give us some more lightening strike bone chilling right wing jackassery.
Thanks Job1 - reading is fundamental - comprehension, not so substantial!
Sigh...I admit I am definitely not the biggest Feisty fan in the world..but I dont see her being a homophobe based on her comments
Thanks! I've been called a lot of things but, homophobe was never one of them! lol
In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I'll share my pudding pop with you! ;o)
Bev - "Jackassery??????".........really???........you need to chill.....your going burst a vital blood vessel......
Well Feisty..I know my bashing on u would make me seem I have different views politically..truth is I dont care for any political party...I dislike libs and conservs equally..or like them equally..but pudding pop sounds good
LOL!!!
So I point out that Roselle made a statement that tipped her hand about how she percieved homosexual activities. Other than Roselle herself saying "No I didn't" when it is pretty clear that she did, I am now accused of things like being a racist (Thanks Chicago, you know me so well), liar and a jackass.
Are you simply just mad at me for not wanting to play your game about making a big thing about a politician's possible malfeasence? If it turns out that this guy actually did something wrong, I will be glad to comment on it if I feel that it has any bearing on how we all as Americans will be affected.
Since none of you are willing to address my question, let's try this:
At least it was with a
womanblack woman - something of a 'foreign' concept amongst the family values freaks!Anything wrong with that statement? You know that anyone with family values must be white and hate all black people.
...Fear of anything without the words "in God we Trust" on it....
JC..it could be no one answered you cause they stopped reading posts..
I agree with Feisty, a Republican Representative would never be tarred and feathered or thrown under the bus on FR. And Feisty is right, it is not like Alcee Hastings is pulling a Barney Frank!
Liberals/Democrats are hypocrites. They criticize Repubs for doing what Hastings is accused of, but when it's a DEM they say "at least it's with a woman! " HAHA That sounds like a secret Homophobe to me .....not to mention someone who condones "sexual harrassment" as long as the harrasser is a Dem. HAHA
Not long ago feisty redwig and corupt Bev both indicated they thought Weiner should be given some slack! How's that Weiner-Holder ticket holding up for you girls now? (Sorry no pun intended)
As chief followers of the 'annoited one' the two girls feel they are allowed to bend the rules of decency if it suits the purpose of their mission! You go girls! lmao!
Let's see if I get this:
Congress created the OCE in 2008 under Pelosi in an effort to "drain the swamp." Members of the public and outside organizations can suggest to the OCE things or situations that should be investigated. After conducting an initial review, if the OCE decides to to recommend to the House Ethics Committee that the matter should be investigated further, this will be publicly posted
So we pay a group of people to "pre-investigate" alegations and if they find some, they tell another group that they should investigate. I'm not sure that I want my tax payer money spent on a new group that spends their money this way. Does anyone know what the budget for the OCE is? According to their on-line report, they submitted 22 items over a 2 year period that they think should be reviewed by someone else. They don't list those items (That I can find).
I guess this is the part of "Big Government" that many people have a problem with.
Like we need someone to tell us that there should be an ethics probe. Congress is run by criminals. The first step is "enhanced interrogation" followed by the whipping post.
SPANKY
You beat everyone to post first. i guess this must be your favorite topic....LMAO
Hey, it's always a bad day until the evil been perpetuated by GOP across the land are revised.
Pius, are you taking posting lessons from Bev.?
My favorite topic is debt, deficit and global warming.
Didn't see you on the previous two posts. What's up with that Pius? You no like-y insolvency? Big Al Gore got you down?
You know the topics around here are going to get a lot worse for you all. Sure we can talk about all those silly Republican. candidates, but eventually we'll get to the issues.
Good times, right Pius?
SPANKY,
give us all a break.......we know ya. I'd rather take posting lessons from Bev who shares my value than an unrepentant conservative, my way or no other way, ideologically insensitive and common sense lacking politically never correct republicant.
and how are your proposals on your supposed deft topics, debt, deficit and global warming different from w. bush if your not prepared to increase taxes on top 2 % and close tax loop holes? do you know how many trillions that will rake into govt. coffers and save us from more borrowing.
Spanky......well said!
Ah Pius, too easy. Solution is simple - you do what I do. Heck I even bet you do it too.
Gov. rakes in $2.6 Trillion a year. All it need to do is spend <$2.6 trillion and viola, not insolvent.
So simple even a math challenged libbie can get it.
But yeah, I am insensitive. And don't forget about uncaring. Oh and NEVER, EVER politically correct. That's for sheeps like you. :)
Pius Emeka Nebo
You wrote to Spanky:
....if your not prepared to increase taxes on top 2 % and close tax loop holes
Did you forget that Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts for 2 years. As Spanky pointed out earlier, they are now the Obama tax cuts.
Seems like Obama wasn't prepared to tax the top 2% either or close the tax loopholes.
Hey, which tax loopholes would they be by the way?
Pius?
I personally know he is a liar and quotes information that is criminal at best. I have written him and gotten reply's that I verified to be fiction. Another Glib Lib Democrat. He's Black too!
This should not be partisan---any member of Congress who violates the law or behaves unethically is not acceptable, regardless of his or her party.
And according to Roselle, if it involves homosexual activities it is worse. Because, you know, the whole homosexual thing, it's, it's.. Well just ask Roselle, she'll tell you.
...so, then, you condone this kind of thing, no matter what kind of sex it is (homosexual, vs. heterosexual)? Cool. Guess you post is in favor of this Hastings fellow. You're all right, JC. I'm sure he appreciates the support.
Feisty doesn't need me to defend her, but I think her point is that the "family values" crowd is also often anti-gay so it is even more hypocrisy when they parade their spouses and talk about family values and defense of marriage and then betray their vows with men. Hypocrisy times two.
Pittsburg,
So her point was hypocrisy, why didn't she say that? I understand now, so if the guy was speeding to the job before he had his gay encounter and if he is Republican, then it would be triple hyprocrisy! That is all that really matters, not the speeding or the infidelity, just that he was a hypocrit.
Could you please point out any of the mainstream politicians that are "Anti-gay". Or are you referring to the majority that are anti-gay marriage. I belong to this group. (Not the politician part :-) I have respect for many gay people, but I don't believe that they have the same governmental rights as a heterosexual couple does when it comes to marriage. By the way, I also feel sorry for them; and yes I know, they don't want my pitty, but they have it anyway. Taking something that is taboo and selling it as a legitimate cause or right will always happen; someday it will be everyone's right to masturbate in public and protected by "Free Speech" under the Constitution. I'll bet there are a lot more people that masterbate than are gay, so why not. The point is that I don't want to take part in legitimizing what I think is wrong. I know that you disagree with me and that is fine. I don't fault you for your belief that a gay couple deserves the same priveledges that a traditional couple does. If the laws are changed, I will respect them; right now, they have not. The law is currently on the same side as my moral belief. There are other laws that go against my moral beliefs and I have to abide by them and do.
Observer:
I forgot where I said or implied that being unfaithful was ok. Could you please point that out to me in my posts? By the way, there is nothing to support or not support for this Hasting fellow yet. I believe the article said that there were alegations. Don't be too quick to judge until you have the facts.
About the man;
Impeachment
In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing two votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, voting to convict his fellow party member, and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, voting to acquit.[1]
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[2]
Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.[3]
Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"[4] between Nixon's case and Hastings's, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin's ruling was vacated and Hastings's conviction and removal were upheld.
snip-
He was one of the 31 who voted in the House not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.[5]
House Intelligence Committee candidacy
After the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections, Hastings attracted attention after it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might appoint him as head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Pelosi reportedly favored Hastings instead of the ranking Democrat Jane Harman due to policy differences and support for Hastings by the Congressional Black Caucus.[8]
On November 28, 2006, Pelosi announced that Hastings would not be the Committee's chairman,[9] and later she chose Silvestre Reyes instead. While Representative Hastings was passed over to chair the committee he became chair of a sub-committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
Dangerfield, I guess people don't understand that you really should not vote for a candidate that has the baggage that Hasting's does
Aww.... another politician 'got some'. What we gonna do now?
Me? I'm gonna worry and worry and worry and worry about it until I can't worry no more.
Weiner ain't worried no more either.............now only his wife is worried.............a lot!
Headline should read, "facing yet another Ethics probe." These politicians........
Feisty & Bev - Say it ain't so.....ANOTHER DEM scandal????.....dang...Weiner's "Wiener Scandal" resignation was just received by the Republican Speaker of the House just yesterday...the ink is barely dry......the DEMS & LIBBERS should take a week off from Tweets and such ........we need a break from yet ANOTHER DEM DISTRACTION!!!.....This country has work to do!!!!.............Wow.....what a horny bunch!
Seems they are falling like a long line of Dominoes. Soon there won't be a Politician in the country. Or should I say "Honest" politician.
I bet the GOP Fox News is eating this one up. But than again it's only Fox News
The highest rated News Network on the airways, like 7 to 1, he, he and how many times have they broke stories that the lame stream were afraid to report, Soros might cut their money.
Bev - Is Newt really that relevant to you? Everybody on the Planet Earth with an average IQ knows that Newt never had the prerequisite "Fire in the Belly" to be President.....so what's the big deal and why are you even "interested" in Newt?........"Key West is a well known Gay Traveler's destination".....really.....how do you know? Or are you also homophobic too? Just because Michelle is happily married, a good mother, very intelligent, popular, accomplished and successful is no cause to chastise her at every opportunity.........why do you hate her so much? Do you really think that anyone here takes your comments more seriously than hers? We know who Michelle is...who are you?....And are you really bringing up Vitter again???.....how well did that "strategy" work for you during the Weiner's texting his private parts to college girls scandal? Looks like Weiner is gone for good and Vitter is still here to stay to me. Bash, bash, bash, bash.....maybe someone can help you with that. Life is good.....open a window....get some fresh air...hug a child....it's a big beautiful world out there.
how about that scum maxine walters or charlie rangel? seems the only things that get drained from this swamp are those showing their periscopes.
prostitutes and scoundrels, time for a purge, and that includes the ringleaders
Will the LAST HONEST Politician please stand up. Someone? Anyone?
if he is innocent...why go thru counseling......try a lie detector test
It's the accuser who went through the counseling and they found the charges were meritless.
Read the article.
Winsome Packer is not all there so to speak.
Her charges have already been shown to be without merit.
And no one is rushing in to jump on this because they all know that these charges are totally false.
.
This is only like two decades or more overdue.
Like Rangel and Jefferson, he's innocent. Sure.
How about David Vitter?
typical of our lawmakers they think and in most cases are above the law
My thanks to the reporters for disclosing the apparent midsdoings of Hastings. That makes two Democrats in trouble within two seeks. once again, Pelosi says nothing. The crooks accused of major offenses, Waters and Rangel, again Pelosi says nothing. It looks to me the only thing drained by Pelosi is the standard of conduct for members of her party. Also, a general lack of leadership from Pelosi, herself.
By nothing I'm sure you mean her calling for Weiner's resignation? RIGHT?
Climb out from under that rock once and awhile - sunshine is good for the soul!
Since Weiner was a liablity, why do you think she called for his resignation Feisty?
Didn't hear from a word from YOU while she held up Rangel's ethics investigation for over TWO years. And people like YOU actually defended him not only breaking New York State law, but Federal law too.
Hypocrites like YOU, who don't hold politicians to ONE standard of INTEGRITY and HONESTY are the reason they get away with it.
Because you don't give a damn, as long as your "party" wins, right?
I knew that sooner or later the sun has set and you and the rest of your ilk will come out to face the darkness! ;o)
Probably because I didn't support Rangle! Do try to keep up sweetie!
I triple dawg dare you to find where I have supported him!
I really am concerned about you Cheryl and your state of mind - why don't you take TWO Paxil's and get back to us in the morning honey!
PS: What I give a DAMN about is not allowing this country to be derailed by tea baggers & birthers like YOU!
Capiche?
What ever happened with the Ethic violation of Boehner and the $500,000 he paid an attorney for DOMA????
You tell her, CherylLM!
How many times does this make that Hastings has been investigated for something? Ten, twenty, more? He is an embarrassment to his district and Florida. This is what happens when you give the illiterate and uneducated the right to vote.
The hypocritical double standard is disgusting. Apparently Democrats are allowed to do anything they want. Democrats are allowed to lie, cheat and steal.