In what one member of Congress called "a charade," a couple that showed up at President Obama's first state dinner -- uninvited, the White House claims -- declined to answer questions surrounding the event before a House committee Wednesday.
Under questioning from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, and others, Tareq Salahi repeated over and over again, "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."
The Salahis' attorney notified the committee in December that because of a pending investigation by federal prosecutors, they would not answer questions about how they gained entry to the White House on November 24, despite not being on the guest list to attend that night's state dinner for the prime minister of India.
In a brief statement that opened the often-contentious hearing, Salahi chastised the committee for requiring the couple to appear despite having been told the two would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if subpoenaed. That, he alleged, is against the ethical rules of the Washington bar.
He incensed some committee members by reiterating the couple's respect for U.S. troops, the Secret Service and the president.
"You have shown effrontery here," said Daniel Lungren, R-California. He called it "an abomination" that the Salahis would invoke the name of those in uniform "and suggest that somehow what you do provides support to them."
"The Constitution protects fools," Lungren said. "The Constitution protects stupidity. The Constitution protects errant thought. Thank God it does."
"This was not a hearing looking for information," the couple's attorney, Stephen Best, told reporters after the hearing. "This was an opportunity for a public flogging."
"I think today's procedure is a charade," Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, said in the hearing, referring to the Salahis' refusal to answer questions.
Other committee members also lambasted the couple, alleging they put their own desire for celebrity before the security of the president and are wasting the committee's time and taxpayers' money.
"I don't respect your right to take the Fifth Amendment. Not at all," Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-New Jersey, told the couple.
"Were you there?" he asked Salahi, referring to the dinner.
When Salahi began, "On the advice ..." Pascrell interrupted him, asking, "Are you here right now? You gonna get an answer from your attorney on that?"
Pascrell noted the committee had offered to allow the couple to speak behind closed doors. After conferring with his attorney, Salahi said, "Yes, but you didn't offer us any legal protection."
Salahi's wife, Michaele, also invoked her Fifth Amendment right under questioning by committee members, but replied, "yes," when asked if she would return to testify after the investigation has concluded.
Asked by Thompson whether the state dinner appearance was part of a "reality TV stunt," Tareq Salahi said the couple was under a non-disclosure agreement and "should not discuss matters related to the television matter."
The Salahis contend they were told they could attend the program to honor India's prime minister, but the White House says they were not invited and were not on the guest list for the exclusive affair.
Best said after the hearing the couple received "representations that they relied upon" that they were invited guests. Two Secret Service investigators were privy to this information from a person who knows the Salahis, he said. "This was not a stunt, and they committed no criminal act."
There was no connection to any reality TV show, he said, and the Salahis were not seeking publicity. The couple has turned down multiple offers from the media to be "rewarded handsomely," he added.
"Whatever the real story is, it's on the other side of the gates of the White House, not with the Salahis," Best said. "They thought they were invited. ... If it was a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding caused by representatives of the government."
Tareq Salahi also noted in his opening statement that the couple's attorneys have offered to provide information to the committee, but that offer was declined by Thompson's staff.
"Those offers are not satisfactory," Thompson said. "These lawyers were not at the state dinner and have no firsthand knowledge of the facts."
Tareq Salahi also said the couple has provided phone records, e-mails and other documentary evidence to the committee.
There also was criticism of the White House in Wednesday's hearing.
Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said the White House "continues to stonewall" and will not allow social secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on the security breach.
Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs has said that allowing a White House staff member to testify before a congressional committee would violate the Constitution's separation of powers.
"I don't know what the White House is trying to hide," King said. "Obviously, something went wrong, and it originated with the White House, not the Secret Service."
Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, in previous testimony before the committee, took responsibility for the security breach, acknowledging that "appropriate procedures were not followed."
Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday he thought it was "unfortunate" that Sullivan "had to take all that grief from us."
"I hold you responsible for it," he told the Salahis.
"Your actions ... made a mockery of this country, a mockery of our security," Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, told the couple. "I'm saddened, and I'm disappointed, and I'm outraged."
Best reiterated afterward the Salahis do not want the events surrounding the dinner to detract from the "extraordinary institution" of the Secret Service.
"They are Americans," he said. "They are proud Americans."
Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig: The effects of Political Corruption on Voters. In this video Sen. Max Baucus is the focus of a lesson on Political and Public Corruption.
The House Ethics Committee Investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is likely to extend well into 2010, according to sources familiar with the probe, meaning that the fate of the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee could become a major political issue for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Democratic leadership during a difficult election year.
The committee’s investigation of Rangel’s personal finances, now 14 months old, has dragged on far longer than both Pelosi and Rangel had hoped. Pelosi predicted in late 2008 that it would be over by the end of that year or early 2009. Now sources familiar with the Rangel probe say the investigation could continue into February or March.
The veteran New York lawmaker is the most prominent — but hardly the only — Democrat facing ethical questions.
Recently, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has had to deny allegations that he used his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee to help raise campaign contributions.
In addition, the Justice Department is continuing its criminal investigation into Democratic lawmakers’ dealings with the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that specialized in winning multimillion-dollar spending earmarks from the Appropriations Committee for its clients.
Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, a senior member of the Appropriations panel, and his former top aide Charles Brimmer were issued subpoenas as part of that investigation earlier this year. The DOJ probe is ongoing, according to multiple sources.
And on the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana faces accusations that he nominated his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position in the Justice Department, while Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois was recently admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for failing to fully disclose his contacts with indicted former Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich over an appointment to the Senate seat vacated by now-President Barack Obama.
This wave of ethics problems for Capitol Hill Democrats makes GOP strategists optimistic that they can do to Democrats what was done to Republicans in 2006: paint a picture of a majority party corrupted by its own power.
“Thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s lapses in judgment, the rap sheet on the Democratic-led Congress is getting longer by the day,” said Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “When the speaker promised to ‘drain the swamp,’ she probably didn’t think she’d be fighting off hypocrisy charges four years later heading into the 2010 elections.”
Democrats, though, downplay the GOP ethics attacks, arguing that party leaders are making sure that improper behavior is promptly investigated and punished. They note that a recently leaked document from the House ethics committee showed that the panel and the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created by Democrats in 2008, are reviewing a broad range of cases against lawmakers. To Democrats, this means the ethics process is working as designed.
They also note that Republicans have their own ethical problems to deal with and shouldn’t be spoiling for a fight on this issue.
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada faces a Senate Ethics Committee investigation — and a possible Justice Department probe — of his handling of an extramarital affair with a former staffer, a controversy that has also ensnared Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Rep. Don Young of Alaska was accused by an Alaska businessman of receiving tens of thousands of dollars in improper campaign donations. And Republican appropriators had their own ties to the PMA Group, which means that GOP lawmakers are vulnerable on that front, as well.
“After more than a decade of Republicans’ culture of corruption, they are not used to seeing an ethics committee that does its work without interference from Republican leaders,” said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “House Democrats passed the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reforms in history and established an independent outside ethics office.”
It is unclear whether Rangel has been interviewed yet by ethics committee investigators looking into his personal finances, although he did meet with a different subcommittee reviewing Caribbean trips made by five African-American House Democrats in 2007 and 2008. A special investigative subcommittee is trying to determine if those trips were improperly paid for using corporate funds.
The Washington Post reported in October that the ethics committee had interviewed Rangel’s son and a top aide, and House investigators have met with officials in New York City’s housing office. One of the accusations Rangel faces is that he improperly controlled multiple rent-stabilized apartments in a Harlem luxury apartment building.
A Rangel spokesman said the New York Democrat “remains focused on the issues that matter most to his constituents: enacting health insurance reform and advancing policies that will help our economy recover and create jobs. He looks forward to the conclusion of the review he himself requested.”
The House ethics committee spent more than eight months searching for a new staff director following the death of its chairwoman, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ind.), in August 2008, a delay that hampered the initial phases of the Rangel probe.
The committee has also been forced to expand the scope of the investigation twice in response to new allegations against Rangel, including once in October after he submitted amended financial-disclosure reports showing hundreds of thousands of dollars in previously unreported income and assets.
Rangel has also been accused of using his congressional office to help raise funds for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, as well as helping a million-dollar donor to that center retain a lucrative tax break. Rangel has denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
With editorial writers across the country calling for Rangel’s head, Republican leaders have tried on several occasions to push through a resolution calling for Rangel to be stripped of the Ways and Means gavel.
But Pelosi and other Democratic leaders — under pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus — have stuck with Rangel, leaving him atop the panel despite the ethics controversy surrounding him.
The Republicans were also publicly embarrassed when Rep. John Carter of Texas, who offered the Rangel removal resolution, admitted that he had failed to disclose more than $300,000 in stock profits on his annual reports to Congress. Since that time, Carter and the GOP leadership have dropped their efforts to oust Rangel.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer in 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty.
Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com. But he said that Hanes withdrew from consideration for the job when the relationship became more serious. The following day, Baucus dismissed calls for an ethics investigation, saying, “I went out of my way to be up and up.”
Since his announcement, more details of the relationship have emerged, raising questions about a workplace romance between a boss and employee that Baucus tried to keep quiet, and also contradicting his explanation for why Hanes’s nomination was withdrawn.
Jodi Rave, a former reporter for the Missoulian revealed over the weekend that the paper informed Baucus in March that it was poised to publish a story about Hanes’s relationship with the senator and the fact that he had nominated her for the U.S. attorney job.
The next day, Hanes withdrew from consideration. According to the Missoulian, Baucus’s office never acknowledged a relationship between the two, and the paper did not run a story.
Baucus’s office said yesterday that while Baucus was aware of Rave’s questions, “there were a number of factors that went into Ms. Hanes’s decision to withdraw” from consideration for the U.S. attorney post, including that the couple’s relationship was “changing.”
“These discussions took place before, though around the same time as, the reporter’s inquiry,” Baucus’ office said in a statement. “This, coupled with the fact that they wanted to live together in Washington, led to her withdrawal.”
Baucus’ office also defended the salary boost for Hanes, saying it was in line with what his other staffers were receiving at the time, and argued that she played an important role on the international trip she took with Baucus.
Baucus separated from his now-ex-wife, Wanda, in March 2008 and moved out of their home. Hanes separated from her husband in April 2008 and moved out in early June. Hanes was divorced from her husband last December, and Baucus was divorced in April 2009. They are now living together on Capitol Hill and began dating in the summer of 2008. Hanes and other staff received their raises in this time period, according to public documents that show payroll breakdowns in six-month increments.
Baucus insists that Hanes was well-qualified for the prosecutor position, and his office released a lengthy résumé detailing her expertise as a prosecutor and in private practice.
Unlike many private corporations, there are no Congressional Rules barring a lawmaker from having a romantic liaison with an employee. In several cases, members have married staffers. For instance, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) became involved with his wife when she was still his chief of staff. Former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.) first hired his wife, Judy, as a staffer and later married her. Former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) became involved with a House staffer when he was speaker of the House. He later divorced his second wife and married the staffer.
Baucus himself was sued by his former chief of staff, Christine Niedermeier, after he fired her, but the case was thrown out on a technicality. She claimed the senator made unwanted sexual advances, but Baucus vehemently denied the allegation.
Hanes, who worked on Baucus’s staff as his state director and senior counsel, accompanied him on a taxpayer-funded congressional delegation in late 2008 with other members of the senator’s staff, a trip first reported by The Hill. The Baucus group traveled to Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $14,000 per person
On Friday, Baucus’ office said that Hanes traveled in 2007 to Cuba on official travel, months before she and Baucus became romantically involved. The senator’s office said the Cuba trip was meant to promote trade issues between Montana and Cuba. The $1,105 cost of Hanes’ trip was paid for by the Finance Committee. Baucus was not part of the delegation, which also included representatives from Montana agricultural associations.
The two trips constituted Haynes’s only official foreign travel during her nearly six years on Baucus’s payroll.
Baucus’s office said it was appropriate for Hanes to accompany the senator and other aides to the Montana Democrat on the trip to Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates, even though the couple had begun a romantic relationship. The office said previous state directors had also gone on official overseas trips, and that the trip resulted in increased collaboration between universities in Montana and Vietnam. And it released a Jan. 2009 e-mail from an official at the University of Montana praising the senator for the trip, saying it yielded tangible results for the school in boosting educational and cultural exchanges with Asian colleges.
Baucus’s office also denies giving Hanes any preferential treatment while she was a paid member of his Senate staff. A Baucus spokesman downplayed the salary hike Hanes received, saying it was in line with what other aides to the senator received during the same period.
Around the time when her relationship with Baucus reportedly “intensified” in the summer of 2008, Hanes’s salary jumped $13,687, according to public documents covering the April 1-Sept. 30, 2008, period, to among the highest on the senator’s payroll.
In a statement to POLITICO, Baucus’s office argued that “virtually our entire staff” saw their salaries rise during the period, saying the raise was on a par with the legislative director’s and less than the chief of staff’s.
“In fact, during that period, Ms. Hanes’s salary increased by the exact same amount as our legislative director and less than our chief of staff,” said a statement from a Baucus spokesman.
Hanes’s salary did return to a lower level in the following six-month period, Senate records show. According to Baucus’s office, she left the staff in May and joined the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, where she currently works as acting deputy administrator for policy.
An aide to former Gov. Mike Easley is scheduled to appear before the State Board of Elections next week.
Ruffin Poole, who served as Easley's lawyer during the governor's two terms in office, will attend a Dec. 17 hearing, elections board Executive Director Gary Bartlett said Wednesday.
The board subpoenaed Poole in October to testify during its hearing into alleged campaign finance violations by Easley and his campaign, but Poole convinced a Superior Court judge to quash the subpoena. He argued that his testimony could violate the legally protected conversations he had with Easley as his attorney.
The state Court of Appeals overturned the judge's decision, ruling that Poole should comply with the subpoena because he was a government lawyer and not Easley's personal attorney.
The court's ruling came after the elections board turned the findings of its five-day hearing over to Wake County prosecutors, saying evidence from the hearing "suggests" criminal violations by Easley and possibly others.
The board also ordered Easley's campaign to forfeit $60,000 and fined the campaign another $40,000 for violations of campaign finance law related to unreported flights that major donors provided to Easley aboard their private planes.
Elections board Chairman Larry Leake said at the time that the hearing would be held open to allow members to hear from Poole.
The former president of a publicly traded Raleigh company is accusing NC State Sen. Tony Rand, one of the state's most powerful lawmakers, of insider trading and other illegal actions.
In a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, Paul Feldman, who claims he was illegally fired as president of Law Enforcement Associates in August, alleges that Rand had a scheme to profit from manipulating the value of LEA stock, Alan Wolf reports on the .biz blog.
Rand, the Fayetteville Democrat who plans to step down from the state Senate this month, has been chairman of LEA's board since 2003. The company, which makes security and surveillance equipment, was spun off in 2001 from Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, a Franklin County company started by former state Sen. John Carrington.
In his complaint, Feldman also alleges that Rand told another LEA executive that he previously had traded the stock of Raleigh-based First Citizens Bank based on inside information he had gotten from former president Frank Holding. Rand said that he "planned to do the same to LEA stock," Feldman wrote.
Rand called the charges "insane" and "hogwash."
"He's a disgruntled ex-employee," Rand said Wednesday in a phone interview with Rob Christensen. "I'm embarrassed that Frank Holding has even been mentioned in this mess. But I guess that is part of it, when you are in business and in politics. People think you are fair game and maybe you are."
—————
LEA disclosed Feldman's allegations, including his Nov. 17 letter to the Labor Department, in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.
Feldman also alleges that Rand and other LEA board members violated SEC rules by falsifying minutes of board meetings and omitting information in SEC filings. He also contends that LEA sold video equipment and other products through a sister company to police in the Dominican Republic. That violated federal export laws, Feldman alleges.
Feldman wrote that he has been interviewed by special agents for the FBI and IRS related to his allegations.
Rand said he has not been contacted by any law enforcement officials. "This offends me," he added. "There's no truth to any of this."
A spokeswoman for First Citizens wasn't immediately available for comment.
LEA officials responded in its SEC filing on Tuesday that Feldman's "claims are groundless, and are an attempt by a disgruntled former executive to seek retribution from the company."
LEA "does not believe the allegations ... have any merit" and plans to "vigorously defend against these actions."
The company also wrote that Feldman was removed as CEO in August for "insubordination" and "in the face of poor performance."
Feldman claims that Rand and other LEA board members fired him in late August when he was hospitalized for two days because of a "mini-stroke" and unable to attend the meeting to defend himself. Feldman couldn't be reached for further comment.
Feldman is seeking reinstatement as CEO and president of LEA, or economic damages for lost compensation, and "damages to his career, reputation and earning capacity." Feldman had been LEA's top executive for 19 years.
The company has struggled to boost sales of its products, including under-car inspection systems, explosive detection kits and GPS tracking equipment, to law enforcement agencies, nuclear power plants, the military and other customers.
LEA moved its headquarters to Raleigh from Youngsville last year, and has been cutting costs and jobs. It now employs about 25. Chief financial officer Paul Briggs couldn't be reached for comment.
LEA reported last month that net sales fell to $1.9 million during the third quarter, down 21 percent from the same quarter last year. LEA's net loss was $99,000, compared to net income of $96,000 last year.
Its stock now trades for pennies. In 2004 and 2005, when Feldman alleges the insider-trading scheme occurred, LEA's shares surged above $4. At its peak, in January 2005, the stock closed as high as $10.86.
On Wednesday, the shares rose 4 cents to 15 cents.
A grand jury is investigating the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, which has faced scrutiny over accounting practices and spending since early this year, two county commissioners said Monday.
Commissioner George Dunlap said the Federal Grand Jury has been looking into whether crimes were committed by employees.
Commissioner Bill James said board members were told last month that a federal grand jury is investigating. He refused further comment on the topic, saying commissioners were instructed by a county attorney not to discuss specifics.
The county ordered an audit of the Giving Tree after a DSS employee raised questions about spending at the Christmas charity for needy children. The county discovered checks written out to a county employee who volunteered with the program, as well as money issued to the sister of another employee.
County spokesman Danny Diehl said officials cannot confirm whether a federal grand jury is involved, but said the county "is cooperating with law enforcement to complete the investigation."
The county has asked Charlotte-Mecklenburg police to investigate. A police spokesperson on Monday said their work is ongoing.
Other commissioners reached Monday would not comment on work by authorities. "I want the investigation to have the best possible outcome, said board Chair Jennifer Roberts. "So I am unable to discuss it in the interest of not impeding the work of law enforcement."
In the meantime, James and fellow Republican commissioners Karen Bentley and Neil Cooksey want the county board to meet next week to learn more about ongoing probes.
"There are facts we don't have," James said. "I am just concerned there is stuff even senior management doesn't know."
Diehl said the county will respond to any questions the board has about the DSS audits. "The board has received reports and been briefed on all aspects of the DSS audits that are available to the county manager and staff."
The developments follow Observer stories on Sunday detailing a 74-page memo from a former county employee who headed the Giving Tree. Cindy Brady, who retired from the county in August, wrote she was never given a chance to talk at length about how the charity worked, despite requests to do so.
Brady said the county advanced her as much as $198,000 since 2005 with the approval of her supervisors. Brady said she spent the money on gifts for needy children, but says she did not collect all of her receipts, and some were handwritten or lost.
County leaders say they can account for how about $162,000 was spent by the Giving Tree last year.
But audit reports acknowledge numerous problems with receipts and other documents to track expenses and cited inadequate oversight and controls of the program by management.
The county has announced a number of changes in response to the charity audit and reviews of other DSS spending, including putting department finances under control of the county finance office and re-training DSS employees in financial practices and procedures.
The agency employs about 1,200, with a current annual budget of $176 million.
Brady's memo, dated July 29 and sent to a human resources manager, criticized county investigators for not interviewing her during the audit investigation. The county's former Internal Audit Director Cornita Spears said she first read the memo last month, and it led her to revise her earlier report to include about $33,000 Brady said she returned to the county earlier this year.
County Manager Harry Jones suspended Spears last month over the error.
Why James wants meeting
James cited the Observer story in explaining his reasons for calling the new discussions on DSS. He said he wants to give disgruntled employees a venue to air grievances. For months, James said, commissioners have been deluged with anonymous complaint letters from people who only identify themselves as current and former agency workers.
Some apparently won't divulge their names because they fear retaliation from superiors, James said.
The proposal requests that the board discuss the DSS issues on Dec. 17, with portions of the meeting to be held behind closed doors. It asks that DSS Director Mary Wilson appear to the meeting, and that other department employees be made available.
It also requests that former Giving Tree employees be invited to talk, including former county general manager Janice Allen Jackson, who briefly led DSS on an interim basis until Wilson was hired last year.
Neither Jackson nor Brady could be reached for comment Monday.
The proposal also wants Jones to provide in open session a detailed list of gifts bought with Giving Tree money and information on all items from the charity now in county inventory.
It also asks for copies of all internal memos produced by internal audit and county management involving the Giving Tree.
The county publicly released a three-page report in June and a follow-up report last month. The Observer has requested a longer report by Spears multiple times since July, but the county has said personnel laws bar them from releasing the document.
In order to hold the Dec. 17 meeting, at least five commissioners would have to agree. At least two of the six Democrats would have to sign on.
Roberts, Dunlap and Vilma Leake said they want to hear more about what the commissioners are trying to accomplish in holding the meeting before they can decide whether to support it. However, Roberts questioned whether meeting in closed session was the best approach, and said she is "distressed" that the board Republicans did not talk to her before putting the item on next week's agenda.
Dumont Clarke said he's inclined "to be as transparent and public as possible about this issue and do as little as possible behind closed doors."
Commissioners Harold Cogdell and Dan Murrey did not respond to requests for comments.
Cooksey said his constituents are demanding the board take a "more active role in getting to the bottom of this."
Cooksey disagreed with commissioners who have said they county is spending too much time on the issue and should not look into anonymous complaints.
"When you have issues swirling around, you can't ignore it," Cooksey said. "We have an obligation to see if these allegations have any truth to them or not."
The chief aide to House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson on Friday denied an allegation that Thompson used his committee’s consideration of expensive new rules on credit card companies to extract campaign contributions from the companies.
Lanier Avant, staff director of the committee as well as chief of staff in Thompson’s office, said the allegations, reported in The Washington Post, were “baseless” and said he is unaware of any probe of the panel’s activities or Thompson by the House ethics committee.
The Post reported that Thompson collected $15,000 in campaign donations from credit card companies and their lobbyists after the March hearing. No legislation on the credit cards was introduced, according to the Post.
“The way we handle the business of the committee is in line with every federal law and doesn’t violate any ethics guidelines,” Avant said in an interview with POLITICO. “We know where all the problem spots are and steer clear of them.”
Avant added that “all the oversight work we do [on Homeland Security] is totally separate and apart from anything we do on fundraising or the boss’s own personal political agenda. That’s totally not connected.”
The Post story also said the committee’s former policy director, Veronique Pluviose-Fenton, claimed she was “fired after complaining to her bosses that a lobbyist made improper requests of staff members.”
“I have never received a complaint like that from any current or former staffers, including [Pluviose-Fenton],” Avant said. “The chairman is on record saying he’s never received any complaints on stuff like that, and the reason is because we haven’t put staff in a position to be asked to do something” unethical.
“She never complained to me about anything,” Avant added when asked about Pluviose-Fenton’s claim.
Avant said Pluviose-Fenton was let go by the Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, but he declined to comment on the details of her termination.
House payroll records show Pluviose-Fenton started with the committee in December 2005. She was listed as minority counsel during 2006, and when Thompson became chairman of the Homeland Security panel in 2007, she served as policy director. Pluviose-Fenton earned nearly $147,000 in that position in 2008.
Pluviose-Fenton was mentioned in a leaked House ethics committee document from the week of July 27-31, which was recently published by the Post. “Staff person dismissed from position following raising concerns about requests made by certain lobbyist,” the entry reads, adding that a “summary memorandum” was being prepared.
The lobbyist in question was not identified in the ethics committee document.
The committee declined to comment on the allegations against Thompson and Avant or whether it was investigating the Mississippi Democrat. But no investigative subcommittee has been created on Thompson, and the committee has not received any recommendation to do so from the Office of Congressional Ethics, the independent ethics watchdog.
Rep. Peter King speaks his mind this morning during Homeland Security Committee Hearings. His statements regarding this serious, potentially dangerous situation were absolutely correct. In the role of White House Social Secretary Desiree can't be so caught up in Entertaining she forgets about Pres. Obama's Safety. 3 Secret Service Agents had to "take a bullet" for Desiree. Was this right? I don't think so. This was certainly a MAJOR Faux Pas! Thus its sometimes better to not give your friends jobs of high status. Remember former FEMA Director Michael "Brownie" Brown from the Bush Administration? Yeah!
Former Pres. George W. Bush: "Brownie your doing a heckuva job".
Crashers refusing to cooperate? The Salahis have been invited to appear before House lawmakers, but declined because they already cooperated with the Secret Service. A Morning Meeting panel discusses.
The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration and President Barack Obama was never at risk. Mark Sullivan said three uniformed officers have been put on administrative leave.
The chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said the country is fortunate the affair didn't end in a "night of horror."
Appearing before Thompson's panel for questioning, Sullivan acknowledge mistakes were made and that the Secret Service must have a "100 percent" performance record.
Thompson, D-Miss., also said that Congress needs to talk not only to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the couple who got in without invitations, but also to White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. All three have declined to appear. Thompson said he is likely to authorize a subpoena for the Salahis to testify. And the top Republican on the committee, New York's Peter King, said if Thompson doesn't subpoena the White House social secretary, King will.
King accused the White House of "stonewalling" in not permitting Rogers to appear. He said he thinks the White House is either afraid of something or doesn't want to take any heat for last week's incident.
Thompson said at midday that the Salahis could be cited for contempt of Congress if they continue to shun the committee's request that they proceed. He said he has asked staff to prepare subpoenas for the pair, and said "my door remains open." King indicated he would continue to press for Rogers to appear as well. The two appeared to differ on whether Rogers should be subpoenaed.
Thompson said at the outset: "This hearing is not about crashing a party at the White House. Nor is it about wannabe celebrities." He said the purpose is to better protect the president.
The Salahis have been trying to land a part on a Bravo reality show, "The Real Housewives of D.C.," and were filmed by the TV show around town as they prepared for the White House dinner.
"We're not concerned about agency embarrassment," Thompson said. "We're all fortunate that this diplomatic celebration did not become a night of horror. ... We must dissect every fact ... and after we do these things, we need to give thanks that no lives were lost," he said.
Said Sullivan: "In our judgment, a mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake."
"I fully acknowledge that the proper procedures were not followed," he said. " ... This flaw has not changed our agency's standard, which is to be right 100 percent of the time."
Thompson asked Sullivan what went wrong.
"Pure and simple, this was human error" in which normal security protocols were not followed, Sullivan said. The breach was not caused by poor screening technology, he added.
The Secret Service chief said the investigation so far has found three people from the agency's uniformed officer division responsible for the security breach and all three have been put on administrative leave. He added that the agency is still reviewing what security protocols weren't followed.
"What we find is if the protocols are followed, we would not run into this situation," Sullivan said.
Asked whether there was a risk posed to people attending the dinner for the visiting prime minister of India, Sullivan said he was confident there wasn't.
Sullivan said there was no threat to Obama, noting that "last week we took him to a basketball game, and there was 5,000 people sitting around the president."
In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs earlier this week described both Obama and his wife, Michelle, as angered by the incident.
Attending a White House event shouldn't be like "going to a bigbox retailer the day after Thanksgiving," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told Sullivan.
Asked by King if the pair would have been able to penetrate the White House if a representative of the White House had indeed been present for clearance assistance, the Secret Service chief replied, "It would have helped."
From now on, the White House has said, someone from the social office will be present to help the Secret Service if questions arise.
On the eve of the hearing, the Salahis' publicist, Mahogany Jones, issued a statement addressing why the couple would not appear before Congress.
The Salahis believe "there is nothing further that they can do to assist Congress in its inquiry regarding White House protocol and certain security procedures," the statement said. "They therefore respectfully decline to testify."
Jones said the couple's information makes clear they broke no laws, that White House protocol at the dinner "was either deficient or mismanaged" and that "there were honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved."
The White House also took some responsibility for the foul-up. "After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex," Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff, wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday.
Still, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs cited the separation of powers and a history of White House staff not testifying before Congress in explaining why Rogers, herself a guest at the dinner, wouldn't be coming.
A senior White House aide, Valerie Jarrett, defended Rogers' refusal to appear, telling a network news show Thursday morning that executive staff members have been allowed to testify to Congress only in rare circumstances in the past.
Jarrett said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that there was no need for Rogers to attend the hearing and answer questions because "we think we've really answered the questions fully."
Copies of e-mails between the Salahis and a Pentagon official have clouded the couple's claims that they were invited to the state dinner honoring the visiting Indian prime minister.
The Sahalis decline an invitation to attend a Homeland Security Committee hearing just like the White House allowed Desiree Rogers to do. A Subpoena may be next. However by not allowing Desiree to appear what type of "Transparency" example is that? Wasn't "Transparency" one of Pres. Obama's campaign promises?
Valerie Jarrett discusses Obama's Job Summit. She also defends the Obama White House's decision not to allow Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on Capitol Hill.
Congress just found the one spotlight the Salahis would rather stay out of. The AP is reporting that the couple known for crashing the White House state dinner Nov. 24 has decided against accepting the House Homeland Security Committee's invitation to the hearings being held on the state dinner incident tomorrow.
They may not have a choice, however. FishbowlDC reported that Homeland Security Committee chair Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-MS) said he'd subpoena the Salahis should they decline his invitation to appear.
Committee ranking member Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the Salahis as well as White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify at tomorrow's hearing investigating the events surrounding the Salahis' entrance into state dinner uninvited. Today, the White House declined to make Rogers available for the hearings, citing separation of powers.
Updated | 10:22 p.m. The White House on Wednesday invoked the "Separation of Powers" to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s Social Secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.
And the couple will not testify, either, according to a statement released late Wednesday by a public relations firm.
The statement says that the Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, have provided to the Secret Service and to the ranking members of the House committee conducting the hearing “all relevant e-mails and cellphone records that detail communications with a White House official,” and can do nothing else to help in the inquiry.
That evidence, the statement says, shows that no laws were broken, that White House protocol “was either deficient or mismanaged” and that there were “honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved.”
Earlier Wednesday at his regular briefing with reporters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Ms. Rogers would not testify. “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ he said. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’
Mr. Gibbs also said the flap over the unauthorized intruders has prompted the White House to change its procedures; from now on, a representative of the social secretary’s office will be stationed at Secret Service checkpoints for major social events in case questions arise. The White House deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, conducted a review and issued a directive to the staff.
“After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex,’’ Mr. Messina wrote in the memo, posted on the White House web site late Wednesday afternoon. “White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the check points helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening, but clearly we can do more, and we will do more.’’
The memo was the first admission by the White House of failures on the part of its own staff, and it came as scrutiny intensified on the social office and Ms. Rogers, its director. The House Homeland Security Committee is conducting a hearing on Thursday into the security lapse; Representative Peter T. King of New York, who is the senior Republican on the panel, had wanted Ms. Rogers to testify and criticized the administration for not allowing her to be a witness.
White Houses have often tried to prevent top advisers to the president from testifying on Capitol Hill; the Bush administration worked assiduously to prevent Karl Rove, the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, from talking to lawmakers under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors. That sparked an intense fight between the Bush administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Now, it is the Republicans’ turn to balk. Mr. King on Wednesday called Ms. Rogers’ decision not to testify “stonewalling” that would cause an “unnecessary confrontation with Congress.”
“I don’t want the Secret Service to be taking the hit here, what went wrong was the responsibility of the White House,” he said, adding, “for them not to be here just raises real questions.”
The director of the Secret Services, Mark Sullivan, is the only witness confirmed for tomorrow morning’s hearing. Even before the Salahis’ public relations firm released its statement, Mr. King said he thought it would be unlikely that the couple would appear at tomorrow’s hearing.
“They’d be crazy to testify,” he said, after meeting with the lawyers. “Their story, if they testify, would just not hold up.”
He said the couple has switched legal advisers from Paul Gardner, an entertainment lawyer, to a powerful Wall Street firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf.
The office of the committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, would not comment on the couple’s apparent decision not to appear.
Already the glamorous and successful Ms. Rogers – she possesses a Harvard M.B.A. and was a powerful social player in Chicago before joining the Obama White House — is taking a hit in the press for being more interested in showcasing herself in fashion magazines than in the traditional, behind-the-scenes role of the White House social secretary.
During the White House briefing, Mr. Gibbs answered a series of questions about Ms. Rogers’ role as the social secretary:
Q. Has there been any concern about Desiree Rogers’ performance prior to this instance?
Mr. Gibbs: No.
Q. No one has questioned the president or told the president that she is a very last-minute person, poor planner?
Mr. Gibbs: No, I think you — you all have been to and seen, either whether you’re part of a pool, whether some of you’ve been to receptions, the remarkable work that they have done in pulling off a lot of events here. The first family is quite pleased with her performance, and I’ve heard nothing uttered of what you talked about.
Q. Well, what about the issues of her being in fashion spreads early on in the administration? Did you put the brakes on that? I mean, that is — it’s been raised. It’s now public. It’s — you know, you saw it in the magazines, her pictorials. You saw her on the cover of –
Mr. Gibbs: There’s a — I get Sports Illustrated in my house.
The brouhaha over how the Salahis managed to talk their way into the dinner has been a major distraction for the White House at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to focus on the economy, health care and the war in Afghanistan. At his briefing on Wednesday, Mr. Gibbs finally cut off the questions, declaring, “I’m going to get back to weightier topics, like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.’’
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
