The couple filed an agreement to resolve property and custody issues, but requested those records be sealed. As of right now, the entire file is sealed until the judge makes a ruling.
"There is a wealth of information the children are not aware of," Jenny Sanford said in court of sealing the agreement. Releasing the details would serve no public purpose, Jenny Sanford said, and would "cause further damage to my children"
The judge said she would rule on that request later.
Gov. Sanford’s office released a statement today, the same as the one he released in December when news of his wife’s divorce filing became public.
"While it is not the course I would have hoped for, or would choose, I want to take full responsibility for the moral failure that led us to this tragic point,” Gov. Sanford said in his statement. “Jenny is a great person, and has been a remarkable wife, mother and first lady.
"I will join with her in asking the press to respect our shared desire for privacy as we quietly move forward. We respectively ask for your prayers."
Jenny Sanford puts her long list of grievances with her soon to be ex-husband, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, on full display in her new book.
"Staying True" is filled with nasty accounts of the Governor that paint him as insensitive, uncaring, selfish, out of touch and cheap. She offers new details of her husband’s affair in the book out Friday and is unflinching in her criticism of the governor.
To capture all the dirt Sanford dishes on her husband, POLITICO has created a guide to the book, cutting it down into three sections: her marriage, the affair and the fallout.
After getting over her husband’s unwillingness to include a pledge to be faithful in their wedding vows, Jenny writes that as newlyweds living in New York — where she was an investment banker and Mark started a real estate company — the two were “deeply in love and had a world of possibilities in front of us both.”
But not long after they moved to South Carolina, Jenny grew frustrated by what she found to be thoughtless, and sometimes strange, behavior.
When the newlyweds first visited the Sanford family home for a holiday, “Mark explained, I would be sleeping with his sister while he slept across the hall with his brothers,” Jenny writes, describing the room as having “bunk beds, trundles, desks and even surfboards hanging from the ceiling.”
“You’ve got to be kidding me,” she told her husband.
“I’ve always slept with my brothers, and I don’t see why that has to change now that we’re married,” he responded.
Soon thereafter, Jenny’s grandfather died, but Mark refused to fly to the funeral in Chicago. “He explained that he had hardly known my grandfather,” she writes. “Having met him a handful of times, he didn’t think he needed to be at the funeral.”
Jenny also quickly noticed that Mark was prone to being “cheap,” once drawing her a picture instead of giving her a gift and on another occasion returning a necklace he purchased for her birthday after seeing her wear it out.
“That’s what I spent all that money on?” he said upon seeing the necklace on his wife. “I hope you kept the box!”
“Knowing Mark’s extremely frugal habits, I knew not to expect much from Mark for birthdays or for Christmas, even if I felt it was surely nice to be remembered every now and again,” Jenny writes about her husband before he was elected to Congress. “Once in office, however, his habits deteriorated, and he even forgot my birthday once. Thereafter, I nudged the scheduler to remind him.”
Jenny was her husband’s campaign manager for both his first congressional run and his first run for governor, and she says there is only one reason she was picked for the job: She could do it for free.
Mark first told her of his decision to run for Congress while she was still lying in the hospital bed after giving birth to one of their four sons.
Mark said he chose her for the job because she was “free.”
“Free? I think my plate is pretty full right now,” she responded.
“You can do this with the babies at home,” he told her. “The only way this will even possibly work is if we keep our expenses incredibly low, and that’s why I really need you. You are free.”
The relationship further unraveled once Mark was a member of Congress and frequently away from his family, she says in the book. The strain, Jenny writes, was enough to make her first think of divorce after the two aired their frustrations with the marriage.
“His job demanded that he be calculating and sometimes manipulative. I was growing more vulnerable, and he was forming a hardened shell,” she writes. “For his part, Mark complained that I didn’t understand the stress he was under. We didn’t say it in so many words, but it was clear that while both of us were rarely alone, in our own distinct ways, we were lonely. What we did say led to tears — mine — and to soul-searching about whether we should even stay married.”
The two were not able to reconcile those differences during his time in Congress.
During one confrontation toward the end of his third term, Jenny told him that she thought “he was incredibly self-absorbed and disconnected from reality and from me.”
“The more he succeeded politically, the more time he spent living in that persona, and none of it served our marriage well,” she writes. “It seemed to me that Mark had become the empty-eyed politician he used to abhor.”
The Affair
Jenny writes that she first suspected her husband was seeing another woman when he did not immediately return from a trip to Ireland in November 2008 with some of his contacts at the Republican Governors Association, for which he was serving as chairman.
She called the governor’s office and found out he was in New York, but his staff was not sure why he was there.
“I didn’t know either but would soon come to know that this trip was a rendezvous with his mistress,” she writes.
When she later found a racy e-mail exchange between the governor and his Argentine mistress, television reporter Maria Belen Chapur, she confronted him.
“Jenny, I’m sorry. I’ll end it,” he said.
The governor at first denied that he was in love with his mistress, but the way he defended the Argentine woman when Jenny attacked her signaled otherwise.
“He touted her wealth, bristled when I asked questions and defended her when I referred to her plainly as ‘whore.’ ‘She is not a whore!’ he protested. He seemed to be oblivious to his ability to pierce my heart,” she writes.
The governor was soon asking his wife for permission to visit his mistress.
“Mark was unrelenting, in time escalating pressure to get me to condone his foreign adventure,” she writes.
“He wanted my permission to go, but I was never going to grant it.”
He only stopped requesting to see the other woman when Jenny threatened to kick him out of the house and run off with their children.
When the governor declared that he was leaving town to “get his head right,” his wife made him promise that he was not going to see the other woman.
“I will not see her,” he told Jenny.
“I shiver when I think that while I was cleaning up after a delicious family meal with the boys and their cousins, he was e-mailing his ‘soulmate’ with visions of her tan lines,” she writes.
The Fall-out
When the governor finally landed back in the United States to intense media attention after disappearing for several days to see his mistress, he called Jenny to ask, “How are you doing?”
“How am I?” she responded. “How do you think I am?”
“Jenny, be gentle with me,” the governor said.
“Gentle?” she shot back. “Do you know what kind of a storm you are returning to? And where do we stand?”
Sanford told his wife that he had ended the affair and that he had met with a reporter at the Atlanta airport upon his arrival and “told her of my love of adventure travel and so on.”
Jenny doubted that her husband’s story would hold, and when national scrutiny heightened and the governor decided to hold a press conference, she advised him to “be honest and get it over with.”
“Whatever you do, don’t talk about your heart,” she said.
The governor, of course, did not follow his wife’s advice, holding an emotional tear-filled press conference in which he confessed his love for his “soulmate.”
After the press conference, he called Jenny to ask: “How’d I do?”
“Are you kidding me? You cried for her and said little of me or the boys,” she responded.
Of the exchange, she writes: “I guess he’d forgotten I was not the one to praise his performance.”
In a new memoir "Staying True", South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford writes that Gov. Mark Sanford sought her advice about his romance and how to deal with the media after she discovered his extramarital relationship with an Argentine woman.
Jenny Sanford, who managed political campaigns for her husband during their 20-year marriage, writes in "Staying True" that the governor used her as a sounding board, wondering aloud whether he should follow his heart to Argentina and if he would live a life of regret if he didn't.
"Clearly those are thoughts I wish he had kept to himself," Jenny Sanford writes in the book to be released on Friday. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the 214-page book, published by Ballantine Books, on Tuesday.
In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, airing Friday on "20/20, " she says that from the beginning, her marriage was a "leap of faith" because he refused to include a vow of fidelity in their marriage ceremony.
"With the benefit of the knowledge I have about Mark now, I could point to this moment as a clear sign of things to come," she writes. But at the time, she found his honesty "brave and sweet" and thought he just had cold feet.
What ended it all
Jenny Sanford tells Walters that the final blow to the marriage was the publication of racy e-mails between her husband and his Argentine mistress, Maria Belen Chapur, whom Sanford called his "soul mate." The e-mails were published last year by The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C.
One e-mail from the governor to Chapur read: "I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night's light — but hey, that would be going into sexual details."
Jenny Sanford said that her children saw the e-mails and were devastated. "It just ripped me up, to see them reading these e-mails, to see them have to grow up so fast," she says.
Mark Sanford, once considered a possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate, disappeared for five days last summer.
He returned to reveal at a tearful Statehouse news conference he was not hiking the Appalachian Trail, as he told his staff, but in Argentina seeing his mistress.
The revelations he made then, and during a subsequent interview with the AP, derailed his political career and ultimately unraveled his marriage.
Affairs with multiple women
In the book, Jenny Sanford, a Georgetown-educated, former Wall Street vice president, traces the story of the Sanfords from the time the couple met in the 1980s to the trying events of the last year. The book includes eight pages of photographs of the Sanfords' wedding and family and of Mark Sanford's political career, which included three terms in Congress and two as governor.
Jenny Sanford discovered the affair in January 2009 after coming across a letter her husband had written to his mistress. She writes in her book she was "gut-punched all over again" when she found out the governor had dalliances with still other women, some of which she learned about from his interview with the AP when he said he had "crossed lines" with a handful of other women.
The book also gives a sense of the rumor mill that exploded in South Carolina in the wake of the governor's admissions. Jenny Sanford writes that, before the AP interview, the governor called her to say "he had more explaining to do" because another woman had suggested to a media outlet she had an affair with him.
She writes her husband told her at the time the relationship was "nothing much" and nothing she needed to know about earlier.
Jenny Sanford wrote her husband had admitted only one affair until that point and now "ever businesslike, he wanted to know what I thought he should reveal in the interview." She does not say what advice, if any, she gave the governor.
"Here he was again asking for my advice instead of first considering how the news might make me feel," she wrote.
It's unclear from the book the identity of that woman. The AP never reported on an extramarital relationship between the governor and any woman other than Chapur.
Sanford's office had no comment on Tuesday.
Governor refused to sign contract
Jenny Sanford also reveals in the book that following the revelation of the affair, she had her attorney draw up a contract under which she would not reveal the affair if her husband would stop seeing his mistress. She writes that the governor refused.
Jenny Sanford moved out of the Governor's Mansion last summer and now lives with the couple's four sons at the family beach house on Sullivans Island.
She filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery in December and a final hearing is scheduled for later this month.
The outside dust jacket of the book makes no mention of the affair, or even that the author is the first lady of South Carolina.
The cover has just the title and her name and a picture of Sanford sitting on the beach in a rose blouse and blue jeans. The back of the dust jacket contains an excerpt from the book that includes what the author calls the simple truth she has come to learn.
"What matters most is how you live your life, not what you have to show for it," she writes.
After spending years as a key player on her husband’s political team, South Carolina’s soon-to-be ex-First Lady Jenny Sanford now finds her own prospective political career the subject of considerable speculation.
With extensive connections, an impressive resume of her own, access to the state’s top fundraisers and a widespread belief that she played a central role in her husband’s political successes, Jenny Sanford has South Carolina political insiders wondering privately and in local political blogs whether a run for Congress—or even governor—is on the horizon.
Sanford announced Friday that she is divorcing Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, whose once-bright national political career was crippled by his admission of an extramarital affair.
While Jenny Sanford has avoided mention of any political ambitions of her own, her background suggests she’s well-equipped for a run for public office. After serving as her husband’s campaign manager both for his first run for Congress in 1994 and his initial run for governor in 2002, she emerged as a backroom powerbroker with ties to the state’s political elite.
And prior to her work on her husband’s campaigns, Sanford was an accomplished investment banker who became vice president of mergers and acquisitions at Lazard, the New York investment bank, by the age of 27.
“From my personal knowledge of her personal intellect and demeanor, I know that she is one of the most talented and smartest political operatives I have ever seen,” said Katon Dawson, the former chairman of the South Carolina GOP and longtime confidant of the Sanfords.
Indeed, some even credit Jenny Sanford with helping to save her embattled husband's job this summer. While she notably did not appear by his side at the press conference where he admitted to his infidelity—and quickly moved out of the governor’s mansion—when pressure for the governor to resign was at a fever pitch in July, it was she who reached out to state legislative leaders to quell the calls for his job.
And, in announcing the divorce, Sanford waited until impeachment threats against her soon to be ex-husband were effectively crushed.
Sanford has taken steps recently that could be helpful in the event she pursues elected office, including moves to build an individual brand outside of her husband or the First Lady’s office.
In November, she endorsed long-shot state Rep. Nikki Haley--a youthful Indian-American woman with a record of reform who has caught the eye of national party leaders—in the Republican gubernatorial primary and also set up her own personal website that essentially functions as a conduit to post press releases and updates from outside the ambit of the governor’s office.
In addition, Jenny Sanford is writing a memoir due out in the spring and recently sat down for an interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters after being selected as one of Walters’s “10 Most Fascinating People” of the year.
“Jenny is a woman of incredible intelligence, strength, and grace,” Haley told POLITICO. “She has been a political force in this state for years and will continue to be as long as she wants to.”
There are serious doubts, however, about whether Sanford has any intention at all of pursuing elected office.
Few of those who are close to Jenny Sanford, including the GOP politicians who live nearby on Sullivan’s Island—the exclusive small island community where she has been living since moving out of the governor’s mansion in August—responded to requests to speak about her political future.
And those who did speak to POLITICO stressed that while Sanford may cut an attractive profile as a candidate, she has not demonstrated the unbridled desire for the limelight or the affinity for retail politics necessary in a state where GOP primaries qualify as a blood sport.
“Before all this happened, she had been making a very conscious effort to pull back from public life,” said Joel Sawyer, the governor’s former communications director. “My sense is that she wants to get back to leading as normal a life as she can as soon as possible.”
“I guarantee you she will never run for anything,” Sawyer added. “Once the book is done she’s going to try to lead as normal a life as possible.”
Dawson said that if running for public office was something Sanford wanted to do “she could certainly win, but I think that’s the farthest thing there is from anything she wants to do.”
“She never really sought that kind of limelight or political ambition. It’s what her husband chose to do and she did it,” Dawson said. “Anyone who thinks Jenny Sanford wants to be in politics doesn’t know a thing about Jenny.”
Mark Sanford crossed lines with other women. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says an Argentine woman is his “soul mate” and admits to relationships with other women. NBC’s Mark Potter reports.
The First Marriage (South Carolina Governor's) is ending.
First Lady Jenny Sanford issued a statement this morning saying she is filing for divorce from Gov. Mark Sanford.
In a two-page filing made this morning in Charleston County family court, Jenny Sanford asked for a divorce on grounds of adultery.
The news comes the same week as Gov. Sanford was censured but spared impeachment by a House subcommittee investigating allegations that Sanford misused campaign money, and state planes and other assets. Those allegations came to light after the governor secretly left the state for five days in June to visit his Argentine lover.
In a mid-day statement today, Gov. Sanford responded to his estranged wife’s announcement by saying: "While it is not the course I would have hoped for, or would choose, I want to take full responsibility for the moral failure that led us to this tragic point. Jenny is a great person, and has been a remarkable wife, mother and first lady. She has been more than gracious these last six months and gone above and beyond in her patience and commitment to put the needs of others in front of her own. While our family structure may change, I know that we will both work earnestly to be the best mom and dad we can be to four of the finest boys on earth.”
In her court filing, Jenny Sanford said “the defendant has engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman other than the plaintiff (Jenny Sanford). The plaintiff has not condoned that relationship and is informed and believes that she is entitled to a divorce ... on ground of adultery.”
The first lady’s filing said she “is informed and believes that all ... matters between the parties” — custody of the couple’s four sons and division of their assets — ”will be resolved by agreement, which agreement will be presented to the court for approval and adoption. ...”
While both Sanfords — who married in Florida in 1989 — regularly are described as multi-millionaires, Jenny Sanford is, in fact, the wealthier. She is an heir to Skil saw fortune, while his wealth is largely based on illiquid land holdings.
Gov. Sanford had said Thursday that he still hoped to save his marriage. “There are hopes to reconcile.”
The two-term, Republican governor made his comments a day after Jenny Sanford appeared on Barbara Walters’ ABC special on the 10 most fascinating people of 2009.
In that interview, recorded earlier, Jenny Sanford was asked if their 20-year marriage would survive. “I think the hurdles are significant,” he replied.
Jenny Sanford went on to say she had forgiven her husband, but forgetting was another matter.
Gov. Mark Sanford said Thursday that he did not watch the interview.
Jenny Sanford and the couple’s four sons left the Governor’s Mansion this summer and moved to the family’s Sullivans Island home, leaving Mark Sanford in Columbia.
Jenny Sanford’s statement says:
“As so many of us know, the dissolution of any marriage is a sad and painful process. It is also a very personal and private one. Because Mark and I are public figures, we have naturally had less privacy with which to deal with our difficulties than do other couples. Indeed, I know it will soon become known so I choose to release this brief notice that I am now filing for divorce. This came after many unsuccessful efforts at reconciliation, yet I am still dedicated to keeping the process that lies ahead peaceful for our family.
“I remain thankful to so many across this state and nation for their words of encouragement and prayers during this difficult time. Please know the boys and I are doing well and are blessed with the incredible support of friends and family and bolstered by our faith and the unfailing love of our God above.”
South Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday quashed a move to oust Gov. Mark Sanford over his summertime tryst and his use of state aircraft, saying his embarrassing conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment.
Lawmakers were still considering whether to recommend an official reprimand.
Six of the seven panel members said they believed the events surrounding Sanford's extramarital affair involving an Argentine woman did not rise to a high enough level to warrant his removal from office prior to the end of his second and final term in January 2011.
"We can't impeach for hypocrisy. We can't impeach for arrogance. We can't impeach an officeholder for his lack of leadership skills," said Rep. James Harrison, the Columbia Republican who headed the panel.
Sanford has been under scrutiny since June, when he tearfully revealed the affair. Ensuing probes of his travel and campaign spending have led to more than three dozen state ethics charges and the potential for $74,000 in fines.
Only eight U.S. governors have been removed by impeachment, and the only two removed in the last 80 years each faced criminal charges.
Technically, the outcome of Wednesday's vote will be sent as a recommendation to a full House Judiciary panel, which could revive an impeachment effort. However, that is unlikely given the margin of the vote.
The decision breathes new life into Sanford's remaining 13 months as governor, though he still faces further legislative votes on the official rebuke. He's also the subject of a State Ethics Commission hearing on more than three dozen civil charges involving his use of state planes, pricey commercial airlines seats and campaign money. The state attorney general is considering whether those accusations will lead to criminal charges.
The panel honed in on Sanford's trip to Argentina in June, debating how seriously to consider the governor's five-day absence during which his staff was led to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Legislators pushing for impeachment sought to punish Sanford for bringing "extreme dishonor and shame" and contended he was derelict in his duty.
"We have a governor forsaking, abandoning, deserting his office. We have a premeditated, intentional act where he abandoned his office in the state," said state Rep. Greg Delleney, the Chester Republican who most vehemently pushed for impeachment. "He has lost all moral authority to lead this state."
A House panel has voted against a resolution impeaching Gov. Mark Sanford for abandoning his duties and abuse of power, all but closing the door on lawmakers removing Sanford from office.
The seven-member panel, instead, voted unanimously to censure Sanford, which means the General Assembly would admonish Sanford for his behavior. But, Sanford would get to serve the rest of his term, which has roughly one year remaining.
Lawmakers said that while Sanford may have used a 2008 Argentina trade trip as a cover to initiate an extramarital affair and that his use of state aircraft deserved an S.C. Ethics Commission review, the charges did not meet the high standard they felt was necessary to remove Sanford from office.
The panel, on a 6-1 vote, gave the bill an unfavorable report to the full Judiciary committee. The only vote in support was Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, one of four sponsors.
Delleney said he will try to convince Judiciary committee members to vote in favor next week, but was not optimistic.
"It will be difficult, but I'm not giving up," Delleney said. "This is a political process. The political will is just not there. I'm prepared to accept the consequences."
A tearful Jenny Horne, R-Dorchester, indicated she would not vote in favor of the resolution, the fourth panelist who said prior to the vote they would not support the impeachment resolution.
Horne said she would not support the resolution, arguing Sanford’s actions did not rise to the level of impeachment.
Earlier in the meeting, Reps. Garry Smith, R-Greenville, David Weeks, D-Sumter and Walt McLeod, D-Newberry spoke out against the impeachment resolution.
Weeks, McLeod and Horne are all attorneys. Each argued the bar for impeachment is too high for what Sanford is accused of.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Sanford issued the following statement:
"In light of the ad hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I'd like to thank the Committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.
"Two, we agree with the Committee's dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change.
"Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to 'hang in there,' and 'finish strong.' The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I've created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it.
"It's my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state -- just as we've seen with Boeing's record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I'll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We'd ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front."
As the political standing of Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina continues to crumble, the career of his wife, Jenny Sanford, seems to be taking off.
She is writing a memoir, "Staying True", to be released in April by Ballantine Books, about grappling with her husband’s marital infidelity. She has applied to trademark her own name in order to sell clothing, mugs and other items. She will appear next month on a Barbara Walters special on ABC as one of the “10 Most Fascinating People of 2009.”
She has set up a privately financed personal Web site, complete with news releases and photographs. And she has endorsed a candidate to succeed her husband, State Representative Nikki Haley, a Republican and the only woman in the race.
“She is stepping from the background into the foreground,” said Jack Bass, a professor of humanities and social sciences at the College of Charleston. “She has moved from promoting him as a loyal spouse to using those same talents on behalf of herself.”
In South Carolina, some politicians and experts believe she may run for office. They are quick to note that she has served as campaign manager during her husband’s races, shares his conservative fiscal values and acted as de facto chief of staff briefly in his first term.
“Yes, if I had to bet, I think she will run,” said Robert Oldendick, director of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina. “Just look at what she’s doing externally.”
Ms. Sanford declined to be interviewed for this article, and her friends played down the idea of a run for office.
After the admission, the Sanfords separated but did not dissolve their 20-year marriage. She is believed to be the only governor’s spouse in such a separation, although Gov. Jim Gibbons of Nevada has filed for divorce from his wife, Dawn Gibbons.
Ms. Sanford, who is independently wealthy, moved out of the Governor’s Mansion with their four sons and cardboard boxes of belongings and rebuffed Mr. Sanford’s efforts at reconciliation. A defiant Vogue interview and some choice words about her husband later, Ms. Sanford had become a reluctant poster woman for not standing by her man.
“All I can do is forgive,” she told Vogue. “Reconciliation is something else, and that is going to be a harder road. I have put my heart and soul into being a good mother and wife. Now I think it’s up to my husband to do the soul-searching to see if he wants to stay married. The ball is in his court.”
But these latest image-raising moves — the book, the Web site, the endorsement — suggest a person who is growing more comfortable as a headline maker.
“Initially, she may not have been interested in being in that spotlight,” said Danielle Vinson, the political science department chairwoman at Furman University in Greenville. “But it’s clear that it’s not going away, and she seems to have embraced it.”
By separating from her husband, but remaining first lady, friends say, Ms. Sanford has the best of two worlds as part public figure, part independent woman. She enjoys the perks of political office (a staff assistant, expert advice, ready publicity, admiring colleagues) without the pitfalls (a breakneck schedule of photo-ops and glad handing beside a politically toxic husband). Ms. Sanford has one full-time employee in the governor’s office, Meg Milne, an assistant and spokeswoman.
While Ms. Sanford does not receive a salary as first lady, she works on initiatives about promoting healthy eating and preventing cancer. She does not appear in public often, but she is scheduled to attend a holiday open house on Dec. 3 at the mansion, although not necessarily with the governor.
Ms. Sanford would make a strong candidate for office but could face a negative reaction if she were viewed as capitalizing on her husband’s affair, said Adam Fogle, the editor of the Palmetto Scoop, an online publication about South Carolina politics.
“At the end of the day,” Mr. Fogle said, “she’s got Sanford at the end of her name.”
Ms. Sanford has not expressed plans to run for office. Her friends dismissed the notion of a Jenny Sanford campaign as far-fetched.
“That would shock me as much as the news about Mark shocked me,” said Sally Williamson, a close friend and owner of an antiques store. “I do not think that’s how she would see herself as being beneficial.”
Ms. Sanford’s political views are closely aligned with her husband’s, especially on reducing taxation and government spending, said Joel Sawyer, a former communications director for the governor. But much of her work as first lady has been on public health. She serves on the boards of organizations for children’s health and cancer prevention and founded an initiative called the Healthy South Carolina Challenge that advocates healthy eating, exercise and not smoking.
These days, Ms. Sanford spends most of her time caring for her sons, ages 11 to 17, and writing the memoir in a simple beachfront house on Sullivan’s Island with a view of Fort Sumter. A Georgetown-educated former investment banker, Ms. Sanford is surrounded by a close-knit circle of professional women.
“She’s creating her own identity,” said Marjory Wentworth, the state poet laureate and a longtime friend who lives in nearby Mount Pleasant. “So many people have written her e-mail messages and letters of support. Here and there, when something matters to her, she will respond with a statement about her beliefs.”
One such statement concerned Ms. Haley, whom Ms. Sanford endorsed for governor. A conservative, 37-year-old Indian-American state representative from Lexington, Ms. Haley has attracted considerable attention in a state of older, mostly male and white politicians.
An ally of Mr. Sanford who distanced herself from him after the scandal, Ms. Haley was described by Ms. Sanford in the endorsement as “principled, conservative, tough and smart.”
Few details have been released about Ms. Sanford’s memoir. But Ballantine Books, an imprint of Random House, calls it an “inspirational memoir” that “will grapple with the universal issue of maintaining integrity and a sense of self during life’s difficult times.”
That is consistent with how Ms. Sanford is beginning to present herself: in selective sound bites that emphasize her independence and resilience.
“She was always the driving force behind Mark Sanford, the engine that powers the car,” said Mr. Fogle of the Palmetto Scoop. “Now the car broke down, and she’s on her own.”
Gov. Mark Sanford's lawyer told the State Ethics Commission required disclosures weren't filed on four of 61 flights investigators questioned as part of a wide-ranging probe of travel and campaign finance practices.
Kevin Hall's Oct. 26 admission is included in nearly 1,400 pages released by Sanford's lawyers earlier this week as the House began an impeachment hearing. The Republican's second term ends January 2011 and he's barred by law from seeking a third one.
The documents include three flights Sanford should have disclosed and one his lawyers say the South Carolina Republican Party should have reported.
"In those few instances in which a flight was omitted from a previous filing, the omission was inadvertent and unintentional and is therefore technical in nature," Hall wrote.
South Carolina law requires disclosures of gifts and in-kind political contributions on annual ethics filings or quarterly campaign finance reports.
In August, an Associated Press investigation found Sanford had not included dozens of flights on those forms. The governor's spokesman said at the time the flights didn't need to be reported because they involved longtime friends.
Sanford's travel and campaign spending have been under scrutiny since he returned in June from a five-day rendezvous with his Argentine lover and confessed a yearlong affair. Since then, investigations by The Associated Press found high-priced travel on commercial planes despite state low-cost travel requirements; use of state planes for personal and political purposes and unreported private plane flights provided by friends and donors.
Ethics Commission executive director Herb Hayden told Sanford's lawyers in an Oct. 8 letter investigators had found 78 private plane flights by sifting through Sanford's schedules. That included 61 the commission said were not reported.
Hall's response shows 13 of the questioned flights were reported and that most of the others did not have to be reported because they involved travel on planes provided by friends and family.
In 2006 during his re-election campaign, Sanford took four flights that Hall said should have been reported.
- A trip from Mt. Pleasant to Aiken and back as Sanford went to campaign events.
- Two trips from Columbia to Conway for a GOP county convention and debate.
- A flight to various stops around the state days before the election that included other statewide candidates and amounted to a contribution by the plane's owner to the state GOP.
The letter instructs the commission to include its description of the flights in the public record.
Because of that, the commission didn't consider the private plane trips as it moved forward with 37 charges against Sanford for commercial and state plane use as well as personal reimbursements from his campaign account.
"With this amendment to previous filings, Governor Sanford will have complied, albeit late, with the filing requirements" under the law, Hayden said in the commission's complaint.
Columbia car dealer J.T. Gandolfo provided 11 flights - more than anyone else. Sanford's spokesman had described him as a longtime Sanford friend. An affidavit Gandolfo provided shows he became Sanford's friend in 2002, the year Sanford announced he was running for governor. Gandolfo said he didn't provide the travel between 2005 and 2008 because of Sanford's position.
Gov. Sanford faces 37 charges. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford faces ethics charges he broke state laws 37 times by violating rules on airplane travel and campaign money. NBC's Contessa Brewer reports.
Legislators irked for months over Gov. Mark Sanford's summertime vanishing act and his tearful revelation that he was in Argentina for a rendezvous with his lover plan to start debating a measure Tuesday that ultimately would remove him from office.
The Republican does face new ethics charges about his travel and campaign finances. But the seven lawmakers who comprise a panel of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate impeachment are focused solely this week on his five-day absence in June and failure to put someone in charge of the state while he was gone.
The four Republicans who co-sponsored the measure contend he was derelict in his duty and wrong to mislead staffers into thinking he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.
The measure says in part that Sanford's "conduct under these circumstances has brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina." It continues that it has caused the office and state "to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace."
The panel of three Democrats and four Republicans includes Chairman Jim Harrison. The Columbia Republican said Monday that later meetings will consider the 37 civil charges Sanford is facing following a three-month State Ethics Commission probe. Among other violations, Sanford is accused of using taxpayer money for high-priced airplane tickets that took him around the world and to Argentina.
Sanford's attorney said the governor looks forward to answering the "technical questions" regarding his travel and finances at a commission hearing early next year. The civil charges carry a maximum $74,000 in fines.
Sanford has been under scrutiny and pressure to step down since admitting to an extramarital affair with the woman he has called his "soul mate." He has never revealed the identity of a so-called "back channel" senior administration official the governor contends could have reached him in an emergency. Sanford's state e-mail and phone records show he was not in touch with his office while abroad.
If the impeachment measure passes the panel, it would head to the full Judiciary Committee. From there it would need a majority vote of the 25 members to get it to the House floor in January for debate. A two-thirds vote in favor would result in Sanford's suspension.
The Senate, acting as jury, then would decide whether Sanford would be removed from office, which would also require a two-thirds vote. His second and final term ends in January 2011.
The ethics probe came after a series of Associated Press investigations showed the governor had for years used state airplanes for political and personal trips, flown in pricey commercial airline seats despite a low-cost travel requirement and failed to disclose trips on planes owned by friends and donors. The State of Columbia newspaper also questioned whether Sanford properly reimbursed himself from his campaign cash.
"We are confident that we will be able to address each of these questions, none of which constitutes findings of guilt and none of which we believe rise anywhere near to the traditional standard of impeachment," Sanford attorney Butch Bowers said Monday.
Even some lawmakers who have called for Sanford to quit questioned whether the charges are weighty enough to cut short the governor's tenure.
"If it's relatively minor ethics violations, I don't believe there will be sentiment there to remove the governor," said House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Cayce.
But state Sen. Larry Martin said the charges shouldn't be downplayed. He derided the notation from Sanford's lawyers that the charges came from a small percentage of the total flights and records examined by the commission.
"Most bank robbers have been in and out of banks hundreds of times but only rob it once," said Martin, R-Pickens,
The first lady and the couple's four sons moved out of the governor's mansion. While the Sanfords have said they were trying to reconcile, Jenny Sanford more recently has described the two as separated.
The S.C. Ethics Commission has charged Gov.Mark Sanford with breaking state ethics laws 37 times - including using state planes for family trips, spending campaign funds on a hunting trip, and flying first class, instead of coach, while on state travel.
The commission, which last week wrapped up its preliminary, three-month investigation into allegations against the embattled governor, made the charges public Monday.
The commission's findings have been eagerly awaited by legislators, who are deciding whether to oust Sanford from office before his term ends in January 2011.
An S.C. House subcommittee will consider an impeachment resolution for the first time today. The Ethics Commission charges allege:
Sanford flew business or first class 18 times between 2005 and 2009 on state business. That included travel to Europe, Asia and South America. State law requires officials to choose the most economical fare unless there is an urgent reason to do otherwise.
Sanford used state aircraft for personal travel nine times between 2005 and 2008, including a book signing, a birthday party for a contributor, a son's sporting event and a family getaway to Georgia.
On 10 occasions, Sanford took money from his campaign account, donated by supporters, and improperly spent it on personal uses, including an Irish hunting trip and a GOP governors meeting in Miami. The money in question, a total of $2,940.68, was spent between 2006 and 2009.
Sanford was cleared by the commission for failing to report private plane trips given to him by friends and political allies. Sanford's attorney told the commission the governor will disclose all of the trips. "With this amendment ... Gov. Sanford will have complied, albeit late, with the filing requirements" of state law, the commission said.
The charges against Sanford will be aired at a hearing of a three-member Ethics Commission panel, to be held sometime in January.
During that hearing, Sanford's attorneys will mount his defense.
The governor's lawyers have characterized the accusations as technical and minor.
Sanford's attorney, Butch Bowers, said Monday: "We are confident that we will be able to address each of these questions, none of which constitutes findings of guilt and none of which we believe rise anywhere near to the traditional standard of impeachment. We look forward to working with the commission and resolving this matter."
Ultimately, the commissioners - appointed by Sanford but confirmed by the state Senate - will vote on whether Sanford is guilty of the ethics violations. Sanford could be cleared or fined up to $74,000.
Sanford also could face criminal charges.
A spokesman said Monday that S.C. Attorney general Henry McMaster is reviewing the Ethics Commission report to determine whether charges are warranted.
Impeachment talks
The governor faces trouble on another front, as well.
Today, a subcommittee of House lawmakers will hold their first meeting to discuss impeaching the governor.
Four House members introduced a bill last week to oust the governor from office, saying he abandoned the state for five days in June to secretly visit his lover in Argentina.
Abandoning his duties is grounds for impeachment, no matter the ethics charges, state Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said Monday.
"What matters to me," Delleney said, "is his absence from the state without giving anyone notice and being AWOL for five days, leaving no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the state and his preconceived deceit and cover-up of his whereabouts using his staff, who are state employees, to mislead public officials of South Carolina and the public of South Carolina. That, coupled with the shame and disgrace he brought to the reputation of South Carolina."
Sanford has brushed off calls to resign from GOP House members and senators, who control the Legislature, saying he has not broken any laws and has been a good steward of taxpayer money.
Flying first class
Four of the first- or business- class flights cited by the Ethics Commission involved a 2008 state Commerce Department trip to Brazil.
Sanford, a married, two-term governor, asked the economic development trip be extended to include Argentina, where he saw his lover.
The governor has reimbursed the state $3,300 for the Argentine part of the trip. He has said he spent no other tax money to see his lover, whom he first met in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay and has called his "soul mate."
The governor's defenders also have said previous governors flew first class on the state's dime. However, the commission says two of those governors used private money to pay for more expensive tickets.
In the Ethics Commission report released Monday, the state Commerce Department was cited as saying it is a long-held practice that top state officials fly business class on international trips so they can arrive rested.
But the commission fired back that, in many instances, Sanford had a day to recover before any meetings. He also flew business class to return to Columbia.
Sanford's defenders also have said the state Comptroller General's office signed off on the tickets and the Legislative Audit Council never objected to them.
However, the Ethics Commission said the comptroller's office did "not second guess" decisions, instead paying "the bills which are submitted." The Audit Council told the commission it did not look into airfares.
Personal trips
The Ethics Commission also charges Sanford misused state aircraft to fly to political events, including an Anderson County GOP dinner, a Republican House caucus reception in Greenville and the Aiken birthday party of a campaign contributor.
The commission also cited a number of flights on state planes as personal, violating state law, including:
A 2006 flight from North Myrtle Beach to Columbia, after which Sanford got a haircut.
A 2006 trip by Sanford and his family to Georgia from West Virginia for a "personal weekend."
A 2007 flight from North Myrtle Beach to Columbia for Sanford to attend a son's sporting event.
A 2008 flight to Myrtle Beach - with his wife and son - for the opening of the Hard Rock Park entertainment complex.
Sanford has denied using state aircraft for personal reasons. For example, he said he gets his hair cut at a discount chain that does not accept reservations, meaning he had no reason to fly back to Columbia for a trim.
Campaign cash
The commission also charges, on 10 occasions, Sanford reimbursed himself for personal expenses out of campaign money.
These reimbursements violate state ethics law because they were not related to Sanford's campaign or duties as governor, the commission said.
Also, Sanford failed to provide receipts for the expenses. Ethics rules require a campaign to keep receipts dating back five years.
The expenses include $864.90 for a 2008 Republican governors meeting in Miami and a hunting trip to Dublin, Ireland.
(Rep. John Carter calls for Charlie Rangel to step down. Excuse me but where are the bells and whistles for Senator John Ensign and Gov Mark Sanford?? Hypocrites!)
(Ethics violation in Ensign affair? A Hardball with Chris Matthews panel debates whether Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., violated ethics law as part of the cover-up for his extramarital affair.)
(Who financed Sanford's affair? More questions were raised Thursday about whether taxpayers paid for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's trips to see a woman in South America with whom he admitted having an affair. NBC's Mark Potter reports.)
Democrats easily rebuffed another Republican attempt to remove Rep. Charles Rangel from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday. But there was a small sign of eroding support for the embattled New York Democrat: Mississippi’s two House Democrats voted against him.
Reps. Gene Taylor and Travis Childers joined nearly all of the Republicans on a vote that effectively killed a resolution by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) calling for Rangel’s removal while the ethics committee undertakes a sprawling investigation into his finances.
The anti-Rangel votes from two southern Democrats may be seen as minor evidence of mounting pressure on Rangel, whose job remains secure so long as he has the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the large majority of the Democratic Caucus.
“These votes show that support for the Democratic Leaders’ decision to sweep this matter under the rug is starting to crack,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Six Republicans sided with Rangel on Wednesday: Reps. Peter King of New York, Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Dana Rohrabacher of California, Walter Jones of North Carolina, Don Young of Alaska and Ron Paul of Texas.
A similar effort by Carter in February garnered no Democratic support.
Democrats’ parliamentary maneuvering ensured there would be no debate on the resolution, but Republicans clearly believe that forcing Democrats to defend Rangel with a roll call vote is good politics.
“We cannot tolerate a double standard in this country, one for the common man and another for the rich and powerful,” Carter said Wednesday. “To allow Mr. Rangel to continue to serve as chairman of the very committee with IRS oversight, without paying a nickel in penalties, and with no end in sight to his ethics investigation, sends a clear message to the American public that this government refuses to abide by the same laws they impose on the working people of this country. With this vote, those people can see exactly where their representative stands on the issue of equality under the law.”
Rangel balked at an effort to have the House supersede the ethics process.
"It's unfair," Rangel said Wednesday morning. "I think the ethics committee should get a chance to work its will."
Congressional ethics investigations are notoriously opaque and can often take months to complete, which is why Republicans are frustrated with the Rangel situation. But the chairman continues to have the full backing of Democratic leaders.
“We will await that [ethics] report,” Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said Wednesday. “Prior to that, any actions making reference to Chairman Rangel would be premature.”
The committee has its hands full, as new revelations about Rangel’s complicated finances seem to pop up every few months.
Most recently, Rangel restated his legally required personal financial disclosure, showing an asset range that jumped from roughly $500,000 to $1.3 million to $1 million to $2.5 million.
That was the latest in a string of incidents that have shined the spotlight on the Rangel’s personal and political conduct. He has admitted to failing to report income from a Dominican vacation home, and he has been accused of breaking New York City rules by maintaining multiple rent-controlled apartments, including a campaign office.
He also has come under fire for allegations that he used official letterhead to solicit private funding for a City College of New York Center created by an earmark and named for him and that he helped retain a tax break for a donor to the center. The New York Post reported Wednesday morning that Rangel secured a $3 million earmark in the House’s Defense Appropriations bill for another arm of CCNY.
Rangel, known for camera-ready bonhomie, may be less visible to television audiences these days. But he has been meeting regularly with Democratic leaders and various party factions to help fashion a health care overhaul. After a recent meeting of the Democratic whip team, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said Rangel “is here to know what the members are thinking.”
Regardless of what they’re thinking, their votes say it’s not time for Rangel to step aside.
Rangel’s office believes the ethics push is also a Republican effort to derail health care.
“Let’s look at this resolution for what it really is – a highly partisan effort designed to undermine the important work in Congress on health care reform,” a Rangel spokesman said after the vote.
Technically, the House voted on Wednesday to refer Carter’s resolution to the ethics committee, which already is investigating Rangel and would essentially take the referral under advisement. The final tally was 246 to 153, with 19 lawmakers voting present. That vote came on the heels of another procedural vote on which Rangel prevailed 243 to 156, with 19 present votes.
On the first vote, Childers sided with Rangel. His spokeswoman did not immediately return POLITICO’s request for comment.
Asked before the vote whether Rangel would see an erosion of support, Taylor said “I guess we’ll know in a few hours, won’t we?”
Carter made a bit of a spectacle on the floor, taking about 18 minutes to read a resolution with a seemingly limitless supply of “whereas” clauses. When Democrats objected to forcing the clerk to re-read the entire thing, Republicans refused to consent to dispensing with the reading. In all, the affair took about an hour.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) sat stone-faced as the House chamber buzzed around him, preparing to vote on a measure that could partly undo his almost four decades of work in Congress.
As Republicans pressed their attempt to remove him from his perch as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrats stood by Rangel -- who is under investigation for a series of alleged violations that include improperly occupying several rent-controlled New York City apartments and not disclosing a laundry list of income and assets -- and deflected the measure to committee.
They have stuck with Rangel repeatedly as the list of charges against him has grown, resisting any temptation to push aside a popular fixture in the party who helped found the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971. They have done so despite vows from Republicans to continue to force them to go on the record in defense of their colleague. But the issue carries complications for both parties.
Instead of full-throated defenses of Rangel, House Democrats measured their comments. Asked whether the controversy would have any negative impact on his party, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sidestepped the question, saying that "the issue is making sure there is a fair process."
Some Republicans, meanwhile, chafed at the sharp rhetoric aimed at Rangel, a jovial lawmaker who has many friends in both parties and is in a position to dole out favors on both sides of the aisle.
"There are some serious issues," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who voted with the Democrats on Wednesday and said he was not ready to call for Rangel to give up his chairmanship. "But from what I know, there was no malice or malfeasance. He's a war hero, he's been here for 40 years, he's a decent guy."
The Republican-sponsored resolution said Rangel was unfit to serve as the chairman of the powerful committee that writes tax laws while he remains under investigation. Democrats blocked the move, sending the resolution by Rep. John Carter (Tex.) to the ethics committee and saying Congress should not act until that panel completes its investigation.
The resolution was the fourth attempt by Republicans in the past 16 months to censure Rangel or strip him of his committee chairmanship. House Republican leaders pushed their members to back the resolution against the Harlem lawmaker, arguing that his conduct violated pledges from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2006 to oversee the "most ethical Congress in history" and end what she called "the culture of corruption" when Republicans ruled the House.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) accused Pelosi of "breaking her promise," and party strategists said they would attack Democratic lawmakers in competitive districts who vote to keep Rangel in power or accept campaign donations from him.
"The Democrats have a number of ethics and corruption issues they are going to have deal with next year," said Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has run an ad attacking Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) for accepting campaign contributions from Rangel.
A Pelosi spokesman brushed aside Republican complaints, saying, "Democrats have passed tough ethics and lobbying laws, increased transparency in congressional operations and legislating." Jennifer Crider, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Rangel's conduct would pose little danger for Democratic members in swing districts because "our members have built independent profiles."
"I think people will look at it and say, 'What is my congressman doing?' " said Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), who was first elected in a tight race in 2006. "I don't see it having a big impact."
Carter, a member of the GOP leadership who has become one of Rangel's main antagonists, spent more than 15 minutes reading from the resolution he had written, which pulled from numerous newspaper articles describing allegations against Rangel and editorials calling for his resignation. He accused Rangel of conduct that "held the House up to public ridicule."
In an occurrence rarely seen on the House floor, Carter read his resolution -- nine pages and more than 2,000 words. While other members talked to aides or read, Rangel sat silent and expressionless in the first row on the Democratic side of the aisle, eyes fixed on Carter.
"We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. 'If Charlie Rangel doesn't have to pay his taxes, why should I?' " Carter said, quoting from an editorial in the New Haven Register.
Carter listed nearly every allegation against Rangel, who himself called for the ethics committee to examine his conduct last year. Rangel admitted last month that he failed to report more than $500,000 in assets on his 2007 federal disclosure forms. Last year, he acknowledged failing to disclose and pay taxes on at least $75,000 in rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic that he has owned.
He has been accused of improperly using congressional stationery to solicit donations for an academic center bearing his name at the City College of New York and attending a conference last year in St. Martin that was paid for by donors who employ lobbyists, a violation of House rules.
After a bill is introduced in Congress, by rule, a clerk reads the bill aloud, but members of Congress can bring such a reading to a halt by saying they are already aware of the legislation's details. But when Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), a Rangel friend, stood up to say such a reading was unnecessary, a number of Republicans immediately objected.
The clerk then proceeded to repeat the blistering text Carter had already read himself, as Rangel sat silently, not uttering a word to the longtime colleagues sitting beside him, Reps. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).
Rangel walked slowly from the House chamber as the roll-call vote began, saying little to Democrats who patted him on the back and looked eager to comfort him.
The Democrats then voted to cede the issue to ethics committee, keeping Rangel in his chairmanship for now. That proposal has little practical impact since the ethics committee is already investigating Rangel and has been for more than a year.
In the end, Six Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats, while two members of Rangel's party, Mississippi Reps. Gene Taylor and Travis Childers, sided with the GOP.
Rangel said little about the politics surrounding the resolution or the threat to his legacy Wednesday, telling reporters after the vote, "It's a thing that bothers me and my family."
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)
