A Few Plausible Explanations Why Trey Gowdy Resigned From Ethics

On January 10, 2018, U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy effectively resigned from the Committee on Ethics.

On December 7, 2017, U.S. Representatives Susan Brooks and Ted Deutch stated that the Committee on Ethics could not conduct investigations on sexual harassment settlements due to the strict confidentiality rules with the Office of Compliance.

On December 12, 2017, it was reported that Omar Ashmawy, who overseas Congressional Ethics investigations was wrapped up in sexual assault lawsuits.

On November 8, 2015, it was reported that the head of the Ethics Committee received money from groups linked to the Azervaijan probe of Congressional Members who took overseas trips, stopping in Turkey, funded through organizations of Fethullah Gulen and Israel.

House Ethics dropped the probe in December 2015 and referred the matter to the DOJ, detailed in the article, below.

That means the congressional probe has met the benchmark of being criminal.

So, why would Trey resign from House Ethics?

Well, it might be because he is the Chaiman of House Oversight and is busy with the next phase of the investigation in dealing with Michigan and the Clinton Foundation because they are part and parcel of what is being investigated.

Or, it could also be the fact that these Ethics investigations, which are still, as I type, ongoing, are connected to child welfare fraud.

Or, it could be the fact that he is just a damn good litigator who has mastery of the subject matter of child welfare fraud, which, of course, includes the trafficking of tiny humans to fund political campaigns.

Below, is the Ethics Committee investigative report of U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who I have found to have engaged in recent, questionable activities, which are currently under the purview of DOJ, along with her rogue ass crew.

But hey, what do I know?

Office of Congressional Ethics Investigation of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee Review No 15-7713 Referra... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Head of US House Ethics Committee received money from group linked to Azerbaijan probe

When and how did Kemal Oksuz turn into such a greedy bastard?

He came to the USA full of bright hopes and dreams as a faithful representative of Hizmet.  Only to be involved with Shady Dealings in the Solidarity Construction firm, getting the Harmony School's million dollar construction contracts without ANY construction experience.

Kemal Oksuz

Kemal Oksuz then started Hizment NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations aka Non-Profits)

Turquoise council for Ameriasians

Niagara Foundation

Assembly of Friends of Azerbaijan

What happened to this once honest person, how did he become so corrupt with greed?

The House Ethics Committee has dropped its probe into 10 members of Congress who traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan in May 2013 with oil industry money, according to a Friday afternoon press release. The panel passed a trove of documents it collected to the Justice Department for a possible review of actions by parties outside Ethics’ jurisdiction.

But even as the Ethics Committee investigated the matter, its chairman, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), received political contributions from local individuals linked to the nonprofit network involved in the trips. The donations amounted to $8,000 and were given on a single day.

Earlier, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) — an independent, nonpartisan body tasked with investigating matters for referral to the Ethics Committee — found “substantial reason to believe” the 10 members of Congress who traveled to Azerbaijan received illegal gifts. The House Ethics Committee on Friday, however, reported that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas), Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.) and then-Rep. Steve Stockman, (R-Texas) all acted in “good faith” and didn’t break any rules by attending the lavish Eurasian oil conference.

Instead, the Ethics Committee assigns blame to a “criminal conspiracy” of unnamed third parties in its report.

“Both the Committee and Office of Congressional Ethics found evidence suggesting that a number of parties outside the House may have affirmatively lied to and/or withheld information from both the Committee and the House Members and staff who were invited,” the press release reads. The panel passed nearly 190,000 pages of material related to the probe on to the Justice Department, saying it was “referring the matter of third parties apparently engaging in a criminal conspiracy to lie to Congress” to DOJ “for such further action as it deems appropriate.”

The identity of the third parties remains unclear. But Houston businessman Kemal Oksuz and several others linked to a nationwide Turkic group signed the travel forms for the members of Congress in 2013, affirming that their nonprofit groups were the sole sponsors of the trip. To send a large contingent of House staffers and 10 members cost more than $270,000, according to a Houston Chronicle report on the trip.

But the money actually came from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan, according to a Washington Post account of a leaked OCE report in May.

In the most recent report, released Friday, Oksuz “invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify,” the Ethics Committee wrote, calling him “in many respects the central witness to most of the substantive allegations in question.” Other potential witnesses were beyond the committee’s reach, in Azerbaijan and elsewhere. The Committee, which said the Washington Post story “impeded” its probe, concluded it couldn’t determine conclusively who paid the travel bills and resolved to let the 10 lawmakers in question off the hook.

Oksuz serves a constellation of nonprofit organizations that claim to promote Turkic-American civil life in a number of roles and was president of the two groups that organized the 2013 conference, according to the Houston Chronicle report. That year, he was also a board member for the Turkish American Alliance, an umbrella group for six nonprofit federations that promote the philosophy of Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish scholar living in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania. Many in that network are avid political givers — Oksuz and his family alone gave $26,200 to four of the ten lawmakers who traveled to Azerbaijan in 2013. Other lawmakers who went on the junket received similar contributions from employees of nonprofits and charter schools in the network.

During his investigation, the chair of the Ethics Committee did, too. Dent received $8,000 from five individuals linked to the nonprofit network on May 1, 2015, campaign finance records and other documents show.

According to FEC records, one donor who gave $1,000 is an imam at the Cosmos Foundation, an organization that once contracted with Oksuz to build its headquarters. Three donors, who together gave Dent $5,000, list the Lehigh Dialogue Center, or LDC, a nonprofit in Pennsylvania, as their employer. One other donor — who gave Dent $2,000 — served as LDC’s treasurer in 2013. The LDC is affiliated with the Turkic American Alliance, which itself paid travel expenses for 11 House staffers to the Baku conference in May 2013.

Gulen is a political opponent of Turkish President Recep Erdogan, who has accused him of treason. Gulen’s Saylorsburg, Pa., address, where he has a 26-acre compound, abuts Dent’s district.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C. and an expert in congressional ethics, explained that conflicts of interest are bound to arise at times simply because lawmakers on the Ethics Committee, just like their colleagues who are not on the panel, need to raise funds. Still, she said, the contributions raise flags.

“How someone who is adjudicating something involving these parties accepts contributions from a party that’s involved in this seems totally inappropriate,” McGehee said. “You kind of have all the components you need to create a very glaring conflict here.”

Drew Kent, Dent’s chief of staff, disputed a substantive connection between the donors and the two Houston-based non-profits explicitly named in the Ethics Committee’s probe in an emailed statement.

“The Congressman has a long-standing relationship with the Turkish-American community in his district, has participated in events at the Lehigh Dialogue Center to promote inter-faith understanding and Turkish-American relations,” Kent said.

Kent added, “Any insinuation of impropriety by [Dent] or the local individuals who supported the Congressman is preposterous and not based in truth or fact.”

Representatives for the Turkic American Alliance could not be reached for comment by phone or email.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Whittling Down The Ethics Investigation List - Saving The Best For Last

For those of you who are unaware of the origins of the #MeToo movement, it started in Detroit.

And, for those of you unaware of the list of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which has referred to the House Ethics Committee investigations, a number of these have been referred to the U.S. DOJ OIG, who has farmed out to the Office of Special Counsel and the District Courts.

For those of you who wish to play along with the Office of Special Counsel investigations, you can cross off each investigative finding as they come out.

For those of you who have yet to catch on, the best is always last.

Stay tuned.

Mark Meadows, Ruben Kihuen sanctioned over sexual harassment-related allegations

The House Ethics Committee has formally sanctioned two members — GOP Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.) and Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen (Nev.) — over sexual harassment-related allegations, the latest sign that fallout from #MeToo movement continues to be felt on Capitol Hill.

Meadows was found to have violated House rules "by failing to take appropriate steps to ensure that his House office was free from discrimination and any perception of discrimination." This case grew out of an investigation into Meadows' former chief of staff, Kenny West. Meadows kept West on his payroll even after learning of credible harassment allegations against the former aide. At one point, Meadows ordered West not to interact with women staffers, a move the Ethics Committee criticized in its report as risking "unequal treatment." Meadows will have to pay more than $40,000 to cover the cost of West's salary.

POLITICO first reported the allegations against Meadows and West.

Kihuen, who announced his retirement as the #MeToo movement swept Capitol Hill last year, was found to have "made persistent and unwanted advances towards women who were required to interact with him as part of their professional responsibilities."

Both lawmakers were reproved by the bipartisan Ethics Committee, the least serious form of punishment it can mete out.

Meadows is chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and he has been mentioned as potential ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the next Congress, although the Ethics Committee's action could prove troublesome on that front.

In a statement, Meadows said he was glad the investigation was over, and he noted that he had first asked for an Ethics Committee review in Nov. 2015. However, the Office of Congressional Ethics had already begun its own probe into sexual harassment allegations against West by that time.

“Three years ago I asked the Committee on Ethics to review the matter surrounding the alleged conduct of my former chief of staff, Mr. West, and I’m thankful their review has now concluded," Meadows said. "I appreciate the Committee’s acknowledgment of the immediate, appropriate, and good faith steps I did take after learning of my staff’s concerns - including immediately separating the chief from the accusers so they never had to interact with him personally during the independent investigation.

West was hired by Meadows as chief of staff in Jan. 2013, shortly after Meadows won a seat in Congress. Meadows said he was not made aware of any harassment allegations against West until Oct. 2014, although aides told investigators West's improper, troubling behavior began shortly after he was hired. This included "unwanted touching," "inappropriate staring" and "unprofessional comments" about women in Meadows' Washington and North Carolina offices.

Beginning in Oct. 2014, multiple women staffers in Meadows' office complained to him about West, the Ethics Committee states. Meadows responded by barring West from interacting with all female staffers, although Meadows left him in as chief of staff. Meadows also asked Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to help with an "independent investigation" into the incident. A Gowdy aide who looked into the matter said West should be fired, according to the Ethics Committee report. It wasn't until then-Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office got involved in early 2015 that West was fired, although Meadows kept him on as a senior adviser making the same salary.

POLITICO raised questions in Sept. 2015 about a lump-sum payment made to West by Meadows' office that year. The Office of Congressional Ethics began an investigation. At that point, Meadows reported the issue himself to the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee noted that the “Code of Official Conduct provides that Members may not retain an employee who does not perform duties for the employing office commensurate with the compensation the employee receives. When Mr. West was demoted to Senior Advisor, his pay remained the same but the Committee found little evidence of official work that he completed during that time. Thus, the Committee found that his duties as Senior Advisor were not commensurate with his pay."

While noting that there was "little and inconsistent guidance on severance payments available to the House community at the time," Meadows did not seek any guidance from the Ethics Committee about West or whether such payments would be allowed. Thus the Ethics Committee found Meadows would be personally responsible for reimbursing the Treasury for some of the funds paid to West.

An aide said, "Rep. Meadows will pay back the severance in full."

"Representative Meadows’ failure to take prompt and decisive action to deal with the alleged sexual harassment in his congressional office was troubling to the Committee," the report states. "The Committee found Representative Meadows violated House rules by failing to take appropriate steps to ensure that his House office was free from discrimination and any perception of discrimination."

The report added: "In addition, the Committee is concerned that Representative Meadows’ 'solution' to the sexual harassment allegations, to cut off all contact between Mr. West and most of his female employees, caused another potential problem. An environment where only male staff have access to the Chief of Staff risks unequal treatment of employees based solely on sex."

Kihuen, who was only elected in 2016, saw his congressional career quickly ended following media reports that he had sexually harassed at least three women, including during his time as a state legislator in Nevada.

According to the Ethics Committee, the Nevada Democrat made repeated sexual advances to one of his campaign aides. This included "the touching of her thigh on two occasions, comments on how she looked, suggestions that Representative Kihuen would take her out if she did not work for him, a suggestion that she and Representative Kihuen should get a hotel room together, and questions regarding whether she would ever cheat on her boyfriend."

A Nevada lobbyist told congressional investigators that Kihuen "made unwanted physical and verbal advances towards her including, among other things, sliding his hand under her dress and onto her thigh, grabbing her buttocks, messages asking her to come and sit on his lap, asking her what color her panties were, suggesting she would look good naked, and messages suggesting, through the use of emojis, that they make a sex tape together."

During an interview with by the Ethics Committee, Kihuen denied the allegations. However, the panel did not believe those denials, according to its report.

"Despite Representative Kihuen’s denials, each of the complainant’s allegations were supported by documentary evidence and some of the alleged incidents were corroborated by third party witnesses," the report states. "Furthermore, at least two outside entities were made aware of Campaign Staffer and D.C. Firm Employee’s allegations and approached Representative Kihuen, and his campaign, about his behavior in 2016 and 2017."

Kihuen announced his retirement in Dec. 2017, after Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats demanded he resign from office.

Kihuen on Friday said he didn't agree with everything in the report but apologized to the women.

“After much reflection and introspection, I recognize that regardless of the fact that I never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable or disrespected, what matters is how my actions were perceived by the women who came forward,” he said in a statement. “It saddens me greatly to think I made any woman feel that way due to my own immaturity and overconfidence. I extend my sincere apologies to each of these women. Though I do not agree with aspects of the Report, I am thankful the Committee afforded everyone an opportunity to be heard and appreciate the Committee’s acknowledgment that I fully cooperated with the investigation."

Ruben Kihuen Harassed Women, Ethics Committee Finds 

Rep. Ruben Kihuen harassed women who worked with him and violated the House’s official code of conduct, according to a House Ethics Committee report released Thursday.

“Kihuen made persistent and unwanted advances towards women who were required to interact with him as part of their professional responsibilities,” the report says. The advances included kissing, grabbing and comments about underwear.

The release comes after a nine-month inquiry by an investigative subcommittee empaneled in Dec. 2017.

The Nevada Democrat refused to resign following allegations of harassment by women who worked for and with him, even after top Democrats called on him to step down. But Kihuen decided not to seek re-election, making the announcement a day after the Ethics Committee launched its investigation.

At the time, he disputed the allegations against him, but said they “would be a distraction from a fair and thorough discussion of the issues in a re-election campaign.”

Three women testified before the investigative subcommittee that Kihuen made unwanted physical and verbal advances toward them between 2013 and 2017. The report details Kihuen’s actions toward a D.C. “firm employee,” a campaign staffer and a Nevada lobbyist.

The committee found that while serving as a member of the House, Kihuen repeatedly kissed the firm employee’s cheek, touched her shoulders and back and commented on her physique. He also inquired about her relationship status and asked if she lived alone. Kihuen insinuated that he would help the D.C. firm employee with her career in exchange for a romantic relationship, according to the Ethics report.

The campaign staffer testified that Kihuen made unwanted advances toward her by touching her thigh while they were driving back from a meeting and by grabbing the back of her thigh as she stood up to check her computer. She told the committee that Kihuen would tell her “you look really good,” and “I would take you out if you didn’t work for me,” by suggesting that the two of them should get a room as they arrived at a hotel for a meeting, and by asking her if she ever cheated on her boyfriend.

The female lobbyist, who worked with Kihuen in Nevada between 2013 and 2015, testified that he slid his hand under her dress and onto her thigh, grabbed her buttocks, asked her to sit on his lap, inquired what color her panties were and suggested that she would look good naked. The report also says the lobbyist testified that he sent messages suggesting — through emojis — that they make a sex tape together.

The subcommittee’s full report includes over 100 pages of text messages, chats and emails between Kihuen and the women, along with the women discussing Kihuen’s behavior with other people.

While the investigative subcommittee chose not to “address whether any of Representative Kihuen’s behavior prior to being sworn in as a Member of the House” fell within the panel’s jurisdiction, the full House Ethics Committee asserted in the report that it has jurisdiction over “misconduct relating to a successful campaign for election to the House.”

The full Ethics panel decided that Kihuen’s behavior toward the campaign staffer, coupled with his actions when he was serving in the House, warrants “reproval.”

Reproval by the Ethics Committee is “intended to be a clear public statement of rebuke of a Member’s conduct issued by a body of that Member’s peers acting … on behalf of the House of Representatives.”

House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, states that “a Member … of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House” and “shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.”

Statement of the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Ruben Kihuen

The Committee on Ethics (Committee) previously issued a statement indicating that it unanimously voted on December 21, 2017, to establish an Investigative Subcommittee in the Matter of Representative Ruben Kihuen.  The Committee’s statement noted the Committee would announce the Members who will serve on the Investigative Subcommittee at a later date.

The Committee has now named the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee.  The Honorable Kenny Marchant will serve as the Chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee, and the Honorable Yvette D. Clarke will serve as the Ranking Member.  The other two members of the Investigative Subcommittee are the Honorable Jackie Walorski and the Honorable Brian Higgins.  No other public comment will be made on this matter except in accordance with Committee rules.  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Mo Brooks: Is It Fear Or Is It Ethics?

Mo & Bibi

 Earlier, Mo had an issue with the Ethics Committee investigating Members of Congress.

I dropped his press release below the article.

Hmmm....could it be Israel?

Was someone "compromised"?

Hmmm...

Brooks Suggests Republicans Are Retiring Because of Assassination Fears

Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks suggested in a radio interview that Republicans are retiring en masse because of assassination fears.
Brooks was speaking on “The Dale Jackson Show” about the first Republican practice the Congressional Baseball Game after last year’s shooting that left Majority Whip Steve Scalise severely injured.
“We have multiple rings of security, plainclothes, uniform, Capitol Police, other police,” he said. “There was a medical vehicle nearby just in case there was a copycat.”
But Brooks said while there were multiple factors that contributed to a slew of Republicans leaving the House, he suggested fears of violence was a major one.
“One of the things that’s concerning me is the assassination risk may become a factor,” he said.
Brooks referred to the fact many members of the Republican baseball team are retiring, including Sen. Jeff Flake and Reps. Ryan Costello, Pat Meehan, Dennis

Earlier, he had an issue with the Ethics Committee oversight of Congress.

Hmmm...

Brooks' Statement on Office of Congressional Ethics

January 3, 2017

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – This morning, Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) supported killing changes to the Office of Congressional Ethics (“Ethics Office”).  The changes included renaming the Ethics Office to the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, placing the Ethics Office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, and requiring the Ethics Office to adhere to Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process provisions that citizens in America’s judicial system are guaranteed as a matter of course. 
Congressman Brooks said, “In my view, it is inappropriate to consider an issue of this magnitude with so little public debate and so little time for proper evaluation and consideration.  The final version of the proposed changes to the Ethics Office was provided to Congressmen with less than 24 hours before a scheduled House floor vote.  While the ethics reform contains some positive policy changes (such as guaranteeing Congressmen accused of ethical violations the same protections afforded citizens in America’s judicial system)*, it also contained questionable provisions which warranted further review and understanding.”
Brooks concluded, “While I support reasoned strengthening of the ethics process and the protection of the rights of people accused, the reform proposed this week was rushed, inadequately researched, and inadequately understood by Congress and the public.  I disfavor last-minute, major policy revisions.  Under these circumstances, I opposed inclusion of major changes to the Ethics Office in the rules package that will govern House operations for the next two years.  I am thankful that President-elect Trump agreed and intervened.  And I believe the House Leadership acted wisely when it withdrew the proposed Ethics Office changes.”
* U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 5 gives the House of Representatives the power to “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”  This Constitution provision has been construed to give the House power over its Members’ conduct, define what constitutes “disorderly Behaviour”, determine the process by which “disorderly Behaviour” accusations against Members will be investigated and resolved, and determine the punishment to be meted to Members who violate the House’s Rules of Conduct.  Arguably, Article I, Section 5 supersedes rights American citizens take for granted and which are otherwise guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment, at least to the extent a Congressman’s “disorderly Behaviour” is at issue.
 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Republicans vote to weaken Congressional ethics watchdog

Stuff like this makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.  😍

U.S. House Judiciary Chair, Bob Goodlatte and
Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Conyers, Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- Republican members of the House voted Monday to strip the independence from the Office of Congressional Ethics, bringing the non-partisan watchdog under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee -- some of the people it is designed to keep an eye on.

The House Ethics Committee will now have jurisdiction over the Office of Congressional Ethics, which also will be restricted from investigating anonymous tips against lawmakers, must keep information about investigations secret and sets a statute of limitations on how long the office can investigate members of Congress.

The unexpected changes to the OCE are part of the House Rules to govern the new Congress that representatives will vote to adopt on Tuesday and represent a move some say increases the chance for corruption and wrongdoing.

Va. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who proposed the amendment, announced its adoption for the new rules package after a meeting of the House Republican Conference.

While Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy opposed the measure, stripping the OCE of its independence was approved by an overwhelming 119 to 74 vote at the conference.

"The amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing Office of Congressional Ethics by maintaining its primary area of focus of accepting and reviewing complaints from the public and referring them, if appropriate, to the Committee on Ethics," Goodlatte said in a statement Monday. "The O.C.E. has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work."

The ethics panel was created after a series of corruption and lobbying scandals in Congress by Nancy Pelosi when she was speaker of the house, and was maintained by former Speaker John Boehner, to keep an eye on members of Congress. Before its creation, many had concerns that the House Ethics Committee was not strong enough in its pursuit of ethical violations.

"Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress," Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, told CNN. "This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending."

Where the OCE currently considers allegations brought to it, and releases reports on its investigations after they have been presented to the House Ethics Committee, the new rules require OCE not to disclose information from investigations.

The rule expected to be adopted Tuesday also sets a statute of limitations for OCE, restricting it from investigating reports older than the previous three Congresses, amounting to a six-year window.

The investigative body has been criticized harshly by some members of Congress, often those who have been investigated by it, with some attempting to take legislative measures to limit its actions. For some, the potential passage of a rule bringing OCE under Congressional oversight -- effectively allowing members of Congress to police themselves -- raises some serious concerns.

"Republicans claim they want to drain the swamp, but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions," Pelosi said Monday night in a statement. "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/01/02/House-Republicans-vote-to-weaken-Congressional-ethics-watchdog/7171483405670/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

What Do Rashida Tlaib, Ethics & FEC Have In Common? #PerkinsCoieSucks

Q: What do Rashida Tlaib, Ethics & FEC have in common?

A: Perkinsoiesucks

It seems Rashida Tlaib, et al, have a disregard for due process because there exists multiple, ongoing investigations pertaining to the 13th Congressional District, but then again, we are dealing with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Taken from the Office of Congressional Ethics Referral:

The decision to pay Rep. Tlaib a salary from the campaign remained a source of concern for Rep. Tlaib, and thus for her campaign staff, throughout her campaign. Ultimately, the campaign paid Rep. Tlaib $45,500.00 between May 7, 2018 and December 1, 2018. 

The OCE requested an opportunity to interview Rep. Tlaib in order to address her potentially problematic salary payments. Rep. Tlaib declined to interview with the OCE. Likewise, campaign staff members with knowledge of her receipt of salary payments also declined to interview with the OCE.

It also seems Rashida and her co-conspirators do not believe they must be transparent, since the Michigan Attorney General's Office is busy, busy, busy!

It also seems NPG VAN has bank routing information for DNC campaigns.

In the bank transactions, I see "ACH/BANKCARD MERCH DEP". Are there any other entities other than NGP VAN that has the campaigns routing numbers to make transactions? - There is one transaction for a withdrawal of $2,500 on 5/11/18... it just didn't seem to match other financial activities of NGP VAN that I could see. The Credit Union couldn't tell me any more than what I can see on the on-line transactions.  p65 ref.

I am in utter shock...nah, not really.... J'ai dit une bêtise.

Brian Svoboda of Perkins Coie Sucks is representing Rashida.

#perkinscoiesucks

Brian also represented Conyers, but, now he has died, which means he no longer has

Brian lied.

Brian is a co-conspirator.

https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/20190829%20COE%20Response%20Letter%20%28Review%20No.%2019-4114%29.pdf

At least we now have a cursory understanding of her motivation to impeach Trump.

Here are the Exhibits of her Ethics Referral.

If only Trump would stop obstructing justice and pull that House Ethics Committee referred DOJ IG Report from his backpocket, we would at least find out why she is an illegitimately elected, but hey, what do I know?

I know the Horowitz FISA IG Report is to be released December 9, 2019.

I know Trump is obstructing justice because there is an Order of Protection for the Whistleblower from the Highest Authority.

Rashida knows who the Whistleblower is.

Someone should ask her to identify the whistleblower, because the information is already public knowledge, in the public record.

Let us sit back, and enjoy cocktails and popcorn to see what happens next because all those freshmen candidates Nancy propped up the those 2018 Congressional Districts by and through the techniques of gerrymandering, are going ahead full steam with the impeachment.

(This is the part where Nancy Pelosi sells Rashida down the river.)

#maytheheavensfall

Ethics panel extends probe; report says Tlaib likely misused campaign funds

"I did nothing wrong because I am a Legal Genius."

The House Ethics Committee said Thursday it's extending an investigation into Rep. Rashida Tlaib and released a report that alleged there's "substantial reason to believe" she misused campaign funds.

The report from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics focused on payments Tlaib's campaign made to the Detroit Democrat after the Nov. 6, 2018, election but before she took office. The report recommended the matter receive further review and even suggested the committee subpoena the freshman lawmaker and three campaign staffers.

Tlaib has denied wrongdoing.

Under federal regulations, candidates are generally allowed to receive salary payments from their own campaigns. However, one of the many conditions for those payments is they must be for work performed through the date of the general election.

"Rep. Tlaib, through her counsel, argues she complied with these conditions; however, several documents provided to the OCE by Rep. Tlaib suggest otherwise," the report said. "Specifically, documents provided to the OCE indicate Rep. Tlaib was paid for work she performed after November 6, 2018 — the date of the general election."

Tlaib received a $2,000 payment on Nov. 16 and a $15,500 payment on Dec. 1, according to the report. The other payments she received from her campaign — $28,000 total — occurred before the election.

The report included an email from Tlaib's campaign treasurer to campaign staff. The email said "for most of us" the pay period for Dec. 1 checks was  "Nov. 16, 2018 to December 31, 2018."

The OCE board unanimously recommended further review of the allegation that Tlaib converted campaign funds to personal use. A press release from the House Ethics Committee said "in order to gather additional information" the committee will review the matter.

"... Out of fairness to all respondents, and to assure the integrity of its work, the committee will refrain from making further public statements on this matter pending completion of its initial review," said a statement from top members of the House Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee is evenly divided among five Democrats and five Republicans, though it is chaired by Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida.

A formal response from lawyers for Tlaib called the report "unprecedented." The response noted the House is looking into events that occurred before Tlaib took office and that are traditionally handled by the Federal Election Commission.

Tlaib's lawyers said the payments that occurred after the election were "to catch up on the salary which she had accrued, but had theretofore been withheld."

In a statement, Tlaib said she had to leave her job as a civil rights attorney to campaign for the U.S. House in 2018 while raising two sons as a single mother. Federal regulations allowed her to receive a salary, and she "received the minimum salary payments necessary for me to meet my personal financial obligations, while ensuring that the campaign reserved the resources needed to reach voters," the freshman lawmaker said.

Tlaib's statement added, "I look forward to the Ethics Committee’s prompt resolution of this matter in my favor, and I hope my experience will clear more room for people like me to run for office by availing themselves of FEC innovations that level the playing field, like paying a non-incumbent candidate salary or covering childcare expenses with campaign funds, so that financial privilege is not a prerequisite to participate in our democracy."

Office of Congressional Ethics Referral of Rashida Tlaib OCE Review No. 19-4114 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

https://www.metrodetroitdsa.com/

http://www.globaldetroit.com/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

More Conflict of Interest at HHS

Here is a recently released report on conflicts of interest in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

To provide a cursory overview for sake of time, the report says:

We found that most HHS conflict-of-interest waivers in our review were not documented as recommended in provisions of selected Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the January 2009 instructions of the Secretary of HHS (Secretary). In addition, although not required, 18 percent of waivers were signed and dated by the HHS employees receiving them.

HHS employees, including special Government employees (SGE) serving as subject-matter experts on Federal advisory committees (committees), play an influential role in the Federal Government's public health policies. HHS employees are prohibited from participating in certain official Government matters affecting their personal financial interests. These interests may include outside employment, grants, and stock ownership.

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) promulgates Government wide Federal ethics regulations for all Executive Branch employees and oversees all Federal agencies' ethics programs. With oversight and guidance from OGC, an HHS Operating Division (OPDIV) or Staff Division (STAFFDIV) may grant conflict-of-interest waivers to HHS employees if the OPDIV or STAFFDIV determines that the conflicts are not likely to affect the integrity of the employees' services to the Government, or if the need for the employees' services outweighs the potential for conflicts. Waivers permit employees who have conflicts of interest to act in an official Government capacity on matters in which they would otherwise be prohibited from participating.

According to selected Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions, a waiver should describe, among other things, (1) the employee's specific financial interest that poses the conflict; (2) the particular matter(s) in which the employee is permitted to participate; and (3) the particular matter(s), if any, in which the employee is prohibited from participating. In addition, although it is not a Federal requirement for employees to sign and date their waivers, OGC's sample waivers have a signature line. Signatures and dates show that employees received, acknowledged, and may be held accountable for complying with their waivers.

We reviewed a stratified, random sample of 50 conflict-of-interest waivers granted to HHS employees in 2009 to determine whether they were documented as recommended in 3 provisions of selected Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions. We also determined whether employees signed and dated the 50 waivers in our sample.

We found that 56 percent of the 50 waivers from 2009 in our review were not documented as recommended in provisions of selected Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions. Of those waivers, most (27 of 28) were granted to SGEs on committees. Further, although not required, we found that 18 percent of the waivers we reviewed included HHS employees' signatures and dates.

We recommend that OGC:

(1) Require OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs to document conflict-of-interest waivers as recommended in Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions;

(2) Develop additional guidance and training to assist OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs in documenting conflict-of-interest waivers as recommended in Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions;

(3) Take action to revise the conflict-of-interest waivers in our review that were not documented as recommended in Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions, if the waivers are still in effect;

(4) Expand the review of conflict-of-interest waivers for SGEs on committees; and

(5) Require all employees to sign and date their conflict-of-interest waivers or otherwise document that they received and acknowledged them.

OGC and OGE provided written comments on a draft of this report. OGC concurred with our second and fourth recommendations but did not concur with our first, third, or fifth recommendations. OGE was not asked to indicate whether it concurred with the recommendations, but it stated that, as a general matter, the recommendations support good documentation practices that it strongly recommends.

In response to OGC's and OGE's comments, we conducted a second review of many of the waivers in our sample. We continued to find that many waivers were not documented as recommended in provisions of selected Government wide Federal ethics regulations and the Secretary's instructions, and we updated our findings accordingly. We made other technical and clarifying changes to the report based on OGC's and OGE's comments.

TRANSLATION:  The Administration on Children and Families (ACF) has people who approve grants and design policies to organizations they used to work for, are currently working for, or will be working for in the immediate future.  That is why the ACF is never mentioned to have conflicts of interest and Medicaid fraud in child welfare thrives.

HHS OIG Conflict of Interest Waivers Granted To HHS Employees in 2009 Report

Here is a previous post, complete with audit report, on conflict of interests in the National Institute of Health.  Perhaps, one day, someone will do something about it.

If The U.S. Government Is Corrupt, Do We Go To The International Court Of Justice?

Internatinoal Court of Justice, The Hague

As we have witnessed history unfold in massive levels of public corruption, so deeply embeded in local, state, and federal governments, where does the U.S. turn to for justice?

The International Court of Justice, of course!

So, what exactly is the ICJ?

It is the tribunal for war crimes under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Some may better recognize ICJ as The Hague, the jurisdiction where Nuremberg Trials of WWII Nazi war crimes were held,

Interestingly enough, the United States does not have history of filing with the ICJ as it has always handled its ethical conflicts, internally.

So, as we see abberant fraud and public corruption running through the history of the U.S. government and its States for decades, perhaps it is time to find justice in an untainted venue.

Now, that the U.S. Congress overwhemlingly passed JASTA into law, the doors are now open for the people of the world, including U.S. citizens, to sue the United States.

Public officials, staffers, even former staffers, are subject to the ICJ where lying into the public record, whether through bribes or personal inurement of public office, is a crime of war.

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

I believe the U.S. has filed, under seal, a writ of frauds.

Stay tuned.

US CODE Title18 Par tI Chapter 118 Section 2441 - War Crimes by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Head of Congressional Ethics Office Sued for Abusing Position, Accused of Assaulting Women

Omar Ashmawy, staff director at the Office of Congressional Ethics

A key official involved in House investigations faces a federal lawsuit alleging misconduct.

Atop congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.

The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.

Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action,

Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.

In court filings and in statements to Foreign Policy, Ashmawy denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit.

“To be clear, I did not harass anyone that evening, physically or verbally,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “To the contrary, I was the victim of a wholly unprovoked assault for which those responsible were investigated, arrested and charged. Any allegation to the contrary is unequivocally false.”

The lawsuit, previously unreported, stems from Feb. 14, 2015 — Valentine’s Day. The evening appeared to start off well for Ashmawy: a nearly $400 dinner with his girlfriend at an upscale restaurant in Milford, followed by late-night drinks at a local bar.

It ended, however, with him bruised and bloody in the back of a police car.

Two months later, three men were arrested for assaulting Ashmawy. One of those men, Greg Martucci, is now suing Ashmawy in federal court in Pennsylvania in connection to the events of that night.

What exactly led to the physical altercation is in dispute, but in police statements reviewed by FP, three women at the bar that night, including the bartender, accuse Ashmawy of harassing and physically assaulting them.

A former Air Force officer who prosecuted two of the early post-9/11 military tribunal cases, Ashmawy has been a rising star on Capitol Hill in recent years. He was profiled in the Washington Post, which described his job overseeing “the first independent office in history charged with overseeing the ethics of the House of Representatives.” He was also featured earlier this year in Politico’s “birthday of the day,” where he describes his job as helping the “House of Representatives uphold ethical standards by investigating allegations of misconduct by members, staff or officers of the House.”

Ashmawy’s office sits at the center of multiple ongoing, high-profile congressional investigations. Its recent work includes a probe into California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’s midnight trip to the White House in March. The investigation led to Nunes stepping down from the committee investigating Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election, according to Office of Congressional Ethics website and news reports. (Earlier this month, the full ethics committee cleared Nunes of misconduct.)

According to the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it has pursued investigations into Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), whose cases, like that of Conyers, began under Ashmawy and were referred to the ethics committee for further investigation. The New York Times this week reported that Republicans are citing a 2015 decision by the Office of Congressional Ethics clearing Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who has also been accused of sexual harassment.

Ashmawy has also, according to travel disclosures, visited Ukraine, Kosovo, and Georgia to assist governments there in setting up their own ethics and government oversight bodies. He gives talks overseas and in the United States on investigating lawmaker misconduct and on the importance of ethical behavior in and after government service.

Yet the complaint filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Ashmawy, as well as documents related to the case and police and witness statements, raise questions about Ashmawy’s conduct.

According to the complaint, Martucci on the night of Feb. 14, 2015, witnessed “an extremely violent and belligerent” Ashmawy become verbally abusive toward two women at Milford’s Dimmick Inn, Dawn Jorgenson — the wife of John Jorgenson, the owner of the bar — and Joey Lynn Smith, a bartender there.

Martucci also said he saw Ashmawy physically assaulting Dawn Jorgenson and Christina Floyd, another woman at the bar, a claim echoed in police statements given by the women and reviewed by FP.

According to a three-page statement dated March 12, 2015, Dawn Jorgenson said she witnessed Ashmawy “clearly sexually harassing” the bartender throughout the course of the evening and saw his behavior spiral toward physical violence. “You’ll give me drinks, but you won’t fuck me,” Ashmawy allegedly said to the bartender, according to Dawn Jorgenson’s written statement.

She said she then saw Ashmawy block the bartender with his body and curse at her, and grab her by the wrists. Dawn Jorgenson said when she tried to intervene, Ashmawy turned against her. “He’s holding my wrist so tightly that he falls down to the ground landing to the left of me,” she wrote in her statement.

She said her husband, John Jorgenson, came over to help and pulled Ashmawy away, taking him outside.

In statements given to police, the third woman, Christina Floyd, provided a similar account. “I watched each time Omar would come down and verbally sexually harass the bartender as he ordered drinks,” Floyd wrote in her statement, describing an increasingly angry Ashmawy confronting the bartender.

“I am a 5 foot 3 woman who never knew this man. I was very scared of him and was afraid he’d come back around for weeks after,” Floyd wrote of Ashmawy in her statement to police dated March 14, 2015. “I have never had a man physically harm me or scare me in that matter. He was sexually harassing, abusing and I feared for my life.”

According to Floyd, Ashmawy was “sexually harassing and verbally abusive” to the bartender. She also said Ashmawy was “very intoxicated,” an allegation that is backed up by the police report.

The two other women described abuse at the hands of Ashmawy that same night, providing similar details. Ashmawy did not respond to FP’s follow-up email with additional questions, including if he was intoxicated that evening.

Two other people at the bar that night, however, said they saw only the men drag out Ashmawy—and did not witness his alleged attacks on the women.

One of those witnesses is referenced in Ashmawy’s Dec. 6 brief in support of his motion to dismiss. The brief says the witness “called 911 after witnessing Defendant Ashmawy be attacked by three men and then one of the men involved in the attack dragging him outside” and it “seemed like the men set up Defendant Ashmawy ‘to get jumped.’” (A police report reviewed by FP confirms that the witness who called police was concerned “it wasn’t a fair fight.”)

What all sides appeared to agree on is that, at the end of the evening, Ashmawy was injured.

Months after the incident, three men were charged with assaulting Ashmawy, including Martucci. Ashmawy was never arrested or charged with a crime (a police report from the evening says Ashmawy was the only one at the scene with visible injuries).

Martucci is now suing Ashmawy in a Pennsylvania federal court, accusing him of a range of unethical and possibly criminal conduct tied to the 2015 bar fight and subsequent legal proceedings. Also named in the suit is Milford’s police chief and the borough of Milford.

In his lawsuit, Martucci accuses Ashmawy of using his political power and position with the Office of Congressional Ethics to pressure the police and the district attorney into not arresting him for assaulting the women. Martucci also alleges that Ashmawy threatened federal investigation of local government and police if they did not press charges against those accusing him of assault.

An email reviewed by FP from Ashmawy, using his congressional affiliation, to the police chief and officials at the district attorney’s office accuses them of not handling the case properly.

“As of today it has been over five weeks since I was assaulted. To date, the police department’s investigation is not complete and charges have not been filed. I am deeply concerned,” he wrote in the email, which is signed with his congressional title and work mail address.

Ashmawy cites his injuries, which he said included a facial fracture and a “bruised and bloodied” eye.

In the same email, Ashmawy references his own work conducting investigations, and indicates that if charges aren’t filed the case might attract high-level attention in the capital.

“There is no hiding what happened to me from the people I interact with on a day to day basis,” he wrote. “As result, there are a growing number of individuals in the Washington, DC community who have taken an interest in this matter and are concerned that one of the reasons this matter has languished is because I’m not a resident of Milford, PA. I’ve assured them that isn’t true. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that my ethnicity, as an Arab-American and Muslim, might also be a factor in the delayed investigation and the charging of the individuals responsible. I’ve explained that is unlikely.”

An attorney representing the town and police chief in the lawsuit declined to comment on why charges weren’t filed against Ashmawy in light of the women’s statements to police.

“Please be advised that the official response on behalf of Milford Borough and Chief DaSilva is ‘No comment during the course of pending litigation,’” Sheryl L. Brown, an attorney with the firm Siana Bellwoar, wrote FP in response to queries.

She noted that a motion to dismiss the case was pending with the court, and then threatened legal action against FP. “We reserve the right to subpoena unprivileged portions of your files considering you assert you are in possession of ‘police statements from witnesses…,’” she wrote.

Ashmawy’s version of events from that evening is markedly different. In his statement to police that night, Ashmawy wrote there was a conflict with women at the bar, but it stemmed from “a previous altercation” between his girlfriend and the bartender.

The bartender “spoke fighting words to me,” he wrote, adding that the two other women “abruptly came up to me.”

 At that point, Ashmawy said, three men assaulted him, choked him, and threw him to the ground. “My handwriting is affected by the fact that I have only the sight of one eye and I’m bleeding from multiple wounds to include my eye and my lip,” he wrote in his statement to police.

“This matter was fully investigated. I was the victim, and the men responsible were arrested and charged,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “The three assailants attacked me without any provocation whatsoever, and any suggestion to contrary is nothing but an exercise in slander.”

The three men eventually charged in the assault were John Jorgenson, the bar owner, Tim Reilly, and Martucci. Each was charged with three counts relating to the alleged assault. The first two pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge, but the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Martucci, a federal air marshal, and the case against him was expunged in October 2016.

While the case proceeded, however, Martucci was suspended from his federal air marshal job without pay and then later fired. In response to a request for comment about Martucci, the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, said that Martucci was no longer employed with the agency and refused to answer questions about the incident or internal investigation,

Martucci filed the lawsuit against Ashmawy in September.

On Dec. 6, Ashmawy filed a brief in support of his earlier motion to dismiss, saying he was acting as an “individual who was a victim of an assault and pursued his legal remedies to their established conclusion.”

The police chief and borough of Milford have filed similar motions to dismiss. A case management conference with all parties’ attorneys before the presiding judge is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2018,

“These criminal charges, which Mr. Martucci successfully had dismissed, derailed my client’s career and affected his livelihood,” Martucci’s lawyer, Ryan Lockman, told FP. “Mr. Martucci eagerly awaits the opportunity to proceed with his claims.” Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Public Service Has An Ethics Committee Obligation To Clean Up The Messes It Makes

First it comes out that U.S. Representative Patrick Meehan of the House Ethics Committee settled his own misconduct case.

It was not even 2 hours later House Speaker Paul Ryan removes him from his committee assignment.

What is interesting is that Meehan went through the advice of House Counsel.

Hmmmm....

The House Office of Compliance refuses to be compliant in releasing any information on its operations to House Ethics.

Hmmmm.....

"Hey, I am just here to serve.  You should try it."

Ok, I have an idea.

How about we get House Oversight Committee to hold hearings on the entire operations of House Ethics Committee, considering that its membership has been dwindling in the last few days and  the fact that the majority of its members have engaged in questionable activities with sizeable conflicts of interests, very worthy of public scrutiny of the DOJ.

As a matter of fact, now that I am on the subject of House Ethics, I would be entirely pleasured if I could be in attendance for a House Oversight Committee hearing on the activities of House Ethics over the past 10 years.

We could invite the House Office of Compliance, and, oh, what the heck, let's subpoena House Judiciary, too!

I can walk around serving coffee, tea, or shots of tequilla, which may be a needed staple in these Oversight Committee hearings, when we find out what, exactly, these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) have been doing...or not doing....like ignoring to complaints filed by a U.S. citizen, year after year after year about fraud.

We can even invite the former U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, too!

Oh, what fun we shall have!

Or, we can just refer the matter to DOJ, like Ethics has already done in other investigations it has launched.

But hey, what do I know?

I know Perkins Coie still sucks.

#perkinscoiesucks

GOP Congressman Removed From Ethics Committee After Report He Used Taxpayer Funds to Settle Misconduct Complaint

House Speaker Paul Ryan removed Rep. Patrick Meehan from the House Ethics Committee on Saturday following a news report that the Pennsylvania Republican used thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to settle a sexual misconduct complaint against him by a former aide.

Rep. Patrick Meehan is seen in his official portrait for the 112th Congress.

Ryan told Meehan he must repay whatever taxpayer funds were used to settle the case and, although he has denied the allegations, be investigated by the Ethics Committee, Ryan spokesperson AshLee Strong said in a statement Saturday.

The New York Times first reported Meehan’s settlement.

“Speaker Ryan takes the allegations against Mr. Meehan very seriously,” Strong’s statement read. “The speaker is committed to rooting out sexual misconduct in the House and providing victims the resources they need.”

The statement added that the House is set to pass major bipartisan reform to the way the House handles claims of sexual harassment,” and the speaker will apply these new standards to the allegations made against Mr. Meehan.”

The former aide accused Meehan of making unwanted romantic advances toward her, and when she didn’t reciprocate, he grew hostile, according to the Times, which cited people familiar with her time in the office.

The former aide initiated a complaint with Congress’ Office of Compliance, began working from home and ultimately left her job, the Times reported. She later reached a confidential settlement paid from Meehan’s congressional office fund.

Meehan’s spokesman, John Elizandro, issued a statement saying the congressman denies the allegations.

“Throughout his career, he has always treated his colleagues, male and female, with the utmost respect and professionalism,” the statement read.

“In this case, the employee, represented by counsel, made certain assertions of inappropriate behavior, which were investigated,” Elizandro said. “With respect to resolving any allegation made against the office, Congressman Meehan would only act with advice of House Counsel and consistent with House Ethics Committee guidance. Every step of the process was handled ethically and appropriately. At Congressman Meehan’s request, the congressional attorneys handling the case have asked the complainant’s counsel to release all parties from the confidentiality requirements of the agreement to ensure a full and open airing of all the facts. The congressman is hopeful that they will agree to this request for full transparency.

“Rep. Meehan believes there must be real reform to the process for resolving complaints so that those who are truly wronged are given a fair forum to be heard and vindicated, and those accused are provided with an ability to respond to baseless accusations,” Elizandro’s statement continued. “The public to whom elected officials are answerable must be provided with a true sense of the facts and circumstances involved.”

Alexis Ronickher, who represented Meehan’s accuser, said in a statement that Meehan has asked her client to waive confidentiality “so he can deny well-grounded allegations knowing full well that his former staffer prizes her privacy above all else. Mr. Meehan demanded confidentiality to resolve the matter, presumably so that the public would never know that he entered into a settlement of a serious sexual harassment claim.”

“Now that it has become public — due to no fault of my client’s — he has flouted his legal obligations and is speaking publicly,” Ronickher said. “We will not allow our client to be victimized twice by this man. If he further violates the confidentiality strictures he insisted upon and he agreed to, he will leave our client no choice but to seek legal recourse on her behalf.”

The latest allegations against a sitting member of Congress surfaced the same week that a bipartisan group of House lawmakers unveiled a long-awaited plan aimed at tackling the way workplace complaints — including sexual harassment — are handled on Capitol Hill and holding lawmakers personally liable for settlements.

Under the current process, settlements reached after parties go through the Office of Compliance’s system are paid out through a US Treasury fund. However, the settlement between Meehan and his former aide was paid out of his office fund, not the Office of Compliance, according to the Times.

Sexual harassment and accusations of inappropriate behavior led to the departures of three lawmakers in recent months: Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat; Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican; and Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat.

Franken, who left Congress earlier this month, has said that some of the allegations against him were “simply not true.”

Conyers settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 after allegedly sexually harassing a staffer.

Conyers denied wrongdoing in that case, but acknowledged that there had been a financial settlement to that complaint, before he announced his retirement.

Franks has denied ever having “physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have any sexual contact with any member” of his congressional staff.

Several other lawmakers have abandoned re-election bids in light of accusations of harassment or misconduct, including Nevada Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen and Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold.

The House Ethics Committee launched investigations into Franks, Conyers, Farenthold and Kihuen.

Both Farenthold and Kihuen remain under investigation by the committee.

Kihuen has repeatedly denied allegations that he sexually harassed a female campaign staffer. Farenthold has denied engaging in regular verbal abuse of his staff.

A former local prosecutor, Meehan has been a vocal supporter of domestic violence victims. He is also a member of a bipartisan congressional task force to end sexual violence and has sponsored legislation requiring reporting of sexual violence.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©