Just when you're sure you have literally "had it" with all politicians and their lies - along comes a "truism" - "something so obvious or self evident as to be hardly worth mentioning except as a reminder" and comes along in the nick of time.
My truism was a headline on the front page of Friday's USA Today's News section a week or so ago: "Senate declares self clean on ethics".
Before further comment: Please keep in mind that I'm the sort of guy who puts his upper plate under his pillow each night in the fervent hope he will be rewarded by the tooth fairy.
So, yes, I'm sure some of you disbelievers may not agree at first with the "Good News" headline, but that's only because you haven't heard the supporting evidence.
But, if you're so inclined, you may want to start your own personal fact check with Stanley Brand - an ethics lawyer who allegedly has a history of advising "The Senate Ethics Committee" - the authors of the proclamation about current Senate ethics.
Stan's strong support for that report included a rebuttal to those "usual suspects". You know, like the "Ethics Watchdog Groups" . He made it abundantly clear : "they (those guys) want every peccadillo to be investigated like a federal crime."
One assumes his ill chosen peccadillo reference had nothing to do with the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate Wilbur Mills who, when confronted in the wee hours of the morning with stripper Fanne Foxe, jumped into the DC Tidal Basin as part of his escape plan.
We know this because Wilbur (no friend of Mr. Ed) was a Representative - not a Senator.
Despite that - and as you could no doubt expect - there were those usual soreheads nosing around - folks like the supposedly non-partisan "Campaign Legal Center" (CLC) who had the gall to criticize the committee's findings, and even suggested the committee should be renamed the "Congressional Dead Letter Office".
The CLC disagreed with the Senate ethics committee's conclusion that of the 613 allegations of wrongdoing received since 2007, the committee was forced to dismiss more than 90% of same.
The watchdog group then pointed out that only 75 complaints have even led to "preliminary investigations" by the ethics committee and those resulted in most if not all of those investigations forcing the committee to issue 9 slap-on- the wrist -letters to Senators saying basically "you shouldn't have done that."
In fact, in examining the total of the committee's vigilant efforts during the 9 year period since 2007 - when it's first report came into existence -the CLC appeared to have been hampered in their investigative diligence due to the committee's presumed irrefutable claims:
(1) There were not enough facts to prove wrongdoing - (13 of 55 cases last year). (2) No Senate rule governing the alleged activity - (36 of 55 cases in 2015) and (3) Five of seven cases in which the committee carried out those "preliminary findings" had to be dismissed as inadvertent or minor technical violations.
Unfortunately, there was no comment by the ethics committee about possible complaints of suspected insider trading involvement which subsequently enriched the Senator's benefit package.
The Ethics Committee said the remaining few (?)cases were apparently so insignificant that none of those was made public by the committee; and they did not respond to a request by USA Today for further comment.
But, here's the "good news" part. What the results did prove is the prescience back in 2007 of both Senate leaders at that time.
When the then Democratic Majority Leader Senator, Harry Reid assessed the pending ethics proposal change leading up to the formation of the Ethics committee, he pronounced it:
"the most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country".
And not to be outdone, then Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, stated:
"I believe that we owe it to the voters as well as the institution to come to a fair agreement and pass this legislation".
Of course, you remaining naysayers could argue that back in 2007, the Senate DID reject the idea of setting up an independent office to investigate the ethical breaches of members - but, even with that minor caveat, look at the incredible progress we've made since then regarding both ethical Senatorial behavior as well as that of lobbyists.
On a lighter note -and only if you believe in coincidence - the very same week of the committee's report another "annual" but definitely "unplanned" report was released on national TV.
You may have missed it though; as this one appeared on the Cartoon Channel (CC)
The C.C. spokesperson being interviewed was none other than Wiley Coyote - who proudly revealed in a surprise non-scheduled question and answer session with none other than ace reporter Daisy Duck he also had determined that in 2015 there had been no findings of anything improper going on at the chicken coops he was assigned to guard "either".
Unfortunately, he was NOT as convincing as the Senate Ethics Committee. This was due to Daisy's sharp reportorial eye that suggested to her the possible presence of both chicken feathers and gizzard remains in the corner of Wiley's enormous mouth.
At first Daisy had graciously concluded Wiley must have developed a a speech impediment due to his poor diction, just as the coyote claimed initially, but upon further close up inspection by the observant duck reporter his claim simply did not hold up and she turned him in on the spot to her viewers.
In Daisy's follow-up and expanded article she claimed Wiley was not only a liar but clearly a misogonist.
She based this latter conclusion on Wiley's subsequent national TV press conference where he attacked her credentials as a expert chicken and gizzard remains spotter and then explained it all away with his on air suggestion it may well have just been Daisy's "time of month".
Who knew?
No comments:
Post a Comment