Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 22 2005, 03:57 PM)
Bt using McCain as an example I show they'll eat each other, if not in public then in the back room.

If I'd have used Cleland as an example you'd probably have insulted him.
[right][snapback]77527[/snapback][/right]


I haven't insulted him in the past, why would I start now?

I could use Zell Miller as an example of Dems attacking their own. (or several others that actually switched parties)
Grigorii
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 04:47 PM)
Yep.  When you get pinned down, you don't like anybody, but when you freelance, you only pick on righties.  Not very consistent.
[right][snapback]77520[/snapback][/right]


Not so Bart, with no pressure at all I have ripped Clinton, Dashell and Kerry and other Democrats and have repeatedly said I have no use for Michael Moore.

Hell Bart pre Limbaugh and the Newt monster I almost never was uncivil in my political comments. I’m still respectful of New Democrats as well as Republicans I consider basicly honest and stright forward about what and who the represent like McCain and Lieberman even if I differ with their projected ends in some policy.. But for the radical right and the phoney “liberal” Democrats I now find it best to fight fire with fire; sadly I was never good at turning the other cheek more than once or twice. Why should I respect anyone who shows me or my views no respect?
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 02:47 PM)
Yep.  When you get pinned down, you don't like anybody, but when you freelance, you only pick on righties.  Not very consistent.
[right][snapback]77520[/snapback][/right]


Which, of course, didn't seem to really bother you when Russ Logan waxed Burkeian in his philippic against the New York Times.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 04:03 PM)
Ok, so is this your refutation? Again, are you calling me on 'form' or on 'substance'?
[right][snapback]77532[/snapback][/right]


You haven't made a case either way. I posted a bit from Powell and Lowry. I haven't made a judgement because I haven't seen much evidence either way, I HAVE seen a lot of declarations from people who don't know much more than I do about the people accusing Bolton.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 05:07 PM)
Which, of course, didn't seem to really bother you when Russ Logan waxed Burkeian in his philippic against the New York Times.
[right][snapback]77537[/snapback][/right]


Heck no. I like to bash NYT every chance I get, and the chances come more often here of late.

Never claimed to be an equal opportunity basher and never shy about it.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 03:08 PM)
You haven't made a case either way. I posted a bit from Powell and Lowry. I haven't made a judgement because I haven't seen much evidence either way, I HAVE seen a lot of declarations from people who don't know much more than I do about the people accusing Bolton.
[right][snapback]77538[/snapback][/right]


I think you're playing to the crowd. What's Vojnovich's problem with Bolton, by the way?
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 03:19 PM)
Heck no.  I like to bash NYT every chance I get, and the chances come more often here of late.

Never claimed to be an equal opportunity basher and never shy about it.
[right][snapback]77545[/snapback][/right]


So, you're entitled to heckle Grig because?
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 04:30 PM)
I think you're playing to the crowd. What's Vojnovich's problem with Bolton, by the way?
[right][snapback]77549[/snapback][/right]



Don't know, since he said he didn't attend the hearing.
Arturo_Vandelay
Boy is that a MEGO.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 04:49 PM)
Boy is that a MEGO.
[right][snapback]77568[/snapback][/right]


Come again?
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 05:31 PM)
So, you're entitled to heckle Grig because?
[right][snapback]77550[/snapback][/right]


What heckling? I could explain, but I won't. Take care of your own poop, and I'll take care of mine. OK?
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 06:28 PM)
Come again?
[right][snapback]77587[/snapback][/right]


Like I told that girl from the Vegas water show:

Don't mind if I do.
Arturo_Vandelay
My eyes glaze over = MEGO

MEGO



/me"goh/ or /mee'goh/ ["My Eyes Glaze Over", often "Mine Eyes
Glazeth (sic) Over", attributed to the futurologist Herman
Kahn] Also "MEGO factor". 1. A handwave intended to
confuse the listener and hopefully induce agreement because
the listener does not want to admit to not understanding what
is going on. MEGO is usually directed at senior management by
engineers and contains a high proportion of TLAs.
2. excl. An appropriate response to MEGO tactics. 3. Among
non-hackers, often refers not to behaviour that causes the
eyes to glaze, but to the eye-glazing reaction itself, which
may be triggered by the mere threat of technical detail as
effectively as by an actual excess of it.
Bart Katz
MOFO
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 05:36 PM)
What heckling?  I could explain, but I won't. Take care of your own poop, and I'll take care of mine.  OK?
[right][snapback]77592[/snapback][/right]


I thought your answer would have some relevance to some other topics, e.g. whether davis can critique religious people for their hypocrisy.

In any case, no need to get confrontational.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 05:40 PM)
My eyes glaze over = MEGO

MEGO
/me"goh/ or /mee'goh/ ["My Eyes Glaze Over", often "Mine Eyes
Glazeth (sic) Over", attributed to the futurologist Herman
Kahn] Also "MEGO factor". 1. A handwave intended to
confuse the listener and hopefully induce agreement because
the listener does not want to admit to not understanding what
is going on. MEGO is usually directed at senior management by
engineers and contains a high proportion of TLAs.
2. excl. An appropriate response to MEGO tactics. 3. Among
non-hackers, often refers not to behaviour that causes the
eyes to glaze, but to the eye-glazing reaction itself, which
may be triggered by the mere threat of technical detail as
effectively as by an actual excess of it.
[right][snapback]77595[/snapback][/right]


In that case, yes, it does elicit a MEGO response, but I am not sure whose intent it would be to make the reader's eyes glaze over.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 07:49 PM)
I thought your answer would have some relevance to some other topics, e.g. whether davis can critique religious people for their hypocrisy.

In any case, no need to get confrontational.
[right][snapback]77605[/snapback][/right]


Then don't.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 06:52 PM)
In that case, yes, it does elicit a MEGO response, but I am not sure whose intent it would be to make the reader's eyes glaze over.
[right][snapback]77607[/snapback][/right]



I watched some of it and it was no easier to watch than to read. The point being Westerman's testimony wasn't some factual smoking gun, but his recollections of dealing with Bolton. I have no reason to doubt his word, but then I have no reason to take it as gospel either.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 05:56 PM)
Then don't.
[right][snapback]77609[/snapback][/right]


Obviously, it didn't occur to me that I had been confrontational, especially gratuitously so.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 22 2005, 08:03 PM)
Obviously, it didn't occur to me that I had been confrontational, especially gratuitously so.
[right][snapback]77613[/snapback][/right]


You been working on it for a few posts now. Take your shot of forget about it.
Bee
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 22 2005, 11:08 AM)
user posted image
[right][snapback]77420[/snapback][/right]


Time to check their Depends

laugh.gif
Russ Logan
Nomarchy

In re: My "phillippic"

The NYT bills itself as the newspaper of record.

But for years they never bothered to check if the stories they printed from their staff were factual. Got caught. Cost 'em both the reporter and an editor (Howell Raines - who I used to hear quite often on WMAL in DC - about as unbiased a journalist as Stalin was a capitalist from my experience). Since his departure I have not noted any dimunition of their editorial and news story stance against conservatives. So as far as I can tell nothing has changed from their quarter. They get little respect rom me as a bearer of the news - either style or substance. Then again, very few news organs do anymore. It's all about "advocacy journalism" from what I have read. If I want advocacy over facts, I'll read a column - at least then I know someone is arguing to make a point and not acting as if they are reporting the news.

Mr Jehl's routine lack of reference to General Powell's rightful honorific is something I have bristled at for many years when the press or others in the media and entertainment show such disrespect in a public arena and in their writings - finally said it in a forum of which you are a part. Thus you might not know of my consistent rancor with the practice. Of all the poster's here only Bart, I believe, has enough "history" with me from the old Salon days to know of my ire in this regard. I still refer to President Clinton by his honorific and not "Mr.", even though he would not rate near the lower middle coming up from below on my list of favorite presidents. It's how I was taught. I try to teach my own children to use respectful titles to adults and those older than they. Hard these days, when so many adults think they must be on a first name basis with children, or refer to everyone as a "Dude" or forms of address much less polite. They hear it. Their friends spout it. As parents my wife and I are outnumbered, but hopefully not completely outgunned.

Does that clear up my "phillipic?"
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Apr 22 2005, 06:24 PM)
Nomarchy

In re: My "philippic"

The NYT bills itself as the newspaper of record. 

But for years they never bothered to check if the stories they printed from their staff were factual.  Got caught. Cost 'em both the reporter and an editor (Howell Raines - who I used to hear quite often on WMAL in DC - about as unbiased a journalist as Stalin was a capitalist from my experience).  Since his departure I have not noted any dimunition of their editorial and news story stance against conservatives.  So as far as I can tell nothing has changed from their quarter.  They get little respect rom me as a bearer of the news - either style or substance.  Then again, very few news organs do anymore.  It's all about "advocacy journalism" from what I have read.  If I want advocacy over facts, I'll read a column - at least then I know someone is arguing to make a point and not acting as if they are reporting the news.

Mr Jehl's routine lack of reference to General Powell's rightful honorific is something I have bristled at for many years when the press or others in the media and entertainment show such disrespect in a public arena and in their writings - finally said it in a forum of which you are a part.  Thus you might not know of my consistent rancor with the practice.  Of all the poster's here only Bart, I believe, has enough "history" with me from the old Salon days to know of my ire in this regard.  I still refer to President Clinton by his honorific and not "Mr.", even though he would not rate near the lower middle coming up from below on my list of favorite presidents.  It's how I was taught.  I try to teach my own children to use respectful titles to adults and those older than they.  Hard these days, when so many adults think they must be on a first name basis with children, or refer to everyone as a "Dude" or forms of address much less polite.  They hear it. Their friends spout it. As parents my wife and I are outnumbered, but hopefully not completely outgunned.

Does that clear up my "philippic?"
[right][snapback]77622[/snapback][/right]


Russ, that is how I was taught as well, and that is how I behave. Your general point is well-taken. I don't regard the NYT as particularly authoritative, anyway. Nor do I take my bearings from it.

I take it that you find Mmes Coulter and Inghram (if I didn't mispel her last name)'s style distasteful, as well.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 06:05 PM)
You been working on it for a few posts now.  Take your shot of forget about it.
[right][snapback]77614[/snapback][/right]


I've no additional "shots". I took my "shots", whatever they might've been, earlier.
Bart Katz
user posted image
Russ Logan
Distasteful? Yes. But no more so than any of the other advocates who feel they must "shout down the opposition" in order to make a point. Faced with this stye as the norm, I find I must try and distill meaning from the words and not the volume, since I cannot avoid it.

Would that one could find that "still small voice of reason" in the electronic marketplace of ideas. Problem is it would not be noticed amongst the din.

Will I then disown conservative punditry? If that indeed was the question meant but unasked (a limitation of this medium of conversation - no body language or vocal inflection to cue from). I am after all a self-described conservative. So I guess not - I just don't have to applaud the delivery.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Apr 22 2005, 06:49 PM)
Distasteful? Yes. But no more so than any of the other advocates who feel they must "shout down the opposition" in order to make a point.  Faced with this stye as the norm, I find I must try and distill meaning from the words and not the volume, since I cannot avoid it. 

Would that one could find that "still small voice of reason" in the electronic marketplace of ideas.  Problem is it would not be noticed amongst the din.

Will I then disown conservative punditry?  If that indeed was the question meant but unasked (a limitation of this medium of conversation - no body language or vocal inflection to cue from). I am after all a self-described conservative.  So I guess not - I just don't have to applaud the delivery.
[right][snapback]77641[/snapback][/right]


Fair enough. I've 'disowned' many parts of what passes for or is called "progressive" of "left" punditry. And, their lack of manners and etiquette is the least of their problems.
Arturo_Vandelay
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050421-115645-8030r.htm

Pelosi pressed for trip records


By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


House Republicans yesterday called on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to provide documentation to prove that a Washington lobbyist firm did not pay for a trip she and other Democrats took to Puerto Rico in 2001.

"We feel that such lingering questions undermine the integrity of the institution and we hope [the questions] will be cleared up as soon as possible," wrote Republican Reps. Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.

The Washington Times reported earlier this week that Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio Democrat and member of the House ethics committee, listed a registered lobbyist as the trip's sponsor. House rules prohibit registered lobbyists from paying for travel by members.

On travel disclosure forms filed with the House clerk, Mrs. Pelosi and others on the trip listed a group called Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques as its sponsor.

After the discrepancy was made public, Mrs. Jones amended her travel disclosure form to match those of Mrs. Pelosi and other travelers. A spokeswoman in Mrs. Jones' office blamed the conflicting information on "human error" but declined to provide proof that the trip was paid for by Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques, rather than D.C. lobbyist Smith, Dawson & Andrews.

Mrs. Pelosi also refused to provide any such documentation, and testily dismissed questions yesterday about the matter.

"There's no discrepancy in the records on my trip," the California Democrat said. "So that's all I can answer for."

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Feeney, Florida Republican, yesterday became the latest to be ensnared in the escalating bipartisan hunt for ethical lapses in congressional travel.

Mr. Feeney and his wife traveled from Orlando to West Palm Beach, Fla., to deliver a speech in November 2003. According to records he filed with the House clerk, the $1,946 tab for the trip was picked up by Rotterman & Associates, a North Carolina-based lobbying firm.

Mr. Feeney amended his report this week, saying the California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture had funded the trip.

The charges and countercharges about congressional travel come amid a prolonged standoff between Democrats and Republicans that has kept the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from meeting this year.

The questions also come after months of claims against Majority Leader Tom DeLay, accused of accepting a trip paid for by a lobbyist. Mr DeLay and the nonprofit group he listed as the trip's sponsor insist the lobbyist did not pay the bill.

Mrs. Pelosi has called for a full investigation into that matter, which is an inconsistency, say Mr. McHenry and Mr. Westmoreland.

"If you are serious that the mere allegation that a lobbyist paid for member travel warrants a full ethics investigation, it would seem that a member actually disclosing it as fact would more than merit it," the Republicans wrote.

"We would hope that you would come forward with any and all documentation your office has proving that in fact the group, Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques, initiated and paid for your trip," Mr. McHenry and Mr. Westmoreland added. "Ms. Jones' disclosures that a lobbyist in fact paid for it, and her subsequent statement that the lobbying firm handled the logistics, has created an appearance that the true source of the funds may not actually be Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques."

Jose Paralitici, who organized the group to oppose the U.S. Navy bombing range in Vieques, yesterday returned a telephone message left earlier in the week by The Times. Mr. Paralitici said he operates the group from his home and that the group paid for the 2001 trips.

Mr. Paralitici said he hadn't spoken to anyone in Congress this week but that he was volunteering the information after coming across The Times story on the Internet. He said the money to pay the more than $8,000 in travel bills came from "a lot of donations."
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 11:20 PM)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050421-115645-8030r.htm

Pelosi pressed for trip records
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
House Republicans yesterday called on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to provide documentation to prove that a Washington lobbyist firm did not pay for a trip she and other Democrats took to Puerto Rico in 2001.

"We feel that such lingering questions undermine the integrity of the institution and we hope [the questions] will be cleared up as soon as possible," wrote Republican Reps. Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.

The Washington Times reported earlier this week that Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio Democrat and member of the House ethics committee, listed a registered lobbyist as the trip's sponsor. House rules prohibit registered lobbyists from paying for travel by members.

On travel disclosure forms filed with the House clerk, Mrs. Pelosi and others on the trip listed a group called Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques as its sponsor.

After the discrepancy was made public, Mrs. Jones amended her travel disclosure form to match those of Mrs. Pelosi and other travelers. A spokeswoman in Mrs. Jones' office blamed the conflicting information on "human error" but declined to provide proof that the trip was paid for by Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques, rather than D.C. lobbyist Smith, Dawson & Andrews.

Mrs. Pelosi also refused to provide any such documentation, and testily dismissed questions yesterday about the matter.

"There's no discrepancy in the records on my trip," the California Democrat said. "So that's all I can answer for."

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Feeney, Florida Republican, yesterday became the latest to be ensnared in the escalating bipartisan hunt for ethical lapses in congressional travel.

Mr. Feeney and his wife traveled from Orlando to West Palm Beach, Fla., to deliver a speech in November 2003. According to records he filed with the House clerk, the $1,946 tab for the trip was picked up by Rotterman & Associates, a North Carolina-based lobbying firm.

Mr. Feeney amended his report this week, saying the California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture had funded the trip.

The charges and countercharges about congressional travel come amid a prolonged standoff between Democrats and Republicans that has kept the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from meeting this year.

The questions also come after months of claims against Majority Leader Tom DeLay, accused of accepting a trip paid for by a lobbyist. Mr DeLay and the nonprofit group he listed as the trip's sponsor insist the lobbyist did not pay the bill.

Mrs. Pelosi has called for a full investigation into that matter, which is an inconsistency, say Mr. McHenry and Mr. Westmoreland.

"If you are serious that the mere allegation that a lobbyist paid for member travel warrants a full ethics investigation, it would seem that a member actually disclosing it as fact would more than merit it," the Republicans wrote.

"We would hope that you would come forward with any and all documentation your office has proving that in fact the group, Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques, initiated and paid for your trip," Mr. McHenry and Mr. Westmoreland added. "Ms. Jones' disclosures that a lobbyist in fact paid for it, and her subsequent statement that the lobbying firm handled the logistics, has created an appearance that the true source of the funds may not actually be Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques."

Jose Paralitici, who organized the group to oppose the U.S. Navy bombing range in Vieques, yesterday returned a telephone message left earlier in the week by The Times. Mr. Paralitici said he operates the group from his home and that the group paid for the 2001 trips.

Mr. Paralitici said he hadn't spoken to anyone in Congress this week but that he was volunteering the information after coming across The Times story on the Internet. He said the money to pay the more than $8,000 in travel bills came from "a lot of donations."
[right][snapback]77682[/snapback][/right]


Maybe she could get a job as exterminator.
celtcahill
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 10:49 PM)
It was your lefty pals that first brought the entertainer thing on when these people, espceially Rush, started getting popular.  I'm just throwing it back at you.  And gee, how did their audience or readership get soo much bigger than the wonderful, factual NYT? 

Now what's your excuse for the newspaper of record?
[right][snapback]77522[/snapback][/right]



Their audience is not from the reading public. tongue.gif
celtcahill
Actually Rush always weasels out of getting caught lying with the 'I'm just an entertainer' lie.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Apr 22 2005, 11:41 PM)
Their audience is not from the reading public.  tongue.gif
[right][snapback]77689[/snapback][/right]


NYT?
Bart Katz
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Apr 22 2005, 11:42 PM)
Actually Rush always weasels out of getting caught lying with the 'I'm just an entertainer' lie.
[right][snapback]77690[/snapback][/right]


He does now, but it was lefties said that about him before he ever used it. They tried to discredit him with it, and he turned it around.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 09:23 PM)
Maybe she could get a job as exterminator.
[right][snapback]77684[/snapback][/right]


Democrats hate legislators who have or have had jobs. The worst thing they say about DeLay is he was an exterminator.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Apr 22 2005, 09:41 PM)
Their audience is not from the reading public.  tongue.gif
[right][snapback]77689[/snapback][/right]



I guess libs are the ones putting Coulter on the NYT best sellers list.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 11:45 PM)
Democrats hate legislators who have or have had jobs. The worst thing they say about DeLay is he was an exterminator.
[right][snapback]77693[/snapback][/right]


Yet they say they are for the working man.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 11:46 PM)
I guess libs are the ones putting Coulter on the NYT best sellers list.
[right][snapback]77694[/snapback][/right]


Maybe they are buying large quantities of her books and burning them in secret pagan rites.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 09:47 PM)
Yet they say they are for the working man.
[right][snapback]77695[/snapback][/right]


The benevolent master.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 22 2005, 09:48 PM)
Maybe they are buying large quantities of her books and burning them in secret pagan rites.
[right][snapback]77696[/snapback][/right]


Well I know for a fact they aren't burning them in any neo-pagan rites.
Arturo_Vandelay
http://www.nysun.com/article/12645


A Kennedy Relative Acted as Informant in Democrat Circles

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 22, 2005

A New Orleans political consultant who is Senator Kennedy's brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, has been operating in Democratic circles for the last three years as an undercover informant for the FBI, sources close to the matter said yesterday.

At a federal court hearing yesterday morning, Reggie, 43, who organized fund-raisers for President and Mrs. Clinton, pleaded guilty to two felony charges, bank fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors described check-kiting and loan fraud schemes he operated involving three Louisiana banks, but they did not publicly detail his cooperation with the government.

The New York Sun reported yesterday that an unnamed witness with ties to a prominent political figure has been involved in recent federal investigations of campaign fund-raising violations, including a probe into alleged financial misreporting in Mrs. Clinton's bid for the Senate in 2000. The informant, described in court papers only as a "confidential witness," was part of an FBI plan to secretly audiotape conversations with political operatives, including a well-known person who prosecutors said was seeking to funnel donations from foreigners to federal campaigns.

Several people with knowledge of the case identified Reggie as the informant described in the Sun article.

In a brief interview, the first assistant U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, Jan Mann, said of the Sun story, "I wasn't sure if anybody made any of these connections yet or not." She declined to describe the investigations in which Reggie helped the government. "We're not handling anything outside of the case on Ray Reggie, so it certainly wouldn't be in my realm to talk about anything else," she said.

Reggie's lawyer, Michael Ellis, declined to comment for this article.

The disclosure that Reggie was surreptitiously recording conversations for the FBI may have caused some heartburn yesterday for Democrats who have had contact with him since 2002.

Reggie was a regular presence at Mr. Clinton's side when he visited New Orleans during his presidency and thereafter. Just last September, Mr. Clinton had lunch in that city with Reggie, as the former president swung through town to sign his autobiography and attend a $10,000-a-head Democratic Party fund-raiser, the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. A former congresswoman and ambassador to the Vatican, Lindy Boggs, joined Reggie and Mr. Clinton at the lunch, as did two federal judges whom Mr. Clinton appointed.

When Mrs. Clinton traveled to New Orleans in May 2000 to raise $100,000 for her Senate campaign, Reggie was on the host committee.

An attorney for the Clintons, David Kendall, had no immediate response yesterday to questions about Reggie's role in Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign or about the possibility that Reggie might have taped one or both of the Clintons.

Reggie is expected to be a witness in a federal criminal case involving a finance official on Mrs. Clinton's campaign staff, David Rosen. In a trial scheduled to start at Los Angeles on May 3, Mr. Rosen, 40, faces charges that he caused false donation and expenditure reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission in connection with a fund-raising gala at Hollywood in August 2000.

Court documents indicate that in September 2002, a confidential witness, identified by other sources as Reggie, taped an unwitting Mr. Rosen in a conversation discussing his role in the 2000 gala. In an affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate, an FBI agent asserted that the informant "was involved in the planning of the Clinton Gala."

In June 2000, Reggie and his wife, Mary Michelle, were guests at a state dinner. They also stayed overnight at the White House as guests of the Clintons.

Mr. Rosen's defense attorney, Paul Sandler of Baltimore, refused to comment yesterday on the disclosure of Reggie's role as an informant or on what impact his secret recording might have on Mr. Rosen's case. "I have nothing to say. I'm getting ready for trial in 10 days," Mr. Sandler said.

A former Internet executive who helped organize the August 12, 2000, Hollywood fund-raiser, Peter Paul, said in an interview last night that he was certain Reggie was not a key player in the gala. "If he had a role, it was a very, very small role," Paul said.

However, campaign finance records provide some indication that Reggie might have at least attended the fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton at a radio's executive's mansion in the Brentwood hills of Los Angeles.

On August 28, 2000, the committee that officially sponsored the event, New York Senate 2000, recorded a donation from Reggie of $1,330.

Reggie took out a full-page ad in a "tribute book" distributed to guests at the gala. "You have demonstrated as the president and first lady of the United States that you were willing to 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty,'" the ad read. It was signed, "With gratitude, Ray Reggie."

On separate occasions, Reggie gave another $6,000 to committees connected with Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Overall, Reggie gave about $29,000 to Democratic candidates over the past six years, Federal Election Commission filings show. Reggie also served on the national finance committee for Vice President Gore's presidential bid in 2000, according to a New Orleans publication, cityBusiness.

Reggie's sister, Victoria, is married to Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. A spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy did not return several phone calls yesterday seeking comment for this story. Reggie is also the son of a prominent Louisiana judge, Edmund Reggie, who was a close friend of President Kennedy.

The younger Reggie is close to and has done consulting work for the former mayor of New Orleans, Marc Morial. Press reports in Louisiana have suggested that prosecutors' interest in Reggie may have stemmed from a desire to get information from inside Mr. Morial's inner circle. Mr. Morial has not been charged with any crime.

The bank-fraud charges against the Reggie date to 2001 and earlier. Court records indicate his plea deal with the government was reached in 2002. However, the charges were not filed publicly until February of this year.

Reggie, who ran an advertising buying and consulting firm known as Media Direct, has admitted to using a forged contract with the Census Department to obtain a $6 million line of credit from a Louisiana bank. At the hearing yesterday, he acknowledged using that line of credit to cover a check-kiting scheme at two other banks. One bank lost $3.5 million, court papers said. His sentencing was set for October 23. The maximum penalty on the two charges is 35 years in prison and a fine of up to $1.25 million.

Reggie also faces a separate, unrelated state trial in Louisiana next month for allegedly impersonating a police officer. The felony charge stems from a 2002 incident in which Reggie allegedly used a blue light to stop another vehicle.

"He pulls over a car full of young girls, tells them he's a cop; and wants one of them to get out; tried to get them to follow him somewhere," the prosecutor handling the case, Kim McElwee, said in an interview.

Ms. McElwee complained that she has had great difficulty obtaining routine evidence for the case. "I've never had a case quite like this," she said. "People say they have a document. I call back. Not only is the document gone, they're gone. It's bizarre."

Reggie, who has maintained his innocence, has waived his right to a jury trial. Ms. McElwee said the judge will probably acquit Reggie. "I'm getting entertainment out of this. I'm certainly not going to get a conviction," she said.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 23 2005, 12:17 AM)
http://www.nysun.com/article/12645
A Kennedy Relative Acted as Informant in Democrat Circles

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 22, 2005

A New Orleans political consultant who is Senator Kennedy's brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, has been operating in Democratic circles for the last three years as an undercover informant for the FBI, sources close to the matter said yesterday.

At a federal court hearing yesterday morning, Reggie, 43, who organized fund-raisers for President and Mrs. Clinton, pleaded guilty to two felony charges, bank fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors described check-kiting and loan fraud schemes he operated involving three Louisiana banks, but they did not publicly detail his cooperation with the government.

The New York Sun reported yesterday that an unnamed witness with ties to a prominent political figure has been involved in recent federal investigations of campaign fund-raising violations, including a probe into alleged financial misreporting in Mrs. Clinton's bid for the Senate in 2000. The informant, described in court papers only as a "confidential witness," was part of an FBI plan to secretly audiotape conversations with political operatives, including a well-known person who prosecutors said was seeking to funnel donations from foreigners to federal campaigns.

Several people with knowledge of the case identified Reggie as the informant described in the Sun article.

In a brief interview, the first assistant U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, Jan Mann, said of the Sun story, "I wasn't sure if anybody made any of these connections yet or not." She declined to describe the investigations in which Reggie helped the government. "We're not handling anything outside of the case on Ray Reggie, so it certainly wouldn't be in my realm to talk about anything else," she said.

Reggie's lawyer, Michael Ellis, declined to comment for this article.

The disclosure that Reggie was surreptitiously recording conversations for the FBI may have caused some heartburn yesterday for Democrats who have had contact with him since 2002.

Reggie was a regular presence at Mr. Clinton's side when he visited New Orleans during his presidency and thereafter. Just last September, Mr. Clinton had lunch in that city with Reggie, as the former president swung through town to sign his autobiography and attend a $10,000-a-head Democratic Party fund-raiser, the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. A former congresswoman and ambassador to the Vatican, Lindy Boggs, joined Reggie and Mr. Clinton at the lunch, as did two federal judges whom Mr. Clinton appointed.

When Mrs. Clinton traveled to New Orleans in May 2000 to raise $100,000 for her Senate campaign, Reggie was on the host committee.

An attorney for the Clintons, David Kendall, had no immediate response yesterday to questions about Reggie's role in Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign or about the possibility that Reggie might have taped one or both of the Clintons.

Reggie is expected to be a witness in a federal criminal case involving a finance official on Mrs. Clinton's campaign staff, David Rosen. In a trial scheduled to start at Los Angeles on May 3, Mr. Rosen, 40, faces charges that he caused false donation and expenditure reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission in connection with a fund-raising gala at Hollywood in August 2000.

Court documents indicate that in September 2002, a confidential witness, identified by other sources as Reggie, taped an unwitting Mr. Rosen in a conversation discussing his role in the 2000 gala. In an affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate, an FBI agent asserted that the informant "was involved in the planning of the Clinton Gala."

In June 2000, Reggie and his wife, Mary Michelle, were guests at a state dinner. They also stayed overnight at the White House as guests of the Clintons.

Mr. Rosen's defense attorney, Paul Sandler of Baltimore, refused to comment yesterday on the disclosure of Reggie's role as an informant or on what impact his secret recording might have on Mr. Rosen's case. "I have nothing to say. I'm getting ready for trial in 10 days," Mr. Sandler said.

A former Internet executive who helped organize the August 12, 2000, Hollywood fund-raiser, Peter Paul, said in an interview last night that he was certain Reggie was not a key player in the gala. "If he had a role, it was a very, very small role," Paul said.

However, campaign finance records provide some indication that Reggie might have at least attended the fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton at a radio's executive's mansion in the Brentwood hills of Los Angeles.

On August 28, 2000, the committee that officially sponsored the event, New York Senate 2000, recorded a donation from Reggie of $1,330.

Reggie took out a full-page ad in a "tribute book" distributed to guests at the gala. "You have demonstrated as the president and first lady of the United States that you were willing to 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty,'" the ad read. It was signed, "With gratitude, Ray Reggie."

On separate occasions, Reggie gave another $6,000 to committees connected with Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Overall, Reggie gave about $29,000 to Democratic candidates over the past six years, Federal Election Commission filings show. Reggie also served on the national finance committee for Vice President Gore's presidential bid in 2000, according to a New Orleans publication, cityBusiness.

Reggie's sister, Victoria, is married to Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. A spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy did not return several phone calls yesterday seeking comment for this story. Reggie is also the son of a prominent Louisiana judge, Edmund Reggie, who was a close friend of President Kennedy.

The younger Reggie is close to and has done consulting work for the former mayor of New Orleans, Marc Morial. Press reports in Louisiana have suggested that prosecutors' interest in Reggie may have stemmed from a desire to get information from inside Mr. Morial's inner circle. Mr. Morial has not been charged with any crime.

The bank-fraud charges against the Reggie date to 2001 and earlier. Court records indicate his plea deal with the government was reached in 2002. However, the charges were not filed publicly until February of this year.

Reggie, who ran an advertising buying and consulting firm known as Media Direct, has admitted to using a forged contract with the Census Department to obtain a $6 million line of credit from a Louisiana bank. At the hearing yesterday, he acknowledged using that line of credit to cover a check-kiting scheme at two other banks. One bank lost $3.5 million, court papers said. His sentencing was set for October 23. The maximum penalty on the two charges is 35 years in prison and a fine of up to $1.25 million.

Reggie also faces a separate, unrelated state trial in Louisiana next month for allegedly impersonating a police officer. The felony charge stems from a 2002 incident in which Reggie allegedly used a blue light to stop another vehicle.

"He pulls over a car full of young girls, tells them he's a cop; and wants one of them to get out; tried to get them to follow him somewhere," the prosecutor handling the case, Kim McElwee, said in an interview.

Ms. McElwee complained that she has had great difficulty obtaining routine evidence for the case. "I've never had a case quite like this," she said. "People say they have a document. I call back. Not only is the document gone, they're gone. It's bizarre."

Reggie, who has maintained his innocence, has waived his right to a jury trial. Ms. McElwee said the judge will probably acquit Reggie. "I'm getting entertainment out of this. I'm certainly not going to get a conviction," she said.
[right][snapback]77699[/snapback][/right]


More strangely disappearing documents.
Arturo_Vandelay
I hear DickMo says this it the one that could bring her down. No more imperial power to defend her.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
Reggie also faces a separate, unrelated state trial in Louisiana next month for allegedly impersonating a police officer. The felony charge stems from a 2002 incident in which Reggie allegedly used a blue light to stop another vehicle.

"He pulls over a car full of young girls, tells them he's a cop; and wants one of them to get out; tried to get them to follow him somewhere," the prosecutor handling the case, Kim McElwee, said in an interview.


That's illegal in Louisiana now?

Damn.
davisął
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 22 2005, 11:45 PM)
Democrats hate legislators who have or have had jobs. The worst thing they say about DeLay is he was an exterminator.
[right][snapback]77693[/snapback][/right]



Not forking likely. His misdeeds would fill a case of 700mb discs.
lil bart
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 19 2005, 07:25 AM)
Who ran on morals? Who ran on values? Doesn't that mean a thing?
[right][snapback]76857[/snapback][/right]


Not Arnold.

laugh.gif
lil bart
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 19 2005, 07:27 AM)
Nope, 'cause we all knew them was just code words for fag-hating.
[right][snapback]76858[/snapback][/right]


Don't forget "I will not have oral sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!"
arebuntz
QUOTE(lil bart @ Apr 23 2005, 10:46 PM)
Don't forget "I will not have oral sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!"
[right][snapback]77916[/snapback][/right]

Oral sex isn't... or is that Orwell sex isn't...
lil bart
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 20 2005, 07:31 PM)
user posted image
[right][snapback]77169[/snapback][/right]


OK.
lil bart
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Apr 22 2005, 12:19 PM)
Mr. Jehl of the NYT needs a short lesson in etiquette.  Just as it is most proper to refer to a former Senator as "Senator", same with a former Ambassador, it is also most proper to refer to a retired General, especially one who carried four stars and was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as General not Mr.  Even simply referring to him as Secretary Powell would have been more proper.

But again this is the NYT, so I suppose some latitude for impropriety should be given.

Just galls me sometimes how far from civility and propriety we, as a society, and the Fourth Estate in particular, have fallen.

"Manners are of more importance than laws... Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. "
-- Edmund Burke
[right][snapback]77457[/snapback][/right]


Good heavens. My mileage varies on two counts. First, it would not be Mr. Jehl of the NYT who would need the lessons, if lessons are needed. It would be the editors. Those pieces are vetted and copyedited to the max.

Second, the NYT adheres to almost an archaic code of manners, highly mannered and mannerly, far above the competition.

They virtually write the book on proprieties. They get ridiculed for that! It is ridiculous that you lambast that paper, of all papers, otherwise, Russ.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.