CREW Blasts Pelosi Endorsement of Unethical Murtha for Majority Leader

[MarkTwain]

For Immediate Release:
November 13, 2006
Contact: Naomi Seligman Steiner - 202.408.5565/[e-mail]

CREW BLASTS PELOSI ENDORSEMENT OF UNETHICAL MURTHA FOR MAJORITY LEADER

DEMOCRATS WIN ON ETHICS BUT CHOOSE TO RUN CORRUPT MEMBER FOR LEADERSHIP POST

Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW’s report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep. Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha. Eight incumbents in CREW’s report lost their races to ethics issues.

“Future House Speaker Pelosi’s endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, shows that she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today. “How can Americans believe that the Democrats will return integrity to the House when future Speaker Pelosi has endorsed an ethically-challenged member for a leadership position? Rep. Murtha is the wrong choice for this job.”

Not only is Rep. Murtha beset by ethics issues, The New York Times reported on October 2, 2006 that he has consistently opposed ethics and earmark reform. Sloan continued, “Rep. Murtha’s opposition to ethics reform does not bode well for future Speaker Pelosi’s promise to enact ethics legislation in the first 100 hours of the new Congress.”

- SNIP -

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=178

CREW’s report can be found at www.beyonddelay.org.

[conservdem]

1. If this is true, Murtha is the wong person to be Majority Leader.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. I just said that

and am getting roasted for it.

In another thread, some loon is accusing CREW of being a CIA operation.

[zreosumgame]

59. the problem some of have with this 'list' from CREW is

that he is 'suspect' because he was video taped NOT taking a bribe, but did not cause a confrontation when he found out what the deal was. Um, that's a bad thing? Sorry, but that does not bother me one little bit.

Now as to the alleged 'pay to play' deal they are talking about there seems to be few if any details they OR YOU want to talk about. Lots of smoke, not much fire it looks like.

So all most of us (at least those without big stocks of tin-foil anyway) want are some facts to evaluate. and they have been slow in coming.

[calimary]

62. Hey, maybe since the heat's on, he'll let up on this crap a little.

I'm hoping the survivors in Congress, and ALL of the newcomers get the message and keep their noses SQUEAKY clean. It'd be good for them, and great for the rest of us. Hopefully if Murtha manages to dodge this bullet, he'll keep himself above reproach, too. If he doesn't, you've gotta know the republi-CONS would regard his as a VERY juicy head to be able to stick up on a pike.

[zreosumgame]

75. that would not be a bad thing at all

[fjc]

64. Nice balanced post. Thanks

I had to wonder in all the hoopla about FBI stings and such bagging those Republican congressman how it was that Murtha managed not even to be on the public radar much. Your posts suggests that it is because those running the stings didn't have anything to run with on Murtha. Any links to any details?

[zreosumgame]

74. all I know about his ABSCAM part is on this video

where the FBI is trying to bribe him, he says not 'at this point' and had tried to divert them. Lots of people have tried to read a lot into that, for me if confronted by this i would also put them off and not do a Hollywood-like scene denouncing them and telling them i was going to turn them in. But that's just me. You can find the whole video at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam#John_Murtha.27s_involvement and also see where he tries to get them to INVEST that bibe money in his district (OMG the freepers had orgasms over a congress-critter trying to get money invested in a district LOL!). But watch and make up your own mind.

Again, this is concerning the ABSCAM thing ONLY, I do not have any real evidence about the 'pay to play' thing.

[Kelvin Mace]

92. He turned down the bribe, but failed to report it

and offered suggestions to the fellow offering the bribe on on how to get what he wanted.

Hardly a paragon of virtue.

[hlthe2b]

2. well, that's just wonderful...

:shrug:

I don't know what to think on this one... I've admired CREW, but somehow I have a bit of difficulty believing Murtha is so much more unethical than the DLC Corporate Candidate, Hoyer? But, I admittedly don't know enough about either one.

[Robbien]

4. It is true. But the big hole here is

if Pelosi came out and endorsed Hoyer, CREW would have written just as bad a critique on Hoyer.

Both Murtha and Hoyer are dirty.

But they are the only two choices Pelosi has.

[aquart]

6. So much for us being the clean team.

Sigh.

[TheDebbieDee]

10. Not trying to be a smartass, but who says these are the

only two choices she has?

Can't she pick a strong-willed Democratic Congressperson and ask him or her to consider taking the position?

[Robbien]

13. From what I understand

Anyone who want the position has to throw their hat in the ring. Only Hoyer and Murtha have done so.

As far as I am aware, there is no gossip Pelosi has been acting behind the scenes to get someone else to step up. It is getting late for any other choices because the final vote is Thursday I believe.

[conservdem]

21. Postpone the vote. She could then recruit a good ethical leader.

[pnwmom]

67. Murtha was one of the two NOT charged, much less convicted,

in a sting operation.

So why are WE convicting him?

[conservdem]

79. Who said convict? Please check out the tape. I quoted him below.

There are a number of things people can do without getting charged or convicted that should still cause them to be excluded from certain positions. Do you use the same standards when you access the caliber of all people or just Dems?

[pnwmom]

98. He could have been planning to report them. How do we know?

[Psephos]

100. That sounds like repugs when they were defending Delay. n/t

[conservdem]

20. Why are they the only two choices?

If she is a good leader she will do the right thing early on, set a good example, and deter such conduct by others. If the two you mention are dirty they should not be rewarded, their conduct should be condemned.

[Erika]

40. Don't 2nd guess Nancy

She'll be one step ahead at all times. Why pick this time to condemn our own rather than the GOP?

[fjc]

66. Uh oh, now you've done it. A reasonable question.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Really

What about the other 227 members?

[Mojambo]

3. I tend to respect CREW's work a great deal

My "support" for Murtha is weakening significantly.

Why are we stuck with two really unappealing choices here?

[Dangerously Amused]

5. If it's true, he should be held accountable

...rather than rewarded with an advancement in his career.

[conservdem]

22. Agreed!! We would want to see such actions by the Republicans

and we should do it ourselves.

[colonel odis]

7. if murtha's corrupt, they need to nail him.

i don't give a damn if he is a war hero who looks like everybody's uncle.

if this election turned on ethics, the last thing in the world the democrats need is to put someone who's dirty in a leadership position.

[conservdem]

23. Agreed!! Well said.

[lakercub]

54. Duke Cunningham was a war hero

and an influence-peddling slimeball. We don't need that crap in our party.

[BrotherBuzz]

8. This article doesn't spell out one charge leveled against Murtha

What the hey, pay-to play schemes sounds pretty condemning, but they won't come out and say exactly what he did. Hmmm, some pretty shrewd reporting. :shrug:

[jrandom421]

9. This sounds like what the Republicans were doing,

attempting to tie him to Abscam in the early 80's, when he did meet with the FBI agents posing as sheiks, but left when they offered him money for favors.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. So Murtha is tainted by accusations?

I'm Cool with that. :sarcasm:

[conservdem]

26. If CREW is just smearing the guy then CREW should lose credibility.

I do not know if they guy is dirty, but I hope this will be checked out completely before his voted in.

[Erika]

41. You don't trust Nancy

and her choice?

[MarkTwain]

28. If I recall from that time...

... the strong suspicion and prevailing conventional wisdom was that Murtha left the room because the FBI plant did not offer enough money to interest Murtha - in other words, the profer was too small.

Murtha also has very significant problems with earmarks. He outrageously abuses the earmark system severely - and it is again believed to be to benefit his own personal enrichment.

[MGKrebs]

99. That is false.

Murtha said "I'll think about it" which is what most anyone would say when trying to extricate oneself from a tricky situation when pissing off potential bad guys is a bad thing.

Mark Twain: are you supporting Hoyer?

[JerseygirlCT]

12. That's what I was thinking, too

I'd like details before I jump to a conclusion.

If indeed, there's anything truly fishy here, then he should not have a leadership position. But I don't think that's been shown yet.

[Robbien]

16. Please read Josh Marshall's article

It highlights the problems with Murtha

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001579.php

[BrotherBuzz]

18. Thanks, a good read that raises questions...

Why now? Why didn't the GOP controlled congress deal with this when they had the opportunity? Thirty year old accusations?

"Sloan cautions that while Murtha isn't facing questions from the FBI at present, that could change". Wishful thinking?

And lastly, why didn't the swift boaters jump on this if there was some 'There there"?

I don't know squat, but I'm inclined to believe this is nothing but a witch hunt. :shrug:

[rodeodance]

65. "one of Capitol Hill's most accomplished masters at the art of pork" -

Yet Murtha -- who U.S. News and World Report once called "one of Capitol Hill's most accomplished masters at the art of pork" -- presides over a tightly connected network of favored lobbyists, former staffers and major campaign contributors that bears a striking resemblance to those maintained by some of the tarnished Republicans he would likely replace.

[Dangerously Amused]

31. I thought that too at first

...but I went to their site and poked around a little. There are two Dems (Murtha one of them) on their Top Twenty list of dirty politicians, the rest are all Repubs. So it doesn't look like just a smear article based on party. And there it does go into specifics re: the allegations as well.

I do agree, I wish the article above had a little more substance to it as just any shmuck can level vague accusations, and I think standing alone this article has close to zero credibility for that reason. But if the intent is simply to raise the issue for further investigation by the reader, or at least to serve as a "heads up" kind of warning, well then it worked on me.

I still have no idea as to the merits of the allegations against Murtha, and I have admired his work in the past. I would hate to find out the accusations referenced above are true, but if they are, well.. I would rather find out now and nip potential problems in the bud. It goes without saying that we have to be as relentless and outraged about our own ethics violations as we ever were about the Repubs'. Oh well, I said it anyway.

[pnwmom]

68. That's because he was NOT charged, much less convicted,

of anything.

[xchrom]

11. when it comes to ethics -- the dem party MUST let chips fall where they may.

[MGKrebs]

15. I think this is about earmarks.

Murtha has steered defense contracts to companies in his district (and to his brother). But isn't Pelosi already talking about reining in this whole earmark process?

[Robbien]

17. The only earmark reform she is talking about so far

is a bill requiring Congresscritters putting their name on any bit of pork they add to bills.

This "outting" is supposed to shame the congresscritters. More likely with this current batch of critters, a pork badge pinned on them would probably be a badge of honor in their eyes.

[slaveplanet]

96. Then why is she endorsing someone

who has consistently blocked such measures? :shrug:

Some members of Congress complain that earmarks corrupt lawmaking in other ways. “They are used as internal bribery in order to get members to vote for a piece of legislation they wouldn’t ordinarily give two minutes to,” said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

No one is more adept at such trading than Mr. Murtha, say current and former members, Congressional aides and outside observers. “He delivers Democrats for key votes, which increases his clout and ability to get more earmarks, which then increases his ability to get Democratic votes,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. Murtha leans right on abortion rights and gun control but left on labor, tax and economic issues. And he consistently opposes ethics reform or disclosure requirements, including a proposal this year that would have required lawmakers to sign their names to earmarks, on the grounds that voters police lawmakers’ actions.

Could this have anything to do with her decision?

Mr. Murtha has used his influence in the caucus to place friends in strategic positions on appropriations committees and other House panels. Representative Nancy Pelosi, a California liberal who is the current Democratic leader, is a close Murtha ally. He put her on the appropriations committee early in her career and managed her campaign to be leader.

His friends say Mr. Murtha often guides their votes, especially on defense matters. “He is sort of like the general and we are the lieutenants,” Mr. Doyle said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02murtha.html?ex=1160452800&en=2d0c32bbd5611471&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[conservdem]

24. That's not enough. If he violated the rules he should be held

accountable.

[Erika]

43. You don't trust Nancy?

Why are you spending so much energy attacking dems rather than the opponents?

[EFerrari]

45. We're not supposed to trust Nancy. We're supposed to

be informed citizens who hold our reps accountable -- and that includes Nancy, for whom I have campaigned since day 1 and who is my rep.

[upi402]

106. Right on!

I'm doing my best at this whole "unity thing" but I'm so used to questioning authority that I start to twitch not berating DINO's.

[conservdem]

55. Based on what I am reading here, I'm inclined not to trust in her.

There are few, if any, that I really trust to always do the right thing. I want to expect more from the Dems and I want the Republicans to do the same for they're leaders. At this early point we can help set standards that should keep us on a better course. Please join me in the effort. But, I really do not think this is "attacking" Dems.

[MGKrebs]

60. I haven't seen where he violated rules.

I think it's more like "pork". It's not good, we don't like it, but until the rules are changed, this is the way Reps get stuff for their districts.

I think the question is: Is Pelosi serious about reform if she is supporting one of the biggest porkers, or, is she counting on this post to reform him. Maybe she already has a deal with him.

[pnwmom]

69. Who says he violated any rules on earmarks?

[dchill]

19. Now I know why all the Repundits...

seem to like them both!

[wisteria]

25. Hoyer is just as bad and it is all about Iraq and really making a difference.

Hoyer will take a DLC stand and Murtha will shake things up.
Oh, and by the way, this stuff was out there before his reelections and no one cared.

[Robbien]

30. In comparison Hoyer is worse. Corporate America really wants Hoyer.

for that reason alone, Murtha is the better choice.

[SOS]

117. And the defense contractors

who own NBC are making their choice well-known.
Since last night, I've seen that ancient video 5 times on NBC and MSNBC.
And yet we haven't heard a word about Abramoff in months.
Looks like corporate media is reverting to Clinton mode at the speed of light.

[Judi Lynn]

27. Doesn't it seem likely that if they had anything to throw at him, they would have already

thrown it in his face months ago when he started standing up to the _Bush regime? They were fit to be tied back then. There is no doubt that if they could have pried him away from the access he had to the press when he started telling people that his contacts in the military didn't support Bush's actions, it would have already happened, and he'd only be a distant memory now.

He has been a thorn in their sides. You've seen what they do, even to other Republicans, like John McCain, when they get in their road!

I'd like to hear some direct evidence against Murtha, too, rather than being expected to hear CREW doesn't like him, and jump to the conclusion he's bad. I need to know what they know. No reason to keep it to themselves, and time waits for no man/woman. They should fork it on over, or shut up about it.

(Before the printing press was invented, only a few could read, so the population had to depend upon what those "eddycated" smart fellas told them. Well, we all need to see the same information now, and make up our own danged minds, as most of us, except for the lurkers who have to have other freeps read it for them, can surely read.)

[bemildred]

29. Sounds like drivel to me.

A smear, actually, or maybe a way to get attention. Murtha is going to get the job, and I doubt that Pelosi cares a fig about the substance of these allegations, I expect she will try to direct investment to her district too.

[slaveplanet]

56. If I've read the NYT's accusations correctly,

I'm left with the impression that Murtha was the main conduit for funneling votes the GOP's way. He was the GOP's go to guy, there was even a moniker "Murtha corner". All the Dems would have to go through him to have any hope of getting some scraps for projects within their constituencies. If true, I can't see the GOP wanting to spotlight this aspect too much when they held majority. NYT also gives the impression that it is Murtha who groomed Pelosi, so her endorsement has a certain air of payback to it and is not all that surprising.
Things have changed from months ago, there's been an election. The GOP
won't hesitate to sling dirt now.

[MGKrebs]

83. Yes! Thanks for the reminder.

Pelosi/Murtha- strange bedfellows, so to speak.
I choose to believe that Pelosi has found a way to leverage real reform.

Apparently Murtha's main fault is that he is very good at taking advantage of the (completely legal) earmark/pork process. If Pelosi wants to reform this process, bringing in the manipulators is probably a better strategy than excluding them.

I don't know what motivates Murtha; perhaps it is just taking the best care of his district that he can, or it's a self-esteem issue, or maybe he has further ambitions. Any or all of those can be accommodated with a leadership position and committee assignments- the payback being pork reform.

[MethuenProgressive]

32. Looks like the Swiftboat has a new CREW...

[Kelvin Mace]

53. So the organization

who posted a list of the 20 most corrupt legislators, of whom 90% were Republicans and who nailed Mark Foley, are a "Swiftboat" outfit?

[dailykoff]

90. BINGO.

n/t

[bunny planet]

33. Crew are the group that turned over the Foley emails to the FBI in July.

[seafan]

34. More info re: Abscam:

During his legislative career, Murtha has been a House insider, loyal to the Democratic leadership and a favorite of then-House Speaker Tip O'Neill, D-Mass. In the probe of what became known as the Abscam bribery scandal, Murtha was the only congressman involved in the complex case to emerge without facing criminal charges. He declared he was innocent, saying he had "met with two men who I believed had a substantial line of credit that could provide up to 1,000 jobs for the district. I broke no law. I took no money." A grand jury and the House ethics panel cleared Murtha of any wrongdoing.

snip

http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/CandidateProfile.aspx?ci=462&oi=H

Mr. Murtha was one of eight members of Congress lured to a Washington townhouse by a team of FBI agents posing as representatives of a fictitious Arab sheik. They handed out briefcases filled with $50,000 in return for helping the sheik gain residency in the United States.

Mr. Murtha is on videotape telling the agents, "Not interested," but inviting the sheik to invest a few million in his struggling hometown, where unemployment reached 25 percent.

Mr. Murtha's probity might have been in doubt at that moment. Certainly he played the political coquette, suggesting they might do business later.

But where his companions were stuffing their pockets, he was trying to figure out how to get a fake prince to open a factory in Johnstown. Among agents of the government operating a fantasy, Mr. Murtha was attempting to get something real accomplished.

snip

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05324/609044.stm

[Cleita]

71. Also, one of the ways to gain residency in this country other

than waiting in line for the lottery, is to invest $XXX in a company here in the USA which gets you an automatic green card. It's very legal. I know. In my past bookkeeping service, I had several clients, European importers, who got their residency just this way by opening businesses in this country and investing a minimum amount of money in them. I forget the exact amount. However, there would be no reason for bribes if one goes this route.

It seems that Murtha was offering them a legal way to gain residency while steering them to his district that needed the economic boost.

[seafan]

73. It seems that way to me as well, from what I've read about this.

I think this is a *throw everything against the wall, and let's see what sticks* sort of development, to stop Murtha's emergence as a very strong candidate as Majority Leader.


It's almost as if *certain people* are afraid of any strong leadership emerging from the Democratic Party... heaven knows, whatever Dems do, it must be spun as *w e a k*. Got to maintain the illusion, dontcha know. :sarcasm:


Personally, I support Murtha as Majority Leader. If, in the future, any wrongdoing emerges about him or any other elected official, regardless of party, that person must face the consequences.


Carry on.

[leesa]

35. Well, then we can expect the same corruption from the Democrats.

It will cost us 2008.

[pnwmom]

70. Murtha was involved in a sting of a number of House members.

After the operation, he was one of two members (out of 6) who was NOT charged, much less convicted.

So why are WE deciding he's guilty now?

[bleedingheart]

36. Murtha is a big time Pork King...but aside from that...

I don't recall any serious charges of ethical violations.

i don't like him because he is way too conservative for my tastes...

[MarkTwain]

37. Murtha: Full CREW Report and Proof of his Scams...

... with definitive substantiation to the allegations against him:

http://www.beyonddelay.org/files/Murtha.pdf

He is morally and ethically compromised by his own acts and by his own hand. He should not be our Majority Leader, at all.

[tex-wyo-dem]

38. I'll have to read this later, but what puzzles me...

Is that if these alligations are true, one would think the Rethugs would have been all over this like flies on elephant dung long ago. The only thing I remember the RW attack dogs attempting to use in their swift-boating of Murtha was the ABSCAM incident. Neglecting to use such damaging info like this just doesn't fit their modus operendi...very curious.

I like and respect Murtha a great deal for his courage in standing up to Bushco. One could argue that his actions were a turning point for many moderate/independant voters in their opinion of the war and resulted in them casting their ballots for Dems. However, voters were also obviously sick of the corruption and if these alligations are true, I agree, Murtha should not be Majority Leader.

[bemildred]

42. That sounds like a smear to me.

It is full of "might" and "could" and "may" accusations. The fact is he took no money and he tried to direct investment to his district.

[slackmaster]

128. At best, he's done a poor job of avoiding the appearance of inpropriety

He's lacking in judgement IMO.

[bemildred]

129. So you think Pelosi is unperceptive and not a good judge of men?

Or is she lacking in judgement too? Perhaps Murtha has turned her head with his good looks and flattery?

See, this is Steny's basic problem, he can't attack Pelosi, and yet he has to to get his way. Hence these bizarre dredged up smears on Pelosi's choice for House Majority Leader.

[slackmaster]

131. Straw Man

I said nothing of the kind.

[bemildred]

132. She picked him, and she went to bat for him big time.

And you say he is corrupt and unethical and lacks judgement. How do you explain that difference in your opinion of Murtha and Ms Pelosi's?

[slackmaster]

133. More Straw Men!!!

And you say he is corrupt and unethical and lacks judgement....

No, I said only that he lacks judgement. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2612689&mesg_id=2617997 and kindly retract your misstatement about what I said.

How do you explain that difference in your opinion of Murtha and Ms Pelosi's?

Reasonable people can disagree, and still be acting reasonably.

[Erika]

44. I'll trust Nancy, thanks

Interesting you put so much energy into attacking dems. Why not the opponents?

[MarkTwain]

46. Nice try....

.... but, my energy is put into exposing the same hypocrisy, the same blind allegiance, and the same myopic sycophancy that we all rightfully challenge when we see it, oh so frequently, in the GOP.

Regrets that this time it is a number of our own, inclusive of Pelosi, that are guilty of the same errant judgment or ethical improprieties.

Too bad that many in our party and on this board evidence, at times like this, the same narrow and lock step approach to politics as our opposition when we are suppose to be, or at least consider ourselves, better than them. And then, some have the balls to criticize those of us that point out that some of our own royalty are without clothes as well as the Emperor now at 1600.

[Trajan]

58. I aint buying this ....

No man is a pure white angel ..... and these accusations are a bunch of 'maybes' .....

Murtha CLEARLY refused the ABSCAM monies .... you suscribe a malevolent purpose to that .... but with yet MORE maybes .....


This is bullshit .... you should be ashamed ....

[MarkTwain]

61. Sorry. NOT.

... it's Nancy Pelosi that should be damn ashamed for setting a new record in political expediency - that probably even exceeds the worst of the GOP - in so rapidly backing a severely ethically challenged candidate so quickly after the electorate gave one mandate and one mandate only:

Clean up the House.

Amazing how rapidly she has proved herself a miserable failure in this regard.

Even more amazing how so many people in this "progressive" community have failed to even begin to understand the concept of even "the appearance of impropriety" when it comes to such sensitive matters and critical political positions.

Shame on you all. Damn. Pitiful. Shame.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shanti]

47. ok

but if he is nominated, according to pelosi, his indiscretions will be open to all. then he can be dumped. nancy's not stupid!

[Erika]

39. I'll go with Murtha any day of the week

He and his wife visits the injured at Walter Knox weekly. You ever hear of the Enron execs doing so?

[whirlygigspin]

48. this whole thing smells of triangulation

Gladiators, we salute you!

[Polesitter]

81. Is that anywhere near Walter Reed? n/t

[Tellurian]

110. KR

:dem:

:kick:

[jamesinca]

49. If true, let him face the ethics committee

then have him step down as majority leader. If Hoyer gets it, let him face the ethics committee and have him step down. This will show that we are serious about ethics, and will not change the rules to keep Tom..., I mean John Murtha or Steney Hoyer in charge if unethical. It will send a message to the Democrats that you will not be exempt from discipline, like Tom Delay was. It will be a way of showing the country that we are serious about ethics. Murtha and Hoyer can face their constituents again, but not be the party leaders. Repubs did this once in the last couple of years and that was with Trent Lott and his Strom Thurman incident. That was not really breaking the law, that was tasteless, racist garbage on Lott's part.

[jamesinca]

50. If true, let him face the ethics committee

then have him step down as majority leader. If Hoyer gets it, let him face the ethics committee and have him step down. This will show that we are serious about ethics, and will not change the rules to keep Tom..., I mean John Murtha or Steney Hoyer in charge if unethical. It will send a message to the Democrats that you will not be exempt from discipline, like Tom Delay was. It will be a way of showing the country that we are serious about ethics. Murtha and Hoyer can face their constituents again, but not be the party leaders. Repubs did this once in the last couple of years and that was with Trent Lott and his Strom Thurman incident. That was not really breaking the law, that was tasteless, racist garbage on Lott's part.

[Cleita]

72. See my post #71. He should face the ethics committee and

get this out in the open. I don't think he would be considered guilty, if I'm right about what I think he was doing.

[skipos]

57. You can watch the video of the sting here

I have mixed feelings about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2712625&mesg_id=2712625

[rodeodance]

63. Fox news has really played this up.

[conservdem]

76. If this were a Republican, I would be happy to see this played up.

How about you?


I do not know a lot about Murtha, but I watched the tape. He said he was not interested in the 50k bribe "at this point." "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested maybe I won't, you know."

I think we should strive for evenhandedness in our criticism of and outrage about wrongful conduct.

[corporatemedia]

77. Murtha is a BAD MOVE. Contact Pelosi and your local dem representative. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. Why would anyone have a problem with this if they are ok with

Alcee Hastings as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Murtha was even charged. Hastings was impeached and convicted.

[Polesitter]

82. And Pelosi voted for his impeachment. n/t

[rinsd]

84. "impeached and convicted"

By Democrats!

[dailykoff]

85. This is total crap.

Crew is a sham citizens watchdog group that calls itself a "conservative coalition" but in reality is just another RW swift-boat operation.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/index.php

Thanks for helping catapult the propaganda.

[MarkTwain]

86. Exposed: CREW = Big Bad Karl Rove Front Group!

Thanks, so much, for the link. Allow us to review this big, bad, "GOP-Thug" organization:

1. from their site:

About CREW
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. We will help Americans use litigation to shine a light on those who betray the public trust:

If a public official misuses his position to demand campaign contributions, CREW will find creative ways to seek civil remedies.

If a witness is threatened or punished because she reported official misconduct, CREW will fight back on behalf of the witness — including representing that individual in court if necessary.

If a government agency withholds information to which the public is entitled, CREW will go to court to enforce legal rules regarding disclosure.

If a group libels an honest public servant, CREW will help the victim defend his reputation.

CREW will seize opportunities like these, bringing high-impact legal actions. The majority of our cases will focus on real people and their stories about the lack of government integrity. Not only do these people need and deserve our support, their stories can serve as powerful tools to seize public attention and move public opinion. CREW will work with the press, government investigators, and other public interest groups to make sure that these peoples' stories are heard. In the process, CREW will build a non-partisan investigative alliance that transcends specific issues. Our aim is to encourage officials to be open about their values and to act based upon their honest and best assessment of the public interest.

As we do this, over time CREW will develop a network of public interest groups, sympathetic government investigators and media contacts — a broader, more mainstream version of the conservative coalition that was so effective in the 90's. We will work with that network to focus public attention on government integrity and to educate the public about dishonest or disingenuous government officials. If the past decade is any indication, this network can have a substantial impact on public opinion.

... ah yes. Truly deplorable objectives right out of the playbook of Karl Rove.

2. Now, let us look at the list of their worst Congress-critters. Please take note of the overwhelming and disproportionate targets that they have made of our poor Democrats:

The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)

Dishonorable Mentions
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA)

http://www.beyonddelay.org/

...Thanks for playing.

[dailykoff]

87. Funny how Murtha is the one they're swiftboating.

You know, the guy who wants to pull the plug on Halliburton's welfare check.

[MarkTwain]

88. Murtha is the...

... only one on their list being proposed (and strongly supported by the presumed Speaker Designate, Ms. Pelosi whose campaign pledge was to make the House of Representatives the "cleanest" in its history) for Majority Leader.

[dailykoff]

89. Yes, I'm sure this "conservative coalition" is watching out for Dems.

How kind.

[MarkTwain]

91. Ya know, I let that cheap trick of...

... selective and truncated citation go by the first time you tried it, but this second time is the charm, I guess.

Your use of the term "conservative coalition," now in context and with my emphasis:

"As we do this, over time CREW will develop a network of public interest groups, sympathetic government investigators and media contacts — a broader, more mainstream version of the conservative coalition that was so effective in the 90's." (See cited link in posts above.)

See how that works when you have the integrity to cite the entire statement and not employ that type of trick usually found on the boards of our more despised counterparts? Sort of destroys the sleazy trick of excerpting only the term "conservative coalition" from their statement when that statement states exactly the opposite by indicating that they intend to be "a broader, more mainstream version" of that coalition.

Finally, neither I nor does CREW state that the mission of CREW is to "protect" Democrats. Their stated mission is bi-partisan and neutral on behalf of the body politic, itself. They are not a mouthpiece nor an advocacy group on behalf of any one component of that body.

[conservdem]

93. Have you listened to the tape? I quoted the troubling part at

above at #76.

Are you being evenhanded and honest in you assessment of the situation?

[dailykoff]

94. The FBI tries to set up Dem politicians

and activists all the time. If Murtha had done anything illegal they'd have let us know.

[Krakowiak]

109. Your blind faith in the dems is startling...

If this were posted regarding a republican rep., what would your reaction be?

You people sound like tinfoil hatters. Everything is a conspiracy.

What is wrong with expecting our representatives to have clean hands? Is it all about the party to you people, or the principles?

I support democrats over republicans because of the principles that the party stands for, not because I prefer the letter "D" over the letter "R".

Pull your heads out of your .... all of you.

You ought to be ashamed of the slimy personal attacks you have leveled at the original poster of this thread.

[Up2Late]

95. Oh GREAT! Where the HELL was this CREW group the last 6 YEARS!?!?!?

This is one of the BS RW groups that spent 8 years and wasted MILLIONS of Tax Payer Dollars trying to pin something on President Clinton!

<http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/background.php>

About CREW: Background

...In the 1990s, this litigation strategy was applied to a new area: government integrity. Since the 1970's, citizens' groups have been increasingly active in government investigations ranging from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill matter. But it was not until the 1990's that some watchdog groups hit on the strategy of using private investigation and litigation to parallel and support government investigations. This began with Whitewater, continued through the campaign finance investigations, and culminated in the Paula Jones litigation and the presidential impeachment proceedings. The groups that have pioneered this type of legal advocacy are avowedly conservative: Judicial Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center, to name just a few.

Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the progressive arena. There are a number of non-partisan groups that address government honesty, including Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Center for Public Integrity, and Democracy 21. While we applaud their efforts, we have noted that these groups focus principally on research and legislation. They do not use litigation to target outrageous conduct, nor do they bring the message of injustice to the people the way their conservative counterparts do. Because these public interest organizations focus mostly on policy issues and not on obstacles faced by ordinary citizens, these groups have not mobilized a shift in public opinion on the issue of government honesty. CREW fills that niche.... <http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/background.php>

NO! These RW A-holes deserve NO respect in my book and should not get any support here, no matter who they claim to have "evidence" about!

Other groups, like Judicial Watch, O.K., at least they have been doing some good work over the last 6 years against the Bush Cabal too, but these RW A-hole suddenly reappearing as soon as (or even before) the Democrats FINALLY get some small bit of power back, NO WAY! These people are not to be trusted on ANYTHING and should not be respected here!

[bemildred]

97. Yeah, notice the complete lack of interest in Republicans the last 6 years,

or much of anybody, but now Murtha is equivalent to Tom Delay.

[Psephos]

101. They were behind the Foley email release...

...which answers your question in part.

Their "20 Most Corrupt" list has 18 Rs and 2 Ds. I'm not sure you want to rip these guys too much.

Peace.

[Up2Late]

105. No they were NOT! ABC broke the Foley E-Mail scandal! CREW did the least...

...they could do, and they did it all in private.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p02s01-uspo.html>
<http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=166>

Take a look at their "Press Center/News Releases," here's the link: <http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/index.php>

They were still filing lame FOIA requests on the Abrmoff scandal, something most organizations had moved on from months before! Looks like they even deleted the previous pages too, because they start on September 21, 2006 with:

September 21, 2006
CREW REVEALS WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED ABOUT THE ABRAMOFF SECRET SERVICE RECORDS

September 22, 2006
CREW SENDS FOIA TO IRS ON NEW PROJECT TO INVESTIGATE NON-PROFITS

Then --

September 29, 2006

CREW REQUESTS AN ETHICS COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION INTO REP. FOLEY

Letter Sent Today in Light of E-Mail Exchange Between Foley and 16-year-old Former House Page

Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter today to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, better known as the ethics committee, asking for an investigation into Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) emails to a 16-year-old former House page.

(And here what I'm talking about}

Yesterday, ABC News reported that, using a personal email account, Rep. Foley sent a number of emails to a former page. The emails asked the page his age, how school was and what he wanted for his birthday. Rep. Foley also requested the boy’s photograph.

In 1983, the House censured two members of Congress, Reps. Dan Crane (R-IL) and Gerry Studds (D-MA) for having sexual relationships with pages. In 1990, the ethics committee publicly disapproved of the conduct of Rep. Gus Savage (D-IL), who had made sexual advances to a Peace Corps volunteer. In all three cases, the ethics committee relied on the House rule prohibiting conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.

Based on these precedents, CREW asked the ethics committee to investigate Rep. Foley’s emails to the former page.... (more at link) <http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=161>

In fact, if you look at the 3rd paragraph, CREW is probably where Hanity got his 23 year old sound bite info about the past scandals, that he tried to pass off as equivalent to this inappropriate behavior! Behavior that the House leadership knew about for years: <http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/51754.html>

...Speaker Dennis Hastert's staff could have learned of inappropriate e-mails as early as 2002 and as late as 2005, depending on whose statements voters believe. The salacious instant messages didn't surface until a month ago.

Also, two House leaders said they told Hastert about Foley's questionable e-mails last spring, but the speaker said he didn't learn of them until late September.... <http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/51754.html>

Need more? Check out this one: <http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=166>

Check out the last Lie/Truth they do in that "news" Release! They don't even answer their own question!

It a sham organization that does very little until something comes along where they can join in attacking Democrats.

And that "20 Most Corrupt" list is a joke too! Check it out, it wasn't even on the web until April 5, 2005! <http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=beyonddelay.org&type=domain>

Domain ID: D106027273-LROR
Domain Name: BEYONDDELAY.ORG
Created On: 05-Apr-2005 19:13:14 UTC
Last Updated On: 18-Sep-2006 20:42:41 UTC
Expiration Date: 05-Apr-2007 19:13:14 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: GODA-011090174
Registrant Name:Marc Laitin
Registrant Organization: CGL Group
Registrant Street1: 1605 Connecticut Ave, NW
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province: District of Columbia
Registrant Postal Code: 20009
Registrant Country: US

(more at link above)


Why is that date important? Because that right about the time Tom Delay was getting into serious hot water! Long after every other group that was serious about exposing his corruption had been all over the story!

Here's the Tom Delay time-line from the New York Times:

<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/AP-DeLay-Timeline.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

October 1998: DeLay attacks the Electronics Industries Alliance for hiring former Democratic Rep.
Dave McCurdy as its president and later receives a private rebuke from the House ethics
committee.

November 2002: Re-elected to the House. (Go to Article)
2003: Elected majority leader without opposition. (Go to Article)

September 2004: Grand jurors in Texas indict three DeLay associates Jim Ellis, John Colyandro,
and Warren RoBold in an investigation of alleged illegal corporate contributions to a political
action committee associated with him. The investigation involved the alleged use of corporate
funds to aid Republican candidates for the Texas legislature in the 2002 elections. (Go to Article)

September-October 2004: DeLay is admonished by the House ethics committee on three separate
issues. The committee chastised DeLay for offering to support the House candidacy of Michigan
Republican Rep. Nick Smith's son in return for the lawmaker's vote for a Medicare prescription
drug benefit. The panel said DeLay created the appearance of linking political donations to a
legislative favor, and that he had improperly sought the Federal Aviation Administration's
intervention in a Texas political dispute. (Go to Article)

January 2005: House Republicans reverse a controversial rule passed in November 2004 that would
have allowed DeLay to keep his leadership post if he were indicted. (Go to Article)

March 2005: Media reports spur Democrats to question DeLay's relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff,
who is under federal investigation. Delay has asked the House ethics committee to
review allegations that Abramoff or his clients paid some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses.
DeLay has denied knowing that the expenses were paid by Abramoff. (Go to Article)

April 2005: House Republicans scrap controversial new ethics committee rules passed earlier in
the year that would have made it harder to proceed with an ethics investigation. Democrats
charged the rules were meant to protect DeLay. (Go to Article)

September 2005: Ellis and Colyandro are indicted on additional felony charges of violating Texas
election law and criminal conspiracy to violate election law for their role in 2002 legislative
races. (Go to Article)

Oct 3, 2005: A grand jury in Texas issued a second indictment against Representative Tom DeLay,
accusing the Texas Republican and two aides of money laundering in a $190,000 transaction that
prosecutors have described as a violation of the state's ban on the use of corporate money in
local election campaigns. (Go to Article) (more at link)
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/AP-DeLay-Timeline.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

This group is the a "Public watchdog" group in exactly the same way that Talon News was "news website" and Jeff Gannon was a "news" reporter.

The groups a bogus RW charade.

[Psephos]

125. If Melanie Sloan is a RW shill, I'm Marie of Romania

CREW was an active party in the Foley scandal revelations. You do them a disservice by saying ABC broke the story without acknowledging how ABC came upon the news.

CREW is solidly on the progressive side of the aisle, and their staff has the resumes to prove it. Check them for yourself on their site. They're gold-plated.

Are we doomed to blow this recapture of House and Senate by turning our rifles on our brothers-in-arms? On DU and the other blogs I frequent I see evidence already of fracturing, splintering, and purity purging.

"We must hang together, or we shall hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

Peace.

[conservdem]

102. Listen to the tape. Don't just attack the messenger.

CREW might be doing us a favor. Some here seem to use emotion rather than reason.

[chill_wind]

103. Wrong. You might re-read that. They view themselves as progressives.

Unapologetically so.

ABOUT CREW

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit, progressive legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions

http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php

Anything BUT the RW conservatives they are describing as the earlier types of watchgroups and the problems/shortfalls of said groups. The background they are describing, the one you are cutting and pasting from-- is that of what came before them (conservative and so-called non-partisan) and the missing niche they are trying to fill.



Judicial Watch? "OK", you say?! How well I remember their efforts to go after Clinton.

Please look around the site further and tell me truly that you think these people in these biographies are Right Wingers, LOL:

About CREW: Who We Are
http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/whoweare.php

Oy!

[Up2Late]

107. Ever heard of "Actions speak louder than words?"

Check out my new post (#106) in response to one of the other replies here, I'm not going to repeat what I posted there.

Their "About" page is Public Relations B*llSh*t. Look at the "Background" link on their "About" page, and their "Press Center" page and their "Legal Actions" page, then think back to all the Republican scandals we've been discussing here.

If you do all that, you'll notice how mild and LATE they are when Republicans are involved. Most of it reads like Fox "news" talking points.

And if you're still not convinced, compare their Legal Action and Press Center pages to the ACLU's "Newsroom" and "Action Center"

<http://www.aclu.org/newsroom/viewallpressreleases_21660.html>

<http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AP_alerts_all>

If you do find anything equivalent on the CREW site, make sure you check the dates and if they follow up on their "legal Actions," they rarely do.

Just because a group like this post a page on their website that says they consider themselves a "...progressive legal watchdog group..." doesn't automatically make it true, that's the beauty of the First Amendment, they can call themselves whatever they like.

Look at their actions, that's were the truth lays.

[chill_wind]

118. Your charges that they are a RW group are absolutely *absurd.*

Yes, DO read the legal actions. They speak volumes to your conspiracy.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/legalaction.php

Especially for a very young group just getting established (2003) yet without the immense heft and resources of the long established and heavily burdened ACLU. We need MORE Congressional and FEC watchdog activity - not less! I commend them.

[Up2Late]

122. Oh, so now I'm a "conspiracy" nut because I ask questions? Talk about "absurd!"

What's "absurd" is someone who is so quick to defend a group she seems to know very little about! That's truly ludicrous!

Please Note: I question everything. That is my nature and it should not be taken personally. I just want information on little known groups, like this, who seem to be doing far more to damage to our Democratic political leaders than good, by helping to amplify the RW Media's unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks, while they remaining relatively quite and timid when the wrongdoer is a Republican, something you don't seem to have a problem with.

I must say, I find your insults and attacks completely uncalled for and very counter-productive. I do see now that I mis-read that part you noted above, it was late here. But it doesn't change the fact that they do very sloppy work which makes them an easy target for RW Media attacks, something I find very unhelpful as well.

And here's a "WRONG" for you! This group did not start in 2003, it was started in 2001. I am not a fan of "Capital Research Center," but they do have CREW's Tax forms on their web site at this link: <http://www.stateenvironmentalwatch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?org=CRE200>

Since I still have one more of your attacks to respond to at your other reply, I will continue there. If you would do me the honor of waiting for me to finish posting my reply there before you continue your attacks and insults, It would greatly appreciate it. :mad:

[chill_wind]

104. About CREW. Melanie Sloan, Executive Dir is HARDLY a Right Winger.

About CREW: Who We Are

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director
Melanie Sloan serves as CREW's Executive Director. Prior to starting CREW, she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, where, from 1998-2003, she successfully tried cases before dozens of judges and juries. Before becoming a prosecutor, Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, working for Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) and specializing in crime issues.

In 1994, Ms. Sloan served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Prior to serving in Congress, she was an associate at Howrey and Simon in Washington, D.C. and at Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Sloan received her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago and has published in the Yale Law and Policy Review, Legal Times, The Washington Post, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.


more: http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/whoweare.php

(bold emphasis mine.)


Come on, people.

[Up2Late]

108. Do you know her personally? Does she still work for Rep. John Conyers?

NO, She works for CREW now.

Did she quit or was she fired? Another very important bit of info if you're defending her political views and motivations.

Does she pay the other at CREW out of her own personal fortune? My guess is No, because she's a former Congressional Staff Lawyer, THIS is her New Job!

Who pays her Salary?

Figure that out and let us all know. Who she worked for in the past is irrelevant to who she works for now.

Also, look at where she went to Law school:

"Ms. Sloan received her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago, a very Conservative school! Hummm.

If you don't know all the answers to All these questions, how can you be confident she's "...HARDLY a Right Winger?"

Just because this group represents your current opinion or fears, shouldn't you ask these questions or research this group further than their "about" page before you start taking their allegations against a veteran, just re-elected, Congressman seriously, rather than trusting that the future Speaker of the House knows what she's doing?

[chill_wind]

119. Do YOU know her personally???

Is that the standard for these conversations now? Do you personally know every politician, lawyer, media writer, blogger that we discuss or debate at DU? If that's the requirement for analysis, critical thinking or discussion, then 99% of the traffic and DU discussion here should probably automatically be disqualified.

You are the one who seems to have never read of, or heard of her or CREW before.



Beware of Watchdog
Meet rabble-rouser Melanie Sloan. The Republicans don’t like her. The Democrats are leery of her. She’s exactly what this town needs.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10471


Melanie Sloan's Team of Watch Dogs Is Taking the Crooks To Court
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05003.html

Q&A: Melanie Sloan
Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington discusses role in Foley congressional page sex scandal.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/insight/10/15/15sloan.html

Actions speak louder than words.

[Up2Late]

124. NO, I don't know her personally, but I'm not the one who's defending her....

...you are. And since the PR pages on her website don't give the information that I, or any other rational person would need to thoughtfully evaluate her and her groups motives, and you had yet to post links to anything other that other parts of her websites PR pages, I would hope you had something to base your blind support of her on.

And you're right, I had never heard of CREW before this post, which is why I found it odd to see so much support here and so many people here ready to dismiss the years of experience of two of our parties best leaders, in favor of some 20+ year old, unsubstantiated RW media allegations, that this group that I've never heard of or seen mentioned at this Democratic Activist site, is helping to push forward, I think it raises a few questions. :crazy: So call me crazy if you'd like, but I thought asking some questions and doing some research to find out who these people are was a good place to start.

I'm glad to see you finally when out side the CREW website to find some info other than something this "progressive" Lawyer wrote about herself, which is what I've been asking for, though not in so many words.

But since you failed to answer any of my questions, here's what I found from an October 20, 2006 Bloomberg interview:

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aW0KId_o9r_k&refer=home>

Melanie Sloan quit her job as a federal prosecutor three years ago to head a new Washington watchdog group, eager to probe what she regarded as the ethical lapses of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

For the first 18 months, Sloan was the only employee of the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington....

...CREW's efforts haven't gone unnoticed by its adversaries. The group is full of ``left-wing liberal activists,'' said Representative Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican targeted by CREW in 2004. Weldon this week blamed the group for the federal investigation into whether he used his influence to steer business to his daughter's consulting firm; FBI agents raided Karen Weldon's home Oct. 16....

...In her first year at CREW, Sloan asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate fund-raising committees connected to DeLay, and she sent out press releases about his activities. The next year, in 2004, the Texas Republican was rebuked three times by the House ethics committee, and a year later was indicted in Texas on charges of laundering campaign contributions....

...Sloan also criticized Reid for accepting boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission and said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi didn't push hard enough to make the ethics committee more active....

... CREW now has six lawyers on staff, including Sloan. They spend much of their time requesting information from federal agencies. They also represent Valerie Plame Wilson, the covert CIA employee whose public exposure led to a federal investigation into who leaked her identity, and her husband, former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson.

Sloan recently hired Keith Ashdown, 34, who specializes in finding questionable "earmarks" -- lawmakers' pet spending projects inserted, often anonymously, into federal appropriations legislation. It was Ashdown who labeled an Alaskan bridge to an island of 50 full-time residents "the Bridge to Nowhere."

The publicity generated by cases such as Foley's has helped bring CREW more information than ever, Sloan and Ashdown said. "Our tip line has just been humming," Ashdown said....

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aW0KId_o9r_k&refer=home>

Now see, was that so hard? One article answered most of my questions.

Here's a link to another small CREW victory: <http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FEC_finds_Frist_violated_law_by_0601.html>

And with this financial info: <http://www.stateenvironmentalwatch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?org=CRE200>

I can now see that it's a small but growing, under funded group of Lawyers, who are still a bit disorganized, but beginning to see results, group. I hope next time you can contribute more than just insults to the conversation.

I do still think they need to stop watching and repeating what is said and alleged on Fox "news" though, and I don't like the fact that they delete news and info that they had previously posted to their website (I found a few of those too) without a page explaining why they took it down, isn't so good. It just looks like they are hiding their mistakes. I feel that once a group like this post news on their website, good or bad, it should stay there for at least a few years, unless they have a good reason to remove it.

And their "Press Room" post starting in September 2006 on the website of a group that's been around for nearly 5 years, that doesn't look good either. Honesty and transparency is important for a group like this to gain respect.

If you want to continue to insult me or my search for knowledge, you go right ahead. I'm moving on. I've wasted enough time on this subject already.

BTW, I hate the word "Progressive," I'm a LIBERAL dammit, and proud of it. :patriot:

[chill_wind]

126. The facts are suddenly a waste of time? You made wild, dismissive claims.

You immediately leaped off with this first one-

96. Oh GREAT! Where the HELL was this CREW group the last 6 YEARS!?!?!?

This is one of the BS RW groups that spent 8 years and wasted MILLIONS of Tax Payer Dollars trying to pin something on President Clinton!

then, when tasked, you called upon this "research" of yours to try to support proof of this big "RW bogus" conspiracy group.....

106.
And that "20 Most Corrupt" list is a joke too! Check it out, it wasn't even on the web until April 5, 2005! <http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=beyondd... >


Why is that date important? Because that right about the time Tom Delay was getting into serious hot water! Long after every other group that was serious about exposing his corruption had been all over the story!

The groups a bogus RW charade.

(...)

This group is the a "Public watchdog" group in exactly the same way that Talon News was "news website" and Jeff Gannon was a "news" reporter.

(...)

It a sham organization that does very little until something comes along where they can join in attacking Democrats.

When a little more rudimentary digging (instead of uninformed attacking) at the CREW links Mark Twain cited would have revealed that they were pretty busy targeting good ol boy Delay a lot earlier than that.

In fact....... you would have discovered

Legal Watchdog Group Sends IRS Letter Requesting Investigation into ARMPAC

October 7, 2003 | CREW sent a letter to the IRS requesting an investigation into the failure of Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee ("ARMPAC") to report Bacardi as a contributor to a golf event hosted by Congressman Tom DeLay in Puerto Rico in February 2002, as required by law.

CREW Assists Chris Bell (D-TX) in Drafting Ethics Complaint Against Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)

June 15, 2004 | CREW called Texas Congressman Chris Bell "a hero," after Bell filed an ethics complaint with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The filing of the complaint officially breaks the seven year "truce" preventing Members from either party from filing complaints against their colleagues.

more
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=140

CREW FEC COMPLAINT AGAINST REP. DELAY PAC – ARMPAC – RESULTS IN $115,000 FINE
One of Largest Fines in FEC History

For Immediate Release:
July 20, 2006
Contact:
Naomi Seligman Steiner - 202-408-5565

Washington, DC – Last night, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released a conciliation agreement reached with Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC) stemming from a complaint Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed against the PAC last August. As a result of CREW's FEC complaint, ARMPAC has agreed to pay a $115,000 civil penalty and go out of business. ARMPAC was created and led by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).

This is one of the 50 largest fines ever obtained by the FEC in its 30-year history.

more
http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=16

Wow. Shame on that RW swiftboating CREW bunch. :sarcasm:

106. They were still filing lame FOIA requests on the Abrmoff scandal, something most organizations had moved on from months before! Looks like they even deleted the previous pages too, because they start on September 21, 2006 with:

September 21, 2006
CREW REVEALS WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED ABOUT THE ABRAMOFF SECRET SERVICE RECORDS

January 15, 2004

WRONG. Wrong once again. Their site's press release pages go back for pages on their activities-- STARTING all the way back to 2003. And I remember reading some of them with real anger and disgust at both the GOP members they were targeting and the completely ethics-apathetic Congress.
To say nothing of the disgusting Bush DOJ. One of the first cases I remember in encountering about them was their investigation into the theft of Dem files and the idiotic DOJ's refusal to return them. Yet you were trying to paint them as an organization and web site that just suspiciously sprouted up yesterday, using facts and "research on their site" plainly wrong!

In fact....

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS CALL FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO LAUNCH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT AND HIS POLITICAL COMMITTEES IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE

November 10, 2003



DeLay's Former PACs Have Failed to File Full Financial Reports with the IRS and the State of Texas

October 7, 2003


Legal Watchdog Group Sends IRS Letter Requesting Investigation into ARMPAC
\
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/index.php?list=140

Not knowing or having heard of them, as you claimed for yourself-- is one thing. Fine. Twisting the facts to suit yourself, and out and out falsely asserting what is or isn't there is another.

So call me crazy if you'd like, but I thought asking some questions and doing some research to find out who these people are was a good place to start.

It would be, but the fact of the matter is that you didn't "start with questions." You started with throwing around wild claims and assertions. Your "research" was a result of being confronted, and it turns out not to support your theories and accusations very well.

I'm glad to see you finally when out side the CREW website to find some info other than something this "progressive" Lawyer wrote about herself, which is what I've been asking for, though not in so many words.

And if you would have spent a little more actual time on the site's depths before falsely characterizing it and crying "RW conspiracy!" yourself, you and a few others obviously simply now taking your word would have been better served. The persistent legal efforts of CREW have not exactly been a complete internet or DU secret to lots following GOP ethics scandals.

BTW, I hate the word "Progressive," I'm a LIBERAL dammit, and proud of it.

I'm a Democrat that values faction labels a lot less than I value things like plain facts and truth and Congressional ethics and reform, regardless of where the offending chips fall. If CREW and Melanie Sloane are suddenly on the extreme partisans' shitlist for seemingly valuing those same things, then so be it. But the efforts of a few here to try to go beyond all that even, to blindly declare her and CREW as some pack of "RW swiftboaters"---- without even looking at their factual record of activism so far strains all credulity.

[MarkTwain]

127. Thank you, thank you...

... beautifully executed. Very well stated.

[Fluffdaddy]

111. We need to past on JM for....MAJORITY LEADER

[Tellurian]

112. Please read...Murtha is in the clear...

as reported by investigative reporter Lisa Myers:


The Latest on this morning's nbc news:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719627/

"Then, there is video from an FBI sting in 1980, known as Abscam. Murtha was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal bribery scandal, which led to the conviction of one U.S. senator and six members of Congress."


"Not only is it ancient history, but the fact of the matter is Jack Murtha was never charged with anything,"
says Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass.

The House Ethics Committee also did not take action against Murtha.

Murtha has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and says these charges amount to "Swift boating" — the same kind of unfair charges that helped defeat Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. Murtha also now supports ethics reform.

[slaveplanet]

113. Is there a quote for this?

Murtha also now supports ethics reform

[Strawman]

114. My opinion is pick a no-name

Pick a no-name Pelosi protege with no blemishes of any kind and let Pelosi run the majority. I wish they had done it that way. We don't need another general, or another figure with his or her own agenda. We don't need a strong majority leader because we have a competent, effective speaker, unlike the Republicans under Hastert. Pelosi, a capable nobody as Majority Leader, and a effective Whip who can herd that group of cats that calls itself the Democratic majority by whatever means of persuasion necessary.

[MarkTwain]

115. Exactly ....

... yours is precisely the game plan that I have been discussing with a number of freinds of mine.

Kudos.

[Tellurian]

116. This issue never was an issue and is deader than Mark Twain

and Huckleberry Finn-

Find anther issue SWIFT BOATER!

[Strawman]

120. I don't like Hoyer in that spot either. He's her rival

If Pelosi is endorsing Murtha that strongly and can't control the caucus enough to defeat Hoyer, she's in trouble and so is our majority. I don't want a MINO (majority in name only).

I don't hear any talk of a third party entering the race. If I had to pick between the two I might choose to ride out the allegations against Murtha and take the baggage he brings over having a divided leadership.

Sam Rosenfeld had a good article about the best way to run a majority in the Prospect recently and the irony of Republican institutional changes that make governing liberally more possible once we have the majority. If we piss this away, shame on us.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12015

[Tellurian]

121. It's OVER! It was all a LIE spread by Swift Boaters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2969344

scroll down to the UPDATE!

[slackmaster]

130. May I recommend Congresswoman Susan Davis? (CA-53)

She's squeaky clean, young, bright, and not bad looking!

[Imagevision]

123. It is over, it's a bunch of sh*t similar from the swiftboaters...