Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA), right, coached her staff on how to answer investigators’ questions about whether she was forcing them to volunteer. Three staffers told the Committee that Richardson “was asking them to answer a certain way that would minimize her culpability whether or not those answers were true.”
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Ethics Committee: House Democrat
Intimidated Staff, Obstructed Investigation

The Washington Examiner
House Ethics Committee investigators faulted Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA), for intimidating her staff, forcing them to “volunteer” for her campaign and obstructing their investigation into her violations of House rules.

The bipartisan group of investigators “unanimously concluded that there was substantial reason to believe” that Richardson violated House rules “by improperly using House resources for campaign, personal, and nonofficial purposes; by requiring or compelling her official staff to perform campaign work; and by obstructing the investigation of the Committee and the ISC through the alteration or destruction of evidence, the deliberate failure to produce documents responsive to requests for information and a subpoena, and attempting to influence the testimony of witnesses.”

Richardson tried to “intimidate [her staff] on a regular basis,” including one subtle threat against a staffer who had not volunteered on her campaign. According to the report, Richardson said told the staffer that the failure to volunteer “makes me uncomfortable working with you.” The aide told the Committee that she interpreted that comment “as a threat” meaning “if you don’t volunteer on my campaign, you are not going to continue working here.”

The committee also found that one of Richardson’s aides, speaking for the congresswoman, told other staff that “you probably will not have a job, you know, if you don’t volunteer” on the campaign.

Richardson even coached her staff on how to answer investigators’ questions about whether she was forcing them to volunteer. “[N]umerous staffers testified that Representative Richards had a mock dialogue with herself, stating some of the questions she expected the Committee to ask, such as ‘did you feel that your campaign work was mandatory or that you were compelled in some way?’ and then an answer -- ‘no’.”

Three staffers told the Committee that Richardson “was asking them to answer a certain way that would minimize her culpability whether or not those answers were true,” according to the report.

Per a negotiated agreement, Richardson admitted to seven counts of ethical lapses and must pay a $10,000 fine. The Ethics Committee recommended that the full House reprimand her, as well.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: Perhaps it is time that the penalties for ethics violations and determinations of guilt where illegal activities by an elected official are concerned are raised to a level of professional pain. Perhaps expulsion would deter the political clash from wiping their behinds with the trust of their constituents.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...


The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server