Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Rep. Shelley Berkley fought a courageous battle in the U.S. Senate race against Republican opponent Sen. Dean Heller in this past election and lost. There was a lot of mud slinging in the campaign stating that Berkley was the “most corrupt” politician in Congress and that she tried to enrich her husband by fighting to keep open the only kidney transplant center in Las Vegas. However, the House ethics panel said Berkley violated rules but found no evidence of impropriety on her part regarding the kidney center; the panel said the Nevada Democrat made to attempt no enrich herself. When ...
Yes, Sam, politics is a dirty game. Republicans are too white(race)? Republicans too rich(class)? The Republican party is made up of too many men(gender)? If a Republican disagrees with Obama's position they are cast as villains? Impugning the motives of successful Americans?
The story of America, told by Obama, is not so much about an exceptionally independent and prosperous people, a unique Constitution or a vibrant national past in promoting global freedom, but about how the majority oppressed various groups.
I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who are sick of Obama's mis-characterizations of people who he's never known or met. Obama has an adversarial relationship with half the people in America he's supposed to represent. Yes, politics is a dirty game especially when politicians end up divide our country instead of unifying it.
Sam reports "the House ethics panel said Berkley violated rules"
That says it all
Romney was called a felon,murderer, etc by Obama
Get over it
Sam:
You're still in her corner after all the Congressional Committee members, bi-partisan to boot, found her guilty. Albeit on the grounds of stupidity rather than smarts. What Berkeley and her office did, among other things, was to consistently and conveniently intervene with government sponsored bureacrats who ran Medicaid and Medicare so they paid her husband/friends' bills promptly. In other words she used her official office and position to get her husband/friends paid first by the government before all others. Politicians are not supposed to do it. And if they do, they are supposed to disclose that they are. She didn't. Dumb, dumber, dumbest.
CarmineD
Yes, politics is a dirty game. Interesting that our elected "leaders" are so often those most successful at misleading us in an election campaign.
Sam,
Good observations about the politically timed hit job done on Shelley.
I didn't care much about either one of the candidates for the Senate, with both being tier 3 leftovers but it did show Nevada voters knew that one candidate was being investigated and did a lot of ticket splitting.
This should have been released October 1st.
Regarding Freeman, future, and DiFazio's comments, they can't help themselves. They wear political depends. Pay them no mind.
Jeff:
You forget, or deny the fact and/or both, that it was a bipartisan Congressional Committee of her peers who found Berkley guilty of ethics violations. Not us posters here. If we posters wear depends for agreeing with and/or accepting the facts and objectivity of the Committee findings, as you say, then I'm perfectly happy to do so. While you keep messing on yourself and smelling long in need and overdue for a mindset change.
CarmineD
Poor Sam, he only gets his panties in a knot when it's a Democrat on the receiving end of some unflattering political ads. Smearing Republicans, well that's just good politics.
"I didn't care much about either one of the candidates for the Senate," Jeffery
I said here many times that Berkley was the better candidate and Heller couldn't hold a candle to her. But I said her clear conflict of political and personal interests would cause her to lose the election, as well it should, to a lesser candidate. In fact I said so in June 2012 when the bipartisan Committee voted unanimously to investigate her for ethics violations.
CarmineD
Carmine,Future,Freeman,
When I decided to write this letter the 3 of you all came to mind as the 3 who would still find Shelley Berkley guilty.
I suggest you read again that the House ethics panel found no evidence of impropriety on her part regarding the kidney center,and the panel said that the Nevada Democrat made no attempt to enrich herself.
I don't expect the 3 of you to ever look at things as they are,I only expect you to look at things from your party line thinking.Hate also is a dirty game.
ByRHG58,
"Poor Sam, he only gets his panties in a knot when it's a Democrat on the receiving end of some unflattering political ads.Smearing Republicans,well that's just good politics".
I'm a registered Republican and will remain that way.However I vote for the person who best serves the interests of our country.That includes voting for both Republicans and Democrats of my choice. Country first,party second.
"Nevada Democrat made no attempt to enrich herself." Samspeaks
No not herself, her husband and his doctor friends.
The worse payer in the world is the Federal government. After getting burned with them, I refused to do any business with them ever. They would take the 2/10 net 30 discounts and pay years later if they ever paid at all.
What did Rep Berkley do? She and her office staff used the her office and her position to force Federal bureacrats to pay up for her husband and his friends. Then she refused to disclose to the public that she did. That's not a crime but's it's an ethics violation. And she paid the ultimate price for the lapse of judgment. We can argue with opinions for her lapses in judgment for doing what she did. But we can't argue the fact that she did. That is incontrovertible. Now more so that the Congressional Committee said so.
CarmineD
Sam let me repeat YOUR WORDS
"the House ethics panel said Berkley violated rules"
That says it all - why continue to contradict yourself
There was no dead body yet Democrats called Romney a murderer
There was no conviction yet Democrats called Romney a felon
Why are you even beating this drum
Move on
"In a five-page report, released Thursday, the House Ethics Committee determined that Berkley had "violated House Rules and other laws, rules and standards of conduct" and was guilty of "improperly using her official position" to lobby the Veterans' Administration to address a dispute with her husband's firm concerning overdue payments, upon her husband's request."
CarmineD
Sam,
At least you didn't deny that Obama embraces an overarching race/class/gender critique of the United States. So much for having a leader with a unifying message and when possible, placed within the context of our nation's objectives, values and ideals that's familiar and consistent to those of the American people.
To the 3 it's party first no matter what. For me it's country first no matter what.
Sam, you letter reeks of political blindness. Berkeley hung herself out to dry. But I guess blame is all you have.
I wasn't going to comment but your "Country First" comment had me rolling on the floor laughing. You really should revisit some of your earlier posts. Classic!
We're pretty much manipulated by the medical autocrats look at the recent stories in the RG concerning dialysis.
ByHerertic,
Thanks for your comment.
Sam:
You're groping for straws. The Committee's findings and conclusions are final. Berkley... "violated House Rules and other laws, rules and standards of conduct" and was guilty of "improperly using her official position." You can slice and dice it anyway you want. In the final analysis she is guilty. It has nothing to do with party, posters here, voters who elected Heller over her, and country. It's as straight forward as the facts can be. No gray area. Black and white. She is guilty and she lost the elction for Senator, as well she should for her transgressions.
CarmineD
"My country, right or wrong!"
"Originally Stephen Decatur, in an after-dinner toast of 1816--1820:
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"
Later stated by, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, 1872.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
CarmineD
Carmine,
Like I said you 3 would find Shelley Berkley guilty,even thou the Ethics panel didn't.
Here is from the final report, it shows why there are 2 interpretations of the same report:
"On December 13, 2012, the ISC voted to issue its Report to the full Committee, finding that Representative Berkley had violated House Rules and other laws, rules, and standards of conduct with respect to some, but not all, of the allegations it had investigated. Specifically, the ISC found that that the evidence did not demonstrate a violation of House Rules or other laws, rules, and standards of conduct related to Representative Berkley's activities on behalf of the kidney transplant center at UMC, which was the subject of the OCE referral.
The ISC found, however, that Representative Berkley violated House Rules and other laws, rules, and standards of conduct by improperly using her official position for her beneficial interest by permitting her office to take official action specifically on behalf of her husband's practice. Finally, the ISC concluded that the evidence indicated that Representative Berkley did not violate House Rules and other laws, rules, and standards of conduct by dispensing special favors or privileges to her husband, Dr. Lawrence Lehmer, or with respect to her husband's contact with her office on behalf of third parties.
The ISC also noted a number of facts that, in the opinion of the Committee, provide context for the disposition of these violations. First, the ISC noted that there was no evidence that Representative Berkley acted with the intent to unduly enrich herself. Representative Berkley had a legitimate concern, raised at the time that these issues were ongoing, that failures on the part of government insurers to reimburse providers in a timely fashion might result in the providers opting not to see patients insured by those programs. Second, Representative Berkley testified credibly that she provided her husband with no assistance in seeking future benefits (as opposed to assisting with claims for services already rendered), and that the level of assistance was not unusual when compared to the assistance her office provided to other physicians. Ultimately, she was mistaken when she applied these facts to the ethics rules and determined that her course of action was proper, but the Committee takes note of the lack of any corrupt intent and believes that this mitigates the severity of the violations in question.
The ISC noted for the record that Representative Berkley was entirely cooperative with the investigation, and credited her testimony both in terms of candor, and in terms of her objective lack of malicious intent in violating the rules. The Committee, having reviewed the transcript of her testimony, concurs in that positive assessment of Representative Berkley's candor and cooperative nature. The Committee wishes to thank Representative Berkley for her forthright and proactive paliicipation in this process.
Finally, the ISC noted in its Report the need for clearer guidance regarding conflict of interest rules to be provided to the House community. The ISC recommended that the conflict of interest rules be committed to a task force for review, and that the task force issue clear, thorough, and comprehensive rules pertaining to conflicts of interest that the House community can readily understand and abide by."
As you can see Sam, anyone with a good Christian heart, and even most atheists would agree this is a good report for Representative Berkeley that was released far too late to give voters a chance to know she had been cleared and the house acknowledging that it needed to make the rules clearer and easier to understand.
Jeff,
The timing of the investigation by the Ethics panel was clearly made to happen after the election.Like I've said,politics is a dirty game.
Jeff,
I knew you would find an excuse to excuse Berkeley. It wasn't a witch (no pun intended) hunt. It was bipartisan.
What's next for you and Sam, an updated report on the sinking of the Lusitania??
Hairytic:
That wasn't me making an excuse, that was the official house of representatives report. They indicated, and I quote "In sum, Representative Berkley's activities in the healthcare policy realm appear to have been motivated by factors wholly divorced from her family'S financial well being."
Read it yourself: http://media.lvrj.com/documents/House_et...
I don't think one of you knuckedraggers has read the report, otherwise you wouldn't all be typing the stupidity you are.
Carmine, citing chapter and verse on his prediction said:
""I didn't care much about either one of the candidates for the Senate," Jeffery
I said here many times that Berkley was the better candidate and Heller couldn't hold a candle to her. But I said her clear conflict of political and personal interests would cause her to lose the election, as well it should, to a lesser candidate. In fact I said so in June 2012 when the bipartisan Committee voted unanimously to investigate her for ethics violations.
CarmineD"
I say:
Can we get the same "play by play" description about your assurance that the 9 MILLION dollars spent for the Romney presidential transition was not going to be a waste of money?
Jeff, I had read the report but the item you and Sam fail to acknowledge is that this was a bipartisan committee. You BOTH act like one side tried and judged her. The central issue in ethics violations is the appearance of impropriety. I know that a knuckle-dragger like myself is hard to take advice from especially since you are a faux-erudite, but you need to see the bigger non-partisan picture. The "mud" was generated by the first report and backed by the second report. The report you linked to is a criticism of the process not a judgement of guilt or innocence.
"Sorry to ruin you Black Panther party". Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump
Sam:
There is good reason for the report after the election. If the report had it been issued before the election, with the same findings, it would have required the House to "censure" Rep. Berkley for ethics violations.
"In the House of Representatives, censure is essentially a form of public humiliation carried out on the House floor. As the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives reads out a resolution rebuking the member for the specified misconduct, the member must stand in the House well and listen to it. This process has been described as a morality play in miniature."
"In the history of the House, censure has been used 23 times, and most of the cases arose during the 19th century. In the modern history of the United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (since 1966), censure has been used five times, most recently in December 2010 against Charles B. Rangel."
I opine that a "censure" proceeding right before the election would have hurt Berkley's chances more. She would have lost by more than 12,500 votes to Heller. I suspect the Congressional Committee agrees and held the report in abeyance until the election was over.
CarmineD
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Dina Titus won Berkley's 1st District seat, unopposed in the Dem primary and handily beating the GOP unknown in the election. Titus takes office on Jan 3, 2013, when Berkley retires.
If Berkley were politically smart, she would have run for an 8th term in the House, received the censure after winning, and then a bid for US Senate in the mid terms of 2014 or 2015 when her 8th term ended. When, hopefully, she could have time to convince the electorate, with short memories, that her ethics violations were minor. She risked it all by jumping too fast for the US Senate seat with too much political baggage to overcome. Just with the looming Congressional Committee's findings in the future.
CarmineD
Had Berkley won the Senate election, at worst she would have had to undergo the "censure" proceeding in the House before/after being sworn in as Senator. In either case, it would have had a ceremonial effect only with no legal consequences. I believe Berkley was too afraid for whatever reasons to take the public humiliation in the House. Not a good trait for a future or past politician.
CarmineD
Jeff,
I guess I am guilty of insinuation when reading your posts because you are a brilliant one chord guitarist.
Back on topic.... Do you really think releasing the report early for Berkeley's benefit would have helped her?? The House routinely plays politics with committees such as this. The only difference this time is that it affected our State.
The keys to reports such as these are what side of the coin you prefer.
But Berkley felt/thought if she had to take the public Congressional humiliation she would prefer to do so as a newly elected Senator. Not as a returning House representative. Ego? Pride? Both?
Whatever, a break in public service is just what Berkley needs to contemplate her transgressions and profit by them.
CarmineD
Sam Pizzo is perfectly fine with a person who used their position of power to help themselves.
Sam Pizzo is perfectly fine with a person that offered advice to a business person to purchase elected officals with offers of jobs and business.
Sam is OK with about anything.
I am not sure what he is whining about.
If you like people who are in the mud then why whine about it when other people say "Hey that person has mud on them"?
Carmine,
Sam, You're groping at straws.
The committee's findings and conclusions are final.Berkley---"violated house rules and other laws,rules and standards of conduct."and was guilty of improperly using her office,position".
I believe we were talking about allegations that she was the "most corrupt politician in congress". no evidence of improperity on her part regarding the kidney center.The panel said the Nevada Democrat made no attempt to enrich herself.The Ethics panel's decision is final.
I would rather you stay on the Ethic panel's decision and not wander off on something else.She would not have been considered the most "corrupt politician in congress" for the minor rules the Ethics panel said she violated. She lost because she was labled "the most corrupt" and nothing more.You the 3 have found her guilty,and will never waver from your convictions.
Sam:
I never accused Berkley of being corrupt. I accused her of commiting a conflict of interests by not disclosing her intervention on behalf of her husband and his business, and his friends, and by not disclosing it to the public. She didn't do so, go public, until she was accused. Go back to my posts here in June 2012 and before and after. I have always said the same. She violated ethics and code of conduct standards. The Congressional Committee said the same and agreed in its findings and conclusions with me. As such, had Berkley not retired from the House, she would have been "censured" by the House for the ethics and code of conduct violations.
CarmineD
In fact, Sam, I am almost positive that I posted [even before the Committee unanimously voted to investigate Berkley] that as a public servant she must not only avoid a conflict of interests BUT EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. As a 7 term House member, Berkley should have known better than to do what she did and not disclose it. She would have been better served if at least she disclosed the fact BEFORE she was accused of ethics violation by a story run first by the NY Times in September 2011.
CarmineD
George W. Bush created the war on Iraq. Not one iota of guilt resulting from accusations against was ever demonstrated or found. No terrorists (bin Laden was after Saddam Hussein as much as Bush), no biological weapons - except cholera in the water supplies, no chemical weapons, not atomic bomb program.
The House Ethics committee has no connection to truth, ethics or morals. They are 110% politics as normal. The House committee on science space and technology is the biggest bunch of Religious lunatics seen on this Earth since the Heart of the Inquisition.
The House committee on science is a laugh a minute bunch of huckster trash, like the House committees that oversee "Republican Ethics", the greatest oxymoron that ever existed.
Nothing said about the "wanna-be-felons" long history of questionable ethics, morals and honesty in any of your rants, folks. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire and, with Berkley, there's plenty of smoke. She is dishonest to the core and I am delighted she no longer "represents" me. She's also a hypocrite, crying crocodile tears about the "Holocaust" while at the same time actively advocating, particpating in and promoting a "holocaust" 7 times as great as the one perpetrated by the Nazis in WWII - abortion. Abortions in the USA alone have executed some 41 million (and counting) unborn and innocent victims. Does Berkely care? Not a whit. After all, they can't vote so they don't count.
Jerry:
Very noble of you to try to right what you perceive as wrong. I was wondering who you want to raise the 13 year olds baby made by her father? I am sure the newly minted grandmother will be thrilled and will happily raise her brother in law grandchild.
How many kids are you willing to adopt?
Banning abortions is knee jerking by sloganeeering crazy Christians. Start talking about a program to take real care of these young mothers and the babies and I will listen, otherwise you are just a pretender.
I am not talking food stamps and section 8 either, that just brands these babies as poor and we know where that leads.