USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 7:36 pm

You last visited
July 10, 2026, 11:05 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › truesee's Blog

truesee's Blog

Page 2192 of 2427

Sarah Palin would lose to President Obama if election was held today

Sarah Palin would lose to President Obama by 8 points if election was held today: poll

Nina Mandell
Daily News Staff Writer
Monday, November 22nd 2010, 1:46 PM

Sarah Palin trails President Obama by 8 points in the latest Quinnipiac poll.

Bower/Schreiber/APSarah Palin trails President Obama by 8 points in the latest Quinnipiac poll.

 

Voters don't think President Obama deserves a second turn –

but they don't want Sarah Palin either, according to a new Quinnipiac University survey.

Obama leads the former vice presidential candidate by 8 percentage points in the survey, but is in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

That news may come as a shock to Palin who told Barbara Walters in an interview set to air Dec. 9 on ABC that she believed she could beat Obama in 2012.

"I believe I could," she told Walters.

That comment was met with near-panic by both sides – Republicans who believe if she got the party's nomination she would be trampled and Democrats who fear she could win.

In an interview with Larry King that aired Thursday night, Vice President Biden dismissed the TLC reality show star’s chances of booting his boss out of the White House.

"Were I a Republican senator or a Republican political leader, I would look and say, 'Wait, she's got a good chance of getting the nomination.' But look, it's hard enough for us to figure out our side of the aisle, let alone go over and sort of handicap whether she can win or lose."

When asked if she was his preferred opponent, Biden replied, "You know, my mom used to have an expression, 'Be careful what you wish for, Joe, you may get it.' So I never underestimate anyone. But I believe President Obama would be in very good shape."

When asked a similar question on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" on Friday, Biden laughed before carefully answering. "I don't think she could beat President Obama, but she's always underestimated," he said. "I think I shouldn't say anymore."

While the election is less than two years away, speculation that Palin is gearing up for the run has been growing more rampant by the day.

On Sunday, the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that her aides had been looking at office space as headquarters for the Iowa caucus campaign.

But the Des Moines Register repudiated that report, saying that the aide mentioned was merely a conservative Jew who was scouting out Kosher eating places for him to eat when Palin stopped there on her book tour.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/22/2010-11-22_sarah_palin_would_lose_to_president_obama_by_8_points_if_election_was_held_today.html#ixzz1630gk4gQ

Entry #3,530

TSA pats down shirtless boy sparks controversy

Utah man posts video of TSA searching shirtless boy

 

Erin alberty

The Salt Lake Tribune

 

Published Nov 22, 2010 12:08AM
Updated 5 hours ago Updated Nov 22, 2010 12:18AM

A cell phone video taken Friday at a Salt Lake City International Airport security checkpoint is fanning controversy over Transportation Security Administration search methods.

The video, posted on YouTube by Utah Valley University student Luke Tait, shows a young boy being patted down while he is wearing no shirt. The filmer, Luke Tait, wrote that "the boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete" the search.

The child was physically resisting agents, Tait said.

"Twice before the video starts, his dad had to hold him and pulled his arms up in a V-shape to allow the TSA agent to continue," he told The Salt Lake Tribune.

The father pulled the boy’s shirt off "in frustration," prompting an agent to shout, "Sir, sir!" Tait said.

In a statement posted late Sunday to the TSA’s blog, a spokesperson wrote that the father removed the boy’s shirt "in an effort to expedite the screening."

"No complaints were filed and the father was standing by his son for the entire procedure," the blog states.

Tait said he walked toward the father and son to talk with them after agents sent them into the terminal, but a man in a dark suit pulled him aside. The man had just been speaking with TSA agents, Tait said, but he did not show a badge or identify himself.

"He started to question me: ‘Why was I recording the procedures of TSA?’ ‘What are your plans with this video?’ " Tait said. "I said it looked like something was going on; I never [before] saw a shirtless young boy getting patted down."

The man then told Tait to delete the video in front of him, arguing the video invaded the family’s privacy.

"I said, ‘I’m not going to do that,’ ... and left for my gate."

As for the removed shirt, the TSA statement stressed that passengers were not asked to disrobe.

"You should not remove clothing (other than shoes, coats and jackets) at a TSA checkpoint," the blog states. "If you’re asked to remove your clothing, you should ask for a supervisor or manager."

Tait’s video, which had been viewed nearly 190,000 times on YouTube as of Sunday night, was posted on the heels of debate over whether pat-downs and full-body scans are invasive security measures.

TSA head John Pistole last week defended the pat-downs against criticism that travelers should not have to submit to full-body scans or submit to a pat-down, including over-the-clothing contact with the subjects’ genital areas.

"Clearly it’s invasive, it’s not comfortable," Pistole said of the scans and pat-downs during an interview on CNN’s "State of the Union." But, he added, "if we are to detect terrorists, who have again proven innovative and creative in their design and implementation of bombs that are going to blow up airplanes and kill people, then we have to do something that prevents that."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

LINK TO VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM

Entry #3,528

Keith Olbermann goes after Newt Gingrich

Keith Olbermann hits out on Twitter after Newt Gingrich takes shot at MSNBC host on C-Span

Nina Mandell
Daily News Staff Writer
Sunday, November 21st 2010, 7:57 PM

Keith Olbermann hit back at Newt Gingrich's claim he hosted a biased political debate.

MSNBC; Smialowski/GettyKeith Olbermann hit back at Newt Gingrich's claim he hosted a biased political debate.

Newt Gingrich and Keith Olbermann are at it again.

The two haven't gotten along since Olbermann slammed Gingrich for his remarks on the First Amendment in 2006, and have continued to spar over issues including welfare and other policies.

Now four years later, the former House Speaker told C-Span this morning that if Presidential debate organizers wanted him to participate in their forums, they would have to agree to some of his demands – most importantly, no Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews as the moderators.

NBC, which employs both Olbermann and Matthews, is co-hosting the first Republican presidential debate in the spring of 2011 with Politico.

"I would not participate if it was a hostile reporter asking 'gotcha' questions with a certain time limit," he said on C-Span’s Washington Journal. "There's no possibility that I would ever go to a debate and have (MSNBC's Keith) Olbermann or (MSNBC's) Chris Matthews asking questions."

But Gingrich prompted a re-upping of the historical feud when he mistakenly said he thought Olbermann and Matthews had co-hosted a debate a few years ago.

"I watched the debate a couple of years ago and it was an embarrassment because they were so relentlessly hostile and they were so left-wing that every question they asked of the Republicans was designed to embarrass and divide the Republicans," Gingrich said on the show. "And every question they asked the Democrats was designed to make them look good. Well, why would we participate in that?"

Upon hearing the comments, Olbermann immediately took to Twitter to ridicule Gingrich.

"Just read Gingrich ripping me for my questions last time I moderated a GOP debate," the MSNBC host tweeted. "But I've NEVER moderated a GOP debate!"

He punctuated his post by adding the Twitter hashtag #delusional, a winking gesture to make fun of his opponent. "On C-Span, Newt appears to think Chris Matthews and I co-moderated a GOP debate AND a Democratic debate. We did neither," he later tweeted, also adding the Twitter hashtag #NewtsNuts.

His supporters flooded Twitter to help mock Gingrich’s comments, adding their own tongue-in-cheek insults which Olbermann re-posted.

"You were terrible that time you hosted the Oscars too!" one supporter tweeted.

"Yeah, Olbermann, you messed up the Lincoln-Douglas debate too," another wrote.

Olbermann supporters continued to pile on the exaggerated insults, joking that he did a terrible job as the Vikings quarterback today, failed as the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, was the cause of rain at Woodstock, broke up the Beatles, and more.

Olbermann, clearly having gotten his point across, did take responsibility for one thing.

"On the other hand," he admitted, "that WAS me in those Boston Market commercials."

As of Sunday night, Gingrich had not responded – at least not coherently. At approximately 6:30 he tweeted, "Uyyy."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/21/2010-11-21_keith_olbermann_takes_to_twitter_after_newt_gingrich_takes_shot_at_msnbc_host_on.html#ixzz15yzvhqIJ

Entry #3,527

Hillary Clinton: I'd avoid TSA 'pat-down' if I could...

Hillary Clinton: I'd avoid TSA 'pat-down' if I could... but adds 'enhanced measure' a necessary evil

James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, November 21st 2010, 2:19 PM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on 'Face the Nation' that she's dodge the TSA's pat-down search if she were able to, but the invasive security measure is important for safety.

Miller for NewsSecretary of State Hillary Clinton said on 'Face the Nation' that she's dodge the TSA's pat-down search if she were able to, but the invasive security measure is important for safety.

 A Transportation Security Administration agent performs an enhanced pat-down on a traveler at a security area at Denver International Airport.

Walker/APA Transportation Security Administration agent performs an enhanced pat-down on a traveler at a security area at Denver International Airport.

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put down TSA pat-downs on Sunday, calling it an "offensive" security measure she wouldn't want to experience herself.

"Everybody is trying to do the right thing," Clinton said on CBS' "Face The Nation." "I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it."

Asked if she would be willing to submit to an airport frisk, Clinton laughed and admitted, "Not if I could avoid it. No, I mean who would?"

Clinton has likely rarely, if ever, dealt with metal detectors, explosives swabs, full-body backscatter scanners or pat-downs as an air traveler since she began receiving Secret Service protection with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in 1992.

In Lisbon, President Obama said he understands frustrations and the Transportation Security Administration has "to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive?"

TSA Director John Pistole agreed on CNN's "State of the Union," that "to some people, it is demeaning" -- but his security screeners will continue doing patdowns.

"Not going to change," Pistole said.

Pistole said the measure was a response to Al Qaeda in Yemen airbomber Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to destroy a Detroit-bound jetliner with a bomb in his underwear last Christmas. But the pat-downs policy didn't begin for 10 months because Homeland Security officials were awaiting Pistole's June Senate confirmation as director, an insider told the Daily News.

"I am absolutely confident that our security experts are gonna' keep tryin' to get it better and less intrusive and more precise," Clinton said.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/21/2010-11-21_hillary_clinton_id_avoid_tsa_patdown_if_i_could_but_its_a_necessary_evil.html#ixzz15xELxsUz

Entry #3,525

Pope says condom use is acceptable in...

Pope says condom use is acceptable in 'single justified cases'

Taking the Roman Catholic world by surprise, Benedict says that under some circumstances it might be acceptable for a prostitute to use a condom.

Pope Benedict XVI

The pope leads a consistory in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican. On the same day, excerpts from a book were published in which Benedict said "there can be single justified cases" in which condom use might be acceptable. (Alberto Pizzoli, AFP/Getty Images / November 20, 2010)

 
Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times November 21, 2010
In a seemingly offhand remark that caught the Roman Catholic world by surprise, Pope Benedict XVI appears to have relaxed, at least slightly, the Vatican's longstanding adamant opposition to the use of condoms.

In a book-length interview with a German journalist, portions of which were released Saturday, the pontiff said that under some circumstances it might be acceptable for a prostitute — or, in some translations, a male prostitute — to use a condom.

"There can be single justified cases," Benedict said, "for example when a prostitute uses a condom, and this can be the first step toward a moralization, a first act of responsibility in developing anew an awareness of the fact that not everything is permissible and that we cannot do everything we want."
 
"However," he said, "this is not the best way to overcome the infection of HIV. It is really necessary to humanize sexuality."

The comments appeared to be a departure, given that the pope spoke out against condom use as recently as March 2009 during a trip to Africa, when he said that the use of condoms could actually make the AIDS epidemic worse. That statement drew worldwide condemnation and, in the months since, some Catholic bishops seemingly have broken with the Vatican to call for the use of condoms to combat HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

South African Bishop Kevin Dowling, whose diocese has been devastated by AIDS deaths, said recently that people at risk of spreading HIV "should use a condom in order to prevent the transmission of potential death to another."

The bishop of the armed forces of Portugal, Januario Torgal Ferreira, was quoted as saying that "there are obviously circumstances where prohibiting condoms is to consent to the death of many people."

"So there's been a breaking of the ranks," said Daniel Maguire, a professor of theology at Marquette University, whose books include "Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions."

Maguire said he thought the pope might have been influenced by that break. He added that the pontiff's remarks appeared to represent a significant "crack in the dike" of Catholic opposition to condom use, which was formalized in a 1968 encyclical "on the regulation of birth." The opposition stems from Catholic teaching that sex is for reproduction, and nothing should interfere with that.

"I would say it's an example of the pope clumsily backing out of an impossibly contorted taboo," Maguire said. "No matter how the conservatives describe it, he is approving the use of condoms in this case, and so that opens the door to asking: What about other cases?"

The pope spoke with journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed the German-born Benedict over six days this summer. The book based on those interviews, "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times," will be released Tuesday. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, ran excerpts Saturday, in which the pope was quoted as saying condoms could be acceptable in some circumstances "for a prostitute."

Those excerpts were published in Italian, and used a feminine form of the word "prostitute."

However, the website Catholic World Report published what it said were excerpts from the English translation of the book, which used the term "male prostitute" rather than simply "prostitute." It was not possible to immediately reconcile the two translations.

The excerpt also included this exchange:

Seewald: "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"

Benedict: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican's longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, was quoted Saturday as saying that the condom issue was one that had "needed an answer for a long time."

"If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted ... and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated," Sgreccia said.

"It's a wonderful victory for common sense and reason, a significant step forward for the Vatican," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "They still have a way to go, but this is a fantastic start."

According to Maguire, Catholic teaching makes a distinction between acts that are "intrinsically evil" and those that are "discussable." The former category, he said, includes abortion, the torture of children and nuclear war. Benedict's comments appear to place condom use solidly into the latter category, which would make it possible for it to be considered acceptable as a lesser evil. That could open the door for it to be considered for broader application than just in cases involving prostitution.

The publication of excerpts from the book on Benedict coincided with the end of a consistory, a gathering of Catholic cardinals, during which the pope formally welcomed 24 new cardinals, including two Americans, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Raymond L. Burke, a top Vatican official.

The book also quoted Benedict as saying that a pope has a "right, and under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign" if he is no longer physically, psychologically or spiritually capable of doing his job.

And he said he was surprised by the scale of clerical sex abuse in his native Germany and seemed to criticize himself for not being more forthright in his response.

"One can always wonder whether the pope should not speak more often," he said.
Entry #3,523

Pastor who banned leaders from Facebook acknowledges threesome

Pastor who banned Facebook had three-way sex affair

Rev. Cedric Miller told church's leadership social media site is portal to infidelity

 

 

Nancy Shields • STAFF WRITER • November 20, 2010

 

PASTOR BANS FACEBOOK, HAD SEX AFFAIR

In this Jan. 2010 file photo, the Rev. Cedric Miller preaches at his Neptune church. Miller, the pastor who gained national attention this week when he banned his church's leadership from using Facebook because he said it is a portal to infidelity, had himself engaged in a three-way sex affair with his wife and a man a decade ago, according to testimony he gave in a criminal case. (PHOTO: ASBURY PARK PRESS

 

The Rev. Cedric Miller didn't need Facebook to be part of an extramarital affair.

Miller, 48, who gained national attention this week when the pastor banned his church's leaders from using Facebook because he said it is a portal to infidelity, had himself engaged in a three-way relationship with his wife and a man a decade ago, according to testimony he gave in a criminal case.

Miller, pastor of the 1,100-member Living Word Christian Fellowship Church on Route 35, admitted in his testimony to a sexual relationship that included his wife and a church assistant. Sometimes the assistant's wife was present, he testified.

The testimony was given in connection with a criminal case against the assistant that was eventually dismissed.

"It has come to my attention that a very painful part of my past has resurfaced,'' Miller said in an e-mail response Friday, stating that the same testimony was mailed to his church leaders and other pastors a number of years ago. 

"This was resolved at that time and accordingly we will not allow it to detract from our mission at hand to save as many marriages as we can,'' Miller wrote.

In his testimony on April 15, 2003, Miller said his wife had an extramarital affair with a church assistant and that he (Miller) said he was present at many of their meetings. And sometimes the assistant's wife was present, Miller said. 

"We would talk and laugh and play and just beyond what was appropriate,'' he testified. 

Pressed by a defense lawyer to give more detail about what Miller meant by saying "we had crossed the line many times,'' the pastor said: "I mean between the four of us. It was just, I mean there was touching, there was … it was crazy, it was as wrong as wrong could get. Yes.'' 

"Okay, it was sex, correct?'' the lawyer asked. 

"Yes,'' Miller said. 

"And you knew about it.'' 

"Yes.'' 

"And you watched it.'' 

"Yes,'' Miller said. 

"And you knew your wife was engaging in this freely and voluntarily. Correct?'' 

"Yes.'' 

"And it happened many, many times?'' 

"Yes.''

On Tuesday, Miller said he would order his church leaders to give up Facebook in his Sunday sermon, claiming old boyfriends and girlfriends surfacing on the social network website were causing marriages to break down.

Miller said most of his marriage counseling stems from breakdowns, including infidelities, when couples link up on Facebook with former friends or lovers. 

He said Tuesday there was a reason why "your past is the past and hopefully you have grown in the Lord, matured to not link up with a past that for many people is a Christless past.'' 

In his 2003 testimony, Miller said the encounters sometimes took place on Monday nights, during Thursday Bible study and Sunday after church. At another point in the testimony he said the sexual encounters between himself, his wife and the aide took place in his house. 

He testified that the encounters "came to a crashing halt'' when several women in the church accused the assistant of sleeping with them. 

"My wife found out about it and she just wanted nothing to do with what was going on with us,'' Miller testified. "And I didn't know what it was for awhile. And it wasn't till, as the other women came out publicly, that's when I found out about it. So, at first I didn't know why she just didn't want any part of it.'' 

In his e-mail on Friday, Miller said: "There are some very innocent people who could be hurt irreparably by the revisiting of this incident. 

"I also stole a honey bun from a store when I was 7 or 8 which I was also reminded of,'' he said. "As with the Facebook issue, context is always important. I will be providing that context this Sunday morning. In the same vein, had I known the proceedings of that case would be public information, I would have provided the appropriate context at that time. 

"In conclusion, my life as a minister, husband, father and friend has led me to the conviction that I must do all that I can to help as many people strengthen, preserve and repair the often times fragile cords of marriage,'' Miller wrote Friday. 

The pastor said earlier this week he also planned to leave Facebook when he forced his leaders to choose between Facebook or their jobs. He said his wife had his password for his Facebook account, as did one of the church elders.

Entry #3,521

Actor Wesley Snipes headed to prison

Actor Wesley Snipes headed to prison for tax evasion

Story photo: Wesley Snipes to Serve 3 Years in Prison

Jim Spellman/WireImage.comUs Magazine

 

Reuters - November 19, 2010 9:40 PM PST

Snipes was ordered on Friday to start serving a three-year prison sentence for failing to file income tax returns by a federal judge who rejected the Hollywood star's bid for a new trial.

"The defendant Snipes had a fair trial ... The time has come for the judgment to be enforced," U.S. District Judge Terrell Hodges said in his ruling.

Revoking bail for the 48-year-old star of the "Blade" trilogy, the judge ordered him to report to prison as directed by the U.S. Marshals Service or Bureau of Prisons.

It was not clear when or where Snipes would begin serving his time behind bars, however. His lawyer, Daniel Meachum, has said he would appeal if a new trial was denied.

Meachum told the Orlando Sentinel the ruling was shocking.

"Wesley is very disappointed but staying strong and positive," the newspaper quoted Meachum as saying.

Snipes had already lost his appeal of the prison sentence stemming from his 2008 conviction in Hodges' Ocala, Florida, court on three counts of "willful failure to file tax returns" for 1999 through 2001.

Snipes was found not guilty of five other counts in the high-profile felony tax case.

In seeking a new trial, Meachum had argued that jurors in the original trial were biased and that the prosecution's star witness had his own criminal problems.

At his sentencing, prosecutors said Snipes, a resident of Windermere, Florida, had earned more than $38 million since 1999 but had filed no tax returns or paid any taxes through October 2006.

Although he is best known for his roles in action films, Snipes has also had critical success in comedies like "White Men Can't Jump" in 1992. He played the lead in director Spike Lee's interracial drama "Jungle Fever" in 1991 and also played the jazz saxophonist in Lee's "Mo' Better Blues" in 1990.

Eric Thompson, a supervisor in the U.S. Marshals Service office in Orlando, Florida, said the Bureau of Prisons would notify Snipes and his lawyer of a surrender date.

"He'll probably get it by certified mail," Thompson said.

He declined to say what prison was likely to be selected for Snipes except to say that it would not be in Florida.

A listing for Snipes already posted on the Federal Bureau of Prisons website says his prisoner ID or registration number as 43355-018, his location is "in transit" and his release date is "unknown."

(Reporting by Tom Brown, additional reporting by Pascal Fletcher; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Entry #3,519

Biden wouldn't 'underestimate' Palin in 2012 bid

Biden wouldn't 'underestimate' Palin in 2012 bid

 

The vice president doesn't think she could defeat Obama, but says it would be 'a really, a really interesting race,' adding that Republicans should recognize she has a good chance to win the nomination.

 

Michael A. Memoli

Tribune Washington Bureau

November 20, 2010

Reporting from Washington —
Sarah Palin said this week she thought she could defeat President Obama if she were to challenge him in 2012. Count Vice President Joe Biden among those who aren't taking her for granted.

"I don't think she could beat President Obama," Biden said in a Friday morning interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "But, you know, she's always underestimated."

Biden called his Republican counterpart from the 2008 election campaign a "real force in the Republican Party," one that would loom large in the 2012 race.

In another interview, aired Thursday night, he told CNN's Larry King: "Were I a Republican senator or a Republican political leader, I would look and say, 'Wait, she's got a good chance of getting the nomination.' But look, it's hard enough for us to figure out our side of the aisle, let alone go over and sort of handicap whether she can win or lose."

If the 2012 campaign were to pit Obama against Palin, Biden said, the choice for American voters would be crystal clear.

"We have a fundamentally different outlook on the world, and I think that would be a really, a really interesting race," he said.

Asked if she was the GOP opponent Democrats would prefer, Biden again hedged.

"You know, my mom used to have an expression, 'Be careful what you wish for, Joe, you may get it.' So I never underestimate anyone," he said. But "I believe President Obama would be in very good shape."

Palin has said that she would consider running for president if there were not another candidate who shared her vision.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and … trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family," she told ABC's Barbara Walters. Asked if she could beat Obama, she replied: "I believe so."

Palin has continued to dominate the conversation, with the premiere of her TLC reality show and the coming release Tuesday of her second book. She'll embark on a 10-day book tour that will take her through the nation's heartland, including two states that hold key roles in the GOP's nominating calendar: Iowa and South Carolina.

Biden has also seemed, at least in the short term, to have taken on a greater role in the White House message operation. In addition to his interviews with CNN and MSNBC, he met Friday with a group of newspaper columnists to discuss the administration's progress in Iraq and its efforts to pass a new START treaty.

Another interview with the administration's No. 2 appears in the December issue of GQ magazine, where he vouches for his boss and marvels at his own stamina. "People always ask me … 'Where the hell do you get your energy?'" Biden told the magazine. He asked his White House doctor. " Genes," he was told, but also, "You love what you do."

Biden turns 68 on Saturday. He celebrated Wednesday with a piece of cake delivered by Obama at their weekly lunch.
Entry #3,518

Maxine Waters accuses ethics panel of having weak case after calling off her trial

Waters accuses ethics panel of having weak case after calling off her trial

Susan Crabtree
11/19/10 04:13 PM ET

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) accused the ethics committee of having a weak case that is unraveling after the panel abruptly cancelled her public trial.

“The committee’s decision to cancel the hearing and put it off indefinitely demonstrates that the committee does not have a strong case and would not be able to prove any violation has occurred,” she said in a lengthy statement Friday reacting to the announcement.

She also said she was disappointed the committee once again postponed the hearing and said it showed “a complete disregard for due process and fairness.” 

“For over a year, I have cooperated with the investigation and I have consistently asked for a public hearing on this matter,” she said. “I remain eager to present my case and demonstrate to my constituents and all Americans that I have not violated any House rules.”

The House ethics committee announced Friday it has delayed indefinitely Waters trial because the panel had discovered new evidence in the case.

It is unclear from the committee's statement whether the trial will move forward and what evidence was discovered.

According to a joint statement from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs the ethics committee, and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), the case is being referred back to the subcommittee investigating the matter. Waters's trial was set to begin on Nov. 29.

"The committee voted to recommit the matter regarding Representative Maxine Waters to the investigative subcommittee due to materials discovered that may have had an effect on the investigative subcommittee's transmittal to the committee," they wrote. "As a result, the adjudicatory subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction over this matter and the adjudicatory hearing previously scheduled for November 29, 2010 will not be held."

Waters, a member of the Financial Services Committee, is accused of using her position to arrange a meeting between Treasury Department officials and the National Bankers Association regarding OneUnited Bank. At the time, Waters's husband was a significant shareholder in the bank and had formerly served on its board of directors.

The California congresswoman has strongly denied the ethics charges against her and has repeatedly argued that she was acting on behalf of all small and minority owned banks, not just OneUnited, as she has done for other minority-owned businesses throughout her career.

Waters’s preparations for the public trial stand in stark contrast to Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) experience this week. Unlike Rangel, who faced a jury of his peers without legal representation, Waters planned to have an experienced legal team by her side and was prepared to mount a vigorous, detailed defense.

Her chief of staff, Mikael Moore, attended the Rangel trial and took voluminous notes during the proceedings. Moore figures prominently in the investigation; the ethics committee has scrutinized his e-mail contacts with the Federal Reserve, as well as One United executives. But Moore, Water’s grandson, also has spent months preparing a legal defense and assisting her attorneys, well-known ethics expert Stanley Brand and his associate Andrew Herman, in preparing the case.

Waters had planned to rely mainly on Brand and Herman to present her defense before the ethics adjudicatory committee, but she and Moore were also planning to serve as witnesses and make their case directly to the panel.

Rangel this week complained about not having a chance to set up a legal defense funds so he could afford to hire a new attorney when he and his legal team parted ways in October after he paid them more than $2 million over the course of two years. In contrast, Waters opened a legal defense fund in September and held a fundraiser in October that raised nearly $100,000, according to a knowledgeable source.

Waters had planned on the entire legal defense costing $300,000, a small fraction of Rangel’s legal bill. Rangel’s case was far longer, involving 13 counts of House ethics violations, compared to the three charges Waters faces. Yet, Waters also chose a more pared down legal team consisting of two attorneys who focus primarily on Congressional ethics, instead of a legal team from a pricey firm specializing in white-collar crime.

The decision is a setback for the ethics committee, which had hoped to conclude the Waters trial during the lame-duck session of Congress. The announcement comes one day after the committee recommended the House censure Rangel for committing 11 violations of House ethics rules.

In her statement Friday, Waters said the new material in question was a document the committee has had since Oct. 29, and argued that it didn’t provide any new “significant” information. Without spelling out exactly what the document is, Waters said it shows only that she was working to ensure that the bill that awarded the money to OneUnited was drafted to assist small and minority institutions generally.

“The document does not reflect any action on behalf of any specific company,” she said. “Although the Committee continues to insist that the ‘small bank language’ was drafted to benefit only one institution, the facts do not support that assertion; in fact, the documentary record directly contradicts it.”

Waters also said she is puzzled by the committee’s delay.

“If this evidence is so <snip>ing, the Committee should present its case before the public, as we asked them to do when I first learned of their desire to postpone the hearing,” she said. “Apparently the Committee now recognizes, as I have maintained, that there was no benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced, and there is no case.”

Late in August, Waters demanded that the ethics committee stop gathering new evidence against her. The ethics committee's announcement Friday may have to do with additional evidence discovered during this process — either evidence that would have helped exonerate her or material that complicates the case because it was discovered after formal charges were made against her.

Waters's attorneys sent a letter to the ethics committee taking issue with the panel's ongoing investigative activities after the formal probe was over and Waters was charged with violating House rules.

“Such inquiry violates both the Committee’s rules and comparable federal criminal procedure and raises significant questions about the sufficiency of the evidence that the Investigative Subcommittee replied [sic] upon when it issued the charges contained in the SAV [statement of alleged violation],” wrote Brand and Herman. “Most alarmingly, it calls into question the impartiality and good faith of the Investigative Subcommittee.”

The lawyers cited an ethics committee document request to Waters’s office that aides received Aug. 17 and ongoing contacts and interviews with witnesses. The information requested, they argue, relates solely to matters addressed in the statement of alleged violation.

In addition, a top ethics committee aide threatened Waters with a subpoena if she did not voluntarily provide the documents in question, according to Brand and Herman.

In her statement Friday, Waters accused the committee of breaking its own rules that prohibit any amendments to the statement of alleged violation, a charging document akin to an indictment, after it is transmitted to the adjudicatory committee.

“There is no provision or authority for the committee to take this action, but the same body which is charged with interpreting the rules now seems to be guilty of making them up as it goes along,” she said. “Neither the letter sent to me nor the statement on the committee website cites any rule or clear rationale for this decision.”

—This story was updated at 5:40 p.m.

Jordan Fabian contributed to this report

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130161-ethics-committee-calls-off-waters-trial
Entry #3,517
Page 2192 of 2427
Guest