Malkin and Hannity falsely claimed Rep. Stark has an "ethics scandal"
On Fox News' Hannity, Michelle Malkin falsely claimed that Rep. Pete Stark has "his own ethics scandal ... regarding a house that he claimed deductions for apparently in Maryland." In fact, the House ethics committee flatly rejected these allegations and concluded that Stark did not seek a Maryland property tax credit and did not violate Maryland law or House rules.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the March 3 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: The story gets more interesting now, because you've got [Rep. Charles] Rangel's [D-NY] successor [as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee], a guy by the name of Congressman Pete Stark [D-CA], who himself has been investigated for ethics violations.
[...]
MALKIN: And then, of course, his own ethics scandal, as you mentioned, regarding a house that he claimed deductions for apparently in Maryland, and then he went and cussed the people who were investigating that as well.
Ethics committee flatly rejected allegations against Stark
Ethics committee: Stark did not violate Maryland law or House rules. In a January 29 report, the House ethics committee flatly rejected allegations that Stark "violated Maryland criminal tax law and ethics rules of the House of Representatives by intentionally filing a false application for a Maryland property tax credit." The ethics committee found that Stark "did not violate House ethics rules. Nor did he run afoul of Maryland's criminal or tax laws."
Ethics committee: Stark did not "seek" tax credit and did not "file a false application." The ethics committee found:
The evidence clearly establishes that Representative Stark did not receive a tax credit as a result of filing an application for the credit. The evidence also establishes that he did not file a false application for the Maryland property tax credit.
Representative Stark did not seek out the Maryland property tax credit. The State of Maryland required every homeowner in Maryland to fill out a form to determine their eligibility for the tax credit.
Therefore, Representative Stark did not violate House ethics rules. Nor did he run afoul of Maryland's criminal or tax laws.
I think I'm going to go listen to a man much more wise than either of these two. Behold the master!
In both citations, the speakers INVESTIGATIONS, which I understand were actually conducted by the Ethics Committee. Sorry, this one does not rise to even OPMMfA's low standard for criticism of the opposition!
Add that omission to the other things she did say such as, "drain the swamp," "bizarro swamp creatures," and "I call him . . .stark raving mad," and you've got a smear piece coming from a network that laughably calls itself, "Fair and Balanced."
That's why MMFA put it here.
He was cleared. There was and is no scandal.
If you edit out all mentions of this "scandal" you've got two people saying, "I don't like this guy," and nothing more. I don't know about you, but I grew rather tired of this kind of stuff by the end of my junior year in high school.
All in all this piece revealed nothing that would justify the "Culture of Corruption--Another Democrat Fall Victim to Scandal" graphic under Malkin's chin and to the left of Hannity's logo.
You're a dip regardless of your sockpuppet screen name, Weasel.
You see, it's easy in Fox land: anything a Dem does is a scandal. Anything a Repub does is just being principaled.
She is a political shock jock, completely without credibility on corruption, and anything aside from inflammatory speech.
The OCE is an idenpendent body chaired by a Democrat that referred the matter to the ethics committee which disagreed with their conclusions as mentioned above. Clearly there is some smoke and fire here as it seems uncontroverted that Stark initially lied on his application for the home credit even though he did not ultimately receive it.
See the link below to the story on TPM. With the OCE response here:
Late Update: OCE responds in a statement:
The OCE conducted a thorough and professional review and accurately reported the facts gathered in the course of its review. The document the Standards Committee is citing, in order to claim that the OCE 's review was inadequate, was never provided to the OCE by Representative Stark. In fact, according to the Anne Arundel County Finance Office, such documents are not even mailed to homeowners until the end of November 2009 -- almost three months after the OCE review concluded.
Further, the OCE's review concerned the following allegation, "Representative Stark's conduct may have violated Maryland law and the Code of Ethics for Government Service if he misrepresented information on the Application for Homestead Credit Eligibility in order to prove eligibility." Thus, the OCE review focused on what steps Representative Stark took or did not take to secure the credit not whether he was successful in securing the credit. At no time did the OCE subject Representative Stark to unfounded criminal allegations.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/ethics_smackdown_house_panel_slams_rival_body_over.php
Here's what TPM says. BTW, you fool, you shouldn't include the LINK if it disproves what you said!!! What a doofus!
The Ethics committee, which is chaired by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), charged that OCE "conducted an inadequate review, the result of which was to subject Representative Stark to unfounded criminal allegations."
The OCE came to an unfounded conclusion BEFORE they had all the relevant info.
The Ethics panel got all the info BEFORE they came to a conclusion.
And if anyone has any questions, read the PDF from the ethics committee. There was an error that was quickly fixed on the submission by Rep Stark. There was no intention to deceive, as evidenced by the quick correction BEFORE any tax decision had been made and months before a new tax year began! And the Ethics committee says that the OCE treated Rep Stark differently than they had treated OTHER Congressmen facing similar allegations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which conclusion should we trust? Duh, I don't know...the incomplete one that was done too early, or the complete one that waited until all the facts were in? The one that treated Rep Stark differently than others? Or the one that treated everyone fairly? The one that harped on a quickly repaired mistake, and suggested it might imply intentional deceit? Here's a clue - if you INTEND to deceive, you don't TELL someone that you have incorrect info on there - you INTEND to deceive, so you put incorrect info on this form and you do NOT tell anyone about that incorrect info!!! This is NOT rocket science!
Shaking my head.