Right-wing media invent scandals to malign Dems
Right-wing media figures have recently concocted several baseless scandals in an attempt to portray Democrats as corrupt or guilty of wrongdoing. These include the suggestion that the Democratic leadership acted improperly after learning about sexual harassment allegations against Rep. Eric Massa, the baseless accusation that President Obama is "selling judgeships" for health care reform votes, and the false claim that Rep. Pete Stark has an "ethics scandal."
Right-wing baselessly accuses Obama of "selling judgeships" for health care vote
Following Weekly Standard's McCormack, right-wing baselessly speculated that Obama appointed Scott Matheson to buy his brother's vote. Right-wing media figures have run with The Weekly Standard's John McCormack's completely baseless accusation that Obama is buying Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform by appointing his brother, Scott Matheson, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. McCormack provided no evidence to support the allegation -- which both Rep. Matheson and the White House have called "absurd" -- and even those pushing the charge acknowledge that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job."
Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd." Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."
Right-wingers spread baseless allegation despite acknowledging that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job." McCormack's post noted that "Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge," and Hot Air's Allahpundit stated that "Scott Matheson's plenty qualified for the job." Nevertheless, they advanced the baseless speculation that Obama is "selling" judgeships for votes on health care reform.
Hatch praised Matheson nomination and said Matheson "is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service." The Associated Press reported on March 3 that "[t]he nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position":
The nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position.
"I'm pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the 10th Circuit," Hatch said. "I've known Scott a long time, and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott's nomination."
Malkin and Hannity falsely claimed Stark has an "ethics scandal"
Hannity and Malkin claim Stark has "his own ethics scandal." During the March 3 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated, "The story gets more interesting now, because you've got Rangel's successor, a guy by the name of Congressman Pete Stark, who himself has been investigated for ethics violations." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin later added, "[H]is 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. 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.
Media baselessly implicate Democratic leadership in Massa allegation
NRO's Lopez: "This could be very bad news for the Dems" because "Hoyer knew." Linking to a Politico report stating that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer "confirmed that the Democratic leadership had been informed of the allegations" that Massa "made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer," National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote, "Massa-gate? This could be very bad news for the Dems -- Hoyer knew and it seems made some unleader-like presumptions." Lopez was referring to Hoyer's statement that "I've heard of that allegation before. ... And my presumption [is] it's being pursued in the course of business."
Hoyer's office said he ensured that the ethics committee "was immediately involved to determine the facts." Politico reported on March 3 that "several House aides told POLITICO that the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that the New York Democrat, who is married with two children, made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer." Politico further reported that Hoyer "confirmed that the Democratic leadership had been informed of the allegations before the news broke" and issued the following statement:
"The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts."
Russert baselessly claims Democrats may have "a Mark Foley situation." In a March 3 Twitter post, NBC's Luke Russert linked to the Politico article reporting that "the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations" that Massa "made unwanted advances toward a junior male staffer" -- allegations Massa has reportedly denied. In his post, Russert made the completely baseless assertion that "if true the Dems got a Mark Foley situation." In addition to Foley's inappropriate emails and explicit instant messages to teenage House pages, the Foley scandal also involved the widespread failure of Republican members of Congress and their staffs to appropriately address Foley's behavior. However, there is no evidence that Democrats handled the Massa situation in a manner similar to the Republicans' handling of Foley. As the House ethics committee reported regarding the Foley scandal, "The Investigative Subcommittee finds that few of the individuals who ultimately came to participate in those events handled their roles in the manner that should be expected given the important and sensitive nature of the issues involved."
Specifically, as Media Matters for America has noted, the ethics committee criticized Rep. Rodney Alexander's (R-LA) staff's "refusal" to give Foley emails to a House clerk; found that then-Speaker Dennis Hastert's counsel "showed an inexplicable lack of interest in the e-mails"; found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action; found that Rep. John Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails; criticized Rep. John Shimkus' (R-IL) handling of the Foley scandal; and criticized then-Rep. Jim Kolbe's (R-AZ) handling of allegations that his former page received a "sexually graphic instant message" from Foley.
As Hot Air blogger Allahpundit noted, "Good thing for the Dems that Hoyer took this seriously; if he'd dithered the way the GOP did with the allegations against Mark Foley, they'd have a raging fire to put out here."
And that's the issue here - The Ethic Committee has been looking at those allegations for more than a month.
And they dishonestly linked a judge who was nominated MONTHS ago with Obama's stated goal to get votes for healthcare reform.
But back when he was nominated, there was no indication that Obama would even NEED to strive for ANY House Democratic votes!
So there's no way that his nomination could possibly be related to what they're alleging.
They are inventing scandals that don't exist. There IS no scandal about Massa until he's found to be guilty of something! They're alleging that there IS a scandal because they're alleging that it's such a scandal, it's caused him to decide to not run, and there's NO evidence that's true.
They are INVENTING scandals, and YES, they invented one about Massa. Until he's found to be actually guilty of something, there's no scandal!
Unless you're a Republican, that is, because you guys are dishonest.
But back when he was nominated, there was no indication that Obama would even NEED to strive for ANY House Democratic votes!
So there's no way that his nomination could possibly be related to what they're alleging.
But, Dolly, there's that super sekret Time Machine that the Democrats/Marxists/Fascists/etc. have to go back in time to cover their tracks. I think it's called the 'RETARDIS".
Just sayin'
But, of course, the rightwing went with their conspiracy theory that he was opting against a re-election bid because of the ethics investigation. Without any evidence.
Like I've been saying - it's the right who has the pattern of running with conspiracy theories.
The Foley issue was not just about Foley, but about Hasstert (and company) covering for him. And this situation is not about defending Massa, it's about defending Hoyer, WHO ACTED EXACTLY AS HE SHOULD HAVE.
It's not OUR fault that our leadership did the right thing while your leadership was more interested in covering it's @$$. (Although with a guy like Foley around, I'd probably want to kepp my @$$ covered as well.)
So once again the Democrats have shown themselves to be the party of principles, when the Republicans showed themselved to be about as principled as the Catholic Church when faced with the same situation.
BTW - who was quicker to step down when facing similar allegations? Charlie Rangel, from his chairmanship or Tom DeLay from his leadership post? Once again: Democrat WIN.
Nobody here is foolish enough to think that no one in their party will eventually act badly, except for you fools who think that because you go around dry-humping the bible all day that somehow means you morally superior and infallible. It's not about having NO ONE in the party do wrong. It about HOW THE LEADERSHIP HANDLES IT.
People will misbehave. It's not excusable, but it will happen. What make the situations different is that the Democrats DEALT WITH IT and the Republicans COVERED IT UP. And, as Nixon learned, the cover-up is worse than the crime.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But sure, by all means, keep living your own little fantasy world that it's the Republicans that can do no wrong.
And she certainly listens to the American voting public's opinions in ANY and All matters regarding congress?
Wasn't it the Republicans who dismantled the ethics committee in congress when they were in charge? Where was that coming from?
Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
You can't have it both ways.... either you're interested in ferreting out the violators or you're not... which is it?
I think it's time for you to rethink your position.
What conclusion am I supposed to reach?
I have done the rethinking and I say throw the corrupt politicians out.
We're losing a good man and this b.s. combined with a recurrence of his cancer is enough for him to say, "screw it." Anyone who knows Eric knows that he's intensely intense and operates at warp speed 24/7. His doctors have told him it's time to slow down and that what he's doing. I don't blame him for departing this scene of scumbags and traitors.
I suspect his integrity got in the way.
More power and good health to him.
Massa is NOT being accused of inappropriate behavior just like Foley was.
Foley abused his position of authority to groom underage pages to get his jollies off of once they became of age when he had leadership control of the pages!!! That's nothing similar to potential sexual harrassment of an adult staffer, first off.
Secondly, there's no indication that the Democratic leadership turned a blind eye to that behavior by Massa, and there's a TON of evidence that MANY in Republican leadership refused to stop Foley!
You're dishonest. You suck!
It's the darn rightwing liars trying to make something out of nothing who are linking two things that aren't linked. They did the same thing with Massa's decision that they did here!
Dishonest hacks.
But here, as is so painfully typical, we see someone on the right pretending that they're (or their side) is a victim when they aren't.
If I was inaccurately describing someone, then you'd have a leg to stand on with your allegation that I'm making "senseless personal attacks". Since I'm NOT doing that, you're the off-base person who is falsely claiming that someone was subjected to a "senseless personal attack" when they really weren't.
Rep Joe Wilson was NOT a victim. O'Keefe is NOT a victim of any baseless attacks. And no one here is a victim to any baseless allegations from me!
But you just couldn't resist the urge to make a baseless allegation ABOUT me, could you?
Thanks for digging your own hole. Keep it up, Weasel.
LOL! The contradiction of the year, so far, from DollySue. All in one sentence. Keep it coming my dear. LOL!
You're the paid troll here, remember, and everyone knows it now. I understand that tees you off. Too bad, so sad. You used to have some credibility here. Now you have none. Tough. It's all your own fault. You aren't anyone's victim, despite your whining and pouting!
Just so you and everyone here knows; I don't care nor do I give a damn whether you or anyone thinks I am paid, not paid, a troll, not a troll, with or without credibility, Tommy or not Tommy, whatever. It is irrelevant to me.
I will continue to post, expose you for the phony fraud you are, express my opinions, argue, discuss, whatever. So you carry on with your nonsense and I am right here. Muah.
You have no credibility here. If you were to say it's daytime, we'd all look outside expecting it to be dark outside - that's how little credibility you have here.
And all you have are personal attacks caused by your overarching personal animus. Please, keep it up. Please.
You haven't even once exposed me for a phony fraud, so it'd be impossible for you to continue doing so! You're so desperate it's almost sad.
It'll be ME who continues to expose YOU for the paid troll you are, for the derailing posts you continue to make. I understand that tees you off. Too bad, so sad. It's me who's been successful in the last 6 months making you lose all credibility here. Not you. You've lost. You don't succeed much anymore.
You are clearly a paid shill, wonder how many screen names you keep.
FYI - YOU, dell have lost more (or never had) credibility than ANYONE else that ever posts.
And there's no evidence whatsoever that I'm a paid shill. None. Not an ounce of it.
Wonder WHY he resigned.... Must be becasue theright-wing nuts called him out... HeeHee
But, of course, the rightwing went with their conspiracy theory that he was opting against a re-election bid because of the ethics investigation. Without any evidence.
Like I've been saying - it's the right who has the pattern of running with conspiracy theories.