TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

CREW: That Coconut Road Investigation Is Going Nowhere

All that bother today will amount to a whole lot of nothing, says Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

"Clearly, something went seriously awry before the 2005 highway funding bill was sent to the president. The question now is the best way to find out how and why this occurred. It certainly appears as if Don Young (R-AK) snuck in the earmark in exchange for campaign contributions from Florida developer Daniel Aronoff. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is to be commended for insisting that the Senate address this matter. Nevertheless, in sending the matter over to the Department of Justice, the Senate has ignored the Speech or Debate clause, which prevents law enforcement from introducing legislative material (such as an earmark in a bill) as evidence against a lawmaker.
"In addition, while the Senate has called for an investigation, the House undoubtedly will do everything possible to stymie such an inquiry. The House takes an expansive view of the breadth of the Speech or Debate clause. Recently, for example, the House counsel's office sought to quash a Justice Department subpoena issued to a former Appropriations committee staff member in connection with the criminal investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis's (R-CA) earmarks. The House likely will assert the same arguments here.

Given this impediment to a criminal probe, Senator Coburn's suggestion that a bicameral committee investigate the matter might have been more likely to reveal the facts, but sadly neither the House nor the Senate have a strong track record of policing and punishing the illegal or unethical conduct of their members. This situation perfectly illustrates why Congress needs an indepent ethics office -- with subpoena power -- to investigate members. The American public needs to have confidence that members of Congress are held accountable for their illegal and unethical conduct. Today's vote is nothing more than Kabuki theater given the likely constitutional impediment to a Justice Department investigation."


10 Comments

| Leave a comment

Look -- unilaterally just changing the text of a bill after it has been voted on can't be defended as just "inserting an earmark" or a part of "speech and debate" that is constitutionally protected. This was a fraud on the Congress, pure and simple. I hope that the people in charge of actually spending the money on the project -- who evidently did not want to use the money in this way -- will file suit to have the Supreme Court invalidate what is NOT EVEN A MOTHERFUCKING LAW, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MOTHERFUCKING PASSED BY THE MOTHERFUCKING CONGRESS!!!

A bipartisan committee is the way to go on this, one with a Democratic majority so it can't be stymied the way the (un)ethics committee can be with its 50-50 make-up. Young has got to be expelled from the House. It's baffling that Pelosi and other leaders see this matter as something requiring them to defend House prerogatives. Why doesn't Pelosi step up and do everything possible to ruin this guy??? I can only guess it's because -- despite protestations to the contrary -- this happens a lot, and is perpetrated by members of both parties. Fuck.

Don't introduce the earmark that Bush signed, introduce the real one.

Make the argument that one or the other falls under that Speech or Debate clause, but both don't.

If no one saw the text of the bill before Bush signed it, what "debate" or "speech" could be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause?

Also, don't go after Young, go after the staffer Young claims made the change. Is that staffer's fiction writing protected by Speech and Debate given that he is not a lawmaker?


user-pic

The Speech and Debate clause is not so broad as CREW suggests it is. The valid enactment of a law cannot be evidence of a crime. But where the enacted legislation is evidence of some other crime, the Speech and Debate clause may not protect it.

Just for example, imagine that Don Young had taken the bill, rolled it up, and repeatedly stabbed Nancy Pelosi to death with it. The Speech and Debate clause is not going to prevent the murder weapon from being entered into evidence.

That's essentially what's happened here. The signed legislation differs from the enacted legislation. The actual bill is the evidence of this difference. I don't think that Speech and Debate is going to protect against this.

Joe Shmoe sticks up a liquor store for $75 bucks, gets caught, and goes to prison.

Don Young sticks up the taxpayer for million$, gets caught, and laughs as he calculates his congressional pension. His accomplices breathe easy. The cops are on their payroll.

user-pic

The clause certainly doesn't protect the staffer who has ostensibly fessed up. And since there was no speech or debate in Congress on Young's part, it might not protect him. And unless the staffer is willing to take the fall, there willing be rolling-over testimony separate from the earmark itself...

There should be an exhibit in the Creationist museum, entitled 'Law and Order Republicans.'

user-pic

Based on the recent SCOTUS ruling in the William Jefferson case, Allsburg, I think I'll wager a lot more money on CREW's stance than yours. In fact, if DoJ actually does launch such an investigation (remember, those contempt of Congress charges) are still lying in Mukasey's inbox), the first thing Young's attorneys will likely do is invoke the Speech and Debate clause.

Yes socraticgadfly, Don Young's lawyers might invoke Speech and Debate, but he has to face Alaskans at the polls, and we are not likely to view such an invocation kindly.

No way will I vote for him.

He ticked me off a LONG time ago and I haven't voted for him since.

Rude, crude, and abusive. Arrogant and mean. Choose your word.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address