The hush-money payoff that wouldn't go away:
A congressional ethics panel said there is “substantial reason to believe” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), broke House rules by paying his departed chief of staff a three-month severance package in 2015. Meadows has denied any wrongdoing, arguing through a lawyer that he acted in good faith, even if it turns out he broke the rules.
The OCE pointed out in its report that Meadows had not cooperated with their investigation. In May 2016 letter to House Ethics Committee leaders, Meadows’s attorney said he had opted not to engage in the “duplicative, costly and burdensome process” of the OCE review since the Ethics Committee “is the ultimate arbiter of compliance with House Rules and Standards of Conduct.”
Methinks Tea Party Mark doesn't understand the meaning of "good faith." It doesn't just mean you thought you were doing right, it also means you are willing to cooperate with investigators and disclose to them anything that might be relevant. The next logical step for the House Ethics Committee is to subpoena (if they have that authority) Kenny West, to find out a) what work he actually accomplished during that extended period, and b) what juicy information he was holding over Meadows' head (blackmail) that would force the Congressman to break rules over:
http://ift.tt/2b7hHdP
No comments:
Post a Comment