Is bribery becoming Standard Operating Procedure in the Obama White House? As unanswered questions over the alleged bribe of Congressman Joe Sestak continue to mount, new allegations of bribery are starting to see the light of day. 

Is there a pattern of illegal behavior within the Obama administration? Is it possible that the Obama White House attempted to bribe a number of public officials on multiple occasions? 

The American people deserve answers because bribery is an impeachable offense.  Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” 

Fortunately, some of our elected officials are starting to heed your calls and are stepping forward.  On Wednesday, Congressman Darrell Issa sent a formal request to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel calling for an investigation. 

Make no mistake… our elected leaders are emboldened to move forward because they are hearing from patriotic Americans like you… and they must continue to hear from you because you give them the courage to act.

One thing that you can say about the Obama administration: they really go all out to accomplish their goals, especially in regards of the slowly-dying healthcare bill that he has been trying to shove down our throats.

Their latest trick: seling some judgeships in return for some votes on the healthcare bill.

The President Wednesday night hosted ten House Democrats who had voted against the bill in November at the White House in the attempt to “persuade” them to change their minds.

What’s interesting in all of this is that the White House sent out a press release, which said that Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is important to note here that Matheson, Jr. is the brother of one of the aforementioned attendees, Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah.

So the obvious question here is this: Was this a case of a judgeship being given in the hopes of gaining a vote in the healthcare bill?

Well, here is Matheson’s voting record in that respect:

He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July 2009 and again in November 2009 when it passed the House. However, he all of a sudden went  to “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress.

I don’t want to come to any rash conclusion here, but the timing of the nomination looks real suspicious, especially knowing that Joe Sestak was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary; the job in question has been rumored to be the Secretary of the Navy position.

Again, I’m not going to just accuse someone or some branch of the federal government of wrongdoing, but you cannot ignore these findings. But it looks like a recurring theme as of late.

Congress should be made aware of this and be looked into in the form of an internal investigation. If this pans put like it appears, then some heads need to roll.

Jim sent this in:

The executive director of the Ocean County, New Jersey Democratic Party pleaded guilty in federal court last Thursday, admitting that he accepted two corrupt cash payments from a cooperating government witness in exchange for a promise to make introductions to public officials who might assist the cooperating witness with development interests, according to a report from U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman in Trenton, NJ.

Alfonso L. Santoro, 70, of Beachwood, NJ pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Joel Pisano to  one-count of violation of the federal Travel Act. Judge Pisano released the defendant on a $50,000 bond pending sentencing, which is scheduled for March 1, 2010.

Santoro had not been previously charged, and Thursday was his first appearance in court. His guilty plea comes as part of the same investigation that resulted in bribery and money laundering charges against 44 suspects — including three New Jersey mayors – last July 23.

During his plea hearing, Santoro admitted that on May 18, 2008 he accepted a $5,000 corrupt cash payment from a government cooperating witness (“CW”) at a Toms River restaurant. Santoro said the payment was in exchange for his anticipated assistance in facilitating introductions and corrupt payments to public officials in Ocean County who could purportedly exercise their influence in favor of the CW’s real estate development interests.

Santoro admitted that, during a phone call on July 17, 2008, he arranged for the CW to meet with a political party official (“the Individual”) who Santoro said could assist the CW in obtaining certain development approvals on a property located in the Waretown section of Ocean Township.

Santoro admitted that he accepted an additional $1,500 cash payment from the CW on August 10, 2008, in Atlantic City. During this meeting, Santoro informed the CW that he would arrange for the CW to meet an elected official who served in the New Jersey General Assembly and could assist the CW in obtaining development approvals.

The charge to which Santoro pleaded guilty — using interstate facilities (a cell phone) in furtherance of a bribery scheme — carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In determining an actual sentence, Judge Pisano will consult the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide appropriate sentencing ranges that take into account the severity and characteristics of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, if any, and other factors, including acceptance of responsibility. The judge has wide discretion and is not bound by those guidelines in determining a sentence. Parole has been abolished in the federal criminal justice system.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama recently realized early legislative success in pursuit of his massive government-heavy healthcare program.

Sen. Harry Reid pushed the initial legislation to the Senate, giving our representatives very little time to review the bill in advance of the first vote opening further debate.

In attempting to clear this initial procedural hurdle, Reid and the Obama administration could not find the support of a single Republican senator and also were having difficulty in rounding up even the necessary 60 votes, all of which would have to be Democrats, to advance the legislation.

Now, most taxpayers would hope that, in pursuit of the 60 votes, the administration and Senate Democrats would use the merits of the legislation as the basis for their swaying of members of their own party. Sadly, that simply is not the case.

Rather, bribes in the form of earmarks ended up being the carrot that lured in the final votes on a critical piece of legislation that may impact the future of our nation’s healthcare. . . and our nation’s debt.

Take, for example, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, one of the last Senate holdouts who joined other Democrats only hours before the controversial vote. What drew Landrieu to vote in support of the legislation? Was it her comfort with the cost, or perhaps her satisfaction that the concerns of her constituents had been satisfied?

Sadly, the answer lies with a seemingly minor provision added to the healthcare legislation, which takes two pages to write up a description of which states would qualify for an influx of 100 million additional dollars in federal Medicaid subsidies, using phrases such as “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

Those two pages make it so that the only state that could qualify is Louisiana. Landrieu says the funds will total to $300 million ($100 million in disaster relief and $200 in Medicaid).

But if you thought the esteemed senator would feel the least bit ashamed of how her decision was made, think again. In her floor speech, after accusations that her vote was bought, Landrieu said: “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it.”

But the waste and hidden vote purchases are not confined to Landrieu and the Democrats’ 21st-century Louisiana Purchase. A Boston Globe story in July uncovered a provision in both the Senate and House versions of the bill that would designate large sums of money (up to $1.6 billion each year in the House version) to improve the nation’s “health infrastructure.” The proposal will cover community grants for things such as bike paths, jungle gyms, sidewalks, lighting, farmers markets, etc., as a preventive health measure.

Certainly preventive healthcare is a worthy topic for discussion, but is a “reform” of our healthcare system really the appropriate place to spend billions on children’s playgrounds?

Earmarks and “pork” are not new in Washington politics. However, earmarks and pork required to get Democrats to support a Democratic-authored healthcare reform bill should tell us all we need to know: Even internally, many Democrats recognize that Americans do not support their effort to further empower the federal government and drive up the national debt all in the name of faux “reform.”

The time has come for Americans of every political persuasion to stand up and demand that our representatives seriously debate the ramifications of this healthcare legislation instead of trying to find ways to be compensated for their votes. Perhaps the clearest way to send that message is to send Landrieu packing. After all, in the actual Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson managed to purchase half the county for 20 times less than it took for Landrieu to give it all away!

I think it is common knowledge that the vast majority of Republicans, save for a RINO or three, are completely against the health care reform bill. As of late, Harry Reid has been crafting a bill that he hopes gets passed; however, there is a twist to all of this: Reid, from all appearances, has inserted language into the bill that would incentivize certain areas of the country. Here’s the inside skinny, based on page 432 of the Reid bill:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

Basically folks, this section is offering increased Medicaid susidies to areas (or in this case, an area) that are recovering from a major disaster. If memory serves me correctly, one state automatically comes to mind (and don’t think that Reid didn’t factor this in when putting this bill together): Louisiana.

Remember Hurricane Katrina, people? The above section of the Reid bill can be translated into, for all intents and purposes, as a bribe. Keep in mind as to who represents the state of Louisiana: one MaryLandrieu – one of the Democrats who are against the bill. I’m gonna call this for what it really is: a bribe.

Now Landrieu faces a dilemma. Does she sign off on this piece of bribery legislation, or does she listen to the citizens of her home state? Should she relent and vote for the bill, she remains on the good side of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, if she listens to the citizens of Louisiana, she risks beng ostracized by the party that she belongs to. In other words, party standing vs. re-election.

I have a novel idea for Ms. Landrieu. Maybe she should let her conscience guide her decision on this bill and let the chips fall where they may. That’s an occupational hazard in the world of politics, folks, and Landrieu is fully realizing that. And to think that her political future will ride on a single vote. And as for Reid, he should be ashamed of himself for even inserting such language into a bill.

Photo: Life

Typically it is a lawmaker these days that is either caught or being accused of committing a crime.  Not so much today as one of the more powerful lawmakers is involved in a bribery scandal, albeit indirectly.

A lot of you certainly know about Democratic congressman John Conyers; well, it turns out that his wife – one Monica Conyers – pleaded guilty todayto conspiring to commit bribery and is currently free on personal bond.  The one count of which Conyers was convicted of is punishable for up to five years in prison. 

As of this post, no sentencing date has been set and it’s not immediately clear if the plea deal requires Conyers to cooperate with the Feds in what has been an ongoing probe into city corruption – in this case, Detroit City Hall and perhaps elsewhere. 

Conyers had been under suspicion in the Synagro bribery probe; for those of you who are not familiar, Synagro is the contractor which is the central figure here in this probe.  Synagro had attempted to get a sludge-hauling contract.  Conyers, who had initially been the dissenting vote in approving a contract with Synagro, changed her vote in November 2007.

According to the federal plea agreement which was released today, Conyers had accepted bribes from a Synagro operative twice; the amounts were not disclosed, but previous court documents state that she accepted bribes of at least $3,000 each, among other bribes.  By the way, here is the charge:

Monica Ann Conyers beginning on a date unknown and continuing until or about December 2007, did knowingly and voluntarily conspire and agree with an aide and others to corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of herself and others and to accept and agree to accept things of value from persons while an agent of the City of Detroit, an entity that received more than $10,000 in federal funding during the calendar year of 2007, with intent that Conyers would be influenced and rewarded in connection with any business transaction or series of transactions of a value of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit.

Overt acts: On Nov. 20, 2007, at approximately 3:15 p.m., Conyers met with an individual sent by Rayford Jackson in the parking lot at Butzel Family Center and received an envelope containing cash. On Dec. 4, 2007, at approximately 2:30 p.m., an individual sent by Rayford Jackson met Conyers and her aide in a McDonald’s parking lot in Detroit at which time the individual delivered an envelope containing cash.

Both bribes were accepted by Conyers on November 20 and December 7.  Incidentally, U.S. Attorney Terrence Berg says that Conyers’ husband isn’t part of this investigation.  These kinds of charges just do not happen every day as it is usually lawmakers as opposed to their spouses or immediate family who are charged with breaking the law.

By the way, if you want to view the charging document and plea agreement, please click here.  Make sure you have a PDF format as it is an Adobe document.