Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/23/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    CAVALIERI: KING HEARINGS RAISE SERIOUS ETHICAL, LEGAL QUESTIONS Q1 1987 | Press Release #5 WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Minority Leader Paul Cavalieri (R-Fullerton) made a statement to the press regarding the ongoing hearings on Majority Leader King's decision to appoint his brother as Chairman of the AFSAJ Committee. "The Majority Leader himself has said – and these are his words – that 'nepotism degrades our democracy.' And yet that is exactly what he did, it's the dictionary definition of nepotism: giving a job to your relative that you have control over. Nothing that Majority Leader King has said contradicts the fact that he committed an act of nepotism. Whether it fits the legal definition is up to the courts, and I think that these hearings have brought forward sufficient evidence for the Department of Justice to open an investigation. But legal definitions aside, from an ethical perspective, the Majority Leader's actions are undoubtedly wrong – and even he acknowledges that nepotism is a very serious ethical violation. Mr. King should either rescind his brother's appointment and apologize to the American people – or step down from his position and make room for somebody with the moral fiber that his job requires." -Mark Keys, Press Secretary
  2. 2 points
    Name: Paul Cavalieri Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Orange County Register Majority Leader King has just told the AFSAJ Committee that he believes "nepotism degrades our democracy." The question has to be asked then, why does he do it?
  3. 2 points
    Name: Michael Marshall Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: Cherryville Tribune "For someone who has nothing to hide, seems to be putting a lot of barriers in place on the road to actually looking into the reason as to why he appointed his brother as Chairman of a committee, one of the most powerful ones at that. Stand aside and allow members of Congress to address what is a very real concern of nepotism and corruption within the ranks of the Democratic Party. If there isn't any, then I see no reason for the House Majority Leader to stand in the way of the vote and use procedural delay."
  4. 1 point
    The newly elected House Minority Leader, Paul Cavalieri (R-CA), gave a press conference in the press room of the House to assembled reporters to discuss the House Republican caucus's priorities for the upcoming legislative session. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and thank you for joining me today. It's my pleasure to address you this morning for the first time as the House Republican Leader. I wanted to take this opportunity first to thank my colleagues in the House GOP caucus for the trust they've placed in me and to reiterate what an important job we have ahead of us. It's clear that Americans are hungry for change – they're rallying behind a President who is fulfilling his promises to cut down the size and scope of government, invest more power and decisions in the American people, and let them keep more of what they earn. The historic tax reform that we accomplished last year through his leadership promises to renew our economy with innovation, growth, and risk-taking after years of stagflation and malaise. But as our economy shows signs of rejuvenation, our institutions, our politics, and our society are built upon rotting foundations and are in desperate need of renovation. More than three decades of one-party rule in Congress has allowed unusual machine-style politics to take root; for the first time in our history, the top-ranking members of Congress are all blood relatives – brothers, no less. This unusual phenomenon is only the tip of the iceberg of unsavory practices – regardless of party – that have developed in the halls of our legislature and which continue to undermine the trust the American people place in their government. The only way we can change this is if Republicans refuse to be content to be the permanent minority and fight to win in the years to come. This session, I want to work with Democrats to make sure that our government and our Congress is serving our country and is accountable only to the American people, by introducing a government reform bill to root out unethical practices in Congress and in government and ensure that the only boss we serve here on the Hill is the American people. In this legislation, we hope to include provisions on the following issues – Require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country apply to Congress as well; Audit Congress for waste, fraud, and abuse; Restrict "revolving door" lobbying by former officials, including former congressmen; Tighten rules for insider appointments, including nepotism; Establish an independent, bipartisan House Ethics Committee to provide oversight. These measures, we believe, can attract bipartisan support and result in real change to ensure accountability on Capitol Hill. Concerns have been raised by members of both parties regarding the recent behavior from the King family. Let's be clear: this is hardly the first time something like this has happened – but with action now, perhaps it can be the last. In the coming days, we will be reaching out to members of both parties to form a bipartisan working group and will hope to have a draft bill ready for consideration in several weeks' time. With that, I will take any questions regarding this statement, or any other questions you all may have.
  5. 1 point
    Nepotism hearing gets heated in House, new subpoena issued, new hearing into Speaker King? Testimony in the nepotism matter before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct got heated today after House Majority Leader Augustus King began his testimony. The nepotism inquiry relates to the matter of Majority Leader King appointing his brother, Reginald King, to the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary. Many questions were barraged at the Majority Leader who continued to make the point not only that he didn't commit nepotism, that a hearing even being held is questionable. "Before I begin I would like to state how appalled I am by the incompetent running of these investigations," King said. "Not only has the ranking majority member insisted on moving on these hearings unilaterally without a committee consensus, but she has also ignored by calls for a new body to be formed consisting of Democratic members whom I did not appoint. The polarizing attitude of these hearings is nothing but political spectacle to try and show me 'who is in control'." A legal argument could be made that according to the new House Rules, the hearing should not currently be being held in its current form. "A hearing should be happening, but it should not happen like this. It should be done legally, in compliance with the rules and regulations of the House of Representatives," Texas Representative Guy Hughes told Beltway Insiders. "It can not be one member of the House of Representatives going off half-cocked, assuming powers that they do not have, and issuing what I believe are illegal subpoenas willy-nilly." A specific piece of law has been brought up in today's action, 5 U.S. Code § 3110. According to that, many have argued that this case is now in a legally gray area. "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official," the statue reads. "An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual." King has questioned whether an agency can be construed to mean a house committee. The legality of that is still in question, Beltway Insiders has not recieved response from legal insiders in time for press. The Chief of Staff to Representative Jacky Williams, the Republican currently leading the hearing, questioned the mental stability of Majority Leader King during the hearing. "There were moments during that hearing where King showed signs of definite mental instability," the Chief of Staff said. The committee is currently adjourned awaiting the return of Majority Leader King, who has departed claiming a potential violation of United Nations treaties. "No disrespect ranking chair, but I have asked on countless occasions for a purpose and a time length for this hearing," Majority Leader King said. "My concerns have gone unanswered. I have been presumed guilty and am being forced to make myself innocent, which is not only a violation of US law but is also a violation of the United Nation Human Rights Charter. I have pointed out on countless occasions of the invalidity of this hearing, its incompetence and its violation of rules and traditions." In the meantime, Beltway Insiders, has received a copy a new subpoena which is in question itself. The subpoena asks for records to be produced "referring to any the request of or any appointment to any congressional committee in the House of Representatives of the United States of America." Also included is a request for any conversation held between Majority Leader King and any member of the House Democratic Caucus on the matter. Democrats, including Guy Hughes, have come out in opposition to these subpoenas being issued. "These subpoenas were issued without the approval of that committee, and furthermore were created for a hearing that was not legally approved by either the House of Representatives or that committee in particular," Hughes said. "This is a serious overstepping of Representative Williams' powers, and is deeply concerning." For some historical context, according to Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation. Beltway Insiders has also received a letter from the office of Reginald King to Jacky Williams, dated before the subpoenas, saying that all records will be released, including any material requested moving forward. "Any further materials the committee requests can be done so through written notice and said materials will be provided promptly," the letter reads. Two new motions have also come forward in today's action. One a motion for a select committee into the matter issued by Guy Hughes, and another a motion for a hearing in the House ASFAJ committee to investigate Speaker of the House Teddy King on obstruction of justice charges. It is believed that motion is related of King's publishing of the latest subpoena in full to the Los Angeles Times. RNC Chairman Michael Marshall responded to the publishing of that subpoena to the Cherryville Tribune. "Perhaps the Speaker can agree with me that it would be best for him to not use any of the powers his office gives him in order to disrupt or otherwise cast a shadow over current and future proceedings," Marshall said. "I think, that at least, would be the decent thing to do in this case. If it's considered necessary for him to answer questions or inquiries, then so be it. But an across the board recusal from these proceedings would go a long way to ensuring and reinforcing the principle of an investigation trying to get to the bottom of serious ethics violations." Texas Democrat Guy Hughes responded to the hearing, saying that he would like to see some evidence of obstruction of justice. “If Jacky Williams wants a hearing on the obstruction of justice charges, she needs to lay out the evidence rather than make accusations. As it stands, there has been no offered evidence that the Speaker has interfered in this process at all, other than discussing the fact that he was issued an illegal subpoena," Hughes said. "The House rules, which are in effect until approved or voted down per their own language, state clearly that there can only be one hearing at a time. Jacky Williams is acting with a flagrant disregard of our rules." House Majority Leader King has even gone as far as to tell Beltway Insiders that he wonders if there is more to the matter than just nepotism. "After expressing numerous times about the invalidity of the hearing, the invalidity of the the subpoena and the lack of focus regarding the hearing and calling for a SEC [Special Ethics Committee], the Ranking chair and the rest of ASFAJ [HouseCommittee on Armed Forces, Foreign Affairs and Judiciary] Republicans members finally realize what I have been saying after another member spoke up. I believe that their is something more at play here other than just a "nepotism" accusation." Beltway Insiders will continue to keep you updated as this story unfolds.
  6. 1 point
    Name: Michael Marshall Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Cherryville Tribune "Perhaps the Speaker can agree with me that it would be best for him to not use any of the powers his office gives him in order to disrupt or otherwise cast a shadow over current and future proceedings. I think, that at least, would be the decent thing to do in this case. If it's considered necessary for him to answer questions or inquiries, then so be it. But an across the board recusal from these proceedings would go a long way to ensuring and reinforcing the principle of an investigation trying to get to the bottom of serious ethics violations."
  7. 1 point
    Speaker should stand aside in all King-related matters WASHINGTON DC - Republican Chairman Michael Marshall spoke to members of the press regarding the decision of Speaker King to pipe up regarding the ethics violations made by his brother, Augustus. "I think it sets a dangerous precedent if the Speaker gets involved in this affair, we could have more than one allegation of nepotism and corruption if he were to continue onto this line of questioning. These guys are gonna talk about rules and what have you when Speaker King hasn't even received a full floor vote to actually take that office, but that's if we go down the road of pulling technicalities. A committee was established by Representative Reginald King, as I've said before, took a lot of guts to do and I'm happy he was willing to make this process open and above board, unlike his two younger brothers who seemingly want to dodge and cast a grey cloud over these proceedings. Hopefully the current hearing goes ahead and will continue to get to the bottom of these allegations, over what is a very real case of nepotism within the Federal Government. We have laws in place in this country to prevent the conduct which has been exercised by the King brothers, specifically Augustus. As stated before, the Speaker should step back and recuse himself from all current and future proceedings."
  8. 1 point
    Name: Michael Marshall Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Cherryville Tribune Republicans didn't set this committee up. It was set up by Chairman Reggie King in what I thought took a lot of guts considering he was the one at the center of this controversy. I think now for Democrats in the House to suddenly decide that we don't want that hearing, let's make a new one, is dangerous. We have an open and above board hearing going on right now which I think is fine. Given the recent answers of Representative King towards the committee, I can see why Democrats want to shut its doors and 'reset' the committee. Americans want answers and they are getting them, albeit incoherent ones and reaffirmations that nepotism is good and its how the Democratic Party rolls.
  9. 1 point
    The fact is, appointing a relative to a job or position of power is nepotism and you're right here today in front of this committee rejecting any notion that it was nepotism. Well, Rep. King, your citation of the Committee Reorganization Act of 1946, which is what I assume you meant, doesn't really apply to what has happened here. But I'm glad that we've now established committee chairmen are powerful and important, despite previous comments you made before the members of this committee. Rep. King, you aren't facing criminal charges nor has an official position been established and published by this committee - so while I appreciate your comments about US law and the UNHR, please keep it for you and your legal counsel if you ever find yourself in the situation. What we have here is that you appointed your brother to a position of power and you're refusing that it is nepotism. Correct me if I'm wrong sir but you think you've did no wrong here haven't you?
  10. 1 point
    Let me quote the textbook definition of nepotism for you Rep. King. the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. You appointed your brother. Can you explain to me how this isn't nepotism...
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Representative Williams: If your key defense is built upon the foundation of the word 'agency' in the statute related to nepotism, then your defense is mute. Reason being? Here is the following definition of 'agency' defined by the federal code - it reads as follows: (a)(1)(B) " 'Agency' means an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch" Would you agree that a committee is an establishment of the legislative branch, Congressman King?
  13. 1 point
    Representative Jacky Williams: So what you've told this committee, essentially, is that there were other options to choose from, but that you purposefully established criteria - that by all means is arbitrary and not bound by any set rules or precedent - that allowed for other members to be passed up in order to leave no choice but for you to appoint your brother, Reggie King, as Chairman of this committee. Don't you think that's a bit convenient, Congressman King?
  14. 1 point
    King begins testimony before House committee on nepotism matter A showdown between House Majority Leader Augustus King and Representative Jacky Williams has led to King officially starting testimony before the House Standards of Official Conduct Investigation of King Nepotism at the Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary. The Investigation of King Nepotism refers to the matter of Majority Leader King appointing his brother, Reginald King, to the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary. The deadline for Majority Leader King to respond to the official inquiry to testify passed by with a response, but apparently not one good enough to satisfy Williams. This morning, Beltway Insiders received a copy of an official subpoena for King to appear to testify by end of day. Williams even went as far as to have the U.S. Marshals Service deliver the subpoena to King. It appears that the subpoena worked, as King is now officially testifying before the committee. Talk of a special ethics committee continued in the press last night, as Majority Leader King said he would allow another Democratic leader to appoint members to a special committee. "I however will allow another democratic leader to appoint members to the ethics committee to allow a thorough investigation into the issue to uphold transparency and fairness from my part," Majority Leader King told the Los Angeles Times. "I will warn lady Congress Woman Jacky not to let the power get to her head, as she must seek permission from other committee members to hold a hearing or to even subpoena a person." Republicans responded with the argument that since Williams was made chairperson of the committee, she has the rights to subpoena and start hearings. "The Chairman of a select committee has the authority to call for hearings unilaterally. Rep. Williams has been given the gavel, and with it, the authority to call for hearings in the name of Congress," House Minority Leader Paul Cavalieri said to the Orange County Register. "Majority Leader King should quit his bait-and-switch, come before the committee, and get this business settled so we can move on to dealing with more pressing matters." It appears that the special ethics committee maybe moot now with Majority Leader King officially starting testimony. We will continue to keep you updated on this story as it unfolds.
  15. 1 point
    Stand aside if you've nothing to hide WASHINGTON DC - Republican Chairman Marshall spoke to members of the press today over the refusal of House Majority Leader King to allow an open investigation into the act of appointing his brother as Chairman of the House Armed Forces and Judiciary Committee. "I think the situation here is pretty clear, the Acting Chair of the Committee, Mrs Williams moved to invite the House Majority Leader to the committee to answer some questions on his decision to appoint his brother as Chairman of the committee. He refused on the basis that there wasn't a vote taken within the committee to invite him to testify, I do wonder why though, that he refuses to come out of his own decision, if his decision was open,. fair and above board. He is only making this process long and drawn out. We too want to see an end to this, because it's upsetting for our democracy, but corruption and nepotism is something that we can't abide by and is why we need to get these questions answered before we move on. This is about appointing an immediate family member to the chair of a committee. Who cares if you worked in law or graduated top of your class? No one is taking your educational attainment or employment away from you. This is about principle, ones which I hope the Democratic Party wish to retain. A vote would mean that members of Congress beholden to his ultimate power of patronage would be forced to choose between doing the right thing or affirming their loyalty to the House Majority Leader. I don't think the latter is fair to a duly elected member of the United States Congress, so stand aside. The cloud of grey that has befell the Democratic Party as of late with the election of the King brothers is disheartening, but we can remove that by allowing a committee hearing to take place immediately. I echo all calls for an open and above board hearing into this decision."
  16. 1 point
    Name: Paul Cavalieri Party: Republican Interviewing Agency: (what local newspaper/radio): Orange County Register The Chairman of a select committee has the authority to call for hearings unilaterally. Rep. Williams has been given the gavel, and with it, the authority to call for hearings in the name of Congress. Majority Leader King should quit his bait-and-switch, come before the committee, and get this business settled so we can move on to dealing with more pressing matters.
  17. 1 point
    CAVALIERI SEEKS LEGAL OPINION ON KING CHAIR APPOINTMENT Q1 1987 | Press Release #4 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Paul Cavalieri (R-Fullerton) gave a statement regarding his decision to seek a legal opinion on the legality of the appointment of Reginald Jackson King as Chairman of the Committee on the Armed Forces, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary by his brothers Speaker King and Majority Leader King. Cavalieri cited 5 U.S. Code § 3110 (b) which forbids appointment of an individual to public office by a relative or if the appointment is advocated by a relative of that individual. "Many members of my caucus have expressed concern about the appointment of Congressman King by his brothers the Speaker and the Majority Leader as Chairman of the AFSAJ Committee. I am announcing that I will be seeking a formal legal opinion as to whether this appointment is consistent with anti-nepotism laws, specifically 5 U.S. Code § 3110 (b), which specifically forbids public officials from appointing or advocating for the appointment of their relative to any public office. It is my understanding that committee chairmen are appointed by the Speaker and the Majority Leader, both of whom are brothers of Rep. King. Depending on the advice of legal counsel, we will take the matter further as we find appropriate. Nepotism is probably the oldest form of corruption, right next to flat-out bribery, and under my leadership the House Republican caucus will never allow that kind of practice to make its way into the halls of Congress." -Mark Keys, Press Secretary
  18. 1 point
    Character Name: Reginald Guy Hughes Political Party: Democrat Faction: Progressive Seat Held: Texas 2nd Congressional District Date of Birth: August 17, 1933 Place of Birth: Wichita Falls, Texas Place of Residence: Lufkin, Texas Race/Ethnicity: White Gender: Male Religious Affiliation: Undisclosed Faction Affiliation: I'd rather not do this at all, but I guess Progressive Family Information: Claudia Hughes (formerly Gaines, married in 1962) James Edward Hughes (Son, born 1968) Marjorie Anne Hughes (Daughter, born 1970) Randolph Gaines Hughes (Son, born 1972) Elizabeth Fiona Hughes (Daughter, born 1974) Eva Sophia Hughes (Daughter, born 1974) (These last two are twins, obviously) Educational History: Wichita Falls High School (grad. 1950) BA in History, Midwestern University (grad. 1956) MA in History, University of Texas (1958) PhD in History, University of Texas (1963) Occupational History: United States Army (1950-1954) Graduate Student, University of Texas (1956-1963) Instructor of History, University of Texas (1963-1965) Assistant Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1965-1969) Associate Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1969-1975) Professor of History, Stephen F. Austin University (1975-1982) Political History: President of the Angelina County Democrats (1967-1969) Lufkin City Council (1969-1971) Texas State Senator, District 3 (1971-1981) Texas Democratic Party Executive Committee, (1981-1983) Senior Policy Advisor, Mark White Campaign (1982) Commissioner, Texas Education Agency (1983-1986) United States Representative, Texas Second Congressional District (1987-Present) Publications: Brown Haze: Health and Disease on the Great Plains (1964) Guy Hughes was born on August 17, 1933 in Wichita Falls, Texas. His parents had relocated to Wichita Falls from nearby Lawton, Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl, and were still in pursuit of gainful employment at the time of his birth. His childhood was economically destitute until his father found permanent work in the oil fields around Wichita County and his mother opened a daycare center. Despite this difficult background, Hughes excelled in both academics and athletics and planned to enroll at Midwestern University after graduation. This early foray into academia was cut short, however, by the decision to join the United States Army due to the ongoing Korean War. After basic, he was assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, and in this role participated in the Battle of Seoul and subsequent operations. After the Korean Armistice Agreement, Hughes began taking a series of correspondence courses and laid the plans to return to university. Hughes did not renew his enlistment in 1954. Returning to Wichita Falls, Hughes doubled down and received his BA in 1956. He was soon after accepted into the University of Texas, where he pursued both his MA and PhD in history. During this time Hughes established himself as an expert on the then growing field of public health history and medical history, and became recognized as a rising academic star. While at the University of Texas he married Claudia Gaines, who attended UT’s law school. Hughes took an adjunct position at the University of Texas while Gaines finished her law degree, finishing his first academic text (Brown Haze: Health and Disease on the Great Plains) and participating in the civil rights activism that defined the period. After Claudia’s graduation the two relocated to Lufkin, Texas where he took a tenure-track job at Stephen F. Austin University and Claudia opened a private law practice. Hughes academic career shifted to publishing a series of articles rather than full-length books, and he spent more and more of his time in political activism, specifically advocating for black rights and healthcare reform. This activism brought him into contact with the local Democratic Party establishment, and after two years of volunteer work, Hughes was elected President of the Angelina County Democrats. In this role, Hughes found himself in the middle of a power struggle between the conservative, segregationist U.S. Representative John Dowdy and his progressive, libertine rival, then-State Senator Charlie Wilson. Hughes became a fully entrenched member of the Wilson camp, and he participated in the larger effort to shift Lufkin away from its segregationist past. This activism and his affiliation with a popular local politician attached a rocket to Hughes’ newly developing political aspirations. Taking advantage of the part-time nature of Texas governing, Hughes joined the Lufkin City Council in 1967 and served for two years. John Dowdy, who Hughes considered his arch-enemy, was brought down by corruption charges in 1973. Hughes’ ally, Wilson, ascended from the State Senate to the United States House of Representatives, while Hughes was elected to Wilson’s old spot in the State Senate. Hughes established a reputation for health and education advocacy and a broad policy of pursuing state support for local initiatives. After Bill Clements, a Republican, took the Texas Governor’s mansion in 1979, there was an active effort by the Democratic Party to restructure so that they could better reflect the changing political scene. These changes saw Hughes become a member of the Texas Democratic Party’s executive committee and join the campaign staff of Mark White in the 1982 gubernatorial election. After White’s victory, Hughes was appointed as the Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency, a position that he held until 1986. In early 1986, Wilson departed the House of Representatives in order to work as a lobbyist for his foreign policy causes. Hughes took the opportunity to announce his own candidacy for the United States House of Representatives. Hughes easily won the Democratic nomination and the general election.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.