Posted on 10/13/2006 4:12:42 PM PDT by dogbyte12
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.
The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.
The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.
Karen Weldon was 28 and lacked consulting experience when she and Charles Sexton, a Weldon ally and longtime Republican leader in Delaware County, Pa., created the firm of Solutions North America Inc. in 2002. Both are registered with the Justice Department as representatives of foreign clients.
Word of the inquiry, which has been closely held within the Justice Department and the FBI, comes from two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation. They both declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.
(Excerpt) Read more at realcities.com ...
Next week's episode, Rick Santorum once saw an old lady at a crosswalk and didn't help her across the street, and she cried.
I know. Let's forget about Ashcroft for a moment. You mentioned other sources in a previous post. What are those sources? I have tried locating something on-line, but no luck so far.
Please give us those sources. This is very important.
1) It makes no sense for this to be politically leaked late on a Friday when the news cycle is done.
2) There is no reason to believe any of it is true. This is the classic two source rule in play. Two anonymous sources.
and teh FBI is investigating it.
hell, if the US attorney's office in NY is investigating Pirro for trying to find out if her husband is having an affair, then the bar is pretty low - if you are a republican.
freepmail ravingnutter (read his post I linked you to above).
You want Bush to break the law like Clinton did
Thanks!
The Dems despise Santorum because he's a staunch Catholic.
Actually I am not sure that Klinton broke the law in this instance. I believe it is the incoming administrations purogative and legal.
Or is there a law on the books I do not know about concerning the President firing US Attorneys?
No 'bot, you call Greg Gordon before a grand jury and ask him who leaked this confidential information to him. If he refuses to answer, you throw his ass in jail. If he answers, you throw the leakers in jail.
But the administration simply doesn't care enough about these leaks, even the ones that seriously damage our national security, to do what needs to be done.
We’ll never know if “The Path To 9/11” is fact or fiction because we’ll never know what former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants. As the movie’s script is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and that report is based partly on documents classified and not, until we know what Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives during his review of documents so he could prep Bill Clinton for his Commission appearance, we’ll never know if the script (and Commission report) is as accurate as it should be.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/10/the-path-down-sandys-pants/
You see what I mean? Very confusing.
clinton's firing of those US attorneys was legal.
One thing I do know, from observation over the last 14 years, is that the Clintons are totally devoid of ethical scruples.
we will never know what the notes in the margins said.
No argument here!
1. There are two classes of federal employees...political appointees and career people under civil service law.
2. The US attorneys that Clinton fired were political appointees and he was within his rights to do this, although no president had ever done it before. It demonstrated how ruthless and partisan he is, but it was not illegal.
3. All political employees of the Clinton administration no longer work for the government. It is true that a few were held over for a few months, like that loathesome Eric Holder in the deputy AG job, because of delays in getting Bush people confirmed by the Senate. They are all gone now.
4. Clinton moved some political people (lower level) into civil service positions in 2000, before he left office. Not a lot, but far more than any other president had done.
5. Civil service positions, often known as career positions, are permanent jobs, and require massive documentation of an actual offense before said employees can be fired. It is against the law to fire a civil service employee because of their political affiliation.
6. Besides those people Clinton moved into civil service positions, you have a whole bunch of democrats working for the government. Quite a few got hired during the Clinton administration, when every liberal was drawn to Washington like iron filings to a magnet. Once ensconced in a job, they would not leave. Quite a few are left from the Carter administration, often in higher level management positions.
7. In addition, certain agencies (State, EPA, Justice) tend to attract those of a liberal mindset. Once they get a government job, those folks aren't leaving, either.
8. Now that I have explained all of this, let me emphasize one more time that it is against the law for President Bush to fire career people working for the government just because they are democrats!!!
yes, but there are ways for the political appointees they report to somehwere up the chain of command - to provide oversight on their actions.
otherwise, you are telling us that we must accept the shadow government - pursuing is own agenda using the power of the executive branch that they were NOT ELECTED TO, and we can't do anything about it.
ping
Thank you Miss Marple. A very clear and eloquent explanation!
But there are thousands and thousands of people who are working for the government. It is almost impossible to catch one if they think they want to leak. Look at how much trouble Rumsfeld has had with this, and I don't think you can say that he was soft on leaks, or too tolerant, or not wanting to "make waves."
You are asking the President and his cabinet officials to do something that is just not possible. I think the only way this will be solved is when enough Republicans are willing to take government jobs. Most prefer the private sector, and that is one of our problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.