Free Republic

My recollection is that Morris predicted Hillary would win her Senate contest, but would have a very tough time. So far it appears she is having a very easy time.

I was involved in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake in January 1994. President Clinton did not visit at that time. The reason stated was that his visit would interfere with the recovery what with the additional security, press, entourage, etc. that a presidential visit would entail. I think Clinton made the right decision and there was no press criticism.

"I have seen no evidence" refers to the appraisal. Unless you have seen the comps, are familiar with the area, and are familiar with the principles of appraisal, you have seen no evidence either. The items cited are, at most, leads for investigation. Regarding the $ 13000 for rental of living space in a boat: what was the square footage? what are the comps? etc. This was not renting a yacht and crew to go sailing. This is apparently living in possibly cramped quarters. Maybe it was advantageous for the yacht owner to have someone he trusted living in the yacht to watch over it, and pay for and supervise the maintenance. You really don't know without waiting for the results of the investigation.

By the way, if you had many friends in various businesses, wouldn't you as likely as not, hire a friend rather than a stranger?

When selling for "fair value" when a house is not placed on the market, an appraisal is required, which is based mainly on sales of comparable houses or "comps." Ideally, this is done by a certified appraiser. Many times appraisals are done by uncertified appraisers and the quality varies. We do not have the facts to evaluate the quality of the appraisal in this case. If the appraisal was done properly including the proper use of comps considering square footage, lot size, neighborhood, view, amenities, etc., the appraisal would represent fair value. The subsequent sale does not effect this. I agree that an investigation is warranted. I believe, however, that without collusion, this matter becomes relatively minor. In other words, absent collusion, the Congressman was acting in good faith. Many points are being made that are irrelevant (except as possible leads for investigators). The Congressman has many friends in the district and many people have contributed to his campaigns. The fact that people mentioned in this matter are friends or have contributed to the Congressman's campaign, mean nothing (except as possible leads to investigators). There is nothing reported that proves any wrongdoing by the Congressman. As far as House Rule violations, I imagine that a majority of members are in violation of some House Rule....such as non or late reporting of trips etc. Bottom line: wait for the investigations to be completed.

There is no proof in any of the articles that the house was not sold for market value. The subsequent sale for less could be due to a number of reasons. If the comps are good, the price was correct. I am aware of situations where actual sales prices were much greater than or much less than appraised "market" values.

Even if the comps were too high, you have to prove collusion involving Duke to prove a violation.

My point here was that there are not enough facts to come to a conclusion. The fact that the real estate agent was a friend of Duke's again means nothing. Duke has many friends in the district. There is a proper procedure for an appraisal and I have seen no evidence as to whether a proper appraisal was or was not done.

The article says that Duke paid something for use of the yacht moored at the dock. I have seen no evidence that the payment was or was not the fair rental value.

As a member of the subcommittee, Duke could have some influence on the defense procurements in question, but I am certain that any contracts were awarded by the Executive Branch, not the Congress.

Bottom line: Even if all items reported are factual, no violations are proven, that's why there is an investigation.

Many of the commentators are too quick to condemn. Here are some facts that seem to be missing from the national press:

– The price received for the house was determined by a local real estate agent. The fact that the house was later sold for less is irrelevant. Obviously the agent needs to be questioned as to how the price was determined, but absent of any collusion with the Congressman, there is nothing wrong.

– What is the rental value of living on a yacht moored at the dock? Is it greatly in excess of what was paid? What is the size of the living quarters?

– Finally, what power does a congressman have in awarding Government contracts. Everyone can get some assistance from their Congressperson in dealing with the Government, but awards of contracts are made by the Executive Branch, not Congress.

I am not saying that the Congressman is innocent; however, he should be given the benefit of the doubt until an ethics or other violation is proven. Nothing mentioned in the article is a definite violation.