Over the past several months, I have been very critical of Mr. Tiahrt’s alleged involvement with the PMA earmarks scandal that send defense contracts to the clients of the former lobbying firm in exchange for campaign contributions. During this time people wondered what I would say if Mr. Tiahrt was acquitted by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
Well, Mr. Tiahrt was recently acquitted of wrongdoing by the OCE and I honestly wish that I could take back the negative comments I made towards him about this situation. I wish that the world was that clear cut and that all politicians went to Washington to do what was best for America. I wish that the OCE once and for all admonished Mr. Tiahrt of all wrongdoing.
I can’t do these things, however, until we discuss (as Paul Harvey used to say), “the rest of the story.” So I’d like to direct your attention to the top of page 182 of the PMA report which reads:
Given that the documents the OCE has obtained through its investigation show potential connections between appropriations requests from former PMA clients and campaign contributions from the same clients to Representative Tiahrt, without further information that can only be obtained through witness interviews, the OCE cannot fully assess Representative Tiahrt’s role in the former clients’ intentions to make contributions based on receipt of earmarks. In the event that the OCE is unable to obtain information necessary to reach this determination, and there is probable cause to believe the allegations based on obtained evidence, the Board may refer the matter to the Standards Committee for further review. The Board finds that the evidence gathered in the OCE’s review supports a finding of probable cause.
While the OCE failed to find Mr. Tiahrt guilty in the PMA investigation, it appears that the investigators believe that he is guilty. This distinction between what the investigators were able to find and what is probably true is one of the classically murky situations that is best exemplified by former NFL running back OJ Simpson.
As we all know, Mr. Simpson was acquitted of murder in the highly publicized 1994 murder trial, but what many forget is that Simpson was later found liable for the wrongful death of his ex-wife Nicole and Ronald Goldman. The two juries in these cases might have seen the same evidence but came to wildly different conclusions because of the different standards that are applied to civil and criminal court. The jury in the criminal trial had a reasonable doubt that Simpson didn’t commit the murders, while the jury in the civil trial found that there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable.
The PMA investigation is similar because while the OCE could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tiahrt gave defense contracts to the clients of a lobbying firm in exchange for campaign contributions, the review did support a finding of probable cause. While Tiahrt was acquitted by the ethics committee, the committee seemingly believes there is a good chance that he is guilty.
I believe that Kansas voters should treat themselves as the civil jury in this case. Looking at the findings of the OCE, Kansans should ask themselves the question: Is Todd Tiahrt probably guilty of these ethics violations? If Kansas voters believe that Todd Tiahrt is probably guilty of these violations, then they should also see him as a liability to hold their Senate seat, and should vote accordingly.
Suspiciously yours,
Publius
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very slimy. He is not even responding or letting his staff respond? Very shady!
ReplyDeleteActually, it was the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that dismissed the allegations of ethic and law violations. The OCE referred it to them. These are two very different committees. The OCE was created by Nancy Pelosi and 5 of the 8 board members are democrats. Only 4 voted to refer the investigation on to the Committee and the 4 were democrats. 2 were absent. The Committee on Standards chastised the OCE because the documentation reviewed by the OCE did not warrant an investigation. The democrats don't want Tiahrt in Senate because he will be a strong voice for Kansas and the republicans as he has proven in the House.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Mr.Tiahrt did not talk to the committee?
ReplyDeleteThe Standards Committee report concluded:
ReplyDelete• Tiahrt "cooperated with OCE, providing detailed responses to OCE’s requests for documents."
• The Standards Committee by a unanimous vote dismissed the OCE matter against Tiahrt.
• Tiahrt did not violate "any law, regulation, rule or other applicable standard of conduct."
• The evidence showed that Tiahrt’s defense project requests were evaluated based upon criteria such as "the number of jobs created in the Member’s district or the value to the taxpayer or the U.S. military."
• OCE applied a different standard for reviewing Tiahrt than it did with other members of Congress even though Tiahrt had cooperated with the OCE and answered all its questions.
After skimming the report, I agree with the previous poster, why did Tiarht refuse to talk or let his staff be interviewed by the OCE? Unless he had something to hide.
ReplyDeleteBelow is from the report: Judge for yourself--
ReplyDeleteGiven that the documents the OCE has obtained through its investigation show potential
connections between appropriations requests from former PMA clients and campaign
contributions from the same clients to Representative Tiahrt, without further information
that can only be obtained through witness interviews, the OCE cannot fully assess
Representative Tiahrt’s role in the former clients’ intentions to make contributions based
on receipt of earmarks. In the event that the OCE is unable to obtain information
necessary to reach this determination, and there is probable cause to believe the
allegations based on obtained evidence, the Board may refer the matter to the Standards
Committee for further review. The Board finds that the evidence gathered in the OCE’s
review supports a finding of probable cause.
58. For the above reasons, the Board recommends that the Standards Committee further
review the above described allegations concerning Representative Tiahrt.
IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND
RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS
59. The OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt, Representative Tiahrt’s Chief of
Staff, or Representative Tiahrt’s MLA.
60. In every instance, the OCE asked the recipient of an OCE request for information to
identify any information they withheld and the reason they were withholding it.
However, absent the authority to subpoena the evidence in possession of the witness, it is
impossible for the OCE to verify if information was withheld, but not documented.