HOW DEMOCRATS CONCEAL THEIR CORRUPTION




A quarter of a century ago the United States Congressional Post Office was used as a big Cookie Jar by corrupt politicians. The scandal was discovered when corruption among various Congressional Post Office employees and members of the United States House of Representatives was discovered and investigated. We all know investigations take time, lots of time, when they involve Democrats. This investigation began in 1991 and finally exhausted all avenues of stalling and obfuscating three years later.

The lengthy investigation begin by the United States Capitol Police into a single embezzlement charge against a single employee but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Evidence rapidly led to the inclusion of several other employees, before top Democrats in the House of Representatives moved to shut down the whole line of inquiry, despite protests from Frank Kerrigan, chief of the Capitol Police.
A new investigation was started by the United States Postal Service, which eventually submitted a report which was held in silence by Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) until media reports of embezzlement and money laundering leaked out. After that, the Democratic apologists including almost all of the Media in the United States, developed the tight lipped disease where Democratic Scandals are involved. They became as mum as the National Security Agency about unconstitutional spying on law abiding citizens and our best allies. I know, the Speaker of the House setting on a report of criminal activity by fellow Congressmen causes you to gasp with shock and dismay.
The issue again subsided until July 1993, when former Postmaster Rota pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, implicating House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski and former Representative Joe Kolter in an illegal scheme to trade stamps or official House postal vouchers for cash. Soon thereafter Representative Istook began calling for an Ethics Committee investigation of these allegations. Largely on the argument that an Ethics Committee investigation might interfere with the workings of an ongoing grand jury inquiry, Istook agreed not to force a vote on his request, but did introduce a resolution (H.Res. 238) calling for such a probe. The resolution had 60 cosponsors.


Istook’s request had been pending for six months. In the meantime, authority for the first grand jury expired and a second panel had to start work anew, this time under the third U.S. Attorney to supervise the case — a Clinton appointee. Istook argues that further delay based on potential grand jury action is unwarranted, if indeed it was ever justified. As the House was preparing to leave for a week-long recess on February 10, 1994, Istook gave notice that he would demand a vote on his request for an Ethics Committee investigation as soon as the House returns. Since this is a matter of privilege under House Rules, the Speaker must schedule the vote within two legislative days, making it necessary for the House to consider the issue within a day of its return on February 22.

Continue Reading....HERE

No comments:

Post a Comment