Who do you call when there’s a leak?

"At least the New York Times raised the question of improper leaks of information in its follow-up coverage on Monday." So if the leak threatens the Democrat Majority's hold on NJ, it must be plugged immediately but if the leak threatens National Security bring on the deluge. The Times is laughable.

I was involved with a story once where Mr. Christie was implored to help set the record straight with a reporter, and after considerable pressure, he agreed.

Except when it was suggested to the reporter to check in with "Fat Boy" or whatever W calls him these days, s/he became quite flummoxed and speechless. In a departure from the usual "protect the source at all costs," the reporter made it very clear that s/he had already spoken with Mr. Christie on the story! And it wasn't a "no comment" type of conversation. In other words, the reporter gave Mr. Christie up as the anoymous source. For a story Mr. Christie was privately conceding to those who made the entreaties was unfair and ambiguous.

It was painfully obvious to everyone involved-- including the reporter who gave him up-- that the person responsible for enforcing the laws had broken them.

as the bogus investigation the republicans pulled out of their rear ends when they tried to investigate Clinton for a made up land deal. They spent $50 million of our money and got him on lying about sex. Now THAT made a lot of sense...didn't it. This is a similar situation. Christie tried to help out a lame Kean campaign last year and it didn't work. Maybe he's ramping up for his own run next time. Best way to do that is to throw mud on your prospective opponent. Good boy Chrissy....he's a chip off the old republican block. Stealth smear campaigns....the true republican way.

So, Deb, why would you like to have the New York Times ask that question, if the "offending" quote you cite was in a Star-Ledger story?

We’re a little confused. Are you? Let me guess.

Is it because you personally are not interested in whether Senator Menendez committed any federal crimes?

If so, you should understand that some of us consider it a very serious matter when a Member of Congress is being investigated for committing criminal offenses, especially those involving dipping his hands into the public till.

He did indeed get caught with his hands in the till over a period of years! We’re just waiting to find out if the U.S. Attorney determines that it rose to the level of a crime for which he should be prosecuted.

It makes us feel very uneasy when Members of Congress use public funds as their own little tip jar. And, it makes us feel very disrespected because they don’t have the good sense to keep their personal hands off our public money.

Or, were you asking the question because you are more interested in having the public kept in the dark as to whether the criminal investigation of Senator Menendez is ongoing? If so, what are you doing on Politicsnj? Running interference for Democrats?

Here are some things that we do know.

First, Senator Menendez is a lawyer, so we presume he is capable of understanding the House Ethics Rules, and federal criminal law. Are we at least agreed on that? If he is not able, then why would he have asked us to send him to Washington to help write those laws for us, right?

Another thing we know is that Senator Menendez committed acts that were in violation of House rules, i.e., he entered into the arrangement to have the federal government pay for the renting of a building he owned. The rules are pretty explicit.

But don’t take my word for it, you can read the Rules here for yourself. You should look for this part:

CONTRACTING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Under the Federal Criminal Code, a Member of Congress may not enter into a contract or agreement with the United States Government. Any such contract is deemed void, and both the Member and the officer or employee who makes the contract on behalf of the Government may be fined (18 U.S.C. secs. 431-32). To ensure that these prohibitions are carried out, public contracting law requires every Government contract to contain a clause expressly stating that no Member of Congress shall share in any benefits arising from the contract (41 U.S.C. sec. 22).

So, in addition to all the specific conflict of interest rules, the House Ethics Rules cite a federal criminal law saying that Members of Congress are prohibited from getting federally-paid-for contracts.

First passed way back in 1808, it says they cannot stick their fingers in the till.

But, he entered into a contract, an agreement to rent his building to a Community Action agency, NHCAC, one that he then helped to receive federal funds that they used in order to pay their rent – TO HIM.

Thus, even though there is no finding of guilt on his part yet, we do know that he quietly received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money that a federal statute says he was forbidden to get.

Thoughts?

by Trochilus