Tag Archives: alabama

Shirley Sherrod to meet with Vilsack about a job

(CNN) — Shirley Sherrod, who received an apology after being forced to resign from the Agriculture Department, will meet Tuesday with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to discuss a job offer, a department official confirmed Saturday.

It will be the first face-to-face meeting between the two since a controversial sequence of events last month culminated in her stepping down.

Sherrod, who was the Agriculture Department’s Georgia Director of Rural Development, has said she is being offered the position of deputy director of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.

The position includes administration and outreach to improve the Agriculture Department’s civil rights efforts and image nationwide.

The department official who confirmed the meeting asked not to be identified.

Sherrod was forced to resign in July after misleading and incomplete video footage of a speech she gave was posted on the internet and picked up in media reports. Vilsack apologized to her and offered her the promotion.

The flap began after conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a portion of a speech Sherrod gave in which she spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The original post by Breitbart indicated that the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the Agriculture Department, and news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

However, the incident took place decades before she joined the department, and her speech in its unedited form made the point that people should move beyond race. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that she helped him save his farm.

Sherrod spoke about the incident Saturday at a meeting of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund in Epes, Alabama.

She said her work with other agencies to help poor counties in south Georgia was overlooked during the controversy.

Sherrod said Saturday she has no criticism of President Obama and believes the NAACP, which also urged her to resign before learning the video had misconstrued her comments, was tricked.

NAACP President Ben Jealous spoke Saturday at the Alabama meeting.

Repeated calls to Sherrod were not returned Saturday.

Shirley Sherrod to meet with Vilsack about a job

Ethics panel charges Rangel

Washington (CNN) — The House ethics committee on Thursday accused veteran Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of House rules involving alleged financial wrongdoing and harming the credibility of Congress.

The charges accused the 20-term Democrat from New York of using his influence to solicit donations for a college policy center in his name from corporate heads and others with business before the powerful House Ways and Means Committee that Rangel chaired until forced to give up the leadership position earlier this year.

Other charges involve alleged income tax and financial disclosure violations, as well as improper use of government mail service and letterhead.

“Credibility is what’s at stake here; the very credibility of the House itself before the American people,” said Rep. Mike McCaul, the ranking Republican on a subcommittee that will hold a trial-like hearing on the charges against Rangel.

McCaul spoke at the subcommittee’s first meeting, described as an organizational session. Rangel was not required to attend and did not show up to hear the first public disclosure of the formal charges against him.

Asked later about his response to the charges, Rangel sounded contrite in saying he may have been “overzealous” in serving the public but took some comfort that the allegations involved no “corruption” or “self-dealing.”

“I can’t make an excuse for serious violations, but I can have an explanation of my intent,” he said. “And to large degree that’s what my life has been all about–intent.”

Video: Rep. Rangel speaks to press

Rangel said it was “a very, very rough period for me and my family, but we all, including my community, will get by this.”

In the days leading up to the hearing, Rangel had said he welcomed the completion of a two-year investigation by the ethics committee so that he could finally respond to specific accusations against him.

According to documents released by the committee, Rangel first learned of the charges being pursued by an investigating subcommittee on June 17. He filed a motion to have the charges dismissed, which the investigating panel denied, the documents showed.

In a document dated Wednesday, Rangel’s lawyers challenged the scope of the charges against him, saying Rangel “did not abuse his official position or enrich himself financially.”

“He did not target for solicitation foundations, corporations or individuals with business before the Ways & Means Committee, nor did he offer or provide preferential treatment or favors to potential contributors,” the document said. “He received no prohibited benefit, direct or indirect, from his work on behalf of this program that violates the ethics rules.”

However, the document said Rangel “recognizes that the public would have been better served if he had consulted the Standards Committee staff in advance” of soliciting funding for the college center.

Rangel said this week that his lawyers were in talks with committee lawyers on a possible deal to settle the case without a hearing. When Thursday’s hearing was delayed for 55 minutes with no explanation, rumors of an imminent agreement quickly spread.

However, the panel gathered and held the hearing, and it remained unclear whether a settlement avoiding the spectacle of a trial hearing was possible.

According to the charges, Rangel allegedly failed to report more than $600,000 on financial disclosure reports and improperly used a rent-subsidized apartment as a campaign office for over a decade and failed to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic.

Rangel “argues that errors on his personal taxes do not implicate discharge of his official responsibilities,” committee investigators concluded in response to Rangel’s request to have the charges dismissed. He “appears to be operating under the erroneous belief that the only conduct subject to discipline is conduct directly related to the discharge of his official responsibilities.”

An investigative subcommittee report on Rangel’s dealings, available on the committee’s website, detailed a lengthy series of meetings the congressman held with business leaders to raise funds for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at the City College of New York. His repeated attempts to woo potential donors violated the House’s solicitation and gift ban, the report said.

Among other things, the report stated that Rangel met with a lobbyist for insurance giant AIG in April 2008 with the objective to “close” a $10 million “gift for the Rangel Center.”

At the meeting, “AIG raised concerns about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk,” the report stated. But Rangel pushed ahead, asking “AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.”

During the period of time that Rangel was seeking donations from AIG, according to committee investigators, the company was lobbying the House on several tax and trade issues — matters over which Rangel exercised considerable influence.

It also noted that, in March 2007, he used congressional letterhead to send notes to business leaders such as Donald Trump, in which he requested meetings to discuss the Rangel Center.

The congressman’s “acceptance of favors and benefits from donors to the Rangel Center … might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties,” the report concluded, adding that the “accumulation of (Rangel’s) actions reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House.”

In the July 28 response, Rangel’s lawyers argued that some of the cited infractions were unintended in his effort to help the college.

“If he mistakenly used the wrong letterhead or other modest resources in this worthy cause, the error was made in good faith,” the document said.

“It is undisputed that every single charitable contribution in this case went to CCNY, a public educational institution, and not to the congressman,” it said, later adding that”the uncontroverted evidence is that Congressman Rangel never suggested that any donor to the Rangel Center would receive favorable consideration in legislative matters and never gave preferential treatment to any contributor.”

McCaul said the allegations against Rangel, if proven, would violate “the most fundamental code of conduct” for House members.

Rep. Gene Green of Texas, a Democrat who led a two-year ethics subcommittee investigation of Rangel, said it was a difficult job.

“The task is even more difficult when the subject has befriended and mentored so many new members, and I’m one of them,” Green said.

Another ethics committee member, Republican Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, said “this is truly a sad day where no one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice.”

Rangel temporarily stepped down as Ways and Means Committee chairman earlier this year following the announcement of an ethics investigation of several allegations, including failure to pay taxes on the Dominican Republic residence.

The House ethics committee previously admonished Rangel for violating rules on receiving gifts. Specifically, the committee found that Rangel violated House gift rules by accepting reimbursement payments for travel to conferences in the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

Rangel, whose autobiography that discusses his Korean War experience is titled “And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since,” told reporters earlier Thursday that “I have to reassess that (statement)” in light of the pending hearing.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday — in response to a question about Rangel — that there must be “accountability” and “transparency” in cases of ethical transgressions.

“Holding a high ethical standard is a serious responsibility … and a top priority” for the House Democratic leadership, she said. In terms of political fallout from cases such as Rangel’s, “the chips will fall where they may,” she said.

Congressional Democrats have reportedly expressed concern that an extended public airing of the charges against Rangel could damage the party’s prospects in the November midterm elections.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, Brianna Keilar, Evan Glass, Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.

Ethics panel charges Rangel

Elena Kagan denies ‘substantive’ discussion of health-care case

By

Warren Richey,

Kagan, senators to square off again

Washington (CNN) — Questioning of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will continue Wednesday after she mounted a spirited defense against her critics Tuesday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. ET. By late morning the committee could go into closed session where Kagan’s FBI background check is likely to be discussed as has been the practice in past hearings.

On the second day of the hearing, which is expected to last throughout the week, Kagan expressed a judicial philosophy of impartiality and equality, saying the courts provide a “level playing field” for all and advocating for televising high court proceedings.

She was also able to use humor to disarm some tough questioners.

Kagan’s funny asides during 10 hours of questioning appeared spontaneous, and colleagues say that is her style: someone who is serious about the law but who enjoys a good laugh, often at her expense.

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania, quizzed Kagan on a favorite topic of his– allowing cameras in the Supreme Court, which most justices oppose.

Video: Kagan: Politics separate from judging

Video: Kagan talks Harvard and the military

Video: Kagan talks Second Amendment

“It means I’d have to get my hair done more often, Sen. Specter,” Kagan replied.

The senator paused and appeared not to immediately get the joke. But he quickly recovered.

“Let me commend you on that last comment and I say that seriously,” he said to laughter in the room. “You have shown a real admirable sense of humor and I think that’s really important. … We are looking for somebody who could moderate the court, and a little humor would do a lot of good.”

Some Republican committee members had used their opening statements to depict Kagan as a deficient nominee because of her lack of judicial experience and the advocacy positions she has held in the Clinton and Obama administrations.

They continued that theme in their direct questioning, with the sharpest exchange occurring between Kagan and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, over Kagan’s role in limiting military recruiters at Harvard Law School because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service.

Sessions said Kagan, who was the law school dean, sought to treat the military as second class by denying recruiters access to the campus Office of Career Services and instead requiring them to use the veterans services office.

“We were trying to ensure that military recruiters had full and complete access to our students, but we also were trying to protect our anti-discrimination policy,” she said, explaining recruiters still had access to students through the separate office.

Pressed by Sessions, Kagan said, “I do oppose ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’” Sessions cut her off, saying, “And you did then.”

“And I did then,” Kagan said.

Kagan added that she reveres and honors military service, but Sessions said her position is “unconnected to reality” because of her actions against recruiters.

Overall, Kagan came across as confident and assertive, gesturing with her hands as she spoke and referring easily to case law when making points. She repeatedly assured the senators that she would be an impartial judge, saying her past political work was required of her government jobs.

If confirmed as expected by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation’s highest court.

CNN’s Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Kagan, senators to square off again

Kagan pledges open mind, impartiality

Washington (CNN) — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation’s highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise “nothing less than a fair shake for every American.”

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is “to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint,” Kagan said.

“I will make no pledges this week other than this one — that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons,” she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. “I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law.”

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation’s highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama’s first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee’s seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan’s judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan’s qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Video: Kagan faces a jury: The Senate

Video: What’s ahead for Elena Kagan?

Fast facts: Elena Kagan

5 big issues to watch for

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is “a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women.”

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

“While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases,” Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan’s experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

“Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?” asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?”

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a “drift net” for any disqualifying fact in Kagan’s record, saying the GOP effort failed.

“I believe you are eminently confirmable,” Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan’s lack of judicial experience by saying: “Frankly, I find this refreshing.”

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court’s shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts “palpable.”

“In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit” a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan “a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court.”

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan’s record is full of “warning signs” that she may be what he called a “results-oriented” justice — which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then “appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views.”

“This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan’s work as a Supreme Court clerk,” Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall’s personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

“Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background,” Durbin said.

Kagan pledges open mind, impartiality

Senators signal contentious hearing

Washington (CNN) — Leading senators on the Judiciary Committee signaled a contentious hearing starting Monday on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, with some Republicans saying a GOP filibuster was possible.

Democrats countered that no nominee from President Barack Obama would have satisfied Republicans.

In an exchange on CNN’s “State of Union,” Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey chided Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas over what Menendez joked were unattainable GOP standards.

“I think if John and some of his colleagues in the Republican caucus had 10 angels coming from above swearing that this person was the most qualified … for the Supreme Court, was a centrist and would follow the rule of law and obey precedent, they would say ‘too extreme,’ ” Menendez said.

Cornyn, a Judiciary Committee member, said Kagan needed to prove in the hearings that she was a worthy candidate.

“The burden is on the nominee, and the problem is that Ms. Kagan has a very sparse record,” Cornyn said. “She hasn’t been a judge, which isn’t a disqualifier, but that means we don’t have a judicial record … and her main record is that of a political strategist and adviser in the Clinton White House.”

According to Cornyn, the question is whether Kagan can “take off the mantle of political strategist, political adviser, and assume the role of a disinterested, impartial judge, calling balls and strikes.”

The ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, told the CBS program “Face the Nation” that he believes Kagan has “serious deficiencies” as a Supreme Court nominee.

Sessions cited Kagan’s lack of experience as a judge and what he called her liberal leanings.

“I think the first thing we need to decide is, is she committed to the rule of law even if she doesn’t like the law?” Sessions said.

Pressed about a possible Republican filibuster against the nomination, Sessions said: “It’s conceivable a filibuster might occur.”

Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, responded on the same program by noting that other Supreme Court justices including William Rehnquist and Hugo Black also had no experience as judges before taking their high court seats.

Leahy called Kagan extremely qualified, noting she was the first woman to become dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to be solicitor general in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Kagan is a “brilliant woman” with a “brilliant legal mind” and would become the 112th member of the Supreme Court, Leahy predicted. If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth woman Supreme Court justice.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, noted that Kagan has repeatedly achieved posts previously held only by men, including dean of Harvard Law School.

It was at Harvard where Kagan joined other colleges in trying to block military recruiters because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring openly homosexual service members. Kagan supported the challenge to a federal law requiring that colleges give recruiters equal access or face the loss of federal funding. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law in 2006.

Several Republicans mentioned that topic Sunday as a possible reason to oppose Kagan’s nomination.

“One thing I’m disturbed about was her obvious steadfast and even zealous opposition to military recruiters, to the presence of military on the campus of the most prestigious university in the view of many in America,” Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Cornyn said on CNN that in nominating Kagan, Obama was “trying to get somebody through who has a very sparse record and who he believes will be a reliable vote on the left wing of the United States Supreme Court.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another GOP committee member, said the question was whether Kagan could persuade him she would follow the law despite her liberal political views.

“We’re going to have a challenging hearing, and I think she’ll do well, but she’s going to have to earn her way onto the court,” Graham said on the Fox show, adding: “To my conservative friends, you should expect liberals to be picked by Obama, but you should expect us to our job, and that’s … to make sure she’s qualified and not an activist.”

To Feinstein, Republican opponents have been trying without success to find reasons to oppose Kagan.

“I believe the drift net has been out to find some disqualifying factor and it hasn’t been found,” Feinstein said told the Fox program.

She will bring, I think, a new breath into the court,” Feinstein said. “It will be a mainstream breath. It will not be far right. It will not be far left. It will be in the middle.”

Senators signal contentious hearing

Dems continue to hammer GOP over Barton’s BP apology

Washington (CNN) — A top Democrat kept up the Joe Barton drumbeat Sunday, saying the Republican legislator’s defense of BP last week was an example of GOP ideology that favors big business.

Republicans seeking to change the subject countered that the nation’s focus should be on efforts to stop the Gulf oil gusher and criticized the Obama administration for failing to make that happen.

The statement last Thursday by Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas — which was quickly retracted under pressure from House GOP leadership — provided Democrats an opportunity to deflect growing public disenchantment with how the government was responding to the oil disaster.

Acknowledging the political gift handed to his party by Barton, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the ABC program “This Week” that Barton’s comment and other pro-BP statements by Republicans including Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul would be a factor in the November congressional elections.

“In case you forgot what Republican governance is like, Joe Barton reminded you,” Emanuel said, calling Barton’s comments a “philosophy” that considered BP the “aggrieved party” instead of the oil giant responsible for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

“These aren’t political gaffes — Joe Barton was speaking from prepared remarks,” Emanuel said, calling the comment reflective of a GOP approach that considers the government to be the problem, not BP.

Video: Sen. Murkowski responds to DNC ad

Video: BP’s $20 Billion Fund

However, a statement later Sunday from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans said Barton spoke off the cuff. The statement included what it said were his prepared remarks, which made no mention of an apology to BP or criticism of the fund the company created to pay for damages from the oil spill.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of oil-rich Alaska also challenged Emanuel’s comments, telling the CNN program “State of the Union” that the White House chief of staff was trying to deflect attention away from the magnitude and severity of the oil disaster.

“Let’s not be distracted by saying, you know, Joe Barton made this gaffe or this — this inappropriate comment,” Murkowski said. “Let’s focus on what we need to do, which is getting relief to the Gulf, making sure that they have every asset possible, making sure that we’ve got a claims compensation system that works for them. Let’s focus on providing what the people of the Gulf need, not pointing fingers back and forth and saying, ‘oh, you know, what you said was wrong.’ “

At a House committee hearing intended to grill BP CEO Tony Hayward, Barton instead drew the headlines for an opening statement that apologized to BP over the $20 billion account to pay damage claims that the company created at the request of President Barack Obama.

“I am ashamed of what happened at the White House yesterday,” said Barton, the ranking Republican on the panel. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation would be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion dollar shakedown.”

Democrats including Vice President Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs immediately criticized Barton, and Republicans quickly distanced themselves from their colleague. By mid-afternoon, Barton issued a statement retracting his apology to BP and instead apologizing for calling the fund a shakedown.

Now the Democratic National Committee is promising a television ad focusing on Barton’s comment, and Emanuel made sure to keep the issue alive on Sunday.

Murkowski and her Republican colleague Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, both criticized Barton’s comment, with Shelby calling it a “dumb mistake” and declaring on the CBS program “Face the Nation” that his party believed the oil disaster was a “man-made incident, a big mistake” by BP.

“They tried to do it on the cheap, I believe, made some shortcuts and they paid for it, and now we paid for it,” he said of the massive oil leak. Shelby also invited two of the Republicans cited by Emanuel — Barton and Paul — to visit the Gulf Coast region and witness themselves what is happening.

However, Shelby also added that Barton “only spoke for himself — that is not mainstream Republican thought.”

On the same program, though, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said Barton’s comment was “illustrative that the oil industry rules the roost.” He noted that senators from major oil-producing states were trying to prevent the chamber from voting on a bill that would greatly increase the liability of oil companies for damages from spills.

Dems continue to hammer GOP over Barton’s BP apology

Gulf oil spill: BP worried about its own bid to capture more oil

By

Mark Guarino,