Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ 06) presided over a slipshod office operation with financial oversight so weak that his former chief of staff [appears to have] managed to take home improper, extra pay that violated House ethics rules for years, a newly released investigation found.WHY is that important? WHY is that not really an innocuous (series of) clerical error(s)?
Because it reveals the likely presence of clandestine financial (and political) leverage that compromises Schweikert's ability and willingness to provide honest representation for the legitimate interests of the lawful constituents (voters and other residents of the district he is supposed to serve).
Leverage: of course Arizona Eagletarian readers know what it means, but I provide the reference for emphasis.
n., v. -aged, -ag•ing. n.
1. the action of a lever.
2. the mechanical advantage or power gained by using a lever.
3. power or ability to act effectively or to influence people.
4. the use of a small initial investment to gain a relatively high return.
v.t.
5. to exert power or influence on.
6. to provide with leverage.
7. to speculate in (invested funds) by using leverage.
Arizona Republic political reporter Ronald Hansen's story today provides some of the details of the newly released report of the Office of Congressional Ethics on Schweikert's former chief of staff Oliver Schwab.
Oliver Schwab may have collected $60,000 in outside pay over three years above what House rules permitted, and attended the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale — with Schweikert, R-Ariz. — as part of a taxpayer-paid trip that was reported as official business, the report said.
There were other possible sources of income Schwab had that investigators could not examine during the probe that has dogged the five-term Republican congressman and his operations for more than a year.
Neither Schwab nor Schweikert cooperated with the probe, the report by the Office of Congressional Ethics said. Beyond them, numerous congressional staffers, Schwab's wife and others also refused to participate in the probe.
Apart from the alleged wrongful spending, the 424-page report released Wednesday paints the image of a congressional office simmering with discontent as Schweikert pondered a Senate run — he publicly considered in 2015 a primary challenge to then-Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — and as Schwab took out his frustrations with Schweikert on other staffers.
"David was putting increasing pressure on (Schwab) to raise money because David wanted to run for the Senate," a former deputy chief of staff unnamed in the report who did cooperate, told investigators. "David was basically telling him, 'I need a million dollars if I'm going to run for the Senate.' I think that was weighing on him."
The former staffer said Schwab said: "I hate David and I hate this job," according to the report.
Schweikert is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. The committee's probe is believed to overlap significantly with the matters outlined in the report on Schwab, who resigned last summer, ending the Ethics Committee's jurisdiction over him.
It is unclear when the investigation into Schweikert will conclude.Currently, there are three declared Democratic challengers for the seat Schweikert currently holds. They are Anita Malik (who won the primary to challenge him in the 2018 general election), Stephanie Rimmer (who has run for that seat in the past, but not in 2018) and Hiral Tiperneni (who challenged Debbie Lesko in 2018 for the CD8 seat).
Schweikert and his political advisor Chris Baker have downplayed the ethics problems as mere clerical or bookkeeping errors.
Exhibit 1 (of 4) (the report) presents these conclusions,
- Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Mr. Schwab received income beyond the House’s outside earned income limit for senior staff.
- Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Mr. Schwab made impermissible contributions to his employing Member through reimbursed personal outlays.
- Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Mr. Schwab made expenditures or received reimbursements from the MRA that were not for official expenses.
A number of potential witnesses (such as other key Schweikert staff and Schwab relatives) refused to comply with or declined to respond and/or provide testimony requested by the committee. The report further concludes,
- Accordingly, the Board recommends that the Committee further review the above allegations.
Therefore, As discussed below, fourteen individuals or entities refused to cooperate with this review. The Board recommends the issuance of subpoenas to the following non-cooperative individuals and entities...Links for Exhibits 2 through 4 include transcripts of testimony and other evidence obtained thus far in the investigation.
Much more drama to come. Stay tuned.
UPDATED to embed video from 12News.com Sunday Square Off
No comments:
Post a Comment