Ethics truce?

[AndyA]

I read this in an article on CNN about John Conyers, and I found this interesting:

Sloan now heads the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In the case of ethics, she said neither conservatives nor liberals on Capitol Hill are held accountable.

"That's because there's an ethics truce, " Sloan said. "Both parties will deny this, but there is in fact a truce that's been in existence since 1998. And under the terms of the truce nobody will file a complaint against a member of the other party."

Former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas, briefly broke the truce and filed a complaint against Rep. Tom DeLay after suffering an electoral defeat as a result of a redistricting plan engineered by DeLay.

If this is true, it could explain a lot, like why, for instance, the Democrats aren't challenging the illegal activities of the Republicans, including Bush and Cheney. Could it be because the Dems have dirty laundry as well?

CNN Conyers story

Edit: Added link to full story.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Hum ... makes one wonder what "all those illegal wiretaps" may

have been focused on.

Everyone has skeletons in their closet. However, members of congress, especially those who hold Security Clearances, should NOT be able to be blackmailed! It doesn't matter, depending on the job, if your gay or have "stress related problems" and must take medication. The PRIME factor regarding on whether or not you can be trusted - to be a LEADER, it being up front and unable to be blackmailed.

Therefore, if there is corruption, let's weed it out, regardless of the party involved. However, I have a strong inclination, since the Republicans have been "in charge" for the most part since 1994, the VAST majority of the pay-offs and cronyism will be on their side of the aisle. After all, no-one wants to buddy-up to the weaker side. :P

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Who knows what they revealed.... check this out all you lawyer

types....

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=9yYoNoiS10&Content=754
ABOVE THE LAW: Bush claims the right to spy on everything, including attorney-client conversations



Synopsis

CCR President Michael Ratner discusses the disclosure by the office of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the NSA domestic spying program may include spying on communications of attorneys with their clients. This article was originally published by Salon on March 31, 2006.

Description and Status

It's hard to remember how shocked Americans used to be when their presidents broke the law. In a 55-page letter sent on March 24 the Senate Judiciary Committee, the office of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales brazenly asserted that President Bush had every right to secretly order the National Security Agency to engage in warrantless eavesdropping for what it called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." On the last page, after he essentially refused to answer most of Congress' questions about the illegal program, which had been revealed in December ("It would be inappropriate to discuss in this setting the existence or nonexistence of specific intelligence activities"), Gonzales let slip a bombshell. "Although the Program does not specifically target the communications of attorneys or physicians," his office wrote, "calls from such sources would not be categorically excluded from interception."

[Dr.Phool]

3. There has been a truce since '98

I thought it was pretty well known. Guess I was wrong.

It's as simple as this. If you're dirty, I don't give a flying fuck what party you're with. You're outa here.