Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints

Two former aides to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules.

Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in Conyers’s Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memorandums and copies of e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.

In letters sent separately by each woman to the House ethics committee, the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office, they allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. They also charge that some aides illegally used Conyers’s congressional offices to enrich themselves.

Maher decided she could no longer work for Conyers in such an unethical environment and quit in May 2005. Rooks had left Conyers years earlier; she was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 1997 to 1999. Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months and stopped paying her in April 2000.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030106/news2.html

:shrug:

What took the one who left in 99 so damn long? Her suit certainly isn't TIMELY, is it?

They're desperate to get rid of that guy....but they'd better watch it, they may give GOP staffers some ideas down the line...

I read the whole article.. If this is the worst they can find on him than it's pretty pathetic, and that's assuming any of it is true in the first place..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How do you know them?

Interesting how all of my posts form 3/2 were deleted. They attacked nobody (per the rules) and were accurate (as best I could do!) and I think they were a little anti-Conyers, to be honest.

Why protect his illegal activity? Why not cut the cord on this behaviour?

Better yet, why is this board hiding?

I am a little skeptical, but I have an open mind.

When did you work for him and Why did you leave?

I was paid for that purpose, and was reporting directly to Maher in 04 and very beginning of 2005. I would prefer not to give my name, due to the fact that I continue to work as a campaigner whenever I can. I might still work for this office.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My office made me work weekends without overtime pay when we had a proposal due.

Give me a break.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

go after me for racial discrimination. It was ridiculous. My staff looks like the United Nations and we replaced the guy with someone of the same race and sex.

i don't condone it for anyone.

but even so, these alleged violations sound fairly minor compared to some of the blatent rule breaking done by some republicans. i know there is a push to make ethics violations a bipartisan problem on the hill, tho i am skeptical of the republican defense of "see? we're not the only ones breaking the rules!" i mean really, if having a staffer babysit your kids is a violation, then it is, but does it really equate to money laundering, huge favors and lots of money from lobbyists and that sort of violation? it doesn't seem exactly equal, does it? :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Mahers are a political family in Wayne County, mostly in family court. I wonder if Deanna Maher is one of them? I'm not sure what the party affiliation is, because judicial elections in Michigan are non partisan.

Seriously, these same allegations with the same accusers come up all the time. Nothing ever comes of them.

But we shouldn't ignore it. The Bush junta dirt machine is behind it, we can be sure. We just have to find out who, what, where and when.

When are we going to learn about this kind of stuff? How many good people are we going to lose to smears and lies?

Why do we insist on protecting the violators? I do not get it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Deputy Chief of Staff, aiding and abbeting a concicted felon to obtain exit visas, in the Detroit Office of John Conyers, Dec. of 2004, over a period of 3 days (alleged).

Deputy Chief of Staff, aiding and abbeting a concicted felon to obtain exit visas, in the Detroit Office of John Conyers, Dec. of 2004, over a period of 3 days (alleged).

Interesting timing.

Plus Conyers' relentless,continued pursuit of the'04 Election EF.

Conyers is about the most "honorable, and principled" reps' in DC. These allegatons are clearly trumped up by Repugs to attempt and ruin Conyers' renewed term in '06.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ending: "has not taken any legal action against Conyers"

I wonder how much of these accusations would stand inside a courtroom.

It's possible. But, having to do unsavory things for a boss. That happens. Hopefully she did not have to get his coffee.

We do need a better campaign finance system. This type of accusation being another reason.

Read this below

<snip>

Rooks had left Conyers years earlier; she was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 1997 to 1999. Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months and stopped paying her in April 2000.

</snip>


Rooks left in 1999 and it is 2006 and now we are hearing of this.... Reeks of a conspiracy to smear Conyers.... Don't believe this for one moment....

the "paid administrative leave" thing. That's usually what they do to someone who has been accused of wrong doing until they get to the bottom of it. The fact that he quit paying her in April 2000 tends to make me believe she wasn't exonerated...

Mr. Conyers,

They can't touch you.

:loveya:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

And, I'm not a Democrat. :)

Why am I getting my posts pulled?

Cunningham's aides?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow, how's it feel to be stuck in the 1950's? :rofl:

..you won't take email. Ban you? Fuck you.

:rofl:

Hey, did you hear Kindofsleezy granted a visa to some Taliban guy so he could attend Yale?

We could have played a little longer. :(

sign for him now.

He knew the WH would go after him--sad to happen.

I think it was having state employees perform personal errands and doing campaign work from her state offices - - Treasurer or Comptroller - - my memory fails me on this.

A worker turned over the evidence to Ronnie Earle, who brought the charges, but the hand-picked judge wouldn't allow the evidence.

That evidence was on her office computers and the judge wouldn't allow it. Wouldn't allow state-owned computers to be used in the case! Without the evidence, the prosecution didn't have a case.

This is the chief example right-wingers use to try to show that Earle is merely partisan. "His case against KB Hutchison was so weak they had to drop it." they say.

His case wasn't weak. He just wasn't allowed to use the evidence.

....Maher provided a copy of an e-mail from Jan. 13, 2004, written by Dean Christian Thornton, a former staff assistant, who complained that he had not been reimbursed for the cost of gasoline when Conyers “wanted me to use my truck to shuttle him and his kids around and not use his car.”

A former staffer who has worked for two House Democrats said, “This type of behavior is so prevalent, the unofficial duties that members require you to do off-the-record. Most staffers are subjected to this unfair treatment. It’s the great untold story on Capitol Hill.”

A federal judge dismissed a suit filed against Rooks in 1999. Aramark, a catering company, sued Boyd and Rooks because it was not paid for its services for a conference for black farmers that they, at Conyers’ direction, organized. Rooks counter-sued Conyers. While the judge ruled in her favor, her suit was dismissed because she did not appear at a hearing. (Maher has not taken any legal action against Conyers.)

You'd have to be pretty damn gullible to fall for this nonsense. All I've got to say is:

If it has to do with ROOKS it REEKS. ROOKS REEKS. Period.

of MRS. CONYERS being accused of assaulting someone in a bar. It didn't get the mileage they wanted the first time, so they let the story cool for months, then bada-bing! they ran it all over again.

Some of the versions ommitted the fact that the woman who made the claim had attacked someone in the same bar earlier in the evening, and was publicly drunk.

It's clear now _Bush's bunch is out to get Conyers. He has been a thorn in their sides for years, and he's NOT going to go away. Looks like they're trying to remove him through nasty backstabbing and scheming. Figures.

Only goes to show he's on the right track.

John Conyers has children young enough to need baby sitters????

From when Bill C. held office:



Has to be fairly late in WJC's 2nd term. I don't think he let his hair go white until after his re-election.


Edited to clarify the line after the picture.

"he's dirty too, he's dirty too, neener neener neener"

...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Conyers fighting this administration tooth and nail, he should wear these kinds of attacks as a badge that he is doing something right. Won't be attacked if he wasn't. That is how they deal, the only thing bushbots know how to do, attack and smear... even when there isn't anything much to work with. I only hope it doesn't stick, because as one poster said, the stuff against his wife came and went real quick, you can only expect them to keep on trying one thing or another until they find something that will stick. This administration and their pals are the lowest of the low, and even though I know this is what they do, each time I find myself amazed. Keep on fighting, John!!

with saying to the boss: "Tutoring is not in my job description but working for the people is."

??? Speak up women, there is no need to be a go-fer if that's not part of your job and BTW, let a man know right away if he's harassing you to STOP IT.

IIRC, Mr. Kaplan likes to sniff out dirt on Democrats...particularly Democrats like Conyers. I'm going to have to do some searching to see what he's written about Cons.

This should be fun!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jonathan+E.+Kaplan+Republican