So, what you will see on that link occured some 26 years ago. On my last diary, I thought Murtha should resign after viewing it.
It's quite troubling. You have a man who has served the country and demonstrated leadership - especially on Iraq. But then you have this issue of ethics.
I think Republicans could say great things about Tom Delay - and to his credit I'm sure he has done something good in his political career (I'm just not aware of it). But in the end, Delay is was crook.
Here you have kind of the opposite scenario. Murtha apparently started out early in his career tempted (and in my view suckered in) by bribes. Is there any question of his behavior in later years? I don't know. Aside from this discusting display of unethical behavior in the video, I have no other reason to believe Murtha is unethical. However, the video is that troubling that it is tough to erase from the mind.
I was first going to equate this to Senator Byrd. In his younger years he was in the KKK. He has since apologized for that - and I believe he is sincere. He has been a good Senator and I wouldn't ask him to resign because I truly believe that people can change - and that he has.
In the case of Murtha, there is no resolution to this old problem. It is a wound that is festering. So you can't equate it to Senator Byrd. There has been no apology, or acknowlegdement of misjudgement (that I am aware of).
The least Senator Murtha could do is say "I made some very bad decisions when I was a young member of Congress regarding ABSCAM, and I apologize". But he hasn't.
This is the first in what will probably be a handful of curruption charges that Democrats must deal with (Jefferson being next). How will Democrats deal with this? Will they act like Republicans did and sweep it under the rug? Or will they address it like true leaders?
Because this occured so long ago, politically I think Murtha can survive if he does the right thing. There are steps he can take to redeem himself - but they won't be easy.
Republicans lost this election because they forgot about their core values. The same can happen to Democrats. If you learned anything from Republicans let it be that you stick to the high road. Stick to your core values.
If you know Regnery, and I think you may, suggest that he respond to the 1976 Madison WI police report (and later news reports) saying his wife's allegations that she was sodomized, raped and sliced up right before the election (in Al's one and only political run for office) were probably untrue and it likely was an inside job.
Here's one recent racap -- most of the stories are so old as to be offline -- I've seen them though in print. [note--spacing errors in original document online]
Others' Dirt More Fun For Publisher
Capital Times :: Local/State :: 2A
Saturday, November 27, 1999
Doug MoeALFRED REGNERY is still not very forthcoming when it comes to hisMadison years.
Regnery -- whose name popped up recently in the notorious LindaTripp-Lucianne Goldberg tapes -- is a conservative and controversial bookpublisher who earlier this week had lunch at an Irish pub in Washington, D.C.,with a writer named Adrian Havill.Havill was recalling the conversation on Friday. He is the author ofbiographies of Christopher Reeve, Jack Kent Cooke and Woodward and Bernstein.A Washington magazine, Capital Style, has assigned Havill a profile of Regneryfor its January 2000 issue.During lunch this week, Havill, who is of the opinion that Madison isground zero for liberalism in America, asked Regnery, who came to Madison inthe late '60s, ``Why Madison, of all places, for someone like you?''
``Law school,'' Regnery said. ``It was a good school.''
Regnery is news today because he publishes books with a political agendathat also make money. Most political books read like party platforms and sellthe same. Regnery's titles -- he brought out Mark Fuhrman's book on O.J.Simpson, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich's whack job on Bill and HillaryClinton, and former ABC reporter Bob Zelnick's critical bio of Al Gore --advance the conservative line but also sell, probably because they tend towardthe seamy. Aldrich's book detailed pre-Monica Lewinsky White House sexual highjinks.
Regnery is considerably less enthusiastic about looking into his owncloset. This week Havill asked him about a 1985 Penthouse magazine articlethat detailed, among other things, Regnery's 1976 run for Dane County districtattorney, an unsuccessful race that included a bizarre episode in whichRegnery's wife, Christina, seemingly fabricated a tale of being assaulted bytwo intruders into the Regnery home in Verona.
``We were having a very affable lunch,'' Havill said. ``But when I brought(the Penthouse piece) up, his body language got very defensive. He crossed hisarms in front of him.''
Havill called me Friday and asked, ``Is there any doubt that she fabricatedthe assault?''
Not really. After graduating from law school here in 1971, Regnery joinedone of the city's most venerable law firms and in '76 ran for districtattorney on a tough on crime platform against Jim Doyle, now Wisconsinattorney general. Late in October, days before the election, Regnery toldreporters that his pregnant wife was receiving obscene phone calls. Then onNov. 1, both daily newspapers carried reports of the assault. Within fivedays, the authorities announced their investigation had been discontinued atthe request of the family.
Regnery lost to Doyle and left Madison the next year to join RepublicanSen. Paul Laxalt's staff in Washington. In 1983 President Ronald Reaganappointed Regnery to head the federal office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Protection. (The other finalist was Brown County Judge PatrickCrooks, now on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.)
Regnery's appointment was highly controversial. He'd once had a ``Have youslugged your kid today?'' bumper sticker on his car. A Madison pediatrician,Dr. William Yaliato, in a letter to U.S. Sen. Bill Proxmire, said Regnery wasemotionally unfit for the job and called him ``a danger to the health needs ofour children.''
The false attack was resurrected; Doyle said the only reason Regnery wasn'tcharged with filing a false report was it would have looked like Doyle was``going after my opponent.''
Regnery was confirmed but quit the juvenile office in 1986 just before ascathing New Republic expose on his administration of it. He turned to thefamily business of book publishing and he has been, financially anyway, asuccess.
Slick Washington magazines now want to do stories on him, and there's therub. It's so much more fun when the dirty laundry hanging out there belongs tosomeone else.
There's a little more here: http://www.madison.c...
And a lot more in a Penthouse Magazine article from 1985, recapped here:
WARNING! The Penthouse recap contains verbal depictions of violence that even adult readers may find disturbing.
I think the kind of character assassination Al Regnery does is morally repugnant; and I think he should finally come clean to what looks like a real crime he participated in.
I have a RIGHT to be outraged when I see such a display of corruption. Have you bothered to watch the video?
I got my information from MuckRaker.com which is a non-partisan site. Until a few days ago I had no knowledge of the Murtha scandal - but now I do and I don't like what I see.
I don't know about Regnery. But I have no problem with going after corruption - which is a major reason I opposed Harris Miller (the lobbyist) because I thought he would be influenced by big business.
Democrats should make it their mission to out every corrupt member of Congress. I don't care what party they are in.
Murtha may indeed be a war hero - but that doesn't give him some free pass for unethical behavior. If you are bribed, a crime has occured. You have an obligation to report it. Period.
Democrats got my vote this time for one reason - I felt they would clean up the mess created by Republicans (or at least try), fight for economic justice, and fight corruption.
You can't let ethics charges go unanswered. The circumstances surrounding this video have not been addressed adequately as of yet.
Maybe 26 years of time buys him something - but he needs to acknowledge his mistakes. Any independent thinking person watching this would immediately feel uncomfortable with what is going on.
Here is what troubles me:
MATTHEWS: But did you smell corruption in that conversation?
MURTHA: Sure. I saw these guys were trying to corrupt me and trying to...
MATTHEWS: ... Did you think they were legitimate emissaries for an Arab big shot or did you think they were...
MURTHA: They were the slimiest guys I’ve ever seen.
MATTHEWS: Well why didn’t you walk out of the room the minute you met them?
MURTHA: Well listen, they said they were going to invest in the district.
(Me again) This is exactly why we need reforms. Why do members of Congress sit down with people they themselves view as "slimy" yet they won't spend the time to talk to constituents? Murtha went on to say:
MURTHA: .... I deal with people like this all the time. I wanted to find a way to move towards a negotiation to investment.
Doesn't anyone see the slippery slope with dealing with crooks? Murtha says he deals with people like this all the time. WHO???? Tell Us!!! Shouldn't you be exposing people you view are crooks Senator Murtha?
Any member of Congress has an obligation to report - and hopefully shame - people who attempt to bribe them. I think every member of Congress should put a live webcam in their office. When it isn't dealing with national security or a personal constituent issue, shouldn't the public be able to see the work of their elected officials? I think Americans should be able to listen in on every meeting with corporations. What do they have to hide?
If I were elected to any office - I would promise to shame anyone who attempted to bribe me and I would testify at their trial. If Murtha gets bribed all the time, why isn't he reporting this!!!
Okay, you may not be a Regnery confederate -- just know that he tries to swiftboat any Democrat of prominence he can -- and in my opinion he is a very troubled, corrupt, evil man -- who supprted Allen by the way
So why haven't the authorities gone after Murtha?
I suggest because there's nothing here. They did prosecute people in ABSCAM as I recall
My guess is that they thought they couldn't get a guilty verdict. He was dancing all over the lines of ethics in the video. But he couldn't quite bring himself to take the cash.
I think he had inner-conflict about it. Which is good - at least he didn't bite the big piece of cheese. But in the end he still left the door open to be bribed. I don't know the circumstances and if he had time or not, but he didn't report it either. He just danced around the issue too much for me, so I felt he was corrupt at worst and unethical at best.
It just leaves serious doubt in my mind. This Regnery fellow may in fact be a bad person - and use lowball tactics - I haven't followed him.
And for the record I can't stand George Allen. Good riddance George.
Murtha told them point blank (at least twice) they did not need to spend any money to get the guys into the country --but that if they wanted to invest in his district that was fine too
The only reason the lefties like Muckraker are interested is that they wanted Hoyer
However, would you say it raised some ethical questions? I believe it did. The entire conversation was just discusting for me to listen to without feeling uncomfortable. I listened to the entire 55 minutes. The back and forth was almost surreal.
But really, there is nothing there that is prosecutable. And I don't even think unethical.
In an ideal world -- he might have said -- "Is this a bribe? If it is, I'm calling the FBI" -- etc. and etc. (Which would not get him anywhere because then it's a case of he-said, she-said.)
And you know what, very few people do that -- because it is a common human reaction to defuse situations. You steer the conversation in another direction. Because actions always have collateral consequences.
Here's an example. I have a close friend who was propositioned by her supervisor on a business trip. What should she have done? I think she did the right thing. She said "no thanks," and never reported him. It was never spoken of again between the two. Was it a perfectly ethical resolution? No. But the collateral consequences would have been tremendous.
I think we all make ethical compromises, all the time. And let me underline the word "all" in both uses. That does not mean we are bad people, but we're just living in an imperfect world. When I used to go to church preachers often dealt with similar issues. We were supposed to be "fools for Christ" but at the same time keep a job and raise the kids.
If the Repugs thought there was an iota of a chance to nail Murtha on this old tape, they would have done it when Murtha called them on Iraq.
Sorry for any aspersions I cast about trollishness.
I agree - we all have ethical lapses at some point. The difference here is the magnitude of the ethical lapse. I haven't read the transcripts - I expect it would be rather bland - almost like a poorly written novel. But when you watch and listen to the video - look at body language and tone of voice - you begin to hear the complete message. Also, it became clear that he was fully aware of his buddies involvement later in the video.
Who was the guy sitting next to him? That is Murtha's guy - or someone he came with. I wonder if he was ever charged because he was clearly dirty. He knew about the others. Also, he essentially said that Murtha would take the dough, he just wouldn't come out and say it.
My hunch is that Murtha smelled a rat. I think in the back of his mind he thought this may be a setup, so he was treading carefully. I really wish he would tell us the entire story because only he knows what he was thinking at the time.
The video is almost like a fictional movie. I mean really - it is very dramatic. The figures are just so interesting. You have Murtha - the swaggart Congressman who cusses like a sailor and is talks like he controls the rotation of the Earth. You have his companion - who looks like he came straight out of the Godfather or pals with Tony Sopprano. Then you have the "corrupt representative of the sheik" who is really an FBI agent. Quite a story. The very last "scene" is cool - the FBI agent lights a cigar - and in his mind probably doing a victory dance. I think he thought he got him.
All these things do stink. I agree with PM that the actions from 29 years ago didn't appear to violate any laws, but they were certainly highly questionable--it was definitely unethical. Don't know about the legality of the more recent activities.
Ultimately though I see two questions here:
1. Should Murtha resign from the congress?
2. Should Murtha be put in a position of responsibility by his colleagues?
In reference to the first item, I say leave this question up to the judgment of the voters from his district.
In reference to the second, it's my belief that Murtha should pay a price and that his colleagues should not reward his actions.
It's gives me a degree of confidence that the members of his caucus voted for Hoyer in place of Murtha.
To your points,
1) should Murtha resign?
I will hold judgement - time will tell. Initially I believed a crime may have occured. Now I am not so sure. Suppose it was criminal what he did back then - there is also the issue of statute of limitations. I just don't know this area of the law well enough to know if a crime occured, and if it did could it still be prosecuted. If charges are ever brought against him for this, then he should resign. It's been 29 years so I really don't expect that he will ever be charged.
That said, I think Murtha owes some sort of explanation as to what occured. I think he should acknowledge that he crossed the lines of ethics, apologize, and then we can move on. I don't think I can ever trust him with leadership unless he at least takes responsibility for his past. Americans are naturally forgiving - in fact I think we respect people more when they apologize for past mistakes.
I have skeletons in my closet. I fully expect that if I ever run for office, they will come out. And I will be accountable for things I did when I was age 19. I don't want to talk to people about it, but at some point I will have to. It is part of politics - something that is required to gain confidence from people.
2) Should Murtha be in leadership
I agree with your take on this - meaning a leadership role just isn't appropriate. I think he can still redeem himself and one day move into leadership, but certainly not now. Until he finally takes ownership for past mistakes - you know "man up" - I won't think as high of him.
As to the recent issues, I haven't heard of them until just now. So I haven't been able to form an oppinion on that.