Ruh roh: Tlaib “frantically” asked campaign for personal money; ethics probe announced

From Fox News: The House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses — and, a government watchdog said, possibly violated federal law in the process.

The document dump was related to the committee’s ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be “expanded” based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Additionally, the Ethics Committee acknowledged for the first time on Thursday an investigation into Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings concerning a “personal relationship with an individual employed in his congressional office.”

Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.

In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She continued: “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one time payment of $5k.”

In another email, on April 4, 2018, Tlaib wrote: “I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.”

“With the loss of a second income to lean back on,” she wrote. “I am requesting $2,000 per two weeks but not exceeding $12,000. The cost of living stipend is going towards much needed expenses due to campaigning that includes car maintenance, child care and other necessities. Please let me know if I can proceed.”

In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff Ryan Anderson at 6:38 a.m.: “Sorry for the early text but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general. Trying to get out of debt.”

“I think we definitely afford to do so. But we need to really clearly define your time and space,” Anderson responded, noting that the arrangement could arouse “concern” among the media.

The OCE also attached scans of checks made out to Tlaib from her campaign, totaling thousands of dollars.

Talib’s lawyers said in August there was no evidence that she violated the law on purpose or otherwise, and insisted there were no bad intentions. They noted that Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations permit campaigns to “pay limited salary to candidates who curtail outside employment to focus on their campaigns” in certain limited conditions that, the lawyers said, were met in this instance.

The attorneys went on to say it was “most irregular” for OCE to call for a probe into a member of Congress based on pre-election activities, and argued that there was no “conscious disregard of any law or regulation.” Tlaib was paid by her campaign after Election Day, the attorneys conceded, but they asserted that the money was for services performed before Election Day.

But Tlaib’s campaign committee, Rashida Tlaib for Congress, allegedly “reported campaign disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes,” according to a release from OCE that unanimously recommended the Ethics Committee investigate Tlaib.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GRIZZ
GRIZZ
8 months ago

Absolutely nothing will happen to her.
Aoc was busted for same damn thing.
Barr is just like lil Jeff sessions and dimmicrat are unprosecutible.
Only Republicans go to jail

cogitoergosumantra
cogitoergosumantra
8 months ago

Talib’s lawyers said in August there was no evidence that she violated the law on purpose… there was no “conscious disregard of any law or regulation.”

Ignorance of the law is not a defense (“Ignorantia juris non excusat.”)

I’d just submit that she’s an idiot.

William
William
8 months ago
Reply to  DCG

Because intent is impossible to prove or disprove. I was cited for parking in no parking zone. I contested it, saying I didn’t intend to break the law. It didn’t work for me, I was fined anyway. The law is the law. But laws are for us little people

cogitoergosumantra
cogitoergosumantra
8 months ago
Reply to  William

I had that happen to me once. It turned out to be a handicap parking spot but I’d never been there during the day and didn’t see the sign (painted on the ground long ago). I went before the judge and she let me off with court costs instead of the “mandatory” $250 fine. So I guess ignorance may sometimes *mitigate damages*… I think it depends on the judge too. Or attorney, or jurors, or the weather… BTW that was nearly 40y ago; $250 was a LOT of dough for me then. Actually, it still is, but I’m sure the… Read more »

William
William
8 months ago

My lady has a disability placard that she finagled and I got used to parking in disabled parking spaces. It comes in handy, we get to park right next to the door at crowded restaurants for instance or free at State properties. I don’t worry about the ethics of it, I’ve helped a lot of people get disability benefits and the majority of then are anything but disabled. Everybody is “disabled” now anyway but it now means too fat to walk

Dr. Eowyn
Admin
8 months ago
Reply to  William

“I’ve helped a lot of people get disability benefits and the majority of then are anything but disabled”

Why would you do that? That’s wrong, and I know you’re better than that.

William
William
8 months ago
Reply to  Dr. Eowyn

Many of them were ex-convicts with severe trauma histories and explosive “anger issues”, and consequently unemployable. Without some kind of income they would quickly revert to criminal behavior. Which was their choice, and I always emphasized personal responsibility, but whatever pittance the government doled out to them was more than compensated for by the money saved on incarceration and/or hospitalization. That was the essence of my job, saving The State money by keeping people out of jail and hospitals. So what I meant was most of these people were able bodied but for various reasons unable to work, which is… Read more »

William
William
8 months ago
Reply to  Dr. Eowyn

To further clarify, helping people get SSI was simple pragmatism. A violent ex-con with a subsistence income is less dangerous than one without. It doesn’t solve the problem, just buys time. My first instinct has always been to help, but I’ve at least learned to distinguish altruism from pathological altruism. I’m still generous by nature, if someone is hungry and I have food I’ll share it with them. But now conditioned by the full understanding that my “righteousness is as rags”

William
William
8 months ago

One thing about this new crop of leftard congresscritters, they do provide some entertainment value. But utterly bereft of class or refinement or dignity. Like this shrieking lunatic Tlaib. The guy shouting “you’re an animal” – I highly approve. Rashida Tlaib; the name does not suggest that her ancestors arrived on the Mayflower

Auntie Lulu
Auntie Lulu
8 months ago

I guess my primary question is . . . Do we really want individuals in federal office whose personal finances are so questionable that they are at risk of going under if their campaign finances cannot be accessed to keep them afloat? Would these same people not perhaps have a greater predisposition of being financially blackmailed by others?

William
William
8 months ago
Reply to  Auntie Lulu

The fact that they are compromised and subject to being blackmailed is why they are “selected” for office in the first place. And being anti-American doesn’t hurt their prospects either