Ethics and Official Misconduct

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Parole Denied for Native American Activist Convicted in 1975 Killings

      by

      Supporters say Leonard Peltier, 79, was unfairly blamed for the deaths of two F.B.I. agents in a shootout with activists.A Native American activist who was convicted of killing two federal agents nearly 50 years ago has once again been denied parole, the U.S. Parole Commission announced on Tuesday. The decision came despite decades of complaints from supporters that the activist, Leonard Peltier, did not get a fair trial and was unjustly convicted.Mr. Peltier, 79, was given two life sentences for his role in a shootout between activists and F.B.I. agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975 that left two agents and an activist dead. His health has greatly declined in recent years, after multiple bouts of Covid-19, a stroke and an aortic aneurysm.Mr. Peltier’s supporters — who over the years have come to include members of Congress, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, former members of the prosecution and the judge who originally sentenced him — say that F.B.I. agents coerced witnesses in the case and that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence.“Obviously, they deserve justice,” James Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said of the families of the federal agents who were killed. But keeping Mr. Peltier in prison, he said, “is not justice.”Supporters of Mr. Peltier have tried repeatedly over the years to win his release through parole or through a presidential pardon or commutation of his sentence.In a letter to the Justice Department in 2022, Christopher Wray, director of the F.B.I., firmly opposed granting Mr. Peltier clemency.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Will Lewis Is Said to Have Used Stolen Records as Editor in U.K.

      by

      Years before becoming the Post’s publisher, Will Lewis assigned an article based on stolen phone records, a former reporter said.The publisher and incoming editor of The Washington Post used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles as journalists in London, according to a former colleague, the published account of a private investigator and an analysis of newspaper archives.Will Lewis, The Post’s publisher, assigned one of the articles in 2004 as business editor of The Sunday Times. Another was written by Robert Winnett, whom Mr. Lewis recently announced as The Post’s next executive editor.The use of deception, hacking and fraud is at the heart of a long-running British newspaper scandal, one that toppled a major tabloid in 2010 and led to years of lawsuits by celebrities who said that reporters improperly obtained their personal documents and voice mail messages.Mr. Lewis has maintained that his only involvement in the controversy was helping to root out problematic behavior after the fact, while working for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.But a former Sunday Times reporter said on Friday that Mr. Lewis had personally assigned him to write an article in 2004 using phone records that the reporter understood to have been obtained through hacking.After that story broke, a British businessman who was the subject of the article said publicly that his records had been stolen. The reporter, Peter Koenig, described Mr. Lewis as a talented editor — one of the best he had worked with. But as time went on, he said Mr. Lewis changed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Clarence Thomas Took Other Trips on Harlan Crow’s Jet, Documents Show

      by

      A congressional committee released documents showing that Justice Clarence Thomas had not disclosed three private jet trips paid for by the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.Justice Clarence Thomas never disclosed three trips aboard the private jet of the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to documents obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee released on Thursday.The documents, obtained by Democrats on the panel, list three visits that have not previously been reported: one to a city in Montana, near Glacier National Park, in 2017; another to his hometown, Savannah, Ga., in March 2019; and another to Northern California in 2021.The purpose of each trip was not immediately clear, nor was the reason for their omission on the justice’s disclosure forms. However, all of the flights involve short stays: two were round trips that did not include an overnight stay.The revelation underlined the extent to which Justice Thomas has relied on the generosity of his friends over the years and the consistency with which he declined to report those ties.Justice Thomas has said that he had been advised he did not need to disclose gifts of personal hospitality from friends who did not have cases before the Supreme Court.The announcement is all but certain to fuel the fight over greater transparency at the Supreme Court. Lawmakers’ efforts to require that justices be held to ethics standards similar to those for the executive and legislative branches have faltered. And even as the court, under immense public scrutiny, announced its first ethics code in the fall, experts immediately pointed out its lack of an enforcement mechanism or penalties should a justice have violated it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Block Supreme Court Ethics Measure Pushed by Democrats

      by

      Democrats made what they knew was a doomed attempt as they faced pressure from the left to do more to try to hold the court accountable.Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Democrats to quickly pass Supreme Court ethics and transparency legislation they had pushed forward in the wake of disclosures about justices taking unreported gifts and travel and other ethical issues surrounding the high court.The unsuccessful outcome was predetermined, but represented an effort by Senate Democrats to show they were pressing the case against the court. It was also aimed at demonstrating the limits of their power given the narrow divide in the Senate and deep Republican opposition to Congress taking action to impose stricter ethics rules on the justices.“The ethics crisis at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is unacceptable,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in calling for the measure to be approved. “It is unsustainable and it’s unworthy of the highest court in the land.”Republicans assailed the bill as a naked effort by Democrats to undercut the court because of ideological disagreements with its decisions, particularly with major rulings about to be handed down. They accused Democrats of trying to intimidate the justices.“Let’s be clear: This is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who lodged the objection to taking up the bill. “This will be an unconstitutional overreach. This would undermine the court’s ability to operate effectively.”The move by Democrats came as progressives have been ramping up their demands for more aggressive action in the Senate.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’

      by

      Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards. “Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      U.A.W.’s Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Its Leader, Shawn Fain

      by

      The court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.A court-appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the United Automobile Workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, Shawn Fain, and two U.A.W. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties.The monitor, Neil M. Barofsky, also accused the union on Monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested.The union declined to comment.The assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in Michigan about Mr. Barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after Justice Department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges.That process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership — balloting that elevated Mr. Fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year.One matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary-treasurer, Margaret Mock. In February, the union’s international executive board voted to support Mr. Fain’s move to strip Ms. Mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report.Ms. Mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      House Ethics Panel Looks Into Nancy Mace’s Use of Reimbursement Program

      by

      The committee will decide whether to open a formal investigation into expense reports filed by the South Carolina Republican.The House Ethics Committee has begun reviewing Representative Nancy Mace’s use of a reimbursement program for lodging and other expenses of Congress members working in Washington, according to a committee member familiar with the preliminary inquiry.Following a complaint, lawmakers are being asked to look into whether Ms. Mace, Republican of South Carolina, overcharged the program thousands of dollars for expenses related to her Washington townhouse. According to the lawmaker familiar with the preliminary inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it, the full committee will consider the details of the complaint over the coming days.The committee has not taken a vote to authorize an investigation.A change to House rules that went into effect last year allows members to be repaid for costs of lodging and food while they are on official business in Washington, up to $34,000 a year. Lawmakers are not required to submit receipts to be reimbursed, but they are strongly encouraged to keep them for their records.According to the latest report by the Committee on House Administration, Ms. Mace was repaid more than $23,000 in lodging costs in 2023. Documents reviewed by The New York Times showed that amount included expenses for insurance, taxes and other monthly bills related to her townhouse. Lawmakers who own homes in the Washington area — as is the case for Ms. Mace — may not seek reimbursement for mortgage payments.Under the program, lawmakers may only request reimbursement for their portion of housing costs incurred while in Washington. But according to the deed of her home and a person familiar with Ms. Mace’s personal expenses, she is a partial owner of the home with her former fiancé, and would not be permitted to seek repayment for the full costs associated with the shared home.The discrepancies in her filings were first reported by The Washington Post, which noted that Ms. Mace was among a number of lawmakers whose total reimbursements were near the program’s maximum.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Allies Assail Conviction With Faulty Claims

      by

      After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty, he and a number of conservative figures in the news media and lawmakers on the right have spread false and misleading claims about the Manhattan case.After former President Donald J. Trump was found guilty of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, he instantly rejected the verdict and assailed the judge and criminal justice system.His loyalists in the conservative news media and Congress quickly followed suit, echoing his baseless assertions that he had fallen victim to a politically motivated sham trial.The display of unity reflected the extent of Mr. Trump’s hold over his base.The former president and his supporters have singled out the judge who presided over the case, denigrated the judicial system and distorted the circumstances of the charges against him and his subsequent conviction.Here’s a fact check of some of their claims.What Was Said“We had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. There’s never been a more conflicted judge.”— Mr. Trump in a news conference on Friday at Trump Tower in ManhattanThis is exaggerated. For over a year, Mr. Trump and his allies have said Justice Juan M. Merchan should not preside over the case because of his daughter’s line of work. Loren Merchan, the daughter, served as the president of a digital campaign strategy agency that has done work for many prominent Democrats, including Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign.Experts in judicial ethics have said Ms. Merchan’s work is not sufficient grounds for recusal. When Mr. Trump’s legal team sought his recusal because of his daughter, Justice Merchan sought counsel from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which said it did not see any conflict of interest.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More