Conflict of interests for ranking Democrat on House Ethics Committee
posted at 11:36 am on January 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
This flew under the radar on Friday with all of the attention focused on the crisis in Egypt, but it’s worth revisiting. Linda Sanchez became the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee after the departure of former chair Zoe Lofgren last week, and therefore helps control the actions of the evenly-split panel. That creates a conflict of interest in the committee’s most high-profile case, that of Maxine Waters, whose legal counsel is related to Sanchez’ chief of staff — and who represented Sanchez and her sister in an earlier ethics probe:
Rep. Linda Sanchez has only been the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee for three days, but there are already questions about whether Sanchez has a conflict of interest involving her chief of staff, a top ethics lawyer and the high-profile Maxine Waters ethics trial that looms before the committee.
Sanchez’s chief of staff is Adam Brand, son of top ethics lawyer – and former House general counsel – Stan Brand. The elder Brand is representing Waters (D-Calif.) in the ethics case pending before the Ethics Committee.
Stan Brand, who is widely respected among his fellow lawyers and the media who cover the cases, also represented Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Linda’s sister, in an ethics case involving both women. Linda Sanchez placed three staffers from her sister’s office on her payroll following an embezzlement scandal involving an aide to Loretta Sanchez in 2006. The Ethics Committee reviewed the matter but neither Sanchez was ever charged with any wrongdoing.
There are no House ethics rules barring Linda Sanchez from serving on the Ethics Committee because of her ties to Stan Brand or the fact that she was investigated by the secretive panel, but the overlapping interests with her sister, her top staffer and one of Washington’s most prominent ethics lawyer could certainly complicate things for her work on the Ethics Committee.
How much will it “complicate things” for Sanchez and the panel? It depends on what expectations one has for the Ethics committee. If one expects it to fulfill its mission of ensuring the highest ethical conduct of elected officials and punishing transgressors, then yes, having one’s counsel represent the accused would be as complicated as a trial judge hearing a case where his personal lawyer represents one of the principals. If the expectation is that the Ethics committee exists to provide lip service to enforcement of the rules and take action only when public outrage makes it unavoidable, then a conflict of interest is mainly academic anyway.
Keep this in mind, though, when the new Ethics Committee starts to decide what to do with Maxine Waters. If they let her off the hook without any hearing at all, the connection between Sanchez and Waters’ attorney should be recalled immediately.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Jeff Flake: Yes, it’s true, these Obama scandals have made it easier to pass amnesty


Surprise: Lois Lerner placed on “administrative leave”; Update: Lerner refused to resign?






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
the adults are in charge
rob verdi on April 3, 2013 at 5:22 PM
Smart power.
steebo77 on April 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM
glitches…
is that between not optimal and bumps in the road?
DanMan on April 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM
What? Muslim extremists don’t have a sense of humor?
News to me…
Nethicus on April 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Wasn’t it the US Embassy in Cairo, which began the “we’re so sorry about the anti-muslim film” excuse first? You know, the one that our dear leader and his cohorts used as an excuse to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?
Hill60 on April 3, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2013 at 5:40 PM
The You Tube Benghazi videographer is unable to comment due to prison rules..
hillsoftx on April 3, 2013 at 5:48 PM
Get with the progressive ideal no culture is better than another one so the entire idea of human rights is a sham.
chemman on April 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Blithering idiots.
They have no idea what they’re doing, and wind up doing the worst possible thing: Projecting both incompetence and weakness simultaneously.
novaculus on April 3, 2013 at 6:07 PM
The MoBro are the REB’s people, you can’t mess with them.
slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM
I realize the purpose of The Daily Show, but it’s pretty clear that even behind the jokes, they simply don’t get it. But, of course, they likely all voted for Barack, so intelligence isn’t something I’d highlight as a strong point among the TDS viewership.
Or the US Embassy.
BKeyser on April 3, 2013 at 9:09 PM
As gutless as Morsi. Obama’s grand Middle East strategy in action. What courage! What boldness! All this from that purported multi-dimensional chess player.
Pahhh, what a clueless, idiotic clown.
ss396 on April 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Seems to me that we have had an inordinate amount of “glitches” since, oh, around Jan 2009.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 4, 2013 at 1:03 AM
I appreciate Jon Stewart because while a liberal, he is true to his convictions. I don’t appreciate the U.S. Embassay in Egypt because they are cowards.
Illinidiva on April 4, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Agree. Note how the audience cheers as Jon Stewart’s graphics put a jail around the Fox-News building because they insulted the president.
Also, Stewart doesn’t realize that the Egyptian government is Islamist and it likely is an offence to criticize Islam. Doesn’t he follow the news at all?
virgo on April 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM