Thread: The Latest: Watchdog group seeks immediate probe of Nunes

The Latest: Watchdog group seeks immediate probe of Nunes

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS |

PUBLISHED: April 6, 2017 at 7:34 am | UPDATED: April 6, 2017 at 8:42 am

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the congressional inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election (all times local):
11:25 a.m.

A watchdog group says it believes Republican Devin Nunes (NOO’-nehs) has gravely violated House ethics rules governing classified information and should be investigated immediately.
Jordan Libowitz is spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Libowitz says the group is encouraged by the House Ethics Committee launching an investigation.
Libowitz also says Nunes is did the right thing by stepping aside from the House intelligence committee’s investigation into contacts between Trump associates and Russia.

The group and another called Democracy 21 asked for the ethics investigation after Nunes disclosed last month that U.S. intelligence intercepts had swept up foreign communications of Trump transition team members.
___
10:55 a.m.
The White House is keeping silent on the House intelligence chairman’s decision to step aside from the investigation into Russian interference in the election.

Spokesman Sean Spicer declined to comment Thursday, saying House decisions about committee chairman or their activities are “up to them.”

California Republican Devin Nunes (NOO’-nehs) said Thursday that several left-wing groups have filed accusations against him with the office of congressional ethics.

Nunes says the charges are false, but also that it’s best for the committee that he step aside temporarily from the Russia investigation.

The California Republican’s decision comes amid partisan turmoil on the committee.

Democrats have alleged that Nunes is too close to the Trump White House and can’t lead an impartial inquiry.
___
10:20 a.m.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating allegations that intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes (NOO’-nehs) may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

The full 10-member committee is investigating the allegations, a departure from the usual procedure of having a smaller subcommittee handle a probe, and an indication of the seriousness of the claims.
The California Republican congressman says several left-wing activist groups have filed accusations against him with the office of congressional ethics.

Nunes says the charges are false and politically motivated. But he says it’s in the best interest of the committee to have Republican Mike Conaway of Texas temporarily take charge of the committee’s investigation.
___
10:15 a.m.

Two ethics watchdog groups filed complaints about the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Republican Devin Nunes of California.

Nunes says he’s temporarily stepping aside from the panel’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election because of the complaints.

Democracy 21 and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington say Nunes disclosed classified information, which violates House ethics rules.

The groups say Nunes publicly disclosed information he learned by viewing classified material.

Two of the four people who signed the March 28 letter alleging ethics violations served as White House counsels in Republican and Democratic administrations.
___
10:05 a.m.
Speaker Paul Ryan says Texas Republican Mike Conaway will take over the House investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election.

Ryan says an ethics complaint filed against Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes of California by government watchdog groups would be a “distraction” and that Nunes should no longer lead the probe.

Nunes has come under intense criticism for meeting secretly with White House officials to view intelligence regarding Trump associates.

Ryan says he is confident that Conaway “will oversee a professional investigation into Russia’s actions and follow the facts wherever they lead.”
___
9:49 a.m.
The chairman of the House intelligence committee says he will temporarily step aside from the panel’s probe into Russian meddling in the election.

In a statement on Thursday, Republican congressman Devin Nunes (NOO’-nehs) of California says that several left-wing activist groups have filed accusations against him with the office of congressional ethics.

Nunes says the charges are false and politically motivated. But he says it’s in the best interest of the committee to have GOP congressman Mike Conaway of Texas temporarily take charge of the committee’s investigation.

He says he will continue fulfilling other duties with the committee and wants to talk to the ethics committee as soon as possible to defend himself.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/0...ay-from-probe/

CREW EXPOSED
If you think Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a “non-profit, non-partisan” watchdog group, think again.

In reality, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a left-wing attack dog masquerading as a “non-partisan watchdog.”

An analysis of CREW’s “watchdog” activities reveals a systematic effort to disproportionately target Republicans and conservative-leaning groups with often-frivolous lawsuits, ethics complaints, and petitions for investigations by law enforcement agencies. An analysis of CREW’s past activities demonstrates that it disproportionately targets conservatives by a ratio of more than 8-to-1. At the same time, the corresponding federal oversight agencies responsible for investigating CREW’s complaints indicates that, historically, Democrats have been investigated far more often for ethics violations.

Proof of CREW’s Bias

One of the most visible government ethics groups in Washington, DC is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The seemingly uncontroversial CREW advertises itself as “dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials — regardless of party affiliation — who sacrifice the common good to special interests.”
CREW spends its time filing government complaints and the occasional lawsuit against politicians and interest groups it deems to be corrupt. It claims this is all done in a nonpartisan manner.
The group’s history and activities tell a very different story.

• By every measure CREW has attacked a significantly disproportionate number of Republicans and conservative organizations. CREW’s tactics against the right have also been harsher, with the group waging legal battles against Republicans while issuing press releases against Democrats.
• CREW ignored or underplayed corruption in Congress by Democrats.And when CREW did attack Democrats, it often came after substantial news coverage and law enforcement investigations. CREW rarely went after Democrats at all until its partisanship was questioned in the media.
• CREW is funded by a Who’s Who of left-wing donors. Many of CREW’s biggest funders are left-leaning organizations, including the Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation, and Democracy Alliance.
• CREW’s founders and staffers have been associated with other left-wing associations. CREW employees have previously worked for Media Matters for America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Alliance for Justice, and other aggressive left-wing advocacy groups.
• CREW’s first high-profile campaign was against Republican House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay. According to The Wall Street Journal, “[CREW Executive Director Melanie] Sloan estimates that her group issued more than one hundred press releases, legal filings and reports denouncing the former House majority leader.”
• CREW’s partisanship led one attorney to question its tax status.CREW is classified as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, which prohibits it from supporting or opposing any political party. But CREW’s history and actions clearly demonstrate that it disproportionately targets Republicans.

Findings

An analysis of CREW’s formal ethical and legal actions conclusively demonstrates the organization’s biased agenda. By every measure available, CREW’s claim that it is evenhanded in its treatment of Republicans and Democrats is not supported by its own paper trail. Specifically, an analysis of CREW’s activities in the following six areas demonstrates its bias. This is especially true when compared to non-partisan federal oversight and law enforcement agencies:

• Federal Election Commission: Between March 2004 and September 2010, CREW filed 29 complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), of which 76 percent targeted Republicans or conservative-leaning groups. Yet according to a select list of cases compiled by the FEC, only 40 percent of the civil penalties of $50,000 or more levied by the agency since 1980 were against Republican politicians or Republican Party supporters.
  Source: Federal Election Commission cases in which the civil penalties are $50,000 or greater; 1980 to present.
• Internal Revenue Service: Between October 2003 and October 2010, CREW filed 17 complaints with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) asking for investigations of congressmen and other political organization. All of those complaints targeted Republicans or conservative nonprofit organizations. Yet between 2005 and 2010, 50 percent of political or ideological organizations whose 501(c)(3) charitable statuses were revoked by the IRS were conservative and 50 percent were liberal.
  Source: Internal Recent Revocations of 501(c)(3) Determination, January 2005 to present.
• United States House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Between March 2004 to July 2010, CREW filed 28 complaints or requests for action with the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the House Ethics Committee. Of those, 75 percent targeted Republicans while only 18 percent were against Democrats. The rest targeted both Republicans and Democrats. Yet only 33 percent members of Congress disciplined by the Committee since 1967 were Republicans, while 67 percent were Democrats.
  Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
• Senate Ethics Committee: Between June 2003 and April 2010 CREW filed 23 complaints or requests for action with the Senate Ethics Committee. Of those, 83 percent targeted Republicans and a mere 4 percent targeted Democrats. The rest targeted both Republicans and Democrats. Yet since 1967 the Senate Ethics Committee has only formally expelled or censured 3 Democratic Senators and 2 Republican Senators.
  Source: United States Senate; Expulsion and Censure
• Lawsuits: Between September 2004 and August 2010, CREW filed 51 lawsuits; 75 percent of them were against Republicans or the Bush Administration. Only 18 percent targeted Democrats or the Obama Administration. The remaining targeted both Democrats and Republicans, or were nonpartisan.
  Source: Analysis of CREW’s lawsuits.
• Law Enforcement: Between June 2003 and September 2010, CREW requested 67 investigations by the Department of Justice and other federal agencies and law enforcement officials. This also includes requests for disciplinary action by state bars. Of those, 66 percent were directed against Republicans. Only 10 percent targeted Democrats. The rest targeted both Republicans and Democrats, or were nonpartisan.

Source: Analysis of CREW’s lawsuits.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan claims that her organization filed more complaints against Republicans because theirs was the majority party for many years, making them more prone to corruption. But when Republicans controlled Congress between 1995 and 2007, half of all members of Congress officially sanctioned for ethics violations and three of the four convicted of crimes were Democrats.
CREW’s reports also indicate a bias towards left-wing causes.

In addition to its legal and procedural actions against specific members of Congress, CREW has also published a number of reports that allege corruption. But a review of these reports found several that were biased in favor of left-wing causes or individuals.

• “Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted-And Still Influence-America’s Debate Over Climate Change.” This report laments the fact that there is more support for action against man-made climate change in other countries, but “[h]ere in the United States, this public consensus is sorely lacking.” CREW speculates that this is caused in part “by what the public was reading and hearing from the individuals who managed climate change policy in the Bush administration.” The report goes on to detail how some former Bush environmental officials went on to work for lobbying or government relations firms and energy companies.
• “Criminals and Scoundrels: The 25 Most Corrupt Officials of the Bush Administration.” This report lists 25 Bush-era officials that CREW deems to be corrupt. The organization has never produced a similar report about the Obama Administration, a Democratic-controlled Congress, or any other left-wing institution.
• “Crossing the Line: The Bush Administration’s Efforts to Expand Its Powerful Reach.” This report “details the Bush administration’s repeated constitutional overreaching and abuse of executive power and prerogative.” And yet, even as liberals like Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann criticized the Obama Administration for what they saw as abuses of executive power, CREW has yet to release a similar sweeping indictment against the Obama Administration.
• “CREW’s Worst Governors.” This report is similar to CREW’s Most Corrupt list for members of Congress, but instead targets governors. Nine out of 11 governors on the list are Republicans. This is despite the fact that the report was released in early 2010, when there were 26 Democratic governors and 24 Republicans.
• “CREW’s Most Embarrassing Reelected Members of Congress 2008.” This report lists the ten members of Congress reelected in 2008 whom CREW believed were the most corrupt or dishonest. Seven of them are Republicans and only three are Democrats. This is despite the fact that in 2008, Democrats won 257 seats in the House of Representatives while Republicans only won 178. Democrats also won 58 Senate seats (not including the two independents who caucus with them) while Republicans only won 40.

Who’s Who at CREW

The idea for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was conceived by Norman Eisen and Louis Mayberg, two lawyers who often donated to Democratic causes. Eisen and Mayberg decided they needed a government watchdog to mirror the conservative ethics groups that successfully battled Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Their idea blossomed into CREW, which was born in 2003.
They tapped former Democratic Senate aide Melanie Sloan to run the new organization. Sloan built the group into a major player in the progressive movement, filing numerous charges against the George W. Bush administration and Republicans in Congress. In 2015, she yielded control of CREW to another former Senate Democratic aide, Noah Bookbinder.
In 2014, Clinton machine fixer David Brock was elected chair of the CREW board. Brock runs several SuperPACs and 527 groups with close ties to Hillary Clinton.
CREW’s founders were wealthy Democrats

• Norman Eisen is an attorney and a former partner in the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder. After serving as Deputy General Counsel to Barack Obama’s transition team in 2008, he was appointed special advisor to the president for ethics, and then Ambassador to the Czech Republic. Eisen has donated at least $58,250 to Democratic causes since 1999. He also “bundled” (rounded up money from other individuals) between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama in 2008.
• Louis Mayberg is co-founder and current president of ProFund Advisors LLC, a prominent mutual fund management firm. He’s also a donor to the Democratic Party. Mayberg has donated at least $25,850 to Democrats (and to independent Sen. Joe Lieberman) since 1992.
• Daniel Berger is one of CREW’s Founding Directors and still serves on its Board of Directors. He’s a Philadelphia lawyer with the firm Berger and Montague and a deep-pocketed donor who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats over the years.
• Mark Penn is a longtime Democratic pollster and strategist with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Penn served as Bill Clinton’s pollster for most of his presidency where he became closely involved in policymaking. He also advised Hillary.

To head up CREW, Eisen and company tapped Melanie Sloan. She served as CREW’s executive director since 2003. She was the face of the organization until 2015, when she left CREW to found a public affairs firm alongside liberal activist and ProgressNow founder Michael Huttner. Sloan has a long history working in Democratic politics.
Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), and as Nominations Counsel for then-Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE), Senate Judiciary Committee. She also worked for then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY), on the House Judiciary Committee.
Sloan was confronted about her Democratic activism during an interview on C-SPAN’s “Q&A.” She confessed that she’d been a Democrat in the past, but claimed her time at CREW had reformed her and made her an independent. Sloan is a registered Democrat.
Sloan’s background in liberal and Democratic politics is typical of the CREW staff.

• Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director: Prior to joining CREW, Bookbinder was a staffer for the Obama Administration-appointed United States Sentencing Commission and the Democratic Party staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).
• Matt Corley, Research Director: CREW Research Director Matt Corley previously wrote for the Center for American Progress’s ThinkProgress website. His posts were often dedicated to attacking Republican officeholders and conservative commentators.
• Alison Grass, Research Associate: Before working for CREW, Grass was a researcher for left-wing environmentalist group Food and Water Watch.
• Jordan Libowitz, Communications Director: A veteran Democratic operative, Libowitz was a field organizer for the Alaska Democratic Party in the 2008 election cycle and Policy and Research Director for Pennsylvania Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Sestak in the 2010 cycle.

Many CREW alumni were also culled from left-wing organizations and offices:

• 
  
  • Naomi Seligman is a former deputy director and communications director at CREW. She previously served as communications director for Media Matters for America, a left-wing media watchdog. Seligman left CREW to work with the liberal group Consumer Watchdog, and later worked for shuttered left-wing <acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym> firm FitzGibbon Media.
  • Lida Masoudpour is a former special projects associate at CREW. She is currently working as a media trainer for liberal religious group Auburn Theological Seminary after a period as deputy director at Media Matters for America. Previously, she served as Special Advisor to the President and Managing Director at the Democracy Alliance, a prominent CREW donor. Masoudpour was also a research associate for Hillary Clinton for President and interned in Clinton’s Senate office.
  • Kimberly Perkins is a former counsel with CREW. Before that she was Assistant General Counsel in the national office of the NAACP. Perkins also worked for the National Labor Relations Board.
  • Anne Bowman is CREW’s former Senior Research Associate and Intern Coordinator. Prior to joining CREW, Bowman worked for 3rd Coast Research, a Democratic political consulting firm.
  • Matt Jacob, a former CREW Communications Director, contributed $550 to left-wing U.S. Senate candidate Bill Halter of Arkansas who was challenging incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Democratic Primary. In FEC reports, Mr. Jacob’s listed employer was CREW.
  • Jeremy Miller was CREW’s Policy Director. Before joining CREW, Miller advised Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on banking and health care issues. Miller also worked for various Democratic senators on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, including Fritz Hollings (SC), Daniel Inouye (HI), Paul Wellstone (MN), and Barbara Boxer (CA).
  • Robin Powers, now Director of External Relations at Democracy Alliance-linked campaign finance regulation advocacy group Issue One, was formerly CREW’s Deputy Director. She previously worked for the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group. Powers also interned with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
  • Adam Ratliff was a communications associate at CREW. Before this he held jobs with the Justice Policy Institute (a group dedicated to decreasing incarceration rates) and the Earth Day Network.
  • Dan Stevens was a research associate at CREW and previously worked for Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.

CREW’s Left-Wing Funders

• 
  CREW is funded by a long list of left-wing organizations and foundations. They include liberal foundations, labor unions, and interest groups looking for support from CREW.
• 
  Liberal Mega-Donors
  
  CREW’s principal source of funding is ideologically liberal/left-wing foundations. In 2013 (the most recent year for which complete tax records are available), these groups paid CREW grants equal to 55% of its total reported contribution/grant revenue.
• 
  Among the foundations that have made significant contributions to CREW in recent years:
• 
  The foundation funders of CREW, many of which are members of or otherwise linked with the Democracy Alliance group of liberal megadonors, clearly demonstrate the partisan and ideological alignment of the organization. Among the groups in the Democracy Alliance’s funding orbit is one of CREW’s stablemates in the David Brock liberal group empire, Media Matters for America.
• 
  CREW has been rumored previously to be involved with both the Democracy Alliance and the similar, union- and environmentalist-convened Democracy Initiative.
  Oddly for a group that is outraged whenever a conservative or Republican group obtains confidential funding, CREW reportedly has solicited or assisted liberal and Democratic groups doing just that. Politico reported on a 2010 Democracy Alliance conference that CREW’s Melanie Sloan attended: One attendee told the reporter, “The agreement is that everything that goes on here is confidential.” In attendance were many Democratic donors and left-leaning activists. CREW was also reportedly one of the organizations formally represented at the conference: Sloan refused to comment on her participation.
  
  • The Foundation to Promote Open Society (controlled by liberal billionaire financier George Soros and his family): $740,000 since 2010
  • The Open Society Institute (another foundation controlled by Soros): $150,000 in 2010
  • The Bohemian Foundation (controlled by Colorado Democratic donor Pat Stryker and her political operatives): $850,000 since 2010
  • Gill Foundation (private foundation of Colorado Democratic mega-donor Tim Gill): $608,615 since 2010
  • Dyson Foundation (family foundation of the late Charles Dyson, an FDR Administration official, leveraged-buyout titan, and longtime board member of liberal group Common Cause): $500,000 since 2011
  • Steven M. Silberstein Foundation (run by Steven Silberstein, a Democracy Alliance financier and member of the board of advisers for U.C. Berkeley’s public policy school who made his money in the software industry): $500,000 since 2010
  • Marisla Foundation (environmentalist foundation run by J. Paul Getty oil fortune heiress Anne Getty Earheart): $425,000
  • Leland Fikes Foundation (controlled by Lee Fikes, Texas oilman and major donor to Democrats and abortion-rights causes): $200,000
  • Daniel and Janet Mordecai Foundation (foundation controlled by major Colorado Democratic Party donor Janet Mordecai): $100,000
  
  
• Labor Union Support
  
  CREW receives notable direct support from labor organizations. Under labor law, unions may direct member dues to lobbying and advocacy groups like CREW. Analyses indicate that liberal organizations receive nearly all of unions’ political money.
  Since CREW’s founding, unions have contributed $245,000 to its efforts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, CREW has strongly attacked unions’ foes in politics. CREW’s “Worst Governors” report, written in 2013, features 16 Republicans of its 18 politicians attacked, with the only two Democrats being term-limited Steve Beshear of Kentucky and Andrew Cuomo of New York, who was challenged in the 2014 Democratic primaries for insufficient loyalty to the public-employee union cause.
  Pay-for-Play?
  
  CREW insists that its donors do not play a role in determining its agenda. But the organization has attacked politicians and organizations that are foes of its contributors—in at least one case taking a position opposed to the Obama Administration and against most liberals.
  For-Profit Colleges: An analysis of tax filings from the Aurora Foundation—the foundation affiliated with late Democracy Alliance member and University of Phoenix CEO John Sperling and his family—strongly suggests that CREW was part of an intricate, hidden web of dark-money advocacy funded by Sperling and coordinated by a Democratic political consultancy in Sacramento as the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress prepared to tighten regulations on for-profit colleges.
  In 2010 and 2011, tax records filed by the “Civic Duty Coalition,” a 501(c) group run by staffers with the political consulting firm Jim Gonzalez and Associates, showed that the group paid $150,000 to CREW. In turn, Civic Duty Coalition received 95% of its total contribution and grant revenue over the 2007-2012 period from Sperling’s Aurora Foundation—strongly suggesting that Civic Duty Coalition functioned as a dark money pass-through entity to obscure Sperling-tied funding of CREW.
  In apparent return for that funding, CREW publicly complained that a financial trader with bets against the for-profit college industry had been allowed to testify before Congress, drafted op-eds opposing the Obama Administration’s new regulations, and filed a complaint against the Department of Education.
  This drew scrutiny from some liberals, especially the American Prospect’sMike Elk. An abortive attempt by then-CREW executive director Melanie Sloan to join a public affairs firm run by longtime Clinton consigliere and for-profit college lobbyist Lanny Davis raised even more questions.
  Herbalife: After Melanie Sloan left CREW to form a secretive public relations firm (Triumph Strategy), The New York Times revealed that Sloan and CREW were involved in an interconnected advocacy network on behalf of the embattled nutritional supplement company Herbalife, which was facing an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  CREW reached out to Herbalife to contribute $40,000 to the group, which was reportedly used to investigate William Ackman, a Wall Street trader who called Herbalife’s business practices into question. While Sloan began going after Ackman while still at CREW, the Times reported that Herbalife had retained her P.R. firm Triumph Strategies as a client. Sloan “made the donation, her colleagues said, and billed Herbalife,” according to the Times. Sloan’s P.R. firm brags that it can “enlist our extensive network of allies” on its website—these allies presumably include CREW.
  CREW kept the $40,000 from Herbalife until the Times sought comment from the organization. The organization said it would return the money after the Times contacted CREW for comment on its report.
  CREW demands that nonprofit groups disclose the sources of their funding, but it hasn’t provided a complete list of its own donors.
  Following the 2010 elections, CREW posted a blog entry on its website criticizing Karl Rove’s fundraising group, American Crossroads, for refusing to release a list of its donors. CREW opined, “This is not a partisan issue—both left and right-leaning groups are reaping the benefits of non-disclosure under the 501(c)4 status and it’s time this nonsense comes to an end.” But CREW itself has reaped the benefits of non-disclosure under its own 501(c)3 status.
  CREW has previously criticized other groups for not disclosing their donors. CREW went after public relations and research firm Berman and Company (a co-author of this report) for allegedly acting at the behest of its funders. (This is, in hindsight, an ironic charge for a group that would later run a campaign against its ideological interests in the apparent interests of its funders and see its executive director join a public affairs firm that gives little public information about its activities.) And CREW filed a complaint with the IRS against the Center for Consumer Freedom, requesting that CCF disclose its donor list. According to the complaint, “We believe that a thorough investigation of the sources of [The Center for Consumer Freedom’s] revenue will disclose the nearly exclusive funding by industry forces for whom CCF does their bidding.” (The IRS’s subsequent audit failed to find any substantive issues with CCF’s tax-exempt status.)
  CREW has never released an itemized list of its donors. CREW officials, including Melanie Sloan, have admitted that certain groups, such as the Open Society Institute, fund CREW. Researchers have unearthed other CREW donors by cross-referencing tax filings and other documents from foundations and organizations. But much of CREW’s funding remains undisclosed.
  http://crewexposed.com/