Former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth said Thursday that the Justice Department has told his lawyers they’ve decided against a formal investigation into his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff...
Hayworth received $2,250 from Abramoff while representing Arizona’s 5th District, which includes all of Tempe, Scottsdale and Fountain Hills and parts of Chandler, Mesa and Phoenix.
Only $2,250? Maybe this is just direct contributions from Abramoff and doesn't include contributions from his clients. Or maybe this doesn't include contributions to Mr. Hayworth's PAC, T.E.A.M PAC. If one chooses to accept a broader definition of Abramoff contributions, Mr. Hayworth's haul increases by a factor of 20 or so.
Let's see what Mr. Hayworth says about the his plight:
Hayworth made the comments on his radio show on KFYI-AM. He blamed Democrats for focusing on his ties to Abramoff and said the criticism was one of the primary reasons he lost his seat to Democrat Harry Mitchell in November 2006.
It's the Democrats' fault? C'mon. I will humbly suggest that Republicans held him to a higher standard of personal conduct beyond just felonious behavior. That is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, you know.
It is worthwhile to look back in my archives to see how I described Hayworth's Abramoff connection:
April 2, 2006
[Listing plausible candidates for the "Wives Club".]4. Mary Hayworth. Wife of Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Mary Hayworth is the sole employee of J. D. Hayworth's PAC, T.E.A.M. PAC. According to KPHO-TV, T.E.A.M. PAC has paid Mary Hayworth $130,000 while receiving $83,000 in Abramoff-related contributions. I'm sure T.E.A.M. PAC did a lot more than receive money from Abramoff. This means the Mary Hayworth connection is much less direct than the others, but I'm trying to populate my list with plausible candidates.
===
April 17, 2006
[Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he expected six Congressmen and one Senator to go to jail over corruption. I speculated who might be on that list. Former Rep. Hayworth didn't make my top six list. I was called on the carpet for some omissions by a commenter. Here is my response.]Right of Texas takes me to task for omitting Harry Reid (D-NV) as our Senatorial candidate. He was right to do so. I'm trying to limit my list to lawmakers who have been named as being the focus of investigators/prosecutors. Harry Reid belongs on that list. I'll see Right of Texas' Harry Reid and raise him one Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Both were mentioned in this Washington Times article as gaining the attention of the Justice Department. Of course, that means I have to add JD Hayworth (R-AZ), too.
===
April 29, 2006
[Time Magazine looks at Ed Buckham's activities and suggests legal liability for some Congressmen. Again, Mr. Hayworth doens't make my list of suspects, but does earn a mention.]I'm thinking about adding JD Hayworth (R-AZ) if I can become more convinced that Mary Hayworth's connection to Buckham is worthy of "Wives Club" status. I did include Mary Hayworth in my "Wives Club" list for her contacts with Abramoff-linked entities in general.
===
May 7, 2007
[Well after the 2006 general election, I criticized Tom DeLay for ignoring the impact that corruption had on the Republicans' losses. I looked at each Western seat lost and provided an explanation.]AZ-05 (Rep. JD Hayworth defeated)
Wife Mary Hayworth may be worthy of "Wives Club" status. Strong Abramoff influence in this race.
========
I could never really identify just how deep Mary Hayworth's connection was to the Wives Club. I know I never could identify any official action of JD Hayworth that furthered the goals of Jack Abramoff. Nevertheless, I was pleased that Mr. Hayworth lost his re-election bid in 2006. As I said, we Republicans have a higher standard of personal conduct than just felonious activity.
4 comments:
So, you never could really identify an official action that Hayworth took for Abramoff, or "how deep" Mrs. Hayworth was in the wives' club, huh?
Don't feel bad...neither could the FBI!
Care to know why? Because there was no "there" there!
Glad to see that you have a "higher standard" than even the Department of Justice...and apparently, a higher standard than that archaic notion of innocence.
So...you just remain pleased that Harry Mitchell's in Congress as a solid vote for Nancy Pelosi...and that an innocent man is out of Congress. Congratulations!
Anonymous,
I see you are applying the judicial system's "Innocent until proven guilty" standard to an electoral setting. Your position is misguided.
You may not believe this, but sometimes I vote against candidates simply because I have philosophical differences with them. The stench of scandal may not emanate from most Democrats, but I still won't vote for them. Even if a Democratic candidate is innocent of all criminal wrongdoing throughout his life, it doesn't matter to me. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not an electoral standard. Scandal scented Republicans need not ask for my vote, though.
I can understand your anger, though. Democrats often re-elect their corrupt politicians. (Bill Clinton, Bill Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan, for example.) Republicans don't typically re-elect their corrupt politicians. So if you can support JD Hayworth despite his cozy connections to K Street, I can understand why this double standard bothers you.
As for me, I'm comfortable valuing integrity over incumbancy. Hayworth's close connections to Abramoff harmed his integrity. Politically, Hayworth needed to go, and I'm pleased he's gone.
ACR
Furthermore, I also would like to note that I do defer to the Justice Department's position here. While the failure of the Justice Department to prosecute is not dispositive evidence of "innocence" as my correspondent claims, it is pretty good evidence that Mr. Hayworth will not be found guilty.
As I argued in the previous comment, "Innocent until proven guilty" is not an electoral standard. It is a judicial standard. And it is a standard that the Justice Department must follow.
JD was proclaimed innocent by the justice department seems the democrats made that stuff up to put him in office. It also makes me mad that no one tells the truth when the truth comes out. Mary Hayworth was paid... but it was over 10 years time! Not a one time lump sum and she worked everyday for cheaper then what they would have to pay someone else... she should be getting a metal! JD was the last guy left who wanted to save our country from being taken over....
Post a Comment