* Background from December is here if you need it. Lynn Sweet…
In a politically damaging development for Rep. Marie Newman — locked in a Democratic primary battle with Rep. Sean Casten — the House Ethics Committee on Monday announced it will continue its probe of whether she promised a government job to Iymen Hamman Chehade in exchange for him not running against her in 2020.
The House action follows an Oct. 25 recommendation from the Office of Congressional Ethics — an independent agency — urging the panel to pursue a case against Newman.
The continuing investigation also has serious ramifications for Chehade, who is running in the Democratic primary for the open seat in the newly created 3rd Congressional District. He was suddenly added to Newman’s campaign staff last summer as a high-paid part-time consultant two days after a lawsuit he filed against her was settled, with the terms undisclosed.
Documents released by the House Committee on Monday included the OCE report, which concluded, “there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Newman may have promised federal employment to a primary opponent for the purpose of procuring political support.”
* CNN…
A spokesman for Newman stated that a “right-wing organization filed a politically-motivated complaint” with the Office of Congressional Ethics, adding, “The materials produced during the OCE’s review overwhelmingly demonstrate that the ethics complaint is completely meritless.” […]
Chehade has not cooperated with the board’s investigation, and it has recommended that the committee subpoena him.
* WGN…
An attorney representing Newman told the committee in December that the congresswoman “cooperates completely with the review,” but, that OCE “has prejudged the matter from the beginning.”
* ILGOP…
“In addition to being a left-wing radical and outwardly hostile to taxpayers, add very corrupt to the list of ways to describe Marie Newman,” said ILGOP Spokesman Joe Hackler.
* Crain’s…
In a suit, Chehade alleged that Newman failed to follow through on a promise to give him a $130,000-a-year job as a foreign policy adviser if he’d drop a 2020 primary bid against her. The issue later was picked up by a conservative political group which filed a complaint with the ethics office.
According to the documents released today, the ethics office concluded the allegations had merit.
“The OCE found that Mr. Chehade’s policy expertise was not the only reason she contracted to employ him in the future. Instead, Rep. Newman likely was motivated to enter the agreement to avoid competing against Mr. Chehade in the next Democratic primary,” the office said in its report to the ethics committee. […]
Casten isn’t commenting, but the Republican National Committee sure is, From a statement, “Another day that ends in ‘y,’ another corrupt Chicago Democrat has been caught breaking the law. While voters deserve and demand better from Marie Newman, Illinois Democrats will do as they’ve always done: Sweep it under the rug.”
To my eyes, this looks pretty simple: She signed a contract promising a potential primary rival a six-figure federal job if she won the election. She’s now arguing that “Newman in her private capacity could not bind Newman in her public capacity.” Ridic. It’s kinda like when she claimed that since she announced her campaign first, Casten was running against her.
- Chicago Blue - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:15 am:
I’ve liked Newman as a candidate and was happy that she took out Lipinski, but this looks really bad. Casten is a strong candidate for that district too and I think she should drop out because the Rs have a good chance of winning here depending on inflation & Biden #s come November.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:20 am:
===“Newman in her private capacity could not bind Newman in her public capacity.” ===
That might work as an argument for whether or not the contract was enforceable, but I believe that matter was settled between the two parties of the contract.
Whether or not it is an ethics violation has nothing to do with whether or not the contract was enforceable.
===OCE “has prejudged the matter from the beginning.”===
Newman literally signed a contract that has been submitted as evidence to a court of law. The fact she did this is, well, a fact. Acknowledging the fact is not a prejudice. Representative Newman should just resign instead of forcing her colleges to take action against her and further damage her reputation by repeatedly generating media hits for something that I think could eventually lead to criminal penalties.
- Fav Human - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:22 am:
Casten isn’t commenting,
But I’ll bet in the near future some dark money group sure will, all over TV and social media
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:22 am:
CD showing again why she won the Golden Horseshoe.
- just the facts - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:22 am:
From someone who preaches about transparency and openness, this seems like more than a rookie mistake.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:23 am:
The thing about Newman…
In its rare form in the wild, the unconscious hubris lacking self awareness rarely leads one afflicted with both to good things.
Newman has the twin bill and it hasn’t helped her in all her less than two years in office, and now it seems to have been a problem as a candidate too.
Illinois losing Newman and Mary Miller is better for both Illinois and Congress.
- Wow - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:27 am:
She’s a progressive fraud
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:30 am:
= “Newman in her private capacity could not bind Newman in her public capacity.” =
This sounds exactly like an episode of Seinfeld now.
- Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:35 am:
Hilarious. Are all of the progressives throughout the Chicagoland area going to come to her rescue again? I think not. She’s toast.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:40 am:
=== Casten isn’t commenting, ===
Too busy laughing at Newman right now.
Also, don’t disturb things when your opponent is still digging.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:42 am:
===CD showing again why she won the Golden Horseshoe. ===
That contract caused plenty of water cooler chats. I don’t know if Representative Newman is getting bad advice, or just ignoring good advice, but what she appears to have done is very illegal.
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/600
- Droppin gs - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:47 am:
Thanks for getting rid of Lipinski. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
- Fav Human - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:48 am:
I just realized something. IL has had way more than it’s fair share of corruption.
And yet, with all that over the years, MN has managed to find a totally new way to be corrupt.
Give her credit for blazing a new trail, and implicating another candidate to boot.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:52 am:
==OCE “has prejudged the matter from the beginning==
It’s hard not to have an opinion when Newman’s own stance is “Yeah. But…”
- So_Ill - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:56 am:
Did she really think she wouldn’t get caught doing this? Yikes…
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:56 am:
Rep Newman… you’re 15 minutes are over. Time to fade away… and deal with your legal issues. They are real, you are not.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:06 am:
No one can possibly surprised by more corruption and self dealing in the Illinois Democratic Party.
It is a feature not a bug
- ZC - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:09 am:
>> Pro tip for anyone considering running for elective office - binge watch “House of Cards” and watch “The Distinguished Gentleman”. You’ll learn all you need to know about how politics really works.
No. Don’t do that. Watch “Veep,” much more educational.
- Illinoised - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:12 am:
Hopefully this means “Goodbye, Newman.”
- Bruce( no not him) - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:13 am:
Dang it, 11:13 was me
- Paddyrollingstone - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:13 am:
ZC - No. Don’t do that. Watch “Veep,” much more educational.
You are correct; I would also add “The Thick of It” and “In the Loop.” Just fabulous.
- Paddyrollingstone - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:16 am:
I am loathe to criticize other lawyers but I think I would make an exception here. What was the lawyer who drafted the settlement agreement thinking?
MN has something in common with Blago here. Her word to someone was not good enough (i.e., she couldn’t be trusted to do come through on the promise of a job, so they put in writing(!!))
- MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:20 am:
“Rep. Newman may have promised federal employment to a primary opponent for the purpose of procuring political support”
Quid pro quo?
More like quid amateur pro, amirite?
– MrJM
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:22 am:
This story meets every criterion for why, in general, people have come to the default position of not trusting politicians. I don’t see how anyone can in good conscience defend Marie’s actions or give her the benefit of the doubt. Glad to see commenters here are not willing to do that.
- here we go - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:26 am:
tick tock, tick tock, when does she withdraw?
- Roman - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:26 am:
This was an interesting nugget in Sweet’s story:
“He made the highly unusual demand in his e-mail for him to never have to meet with any representative from the Israeli government.”
This guy is currently being paid by her campaign as an advisor on foreign policy and he refuses to even talk to someone from Israel? Add that to her vote against funding Israel’s “Iron Dome” and this becomes a problem we’ll beyond the obvious ethical breach.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:27 am:
===and watch “The Distinguished Gentleman”. You’ll learn all you need to know about how politics really works.===
The most important lesson from this film in politics is that the controversial issue was the health impacts of high voltage transmission lines, which were blamed with causing a young and passionate climate activist’s cancer and isn’t actually a real thing. High power transmission lines, cell phone signals, now morphed into this 5 g stuff, anti-vax, or whatever bogus health claim you can think of, it is always possible to create congressional action or use it to cause inaction on an issue — especially if you’re a con man that doesn’t take any time to understand the issue and are happy to stand in front of a mob just to gain their support.
In that regard, the Distinguished Gentleman is both a relic of it’s time and an accidental parable for the politicos of our world.
The second most important lesson is name ID.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:37 am:
=“Newman in her private capacity could not bind Newman in her public capacity.”=
So let me get this straight. Her argument is, this isn’t an ethics violation, it’s fraud?
- Newman Withdraw - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:42 am:
Newman should withdraw from the primary. Regardless of possible violation of federal law, she is guilty of grossly unethical behavior. The new IL6th is a swing district- vulnerable to the GOP in November. This inquiry won’t be closed and the GOP will bludgeon her with this- rightfully so. Unethical. Possibly illegal. Horrible judgement. She is unfit for the office she holds.
- Frank talks - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:44 am:
Rod went to jail for 14 years for trying to sell a Senate seat. Newman signed a contract for a political favor. Not exactly the same but there may be an interview beyond the Ethics Committee, unless that may have already happened?
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:55 am:
Maybe Rep.Newman or one of her staff read this blog. I don’t think I’m out of line to say the commenters lean Democrat, and the temperature of the room is COLD.
- Anon E Moose - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 11:58 am:
Is there a copy of the contract online?
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:05 pm:
It’ll be interesting to see how Emily’s List handles this. They had already enthusiastically endorsed her for re-election.
https://emilyslist.org/news/entry/emilys-list-endorses-rep.-marie-newman-for-reelection
- West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:09 pm:
I wasn’t happy with the way Rep. Dan Lipinski was handed his job by Rep. Father Bill Lipinski, and would generally vote against him in the primary. (Would always vote for him in the general, having an Illinois Nazi for an opponent made that one particular election an easy no-brainer.) But when Newman came along there was just something offputting about her, so I went Lipinski both times. There were some questions about her business and just other things that OW expressed better than I ever could. Even though we know she did call dibs, for the sake of ensuring a Democrat get elected she should withdraw - unless she gets removed or charged first.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:09 pm:
-“right-wing organization filed a politically-motivated complaint” with the Office of Congressional Ethics, adding, “The materials produced during the OCE’s review overwhelmingly demonstrate that the ethics complaint is completely meritless.”-
Well all the independent reviewers that matter so far seem to disagree. So, what else you got?
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:10 pm:
===Maybe Rep.Newman or one of her staff read this blog.===
I’ll one up you. The CapitolFax comment section is the only place that one of her staff could truly express their opinions on this issue.
The best staff in the world can’t force their principle to listen to them.
- West Randolph - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:25 pm:
Did Chehade advise Newman on her Iron Dome vote? At least Marie did not buy domestic votes with foreign aid.
- low level - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 12:46 pm:
It begs the question - why she didnt just give him the job that was originally promised?
- Because I said so.... - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 1:03 pm:
“I would like Mr. Lipinski to have a very painful evening,” she added. “So we are going to wait.” Marie Newman, March 21, 2018.
While I voted for her in that election, that line has stuck with me as she displayed her true character.
Karma Marie, karma.
- low level - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 1:27 pm:
As I always say, beware when the independent “reformers” come calling.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 1:37 pm:
=why she didnt just give him the job that was originally promised?=
My own conclusion? Arrogance.
- Nick - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 1:41 pm:
Congressional staff don’t make that much money especially in the House. My guess is that, unironically, she couldn’t afford to hire him at the rate she promised.
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 1:51 pm:
==why she didnt just give him the job that was originally promised?==
Because the demands he made were so exceptionally outrageous that a senior member of leadership couldn’t have possibly met them, let alone a freshman. It was obvious neither of them had ever stepped foot in a House Office Building before signing that.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 2:16 pm:
Newman seems to be adding to her difficulties. Her lack of humility certainly doesn’t help. Maybe if she would simply say, “I didn’t know what I was doing” she could move past this. But instead she goes on the offensive when the facts clearly aren’t in her favor. Not a good look.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 2:38 pm:
===The best staff in the world can’t force their principle to listen to them.===
The principal was there, but the principle wasn’t.
- Just Another Anon - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 2:58 pm:
A bold strategy. Arguing that you aren’t violating the law because a contract isn’t enforceable is absurd, considering illegal contracts aren’t enforceable in the first place. What’s next, I didn’t violate the law, because when I signed that contract I had all my fingers and toes crossed?
- Frumpy White Guy - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 3:28 pm:
Just wondering, Have the Fed’s have convened a grand jury yet?
- New Day - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 4:24 pm:
Folks are struggling to understand this contract given that it’s essentially memorializing a corrupt arrangement. And the part of Lynn Sweet’s column about how he was going to be the top foreign policy advisor as long as he never had to talk with anyone from a top US ally. So here’s an alternative explanation courtesy of Deep Throat in All the President’s Men. “The truth is, these are not very bright guys and things got out of hand…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5jscR7Vz30
- Phineas Gurley - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 5:48 pm:
I read her lawyer’s response and finished thinking there’s more bad judgment and naïveté than corrupt intent. But in politics the judgment matters too.
- Chicago Political Burnout - Tuesday, Jan 25, 22 @ 10:00 pm:
Marie really thought this dude was gonna carpetbag 20 miles to the southwest and single-handedly tank her chances of election - hilarious