AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESSMEMBER CHRIS COLLINS

Dear Congress member Collins:

We applaud the Office of Congressional Ethics’ advice to you and the nation regarding the violation of “House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law” in relation to Innate Immunotherapeutics (“Innate”).  We nonetheless remain concerned that you will not voluntarily heed this call for compliance with ethical norms and the law.  We have therefore prepared a short series of general moral precepts to help guide you through your remaining time in office.

 

  • Thou shalt resign from all boards and divest from all businesses that create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

You wrote the section of the “21st Century Cures Act” that relaxed standards for medical device clinical trials.  This advantaged Innate, a foreign medical device company in which you hold a majority stake.  Innate’s value skyrocketed when the bill passed, leaving the impression that you used your office to gain personal financial advantage.  Moreover, you touted this stock to fellow government officials, including former Health and Education Secretary Tom Price, and in so doing raised further insider trading concerns.  It doesn’t matter whether the investment later crashed, or whether the company does “good”, as you have opined.  You directly influenced legislation that benefits your stock portfolio, creating an appearance of impropriety that undermines your office, your legislative colleagues and your country.  

Unfortunately, your behavior worsened when news of your seeming self-dealing hit the press. You doubled down on your “right” to personally profiteer, with little explanation beyond blaming other people.  Last September you went so far as to accept a board position with Innate, making you the only member of Congress to sit on the board of a publically traded company.  That’s not because you’re a savvy entrepreneur.  It’s because most elected officials would not publically engage in such an unseemly self-interested act.

 

  • Thou shalt represent all of thine constituents, not just the ones who voted for you.

 

When, last August, you told a constituent that you only listen to voters who vote for you, you violated the Congressional Committee on Ethics’ precept that “a Member’s responsibility…is to all his constituents equally and should be pursued with diligence irrespective of political or other considerations” (emphasis supplied).

We know that governing for the benefit of all your constituents–even those with whom you disagree–is a significant departure from your current practice, and we know this is why you refuse to have town halls or meet or listen to voters with whom you disagree.  This wholesale prioritization of self-interest over public service is contrary to basic norms of public service.

 

  • Thou shalt not bear false witness against thine constituents, thine press outlets, or thine political opponents.

 

Calling news you don’t like “fake news” is dishonest.  Not only is it untrue and factually unsupported, it undermines our constitutionally protected right to a free press, which is a cornerstone of a free society.  It is akin to shouts of  “lügenpresse” or “lying press” by authoritarian governments.  You do not substantiate your criticism, you simply repeat the words “fake news” in the hope they will stick in the public’s mind, and thereby divert voters from your improprieties.  This is dangerous behavior that destabilizes a cherished pillar of our democracy.  

Similarly, calling your own constituents “outside…leftist extremists” bears false witness against local, civic-minded people who should not be subject to your unsupported, divisive rhetoric.  Moreover, you direct attacks to fellow elected officials. You’ve called Governor Cuomo a thug, a bully and an extortionist.  Worse, you deride 88 year-old NY-25 Housemember Louise Slaughter as the leader of a leftist  “witch hunt” against you.  This divisive language undermines civic discourse and diminishes the importance of facts and reason.

Finally, as noted weeks ago by Bush Administration ethics attorney Richard Painter, it is wrong for you to dismiss the serious allegations of the House Ethics Committee as “partisan politics” and thereby undermine the rule of law and the role of government institutions.  In all of these instances there are significant constitutional and fair-government issues at stake, to which you appear to be oblivious.  We suggest that you avoid further disparaging the Office of Ethics in the same manner you’ve disparaged your constituents, your colleagues and the free press.

CLOSING

We suggest that voters carefully consider whether you should remain in the U.S. House.  We ask Western New Yorkers to diligently work for good government candidates through November 7th of this year.  We believe the 2017 elections can provide the foundation for a return to good government in NY-27 and elsewhere.  Perhaps you’ll surprise us and develop an ethical foundation for your decision-making, or perhaps we will have to elect somebody else.  

Sincerely,

  • Thomas White –Sister District for Western New York
  • Charles Hess – Liberty Union Progressives
  • Alberto O. Cappas – Puerto Rican Committee for Community Justice
  • Ashley Barr – Huddle for the 27th
  • J. Lee Hugar – Stand Up Western New York
  • Samantha Nephew – Citizen Action of Western New York
  • Amber Hainey – GLOW Progressives
  • Dan Beagley – Indivisible for the 27th
  • Ann Maynard – RocAction
  • Miles Gresham – Young Black Citizens of Western New York
  • Heather Hartel – We The People
  • WNYmedia Network   

Related articles

Hope Hicks’ friend wants Trump to know ‘she’s being forced’ to testify against him



It's not clear what longtime aide Hope Hicks might tell the jury in Donald Trump's hush money case, but a close friend made clear that she's not eager to testify against her former boss.

The former White House official could testify as early as Friday, and while she hasn't given details about what she'll say, several sources close to her made clear that she was frustrated and angry about being called to testify — and described the trial as a waste of time and money.

“This feels like something she’s being forced to do,” one former senior administration official who is close to her told the Washington Post. “She still has warm feelings toward the president and a lot of admiration for him.”

The 35-year-old Hicks, a former Trump Organization staffer who was one of his earliest campaign hires, was "in and out" of an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower to discuss the National Enquirer's role in identifying and killing damaging stories, according to testimony from former publisher David Pecker.

The Post also contacted Hicks to discuss the newspaper's impending publication of the "Access Hollywood" story in October 2016, which revealed Trump on tape bragging about molesting women, and prosecutors have alleged that recording played a key role in the decision to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels — which eventually fell under prosecution.

ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser

“She was there for everything, so they are going to ask her questions,” said Hogan Gidley, a friend of Hicks who served as Trump’s principal deputy press secretary. “I know Hope, I talk to Hope, and she wants nothing but the best for Donald Trump and his family.”

Hicks and Trump have not spoken since 2022, when she was called before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, although a former adviser said their relationship remained "cordial."

But the former president and his family were reportedly unhappy with her candor in that testimony.

"[Trump] said something along the lines of, you know, ‘Nobody will care about my legacy if I lose, so that won’t matter — the only thing that matters is winning,'" Hicks told congressional investigators under oath.

The Trump family, especially Ivanka, were especially unhappy with text messages Hicks sent after Jan. 6 that she shared with the committee.

“In one day he ended every future opportunity that doesn’t include speaking engagements at the local Proud Boys chapter," Hicks said in one of those messages.

‘You said you hated it’: Kristi Noem’s latest attempt to spin dog slaughter backfires



South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has come out with a new way to spin her story about killing a family dog that she said she "hated."

In a new tweet posted on Thursday morning, Noem claimed that the news media had taken her out of context when it accurately reported that she killed a 14-month old dog that she described as "less than worthless... as a hunting dog."

"Don’t believe the fake news media’s twisted spin," she said. "I had a choice between the safety of my children and an animal who had a history of attacking people and killing livestock. I chose my kids."

Of course, Noem described her feelings for the dog in a much more personal nature, as former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) pointed out in response to her post.

"What??" Kinzinger wrote. "You said you hated the dog."

Kinzinger went on to accuse Noem of trying to rewrite history.

"Don’t let her get away with this," he said. "She told the story because she thought you would be impressed. Now she’s trying to rewrite it."

ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser

Some other Noem followers also cast doubt on her latest attempt at spin.

"While it hasn't worked for anyone else, Kristi Noem is convinced she can tweet though it," commented The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona.

"As the saying now goes, If you want a friend in Washington, don’t kill your dog in South Dakota," commented national security expert Mark Toth. "Not a political comment. Rather, as anyone who knows me, I am a huge fan of cats and dogs. Noem had plenty of other humane options."

Noem did find at least one prominent defender, however: Disgraced Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who is under criminal indictment on multiple campaign fraud charges.

"A lot of people didn’t listen when I said there was more to the story," wrote Santos. "Again, I’ve been really struggling with the whole situation but, I know Gov Noem and I know she’s a good human being. As I said before non of us are perfect and we all might make decisions we aren’t particularly proud of later… we are flawed because we are human."

Kari Lake earned a senator’s salary for talking and writing: documents



Kari Lake, the probable Republican candidate this year for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, made more money last year just from speaking and writing than she would make as a senator, according to Raw Story’s analysis of her most recent financial disclosure.

That’s $175,000 for Lake — and $174,000 for a U.S. senator.

Lake disclosed the specific terms of her book deal royalty agreement in an amended personal financial disclosure report filed Friday. She reported receiving a $100,000 advance, against 25 percent of net profits from sales, from her book “Unafraid,” released last June.

ALSO READ: 17 worthless things Trump will give you for your money

The Guardian described Lake’s book as a “grievance-packed audition in Lake’s tireless quest to be named [Donald] Trump’s running mate in 2024.”

The Daily Mail says Lake uses the book “to lay out her political manifesto and settle scores, all while describing how she made the move from much loved TV news anchor to one of the county's most divisive politicians.

Kari Lake's second amendment to her financial disclosure report for 2023 includes the terms of her book deal.

Lake’s book failed to reach the level of commercial success achieved by other MAGA-adjacent tomes, including those by members of the Trump family and a roster of Republican senators. The book is published by Winning Team Publishing, which was co-founded in 2021 by Donald Trump Jr.

Lake added the terms of her book deal — omitted in her amended February report and her original January report — as she prepares for Arizona’s July 30 primary.

ALSO READ: Trump-nominated FEC leader: let political donors hide their identities

Lake lost her only general election — for Arizona governor in 2022. She never conceded to Democrat Katie Hobbs after losing the race by more than 17,000 votes. Lake continues to deny the legitimacy of the election, despite losing multiple times in court on the issue.

During 2023, she commanded at least $5,000 — and as much as $15,000 — for each of seven speaking engagements she disclosed between March and September. Only one of the speeches was delivered in Arizona.

Kari Lake's paid speaking appearances in 2023. (Source: U.S. Senate Office of Public Records)

The Washington Post reported recently that Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee, has soured on Lake’s prospects to win the Senate seat this year, despite writing a sunny foreword to her book. Trump has grumbled that Lake could be a drag on his presidential campaign in the key state of Arizona.

Lake’s campaign did not immediately respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

Lake faces Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego in November. Through March, the latest federal campaign finance report, Gallego had a substantial lead over Lake in fundraising.

People wait in line to have their books signed by U.S. Senate candidate and former Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake prior to hearing former U.S. President Donald Trump deliver remarks at The Ted Hendricks Stadium at Henry Milander Park on November 8, 2023 in Hialeah, Fla. (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

Gallego’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) announced in March that she would not seek reelection after leaving the Democratic Party. Polling showed her finishing third against Gallego and Lake in a three-way race that now will not happen because of Sinema’s departure.

BREAKING: Democrats score HUGE WIN in special election

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WAlWr_mU1JQ

‘Swarming in lies’: Scholar panics that latest Trump comments show him ‘dangerously unfit’



Donald Trump's recent sit-down with Time Magazine for a wide-ranging interview under the title "If He Wins" provides clues that he has become increasingly "unfit" to hold office again, according to a professor from Arizona State University.

In his Substack column, author and scholar Steven Beschloss claimed every voter should be alarmed by the former president's answers, including suggestions that he is not averse to violence similar to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot if he fails to win re-election in 2024.

Posing the question over whether Trump is "unfit" to serve in the Oval Office again, he added the former president is now "dangerously unfit."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

Writing that Trump told Time reporter Eric Cortellessa of his desire to "pardon January 6 insurrectionists, deploy the National Guard in American cities at will, give police immunity from prosecution, close the White House office responsible for pandemic preparedness, and permit red states to monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute abortion ban violators," Beschloss claimed Trump's replies should raise red flags about his mental state.

Noting a close reading of the Time transcript reveals, "a deeply untrustworthy man untethered from reality, swarming in lies, absorbed by grievance, unable to grapple with policy nuance and dependent on empty slogans to motivate himself," he added, "None of this is surprising, but when you read through the hours of interview material, you can see just how shallow his thinking is, how unreliable are his pronouncements and equivocations, how utterly ill-equipped he is to confront the complexities of our modern world — and, really, how crazy it is that serious people are forced to take this man seriously."

According to Beschloss, Trump seems to believe "his rejection of factual reality is a badge of honor."

With that in mind, he warned, "It will take more than divine intervention to ensure a man like this never sees the inside of the Oval Office again. It will take all of us — and tens of millions of others who decide that they will vote and do everything they can to ensure the survival of American democracy, the promise of America, basic human decency and the primacy of factual reality."

You can read more here.