- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 39,003
- Reaction score
- 14,344
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The recent allegations outlined four specific transactions. In addition to the payment to Steele's sister, Fabian said that the candidate used money from his state campaign improperly; that Steele paid $75,000 from the state campaign to a law firm for work that was never performed; and that he or an aide transferred more than $500,000 in campaign cash from one bank to another without authorization.
The bank transfer was made against the explicit wishes of other Maryland Republicans, who had hoped to use it to support the campaigns of state legislators, said aides to Steele and former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
You have to admit it is somewhat relevant since Obama has received so much grief over his pick's tax issues.
The claim about the payment, one of several allegations by Alan B. Fabian, is outlined in a confidential court document. Fabian offered the information last March as he was seeking leniency for himself during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges. It is unclear how extensively his claims have been pursued. Prosecutors gave him no credit for cooperation when he was sentenced in October.
...
None of the people interviewed by The Post said they had been contacted by federal agents, and it is difficult to evaluate the extent of the government's inquiry.
In addition, the allegations came from a person who hoped to benefit by trading on the information. Fabian, 44, was sentenced to nine years in prison for swindling millions of dollars from businesses and banks. Prosecutors alleged that a series of frauds totaled almost $40 million.
In the memorandum, Wyda asked the court sentencing his client to "consider Mr. Fabian's willingness to assist the government and, if necessary, to testify against a prominent Maryland Republican and rising star on the national stage as evidence of his good character and efforts to redeem himself."
Fabian also alleged that Steele paid the law firm Baker & Hostetler $75,000 for services that were not provided. The expenditure is listed in campaign finance records as an in-kind contribution to the state Republican Party.
Baker & Hostetler attorney Michael Braden, a former chief counsel for the RNC, said the payment was for services he and other attorneys at the firm provided in challenging legislative redistricting in Maryland in 2002.
The state party paid Braden's firm more than $60,000 between June 2002 and December 2003 to cover "redistricting legal fees," and Braden said the subsequent $75,000 was to cover the balance for the firm's work. Such late payments are not unusual, he said.
In a separate allegation, Fabian described the bank withdrawal. After the 2006 election, an aide transferred the funds that had been raised for Steele's lieutenant governor campaign -- more than $600,000 -- out of what had been the campaign's bank account.
Fabian characterized the transfer as improper because the aide lacked signatory authority over the account. Anderson said it was appropriate because Steele had authorization and the aide was acting on his behalf.
Either way, the transfer strained relations between Ehrlich and Steele.
The money had been raised for Steele in concert with Ehrlich. Much of it, in fact, had been brought in by Ehrlich's team, said a senior Republican fundraiser and as well as a former Steele aide, each speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
Because Steele had decided to run for Senate rather than state office, Ehrlich wanted to turn the money in Steele's state account over to the state party for distribution to legislators, the sources said.
But Steele, who was keeping open the option for a run for governor in 2010, wanted to keep the money in his own account, the sources said. After installing a new treasurer, he had the money transferred to solidify his control, the sources said.
"I think it's fair to say the Ehrlich folks weren't happy," Anderson said. "That's all internal political stuff, but there's no legal angle."
How is it relevant in the very least? Obama is the President. He serves the people. He is nominating other democrats to serve the people and they have tax issues and conflicts of interest. Steele doesn't serve the people. He isn't serving in a government role. Of course I'm a realist and I'm not looking at this through partisan blinders.You have to admit it is somewhat relevant since Obama has received so much grief over his pick's tax issues.
How is it relevant in the very least? Obama is the President. He serves the people. He is nominating other democrats to serve the people and they have tax issues and conflicts of interest. Steele doesn't serve the people. He isn't serving in a government role. Of course I'm a realist and I'm not looking at this through partisan blinders.
How is it relevant in the very least? Obama is the President. He serves the people. He is nominating other democrats to serve the people and they have tax issues and conflicts of interest. Steele doesn't serve the people. He isn't serving in a government role. Of course I'm a realist and I'm not looking at this through partisan blinders.
Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.
If you insist on being led like a todler to reason then I'll indulge you: If the republicans are throwing fits about how corrupt Obama is for picking people with tax problems, then when the leading Republican gets into trouble for fraud/corruption/ethical problems then it is relevant. If for no other reason than to highlight blatant hypocrisy.
This allegedly happened in 2006.
Who was Michael Steele in 2006? Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. A public servant. :roll:
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
And the GOP culture of corruption continues.
Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Sunday that claims he made inappropriate payments to his sister's company for work never performed were untrue and made by a felon trying to get a reduced sentence.
Steele paid more than $37,000 to a Maryland company run by his sister, Monica Turner, for work related to his unsuccessful 2006 Senate campaign. If she was not reimbursed, both he and his sister would be violating campaign finance laws, said Steele.
"It was a legitimate reimbursement of expenses," Steele said on ABC's "This Week."
Oops!
RNC Chief Says Payments to Sister's Firm Appropriate - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com
Looks like some posters on here were eager to jump to conclusions. I guess they see mere allegations are proof of guilt, but only when they are places against the "other side". Let's see how this plays out in the end. If he is guilty of doing what this convicted felon says he did, then he should be removed from his position, no ifs, ands or buts. But since I'm not a Republican and don't have a dog in this hunt, I guess I don't have rose colored glasses altering reality.
I'm very glad to see PeteEU so up in arms and caring about possible corrupt politicians, bad judgement, and faulty finances. It goes right in line with his condemnation of the Obama picks that were tax ch-....
...errr, sorry, got a little confused there. Must've thought it was some OTHER PeteEU that wasn't, what was the word so oft used the past 8 years, "feigning outrage".
Right sums my views up pretty well. The first things hardly look credible, the sister thing would be a shame if its true but there's no real evidence pointing to it being the case. If more legitimate information comes out then we'll see.
There is one hell of a difference in screwing up your tax returns (especially considering how complex the US system seems to be) and deliberately either because the person is stupid or with malice, bypassing and bending election laws for personal financial gain.
STOP IT! You're making sense!So wait, I'm confused. We're not believing Steele when he says these things are untrue, but we are believing the Democrat politicians when they say it was just a little screw up on the tax returns and not intended?
So you think because he said "nuh uh" that everyone jumped the gun? Yes, because politicians NEVER deny wrongdoings... "I did not have sex with that woman".
Michael Steele saying that what he did was appropriate? SAY IT AIN'T SO! In other news O.J. maintains his innocence.
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
And the GOP culture of corruption continues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?