Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Him Now

Wonkette:

More from the Admirable Candor Department - Wonkette: HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, speaking before a group of minority executives in Dallas, had this to say about his interaction with an applicant for a government contract who voiced opposition to the president:

[This contractor] made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something -- he said, "I have a problem with your president."

I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I don't like President Bush." I thought to myself, "Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary."

He didn't get the contract.... Why should I reward someone who doesn"t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe.

Wow. We had a hard time believing Secretary Jackson actually said these things (although his honesty is refreshing)...

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach him now.

Comments

[Ginger Yellow]

While it's deplorable, I still can't figure out why the potential contractor brought Bush up.

[pgl]

Wonkette continues noting that it may be Sec. Jackson who is the problem in this particular instance. OK, George Bush did appoint this sleaze ...

[anne]

The point, of course, is a chilling warning to be careful, be awfully careful before you criticize the President. Quite a chilling threat.

[Cranky Observer]

Are people in the W Administration now required to use "heck of a" in every paragraph as well?

Cranky

[Jim Harrison]

I'm not responsible for the contractor's behavior, which, in any case, was unwise rather than illegal. I do feel some responsibility for the behavior of my government, however, even though I've opposed this bunch from the get go. This case is just another one of the thousands of ways George Bush has made me ashamed to be an American.

[Cranky Observer]

Are people in the W Administration now required to use "heck of a" in every paragraph as well?

Cranky

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not to bring an excessively legal perspective to this, but is what the Secretary did legal?

[anon]

Not sure this is an impeachable offense, but whatever....

[bakho]

Rove's Rules. Duh

[modus potus]

I suspect that beneath the level of political appointees, there is a broad (albeit not universal) dislike for Bush by those in government, especially in those agencies whose function has been perverted by his administration. It could be that the staff the contractor had been dealing with had signaled their own distaste for Mr. Bush, and the contractor naively assumed that the secretary, if not of like mind, at least was tolerant of the view.

[PaulC]

What I'm missing here is any sense of process. How do you get one of these contracts? On this one guy's say so?

If I had to guess what happens, I would imagine you make proposal and a bid that goes to an independent committee with some knowledge of the services being bid and their market value. The committee would screen out the best proposals, hopefully making some attempt at quantitative comparisons. Beyond that it probably would get a little subjective and murky when choosing between finalists.

But how exactly did this conversation make it into the process? Or is there really any process at all?

As for his "honesty", that's being generous. It sounds like his purpose in making this statement "before a group of minority executives in Dallas" was to issue a threat, plain and simple.

[Derelict]

This is perhaps the clearest, most forthright statement of the administration's view of "governance." As Jackson's speech clearly implies, the purpose of government under Bush is not to administer programs. It is not to act in the public interest. It is not, at the department and agency level, to fulfill their legislated mandates.

Rather, the purpose of government is to reward friends and punish those who are not friends. (Enemies must be crushed--there is a difference.)

Thus does our whole government become entirely dysfunctional.

[kvenlander]

Nice contract you have there. Would be shame if anything happened to it...

[ccobb]

The Republican mind in a nutshell:

"Logic says [fill in the blank]. That's the way I believe."

Truthiness in action.

[ilsm]

7 USC 631 is the Hatch Act.

This appears to be an offense. I believe the FBI should be on the trail.

But there is a little thing about enforcing any inconvenient laws.

After all the public office is public trust and I get to spent my Daddy's trust fund anyway I want!

[Ian Whitchurch]

Congratulations.

The United States of America is now officially a Banana Republic.

Ian Whitchurch

[WatchfulBabbler]

(I'm moblogging, so if this is disjointed, my apologies -- cellphones are not the best devices for long comments.)

From the remarks, it sounds like this was an FSS contract on GSA schedule 541, conducted under FAR part 8.4. FSS contracts avoid the normal bid requirements of FAR Part 15, but they are competitive bids, not exempted from judicial review under 7 USC 702 or administrative review by GAO under 4 CFR 21 (see also FAR 33), and decisions cannot be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." (7 USC 706(2)(A)) (Successful challenges have been mounted against FSS awards, but they're rare.)

Federal contracting isn't my world, but Jackson's acts certainly appear to be a breach of the government's implied duty to consider bona fide offers fully and fairly, his decision being "arbitrary and capricious toward the bidder-claimant." (Keco Ind. v. U.S., 492 F.2nd 1200, 1203 (Ct. Cl. 1974)) From a quick review of the relevant statutes, regulations, and cases, I'd argue that there's very likely a civil breach of duty here, but as I've said, this isn't my world -- federal contracting is extremely byzantine. Any procurement experts around?

Internally, I think these sorts of things fall under the GSA OIG's Office of Investigations, and it would be interesting to hear what their take would be. Not that GSA is exempt from partisan hackery -- just remember the recent case of David Safavian at OMB OFPP for his acts at GSA.

As for individual penalties, we're talking 5 USC 7323(a)(4)(a): "an employee may not ... knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who has an application for any compensation, grant, contract ... pending before the employing office of such employee." The penalty is removal from office under 5 USC 7326. Seems like it might apply -- anyone got any case law dealing with this kind of situation?

[WatchfulBabbler]

I should point out that the act of telling the "he hates Bush and so I didn't give him the contract" story before an audience of federal contractors could also be a Hatch Act violation, depending on the fact pattern.

[Neil']

Curiously, Republicans are energizing their base and trying to energize moderates by scaring them that Democrats will get into hearings, impeachment, etc. The CW MSMites and watery Democrats are saying that will backfire (taking the Repiglies at fasc value.) But that's exactly what Dems ought to do!

[christofay]

The side of we're a nation of laws is on it:

HUD Man

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called on President Bush to ask for the immediate resignation of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson if a report about government contracts being awarded based on the contractor's opinion of President Bush are accurate. In addition, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) have also called for a full investigation...read on

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[dilbert dogbert]

Maybe this is not a real story. Maybe there was no contractor who said he had "problems" with bush. Maybe it was a cautionary tale that hinted that the the contractors in the room had best open their wallets to the rethugs in the upcomming elections??
If so was the speach an indication of law breaking or just normal rethug thuggery. That rove guy is one smart cookie.

[ilsm]

Federal Supply Schedule, covers all contracts.

Problem is no one in this administration follows the law.

Lose of rule of law is a bad thing and a usual thing in this giovernment.

Also remember the no bid DoD contracts to Cheney.

Plenty of laws no enforcement.

One rule for the king another for the commoner.