Monday, April 11, 2016

Former staffer who instigated House ethics probe says Honda is not unethical

Rep. Mike Honda's future in Congress may rest
on a pending House ethics investigation.
The former congressional staffer who may ultimately cause the end of Rep. Mike Honda’s political career this fall following the past disclosure of allegedly incriminating emails, now says the eight-time congressman is not unethical.

Ruchit Agrawal, who was once employed by Honda’s district office, is known as the whistle blower who first alerted the local press about internal emails that allegedly reveal Honda’s official and campaign office coordinated his re-election efforts in 2012 and 2014.

Shortly after, supporters of Democratic challenger Ro Khanna contacted the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate the allegations against Honda. The result of the investigation is still pending.

In a interview, Agrawal criticized Khanna for seeking a rematch with Honda following his four-point defeat in November 2014. “Is it really the right thing to do to go down this path where you’re going to spend a million some dollars on television, calling a fellow Democrat unethical when you know and everybody knows Congressman Honda is not an unethical person?”

Agrawal added, “ambition is driving the Khanna campaign, not service.”

He also said attention on the so-called “1,000 Cranes” strategy to link certain benefits from the congressional office to donors of the Honda’s campaign was misconstrued by the media. Agrawal said his comment during a 2012 campaign retreat was a generalization that donors typically believe they receive perks in exchange for campaign contributions.

Some Honda supporters had previously accused Agrawal of being a disgruntled former employee intent on aiding Khanna’s cause. However, he expressed admiration for his former boss, calling his time working with Honda a "real privilege."

Listen to the entire interview on this week's East Bay Citizen Podcast


The ethics of a guy who started his career in the Peace Core working hard to help desperately poor people, should not be in question.
The ethics of Ro Khanna are questionable. He is an opportunist, who has done nothing in his life except try to defeat Democrats, besides a brief useless roll in a sincure position a the white house. Khanna may be buzzword compliant but most of the time he doesn't even understand what he is saying to try to please Sand Hill Rd. And the smart folks on Sand Hill don't even support him because giving up a senior member of the Appropriations Committee for a freshman would be a terrible thing for local people.

By MW:

The next to last sentence of this article mentions that some Honda supporters had accused the whistleblower of being g
"a DISGRUNTLED former employee."

Almost every single time a person who is a whistleblower and/or a former employee says something that is perceived to be insulting or uncomplimentary about a bigshot or former employer, the bigshot, former employer, and/or his attorney almost always uses the word DISGRUNTLED to describe the person who is a critic and/or whistleblower.

More specifically, if the whistleblower's comments are accurate, and especially if not even a sleazy lawyer can come up with any lies, garbage, and nonsense that would be very effective in fooling very many people in an attempt to defend his client, then usually the only thing the sleazy lawyer, etc, can do in an attempt to portray the whistleblower as someone who should not be taken very seriously is to describe him as DISGRUNTLED.

In fact if I was a judge handling lawsuits in which a whistleblower was involved, and as part of an effort to make the legal system into a fact finding process, I would not allow the lawyers to use the word DISGRUNTELD in their descriptions of anybody involved in the case.

That would result in the almost total crippling of most sleazy professional pathological liars and common criminals hiding behind law licenses whose two biggest specialties are: one, covering up the truth; and two, intentionally getting virtually everything backwards, sideways, and upside down.

In fact, and as they teach students in law school, describing someone, and such as to a judge, jury, or the general public, as DISGRUNTLED comes under the heading of "POISONING THE WELL."

But then of course among the most important functions of most lawyers include engaging in lying, fraud, and poisoning the well.

In fact anytime there is a really big and important case, there should be two separate trials. At one trial we would allow lawyers to participate, and they would probably bill at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, and perhaps even millions of dollars, for their time.

At the other trial we would not allow lawyers to participate in any way whatsoever. In other words I am willing to bet that virtually any group of ordinary laymen, and even if they were all high school dropouts, would have a much higher batting average at determining the facts and the truth than those sleazy "experts" who refer to themselves as lawyers and as practitioners of the law.

Post a Comment