The latest, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. You see, Mr. Jackson can’t understand how one of his fellow minorities couldn’t like his 
beloved president… so he cancelled his HUD contract. Small problem. It’s illegal.
Jackson, a former president and CEO of the Dallas Housing Authority, was among the featured speakers at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, a national minority real estate consortium.
After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.
“He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,” Jackson said of the prospective contractor. “He 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,” Jackson continued. “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.”
>> Senator calls for Jackson resignation
>> Two Democrats call for HUD contracts probe
>> DNC:
It is absolutely astounding that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would brag about denying a federal contract based on the contractor s opinion of the President. This is another example of the Republican culture of corruption that has engulfed the Bush White House and the Republican-led Congress. The American people deserve an open and thorough investigation into whether Secretary Jackson violated federal procurement laws by taking partisan preference into consideration in awarding contracts, and into what other contracts were unlawfully and improperly steered or restricted to Republican allies. This scandal is another reason why the American people are hungry for change, not more of the same cronyism and failed policies of the Bush Administration.
A. It is not illegal.
B. From the same article:
Under Jackson’s leadership, HUD has gone from close to the bottom to first among the larger agencies doing business with minority-owned companies.
In 2005, 16% of HUD contracts, or about $167 million worth of work, went to black-owned businesses. Hispanic-owned businesses received 7%, or $71 million. That combined 23% is up from 6% in 2000, the year before Jackson was named deputy secretary of the agency.
The bastard. Get rid of him!
…and on certain “preferential” factors…but we’ll stick with the merit thing for the media quote.
Jay C: Douche. Bag.
Love your “It is not illegal.” How exactly does “he didn’t like my president strike you as completely impartial? I’m betting you’ll do some ducking and weaving like the douche you are. But you’re wrong.
Do you have any facts or logic to back up the “not illegal” claim, Jay? Thinkprogress is citing two separate violations; which one are you asserting to be in error?
Jadegold, then if he made the story up, this latest ’scandal’ goes right in the toilet with so many of the other made up ones.
Damn, Garth beath me to it. I need to hit refresh more often.
Jay,
I dunno…I think you’re on shaky ground here…
FAR 3.101-1 (Federal Acquisition Regulation.)
Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct.
I’m no expert on FAR, but in the few years I’ve been dealing with these contracts, I’ve never come across any language that would either disqualify, or debar someone from recieving a contract, or rescind an existing contract, based on what amounts to a person’s 1st Ammendment right to speak freely against his/her government.
You could well be right…it’s just that on the face of it, it’s at the very least, unethical, and at worst, illegal.
JK
Jay, you know that only parents get to use “because I said so” and even then, only with their kids… right?
It’s amazing what Jay Caruso will write or say in defense of his hero, AWOL George.
Of course, Jackson’s actions were illegal.
But what’s more–Jackson’s actions were profoundly stupid. Imagine blatantly breaking the law–then boasting about it to a business group.
Jay Caruso is really that stupid.
He makes an assertion that he steadfastly refuses to back up and then proceeds to ignore several statutes that militate against him.
Of course, Jay Caruso ignores the basic fact in this scandal: Jackson admitted he cancelled the contract because a contractor didn’t like AWOL George. And he boasted about it in front of a business group.
Those are facts.
Now, maybe Jackson is lying–maybe he has nothing to do with contracting in his agency.
But one thing is very clear: Jay Caruso is a cretin.
You can quote all the freaking statutes you want. What Jackson did was not illegal.
Shorter Jay Caruso: Who ya gonna believe? Me—or the legal statutes?
Everybody s a frigging tough guy behind their computer monitors.
None tougher than SGT Jay Caruso of the 82nd Chairborne.
Put the legality issue on the backburner for a second. You really think it’s okay for the HUD secretary to cancel a contract because a contractor doesn’t like/didn’t vote for the President?
You’re really pathetic when you get reared up in the corner, Jay. Unless something is my opinion, I’ve linked to information supporting it. Your assertion that no law was broken currently rests at “because I said so”. I repeat, do you think its okay for a HUD secretary to deny a contract because the person vying for the contract doesn’t like the president? It’s a simple answer. Yes or no.
Oliver, with all due respect, you’ve repeated things ad nauseum that have been proven over and over again that are wrong, yet you continue to repeat it, so your self-righteousness is lame.
JK, I don’t have to “prove anybody wrong” as that is a logical fallacy. You have to prove he did break the law. What he did and the statute in question don’t automatically make the case open and shut and until proven otherwise, he didn’t break the law.
You guys have Jadegold vouching that it was illegal and that’s having an illiterate swearing he can win a spelling bee.
What’s kind of interesting as this latest scandal develops is the way Jackson’s press spokesperson is defending him.
The spokesperson isn’t saying Jackson’s behavior wasn’t illegal, she’s saying he was lying:
WTF? Of course there’s preferential treatment for some. It’s part of the law as currently written.
I don’t, and if this really happened I’d like to see him fired.
You can quote all the freaking statutes you want. What Jackson did was not illegal.
I love it! “Who cares what the law says? It’s not illegal!”
Jay,
Why was it not illegal. You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. You obviously got caught with your pants down, unless you can prove us all wrong.
Everything I know about contracting with the government tells me that retroactive denial of a previously approved procurement contract based on political preference would be discriminatory.
If he had simply denied him the contract and shut his mouth…that’s one thing, but you can’t come out after the fact, and tell the guy he’s biting the hand that’s feeding him.
JK
Hey Garth, go fuck yourself.
Everybody’s a frigging tough guy behind their computer monitors.
You can quote all the freaking statutes you want. What Jackson did was not illegal.
I don’t know whether it was illegal or not, but it sure isn’t the “end of the Republic as we know it.”
Jay…in other words…if you went through the 2,195 pages of the FAR, there are probably dozens of reasons that a contract could be cancelled or rescinded, eg…illegal activity, bribery, non-performance, failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract, etc. Political expression isn’t one of them.
The key here, is that a contract, previously awarded, is being rescinded, without what appears to be any reasonable, compelling reason, never mind due process.
JK
JK, didn’t you read that Jay C already asserted REALLY ANGRILY that “You can quote all the freaking statutes you want”? Do you actually think he’ll respond on the merits? Laws are just liberal tricks - real men govern based on the laws in their gut! And they say freakin!
Now that’s the kind of tepid, pointless, demoralized defense I like to hear, Frank! I bet Jackson is out by the 19th.
Why do people keep quoting this? HUD’s mission is to provide preferential treatment as I’ve already linked. Here’s a direct quote:
Yes, we know in the mythical make-believe you’ve created that minority businesses are on an even keel with well-monied mostly white businesses, but you don’t have to link it twenty times.
At last! Frank gives us the operational legal principle of the Bush Administration.
And without a J.D. even!
“Breaking the law is OK, as long as it ain’t the end of the Republic as we know it.”
I hope we can cite this exciting new legal precedent during the next Democratic administration!
Thanks to JK for looking at my view reasonably unlike the Grand High Exalted Mystic Retard Jadegold. The rest of you need to put away the ‘Law For Dummies’ books and let people who actually know those things make determinations as to whether or not the man broke the law.
I repeat, do you think its okay for a HUD secretary to deny a contract because the person vying for the contract doesn t like the president? It s a simple answer. Yes or no.
No, but that doesn’t mean he broke the law and until somebody actually charges, indicts, and convicts the guy, he hasn’t broken the law and any lawyer worth his salt can take these statutes and twist them around in a hundred different ways.
Yes, we know in the mythical make-believe you ve created that minority businesses are on an even keel with well-monied mostly white businesses, but you don t have to link it twenty times.
Oliver, he’s not saying that and is it not true that Jackson has increased the amount of HUD contracts that went to minority firms by 400% over what it was in 2000?
Specifically, whose contract was rescinded ? Who was it granted by, for how much, and when did Sec. Jackson rescind this contract ?
I want to know how race got into this…
He’s increased it or the number of applicants increased? Who’s to know, but if the answer is supposedly that a Republican administration somehow discovered minorities I’d err on the side of what is plausible.
So you think its okay or not for him to have done what is alleged? I find it interesting the weaseling going on about what is legal but not immoral coming from the folks who impeached a guy over an affair.
Looks like Jay has just discovered that Everyone is Innocent Until Proven Guilty by a Jury of his Peers, and thinks that the rest of us are ignorant of that.
Yo, Jay: nobody here is suggesting that we march the idiot off to prison without trial, but if someone tells you he has committed a crime, it’s okay to say “that’s illegal”.
To say that the man deserrves a fair hearing before he’s condemned is one thing, but to state baldly, as you have done here, that “What Jackson did was not illegal” is the essence of tooldom.
I want to know how race got into this&
Well, Frank, in the first post in this thread, Jay C. brought up the amount of minority contracting done by HUD under Jackson, as if that somehow excused the political loyalty test that Jackson claimed to have applied.
Then, in the second post (and many times thereafter), JWG attempted to deflect blame from Jackson by drawing a bogus equivalence Jackson’s Bushgroupie litmus test and affirmative action contracting.
That is how race got into it. Don’t like it? me neither. So why don’t you tell your fellow wingnuts to get a clue? They won’t listen to me.
Actually, Wilbur, the question was kind of rhetorical.
The post itself is entitled, “Black Cons & The Conservative Cult”
Quaker: You know as well as I do — or you should — that it was William Jefferson Davis Clinton (blessed be his name) that lowered the bar on scandal: “No criminal prosecution, no wrongdoing” was a formula created in the Clinton Error Era.
6:43 p.m.: “A. It is not illegal.”
10:58 p.m.: “until somebody actually charges, indicts, and convicts the guy, he hasn t broken the law”
That’s a long climb down in such a short time and an interesting theory of justice to boot.
I see…I link to the actual policy and get criticized, but others repeatedly quote “with preferential treatment for none” and everyone’s OK with that. What a joke. Reality-based community my a**. If the liberal commenters really believe in preferential treatment, which is the policy of HUD, then they should quit quoting “preferential treatment for none”. You can’t have it both ways. (That doesn’t mean I support HUD aministrators discriminating based on ideology…I’ve already posted against it.)
Once again, you’ve been caught misrepresenting someone’s position without any evidence to back it up. Where did I make ANY claim about equality in the business world? I haven’t because there is no equality.
I only *responded* to the repeated claims by Democrats that business should be awarded contracts “based on merit” “with preferential treatment for none”. This is NOT the liberal position and in fact is NOT the policy of HUD. If you’re going to call yourselves the “reality-based community” then you should practice making comments based on reality.
Jay C bloviated:
“No, but that doesn t mean he broke the law and until somebody actually charges, indicts, and convicts the guy, he hasn t broken the law and any lawyer worth his salt can take these statutes and twist them around in a hundred different ways.”
So you agree that Ted and Patrick Kennedy aren’t lawbreakers? Neither is Bill Clinton, right?
it was William Jefferson Davis Clinton (blessed be his name) that lowered the bar on scandal: No criminal prosecution, no wrongdoing was a formula created in the Clinton Error Era.
Plenty of people said that certain charges against Cllinton were bogus (they turned out to be right), many also said that what he was manifestly guilty of did not rise to the level of impeachment, but *nobody* ever said that perjury, or insider trading, or murder was not illegal. That would be the parallel to what jay is absurdly claiming here.
JWG: there’s plenty of jurisprudence interpreting such statues: “preferential treatment” includes rewarding your friends, relatives and political allies and denying rewards to those who don’t fall into those categories. It doesn’t include limited affirmateve action. It’s easy to see why: the former is an abuse of power for personal benefit, the latter is an attempt (right or wrong) to improve a problem in society. So perhaps you can stop trying to change the subject now.
Yeah, you guys are making arguments based on reality again. You guys all know the liberal bias of reality! So its not fair and balanced, and therefore should be chucked immediately.
Sheesh. {chuckle} What kind of moron brings reality into a political discussion. Gosh.
Of course not…why would “preferential treatment” actually mean what it’s supposed to mean? That would make too much sense. It would also require that people be consistent…they are against “preferential treatment” except when they are for it.
I think you guys glossed over the punch line here, as pointed out by Jade:
The spokesperson isn t saying Jackson s behavior wasn t illegal, she s saying he was lying:
Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for Jackson, told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday that Jackson s comments at his April 28 speech were purely anecdotal.
Either way, pretty much sums up the mission statement of the Bush administration. It’s one or the other. I’m amazed that there are still people out there who don’t smell a rat.
JWG is bloviating about minority-set asides, mostly.
JWG should be informed that the two instances are so different, that no meaningful comparision can, or should be drawn.
In the lead story, here, we have an appointed officer of HUD rescinding a contract based on nothing more than expression of person’s political preference. Like I said to Jay, at best it’s unethical, and worst, it’s illegal and he needs to be fired. To tell you the truth, the guy who felt the need to criticize the President, essentially biting hand that feeds him, should be pistol whipped. However, he does have that right, under the 1st Ammendment, in my view. In other words, he should not suffer adverse effect by the U.S. Government, simply by stating a political preference.
In the second instance, we have a government mandate (law) that a certain percentage of minority groups be alloted federal contracts. That does not mean that the selection of said contract aren’t merit based. Like Affirmative Action, it’s a flawed, artificial solution to the hugely complex issue of race and gender discrimination.
The two scenarios aren’t even close.
JK
You are familiar with the term “jurisprudence” aren’t you, JWG? It refers to the history of judicial decisions that define the inevitable grey areas in the terminology of every legislation.
Both jurisprudence and legislative history determine beyond reasonable doubt that “preferential treatement” in this context does not include affirmative action. This does not mean that affirmative action is not in some sense “preferential treatment”. What it does mean is that this type of “preferential treatemnt” is not what the lawmakers were trying to guard against when they drafted the legisltation. Therefore, affirmative action has absolutely nothing to do with the misuse of his powers that Jackson claims (perhaps mendaciously) to have exercised.
Wilbur,
Very eloquent. Much more so than I could have offered!
JK
Let us try this again …
Specifically, whose contract was rescinded ? Who was it granted by, for how much, and when did Sec. Jackson rescind this contract ?
Let us try this again &
Specifically, whose contract was rescinded ? Who was it granted by, for how much, and when did Sec. Jackson rescind this contract ?
Yes, I know. I’ve merely pointed out the hypocracy that “preferential treatment for none” that keeps getting quoted really doesn’t mean “preferential treatment for none”. It really means “preferential treatment for none of the wrong reasons”.
Buehler ? Buehler ? Anyone ?