LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

The Making of the “Loretta Sanchez Scandal”

June 2nd, 2009 · 88 Comments

It has been widely alleged that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez has been involved in an intimate relationship with her former military escort and current homeland security and defense lobbyist, John (Jack) P. Einwechter, currently “Of Counsel” at the DC law firm of Greenberg Traurig. So in the name of clearing the issue up for the many readers who come to the blog searching for the “Loretta Sanchez scandal,” I thought that I would get to the bottom of it as best as I could with my research and from information from a source close to the Einwechter family, especially since there is an appearance of a conflict of interest with this particular relationship as it relates to the committees Rep. Sanchez serves on.

In January of 2004, Stephen Brixey sued Loretta Sanchez for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences.” Oddly enough for the Congresswoman’s 2003 Holiday card, Brixey appeared with her and the cat, Gretzky, flexing their biceps. However, as the Orange County Register article covering the divorce explained, “Court filings, which gave no description of specific problems, said the couple have [sic] been separated since Dec. 30. It also noted that BRIXEY had been living in San Diego County for at least three months before the Jan. 15 filing. BRIXEY and SANCHEZ appeared together on her holiday greeting card in December.”

On May 10, 2005, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez wrote a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives indicating that she had legally separated from her husband, Stephen Brixey on October 1, 2003, which culminated in an issuance of a divorce decree on October 18, 2004 in describing her financial disclosures. On November 24, 2003, she claimed an expense for her annual holiday cards with a $3,329 receipt from One Image Photography in Irvine, California, in addition to a December 11, 2003 holiday card direct mailing receipt of $140,574 from Kennedy Communications for this very card that pictured the man she was legally separated from. While her marriage was crumbling, Congresswoman Sanchez chose to deceive her supporters with this costly, “happy couple” card.

A source close to the Einwechter family has communicated to me that Rep. Loretta Sanchez used her position of “public power and trust to pursue a sexual relationship with a married Army officer assigned to escort her on tax-funded official overseas travel beginning in 2003.” While this might not be perceived as an issue, Congresswoman Sanchez was still married at the time, as was John P. Einwechter. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134, adultery is unacceptable conduct.

With all of the violations that one could commit in the armed forces, adultery is probably not a highly prosecutable offense, especially since the victimized spouse would have to testify against the offending partner. One can surmise that the military courts do not want to be backlogged with adultery cases, but what makes this case particularly interesting, as described by my source close to the Einwechter family is that Congresswoman Sanchez is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which has a critical oversight role of the Department of Defense and the US armed forces. Furthermore, the UCMJ states that in determining if adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order “The co-actor’s marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces” can be considered. Serving on the House Armed Services Committee certainly connects Congresswoman Sanchez to the armed forces.

Additionally, at the time this relationship commenced between Congresswoman Sanchez and John P. Einwechter, my source says that he was still in the Army serving as a legislative counsel and later a prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions while still married to his wife Rebecca with whom he has eight children. As a prosecutor, he was tasked with advising military justice matters, and as such, he should have been fully aware of the Article 134 provisions. To add fuel to the fire, John P. Einwechter earned his bachelor’s degree from Cedarville University, a small Baptist college in Ohio. My source also reveals that Einwechter and his wife appeared to be a committed “Christian” family.

By 2005 according to John P. Einwechter’s biography on the Greenberg Traurig website, he had left the Army as a prosecutor and began working at his current law firm. According to the FEC, Einwechter gave Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez $1000 in campaign contributions in 2005, split in $500 increments. His leaving the military made it less likely that anyone would look at his personal relationship with Sanchez, except for one minor thing. He chose to focus his practice on Defense and Homeland Security issues, and Congresswoman Sanchez sits on both the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees. Lobbying can become easier when one’s significant other or spouse sits on the committees that his clients seek to influence.

Since 2005, according the lobbying profile database at OpenSecrets.org, Einwechter has represented Heckler and Koch. Heckler and Koch manufactures firearms that are used by the Department of Homeland Security, again a government entity over which Congresswoman Sanchez has critical oversight. Beginning in 2008, according to the same lobbying profile database, Einwechter has also represented L1 Identity Solutions, which provides face, palm, and iris recognition products used by the Department of Homeland Security. L1 Identity Solutions also provides products to help implement the Real ID Act. The CEO of L1 Identity Solutions is Robert La Penta, who co-founded L3 Communications, a company that makes surveillance and reconnaissance equipment for the Department of Defense and Departments of Homeland Security. L3 Communications was the third top contributor to Loretta Sanchez’s campaign committee in the last election cycle.

The Protective Group is another one of John P. Einwechter’s clients who he has represented since 2006. This company has been awarded contracts in the millions of dollars for armor, aircraft and airframe structural components, and clothing to the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Customs Service, and Defense Logistics Agency. Again, the buyers of goods from The Protective Group fall under the oversight of Congresswoman Sanchez in her role on both the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security Committee.

According to records from The Sunlight Foundation in September of 2007, Einwechter in his capacity as a lobbyist at Greenberg Traurig arranged a meeting with Congresswoman Sanchez on behalf of his client, the Kurdistan Regional Government.

How much Einwechter’s lobbying influences Representative Sanchez is not easy to determine, but having an intimate relationship with a congressional member who sits on two committees related to his work can create the appearance of collusion. In California, when it was revealed that former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s wife Maria was lobbying on behalf of the hospital industry, the California Nurses Association asked that he recuse himself from the health care debate because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. If, in fact, Congresswoman Sanchez and Jack Einwechter are involved in a close intimate relationship, could we ask her to recuse herself from anything related to his lobbying on behalf of clients seeking to do business with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense? I think that it is a reasonable question, especially in a political climate where Sanchez has already been scrutinized because of her ethics in regard to personnel matters and in relation to the thousands of dollars she has accepted from the PMA Group.

In fairness to Congresswoman Sanchez, I have given her office an opportunity to comment on these allegations. She has a history of dodging questions, as evidenced by the time TMZ approached her asking about donations from Hugh Hefner. Additionally, her office did not release a statement about the Caroline Valdez embezzlement case. As in other instances, her office has not returned the calls of bloggers and the requests of a reporter with a news bureau in Dallas regarding this matter. Noted British historian, C. Northcote Parkinson once said, “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.” I believe that may be playing out in this case.

Photo Credit: 2003 Sanchez Holiday Card by One Image Photography & Kennedy Communications, Small Photo taken of Rep. Sanchez and military escort in civilian clothes on an Army Base in Germany circa 2003 (photo has since been removed from the Congresswoman’s website)

Share

Tags: ethics · Fabian Núñez · Government Accountability · Maria Robles · Rep. Loretta Sanchez

88 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Sheila // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:59 am

    Good for you for doing the research on this and posing the hard questions re: ethics.

  • 2 Sheila // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:03 am

    Also, those holiday cards are absolutely hideous. What a waste of taxpayer money.

  • 3 Alisa // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:11 am

    What a well-researched and thoughtful piece, Adriana. I would imagine you will catch some heat for it, both from Sanchez and from Latino groups who think you are attacking “one of our own,” but I want to applaud you for holding our leaders to the same high standards we hold others to. You have courage, and ethics – two things greatly missing in today’s political and journalistic worlds. Well done!

  • 4 Michaelr // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:48 am

    Now you know why Loretta Sanchez doesn’t produce any legislation, or rather any legislation that has merit. She’s too busy spending taxpayer monies, moving her staff back and forth between Linda Sanchez’s offices, and indulging her libido. Now here’s a public servant who gives credence to the analogy that Congress operates on the same principles as a bordello.

  • 5 El Cholo // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Bravo Adriana, for exposing what Loretta Sanchez is.

  • 6 DoctorH // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    You are now a journalist. You are now laboring for the public good. Something Loretta Sanchez hasn’t learned to do yet.

  • 7 Anna // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Re: “A source close to the Einwechter family has communicated to me that Rep. Loretta Sanchez used her position of “public power and trust to pursue a sexual relationship with a married Army officer assigned to escort her on tax-funded official overseas travel beginning in 2003.”

    You’re assuming this allegation is true and you’re asking the rest of us to so the same. This allegation is based on an anymous “source.”

    Is there any proof of an affair?

    How is this different from the anonymous “sources” that Jeffrey Rosen used in his hit piece against Sonia Sotomayor?

    I think there is a conflict of interest if Sanchez, or any member of Congress, awards contracts to their campaign contributors.

    Does Sanchez have the power to award contracts, or the power to influence how contracts are awarded?

    If so, has she awarded any contracts to anyone who has contributed to her? And if she has, is it illegal, or a violation of ethics rules?

    If you’re going to accuse somebody of wrong doing, you have to have proof.

  • 8 Pati Politics // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Anna,

    The author of this blog said that the affair is “alleged.” The author also says “A source close to the Einwechter family has communicated”… Sometimes sources have to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons.

    The author never comes out and says that Loretta Sanchez had an affair. It is repeatedly referred to as an allegation.

    I think that something smells fishy here. Why doesn’t Loretta Sanchez want to confirm or deny that this occurred? She could easily have her Chief of Staff or Comm Director post a comment or statement to clear it up. It isn’t as if they don’t have the internet up on the Hill.

    The author is saying that there is an appearance of conflict of interest. I think that he is leaving it up to you to decide. You are free to contact Sanchez’s office and ask for yourself. If you get an answer, do tell us what they say.

  • 9 Sheila // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Anna, the blog’s author is trying to piece together a story based upon these allegations to connect the dots. This is how stories are often investigated. We can’t say for certain whether this affair occurred, but Sanchez and this lobbyist obviously know each other. I also wonder why she just doesn’t come out and either say that this is untrue or say that it is. Perhaps we could respect her a little more if she came clean to the public. Why do you think she perpetuated that charade with her marriage and those ridiculous Holiday cards even though she was already separated?

  • 10 Professor Y // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Anna instead of attacking the messenger call Congresswoman Sanchez’s office for a comment, some insight. Before you disavow a fair balanced article, call as I did (twice) to ask for a response to the US House of Representatives Ethics Committee current investigation of Congresswoman Sanchez. As CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) website documents our Congressional representative has possibly engaged in other questionable unethical behavior (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39755). Rest assured I don’t care who she rides on a motorcycle with, whether she betrayed her soon-to-be ex-husband that gave impetus to their divorce, cuddles in the arm of a soon-to-be divorced man with 8 children and leaves for her. However when special interest groups pay Einwhecter man to lobby congressional committee members that she just happens to be a member of –it matters.

  • 11 Bearguez // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    That would require a reality check, and Anna doesn’t like to venture out of her reality.

  • 12 Anna // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Re: “We can’t say for certain whether this affair occurred, but Sanchez and this lobbyist obviously know each other.”

    lol

    I bet every member of Congress knows lots of lobbyists. The issue is whether she has violated any laws or ethical rules, and if there is no proof of that, then there is no issue.

    And do you really expect a member of Congress to respond to some chisme on a blog? Give me a break.

  • 13 Pati Politics // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Anna,

    You seem to believe every line politicans give…I dare you to call Sanchez’s office. She works for us, the people, the people who blog…she should be able to answer questions.

    A lot of people didn’t want to believe that John Edwards was having an affair last year. He dodged questions, ignored requests for interviews, etc. Same with Villar, who told us that he has lost weight and wasn’t wearing his wedding ring, and then we learn that he had separated from his wife. I think that the Villar divorce-affair with Mirthala Salinas may have even started as a blog item.

    This gets to the very issue of Loretta Sanchez’s character. I suggest you read the linked evidence in this piece. And then, go ahead and call her office. Let’s see what they tell you.

    And yes, every member of Congress knows lots of lobbyists, but not all of them have allegations of affairs and close relationships with them, or do they?

  • 14 Anna // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Pati Politics:

    I don’t care about the sex lives of these people. I am interested in issues like the economy, the CA budget crisis, the Sotomayor hearings, etc.

    Loretta Sanchez’s Christmas cards, or who she’s sleeping with, or not sleeping with, do not matter to me or have anything to do with my life. In fact, I wish you would stop calling this Latino Politcs, because it’s more like “Latino Chisme.”

    I would love to read about Latino politics!

  • 15 OC resident // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Anna,

    Loretta is one of the “shining” examples of Latina politicians. She’s Latina, in a largely Latino district…I think that she is very relevant to Latino politics.

    Now, as for who she is sleeping with, yes, it would be troubling for her to be involved with a lobbyist who is big into defense (like the alleged lover is). Look at his lobbying profile linked above. Why do you think the border is so militarized or why do you think Congresswoman Sanchez does not come out against the war more forcefully? All of this is very plausible given the circumstances outlined above.

    There are plenty of service people from Sanchez’s district who don’t have the luxury of a high salary and who would face real consequences for engaging in adultery with another member of the service.

    Look at how the story with John Edwards unfolded:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html

    A lot of blog “chisme” that proved to be true.

  • 16 Professor Y // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Anna I chose to believe you are not a part of the switch-and-bait team that seeks to divert our attention from issues of great consequence to arguing among ourselves over whether a blog is a viable information tool. Why don’t you direct your questions listed above to Sanchez’s Washington office? Hey while you are at it ask them to update you on the US House of Representatives Ethics Committee investigation of her. If you get more than the Communications Director’s Ms. Hogan’s voice mail without any follow up to you, please post it here. Cannot guarantee their office won’t hunt you down, deport you the next morning after your call to Tijuana. But the borders are so porous due to Sanchez et al lack of concern, you can return home by noon. Go ahead call!!!!

  • 17 Gustavo Arellano // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Return Adriana’s phone call, Loretta!

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/politics/why-wont-loretta-sanchez-retur/index.php

  • 18 WhatThe.. // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…

  • 19 Red Baron // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Thank you Adriana for a very thorough and thoughtful report. Loretta won’t return your call because the facts about her affair with Einwechter are common knowledge. She can’t and won’t credibly deny that, because she knows that it is the lying, cover-ups and denials that sink the politician in such cases. She knows she can’t deny it because there are too many people with personal knowledge of the situation. You can be sure that if it was untrue, she would be glad to deny it and sue for libel. She certainly won’t call you just to admit it. But I don’t understand her failure to comment on the questions you raise about conflicts of interest. I don’t know anything about that aspect of the affair, but you raise fair questions.

  • 20 To Sheila // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Sheila: whether or not you like Loretta’s Christmas cards, let’s be clear on one thing: they are paid for with campaign donations, not with tax dollars.

    All you need to do is click the link to find that out. Don’t be so lazy.

  • 21 Pati Politics // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    To Sheila (comment #20),

    Hey, campaign donations come from ordinary citizens in many cases. That Rep. Sanchez repeatedly decides to spend $140+ on these holiday cards every year out of the money that her donors give her is outrageous. I wonder how much of her time she spends doing this every year (her time does cost tax dollars).

    I think that in tough times when $140K could hire two mid level professionals or one higher end professional for a year or help put a few kids through college…why would Sanchez continue to spend money on cards that are going to get tossed in the trash? Of what value is that card, especially when she uses it to deceive people about her marriage? So she will spend money sending out tacky cards, but she won’t answer the inquiries of bloggers and reporters? A simple statement about her alleged affair and conflict of interest quandry vs. taking the time for hair, makeup, etc. in one of these holiday pics…gee, I wonder what takes longer.

    Ok, so it’s campaign donations, but we are talking about a member of Congress from a rather working class (to poor) district…what kind of priorities does this show? Why can’t she use her own money for these cards if it is so important to her?

  • 22 Wendy Carrillo // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Well done!
    Investigative Journalism at its best.
    You raise some valid points, her office should take your blog more seriously.
    Maybe they will once the big networks take a wiff at this blog. ..

  • 23 Red Baron // Jun 4, 2009 at 3:17 am

    It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Sanchez treats Adriana with respect, answers her questions simply and honestly, and then moves on, with no one harmed and integrity preserved. But…she is obviously hiding and terrified of the truth. She knows she can’t deny the affair or invoke the law in legitimate self-defense, so she simply runs away. These are legitimate questions and, inexplicably, the OC Register won’t lift a finger to investigate Sanchez. If Sanchez wants our support, she should at least answer our questions. We deserve better.

  • 24 To Pati Politics // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:02 am

    Sheila said the cards were paid for with tax dollars. They’re not. End of story.

    Other than that, no one cares what you think.

  • 25 FormerStaffer // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    You’ve just scraped the surface of all the public crimes of Loretta Sanchez. Congratulations on persevering. As I read all the comments here, I can see there are less and less of her leeches attempting to defend her. Even they know how politically corrupt this Congressperson is, and how useless she is in regards to creating legislation and serving the needs of her constituents. It would be very enlightening to all those seeking the truth if people regularly monitored her expense reimbursements in http://www.OpenSecrets.org

  • 26 Don't // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Hey Anna,
    Guess what! Loretta Sanchez IS a home-wrecking whore. I know this for pure FACT because I am a member of one of the families that she has SHREDDED to PIECES!!! Don’t even think for a SECOND that you know ANYTHING about the real Loretta Sanchez!!! She is a SLLLLLLLLUT!!! Don’t you dare avoid the fact that her personal life has much to do with what she is “doing” in politics. I’d like to know who you really are so I could talk to you face to face. Quit being a retard, “anna”.

  • 27 Professor Y // Jun 5, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    For anyone who doesn’t think who Loretta Sanchez cuddles with is of no consequence go to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=l/
    John Einwhecter is employed (aka lobbying) for the 11th largest top lobby firm Greenburg Traurig LLP (total 111,328,349 earned) on the Hill influence congressional votes.

  • 28 HM_Latina // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:43 am

    Whether you like Sanchez or not, this blogger is making an interesting case that cannot be ignored.

    What is this blogger trying to do: Make politicians accountable. All politicians must be held accountable-regardless of skin color. This piece aims to do just that by asking serious questions that it merits serious answers.

    Loretta’s PR people (I know you are monitoring this blog): Where are you? You should be responding–It’s basic PR 101. In today’s hyper communication environment, you should respond. Are you quietly hoping the story will go away? Or are you thinking no one will read the story?
    Too late, the story (cat) is out of the bag.

    FYI When you google Loretta Sanchez “Loretta Sanchez Scandal” pops up in the search menu’s drop down box-showing that it’s a popular search term.

  • 29 Anna // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Re: “Loretta Sanchez Scandal”

    LOL

  • 30 theKaiser // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Whether Loretta Sanchez believes she is emulating Hugh Hefner with all her pig behavior, and using it to elevate her standing amongst all her colleagues in the Congressional Armed Services committee, can only be answered by Lo-Lo herself. However, this may be too deep of a question for Loretta to even comprehend, especially since Lo-Lo has been a confirmed Hedonist since puberty. Hugh Hefner has managed to turn his lifestyle into a successful enterprise. While Loretta has only used her public office to equate some perverse form of celebrity in her attempt to work her way into Hollywood at the public’s expense. The joke has been on all those voters in California’s 47th Congressional district who thought they were getting someone other than Bob Dornan to represent them. Instead, Lo-Lo has turned her public office into a practice of physically fraternizing with U.S. Army officers/Lobbyists, and stealing from the taxpayer… not very becoming behavior from public servants in this time of Obama and so-called governmental transparency. All she has done is fully embrace the typical stereotype of the corrupt Latino politician and torn apart a military family at the same time. Do you think Lo-Lo loves Jack Einwechter? Knowing Lo-Lo as long as I have, that would seem virtually impossible. That’s because Lo-Lo is only in love with herself.

  • 31 WhatThe.. // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Wow, was Joe Baca right? According to Politico in January 2007, it reported good ol Joe called Loretta Sanchez a “whore”. Did he know something then that we’re just learning about now? But does the accusation cancel each other our, one slime bag to another?

  • 32 Sandogg // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    I guess it takes one to know one. Or is it the olla calling the tetera black?

  • 33 FormerStaffer // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    The whole “Whore” calling incident blamed on Joe Baca, with Fabian Nunez added for effect was entirely made up by Loretta Sanchez. She fed this to the traditional media to get her name in print and solicit sympathy after the Congressional Hispanic Caucus refused to promote her to any leadership position. This incident more or less accurately displayed the malicious part of her character, and how far she will go to slander and ruin someone’s reputation. Joe Baca may be the king of nepotism, slow witted, and not much of a speechmaker, but he doesn’t practice the pig behavior and pettiness of Antonio Villaraigosa, Fabian Nunez, and Gil Cedillo. Those three men utilize the word “Whore” quite regularly every day when women shun their advances. This “Whore” incident also temporarily covered up the fact that she doesn’t produce any legislation and she isn’t well-liked by her elected colleagues on the Hill. Nevertheless, it also shows how the traditional media easily prints lies and innuendo, and routinely ignores the truth.

  • 34 HM Latina // Jun 7, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Did anyone catch the reply by “Don’t” who says her family was ruined by Sanchez? Yikes. “Don’t” please contact the webmaster and give your version. That’s two sources right there!

    Loretta: What do you have to say? True? not true? If it’s not true, you have nothing to worry about. If it’s true, the Republicans (including Limbaugh) will go after you like the minutemen have already started to: http://minutemancc.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=220

    But it’s not just the minutemen. Apparently, others have known about the allegations and have blogged as far back as 2008. Check out the following:

    http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007963.html

    Scroll down to the comments section for October 14, 2008 in this blog
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/sex_and_politics_usually_equal.html

  • 35 FormerStaffer // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Here is a good opportunity for Emanuel Pleitez, if he’s serious about serving in the U.S. Congress. Assemblyman Van Tran doesn’t represent the overall interests of the California Congressional 47th district, but Emanuel Pleitez could since the district is predominately democratic, and has been largely ignored by Loretta Sanchez. Loretta doesn’t even live in her own Congressional district. Emanuel Pleitez, if you’re reading this, this is an opportunity.

  • 36 Michaelr // Jun 9, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    That’s an excellent idea. But Emanuel Pleitez would need the support and help of political groups and officials within the Democratic Party, and we’ve seen the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in action, and Nancy Pelosi doesn’t exactly heed the call of the people. Do you know Emanuel Pleitez? It would all have to begin with him.

  • 37 CockroachPeople // Jun 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    “[LatinoPoliticsBlog.com] is right to question Sanchez’ ethics. In this day and age it is not good enough to merely have a brown person in power. In Chicago, where we have elected quite a few Latino politicians, we know that electing a representative with a Latino background does not necessarily mean he or she will represent the interests of Latinos…[officials have been] embroiled in corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Latinos who do not expose corruption among our own officials do our people a disservice by holding up such leaders as role models to our kids…” Read more: http:www.cockroachpeople.com

  • 38 Professor Y // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:50 am

    As an African American I understand the long held wrong code of honor that we ignore our congressional representatives’ corruption. I always disagreed. Fought against that faulty belief. Its worth the battle. Stand up and hold Loretta accountable. Change will come. Sometimes it takes awhile. The Obama campaign and subsequent win thrilled me. The worst events for Jessie Jackson who long was the self appointed leader for my community. Now he is not sitting on the lecturn at every event, CNN cancelled his tv show and advice isn’t sought by the Democrats. Don’t sit quietly by and let Loretta fool our communities. We have to persevere, holding all representatives accountable if there is any hope that our country improves with ethical, honest, hardworking leadership.

  • 39 Anna // Jun 10, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Jackson is more honest than Obama. At least you know where he stands. Obama says one thing and does another.

  • 40 Professor Y // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Anna i refuse to debate you re: President Obama versus Jackson until you show some backbone and call Loretta.

  • 41 Anna // Jun 10, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    LOL I have beter things to do than that. The people here, especially the men, hate Sanchez because she does not fit their image of the humble, poor, Latina. They hate her for holding a fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion. How scandalous! lol They don’t understand that she just rented the house like all of the other people who hold fundraisers there. They think Hef and his Bunnies were roaming around. lol

    Notice how happy they are that Sotomayor has no money. I have been on other websites that have called Sotomayor irresponsible for not planning properly for retirement. It’s all perspective…

    They were trashing Sanchez long before this so-called scandal they made up. Is she perfect? No, but neither are most members of Congress.

    As for Obama and Jessie there is nothing to debate. I don’t know what is in Obama’s heart, as I can only judge his actions, but from what I have seen many of his policies are just a continuation of Dubya’s policies, you know the ones he promised he was strong enough and experienced enough to change. Instead he wants to institutionalize them and make them seem legal. What a disappointment!

  • 42 CockroachPeople // Jun 11, 2009 at 4:10 am

    I am a man and I don’t hate Sanchez. I think the “whore” comments, et. al., are inappropriate, even misogynistic (though some were made by women)–but the the “scandal” has been exacerbated by Sanchez’ silence.

    Anna, you clearly seem to know the Congresswoman–perhaps you can provide the sunshine everyone seeks–make the call!

  • 43 webmaster // Jun 11, 2009 at 6:48 am

    “Notice how happy they are that Sotomayor has no money. I have been on other websites that have called Sotomayor irresponsible for not planning properly for retirement. It’s all perspective…”

    Who is happy and who said that she had “no money”? I said that she has a rather humble lifestyle. I think that she has money, but she isn’t spending it like its going out of style. In relative terms, she is not rich. I don’t think that owning a condo in Greenwich Village and being an employed federal judge would equal “no money.”

    As for Sanchez, Anna, I think a lot of people don’t like her because she is not very effective in Congress and she is completely arrogant with the public when it comes to clearing up conflict of interest matters like this one. Sanchez is a career politician, who started out as a Republican and then became a Democrat out of convenience. She has a history of deceiving the public, and it has nothing to do with her not being a “humble, poor Latina.” You, as someone who rails against prisons and wars, should look at how much money Sanchez has taken from the military and prison industrial complex.

    To quote Montesquieu, “To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.”

  • 44 Professor Y // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:42 am

    Anna are you sure your real name is Loretta Sanchez? Trying to redirect the focus from the Congresswoman’s alleged criminal behavior, ineffective representation for her constituents to personal feelings is even beneath you.
    And if you or Loretta don’t address these issues before the next election cycle, she will lose her seat. Good news–whoever you are you’ll have more time to post on this blog!

  • 45 FormerStaffer // Jun 11, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Reading Anna’s commentaries tells me she just enjoys telling lies, or writing her lies. Unlike Loretta, who doesn’t have the imagination to be a real successful liar, she just enjoys condescending to people, abusing relationships, and practicing her hedonistic philosophy as long as she believes it elevates her social standing. If accountability and transparency is a true objective of Congress, Loretta Sanchez will never comply. She has a lot to hide. This conflict of interest relationship she has with the lobbyist, John Einwechter reflects how long she has gotten away abusing her position to enrich herself financially, and take care of her libido at the same time. Why would anyone want someone with these character traits representing them?

  • 46 Anna // Jun 11, 2009 at 10:42 am

    To the Webmaster:

    How many of the people complaining on this website about her even live in her district? The people who live there re-elect her every two years, and they are the ones she represents. She doesn’t owe you anything.

    Imagine if all of the Latinos in this state started paying attention to the cuts in education that Arnold is making. You know, issues that actually affect us, instead of this Loretta Sanchez is an uppity woman BS.

  • 47 Anna // Jun 11, 2009 at 10:45 am

    Former staffer: Reading Anna’s commentaries tells me she just enjoys telling lies..

    Everything I have said is my own opinion based in fact. I don’t make things up.

    You obviously do, which is why you’re a “former” staffer and undoubtedly unemployed.

  • 48 FormerStaffer // Jun 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    I’m employed Anna. I was a staffer for Loretta Sanchez’ DC office in 2003, but I could only tolerate eight months of her organizational mismanagement. You’d make a great communications director for Loretta Sanchez, especially since you have a schizophrenic personality and are pretty shameless. But the question remains, do you have the right lips to work for Loretta?

  • 49 Anna // Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    No wonder you got fired. I’d fire you too.

  • 50 WhatThe.. // Jun 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    I hear Loretta’ office has a new opening for damage control czar…
    disclaimer: not based on fact

  • 51 El Cholo // Jun 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Anna has chicken lips to go along with that schizophrenic mentality of hers. So the answer is yes, she would love to work as Loretta Sanchez’s communications director. Loretta Sanchez’s denial act has worn out its usefulness, and she’s ready to try Anna’s bombastic fictional scenario act as a means of explaining her public behavior.

  • 52 Anna // Jun 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Re: “Anna has chicken lips to go along with that schizophrenic mentality of hers.”

    I want to discuss things like education cuts and the budget mess instead of unsubstantiated rumors of affairs, and cheesy Christmas cards, and that makes ME crazy.

    lol

  • 53 Professor Y // Jun 11, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Anna I live in her district and so do everyone I know who is will work fervently to get her out of office. My question is: Why are you again not addressing the real issue? AND why are you defending her?

  • 54 Anna // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Re: “Anna I live in her district”

    LOLOL Sure you do.

  • 55 El Cholo // Jun 11, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Anna is the official corrupt Latino politician apologist. If you are a politician with a Spanish surname, and you have ignored your constituents in your Congressional, or State districts, produced minimal legislation on behalf of your constituents, sold your public office to developers, lobbyists, corporations, foreign countries, and convicted criminals, have financially profited from your relationships with developers, lobbyists, corporations, foreign countries, and convicted criminals, and in Loretta Sanchez’s case have had intimate relations with those same lobbyists; then Anna is there to advocate a defense, and make excuses for those same politicians with Spanish surnames, who produce minimal legislation on behalf of their constituents, sell their public office to developers, lobbyists, corporations, foreign countries, and convicted criminals. That’s what Anna does.

  • 56 webmaster // Jun 12, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Anna,

    Unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t know how you can determine where the people who comment on this blog live. Loretta Sanchez is a public official, and while she ultimately serves at the will of her constituents, she is not free from commentary from others, just as people who do not live in Alaska write and offer a lot of commentary on Gov. Sarah Palin.

    I know that Professor Y lives in Loretta Sanchez’s district and has conducted business there.

    I have written about politicians who live out of California, out of the country, etc. I don’t confine myself or the other writers on this blog to only those who represent their respective districts. I know plenty of issue advocates who reach beyond the boundaries of their districts. Some politicians, like Hillary Clinton and even more recently Gil Cedillo, move to other locations just to stay in the game. Hence, the term “carpetbagger.”

    Loretta Sanchez will eventually have to answer for her silence on this matter. If the allegations are false, I think that she should just come clean and say, “I am not having an affair with John (Jack) Einwechter” and call it a day. You would think that she would want to clear her name once and for all.

  • 57 Anna // Jun 12, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Re: “If the allegations are false, I think that she should just come clean and say, “I am not having an affair with John (Jack) Einwechter” and call it a day.”

    But that wouldn’t call it a day, because as most people know, you can’t prove a negative. That’s why it’s the responsibility of the people making these allegations to present evidence of them. And I don’t mean just evidence that she’s having a relationship with this man (who cares) but evidence that she has done something illegal or unethical.

    You haven’t done that or even come close to doing that.

  • 58 Caciques Part Two » Cockroach People // Jun 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    [...] never be an excuse for ignoring corruption. I truly hope that Maestas is wrong about the “Loretta Sanchez Scandal.” I hope that Congresswoman Sanchez will say something to clear this matter up (according to [...]

  • 59 Red Baron // Jun 13, 2009 at 3:36 am

    The affair between Loretta and Jack doesn’t need to be proven anymore, Anna. It is common knowledge. Jack’s family has been torn apart, and everyone in the extended family and social network knows that Jack admitted the affair to his wife as the reason for his divorce. All of Jack’s former Army friends and his colleagues where he works know about his on-going relationship with Loretta. This is why Loretta has never denied the affair. She won’t deny it, because she won’t compound her problems with an obvious lie. You say you want proof, but you don’t specify what would constitute sufficient proof in your mind. Many of us have told of our direct personal knowledge of these facts. Clearly, someone in Jack’s family has commented here. The facts given are detailed and credible. Likewise, Loretta’s denial would be evidence against the allegations. You are right to say it wouldn’t be conclusive, but it would certainly be a valuable piece of evidence. You, Anna, have been denying it for months, though you have no personal knowledge either way. On the other hand, you have been saying it doesn’t matter or “who cares,” as if criminal misbehavior is the only thing people do or should care about. I guess you deny the importance of moral conduct and what it says about the character and trustworthiness of people. If we don’t care about the character of the people we elect, we can expect a growing stream of corruption cases in the years to come. If you really don’t care about that, I pity you. You’ll get the leaders you deserve.

  • 60 Professor Y // Jun 13, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Yes I live in Loretta’s district. Not that it matters. But as Loretta often does, you missed the most important question. Who do I know in Washington, DC that is legally pursuing these allegations?

  • 61 theKaiser // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    The most disgusting part of this issue with Loretta Sanchez is that she done so little as far as creating legislation that could make a difference in people lives. And instead she had utilized her time in public office to feed a lifestyle for the rich and famous all funded by the U.S. taxpayer. A case for celebrity is always argued by all those superficial Latinos who claim that style is more important that substance, but Loretta is such a lowly character and that particular characteristic clearly identifies itself every time she opens her mouth. This is a role model for the Latino political community? Loretta Sanchez doesn’t even support legislation that would create opportunity for Latino youth…the Dream Act? How condescending is that? She has loathed her ethnic identity for more than half her life and isn’t ashamed to admit it. Anyone who can’t see the ugly heart through her face is incredibly ignorant.

  • 62 Meow // Jun 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Great post! Love your blog :)

  • 63 With Villar out of the CA Governor’s Race, will Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez jump in? // Jun 24, 2009 at 8:41 am

    [...] backyard). Plus, it is likely that Loretta Sanchez would eventually have to address her relationship with John (Jack) Einwechter. Finally, if you have heard Congresswoman Sanchez speak, it would [...]

  • 64 Red Baron // Jun 28, 2009 at 2:53 am

    Question: I hope Anna is lecturing right now about how we shouldn’t care about the adultery of Senator Ensign and Gov. Sanford. Their sexcapades don’t matter, right Anna? The only question is can they do their jobs well 9 to 5, right Anna? Oh, by the way, adultery is still a crime in South Carolina. I’m inviting you to lecture, Anna…

  • 65 Aakash // Jul 1, 2009 at 1:14 am

    Is B1-Bob still available? It would be great to have a principled and bold Congressperson representing this district again!

  • 66 The Other Women // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:08 am

    I was the other women in Stephen Brixey’s life. Loretta and Steve had been living seperate lives for several years. He was dating me in San Diego and she was dating in Washington. There is no poor Mr Brixey. He was cheating way before she got involved. He had several affairs for that matter. Way before Loretta ventured out. You have to understand that she is in politics and he well he is an ordinary man who is out of the spot light and not under the microscope. He is to be blamed for their divorce not Loretta.

  • 67 The Other Women // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:14 am

    I say women and not woman because I wasn’t the only one. Mr Brixey had several affairs before and after me. I met him in 2001 and have seen him with several women since then.

  • 68 webmaster // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    The Other Women,

    Welcome to the discussion. While it is sad that Stephen Brixey may have cheated on Loretta Sanchez, she still used his name (when she ran for Anaheim City Council) and used him as a prop when she sent out these Holiday cards. Strange family values these two have, but Loretta Sanchez should still either confirm or deny the allegations about the alleged affair with Jack Einwechter.

    I don’t think anyone here is implying “poor Mr. Brixey.”

    This sounds like a true cluster f&%ck.

  • 69 The other women // Aug 4, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Ok, so you are probably a Republican? And so you choose to fight Loretta for the sake of fighting. Loretta was in a commited relationship with Mr. Brixey and she tried to hold on for as long as she could. I don’t blame her…she’s in politics and not doing any of the cheating, he is. By the way, have you ever been cheated on? Perhaps not, that you know of??? Neither did Loretta, for some time. It takes time to decide what to do. To make an executive decision. Would you ever forgive your partner for cheating because you’re in politics or would you just move on and pretend everything is fine and stay? She chose to move on, eventually. She currently has a healthy, happy, and friendly relationship with Mr. Brixey. Peace..oh sounds so nice, is that not what we all seek in our relationships????

  • 70 webmaster // Aug 5, 2009 at 8:19 am

    “Ok, so you are probably a Republican?”

    I have never been a Republican, but Loretta Sanchez has. Really, it doesn’t matter too much what the party I belong to. My party or affiliation doesn’t bear on this matter of Sanchez, Einwechter, and alleged conflict of interest.

    The other women, it is interesting that you keep defending Rep. Sanchez and addressing her relationship with Mr. Brixey, yet you don’t seem to care about the “other woman” who is alleged to be involved in this matter, Rebecca Einwechter. Since you seem to know a lot about this situation, I’m curious as to what you think about her.

  • 71 Sex Sells – My thoughts on Former Assemblymember Michael Duvall // Sep 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    [...] involved in a romantic relationship with a homeland and defense lobbyist which I have documented here. Like Duvall, Congreswoman Sanchez’s alleged conquest lobbies in areas that are clearly [...]

  • 72 Zed Diamond // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    A Big Bravo Zulu (The Navy way of saying “Good Work”) to Congresswoman Sanchez ! We need to support our members of the Congressional Bluedog Coalition. They may be the only ones that will keep us on an even keel and prevent some very serious national mistakes from being made by the radical left wing and the radical right wing too. I would like to ask a question. Can not a woman be both smart and beautiful ? I think Loretta is certainly very nice, smart and kind. I would also add my own personal opinion that she is Beautiful, Gorgeous and yes a Hottie ! Strong, smart and very attractive. No doubt that she will be attacked for it. Lots of women heaped this sort of praise upon former President Bill Clinton and many are certainly saying it about our current president. I am very glad to describe Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez as I see her. We are blessed to have her. Zed Diamond

  • 73 NN // Nov 24, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    This is a true story and my heart goes out to Jack’s wife…currently still married… Becky has been a precious jewel far above all rubies…someone a husband can truly trust in. She has been a beautiful Christian example and I have always looked up to her devotion to the Lord. She was my roommate in college…she has always had a strong faith. They have 8 children…in which she is having to raise on her own. My prayers are that Jack will open his eyes to see the beauty in his faithful wife.

  • 74 National Republican Congressional Committee Pokes Fun of Loretta Sanchez Holiday Card // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    [...] Loretta Sanchez leaves this earth that she will be remembered more for her holiday cards and other attention seeking activities than for any sort of real charity or activism. And unfortunately, it doesn’t have to be this [...]

  • 75 Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez & the Lobbyists! // Dec 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    [...] Sanchez’s lobbyist connections have been explored on this blog before. As the clock ticks toward the midterm elections next year, [...]

  • 76 Busiest Day in Congress: Where’s Loretta Sanchez? // Mar 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    [...] legislators over the years, and she does have a knack for drawing attention to herself in the most unflattering way. She voted for health care previously in the fall when it originally passed the House, and she even [...]

  • 77 Lolly // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    If it’s rumor, we can’t say anything. Both of the Sanchez sisters look unhealthy. Let’s have them be good examples to our people, who suffer from diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and many other illnesses related to being fat.

  • 78 Lolly // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    It would be more polite for me to say overweight instead of fat. But what good does it do to campaign for people who are going to die early from PREVENTABLE diseases. I say, try Weight Watches and go to Curves. Lots of celebrities endorse programs and services. It’s a good example. I used to be large, but I got it under control. I want to inspire people, but I don’t have the political power of the Sanchez sisters.

  • 79 My Interview with Van Tran « California TCOT // Sep 22, 2010 at 11:20 am

    [...] not forget the scandals surrounding Loretta [...]

  • 80 Two Things Loretta Sanchez Can't Stand: Racial Intolerance and Vietnamese - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine // Sep 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    [...] But then I'm biased: I say if there's one group American politics needs more of, it's sultry, man-hungry party girls desperate for anything in [...]

  • 81 VAN TRAN FOR CONGRESS IN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 47: ELECTIONS ARE COMING | RUTHFULLY YOURS // Sep 29, 2010 at 7:41 am

    [...] Sanchez’s, shall we say, colorful recent history, shed some light on the character of the person? Intimate revelations about her recent past [14] point to one quite comfortable using a position of power for personal gain and otherwise. [...]

  • 82 Keith Richard Radford Jr // Oct 11, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Loretta Sanchez you have been pushing your agenda since we made out in the back of the Kingdom Hall in the 70’s at your request to show how terible someone is to the flock during the movie about the end of days coming in 1975. well that came and gone and now its your turn.
    These laws promote and are sex slavery, think about it. It is the pot calling the kettle black. We have people with guns go in and take kids and sell them into adoption. Breaking up families and selling children for 60 to 90 thousand dollars to people with real problems with sex, like the inability to have children of their own, coveting what they see and can not have without the theft of someone else or surrogates having kids for a fee. the perverted and turned idea that touching your own child some how makes them game to be hunted and sold like slaves and this is some media campaign to massage people into thinking taking children is OK. Ha! not buying it.
    Say what you want but age has nothing to do with anything. As we keep pushing age into law we see our retirement disappear by ten years and people trying too say we live longer but for the first time in years our index nationally as an average has dropped by years as to when we as a nation collectively die. Policies like these rape the poor and laws keep making insurance companies richer as the use of literal theft by these proponents of laws pertaining to sex are just plan embezzlement and need to be addressed by the RICO Act and shut down.
    Planned parenthood ghouls that think everyone should be harvested for their organs setting up communities like 1938 catholic schools where kids and adults don’t interact and and the girls go left while the boys go right trying to justify there agenda by laws that keep people from sex? Religious leaders trying to pass laws to destroy families so the guy in charge calling themselves the power of god on earth likes the new mother so he goes after the father with sex laws and then comforts the woman by putting the kids in foster care for the ghouls delight at 60~90k and marries the new parishioner encouraging age old ignorance. Laws based on sex have failed and when the Child Protection Service is emailing kiddy porn (true story) to strike up business and church zealots kill their kids and blame it on people they don’t know it points to the corruption that is a sex offender registry. Life experience and history can not be denied the honest ugly truth of these failures being forced upon us all for the sake of the children taken from there dads, moms on the pretence of doing good for them? HA! most of this does not even originate in our country. We need a new organization to battle the out pour/overflow when that was the idea now morphed into one of the biggest failures of our time. Keep patching stupid with more stupid, stupid. Remember I made you ask me prety please with a cherry on top? well it was for sure not worth it and having seen what was done you are not a good person at all. remember that was the congregation where Michelle Obama then Michelle Greenage attended services and the Robinson’s and our mother wanted my brother and me to go to Guyana and be with Jim Jones having bought us tickets and plane fair before the KoolAid incident and I am still glad we did not go so chew on that you one boobed wonder. O’ one more thing! remember that was the congregation where Michelle Obama then Michelle Greenage attended services and the Robinson’s and our mother wanted my brother and me to go to Guyana and be with Jim Jones having bought us tickets and plane fair before the KoolAid incident and I am still glad we did not go so chew on that you one boobed wonder you are a bad person and push bad laws and not honorable at all.

  • 83 Is Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez engaged to retired Army Col. Jack Einwechter? | New Santa Ana // Nov 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    [...] eventually retired from the military and I found more information about him in a blog post that included these excerpts: It has been widely alleged that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez has [...]

  • 84 Is Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez engaged to retired Army Col. Jack Einwechter? | Orange Juice // Nov 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    [...] eventually retired from the military and I found more information about him in a blog post that included these excerpts: It has been widely alleged that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez has [...]

  • 85 Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud — Emerging Corruption // Nov 23, 2010 at 8:44 am

    [...] Sanchez’s campaign committee in the last election cycle.”  Please find the full article herehttp://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/06/02/the-making-of-the-%E2%80%9Cloretta-sanchez-scandal%E2%80%9D… Loretta and Einwechter in 2005 from her website now taken [...]

  • 86 According to Roll Call, Rep. Loretta Sanchez to Marry this Weekend // Jul 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    [...] that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is marrying Lt. Colonel Jack Einwechter this weekend. He has known Rep. Sanchez for awhile and has been a donor to her campaign in the past. Currently, he’s an attorney/lobbyist. This [...]

  • 87 what // Jul 18, 2011 at 8:58 am

    this puts the nail in going back to his wife.

  • 88 Quess You Didnt know // Aug 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    It is confirmed Loretta got married last weekend 8/12/2011 to Lt Jack Einwechter and is expecting her first child his 9th child

Leave a Comment