LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

House Ethics Committee looks into Sanchez sisters’ staffing arrangement

October 30th, 2009 · 17 Comments

This morning the Washington Post is reporting that the House Ethics Committee has been trying to determine if rules were broken when Rep. Linda Sanchez put three of her sister’s staffers on her payroll after the Caroline Valdez embezzlement scheme depleted funds from Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s office.

This staffing investigation has been going on since spring of this year, but I would like to see the alleged lobbying relationship between Loretta Sanchez and Jack Einwechter examined. Sources have told me that this relationship is on the rocks.

But to get back to the staffing issue, I am bothered that the Sanchez sisters would think that they could just swap staff. These sisters don’t fall in line on every issue, and it could create management problems to simply transfer some of Loretta’s staff to Linda’s office payroll. One thing that I have kept in mind as a working person is that you have to keep your boss pleased. In this scenario, who is the boss? Linda or Loretta?

Share

Tags: ethics · Rep. Linda Sanchez · Rep. Loretta Sanchez

17 responses so far ↓

  • 1 DoctorH // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Incompetence knows no bounds. And Linda and Loretta Sanchez know everything there is to know about being incompetent. While Linda Sanchez is doing her best to write legislation that fully emulates the Patriot Act censoring bloggers. Loretta Sanchez is continuing to flaunt her status as Congress’ exclusive Pentagon Lobbyist whore. Jack Einwechter has been replaced by John Saylor. Ooo LowRenta you are a bad girl…and all of it on the American taxpayer’s dime.

  • 2 FormerStaffer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Wow…word travels fast. I wonder if someone is keeping a list.

  • 3 Anna // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I am so tired of the sexism of some Latino men on this site. The Latino community needs a feminist movement. All these teenage girls are getting pregnant because they are raised to see themselves as mothers before anything else. They aren’t encouraged to compete, but to be caretakers, and to put the family’s needs before their own. If all you do as a teenager is help your mother take care of children, then that’s the behavior you model. You learn that to become an adult, you become a mother. This craziness has to stop.

    Parents need to let these girls have their own lives and develop their own skills, and to stop using them as a free babysitting service and housekeeper. These girls should be instructed from the time they are very young not to even think of having children until the age of 30.They need to abstain from sex, or to start using birth control, and take responsibility for their own bodies.

    Loretta and Linda Sanchez are two successful, accomplished women. Why they are constantly called “whores” on this website without any reprimand from the moderator is a disgrace.

  • 4 El Cholo // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    There’s nothing sexist about public service incompetence, and Linda and Loretta Sanchez represent incompetence, laziness and abuse at different areas at the federal level. Joe Baca is a whore, as is Xavier Becerra, and I don’t read your defenses about their public service. Or maybe you can’t comprehend what they actually do for a living?

  • 5 Anna // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:20 am

    Give it up. Nobody refers to the sexual behavior of male poltician unelss they are in a sex scandal, usually involving a violation of the law. If they get divorced, or date, nobody cares. Some of you cannot criticize a female politician without conflating her sexuality with her positions on the issues. If you don’t like Loretta Sanchez, then criticize her policies. Whether she dates or who she dates is irrelevant. But is the issue here really her policies, which are mainstream Democrtaic, or is the issue her persona? You guys have this thing where a woman has to be self effacing, humble, dowdy and if she isn’t, watch out. She’s a whore.

    This is a backwards caveman mentality, and it needs to stop.

  • 6 webmaster // Nov 2, 2009 at 7:11 am

    I don’t have a thing about women being self effacing or dowdy. I wouldn’t call Hilda Solis or Michelle Obama dowdy or self effacing, but I think that women who throw themselves out there sexually are held to a different standard. Have you ever read Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy?

    http://www.ariellevy.net/books.php

    Loretta Sanchez clearly plays into the raunch culture that Levy talks about in her book. I don’t know how you could consider that empowering.

    You don’t have to look any further than Sanchez’s Christmas cards for evidence of this.

  • 7 Red Baron // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    If Jack didn’t anticipate that Playgirl Loretta would eventually cheat on him, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to him (I should ask Loretta to broker the deal). I mean, seriously, how gullible can one be? Even a casual observer could see that she has no respect for marriage or fidelity. She is also pretty reckless with her public image and risk taking.

    As usual, Anna misses the boat in her absurd attempt to distinguish Loretta’s case from the legion of male pols who have been destroyed by adultery. Loretta IS in a sex scandal (duh). She committed adultery. And while some of the recent male scandals were later shown to have possibly illegal aspects, they were front page news before those issue were raised (e.g. Gov. Sanford, SEN Edwards, Mayor Villariagosa, Mayor Newsom, Pres. Clinton, etc. etc.) You’re right, we don’t care about who they date, but we do care if they display a consistent contempt for marriage, fidelity and honesty. That’s why America lost all faith in Edwards before anyone raised any criminal aspects of his adultery.

    If it’s true that Loretta dumped Jack and took up with Saylor, then maybe Jack will finally join our dialogue…

  • 8 theKaiser // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    Anna emulates the same condescending attitude that emits from the Sanchez sisters. So obviously she is one of those coconuts who are clueless to the definition of public service. This is the same woman, who trashes Gloria Molina because she doesn’t have a college degree, and yet comes to the defense of two Congressional representatives who just take up space on Capitol Hill, only because they have managed to successfully loot the taxpayer for over a decade. These are Anna’s standards and values in less than a hundred words.

  • 9 FormerStaffer // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    To Anna, aka as “Clueless in California,” and “Reyfeo’s feminist megaphone”, or rather “Cro-Magnon Anna,” either join Loretta Sanchez’s staff, or go get a personality, because you can’t have it both ways trashing politicians based exclusively on skin tones, and public theft.

  • 10 Anna // Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 am

    RE: “And while some of the recent male scandals were later shown to have possibly illegal aspects, they were front page news before those issue were raised (e.g. Gov. Sanford, SEN Edwards, Mayor Villariagosa, Mayor Newsom, Pres. Clinton, etc. etc.)”

    WRONG as usual. Sanford’s case became news because he abandoned his job abd flew to Argentina several times. Then he lied and said he was hiking. If you leave your job without telling anybody where you are, expect scrutiny. Villaraigosa’s affair became an issue because he was seeing a reporter, which created a conflict of interest. Newsom slept with the wife of a man on his payroll, and Clinton fooled around with an intern. All of these raise ethical and/or legal issues.

    Sanchez has done nothing like this, yet you insist on spreading lies and calling her a “whore.” It’s SEXISM, plain and simple. You guys are backwards. Time to get off the rancho and enter the 21st century.

  • 11 Red Baron // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Anna, once again you have totally failed to distinguish Loretta’s adultery from any of the others you mention. And I didn’t call her a whore and have told no lies about her. You, on the other hand, know nothing about her affair with her married official Pentagon escort. None of your cases involved crimes. Sorry, it wasn’t criminal to fly to Argentina or even to lie about it–stupid, but not criminal. As the senior woman on Armed Service Committee, Loretta knew it was criminal for the officer to have sex with her and she was risking both his and her careers. Her position on that committee also made it a conflict of interest for her, as much as any conflict Mayor V created. Loretta’s conduct was just as unethical as Newsome’s. She held a position of great power over her escort and members of the Congress are required to conduct themselves “above reproach” at all times. Poaching on married officers assigned to be your official escort, and engaging in what was for him a crime, falls short of that standard by a long shot. Any fool can see that. You are willfully blind on this. Obviously, there is a little reverse sexism at work in your defense of Loretta, about whom you obviously know nothing.

  • 12 Anna // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    re: “Sorry, it wasn’t criminal to fly to Argentina or even to lie about it–stupid, but not criminal.”

    He used taxpayer money to take a vacation to see his mistress in a foreign country. That’s illegal.

    As for Sanchez, ASSuming any of what you say is even true, it is not a crime for two consenting adults to have a relationship. If
    she committed a crime she would be charged with one. You’re a caveman if you think
    that a woman should be charged with a crime for having a consensual sexual relationship.

    I notice you never say that the man she’s supposedly dating, you know, the one, who according to you, was actually in the military, shoud be charged with a crime. Just her. I don’t see you calling him a “whore.” This man obviopusly didn’t want to be married anymore, so he met somebody new and got a divorce. That’s LIFE. It’s not a crime. It’s scary that there
    are people who think it is.

    You’re a sexist caveman.

  • 13 Red Baron // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    So, here is Anna’s position: It is not ok for Sanford to fly to Argentina for sex at taxpayer’s expense, but it is OK for Loretta to travel all over the world with her lover-escort at taxpayer’s expense. By the way, it’s Cavewoman, stupid. You see, Anna continues to make totally unfounded assumptions. She also has very poor reading comprehension, because I never said Loretta or anyone should be criminally charged in connection with her unethical, immoral and embarrassing conduct. I have advocated that we should demand integrity and character in our elected leaders and enforce congressional ethics standards. I guess Anna doesn’t care about either. Even if adultery should not be criminalized, it is not OK, especially on the job with subordinates (which is Loretta’s case). Anna refuses to grasp this. It was not a crime for Bubba to have sex with an intern. It was not a crime for Edwards to have a child with his videographer. It was not a crime for Mayor V to sleep with a reporter, and it was not a crime for Newsome to betray his chief of staff by sleeping with his wife. Yet, in each case, the public’s judgment was that the politician involved had failed as a leader, an example to the young, and as a trustworthy person. All of their careers and reputatinos have been damaged, in some cases destroyed. But, according to Anna, the public is just wrong and we have no right to expect moral and honest behavior from our elected officials. You are wrong, Anna. Hopefully, you will eventually learn the value of fidelity and honor in leaders.

  • 14 Anna // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    re: “So, here is Anna’s position: It is not ok for Sanford to fly to Argentina for sex at taxpayer’s expense, but it is OK for Loretta to travel all over the world with her lover-escort at taxpayer’s expense.”

    First of all, there is no proof that anything you’re saying about Sanchez is true. Secondly, if it is true, there is still no equivalence. Sanford left the county without telling anybody where he was. He abandoned his post.

    Sanchez hasn’t done anything like that. I know you hate her and you’re desperate to depict her as some kind of immoral lawbreaker, but nobody with any sense is buying it. She has never been in any trouble, or even been accused of any wrong doing. She might have a boyfriend. Big deal. Two single people dating. OH NO! lol

  • 15 Red Baron // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:09 am

    It’s all true, Anna. That’s why Sanchez has not and will not ever deny it. Both Sanchez and Einwechter were married when they hooked up on official travel. I suppose if John Edwards got divorced and moved in with Hunter and the “love child,” Anna would say, “Just two single people dating! lol.” Shows how totally clueless Anna is. Hey, Anna, Edwards’s political career is over because of adultery and left a lot of good people hurting. Loretta did the same thing. Let me ask you, Anna: Do you see anything wrong with John Edwards’ behavior? I guess not. That puts you in a tiny minority of Americans who lack any moral sense at all.

  • 16 Anna // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:26 am

    Edwards, who is still married, whose wife has cancer, and who ran for President, is being investigated for using campaign funds to pay off his mistress, who bore his child.

    Yeah, he and Loretta are the same. LOL

    You’re NUTS.

  • 17 Sloppy Financial Disclosure Records for House Ethics Committee Member Linda Sanchez // Mar 2, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    [...] her sister, Loretta, which again is something that she probably should have avoided altogether. The staff sharing arrangement occurred after the Caroline Valdez embezzlement [...]

Leave a Comment