Republican Sen. Pete Domenici Fathers Secret Son

[dan_c00000]

Massive Republican Sex Scandal! Irony!


Ex-Sen. Domenici discloses son born in secrecy


By John Robertson / Journal Staff Writeron Wed, Feb 20, 2013



.



DOMENICI: Kept secret for three decades

Former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici told the Journal on Tuesday he fathered a son outside of his marriage over 30 years ago, revealing a secret kept for decades.



Statements given to the Journal by Domenici and the son’s mother, Michelle Laxalt of Alexandria, Va., identified the son as Adam Paul Laxalt, a Nevada lawyer. Michelle Laxalt formerly was a prominent government relations consultant and television political commentator in Washington, D.C. She is a daughter of former U.S. senator and Nevada Gov. Paul Laxalt.



“More than 30 years ago, I fathered a child outside of my marriage,” Domenici said in his statement.

“The mother of that child made me pledge that we would never reveal that parenthood, and I have tried to honor that pledge and so has she,” Domenici said.

The 80-year-old Republican, who decided not to seek election to a seventh term in 2008, citing health reasons, said he remains concerned about privacy for Michelle Laxalt, and their son. Domenici indicated he was disclosing the family matter to the Journal because he anticipated someone else was about to make the story public.

“Rather than have others breach this privacy, I have decided to make this statement,” the former senator said. “These circumstances now compel me to reveal this situation.”

Domenici said the story is painful to all involved.

“My past action has caused hurt and disappointment to my wife, children, family and others,” he said. “For that I am solely responsible.”

Domenici, who continues to live in Washington, D.C., with his wife, said his family “has been aware of these events for several months.”

“I have apologized as best as I can to my wife, and we have worked together to strengthen our relationship,” Domenici said.

“I deeply regret this and am very sorry for my behavior,” he said. “I hope New Mexicans will view that my accomplishments for my beloved state outweigh my personal transgression.”

Domenici asked that “everyone respect the privacy of my family and the son’s mother” and said he alone “should bear the brunt of this matter.”

Michelle Laxalt, who worked for several U.S. senators but never for Domenici, indicated in her statement that she believed others might soon reveal the relationship.

“Recently information has come to me that this sacred situation might be twisted … and shopped to press outlets large and small in a vicious attempt to smear, hurt and diminish Pete Domenici, an honorable man, his extraordinary wife, Nancy, and other innocents.” Michelle Laxalt said in her prepared statement.

“Why, after more than 30 years, would anyone insinuate pain and ugliness where joy and beauty have presided?” she asked.

Michelle Laxalt said “one night’s mistake led to pregnancy” and she chose to raise the son as a single parent.

“Given the fact that both my father and the father of my child were United States senators, I felt strongly that I would make this choice according to my values and would not seek advice, input or permission,” Michelle Laxalt said.

She said she told Domenici of her decision and asked that “he agree that this remain private between the two of us.”

She said her son “lived surrounded by love and joy and opportunity. I am proud of him, yet saddened that the circumstances of his birth might be used like a weapon to hurt many we love.”

Adam Paul Laxalt is a former U.S. Navy officer who graduated with honors from Georgetown University in 2001 and from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2005, according to his law firm’s website.

Domenici said his son participated in the drafting of the statement he issued. Laxalt declined by email to comment and asked that his privacy be respected.



Adam Paul Laxalt
Before serving in the Navy, including general counsel duties in Iraq, Laxalt worked as a law clerk for the U.S. Air Force general counsel. He also worked as a special assistant to John Bolton, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, and as a staff member for Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

Michelle Laxalt formed her own consulting firm in Washington, D.C., and once was identified by Washingtonian magazine as one of the district’s top 50 lobbyists. She was active in the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush.

Domenici, the father of eight children with his wife, Nancy, is a lawyer and served on the former Albuquerque City Commission before winning the first of six terms in the U.S. Senate.

He won national recognition as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee before his retirement in early 2009. He was on George H.W. Bush’s short list for vice president in 1988.

Domenici remained highly popular in New Mexico throughout his political career and became the state’s longest-serving U.S. senator.





Statement by Pete Domenici More than 30 years ago, I fathered a child outside my marriage. The mother of that child made me pledge that we would never reveal that parenthood, and I have tried to honor that pledge and so has she. I have been concerned about the burden of privacy on the son Adam Laxalt.

I am also worried about the impact of these revelations on his mother, Michelle Laxalt. However, rather than have others breach this privacy, I have decided to make this statement today. These circumstances now compel me to reveal this situation.

My past action has caused hurt and disappointment to my wife, children, family, and others. For that I am solely responsible. My family has been aware of these events for several months. I have apologized as best as I can to my wife, and we have worked together to strengthen our relationship.

I deeply regret this and am very sorry for my behavior. I hope New Mexicans will view that my accomplishments for my beloved state outweigh my personal transgression. I only ask that everyone respect the privacy of my family and the son’s mother. None of them wanted this publicity, none of them deserve the hurt of this revelation, and only I should bear the brunt of this matter.




Statement by Michelle Laxalt
I come from a political family and learned early in life the value of privacy. I vowed that I would make personal decisions based not on politics, but on my values. This self-pledge was tested when one night’s mistake led to pregnancy more than 30 years ago. I chose to go through with that pregnancy, although other choices were available. I also chose to raise my child as a single parent.Given the fact that both my father and the father of my child were United States senators, I felt strongly that I would make this choice according to my values, and would not seek advice, input or permission. My interaction with my child’s father consisted of telling him my decision, asking that he avail himself for health-related purposes, and asking that he agree that this remain private between the two of us.

I raised my son, Adam Paul, as a single parent. He lived surrounded by love and joy and opportunity. I am proud of him, yet saddened that the circumstances of his birth might be used like a weapon to hurt many we love. Recently information has come to me that this sacred situation might be twisted, re-written out of whole cloth, and shopped to press outlets large and small in a vicious attempt to smear, hurt and diminish Pete Domenici, an honorable man, his extraordinary wife, Nancy, and other innocents.

Why after more than 30 years, would anyone insinuate pain and ugliness where joy and beauty have presided?


— This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal

 

[bronzeage]

Where's the scandal?

 

[bernett69]

after reading "Former" New Mexico Senator......

who really cares. the "former" clearly puts him out of public influence. which is good. not much irony there.

the irony is all the democrat politicians who continue to stay in office, or for that matter speak

 

[WeedSmoke420]

Where's the scandal?

my words exactly..

 

[kotori]

A youthful indiscretion.

 

[Wrong Element]

Where's the scandal?

Not much of one now, seeing as how Domenici is retired. Had this come out at any time during his active career, it probably would have ended it. It's sort of a past-its-prime scandal, like JFK's various affairs.

What's weird about it is that I think Paul Laxalt was still in the Senate when all this happened. I wonder if he ever knew one of his colleagues knocked up his daughter?

 

[Busybody]

I question the source

 

[Disgustipated]

A youthful indiscretion.

Joking? He was around 50 at the time.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What's weird about it is that I think Paul Laxalt was still in the Senate when all this happened. I wonder if he ever knew one of his colleagues knocked up his daughter?

Revenge over a committee-assignment squabble, perhaps?

 

[kotori]

Joking? He was around 50 at the time.

I was quoting Henry Hyde, the Illinois congressman who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton, when it was revealed Hyde had fathered a child out of wedlock when he was 42. He said it of himself.

I thought someone should explain the correct definition of "irony" in this thread.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's refreshing to see a heterosexual Republican sex scandal for a change!

 

[Liar]

Feh, it's not even the most interesting Congressman Has Secret Spawn story this week.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...lege-student-raise-eyebrows-article-1.1264230

----------

Congressman’s tweets to bombshell blonde lead to bombshell announcement -- she's his daughter!
Rep. Steve Cohen's affectionate tweets to the 24-year-old student had set tongues wagging in Washington.

A congressman’s tweets to a bombshell blonde led to a bombshell announcement on Thursday, as the young woman was revealed to be his secret daughter.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee has set tongues wagging in Washington with what were perceived to be flirty tweets to a gorgeous blonde university student.

But after hours of speculation and comparisons to disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, Cohen made the shocking admission to local and national television outlets that the tweets were fatherly rather than flirtatious.

He told NBC News he only learned he had a daughter three years ago.

The affectionate messages, deleted just minutes after they were sent, were spotted by some eagle-eyed followers and posted on the Sunlight Foundation’s website.

One exchange began when Victoria Brink, 24, tweeted the 56-year-old bachelor congressman just before President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night to say she saw him on television.

“Pleased u r watching. ilu,” he responded, before deleting the tweet just three minutes later.

On Wednesday, he sent the young woman another tweet.

“Nice to know you were watchin SOTU (state of the union),” he wrote. “Happy Valentines beautiful girl. Ilu.”

That message was deleted after 15 minutes.

“Ilu” is sometimes used in texts and tweets as shorthand for “I love you.”

Cohen’s staff, who was in the dark about his secret daughter, initially told reporters that the young woman was the daughter of a longtime friend and “like family.” The bachelor congressman has a longtime girlfriend in Memphis.

A spokesman had also said Cohen was dismayed that the young woman had become the subject of gossip.

Media reports have highlighted a profile of Brink on the website College Dozen, which included photos of the Texas State University student striking sultry poses in a variety of bikinis.

In her profile, she says she hopes to get a job in the fashion industry and “do modeling on the side.”

-------------

 

[dan_c00000]

I'm trying to do my best BusyBody and vette man posting pointless shit. Obviously, the satire is lost on right-wing cronies. Let me try again.

Republican Cheater Calls Kettle Black!! Irony x2!!!!

Sen. Domenici's closed-door impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico): I have listened carefully to the arguments of the House Managers and the counter-arguments by the White House counsel during this impeachment trial. I have taken seriously my oath to render impartial justice.

While the legal nuances offered by both sides were interesting and essential, I kept thinking as I sat listening that the most obvious and important but unstated question was: What standard of conduct should we insist our President live up to?

Only by taking into account this question do I believe that we in the Senate can properly interpret our Founding Fathers' impeachment criteria comprised of "bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Clearly, the Constitution recognizes that a President may be impeached not only for bribery and treason, but also for other actions that destroy the underlying integrity of the Presidency or the "equal justice for all" guarantee of the Judiciary.

All reasonable observers admit that the President lied under oath and undertook a substantial and purposeful effort to hide his behavior from others in order to obstruct justice in a legal proceeding. My good friends and Democratic colleagues, Senators Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bob Kerrey, Diane Feinstein, and Robert Byrd, among others, have bluntly acknowledged publically that the President lied, misled, obstructed, and attempted in many ways to thwart justice's impartial course in a civil rights case. The sticking point has been: Does this misbehavior rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

I have concluded that President Clinton's actions do, indeed, rise to the level of impeachable offenses that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I am not a Constitutional scholar, as I have told you before. But, more than 200 years ago, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay summed up my feelings about lying under oath and its subversion of the administration of justice and honest government:

Independent of the abominable insult which Perjury offers to the divine Being, There is no Crime more pernicious to Society. It discolours and poisons the Streams of Justice, and by substituting Falsehood for Truth, saps the Foundations of personal and public rights. . . . Testimony is given under solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable Rights would become insecure.

Lying under oath is an "insult to the divine Being . . . It discolours and poisons the Streams of Justice . . . and . . . saps the Foundations of personal and public Rights."

How can anyone, after conceding that the President lied under oath and obstructed justice, listen to this quotation and not conclude that this President has committed acts which are clearly serious, which corrupt or subvert the political and government process, and which are plainly wrong to any honorable person or to a good citizen?

We must start by saying that this trial has never been about the President's private sex acts, as tawdry as they may have been.

This trial has been about his failure to properly discharge his public responsibility. The President had a choice to make during this entire, lamentable episode. At a number of critical junctures, he had a choice either to tell the truth or to lie, first in the civil rights case, before the grand jury and on national television. Each time he chose to lie. He made that fateful choice.

Truthfulness is the first pillar of good character in the Character Counts program of which I have been part of establishing in New Mexico. Many of you in this chamber have joined me in declaring the annual "Character Counts Weeks." This program teaches grade school youngsters throughout America about six pillars of good character. Public and private schools in every corner of my state teach children that character counts; character makes a difference; indeed, character makes all the difference.

Guess which one of these pillars comes first? Trustworthiness. Trustworthiness.

So what do I say to the children in my state when they ask, "Didn't the President lie? Doesn't that mean he isn't trustworthy? Then, Senator, why didn't the Senate punish him?"

Let me quote one of the most critical passages from Charles L. Black, Jr., and his handbook on impeachment, one of the seminal works on the impeachment process. He ponders this question: what kinds of non-criminal acts by a President are clearly impeachable? He concludes that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are those kinds of offenses which fall into three categories: "(1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books."

Well, there you have it in my judgment. The President lied under oath in a civil rights case, he lied before a grand jury and he lied on national television to the American people.

Regarding Article II, obstruction of justice the House Managers proved to my satisfaction the following facts:

(1) The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to prepare and submit a false affidavit; (2) He encouraged her to tell false and misleading cover stories if she were called to testify in a civil rights lawsuit; (3) He engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal his gifts to Monica Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed in the civil rights lawsuit; (4) He intensified and succeeded in an effort to find Monica Lewinsky a job so that she would not testify truthfully in the civil rights lawsuit; (5) He gave a false account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie in order to influence Ms. Currie's expected testimony in the civil rights lawsuit; (6) At his deposition in a Federal civil rights action against him, William Jefferson Clinton allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently called to the attention of the judge by his attorney; (7) He lied to John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, Erskine Bowles and other White House aides regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to influence their expected testimony before the Federal grand jury.

In this day and age of public yearning for heroes, we criticize basketball, football and baseball players, and actors and singers who commit crimes or otherwise fail to be "good role models." One of those celebrities said a few years ago that he was only a basketball player, not a role model. He said in essence: "Want a role model, look to the President."

Do not underestimate, my friends, the corrupting and cynical signal we will send if we fail to enforce the highest standards of conduct on the most powerful man in the nation.

Finally, I want to address a question that my good friend, Senator Byrd, raised over the weekend in a television show. After declaring that the President had lied and obstructed justice, and after concluding these acts were impeachable offenses, Senator Byrd, for whom I have great respect, noted that it was very hard, in his judgment, to impeach a president who enjoyed the public popularity that this President enjoys.

Let me respond to that. Popularity is not a defense in an impeachment trial. Indeed, one of our Founding Fathers addressed this issue of popularity directly in the oft-quoted Federalist Papers: "It takes more than talents of low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" to be President. And, popularity isn't a pillar of Character Counts.

What if a President committed the same acts as those alleged in this trial but he was presiding over a weak economy, a stock market at a three-year low, 12 percent unemployment, 16 percent inflation and a nation worried about their job security and families? I wonder if this would be a straight party line vote. I just wonder.

Conversely, I wonder if you had a President who committed one of the impeachable crimes enumerated in the Constitution--bribery or treason. And the facts were obvious and clear: he gave a job to someone in exchange for a $5,000 bribe and the entire episode was on video tape. In this hypothetical, what if this bribery-perpetrating President was very popular but the House, nonetheless, impeached him. It would be the Senate's responsibility to hold a trial. In this example, economy is strong, the country is at peace, everyone's stock market investments are soaring. Would we then interpret the Constitution to provide a popularity defense? Would we create a "booming economy exception" to the conviction and removal clause of the Constitution? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Let me repeat, temporary popularity of a President cannot be a legitimate defense against impeachment.

The President has committed high crimes and misde meanors, in violation of his oath of office. He lied under oath. He obstructed justice. His behavior was unworthy of the Presidency of the United States.

Thus, I sadly conclude that the President is guilty of the charges made against him by the House of Representatives and I will vote to convict him on both counts before the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[LadyVer]

FWIW, I'm tired of hearing about all the male legislators who act like they've won a Nobel for Family Values yet have a problem with keeping their dick where it belongs, no matter when their dick wondered. I think their private life should be private unless they out themselves like Weiner or it impinges on their job like Sanford. Then they should quietly resign and find employment that isn't subsidized by the taxpayers.

 

[Busybody]

I'm trying to do my best BusyBody and vette man posting pointless shit. Obviously, the satire is lost on right-wing cronies. Let me try again.
.

Clearly DUMBASSDAN did not read that at all

Had ZERO to do with ClitMan fucking around

So its meaningless

BTW, I QUESTION THE SOURCE OF THE OP

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You chose this over Jesse Jackson Jr.?


http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1371421_o.gif

 

[Busybody]

You chose this over Jesse Jackson Jr.?


http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1371421_o.gif

who?

 

[Busybody]

We needa talk REPOH fucking

and

Water bottles


Melgen-Menendez scandal throws spotlight on Medicare, Medicaid fraud


WFB

The federal investigation into the relationship between Democratic donor Dr. Salomon Melgen and Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) has exposed the rampant culture of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, which by some estimates cost taxpayers as much as $98 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The raid by the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of Melgen’s eye center in Florida spanned two days in late January. The involvement of HHS indicated “the search-and-seizure raid has ties to a possible Medicare fraud inquiry,” the Miami Herald reported. The FBIreportedly went in after authorities spotted a shredding truck; boxes and bags of evidence were removed from Melgen’s office.

“Normally, federal searches of businesses occur during the day during normal business hours. The fact that this search began on Jan. 29 and lasted some thirty-plus hours and ended Jan. 30, tells us the scope of this search was major,” Ken Boehm, chairman and cofounder of the National Legal and Policy Center, said by email. “Also, the presence of crow bars and drills would seem to indicate that materials being sought were locked up. By any conventional yardstick, all of this activity tells us this is a very serious investigation.”

The exact scope of Medicare fraud in America is unknown. However, the GAO has long identified Medicare as a high-risk program, and it has issued frequent reports on identifying fraud and finding ways to help combat it.

The Obama administration recently touted its efforts in combating Medicare fraud, claiming in a release last week it had “record-breaking” recoveries of $4.2 billion for FY 2012 from individuals and companies who attempted to defraud Medicare and Medicaid.

However, while the numbers were impressive and reported by many media outlets, critics say such recovery figures are suspect.

MORE http://freebeacon.com/an-eye-on-fraud/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But BusyBody!

The Democrats are the good guys!

The only thing we judge them on is their intentions!



Outcomes, behavior, and even lawbreaking are condonable activities as long as they are fighting Republican malfeasance!

 

[Busybody]

STFU, and drink your water bottle

while

you sit on a car roof with your dog

while

your wife PAYS for her OWN HORSES and her own DRESSES


what FUCKED UP ECONOMY?

separate vacations?

STFU, and drink your water bottle

while

you sit on a car roof with your dog

while

your wife PAYS for her OWN HORSES and her own DRESSES

 

[RobDownSouth]

What will we tell our RentAGooks™?

 

[bigmackattack]

Politicians have cheated since the dawn of man. It happened before, it is happening today and it will happen tomorrow.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Politicians have cheated since the dawn of man. It happened before, it is happening today and it will happen tomorrow.

Profound.
Very profound.
One of the most profound statements I've ever encountered on this board.
Welcome to Literotica.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If only he had something to resign from.

 

[dan_c00000]

Again great BusyBody and vette impression.

Republican Senator Votes AGAINST WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!

Check out his shitting voting record on civil rights and abortion (which is totally legal by the way).