Republican Rep. Vance McAllister, R-La., apologized Monday after a video surfaced on the website of a local paper that reportedly showed him “passionately kissing and embracing a member of his congressional staff.” Because the woman is a paid, part-time staffer in his congressional office, McAllister could face an ethics investigation.
Though House Ethics rules do not specifically prohibit romantic involvement between a member of Congress and his or her staff, the rules do require members to “conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.” That broad regulation could provide support for an investigation against McAllister.
Such a case is not unprecedented. The unfolding McAllister episode is reminiscent of a 2010 incident involving then-Rep. John Souder, R-Ind., who resigned after admitting to an affair with a staffer in his own district office. After Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, then one of Souder’s colleagues in the House, learned of the affair, he reported it to the House Committee on Ethics. Speaker John Boehner followed up with a letter to the committee concerning the affair and told Souder to resign.
Souder took his advice, ending the investigation (the committee is only authorized to look into the conduct of current members of Congress).
However, the extent of McAllister’s relationship with his staffer — identified by The Ouachita Citizen as Melissa Anne Hixon Peacock, 33 — is unclear. In his statement Monday, McAllister apologized for “what I’ve done,” but did not elaborate on what exactly that means.
Both McCallister and Peacock are married, The Citizen reported. Peacock and her husband, Hugh Peacock, both contributed the maximum amount allowed to McCallister’s campaign before she was hired to work in his congressional office, and the couple are long-time friends. Hugh Peacock and McAllister went to high school together and worked at the same oil-and-gas company for 16 years, The Citizen reported.
Neither the Office of Congressional Ethics nor the House Ethics Committee would comment on the possibility of an investigation, and none of the offices of members of the committee or the Louisiana delegation responded to requests for comment.
Asked whether a request for an investigation into the matter had been filed Monday, Ethics Committee Chief Counsel Tom Rust said, “We certainly can’t comment on that.”
McAllister won his House seat in a contentious special election just last November. He defeated state Sen. Neil Riser — who had the support of Gov. Bobby Jindal, outgoing Rep. Rodney Alexander, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and other members of the Louisiana delegation — by 19 points in a runoff.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."