It was the reporter's fault.

That's pretty much what Homeland Security adviser and Houston businessman Stephen Payne said.

Payne claims he never meant to suggest -- as a video from the Times of London suggests -- that he could arrange meetings with high-level Bush Administration officials in exchange for a large contribution to the Bush presidential library fund.

He told the Houston Chronicle:

"I was not there to raise money for the library, I have no interest in the library. I was there to get a client," Payne said.

Payne met in a swanky London hotel with a man known as Eric Dos, a Kazakh politician Payne said he first met on a pipeline project in 2005. Payne did not know the other man was a reporter or that he was being videotaped.

Payne says the two men asked him leading questions.

"After we completed that hourlong conversation, they kept wanting to come back to making a donation to the library. I made it clear on multiple occasions that the library wasn't taking any money yet, and that foreign contributions may or may not be accepted."

Payne told the Dallas Morning News that the paper edited out his remarks that would absolve him of suspicion.

"Over the course of an hourlong conversation in a social setting, isolated comments can be taken out of context," he said in the statement. Mr. Payne accused the paper of "manufacturing" the news and making him the victim of a "confidence game."

A spokesman for the Bush library foundation said rules are in place to prevent the solicitation described by Payne.

In Austin, a spokesman for the Bush library foundation said no money will be accepted from foreign sources while Mr. Bush is still in office.

"It's safe to say the things that are alleged in this story would never be encouraged or allowed," foundation spokesman Dan Bartlett said.

Recently, House lawmakers filed their third quarter campaign disclosure reports -- and you know what that means! It's time for another round-up of how much lawmakers have dropped on lawyers to defend themselves from investigation.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), with nearly $1 million in total fees dating back to last year, remains the undisputed House champion, but Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is charging hard.

Here's our list of legal spending habits for the past three months, as well as an estimate of how much each lawmaker has spent in campaign funds to date and to which firms:

Rep. Don Young (R-AK): $183,785
So far, Young has spent $447,000 on the law firms Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Tobin O'Connor Ewing & Richard (the vast majority of which is spent on Akin Gump). He's under investigation for his relationship with Bill Allen, former CEO of oil-services firm.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ): $111,042
Renzi has paid around $148,000 to law firms Patton Boggs LLP and Steptoe & Johnson LLP (primarily on Patton Boggs). Renzi remains under investigation by the FBI for pushing legislation that would advantage political supporters and former business partners. His house was raided by the FBI this past April. Renzi has announced that he will not seek another term.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV): $55,000
Mollohan has spent $78,000 on the law firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. He has been under federal scrutiny since last May for earmarking funds for organizations connected to him.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA): $26,982
Lewis has spent over $987,000 on the law firms Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Williams & Jensen. He is being investigated for earmarks that he provided to campaign contributors, as well as his role in the Duke Cunningham scandal.

Read more »

West Virginia congressman Alan Mollohan (D) has used $160,000 worth of services by a white collar criminal defense firm, according to new campaign filings.

Mollohan, who chairs the House panel which controls the Justice Department budget (including the FBI), has been under investigation by the FBI for a rather knotty mess of nonprofits, friends and real estate deals that appear to have made a lot of money for a lot of people.

According to documents filed by his campaign with the Federal Elections Commission, the law firm Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evan has collected $140,000 from his campaign. The campaign says that as of Dec. 31, 2006, it owed the firm another $20,000,

Mollohan has said that because of the investigation he would recuse himself from decisions concerning the FBI's budget, but some believe that doesn't resolve the conflict of interest.

"Just the fact that he's not going to micromanage the FBI's budget doesn't mean he can't play havoc with the Justice Department budget," conservative watchdog Ken Boehm told CNSNews.com earlier this month. "When the Justice Department goes to his subcommittee - and they need all sorts of approval out of his subcommittee for other spending things and other things they want - they're going to a man they're investigating," he said.

Boehm's group, the National Legal and Policy Center, has extensively investigated Mollohan. The congressman's office did not immediately have a comment on the matter.

For the moment, Mollohan's records appear to show he's spent more on his defense than Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), who's spent around $120,000 for legal assistance relating to a federal investigation of his ties to Abramoff. But both men are dwarfed by the legal fees incurred by former Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). As of December, Lewis had spent $860,000 on lawyers. His campaign faces a deadline of today to deliver an updated report covering expenses for the month of December, which may include more fees. Doolittle and Mollohan have already filed that report.

Update: Through a spokesman, Rep. Mollohan gave us the following statement: "The legal expenses were incurred in responding to the claims of a right-wing group in Washington that there were irregularities in my financial disclosure documents. That resulted in the preparation and public release of an extensive financial disclosure report and analysis last June. That work debunked the claims and the accompanying innuendos."

Despite chairing the House panel which oversees the Justice Department budget, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) has sworn he won't meddle with the Feds' money, Congressional Quarterly reports (sub. req.) today.

Since Mollohan is the subject of an FBI investigation, that's probably a smart move.

Concerns were raised last November when it was noticed that Mollohan was poised to take the chairmanship of the Commerce Justice State Appropriations Subcommittee, from which he would hold of the purse strings for Justice and its law enforcement arm.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't see the big deal. "I think the Justice Department is looking into every member of Congress," she told a news crew last week. Mollohan, thankfully, was a little less myopic. “To make certain that there is no basis for criticism of my service on the CJS Subcommittee, I have decided to recuse myself from any related Justice Department accounts,” he wrote to colleagues in a letter obtained by CQ.

Meanwhile, the top Republican on the Appropriations committee is also under federal investigation, but he hasn't made any noises about recusing himself from meddling with the Justice Department budget. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the committee's ranking member, has blown over $800,000 in legal bills defending himself against aggressive investigators.

Justin reported back in November that Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), who's been under federal investigation since April of last year, was headed to chair the panel that controls the purse strings for the Justice Department.

Well, the new Speaker doesn't see a problem with that. In fact, she took a bizarrely blasé stance on the issue when talking to a West Virginia news station:

Less than 24 hours after taking over as House speaker, Pelosi took NEWS9 cameras on a tour of the Capitol. There, she said she will still allow Mollohan to hold his powerful position which oversees the budget of the Justice Department -- the very people investigating his financial dealings.

"Quite frankly, I think the Justice Department is looking into every member of Congress. I always say to everybody, 'You're now going to get a free review of your family tree -- past, present and future, imagined and otherwise,'" Pelosi said.

Huh?

Ouch. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), now the ranking member of the House appropriations committee, has paid out $861,000 in legal fees since learning in May he was under FBI scrutiny, the CREW blog reports.

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) has run up bills totaling more than $117,000. And Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) has paid more than $70,000, according to CREW.

A number of folks have noticed that Rep. Alan Mollohan may soon control the purse strings to the FBI, despite being under FBI investigation, as we reported Nov. 30.

And some folks on the Hill are just not happy about it. In particular, members of the all-Democrat Congressional Black Caucus are said to be grumbling that the party's leadership is exhibiting a double standard by letting Mollohan,who's under FBI investigation, keep his seat on the Approps committee (where he'll likely control the Justice Dept. budget) after forcing a CBC member, Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA), to step down from another powerful committee for facing a similar federal investigation.

Under scrutiny for bribery allegations, Jefferson got a sharp elbow from now-Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to leave his seat on the House Ways and Means committee.

I chatted recently with Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), chairman of the CBC. He made it pretty clear his group's members were unhappy with what they perceived as a double-standard. Asked if the caucus had any plans to disrupt Mollohan's bid for a powerful Approps subcommittee chair, Watt said no. But it's a few weeks until January, when the full Democratic caucus will vote (by secret ballot) to approve the nominees for those slots.

Two senior Democrats have seen their leadership ambitions deep-sixed because of their murky ethics histories. Here's a third Democrat heading for a powerful post whom folks may want to keep an eye on.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is under investigation by the FBI. And he's set to assume a top post which would put him in control of the FBI's budget. Neat trick, eh?

The FBI's probing Mollohan for possible violations of the law arising from his sprawling network of favors and money which connects him to good friends via questionable charities, alarmingly successful real estate ventures, and hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarked funds.

The investigation appears to be active and ongoing. We're told that the Feds continue to gather information on the guy. Yet the Democrats look poised to make Mollohan the chairman of the panel which controls the purse strings for the entire Justice Department -- including the FBI.

Read more »

What do Sens. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) have in common? (Hint: they're frequent subjects on TPMmuckraker.)

The three men are the most corrupt senators in Congress, according to a new list of the most corrupt lawmakers in Washington.

It's the second year now that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released its list of 20 muckiest senators and congresspeople.

Although the group names the trio as "most corrupt," it doesn't rank the 17 House members they finger.

The group also identified five "members to watch" -- that is, folks with muck in their past that could be a harbinger of muck to come.

The list, in no particular order, is after the jump.

Read more »

Bloomberg News got ahold of the donor list for Rep. Alan Mollohan's (D-WV) charity, and what do you know -- it's stocked full of contributions from companies that have benefitted from Mollohan's widely-renowned earmarking abilities.

Mollohan steers tax money their way, they steer some to his charity.

Read more »

You there, at home. How would you like to take $25,000 and leverage it into a multimillion dollar share of a condominium complex in just ten years? Or to put it another way, how would you like to see a 9,000 percent appreciation on your investment in just four years? Well, if you follow the example of Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV), your dream can come true.

Here's your road map. It's a chronology of Mollohan's real estate investments, which he released yesterday as part of his effort to prove that he's got nothing to hide. In early April, you may remember, news broke that Mollohan was under investigation by the FBI for his investments and earmarking activity.

Read more »

From today's Charleston Daily Mail:

More than two dozen organizations in northcentral West Virginia with ties to Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) reportedly have been subpoenaed, and one nonprofit has reportedly shipped 160 cartons of documents to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

As a scandal's details become known, it develops its own flavor. In today's New York Times, we get our first real taste of the Mollohan scandal, and it's clear this one will carry the heartiness of the West Virginia mountains from which Mollohan hails.

The paper reports today that the feds are curious about a mess of condominiums Mollohan purchased with his "cousin." Having roots in West Virginia, I can tell you that "cousin" there is used as an inclusive, not an exclusive, term. It's thrown around to mean just about anyone you're in any way related to who isn't your parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or your child.

Indeed, Mollohan and his investment-partner "cousin" Joe Jarvis aren't immediate cousins. In a case like theirs, it's a favorite West Virginia game to sit around and figure out exactly how two such characters share blood -- as the New York Times dutifully engages:

Mr. Jarvis, 74, and Mr. Mollohan, 63, share a great-great grandfather, and Mr. Jarvis's son, Skeeter, said his grandmother Mildred and Mr. Mollohan's Aunt Tib were best friends who lived next door.

Oh, this is going to be a fun one. West Virginia, mountain mama, take me home.

The Washington Post went front page today with Rep. Alan Mollohan's (D-WV) ethical troubles, and boy, he doesn't do himself one bit of good.

Mollohan's troubles mostly stem from his habit of engaging in real estate deals with the beneficiaries of his many, many earmarks. He bought a farm, for instance, with an old friend soon after landing him an earmark. And he bought beachfront property with a woman who runs one of his nonprofits - a nonprofit which (you guessed it) relies on Mollohan's earmarked largesse.

Well, gee, he says, I guess I should have thought twice about that:

In an interview, Mollohan said he is unapologetic and proud of the thousands of jobs he has brought to West Virginia [the earmarks] and that, legally speaking, everything he has done to secure them is "squeaky clean." But he acknowledged that his actions might look incriminating and that he may have had an ethical "blind spot" that prevented him from questioning whether he, as a government official and vice chairman of the ethics panel, should have invested with such close associates.

"I would have done things differently," he said as he drove through West Virginia's northern panhandle. "It puts you in a position where people could say there's something untoward going on."

The House ethics committee warns lawmakers to avoid exactly those kinds of situations. Its Web site admonishes federal officials not to accept favors or benefits "in circumstances that might create the appearance of influencing the performance of official duties."

You can just imagine the Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum rolling his eyes as he wrote that last paragraph. "Blind spot?" Jeez.

And it looks like it's going to continue to get worse for Mollohan before it gets better. The original complaint that kicked off the Mollohan investigation, from the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, alleged that he'd misreported his assets and debts on his disclosure form. No, no, no, said Mollohan. But now, according to the Post, Mollohan will be amending his disclosure filings to reflect misstatements. Unfortunately for Mollohan, that won't make the problem go away - such a misstatement could still be charged as a crime.

Meanwhile, the investigation continues apace. One of Mollohan's nonprofits was recently subpoenaed - and two more are likely to follow.

Oh, and one more thing. "Mollohan promises a report soon that will explain how he so quickly became a multimillionaire." Can't wait.

OK, we all knew Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) was in trouble, but today's news in the Times makes it look all the worse. At the center of Mollohan's problems is a system of nonprofits that he's set up in West Virginia - three of them have recently received word from the FBI that they'll be subpoenaed.

As a taxpayer, you can't feel good about the fact that over the last ten years Mollohan's been able to funnel via earmarks almost half a billion dollars to a handful of his choice nonprofits. Unfortunately, it's perfectly legal. What isn't legal - and, in Mollohan's case, not yet proven - is profiting directly from earmarks or scheming to rewire appropriations as campaign contributions.

We know that Mollohan had a tendency to go in for real estate deals with people who benefited from his earmarks, but so far that smoking gun hasn't emerged. Maybe the FBI has an idea of where to find it.

Details on Mollohan's nonprofits below the fold.

Read more »

Today's Wall Street Journal piece adds more fuel to the fire under Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), reporting that Mollohan partnered with an old friend of his to buy a 300-acre farm just months after securing an earmark for his friend's company. And it confirms that federal agents are on the case.

Here are the basic facts on the farm deal: sometime in late 2004, Mollohan inserted a $2.1 million earmark for FMW, a company headed by his friend Dale McBride. On May 31,2005, Mollohan and McBride teamed up to buy a $900,000 farm together.

There's no evidence that the money for the earmark kicked back to Mollohan himself, but, as the WSJ reports, "House ethics guidelines warn lawmakers to avoid business deals with those who benefit from their official acts." Mollohan was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee until last Friday, remember. One wonders if this forthcoming piece had anything to do with his stepping down - according to the Journal, his spokesman responded to the reporter's questions last Friday, so he knew it was coming.

Perhaps the most newsworthy nugget in the piece is that FBI agents seem to be making the rounds, asking questions:

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have begun asking questions in Washington and West Virginia about the lawmaker's holdings and whether they were properly disclosed, according to people who have been contacted in recent days.

Although the Journal follows with the caveat that these types of investigations "often end with no charges filed," for the time being it just doesn't look good for Mollohan.

If you can't stand the heat, get off the ethics committee.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is stepping down from his post as Ranking Member on the House ethics committee, Roll Call's John Bresnahan reports this afternoon, quoting anonymous sources.

Mollohan informed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of his decision in a letter today, and Pelosi "has accepted his decision," a Democratic source said.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) will take the spot, Bresnahan says.

Mollohan's been under scrutiny for numerous allegations of financial misrepresentations on his disclosure forms.

The ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.) is under investigation. That much is clear. And politically, there can be no question that it's a black eye for Democrats.

But it's not clear from press accounts what Mollohan is under investigation for. Maybe that's because a Congressman misstating financial assets doesn't make for scintillating news copy?

Here's why Mollohan may be in trouble.

Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center filed an 81 page complaint (along with more than 400 pages of exhibits) with the U.S. Attorney's Office on February 28th. It's principal allegation was that Mollohan had consistently and repeatedly undervalued or failed to report assets on his financial disclosure reports. If true, Boehm says Mollohan would be in violation of two laws:

Read more »

The Justice Department is conducting an inquiry into the financial disclosures of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the Wall Street Journal reports today. The National Legal and Policy Center, a right-wing Virginia political watchdog group, brought the matter to investigators' attention, flagging "at least 200 misrepresentations or omissions in Mr. Mollohan's disclosure forms over the years," according to the newspaper.

When TPMmuckraker called the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, their spokeswoman confirmed to us that there is an investigation, but refused to comment further on the nature or extent of it.

Late Update: DC-based government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington calls for Mollohan to step down from the Ethics committee.