Comments (19)

libra wrote on January 5, 2007 6:58 PM:

She'd stripped Jefferson of his committee assignments "just in case" and before the investigation had been resolved (into indictment or into an acquital). Wouldn't have hurt to keep Mollohan "on ice" also, until something's known for certain. We not only need to be seen keeping our house clean, we need to keep it clean for real.

Very disappointing of Ms Pelosi.

oldtree wrote on January 5, 2007 8:36 PM:

pelosi may know some things we don't, for example;
now that this chair is known to be under investigation, she either has reason to believe he is in trouble, or perhaps not.

she may have a replacement ready, she may have in the second in command, the person that will be ripe and ready to take over immediately if there is a reason to replace him.

one thing you can bet on, there is not much likelihood that she is going to leave someone proven to be a crook in any position. she has all ready dumped questionable candidates.

it is hard when you realize that she is going to become our president in a matter of months. There is no one that bush could nominate that congress would accept when we find out about crimes of the executive branch and it's minions. imagine if bush tries to appoint someone as VP?. he would have to "annoint" someone outside the loop, unaware of the conspiracy, because it is now rather plain to the average rube that the entire WH OVP, Justice, CIA, cabinet....... are members of the conspiracy. At least we have numerous statements by the top echelon of these departments making statements that have confirmed their involvement in high crimes and misdemeanors against the people of this country, and numerous others

I don't think we can wait for bush to annoint such a turd. for it will be that person issuing pardons. there can be no repeat of the treason committed by the bastard ford, the appointed godfather of the criminal nixon and his cronies. having been there, I could puke to see nice things written about this man. he facilitated organized crime's takeover of america. thanks a lot.

alas, we can trust no one but the speaker of the house at this point in our country's history to run the country. for the house is the only body not completely distorted by corruption at this time. The senate is a group of barely legal shills now, with a few notable exceptions. the house represents the people, and it is us that will have to dictate the rules to our new government.

for now, and for the future of our country. the majority is now going to have to speak out, loud. your congress people may be corrupt bastards like mine. talk to the ones in the next district. remember, most congressional districts are overwhelmingly democratic or independent controlled. You only need the people to express themselves in a percentage to affect the actions of the entire congress. for their only existing job is to be re elected. Anyone want to bet the first thing the congress person does each day, or each week, is LOOK AT THE POLLS. when we can end the campaign nonsense and require our government pay for all elections, we may again see some sense of fairness and the rule of law, once again see the light of day

oldtree wrote on January 5, 2007 8:42 PM:

sorry Alan; what is wrong with someone welcoming a federal investigation of any politician, or any crime? if it is one on your side, wouldn't you want to know real hard facts now that America is tired of (some) criminal legislators?
that appears to be what Pelosi is saying, and it is the most refreshing thing I have heard in a whole year, not just this one.

do you disagree that a crime deserves investigation, even if we do not make the final decision on the outcome?

r flanagan wrote on January 5, 2007 8:58 PM:

She was wrong about Jefferson and right about
Mollohan. They should be considered innocent if not until proven guilty , at the very least until there is an indictment. It's worrying if the Speaker of the House doesn't support that principle

nurse in box wrote on January 5, 2007 9:29 PM:

The investigations of which I know that look into a person's "family tree" are used to allow security levels. Criminal investigations are not conducted on each person as Pelosi is so flippant to offer. The reason to keep a party under investigaion in charge of the purse strings of the investigators is to inhibit their desire to discover. Imagine how much cheaper it would have been for OJ to be in charge of the the salaries of the police investigators and labs as opposed to having to hire his own defense team.

San Hensel wrote on January 5, 2007 11:44 PM:

I think Pelosi is absolutely fantastic, but this is just wrong. Seriously, this just flies in the face of a lot of what she has correctly stated about the corruption of the 109th congress. I expect better from her. I think she was right about William Jefferson, however. Alcee Hastings, I'm not sure yet.

joejoejoe wrote on January 6, 2007 1:07 AM:

Ugh. I understand the name of this site is 'Muckracker' but you guys need to caveat your stories a bit more consistently. The link to your original story, which links to a WSJ story states "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."

It doesn't look good. But unlike the Jefferson matter in which two associates of Jefferson have already pled guilty and Jefferson had his offices raided by the FBI cases like the Mollohan real estate transaction 'often end with no charges filed'.

Does every Congressman have to be like Caesar's wife? I'm not saying every report on TPMMuckraker has to be sources and fleshed out like Ken Silverstein's work at Harper's but being a little less like John Solomon would be nice.

I applaud the drive for balance and the desire to hold people in power accountable to a high standard of ethics. And it is certainly newsworthy to report the smoke of ethical clouds. But you guys come close to yelling 'Fire! Fire!' every time a question is raised about the conduct of anyone. That only diminishes your ability to yell 'Fire!' when you truly break some powerful muck.

Some Guy wrote on January 6, 2007 2:29 AM:

Yeah! He should be considered innocent until proven guilty!

...by Federal employees whom he will exercise oversight over as committee chair...

...and whose salaries he can zero out of their budget.

Yeah. She's standing up for what's right!

Some Gal wrote on January 6, 2007 9:51 AM:

Well Nancy Pelosi didn't get it with John Murtha, either. What would happen with these positions if they too were put up for a vote?

Wonder what CREW is thinking about all this.

Pelosi seems a bit fickle, or inconsistent, or something on that order. How come in just the two months since her election she has had to deal with -- mmm --how many questionable ethics / legal Dems in line for powerful positions?

Here's a thought: Maybe the Republicans do not really have the monopoly on ethically and legally challenged members. John Conyers should see about an investigation -- no wait. As a newbie representative he just published an apology for using federally paid employees to work in his campaign. Oops.

Might be time to board up the windows.

oldtree wrote on January 6, 2007 10:57 AM:

sorry Paul, put alan down, it was just too late in the evening

R M Flanagan wrote on January 6, 2007 3:43 PM:

My disappointment is not with Nancy who-I think-
has done exactly the right thing in Mollohan's case but with this post and these responses. GITMO is an illustration of what happens when our government ignores the principle that you are innocent until convicted . Most of what I read above could be quoted from Alberto Gonzales.

As Pastor Niemoller described the first step in the loss of basic human rights is to be silent when they are violated in the case of an unpopular member of the community.

Then they come for you.

Yellowbird wrote on January 6, 2007 5:32 PM:

Does it not occur to you that ongoing investigations, whether or not there is any basis for one; can be and ARE ordered for political reasons (remember Clinton: 6 or 8 years of investigations). This is a weapon the rethuglicans are using to BLOCK this man from overseeing them.
It must mean they are very afraid of what he will find.

I stand with Pelosi's decision here and think the basis of your story is... well... off base.

Dex wrote on January 6, 2007 10:42 PM:

Its also important to remember that in this country we aren't guilty until proven so. Certainly in the political world, its not exactly a wise move to allow someone being investigated to be in a position such as Mollohan's. However, its also totally legitimate to allow him to remain. The true test would be the response if his investigation ends in indictment etc. Pelosi is taking a risk, no doubt. As someone else has stated, she probably knows something we don't. Its a rather foolish move politically if he is in fact guilty, thats for certain.

Some Gal wrote on January 6, 2007 10:48 PM:

Mollohan is in very select company.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=150

So if being on the list is no big deal, why was being on this list used against the Repubs durin the election campaigns??

Ned Williams wrote on January 7, 2007 3:04 PM:

Oldtree,
"she'll be president in a few months" . . . are you serious?

Uh, it's not a crime to disagree with a Liberal.

James Bear wrote on January 7, 2007 8:05 PM:

I don't know what is more amazing: that each congress turns into the one before it, or that we don't seem to catch on to this fact!
It is important to keep an eye on the new congress - you should start writing and reminding them: Public Servants CAN be fired.
In fact - this needs to become the battlecry of all citizens:
Public Servants CAN be fired!
Public Servants CAN be fired!
Public Servants CAN be fired!

R M Flanagan wrote on January 7, 2007 9:37 PM:

Sure public servants can be fired. Happened ,essentially , to Shinseki. Seems to be happening now to any generals who are guilty of giving Bush information he prefers not to hear.

Even under a truly objective and professional Atty Genl it would be questionable whether
any action by anybody is called for purely because an investigation has started. Under
Gonzales ? Give me a break.

Terry Ott wrote on January 13, 2007 3:04 AM:

I really had not been paying attention to the Mollohan thing, so I went looking.

Sure, require a legal investigation before you convict or even condemn someone, but Speaker Pelosi can ask her own questions --- privately --- and see what answers she gets, right?

On the website of Mollohan's opponent in the last election, he asks Mollohan to explain how his assets rose so much in a 4 year period, 2000-04. Apparently Mollohan had or has said he would reveal that in a report; I don't know if he has. But here is the perplexing set of statements I ran across:

"How is it that the value of Alan Mollohan’s assets skyrocketed by at least 1,000% in four years? In 2000, he declared that, at most, the value of his assets was $565,000. Fast forward four years to 2004 – now Alan Mollohan says his assets are worth at least $6.3 million, and as much as $24.9 million. That means that he made somewhere between $5 million and $24 million in just four years. Alan Mollohan will make $165,000 this year – a lot of money, to be sure – but we’re talking about gains of between $1.25 million and $6 million every year for four straight years. He claims that he made it in real estate – I own real estate, and I can promise you that I didn’t make 1,000% on my property, so that doesn’t quite pass the straight face test.

"So the first question we deserve an answer to, Congressman, is exactly what were you doing in your spare time between 2000 and 2004 that was making you an extra $1 million every year?"

If Pelosi doesn't know the answer to that question by now, she should as part of her due diligence -- that is, if she is serious about even some vague, watered-down standard of integrity (and her own credibility).

No papers would have to be produced; few details would have to be spelled out. 30 minutes over a couple of glasses of iced tea with a couple of financial experts (no notes allowed) and a follow-up discussion after Mollohan leaves the room should be enough. Don't you think?

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:20 AM:

Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye