Wired News attends a meeting of the White House created to monitor citizens' privacy concerns and declares it a joke.

A ha ha. Ha.

Yesterday, Paul was among the first to note how the House ethics investigators took outgoing Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) to task for his less-than-heroic response to complaints from a recently-departed page that Foley was asking him questions about his penis size.

In a statement late yesterday, Kolbe responded. "The report demonstrates that members of my office and I took prompt action in 2001 to address the complaint that was brought to our attention," Kolbe declares. Full statement after the jump.

Read more »

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) narrowly defeated his Democratic challenger to win re-election last month -- but he's still fighting the Justice Department, if his legal bills are any judge.

Doolittle has spent over $100,000 of his campaign funds on legal fees, his most recent FEC filings show. (He can spend campaign funds that way as long as the legal battle is over his activities in office.) The congressman accepted tens of thousands of dollars from disgraced superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, and he did some mighty favors for the guy.

One of Doolittle's more unnerving habits, as Paul has documented, has been to give his wife a 15 percent cut of all donations as her "fundraising fee." Some view this uncharitably, calling it skimming -- or worse, if the donor knows 15 percent of his money is headed for the Doolittle's personal bank account.

But he may be reforming: according to the Sacramento Bee, Doolittle is no longer giving his wife 15 percent of the money. He's using a bit of bookkeeping magic, recording the cut as "debt" but not paying out. Perhaps he's fancying the idea that once his legal troubles are sorted out, his campaign will catch up on all those back payments?

In an interview with Congressional Quarterly, incoming House intelligence committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) said he could support boosting American troop levels in Iraq by 30,000 to subdue the warring militias -- though it's not clear he understands who's fighting who, or how more troops would get them to stop:

. . . Reyes says he favors sending more troops [to Iraq].

“If it’s going to target the militias and eliminate them, I think that’s a worthwhile investment,” he said.

It’s hard to find anybody in Iraq who thinks the U.S. can do that.

On “a temporary basis, I’m willing to ramp them up by twenty or thirty thousand . . . for, I don’t know, two months, four months, six months — but certainly that would be an exception,” Reyes said.

Despite this commitment, Reyes was hard-pressed to explain to CQ's national security editor Jeff Stein some of the basics of the region's radicalism, such as whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shia (answer: very Sunni), and Stein seems nonplussed by the scope of Reyes' understanding of the many factions fighting the country's civil war.

One puzzle that had never quite been clear: how did Mark Foley's emails to a former House page reach the public eye?

According to the ethics report (page 44 and on), in the fall of 2005, a page nominated by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) received the now-infamous icky emails. He forwarded them to Danielle Savoy, a staffer in Alexander's office, calling them "sick."

From there, Savoy forwarded them to her friend, Kelley Halliwell, a lobbyist and formerly of Rep. Joel Hefley's (R-CO) office. And she forwarded the emails to her boyfriend Justin Field, who worked at the House Democratic Caucus. From there, they went to the House Democratic Caucus communications director Matt Miller. And from him to The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times (both of whom ultimately decided not to run stories) and also the communications director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Nevertheless, it would be nearly 10 months before a publication actually ran with the story.

It sounds from the report that Ted Van Der Meid, Speaker Dennis Hastert's counsel, had his own problems with being too close with the House pages. From pages 39-40:

According to [House Clerk Jeff Trandahl], he raised his concerns about Rep. Foley to Van Der Meid "pretty often" in the context of raising similar concerns he had relative to Van Der Meid's over-involvement with pages assigned to the Speaker's office. Trandahl testified, "So here is my point of contact in the Speaker (sic), and I'm trying to have the conversation about him specifically, but also in a general sense." According to Trandahl, while Van Der Meid understood his concerns "politically," Van Der Meid's "pushback" was that "there is nothing wrong with people being mentors and caring about the kids." Trandahl responded that the page program had paid professionals to serve those functions. Trandahl felt that "there needed to be a very clear line between the page program and people who worked up here [in leadership]."

Van Der Meid did not report Trandahl's concerns about Rep. Foley's conduct to anyone else in the Speaker's Office... He explained that he did not elevate the Foley matter because he "got the impression that [Trandahl] was dealing with it."... He further testified that "[Trandahl] had never asked me to take any other action," and in any event, "I don't know what I would have done."

Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) isn't the only guy to take a beating in the House Ethics Committee report on the Foley scandal.

The panel finds that Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) all but abandoned his responsibilities as chairman of the House Page Board. "Rep. Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-mails or other documents," the report states. "[A]t a minimum Rep. Shimkus had an obligation to learn more facts regarding the e-mails [between Foley and a page] before concluding that he could handle the matter himself without informing the other members of the Page Board or seeking their input."

They also pull up just short of accusing House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) of conspiring to obstruct justice, when he tried to rope other GOPers with conflicting stories into meeting with him to "prepare a statement." To the panel, that smacked of an attempt to coordinate a plausible lie:

[T]he efforts by the Speaker's office to prepare a statement under the direction of counsel could have had the additional effect of inhibiting the Investigative Subcommittee's ability to secure evidence. . . This effect was compounded by the appearance of [lawyer Randy] Evans and a law partner as counsel for the Speaker, Stokke and Kennedy during their testimony before the Subcommittee.

Some may recall that Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) refused to attend the meeting. But that doesn't keep him clear of suspicion. He only did that on advice of his counsel -- the aforementioned Randy Evans, who had the thankless (though likely profitable) job of keeping all the men out of trouble.

As we tear through the new House ethics report, we'll bring you updates of the juicy stuff we find.

First up, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who comes out looking very, very bad.

A former House page told the committee that he sent Kolbe, to his personal email account, a copy of an instant message he received from Foley in 2001 in which Foley had "made reference to the page's penis size."

When the committee asked Kolbe about this, he said he couldn't recall whether the page had contacted him or his assistant or whether it was by phone or email. What's more, he said he never knew the specifics of the young man's allegation against Foley, and "did not attempt to speculate."

As if that isn't bad enough, Kolbe appears to have tried to keep the kid quiet when the scandal broke: the former page also told the committee that he'd called Kolbe after the Foley story broke this September and asked for advice. He says Kolbe replied that "it is best that you don't even bring this up with anybody.... There is no good that can come from it if you actually talk about this. The man has resigned anyway."

Kolbe's side of the story? He told the committee that "the page had already decided that he was not going to report the IM, and the he merely responded, 'That's your decision.'"

But The Washington Post caught wind of the page's story anyway. And soon after being contacted by a Post reporter about it, Kolbe called the page and left a message: "It looks like you did some talking."

We've posted the relevant section of the report here.

From the AP:

The House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances to former male pages but were negligent in protecting the teenagers, a congressional aide said Friday.

Update: More, from Roll Call:

The executive summary of the panel’s report does, however, state: “In all a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of former Rep. Foley’s conduct with respect to House pages.”

Update: You can download the report from the Ethics Committee Web site.

It's the kind of thing you'd expect to hear on Pacifica Radio, not in a speech by a Republican senator.

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal," declared Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), a 10-year veteran of the Senate, in a speech last night.

Did he mean it? Senators rarely throw around words like "criminal," especially when talking about actions by their own party. What's he going to do about it? Well, Gordon has been known to act on his convictions when he thinks a president has broken the law: he voted to convict President Bill Clinton in 1999, following the president's impeachment by the House.

The speech in its entirety below the jump.

Update: You can see video of the speech here.

Read more »

At 2:00 PM, to discuss their report on the Mark Foley investigation.

The AP reads the tea leaves:

The House ethics committee met in closed session Friday, indicating the panel could be close to finishing its report on ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances toward former male pages.

Oh, you sweet 109th Congress. We hate to see you go!

That's a minority opinion, of course. Some three-quarters of Americans think you've done a horrible job. Some even say, with all your (admitted) boozing, (alleged) whoring and (convicted) extortion, you're the worst Congress ever. And frankly, if we didn't know you so well, we'd probably agree with them.

You did only manage to stumble in to work 218 days over the past two years. And your inbox certainly piled up: there's all that intelligence you never questioned, a sprawling disaster of a war you didn't oversee, and of course the largest, most complex government budget in the history of the world, which you failed to rein in -- this year, you didn't even complete it.

And some of you simply lacked the credibility to do your jobs. Like the intelligence chairman who hunted for WMDs in Iraq even after the most ardent WMD-believers in the administration had given up the ghost. Or the most senior lawmaker for environmental issues who insists global warming proponents are brainwashers.

But the haters don't remember how much you've given. A whopping 19 members offered yourselves up for federal investigation! And what goodies you showered us with along the way: The fake charities, the cash in the freezer, the IM chats, the bribe menu, the FBI raids (oh, the raids!). And the hooker rumors, the sudden trips to rehab, the junkets to forced-abortion sweatshop islands, the "prosecutors have assured me I am not a target of any investigations"-s. When is a fundraiser not a fundraiser? You pondered this kind of question. You used your wives to take money you couldn't. And we'll treasure forever your many, many, many, many, many resignations!

Readers, you've shared this wild ride with the Schemin' 109th -- what are you going to miss? Send us an email and let us know.

It's the last day of the 109th Congress, which means that if the GOP-controlled House is going to release its ethics report on the Foley scandal, they have to do it today. So keep an eye out.

Signs are tiny, but promising: senior aides whispered to Roll Call earlier this week that the report "could" be publicly released this week. And ethics committee members murmured to the AP that they don't want to deal with this next year.

Still, no one's quite sure whether the committee will be delivering their long anticipated report.

The committee could, as the final act of the most inept board of overseers of the famously inept 109th Congress, simply pass the chore on to the new, Democrat-led ethics committee in January. That would undoubtedly delay the process even further, since the committee will be shifting membership along with the new Congress.

Here's a David v. Goliath story for you.

A reporter representing himself has convinced a federal court to push the Bush adminsitration to release sensitive documents, according to the non-profit advocacy group, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP).

New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein filed Freedom of Information Act requests back in March with a number of federal agencies, asking for information on how the administration was going after the leakers who shared with reporters information on the NSA wiretapping program and other sensitive operations. Needless to say, the bureaucracy has dragged its feet. So Gerstein gathered his papers and headed to court. And in this first round, anyway, he's won.

Gerstein is a guy we've had our eye on for some time. Readers may recall that Gerstein scooped the majors with the story that according to Scooter Libby, President Bush himself approved Libby's pre-war intelligence leaks to the New York Times. He got that "exclusive" by reading publicly-available documents that other reporters overlooked.

Read more »

Ex-Detainees Seek to Sue U.S. Officials
"In a federal courtroom today, nine former prisoners at U.S. military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan will seek through an unusual lawsuit to hold outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top military commanders personally responsible for the torture they say they endured.

"Rumsfeld's lawyers will argue that he cannot be held legally responsible because anything he may have done -- including authorizing harsh interrogations at the Abu Ghraib and Bagram detention facilities -- was within the scope of his job as defense secretary to combat terrorists and prevent future attacks." (WaPo)

Read more »

Democrat Christine Jennings will challenge last month's election results in the House of Representatives. What will Democrats do about it?

Jennings spokeswoman Kathy Vermazen told me today that there's no doubt that she'll be lodging a contest with the House -- it's only a matter of time. Most likely, it'll happen close to the December 20th filing deadline. So when the new Congress starts up in the new year, they'll find this thorny issue on the doorstep.

While it's crystal clear what Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean thinks about it, the woman who'll be in charge isn't showing her hand. Nancy Pelosi's office has been responding to comment requests by saying that she's "monitoring" the situation.

With majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats will control two of the most delicate but vital instruments of national security oversight: the House and Senate intelligence committees.

In Republican hands these past few years, the panels became known more for what they didn't do than for what they did: for not learning about secret government spying projects, not inquiring about interrogation abuses, and for slow-walking investigations into intelligence failures.

But the two Democrats who will take charge of the panels next year say that's going to change.

Player: Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Position: Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)

Tall, quiet and genteel, Rockefeller has in the past fielded criticism that he may be too lighweight on national security issues and use a too-light touch with the opposition. Indeed, he has typically eschewed bomb-throwing and confrontation in favor of more discreet efforts -- like writing a secret letter to the vice president. But that may be changing: Rockefeller has declared that his intelligence committee will pursue a "cleanup agenda," to make up for the messes left behind by the White House and his Republican predecessor, Sen. Pat Roberts (KS).

Rockefeller has billboarded his concerns about the Bush administration's "too aggressive" pursuit of secrecy, and has vowed stricter oversight of and inquiry into the NSA's domestic spying program and allegations of detainee torture.

It's the White House's habit of stonewalling, regardless of the issue, which really raises Rockefeller's hackles. "it's like they will only tell you what they want you to know," he told NPR's Steve Inskeep recently. "And I'm sorry, but this administration has carried that to extremes that I have never been familiar with before in intelligence or any other subject.

"We have to have oversight so that we can call them up short when they're doing something which we think is wrong. And right now we think some things they're doing may be wrong."

Player: Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Position: House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence (HPSCI)

A third-stringer, Reyes comes to the House intel chairmanship with experience and ambition. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (CA) reached past two more senior candidates to pick Reyes to head the committee. He's got some chops: A former border patrol officer and Vietnam vet, Reyes has been a member of HPSCI as well as the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, which oversees nuclear weaponry and military satellite programs.

Reyes has vowed to make current intelligence on Iraq a top priority. In an interview with CQ's Tim Starks, the congressman said he'd focus on "understanding the role of intelligence and the role of intelligence agencies" in scaling down the U.S. military presence in that country. (In a separate interview with Newsweek, however, Reyes said "we have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq.")

Reyes said he would also look into the NSA program and the treatment of detainees in the war on terror. The incoming House chairman added that he wanted to focus also on "emerging threats," which he believed were coming from places as far-flung as Latin America, the Balkans and Russia, as well as Iran and North Korea.

The Bush administration wants to consider relaxing restrictions of how much lead polluters can spew into the air. Why? Because existing environmental policies have lowered the level of lead in the air enough already, according to a draft report (pdf) by the Environmental Protection Agency. Why overdo it?

"Given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976," such restrictions on the deadly substance may no longer be needed, the EPA reasons. (A number of corporate interests, including battery manufacturers, have been lobbying the EPA hard to relax its lead emissions rules, as the AP has noted.)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the perennial bulldog, fired off a letter to the EPA's head yesterday, marveling that he would revoke the national standard for lead and urging him to "renounce this dangerous policy immediately." We've posted a copy of Waxman's letter here.

For the last couple months a great little story has been bubbling on a back burner, threatening to burst into a classic D.C. potboiler: the feds busted a long-time prostitution service operating in the Washington, D.C. area, with the suggestion of ties to lawmakers.

Indeed, it was the madam herself who told a reporter from the Smoking Gun Web site that the Feds must be going after her as part of a larger investigation into "some Duke Cunningham-type bigwig client that got caught up in something[.]"

Our ears perked up. Has our long-lost Duke-connected hooker arrived? Alas, no hard evidence emerged. The madam, Deborah Palfrey, said she never kept records of clients and commanded her employees to destroy records within hours of a rendezvous. And Palfrey hasn't offer up any names from memory.

But now, juicy tidbits from a new 19-page court filing make the story even more tantalizing, with excerpts from the madam's in-house newsletter and more. (We've got the whole filing for your enjoyment, right here.)

We're only lacking one thing: the name of a congressman who used the service.

Read more »

The FBI is investigating leaks to the press confirming various inquiries into federal lawmakers, the bureau's chief told Congress yesterday.

In particular, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said he was incensed that details of the investigation into departing Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) became public. Reports AP's Lara Jakes Jordan:

Mueller described himself as "exceptionally disappointed, and that is being charitable, in terms of my response upon hearing about the leak."

On Oct. 13, McClatchy Newspapers reported that the FBI was looking into whether Weldon illegally steered $1 million in contracts to his daughter's lobbying firm. Agents followed up with the raid three days later, in part out of fear that evidence would be destroyed after the investigation was exposed.

Officials also confirmed federal investigations of several other House lawmakers that month, including former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz. All three men have maintained their innocence.

Senators scolded Mueller about the leaks. The committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the disclosures were "just disastrous" for suspects who have not been charged, much less proven guilty.

Couldn't help but catch the cover of this morning's New York Post on the subway to work. Their characteristically understated take on the ISG's recommendations:

Lawmakers May Reconsider Suspending Habeas Corpus for Detainees
"The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled this week that he'll join prominent Democrats in seeking to restore legal rights to hundreds of suspected terrorists confined at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

"While the measure to restore the right of habeas corpus has almost no chance of passing before Congress adjourns later this week, the message is clear: When Democrats take over in early January, the issue could resurface.

"The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which Bush signed into law in October, prevents detainees who aren't U.S. citizens from challenging their detentions in civilian courts. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter [R-PA] who voted for the legislation despite his opposition to stripping such rights from detainees, on Tuesday reintroduced legislation to restore those rights. A similar measure sponsored by Specter failed by three votes in October.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Specter said he was reintroducing the issue to prevent federal courts from striking down the legislation, which some of the detainees' attorneys have challenged." (McClatchy Newspapers)

Read more »

From Roll Call (sub. req.) -- who says white-collar defense lawyers should get all the money? Spokespeople gotta eat, too:

With Hurricane Subpoena bearing down on Capitol Hill, veteran GOP spin masters Mark Corallo and Barbara Comstock are hitching their wagons to help Republicans fight the storm and — well, sure — rake in some dough.

Corallo and Comstock are forming the crisis management firm Corallo Comstock, Inc. They aim to open shop on Jan. 1, just before the new Democratic chairmen will start banging their gavels and demanding information from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Just in time for subpoena season,” Corallo told HOH.

Barbara Comstock and Mark Carallo, of course, are seasoned professionals who have issued "no comment"s on behalf of such notable clients as Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom DeLay (R-TX), and Karl Rove. More at ThinkProgress.

Guess what: the U.S. occupation is suffering from a painful lack of Arabic speakers. In the Iraq Survey Group's report, they recommend the government "accord the highest possible priority" to language training and cultural proficiency.

In his press briefing this afternoon, White House flack Tony Snow brought up the recommendation, but squirmed when pushed to admit that it was a criticism of the administration. Ignoring the fact that we're five years out from 9/11, Snow averred that the administration could hardly be expected to "snap its fingers" and make Arabic linguists appear. Watch:

"You don't snap your fingers and have the Arabic speakers you need overnight." As my TPM colleague Eric noted, it's too bad the military's been kicking out Arabic speakers who they think snap their fingers a little too much.

Are you a federal government employee? You've probably been asked -- more than once -- to help the mighty Iraq rebuilding effort by volunteering to fill a post over there for a few months.

Apparently, folks haven't been stepping up to the plate. So you civil servants might not have a choice in the matter, if the Iraq Study Group gets its way. From the final report, Recommendation #74 reads:

In the short term, if not enough civilians volunteer to fill key positions in Iraq, civilian agencies must fill those positions with directed assignments. Steps should be taken to mitigate familial or financial hardships posed by directed assignments, including tax exclusions similar to those authorized for U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq.

So the government might force you, a lanyard-swinging desk jockey, to serve in the fiery chaos of a faraway land, away from friends and family, at risk of death. Silver lining: tax break!

The waning days of the 109th Congress, from The Chicago Tribune:

About the only Republican spotted with a joyous mood was Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, who said he had just returned from South Carolina where he had been "rolling and rocking" in his campaign for the presidency.

Hunter rode the House subway to the Rayburn Office Building, where he immediately ran into Rep. James Leach (R-Iowa), a 30-year veteran who lost his seat in the Democratic victory. Leach, like the other losers, said he has been consigned to a small office in an isolated corridor of the basement, with enough room for a computer, table and chair.

This corridor is like a losers' ghetto, a big comedown for once-powerful members like Leach, considered one of the most thoughtful members of the House.

They talked politics for a while and Leach offered this advice: The value of experience, he told Hunter, is "learning what does not work."

Asked to recall highlights of his career, Leach cited passage of bills dealing with financial modernization, AIDS prevention, aid to poor countries and Internet gambling restrictions. He said his biggest regret is the development of divisive, ideological politics. "I see both parties as mirror images of each other," he said.

And then he headed toward his tiny office in the corridor of lame ducks.

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are set to resign, knowing their agency will face multiple investigations from a Democratic Congress, according to the Evans Novak Political Report.

(We don't subscribe, so we have to take Political Wire's word for it.)

I'd expect to see a few more stories like this before Hill Dems even have a chance to pick up their gavels in January.

Republican Vern Buchanan made a rollicking, rambling appearance on Hannity and Colmes last night, during which he accused Democrat Christine Jennings of "destroying democracy" by contesting the election results.

The issue in the race, of course, is that electronic voting machines failed to register a vote in the congressional race from more than 13 percent of Sarasota County voters -- a rate far higher than other counties and absentee ballots. That statistical aberration or "undervote" has led experts and other reasonable people to declare that something went wrong in the race. But not Buchanan, who enjoyed a victory by a 400-vote margin, and not Sean Hannity.

For those even passingly familiar with the details of the race, the segment is excruciating. You can watch it here:

In the segment, Hannity and Buchanan refer repeatedly to the recounts of the race (despite the fact that paperless electronic voting machines prevent a meaningful recount), which showed no significant shift in the vote counts, to buttress the notion that Democrats are attempting a power grab. Hannity falsely asserted that Democrats "want the court to declare that the Democrat won," when in fact Democrats are asking for a new election (as Hannity had actually stated earlier in the segment).

In response to questions from Alan Colmes as to why the undervote occurred, Buchanan gave a glass-is-half-full spin, emphasizing "the 238,000 people that did vote in this race." He had no explanation for the undervote, only offering, "I just think it was a competitive race; there’s a lot of speculation out there you can read.”

Speaking of speculation you can read, a group of political science professors have issued a study (pdf) on the election, finding that the undervote was caused mainly by ballot design -- a similar conclusion as that drawn in an analysis by The Sarasota Herald Tribune -- and that had there not been a high undervote, Christine Jennings would have won the election.

Today at a too-rare oversight hearing, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) gave the Bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller III, an idea of the kind of inquiries he's planning come January.

What made the list? Datamining and privacy; detainee treatment; the shortage of FBI Arabic translators; and the bureau's continued technology woes.

Excerpts from Leahy's statement, after the jump.

Read more »

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.

Incoming Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced yesterday that the Republicans' three day workweek for Congress is over: starting January, the Democrat-led 110th Congress will be working five days a week.

As Hoyer explained (sub. req.), all that promised oversight will take time -- time that somehow wasn't available in the Do-Nothingest Congress:

“First, you could argue there was no time for oversight, or you could argue there was no oversight and therefore no necessity to meet. But in any event, we are going to meet sufficient times, so the committees can do their jobs.”

Some Republicans have a different take -- congressional oversight destroys families:

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Update: For those curious as to how Democrats will begin their busy reign, Hoyer says they're sticking with their planned first 100 hour agenda ("implement proposals by the bipartisan committee that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, raise the federal minimum wage, reduce prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients, promote stem-cell research, lower the interest rate for student loans and repeal certain tax benefits for the oil industry"). Only after that will they address the numerous appropriations bills that Republicans will leave unfinished, in an effort to bog down the Democrats' agenda.

Race for Fla. 13th Heads to House
"It could be well into the 110th Congress before a Member from Florida’s 13th district is seated by the House — and the next several weeks could prove to be explosive as the fight plays out in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

"The Democratic candidate in the highly contentious race, bank executive Christine Jennings, is in Washington, D.C., this week, meeting with party leaders and drumming up financial support as she continues to dispute the results that appeared to hand auto dealer Vern Buchanan (R) a 369-vote victory.

"Although Jennings already has filed suit in a Florida circuit court seeking a revote, she said in an interview Tuesday that she also intends to contest the result with the House Administration Committee — which has oversight over federal elections — by the Dec. 20 deadline. Jennings and her attorneys already have met with Democratic staff members from the committee to discuss the filing process." (Roll Call)

Read more »

More fun down in Florida, where Democrat Christine Jennings is challenging the official tally that shows she lost by fewer than 400 votes to Republican Vern Buchanan.

First, a little inappropriate commentary from the officials: in today's Sarasota Herald Tribune, David Drury, who's overseeing the audit, opined on its probable outcome:

... [Drury] said he expects "nothing" to be revealed from [the audit's examination of voting machines' source code]. "They're not going to find anything. It is my belief, and I rarely like to speculate but it is based upon the parallel testing, that there will be nothing found in the source code that will explain the undervote."

Hey, it's Florida! What do you expect from the election officials down there?

A little better than what we're getting, apparently. As People for the American Way protested in a statement reacting to Drury's remarks, one doesn't want "the guy in charge of the audit announcing his predictions about the outcome before the investigation of software code even begins."

Second, an analysis of Election Day data by the Herald Tribune has led the paper to declare that they know the primary reason that more than 18,000 Sarasota County voters failed to register a vote in the race: ballot design.

The reason they think that? Take a look at the ballot:

Read more »

The House and Senate committees on government operations have some of the most broad-ranging authority in Congress. That doesn't mean you're going to see aggressive investigations coming out of both sides, however.

Player: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Position: Chair, Committee on Government Reform

In the 110th Congress, the House Committee on Government Reform will be chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). His zeal for investigations for legendary. Even from the minority he pursued malfeasance within the administration: he created an online database of Bush officials' on-the-record assertions about Iraq, challenged RNC leader Ken Mehlman about taking U2 tickets from Jack Abramoff, probed the administration's obsession with secrecy and fought against corruption in Iraq contracting.

Player: Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Position: Chair, Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

As Waxman's Senate counterpart, Lieberman has remained largely quiet by comparison. "Issues like Halliburton have been sitting there like an 800-pound gorilla, and the committee has ignored it for years," a Senate Democratic aide said of Lieberman's committee to CQ reporter Patrick Yoest last month. Yoest noted Lieberman's "chumminess" with the panel's chair, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). "[S]ome critics find [it] all too close and all too sweet," he wrote.

To Lieberman's credit, following the government debacles after Hurricane Katrina, he and the committee went to work uncovering what went wrong. He even bared his teeth at the White House, accusing it of leading a cover-up.

Still, expectations are being tempered for what Lieberman might attempt from his chair. By contrast, Waxman is expected to be one of the lead chairmen pursuing investigations into the administration.

We just picked up our copy of Defense secretary nominee Robert Gates' financial disclosure forms. This gent has certainly found ways to keep the money coming in -- Take a look.

Perhaps of greatest interest ot the public, Gates holds a total of between $450,000 and $1 million worth of stock options in companies he advises, including Parker Drilling Company, restaurant group Brinker International, and NACCO Industries.

NACCO has roughly $30 million in Department of Defense contracts, according to FedSpending.org. Conflict? The government's ethics police allowed the last Defense chief, Donald Rumsfeld, to hold on to stock worth up to $25 million in a company, Gilead Sciences; its business with the Pentagon soared after Rumsfeld took over, according to the LATimes. (He cleared $5 million on the deal, the paper found.)

According to its Web site, Parker Drilling, an oil services company, has operations around the world including Kuwait, Russia, Kazakhstan and Colombia. Since 1994, the company has worked with Halliburton on a Chinese offshore drilling effort.

But Gates has a variety of other income streams. From January 2005 to the present, Gates has been paid $752,788 as president of Texas A&M, and earned over $135,000 in deferred pay, according to his filing.

During the same period Gates also earned $143,000 in fees for speaking to private groups, including the National Pest Management Association, numerous investment groups, and the retail giant Target. He made about $15,000 a pop with that gig.

Gates also picked up $788,366 as a director or adviser to companies.

The nominee also has money spread around a vast array of investment funds, including a few he shares with his wife and son.

Keep in mind that for all his wealth, Gates isn't even approaching the wealth amassed by Rumsfeld. According to opensecrets.org, Rumsfeld, worth as much as $199 million, could buy and sell Gates many times over.

Abramoff Sentencing Delayed Until At Least March
"Even in prison, disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff still is valuable to federal prosecutors.

"A federal judge on Friday approved another three-month delay in Abramoff’s sentencing for corruption charges stemming from a Washington, D.C., investigation. Abramoff will not be sentenced in this case until at least March 2007, according to the order issued by U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle.

"Abramoff pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion last January related to his work as a powerful Washington lobbyist, and he faces a sentence of 108 to 135 months....

"Abramoff already has begun serving a 70-month sentence for a Florida case that involved the purchase of gambling-cruise ship company. He currently is incarcerated in the Cumberland Federal Correctional Institute, which is located in Cumberland, Md. The minimum-security facility is 130 miles northwest of Washington, D.C., and it is home to a license-plate manufacturing plant. Abramoff is eligible to be released from prison in December 2011." (Roll Call)

Read more »

A number of readers have sent in tips to help the folks at Powerline, who recently admitted to having trouble remembering administration officials (beyond Scooter Libby) who had been accused of corruption or resigned in the face of scandal.

How could you foresake us! cry our old pals Claude Allen, David Safavian, Brian Doyle. Who could forget former FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford? After the jump, you'll find our partial (but fast-growing) list. If we're missing a name, please send it along!

Read more »

Finally, Vanity Fair has delivered their take-out on the Mark Foley scandal (or Pagegate, if you prefer). And it's chock full of satisfyingly sordid details.

One figure in particular gets a drubbing: the out-going House Speaker, Dennis Hastert.

Here's Hastert, standing dumbly by when Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff and then Rep. Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) chief of staff, brings word of the coming calamity -- that ABC News has copies of sexually explicit instant messages sent by Foley to underage pages:

Fordham thought he made it clear that his old boss needed to quit, but Foley couldn't bring himself to do that. The N.R.C.C. headquarters was around the corner, and Fordham made it his next stop. There he found Representative Reynolds and Speaker Hastert. But before he could finish relaying the awful news, Reynolds's face got purple and he began to shout, "He needs to resign, and he needs to do it right now!" The Speaker just sat there, silent, according to Fordham: "He didn't react at all. This was weeks before the election, and they're thinking how this is going to impact us."

And here's Hastert trying to attempt damage control:

Hastert, believing the leadership needed to present a united front, as one by one his colleagues were repudiating his foggy recollections, called a Republican-leadership meeting. That same day, an ethics-committee investigation was pressed for by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (over the objections of those who wanted an independent counsel), its purpose to discover who knew what when about Foley. Blunt, Boehner, and Reynolds were all summoned "to basically get their stories straight for the press," according to a knowledgeable source, who adds, "That to me is where Hastert attempted a cover-up."

Reynolds balked at having such a meeting. "This is stupid! We can't all go and meet privately and try to get our stories straight, because this matter was just referred to the ethics committee," he told Hastert, according to the same source. "In fact, none of us are supposed to be talking to each other, because we are not supposed to talk to potential witnesses." Worse, added Reynolds, "I can tell you anything we say at this leadership meeting is something we have to share with the ethics committee."

The meeting eventually became a conference call, but without Reynolds's participation.

Read the whole thing here.

The post-election dispute in Florida's 13th District won't have an easy answer, it seems.

The state completed their second test run of the machines on Friday without a hitch in the congressional race. Election officials will continue on to the next phase of the audit, which involves a variety of tests on the machines' hardware and software, but hopes (never very high among Democrats) are diminishing that the state's tests will find the reason that the Sarasota County machines failed to register more than 18,000 votes in the congressional race Election Day.

As election officials continue a less public array of tests on the machines (here's a good rundown on the audit), Democrat Christine Jennings, whose lawyer has argued that Florida's audit is hopelessly inadequate, will argue in court that she should be able to run outside checks on the machines. No court date has yet been set for that showdown. Jennings also has until December 20th to contest the election in the House of Representatives.

But as all that moves forward, it's worth giving this a look -- video of some of the dozens of Sarasota County voters who showed up to a recent People for the American Way meeting to recount their troubles voting on the machines. Jennings' lawsuit challenging the election results also included a host of voter testimonials.

Like cowbell was to the Blue Oyster Cult, Dems know exactly what Congress needs: more oversight.

In the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress, the House Armed Services Committee wants to add a new subcommittee devoted to oversight and investigations.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), who will be chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has formally asked Nancy Pelosi to approve the creation of the subcommittee, according to a spokeswoman. The panel was abolished by Republicans in 1995 soon after they took control of Congress.

Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA), a senior member of the Armed Services Comittee, has said he wants to chair the new Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. In a Nov. 8 memo to Skelton (you can read the document here), Meehan said his focus would be on probing funding levels for warfighting equipment, contracting abuses by private corporations, and military readiness.

In a letter dated December 1st, John Bolton informed the president that he would be stepping down as U.N. ambassador. You can read that rather spare letter here (click to enlarge):

Ah, the Man with the Iron Mustache is leaving the international arena -- but not before attempting a thoroughly embarrassing and wholly unsympathetic maneuver.

Less than two weeks before the White House announced his resignation, Ambassador John Bolton's U.N. mission blocked an effort to celebrate the end of slavery in our hemisphere.

Next year marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As far as anniversaries go, it seems like a good one to recognize, doesn't it? It should not be a real bone of contention to say that one is against slavery; and, upon hearing of the anniversary of its abolition in one region, to acknowledge that as a good thing; to recognize the cost of the practice in the millions of lives uprooted and forced into extreme suffering; and to celebrate the efforts which ended the horrific practice.

To do so, a number of Caribbean countries got together to propose a commemorative resolution before the United Nations.

Guess who refused to sign? That's right: Ambassador John Bolton's United States.

In a letter, the Bolton-led U.S. mission to the UN explained their objection to two words (the U.S. preferred "the emphasis" to "emphasizing") in the document. (You can read the document here.) After a couple dozen U.S. congresspeople kicked up a fuss -- most of them members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- the U.S. mission reportedly backed down, and consented to sign the document without their preferred language, according to sources close to the process.

The U.S. mission did not return my call on the matter.

The melee over who would be the next House intelligence committee chairman made our head spin. In fact, in our excitement over Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and Jane Harman (D-CA), we all but overlooked a bit of muck that attached itself to the man who was tapped to fill the post.

But the Washington Post helpfully reminded us on Saturday of a scandal from last year which threatened to tarnish the reputation of Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), the former border patrol agent and Vietnam gunner whom House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has chosen to lead the intel panel.

Shortly after getting elected to Congress in 1996, Reyes began pushing for a pricey program to install surveillance cameras along the northern and southern U.S. borders. He also pushed for a certain business, International Microwave Corp., to win that contract, according to the Post, who broke the story in April 2005. The paper gave no details on how Reyes is said to have supported the company's bid.

Read more »

Defense Nominee's Business Ties Raise Concerns
"In the 14 years since he left government, former CIA director Robert M. Gates has jetted cross-country to advise 10 different companies, assessing issues as varied as Saudi oil drilling, mutual fund performance and restaurant sales at Romano's Macaroni Grill. . . .

"[A]s Gates awaits Senate confirmation as President Bush's secretary of Defense, ethics watchdogs worry about the revolving door between government and private business that allowed Gates to align himself with defense contractors, investment houses and a global drilling company involved with Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton Co.

"Companies with which Gates has been affiliated have secured hefty no-bid Pentagon contracts, and "you have to wonder if these companies will continue to get around bidding requirements once Gates is secretary," said Alex Knott, political director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog group." (LATimes)

Read more »