The swamp is backing up...

[Yonivore]

MOLLOHAN CAST VOTES DESPITE RECUSAL (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_14/news/19587-1.html):


Despite having recused himself from matters relating to the FBI — which is reportedly investigating his finances — Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday voted against an amendment that would have increased the bureau’s budget by $6 million.

Republicans say Mollohan’s vote proves his recusal is a sham — and claim the amendment was intended to draw him out. Democrats defended Mollohan, saying he had not participated in discussions about the agencies that are reportedly investigating him, though no one from his office or the Appropriations Committee would go on the record for this article. . . .

It has been widely reported that Mollohan sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee recusing himself from matters involving the Justice Department, a decision that was hailed by watchdog groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

But according to the committee, Mollohan’s recusal applies only to four accounts within Justice: the Office of the Attorney General, the U.S. attorneys, the FBI and the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. Neither Mollohan’s office nor the Appropriations Committee would provide a copy of the recusal letter, and Republicans claimed they have never seen it.
A bit more transparency, please.

[Yonivore]

:lol

$6 million?
That wasn't the point. His ignoring the recusal was the point.

[boutons_]

The FBI/IRS raided Repug Senator Stevens' home today.

[Yonivore]

...from Ms. Pelosi's and Mr. Reid's Congress

The Senate has agreed on the language of its ethics bill, and the 107-page behemoth will move to the floor shortly. According to sources on Capitol Hill, the bill signals a retreat on earmark reform in several ways. Section 521 has had the following changes made since its initial adoption in January:


1. The new bill allows the Majority Leader, not the Senate parliamentarian, to unilaterally decide whether or not a bill or conference report complies with the earmark disclosure requirements. In other words, Harry Reid makes the decision whether legislation he brings to the floor complies with the new standard. How ... convenient.

2. The new bill eliminates the requirement that earmark lists be searchable. It's easier to hide in a crowd, isn't it?

3. The original version prohibited the inclusion of earmarks that benefitted its sponsor. Now, that prohibition has been restricted to earmarks that only benefit its sponsor -- which means that an earmark that raises the value of a member's property is OK if it raises someone else's property value, too. It makes the prohibition almost meaningless.
So much for the reform Democrats promised in 2006. They can't even deliver what they promised in January.

NZ Bear (http://porkbusters.org/2007/07/weak_tea_indeed_democratic_lea.php) has posted the text to the bill. Mark Tapscott (http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk/2007/7/30/Reid-and-Pelosi-are-gutting-earmark-reform) has a chart up of the changes, and comments:


Some of my Senate sources have gotten a copy of the 107 page "ethics and earmark reform" bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

What they are finding in it confirms what I've suspected for months - Reid and Pelosi are for the most gutting concrete earmark and ethics reform while preserving just enough of the appearance of reform to be able to claim to have fulfilled their 2006 campaign promises.
Only to those who pay no attention to the issue ....

[Holt's Cat]

Politicians are crooked? Some revelation.

[Wild Cobra]

I really don't understand how liberals can be so blind to the level that the democrats are evil, and destructive to this nation.

Anyone?