Posted on 11/24/2009 12:13:30 PM PST by jazusamo
Mollohan's leadership of Appropriations panel seen as possible conflict
For three years, Rep. Alan Mollohan has chaired the important Appropriations subcommittee that controls the Justice Department's $65 billion budget. At the same time, he has been under a Justice Department investigation, according to documents and two sources briefed on the probe.
The investigation has centered on the West Virginia Democrat's finances and nonprofits he created and helped fund in his district, and has put him in the unusual position of wielding control over an agency at the same time it is probing his conduct and contractors he helped while in office.
Some congressional watchdog groups, including the one whose complaints about Mollohan triggered the probe, think the House leadership has created a clear conflict of interest by allowing Mollohan to continue to chair the subcommittee.
"There are a hundred ways he can influence what happens with the department's funding -- without one vote. Everything goes through his committee," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group that alleged in a complaint that the congressman had not reported the nature and increasing value of his real estate investments. "If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is."
Mollohan spokesman David Herring said the congressman dealt with the issue in 2006 by recusing himself from voting on specific budget accounts for the FBI, the attorney general's office and other investigative functions. Herring declined to release the letter describing that recusal to House leaders.
Herring also said Mollohan is not aware of the Justice Department inquiry and has not been contacted by investigators.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
From Carol Leonnig in today’s Washington Post:
"There are a hundred ways he can influence what happens with the department's funding -- without one vote. Everything goes through his committee," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group that alleged in a complaint that the congressman had not reported the nature and increasing value of his real estate investments. "If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is."
According to the Ethics Committee memo, the Justice asked the Committee to hold off on investigating Mollohan, suggesting that it has an active criminal probe underway. As the Post reports:
Ethics inquiries into Mollohan date to 2006, when Boehm filed a complaint with the Justice Department. The complaint focused attention on Mollohan's assets, which had jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004. At the same time, he had steered $250 million in earmarks to nonprofit groups whose leaders were sometimes investors with him.
In the firestorm that followed, Mollohan was forced by Pelosi to resign from the Ethics Committee where he served as the ranking Democrat. When Pelosi became Speaker in 2007, she did not require Mollohan to step down as the subcommittee Chairman, even after promising to “drain the swamp” of Congressional corruption.
This issue has flared occasionally since that time. On the House floor this summer, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) compared Mollohan’s conflict to “an elephant in the room.”
The FBI launched an extensive investigation of Mollohan in 2006 and 2007. A grand jury was reportedly convened in West Virginia, but Mollohan has not been indicted. The investigation “went quiet,” as the Post puts it, only to have its existence re-established by the Justice Department request that the Ethics Committee stay away from Mollohan.
While it is true that criminal cases against members of Congress can take several years, as evidenced by the recent conviction of former Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), the Mollohan investigation is taking too long. NLPC presented clear and unambiguous evidence of repeated reporting violations by Mollohan, violations that Mollohan implicitly acknowledged by filing amended disclosure forms.
Prosecutors have no doubt sought to identify whatever quid pro quo exists between Mollohan and earmark recipients who are his business partners and campaign contributors. But even short of that, the financial disclosure forms signed by Mollohan are subject to the False Statements Act, which provides for criminal penalties for violators.
Mollohan should step down from his appropriations subcommittee chairmanship. Pelosi does not need a criminal indictment to ask him to do so. As long as such a blatant conflict is allowed to exist, it is sure to draw increasing media scrutiny.
“...put him in the unusual position of...”
What is so unusual about a corrupt politician? This is the norm today.
You’re absolutely right, and the frustrating thing is how blatant they are about it.
A while back Murtha said if he’s corrupt it’s because that’s his job, he was speaking of earmarks re pay to play.
Rangel admitted he under reported assets by hundreds of thousands and failed to report income to IRS. He paid his back taxes without penalties or late fees and walked away.
My guess is this is being looked at because Holder doesn’t want Mollohan in that position, not that Mollohan doesn’t deserve investigated. But when you stand this one white guy up against the black caucus, why is the black caucus off the hook?
It seems there’s something sticky going on with Justice. It’s like they don’t want criminal charges but there’s plenty to file on. I doubt Flaherty at NLPC will just let it go away.
I can’t believe the Post mentioned that he’s a Dem and they did it in the 2nd paragraph.
Carol Leonnig is a good investigative reporter, she’s written much on Murtha and hasn’t pulled any punches. I’m surprised the editors go along with it.
This is cool. I happen to be suing this guy and his wife in a deed and deed of trust reformation action in North Carolina. I have a motion to compel on for hearing Monday. I wonder if he will show up...
The more publicity Mollohan’s ethics problems get, the likelier that we’ll be able to beat him next November in his very conservative district.
BTW, I think that there may be over 100 Democrat-held House seats in play in 2010, and if things go the way they seem to be going we should pick up over 50 of them. The combination of ethical problems and a national Democrat
Party increasingly foreign to local voters (as evidenced by increasing victory margins for GOP presidential candidates) cost many a senior Democrat his House seat in 1994, and it could happen again in 2010.
With few rat retirements as of yet the lions share of gains will be have to be incumbent defeats.
I think analysts like Charlie Cook are overvaluing incumbency this year.
He thinks 25 would be on the higher end. I think a minimum of 25 weak sisters will lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.