Anthony Weienr Reportedly to Resign Today

According to reports, Anthony Weiner is going to announce his resignation today.

Randy Rep. Anthony Weiner has finally decided to step down from his congressional seat, sources told The Post.

He has informed House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other key party leaders of his decision, the sources said.

Weiner called Pelosi and Rep. Steve Israel, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, at the White House picnic last night and told them of his decision, a Democratic Party leadership aide said.

One ranking House Democrat said, "All the choreography is there. Now all he has to do is get in front of the camera."

Weiner is expected to issue a statement before noon today, the Democratic aide said.

"I believe it's a done deal. He has talked to his governor," a second key House Democrat said.

"It's sad," this person said. "He knows his behavior is reprehensible and he needs to make a human comeback. This is heartbreaking."

Weiner's decision came after his wife Huma Abedin returned early yesterday to discuss the widening scandal with him. He had been said to be waiting for her to return home from an overseas trip with her boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, before making a decision.

Indeed, without his wife's counsel, Weiner may not have decided to leave.

Two sources who have spoken directly with Weiner said he was set to stick it out even though he knew House Democrats were set to strip him of his committee assignments and bar him from taking part in the caucus.

Weiner felt that his behavior was not criminal and shouldn't end his career.

But Abedin apparently helped him reach the decision to resign.

"This is the most stubborn guy in Congress," said one of the people who spoke with Weiner.

Pressure had been steadily building on Weiner to step down since he disclosed that he had indeed had online relationships with six women over three years. Among other things, Weiner sent photos of his penis to some of these women.

I love how pressure has been mounting for Weiner to quit, yet Charles Rangel, Joe Baca and Barney Frank are allowed to keep their offices. Lets face it, Rangel and Baca actually stole money, and in the case of all three, abused their power and position. I am not saying that Weiner should or should not resign, but why the pressure on him to go, when others have done far worse. Its interesting who Nancy Pelosi chooses to "drain the swamp" of, and who she chooses to keep.

As for Weiner, his future is bleak. He has not had any other career other than politics his adult life. He has no law degree or other professional license to fall back on. I am not sure what golden parachute he will have and how soft his landing will be.

House Censures Rangel 333-79

Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, met his comeuppance today with a vote of censure of 333-79. It's still a slap on the wrist and Rangel still thinks he's done nothing wrong.

That mindset is joined by 77 Democrats and 2 Republicans, including Rep. Peter King, another New York Congressman who thought that Rangel lacked the mindset worthy of the sentence of censure.

How sweet. Let's just ignore the tax evasion and failure to pay taxes on income over a period of a decade. Rangel and those who voted against censure would like to ignore or excuse the unjust enrichment caused by the failure to pay taxes even though Rangel was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel Likely To Be Censured

As I have been saying, Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Today's hearings prove the point explicitly when the chief House ethics lawyer says that the charges merit censure.

Indeed, it showcases the folly of ethics trials in Congress when tax evasion and blatant and persistent ethics violations that show a pattern of abuse get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Rangel was the chair of the very committee that sets tax policy, and yet Rangel managed to underreport income on real estate properties for years. Those are serious charges and ones that the IRS can exact serious punishment, including criminal sanctions if willful intent is found.

Meanwhile, Rangel has been whining to whoever will listen about the unfairness of his situation. That is, also, complete nonsense, since Rangel lied about his taxes and took advantage of his position to further enrich himself. He violated multiple ethics rules, showing that he had disdain for the rules of the House - the very institution he claims to honor and respect.

He'd much rather blame others for his malfeasance, when he had every opportunity to settle matters before now. He had legal counsel and spent nearly $1.4 million on legal counsel before sending his lawyers packing. Still, it would have been cheaper for him to have paid his taxes accurately and completely since that's where a good part of his expenses went - to figure out where all his money was and how much he owed the IRS and other state and local tax authorities.

UPDATE:
Rangel continues to deny that he was corrupt, but admits that "mistakes were made". You know what else, mistakes were made by Rangel's constituents, who sent him back to Congress in 2008 and 2010 despite Rangel's disregard for the very laws that he wrote.

Rangel Convicted On 12 of 13 Ethics Charges

As the Ethics Panel was saying yesterday, the facts were not in dispute. Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat was found guilty on 12 of 13 ethics charges by the Ethics Panel.

The question remains whether the Panel will take it upon itself to administer a slap on the wrist or drain the swamp by calling for his expulsion from Congress.

Frankly, it should not have come to expulsion - his constituents should have voted him out of office but Rangel's political apparatus in Harlem got out the vote in the primaries and staved off his opponent in overwhelming fashion. His constituents didn't seem to mind or care about Rangel's malfeasance, and that speaks volumes. They didn't mind Rangel's actions so long as he brought home the bacon to his district.

Yet, Rangel repeatedly broke the law and ethics rules. He needs to suffer the consequences of his actions and a slap on the wrist is insufficient.

UPDATE:
There seems to be a bit of confusion about the number of charges against Rangel and here's the rundown. Rangel was found guilty of all but one of the original 13 charges against him. The panel rolled two of the charges into one count because they were so similar. Thus, the 12 of 13 counts. Here is the full breakdown:

The panel could not reach a verdict on one count, Count 3, alleging that Mr. Rangel violated House gift rules by accepting contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

But it convicted him of all the other counts. They are:

* Count 1: Violating solicitation and gift ban: Soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Rangel Center from persons or entities with business before him or his Ways and Means Committee.

* Count 2: Violating code of ethics for government service: Accepting benefits under circumstances that could be construed as influencing the performance of his governmental duties, with respect to soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

* Counts 4 and 5, merged into one count: Violating postal service laws and franking commission regulations: Mr. Rangel was accused of using his franking privileges for the benefit of a charitable organization and for solicitation of funds.

* Count 6: Violating House Office Building Commission regulations. Mr. Rangel and his staff drafted solicitation letters on House property.

* Count 7: Violation of the Purpose Law and the Member’s Congressional Handbook: Mr. Rangel used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the Rangel Center and used his Congress member’s allowance to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center.

* Count 8: Violation of letterhead rule: Mr. Rangel sent letters related to the Rangel Center on House letterhead.

* Count 9: Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule 26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failed to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.

* Count 10: Violating code of ethics for government service: Mr. Rangel leased a rent-stabilized apartment on Lenox Terrace in Harlem for residential use only, but was allowed by the landlord, a developer whom Mr. Rangel dealt with in his Congressional capacity, to use the apartment as office space for his campaign committee. The arrangement could be construed as influencing the performance of Mr. Rangel’s official duties.

* Count 11: Violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service: Mr. Rangel violated the code by failing to report rental income on his Dominican villa.

* Count 12: Violating the letter and spirit of House Rules listed above.

* Count 13: Conduct reflecting discreditably on the House: Mr. Rangel’s improper solicitations and acceptance of donations for the Rangel Center; his misuse of House staff, letterhead and franking privilege for the Rangel Center solicitations; his failure to file full financial disclosure statement; his failure to report the rental income on his Dominican villa; and his use of his rent-controlled residential apartment for his campaign office all brought discredit to the House.

Rangel's Walkout Epitomizes All That's Wrong With Congressional Ethics

Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his ethics trial yesterday claiming that he didn't have the time or money to seek legal counsel.

That's, of course, complete nonsense since Rangel was on the record as demanding that his case be expedited. Rangel could have sold any number of properties to put up as collateral - including the villa in the Dominican Republic that opened the door to the world of Rangel's malfeasance more than two years ago. No one is denying Rangel counsel except that it suits Rangel to claim that this is about fairness to him when it is the American public who has been denied fairness by Rangel's disregard for the law.


Moreover, Congressional leaders delayed the trial until after the midterm elections - giving Rangel still more time than should have otherwise been granted under the circumstances.

After all, this is a festering morass of malfeasance that has been ongoing for more than two years. Congress has refused to take action until now, and even though the facts are uncontested, the most that Congress will do is give Rangel a slap on the wrist.

Congressional Democrats want to claim that these were nothing more than technical errors in accounting and paperwork oversights. That ignores that Rangel broke state and federal tax law by regularly underreporting his taxes - all while Rangel was the Chair of the very committee that oversees tax policy for the country.

Such tax evasion is punishable by stiff fines and if it was found to be willful, even jail time. In addition to other penalties and interest, Chapter 75 §§7201-7344 of the IRC lays out the penalties and fines for various tax malfeasance. Willful failure to pay or report taxes is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and five years in prison. Fraudulent returns are subject to up to $10,000 in fines and up to 1 year in prison. That's no minor matter or paperwork oversight. Rangel's tax malfeasance went on for the better part of a decade and gives rise to the specter of purposeful and willful tax underreporting.

Throw in the potential conflicts of interest of various lobbying groups, using Congressional letterhead for lobbying and violating New York law by using rent stabilized apartments for office space, and you've got a pattern of disregard for the law and rules.

A slap on the wrist is insufficient, but that's all that Congress will dole out. That says as much about Congress as it does about Rangel.

The Farcical Rangel Ethics Trial To Get Underway: UPDATE: Rangel Walks Out

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) who managed to win convincingly in his primary and general elections in his Harlem district despite being under multiple investigations for tax evasion at the federal and multiple state and local levels, ethics charges and violating rent stabilization laws is finally going to go to trial before a House ethics panel.

Charges against Rangel
The charges allege violations of:

* A House gift ban and restrictions on solicitations. Rangel is accused of using congressional staff, letterhead and workspace to seek donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The requests usually went to charitable arms of businesses with issues before Congress, including Rangel's Ways and Means Committee.
* A U.S. government code of ethics. Several allegations fall under this code, among them: Accepting favors (the Rangel Center donations) that could be construed as influencing Rangel's congressional duties; acceptance of a rent-subsidized New York apartment used as a campaign office, when the lease said it was for residential use only; and failure to report taxable income.
* The Ethics in Government Act and a companion House rule requiring "full and complete" public reports of a congressman's income, assets and liabilities each year. Rangel is charged with a pattern of submitting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure statements. He only filed amended reports covering 1998 to 2007 after the investigative ethics panel began looking into his disclosures. He belatedly reported at least $600,000 in assets.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, expect nothing more than a slap on the wrist. After all, his very constituents didn't think much of the multiple issues and wrongdoing while reelecting him to yet another term in office.

A letter of censure or a reprimand will be all that Rangel endures. Indeed, members of the ethics panel said that the charges will likely merit nothing more. Never mind that anyone else under similar circumstances would have been required to pay restitution or brought up on criminal charges for fraud and tax evasion.

Expulsion from Congress is not likely and here's why: both Democrats and Republicans need Rangel to stick around. Democrats need live bodies on Capitol Hill to deal with the incoming surge of Republicans while Republicans need a punching bag to showcase ongoing Democratic leadership tone-deafness to legal and ethical malfeasance by its caucus. Figure that the Democrats will weigh the positives and negatives of sending Rangel packing and opting to keep him around.

UPDATE:
Yet another sign of the farce? Rangel walked out of the proceedings, claiming that he hasn't had sufficient time to hire a new legal team. Excuse me, but Rangel knew for months that this was going to go to trial and the Democrats pushed off the trial until after the elections. This is just another sign of Rangel's obstinacy and disregard for the rules.

New House Ways and Means Committee Head Has Tax Troubles of His Own

When Democrat Charles Rangel "temporarily" stepped down from the chairmanship the House Ways and Means Committee amid the longstanding and mounting ethics probes and investigations into his tax, legal and ethics troubles, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats tapped Democrat Sander Levin of Michigan to fill the seat.

Well, it turns out that Levin had tax troubles of his own that only were repaid following an inquiry by Roll Call.

Like so many other politicians, including Rangel, Levin took a tax credit for real estate properties that he should not have been qualified to take.

Levin, who owns a home in Chevy Chase, Md., received a $690 credit on his most recent property tax bill, the result of Montgomery County program that provided one-time credits to residential property owners in the 2009-10 tax year.

Levin, who purchased the home in 1977, received the tax credit although it was intended for only “owner-occupied” properties, and he does not live in the home. The credit reduced his tax bill to just under $9,500.

“This is not a tax credit that Rep. Levin applied for and in an abundance of caution he has paid the full amount to Montgomery County to correct their mistake,” Levin Chief of Staff Hilarie Chambers wrote in an e-mail Friday.

Chambers said the Michigan lawmaker moved out of the home in September 2008, following the death of his wife. His daughter and her family now occupy the home, and he stays at a Silver Spring condominium owned by his daughter when he is in the Washington, D.C. area.

Levin repaid the credit Friday, Chambers said, after being contacted by Roll Call.

“Since Mr. Levin was not residing in the property for the full year and it is not his ‘principal residence,’ Mr. Levin has written a check of $690 to the County and clarified and confirmed once again to them that the correct classification of the Morgan Drive property is ‘Not a Principal Residence,’” Chambers wrote in an e-mail.

The status on that property had been changed multiple times, despite the fact that he has not been in that property as his principal residence since 2008 and it is for that period going forward for which he claimed and received the credit.

It is unlikely that he could have obtained the credit as his staffer suggests because you have to fill in the tax information; it doesn't just magically appear as a tax credit. Levin would have been better served to state that there was an inconsistency on his tax records and that he's paid up.

Once again, that a major player on the House Ways and Means Committee has problems paying accurate taxes shows the insanity of the tax code at all levels of government and that those responsible for writing the national tax code are incapable of fulfilling their obligations to pay taxes without error or omission.

In Rangel's case, such tax evasion went on for years at a time and should be considered criminal. Levin's case was likely a case of mistaken classification and at this point considered a one-time issue. However, if more instances of tax troubles come up, Levin's stint as the chair will not last long.

Senate Health Care Bill Proposes Cosmetic Procedure Tax

Once again, the way that the Democrats are pushing new taxes and fees to secure passage of a health care funding overhaul, the need to tax anything that moves was a given.

The problem is that this latest proposal (or revisiting of an earlier proposal) to tax cosmetic procedures, isn't going to generate the kind of money needed to fund the kind of health care reform the Democrats are looking for. They figure it might generate $5 billion over 10 years.

It's going to fall short. Way short.

That's the experience in New Jersey, which imposed a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, and it has never lived up to expectations. Moreover, cosmetic surgical procedures are the one area in which costs and prices are least likely covered by insurance and therefore are more market driven.

Tax Treatment Under Obamacare Examined

One of the primary ways that health care will be overhauled is through adjusting the tax code - the Internal Revenue Code. It's one of the reasons that the House Ways and Means Committee had to go through the bill.

Tremendous amounts of revenue are needed to make President Obama's plans a reality, and the tax code has to be adjusted in ways large and small to make it happen.

Those businesses would be hit with $100 per day per employee until they come into compliance.

Employers who elect to provide coverage but whose health benefit plans fail to meet the proposal’s minimum health coverage participation requirement are subject to an excise tax of $100 per day for each employee to whom the failure applies.30 The excise tax does not apply to (1) periods during which an employer used reasonable diligence but did not discover any failures, and (2) failures that are corrected within 30 days of discovery (but only if such failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect). Excise taxes imposed on employers for unintentional failures (i.e., due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect) are limited to the lesser of: 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer during the preceding taxable year for group health plans, or $500,000. There are parallel civil penalties provided in ERISA and PHSA.31 The excise tax with respect to any failure is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of any civil penalty collected under these parallel provisions.

This would take effect for taxable years beginning after 2012.

So, if a company provides coverage, but not coverage meeting the levels set by the federal government, they'd be whacked by the IRS until they do.

Add to that harsher penalties imposed for inaccurate returns, particularly where the IRS determines that a transaction lacks economic substance. The IRS would have no leeway in penalties - it's strict liability if you screw up on your tax returns. That's primarily because penalties is a big way to raise revenue.

James Peaslee, writing in the WSJ tackles the penalty provisions:

Under current law, taxpayers who lose an argument with the IRS can generally avoid penalties by showing they tried in good faith to comply with the tax law. In a broad range of circumstances, the health-care bill would change the law to impose strict liability penalties for income-tax underpayments, meaning that taxpayers will no longer have the luxury of making an honest mistake. The ability of even the IRS to waive penalties in sympathetic cases would be sharply curtailed.

The proposed changes in penalty rules have largely escaped notice because they are buried in a part of the bill that purports to deal with abusive tax shelters. They are barely mentioned in the Ways and Means Committee summary. Their inclusion in the bill underscores the need to read it closely. If anyone had doubts about the value of loading the text of the bill into a wheelbarrow and bringing it to the beach this August, the proposed changes to tax penalties should dispel them.

Recent experience shows that Congress needs to be careful about imposing no-fault penalties. In 2004, Congress adopted very large automatic penalties for failures of taxpayers to attach a tax-shelter reporting form to their tax returns. While penalties make sense where a taxpayer deliberately fails to file a return, the approach here was too unforgiving.

That's in addition to the surtax that Democrats hope to impose on high-income earners. The tax would be a significant hit on taxpayers - a combination of a new 5.4% surtax and an expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts (allowing the reduced rates to expire for tax years after 2010, meaning the rates revert to the prior rates).

You Don't Say: Rangel Broke House Rules On Trips

None of this is surprising. Democrat Charles Rangel openly flouts laws and rules, whether it's tax law or House ethics rules. His latest screwup? Trips to the Caribbean appear to have broken House ethics rules.

For at least five of the last six years, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have spent a few days each fall at a different luxurious Caribbean island resort.

The trip’s official mission is to facilitate business and diplomatic relationships between the region and the United States.

This year’s trip took place Nov. 6 to 9, the weekend after the election, on the sun-swept 10-acre Sonesta Maho Beach Resort in St. Martin. The ethics committee approved the Caribbean trip, as it has done for several years, but new information uncovered about its corporate funding raises questions about whether the trip violates a two-year-old ethics rule passed after Democrats regained the House.

The New York Carib News Foundation, a nonprofit affiliated with a newspaper geared toward the city’s Caribbean community, is listed on members’ travel disclosure documents as the trip’s sponsor.

When the nonprofit’s CEO, Karl Rodney, sought ethics committee approval for the trip, as the new rules require, he checked a box on the form certifying that the foundation “has not accepted from any other source funds earmarked directly or indirectly to finance any aspect of the trip.”

After House Democrats regained the majority on a campaign of draining the Washington swamp, they passed tougher new rules governing privately funded trips for members. The ethics rules bar corporations or other entities that employ or retain a registered lobbyist from paying for multi-day trips, either directly or indirectly.

Yet two spokeswomen for American Airlines, the largest carrier from the U.S. to the Caribbean, told The Hill that the company recently provided in-kind donations of tickets for Rangel and five other members of Congress to fly from their districts to St. Martin, a tropical island in the northeast Caribbean. According to ethics experts, the American Airlines donation of tickets for members to use for a specific trip is a clear violation of House ethics rules governing travel. American Airlines has spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first three-quarters of this year.

He and his fellow Democrats have broken the House ethics rules for five of the last six years. It wasn't until some journalists began digging into Rangel's actions following the revelations that Rangel was evading taxes on multiple instances that we're beginning to learn the audacious scope of Rangel's malfeasance.

I'm not holding my breath to see if House Democrats take action against Rangel. They have refused to force him to step down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax policy for the nation despite being a chronic evader of taxes by failing to report taxes on multiple instances and across a wide range of tax issues (real estate, imputed income, rental income, etc.). They've refused to force him to step down despite breaking House ethics rules.

The rules simply have not applied to Rangel for years, and as we've come to learn, they don't apply to many members of the House, particularly if they're Democrats. Had these been Republicans, the scandal would be front page news and demands for his resignation would have been made loudly by House Democrats. Here, it's the silence of the caucus that is deafening. House Speaker Pelosi, a Democrat, has professed that this would be the most ethical Congress ever, and rose to power on the heels of scandals that laid the Republicans low. Nice to see that she's found ways to scrape the bottom of the barrel even lower.

Rangel Misses More Votes Than Anyone In NY Delegation

So, what are we to make of the fact that Harlem Democrat Charles Rangel misses more votes in the House of Representatives than any of the other New York delegates?

Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel missed more votes than any other New York House member, according to a study released by Congressional Quarterly.

Rangel, 78, missed 16 percent of House votes in 2008, partly due to a hospital stay last spring, while the state's full delegation missed an average of only 5 percent of House votes.

How exactly is he supposed to carry out his obligations as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee if he's ill and keeps missing votes? How exactly does that show leadership?

It doesn't.

Then again, every day that Rangel spends away from the House is another day that taxpayer wallets aren't under assault. I'll take my breaks where I can get them for the moment.

Rangel, of course, still faces numerous ethics investigations and no one knows for sure what his tax situation is either.

Second to Rangel in time missed this session? Disgraced Republican Vito Fossella, who didn't run for reelection.

Great Falls National Park Legislation Moves Forward

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ8) has moved forward in the House that would establish the Great Falls National Park. I would love to see this happen, as it is one of the great natural landmarks in Northern New Jersey, and it would open up economic opportunities for the City of Paterson.

It is now on the calendar for the House to consider.

This is by no means a done deal, but here's what the Great Falls National Park would entail:

Specifically, the legislation would create the national park and provide for public participation in its management:

* The National Park would encompass about 109 acres and include the Great Falls National Historic District.

* The Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park Commission would be created to assist and advise the Secretary of Interior Department in the development and implementation of the general management plan for the park.

Membership on the Commission would consist of nine members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior Department

· Four members would be nominated by the Governor of the State of New Jersey

· Two members would be nominated by the City Council of Paterson

· One member would be nominated by the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders

· Two members shall be qualified to serve on the Commission because of their familiarity with national parks and historic preservation.

Members of the Commission will serve three year terms free of pay.

The Natural Resources Committee will now report the Paterson Great Falls Act to the full House of Representatives where it will be considered for a vote on the House floor.

Senators Lautenberg and Menendez are both sponsoring the Senate version. The Senate version is still in Committee.

Speaker Pelosi on Impeachment

This is rich. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says that if she wasn't speaker and didn't have all those responsibilities of leading the party, would likely call for impeachment.

If she were not in the House--and not Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi says she "would probably advocate" impeaching President Bush.

But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.

"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."

Hey, now that's a nuanced approach to power, leadership, and moral and ethical judgment calls.

She says that impeachment would divide the country - now there's an understatement. Of course, if she thought that more of the country would be for impeachment, she might give a go of it. The other reason she's not pushing the issue harder is the complete and utter inability to have the votes to even bring the charges in the House.

Still, it is most illuminating that Pelosi thinks that impeachment is on the table but for her position as Speaker. Instead, she'll let others carry that water. That way, she'll keep her hands clean as the more insane leftists in the House push impeachment talk. It's a sap to the leftists like Sheehan and other anti-war types - playing both sides of the issue.

So, what exactly would be the potential articles of impeachment? The article doesn't say, and I doubt that anyone actually knows what the charges could be since policy disputes are not impeachable offenses. It has to be a high crime or misdemeanor. But that's not part of the pop quiz.

One has to surmise that the articles of impeachment would be whatever the leftists in the House can come up with. And right now, they're focusing their knives on AG Gonzales.

Also, her priorities have a curious absence in the area of national security, instead believing that health care, creating jobs and the environment are most important issues these days. Pelosi's view is one of 9/10, and one that proved to have fatal outcomes.

This is what passes as leadership in the House. Keep this in mind when you think that your vote doesn't count or if you intend to sit out in 2008. Your votes do have consequences, and should have consequences.

UPDATE:
Welcome Hot Air and Michelle Malkin readers! Thanks for stopping by and thanks to Michelle for giving me the last word. It's very kind of her.

Familiar Territory

Louisiana Democrat Congressman William Jefferson's assets have been frozen by the judge overseeing the criminal case against Jefferson.

The restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III lists two savings accounts with Dryades Savings Bank and Chevy Chase Bank with a combined value of more than $470,000, plus certain stock holdings that Jefferson is barred from liquidating.

Nearly all the cash is in an account belonging to The ANJ Group LLC. The indictment says it is a Louisiana company established in 2001 and controlled by Jefferson's family.

A second, smaller account is under the name W2-IBBS, Limited, which according to the indictment was established in Nigeria and controlled by the informant whose complaints about Jefferson sparked the investigation.

The indictment states that Jefferson demanded an ever larger share of that company — first 5 percent and then finally a 30 percent stake — in exchange for his help brokering a telecommunications deal.

Jefferson is quite familiar with frozen assets as he was caught red-handed with $90,000 in cash stashed in his freezer.

So, what is the House doing about this? Well, they're investigating matters further. The slow motion approach contrasts severely with the handling of various GOPers who found themselves in trouble with the law. Curious how that happens:

The House ethics committee voted Thursday to expand its investigation of indicted Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., to include any subject in a 16-count corruption indictment handed up earlier in the week.

The committee made no mention of possibly expelling Jefferson, even though the House on Tuesday passed a Republican-sponsored resolution directing the panel to report on whether expulsion was warranted.

The ethics committee authorized an investigation of Jefferson last year, and Thursday's vote in closed session reauthorized the probe.

A four-member investigative subcommittee was asked to determine whether Jefferson violated the House's Code of Official conduct or any law, rule, regulation or other standard.

"We are committed to ensuring that proceedings involving Rep. Jefferson are conducted in a fair manner, and in accordance with the processes established by the committee's standing rules and established precedent," said a statement by panel Chairman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio; and senior Republican Doc Hastings of Washington state. The committee has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

The resolution approved by the House, 373-26, directed the committee "to investigate without further delay alleged illegal conduct and violations of House rules by Representative William J. Jefferson and report its findings and recommendations to the House, including a recommendation regarding whether Representative Jefferson should be expelled from the House."

I will give the AP credit here, as they included his political party affiliation in the very first paragraph, which is something the media outlets regularly omit from Democrats, but push when a GOPer is involved.

House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.

Voting for the bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed the bill, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to debate as early as Monday legislation that also calls for a troop withdrawal — and has also drawn a Bush veto threat.

That $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with the goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Unlike the House bill's 2008 date, the Senate deadline is not a firm requirement.

As I previously said "The war in Iraq is central to the global war on terrorism. Forget the chicken/egg debate of whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq before America's invasion or not, the simple fact is that they are there now. Al Qaeda is spending considerable resources in trying to win Iraq. America can not let that happen."

Is scary that the democrats care more for political games than recognizing the reality that this country is safer with the war in Iraq than without it. It is sad that the democrats rather cow tail to our enemy and surrender any chance we have for long term peace by withdrawing funding for our troops.

Withdrawal was not a good idea in the 1970s in Vietnam and it is an even more dangerous idea now. Will withdrawal pacify Iran, who has not been pacified since loosing the Ottaman Empire? Will pulling out make Al Queada less likely to attack us? No in fact, more likely. Will surrender make the mad mullahs recognize Israel faster? Are you kidding? Will surrender lower oil prices or the world economy?

Pelosi and company are weakening America from the inside out. What will Pelosi say to the victims of the next 9/11 attack? Well we thought withdrawal from Iraq would appease them?