Political Roundup

Things are getting really sticky lately in Washington D.C. Tensions are running sky high and every day seems to bring a new character under the spotlight. But today, well, today is a doozy!

Let me enumerate the developments:

1. The "confidential informant" in the Hillary Clinton 2000 campaign financial scandal that goes to trial in early May in LA appears to be Teddy Kennedy's wife's brother, Ray Reggie. This case, while not naming Hill as a defendent, stems from an event in LA thrown by some shady people all with criminal pasts that drew the requisite Democrat celebrities. Allegedly, the Clinton campaign financial advisor underreported donations to the FEC so that the campaign could have more hard-money on hand. Which is highly illegal. And it appears that the daggers are pointed at Hill next because the conventional wisdom supports the idea that she would have known about this. So Kennedy's brother-in-law, a backer of both Clintons, who stayed in the Lincoln bedroom (who didn't?) and raised money for them, and lunched with them whenever they were in N'Orlins, went to the FBI three years ago with some "evidence" against the parties involved. The FBI asked him to tape record phone conversations that are said to be with very high-level and very famous politicians. I wonder what's on those tapes.

2. I assume you've all heard, at least read the headline, that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been embroiled in some ethics trouble lately. Well the charges, while not nothing, are hardly as sensational as the media is portraying them. The lobbyist ties that DeLay is accused of having and using are had by every single politician in Congress. And so now after weeks of the Democratic leadership railing against him and hurling nasty epithets his way, the Republicans are finally fighting back, demanding records for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's trips of the same sort. It was a very stupid thing for the Dems to play this as a Republican wrong in the first place, because they all know they're all guilty of the exact same "transgressions." It is the CURRENCY of Congress, like it or not, and until the culture of the legislative branch is changed, they will all continue to deal this way. I can't stand Pelosi anyway; she's a shrill woman whose frequent Botox injections have left her with a perpetual freakish face that only resembles fear, she is a weak leader and the Dems deserve someone who can at least know what s/he is talking about. What a mistake she was. Message to Pelosi: People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

3. The Trial of Henry Cisneros. Here's an especially egregious abuse of power: Sens. Dorgan, Durbin and your friend and mine, Kerry, snuck an amendment onto the war supplemental that was passed yesterday 99-0. This amendment, predictably, had nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, the military or anything war related. I understand this is policits and that you should use an opportunity when you can, but what the amendment did was cut off funding for the special prosecutor investigating former Clinton HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros' crime of providing false statements to the FBI during his background check during the nomination process for the Cabinet. The investigation has been going on for 10 years and has cost $21 million. And if that's all the information one had, the only logical explanation is to cut funding immediately, that that is the egregious thing in this scenario. It is important to note that A) the investigator's report is finished and only awaiting review, mandated by law, by those named in it and printing and all that stuff, which does cost money; B) the amendment, which was passed, cuts funding June 1 of this year and mandates a full and detailed accounting of the investigation and C) does not allow for the report to be made public. Still, this wouldn't necessarily be called egregious, I suppose. Here's the kicker: while it began as an investigation of Cisneros, it quickly became an investigation into vast corruption of the Clinton IRS. Leaks that have emanated from the investigation have hinted that this mega report is very damning to A) Bill Clinton and his legacy; B) Hillary Clinton and her political future -- she's supposedly named often and her ties to the IRS Commissioners, who happen to be her friends, appear to be a major cause for the corruption that incidentally helped the Clintons and their supporters; and C) Democrats in general. So what these three senators have done is to effectively castrate the final workings of a very important investigation that all signs point to widespread corruption by the IRS. We will never see the report, we will never see what really happened and we will never see what the end results were. Unless the Senate reverses course. Although there are two questions I have. 1) Why would John Kerry be a main player on this when one end result would be very damaging to his 2008 rival, Hillary Clinton? 2) Is this the final outcome? I assume that the Senate and House have to still reconcile all the amendments and reach a supplemental bill that both houses agree on and then both have to pass it again. Am I wrong? So is there still hope here?