This long overdue investigation appears to be picking up steam.  The Special Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, is moving ahead:

A prosecutor who is investigating the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys has been meeting with defense lawyers, dispatching subpoenas and seeking information about the events, according to legal sources familiar with the case.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey appointed prosecutor Nora R. Dannehy two months ago, after the department's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility reported that they had hit a roadblock in their lengthy probe into whether political interference prompted the dismissals. Internal investigators said they had been stymied by the refusal of key witnesses, including former presidential adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers, to cooperate.

By naming a federal prosecutor to determine whether crimes have been committed, the attorney general ensured that authorities would have the power to compel testimony and documents. Dannehy, a longtime assistant U.S. attorney in Connecticut, in recent weeks has met with lawyers and government officials involved in the case. A grand jury in the District has issued subpoenas, the sources said.

TPM Muckraker reports that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been contacted by Dennehy.

Candidates for federal office are prohibited from using campaign funds for personal purposes.  That's why CREW filed ethics complaints against Sarah Palin, the RNC and several members of Congress who purchased clothes with campaign funds. 

One of the members, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), bought clothes with campaign funds after an airline lost his luggage.  According to the congressman's office, the airline reimbursed Andrews and he paid back the campaign.  But, it's not that simple as Melanie Sloan explained:

"Here's the problem: Even though they paid it back, your campaign funds are not your personal line of credit," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"You and I don't have a slush fund when our luggage is lost that we can use until we're reimbursed by the airlines," Sloan continued. "Members can't treat their campaign funds like a personal credit line. That's not what it's there for."

Melanie added:

"The rules are very clear about clothing. You can't convert campaign funds for personal use. Buying clothing is a personal use," Sloan said. "It's a black-and-white rule." 

Members of Congress and federal candidates can't choose which laws they follow.  

Last month, CREW filed an FEC complaint against Palin and the RNC for improperly spending $150,000 on clothing for Palin and her family, in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).  Sarah Palin wasn't the only candidate to improperly use campaign funds to buy clothes.

Today, CREW filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against candidates for the House of Representatives and the presidency, for improperly spending campaign funds in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).  Our complaint can be found here.

According to FEC reports, clothing purchases were made by the campaign committees of Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Utah congressional candidate Bill Dew (R), North Carolina congressional candidate William Breazeale (R), and Andrew MacPherson, campaign staffer for Bob Barr‘s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

The amount each candidate spent on clothing is as follows:

Rep. Andrews, $952.04

Rep. Sanchez, $334.09

Bill Dew, $1,089.16

William Breazeale, $1,000

Andrew MacPherson, Barr campaign staffer, $500.00

These acquisitions violate campaign finance law.

FECA specifically prohibits a candidate for federal office from converting campaign funds to personal use. FEC regulations make clear that the prohibition applies to clothing purchases, such as those made for the above listed candidates.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today:

Sarah Palin wasn’t the only candidate to violate the law by using campaign money for clothing, several others did as well. Campaign finance laws are not optional, but if candidates can’t abide by these laws how can we trust them to be lawmakers?  There is no excuse for this conduct; the FEC should investigate these members and candidates immediately.

In April of 2007, CREW filed an FEC complaint against Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) " alleging multiple egregious violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and FEC regulations..  The complaint and the accompanying materials can be found here."

Last month, the FEC fined the Martinez campaign $99,000 based on the allegations in CREW's complaint (without mentioning CREW's complaint.)

Today, we are learning that Senator Martinez, who was elected for the first time in 2004, will announce that he is not running for re-election.  In fact, Martinez may retire before the end of his term.

Another Abramoff-related trial is underway.  This one is actually a retrial for David Safavian:

Jury selection began today in the retrial of a former White House aide on corruption charges linked to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

David H. Safavian, the former top contracting official in the White House, was convicted in 2006 of obstructing justice and lying to investigators about Abramoff's inquiries about surplus federal property, including the historic Old Post Office in downtown Washington. He was also convicted of concealing facts about a charter jet flight and lavish golf junket to St. Andrews, Scotland, and London in the summer of 2002.

An appeals court tossed out Safavian's conviction in June and ordered a new trial. A grand jury indicted Safavian again in October, accusing the 41-year-old of obstructing justice, lying on a financial disclosure form and providing false statements to an ethics officer, a Senate committee and the FBI.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), the Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is facing calls from major papers to step down from that post.  The latest revelations about Rangel's ethical problems were first reported last week by the New York Times:

Representative Charles B. Rangel has helped raise $11 million for a City College of New York school of public service to be named in his honor. In recent months, as questions have emerged about his fund-raising, he has insisted that he has kept his efforts to attract donors scrupulously separate from his official duties in Congress.

But Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited an oil-drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the project, the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.

CREW has already called for an ethics inquiry into the latest allegations.  After that, the editorials began.

First, the New York Times:

We hope that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is shocked into action. She should insist that the ethics investigation move forward — and that Mr. Rangel relinquish his chairmanship during the inquiry. If Mr. Rangel continues to resist, the speaker should permanently reassign the gavel. In a deep economic crisis, the committee, and the country, cannot afford the distraction.

Then, the Washington Post:

WHEN WE last wrote about Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, we urged that the House ethics committee be allowed to investigate before anyone drew final conclusions. But the latest revelation of Mr. Rangel's ethical tin ear is the most galling yet. While he remains innocent until proven otherwise, he should step aside as chairman while the ethics committee expands its inquiry.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Mr. Rangel helped preserve a valuable tax loophole for an oil and gas drilling company while the company's chief executive, Eugene M. Isenberg, was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York. Mr. Rangel insists that the mutual favors were entirely coincidental. And quite a coincidence it seems to have been. On Feb. 12, 2007, the Times reported, the day the tax legislation was being considered in his committee, Mr. Rangel met in New York City with Mr. Isenberg to discuss the businessman's support of the Rangel School. Then Mr. Isenberg escorted Mr. Rangel across the room to his lobbyist, Kenneth J. Kies, who wanted to make sure Mr. Rangel would not close the loophole.

Mitchell Wade has been cooperating with federal authorities.  That could mean legal trouble for five additional members of Congress according to news reports from over the weekend.  Wade wants leniency in his sentence for his cooperation.  CREW has been following the Mitchell Wade case for years.  In fact, we initiated an FEC complaint against Wade and his company, which resulted in an historic fine.  We'll keep monitoring developments, but do know that Wade had a close relationship with former Florida Representative Katherine Harris.

From the Washington Post:

Mitchell Wade, the former defense contractor who pleaded guilty in February 2006 to bribing former representative Randall "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), has assisted the government in investigating five other members of Congress, numerous government employees and several private contractors, according to a memorandum filed by his attorney on Wednesday.

Although none of those members is named, two are under investigation, according to the memorandum, and "three others have come under scrutiny for their receipt of straw contributions" from former Wade employees and one for the possible receipt of undisclosed gifts.