Dodd/Conrad vs. Issa the Inquisitor

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) out of line? Senators Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are questioning the California Republican’s motivations for investigating Countrywide Financial’s VIP loan program, through which both of the Democrats received financing. “I find it very odd to be investigated and never given a chance to give my side of the story,” Conrad tells Politico. “I think that’s unusual.” Says Dodd, who’s hanging on for dear life to his Senate seat: “This is just too coincidental.”

Issa’s a pretty committed ideologue, so trying to stir up trouble for his Democratic rivals certainly wouldn’t be out of character. But even if his motivations are political, that doesn’t mean Countrywide’s lending practices and influence-peddling loan program shouldn’t be thoroughly investigated. A different question is whether it’s appropriate for Issa to be investigating fellow lawmakers in the first place. Former House general counsel Stanley Brand says Issa has stepped “way, way out of bounds” and that the House oversight committee in general lacks the authority to investigate the ethics of a Senator. That job belongs to the Senate ethics committee, a body not known for its hard-nosed investigative prowess but which is nevertheless moving forward with an inquiry into the Countrywide loans handed out to Dodd and Conrad.

As I noted yesterday, Issa has been leaning on oversight chairman Edolphus Towns to sign on to his Countrywide investigation in a bid to get the blessing of the full committee to subpoena records from Bank of America, which took over the collapsed mortgage lender in 2008. Towns has appeared reluctant to do so—and given the way Dodd and Conrad are reacting, it’s not difficult to see why. He said yesterday that he’ll decide by the end of the week whether he’ll wade into the Countrywide matter. If Issa has indeed crossed a line, as Brand contends, it may not be a bad move for Towns to do so if only to gain greater control over the direction of the investigation.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Congress, the mortgage market implosion is very much under scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal reported [sub req’d] today that the Senate’s Permanent Select Subcommittee on Investigations has subpoenaed finance firms including Goldman Sachs and Duetsche Bank “seeking evidence of fraud.” The Journal explains:

The congressional investigation appears to focus on whether internal communications, such as email, show bankers had private doubts about whether mortgage-related securities they were putting together were as financially sound as their public pronouncements suggested.

Follow Daniel Schulman on Twitter.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate