I've long had a soft spot for Rep. Charlie Rangel. As a native New Yorker, I enjoy his slightly fey, gravelly-voiced regional accent. His pompadour is hilarious, and his impish smile, cheerful partisanship, and blunt-spoken political views have long made him an avuncular character to political junkies, sort of an affable Barney Frank.

But how can you chair the congressional committee responsible for writing the nation's tax laws when you have some serious tax problems of your own? Democrats seem quick to forget, as Holly pointed out in our recent print edition, that Republican ethics scandals were a major reason for the Democrats' congressional takeover in 2006. Well, voters have not forgotten. Republicans are playing smart politics by, as Katie reports, pushing to strip Rangel of his chairmanship, and for Democrats to go on record on the issue. The Democrats have a reasonable counterargument that the Ethics Committee should be allowed to finish its investigation before rushing to judgment, but they ought to move it along quickly. And, unless the Ethics Committee can compellingly prove that Rangel had only the most minor of infractions and they were made in good faith—an unlikely scenario—the Democrats should dump him.

photo by Jim Rounds/AP

John Edwards can't be happy to see this: Rielle Hunter, Edwards’s former mistress, showed up this morning at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, N.C., where a grand jury is reportedly probing whether the Democratic presidential hopeful misused his campaign funds. As your Gaggler reported earlier this year, the feds are looking into payments Edwards’s political action committee paid Hunter, who briefly worked as a videographer for the campaign. According to campaign finance records, Edwards’s PAC paid a firm affiliated with Hunter more than $100,000 for making a few short films. But as the Charlotte Observer has reported, the probe is also looking into the finances of several previously unknown non-profit groups with ties to Edwards who reportedly failed to disclose their fund-raising. Edwards has denied any wrong-doing.

With some exceptions, grand jury proceedings are largely kept under wraps. But a big question has to be whether the probe will look into some of the more salacious aspects of Edwards’s troubles.

After Roberts Gibbs was grilled by reporters over the President's decision not to release the detainee abuse photos earlier today, the President himself made a statement this afternoon. He reiterated his concerns about the safety of troops and echoed much of what Gibbs said at the presser. He said that, in this instance, the Pentagon had not attempted to conceal or justify these wrongful actions. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

Obama also alluded to Gibbs's obscure argument that releasing the photos would discourage documentation of further abuses. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse," he said.

This is rocky terrain for the President. Just a couple of weeks ago he was heavily criticized by conservatives for his decision to release the OLC memos regarding interrogation techniques. Today's announcement (which is a reversal of the Administration's previous decision not to fight the court order demanding the photos be released by May 28) has angered the civil liberties and rights activists. Moreover, as CBS's Mark Knoller pointed out at the briefing, it contradicts a statement Obama made on his second day in office. He said: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness.  Information will not be withheld just because I say so."  Sorry sir, but it looks like you're saying so.

Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan (who was profiled by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff a few weeks ago) testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee today and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that  Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations. (More after the jump)

The White House announced today that the President has decided to oppose the release of photographs allegedly depicted the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. military personnel. According to a statement from the press office, Obama isn't comfortable releasing the photographs, believing they have the potential to endanger troops and jeopardize national security. After meeting with his legal team last week, Obama instructed his counsel to object to the release. He informed General Odierno of his decision yesterday. From the statement:

The President would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos. That is why the Department of Defense investigated these cases, and why individuals have been punished through prison sentences, discharges, and a range of other punitive measures. But the President strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

At today's briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was hammered with questions from reporters about whether Obama, who has argued for more transparency in government investigations, had reversed his position. Gibbs said that Obama had not been pressured by the military. He then pursued a strange and convoluted line of argument, saying that releasing the photographs woud "provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigations." Say what? According to Gibbs, a public release of the photographs adds nothing to the investigation. He seemed to be arguing that if the military believes that every time a photograph of abuse is taken it will eventually be released to the public, they'll be less inclined to take photos. Asked if the photographs would help enhance public understanding of the issue, Gibbs replied "the President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds to that in any way." Rather, Gibbs believes they add a "sensationalizing portion" to the investigation. OK. Your Gaggler is sure the ACLU will buy that line....(not.)

Then, the press conference descended into a bizarro-world, with a paternal Gibbs confiscating the cell phone of a reporter after it rang repeatedly. Then someone else's cell phone went off. There was laughter and shenanigans. It was weird. Finally, as Gibbs walked out, he told the reporter whose cell phone was now sitting somewhere in the press office "I have a message for you...your mom called."

John Edwards: That’s someone we haven’t seen or heard from in a while, but chances are, we’re going to be talking about him a lot this week. On Sunday, the onetime Democratic presidential hopeful and former senator confirmed reports that federal investigators are looking into his use of campaign funds in relation to payments made to Rielle Hunter, the former campaign videographer who had an affair with Edwards. His political action committee paid a firm affiliated with Hunter more than $100,000 for video services, but as the Charlotte Observer reported yesterday, the inquiry could go deeper into “a cluster” of different non-profit groups affiliated with Edwards that haven’t been subject to the same rules of transparency, including one committee that raised almost $3.5 million from a single donor. For his part, Edwards denies wrongdoing and says he’s cooperating. “I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly,” Edwards said in a statement yesterday.

But that’s not the only reason Edwards will be in the news. In a bit of either lucky or unfortunate timing—you be the judge—the former senator’s wife, Elizabeth, is out with a new book this week that talks about her husband’s affair with Hunter. According to ABC, the book’s publication was pushed up a week after excerpts appeared in the New York Daily News, and she’s set to appear Thursday on Oprah. In the book, Elizabeth calls Hunter “pathetic,” and writes that after she learned of the affair, a few days after he declared for president in 2006, she wanted her husband to quit the race. “He should not have run,” Elizabeth writes.

Your Gaggler just attended a reporter roundtable with Speaker Nancy Pelosi where she divulged that she had been informed in a confidential briefing that her colleague Jane Harman had been wiretapped but, due to strict intelligence rules, she was unable to speak about it with anyone, including Harman. “Even if I wanted to share it with her I would not have had the liberty to share it with her," Pelosi said. CQ first reported Saturday that the NSA had eavesdropped on a call between Harman and a suspected Israeli agent, Haim Saban, in which Harman had allegedly said she would lobby to reduce espionage charges against two former AIPAC officials. The New York Times later reported that Saban, a wealthy Democratic donor, told Harman that he would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Pelosi if she did not appoint Harman as Chair of the Intelligence Committee. (Pelosi did not.) Harman has vehemently repudiated these allegations.

Pelosi today denied that Saban had threatened her, but said that he was one of many people who spoke to her about Harman's chairmanship. It's no secret on Capitol Hill that Pelosi and Harman, who differed fiercely on Iraq, aren't BFF. But today, Pelosi took great pains to explain that it was the House tradition of serving only two terms that had barred Harman from the Chair she sought.  “The only reason Jane was not chosen [as Intelligence Chair] is because she already had two terms [as Ranking Member]. It had nothing to do with wiretaps or Iraq,” she said. (Right. Sure. Politics never influences committee chairmanships. And first dog Bo never poops...)

Pelosi was also asked about possible investigations into the use of coercive interrogation techniques. The Speaker reiterated her support for a Truth Commission to look into the issue. She said she would not like to see immunity taken off the table, but nor would she support blanket immunity being granted.

And, on Earth Day, she had a message for the coal industry: "I have your interests at heart." After instructing a staffer to bring from her office a sculpture of a coal miner that her father had given her, she told reporters that "coal pollutes the air, there's just no question about that", but that coal companies would not be left out in the cold as Congress pursues energy legislation. She'd like to see investments in technology which would mitigate the effects of coal, like carbon sequestration, rather than eliminating it from the energy equation altogether. "We're all going down that path together or else we can't go down that path, and we must," she said. 

She tells NEWSWEEK that the CIA's Publications Review Board, the wing of the agency that edits the public writings of ex-employees, moved to approve her work before being overruled by director Michael Hayden. According to Plame, board chairman Richard Puhl told her that her book required only minor redactions before publication, but that "the seventh floor"--a euphemism for senior management--was still debating more extensive cuts. A week later, Puhl told her that she could not reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to 2002, a decision that required her to strike large sections of text. Puhl also told her that the decision was "ludicrous" and that the CIA's censorship was merely a "fig leaf" over information that was already public in the Congressional Record and elsewhere. In 2006, the CIA sent Plame an unclassified letter about her pension eligibility that said she had worked for the agency for "20 years, 7 days," including "6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service."