Following today’s discussion on the ethics of neuro-imaging and genetic testing, tomorrow, from 9 a.m.-1:15 p.m. EST at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., the commission will review and discuss its human subjects protection with medical experts, researchers and the public — for those who choose to attend and make comments. The conference will also be live-streaming on the Bioethics.gov site.

It was Susan Reverby, a Wellesley College professor, who came across the unpublished papers while doing research on untreated syphilis. She discovered that Dr. John Cutler, a Public Health Service medical officer, had condoned a study that involved injecting soldiers, prisoners and mental hospital patients with gonorrhea and syphilis, which was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Institute of Health to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau.

A summary of initial findings from the U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services:

The first experiments in Guatemala involved infecting female commercial sex workers with gonorrhea or syphilis, and then allowing them to have unprotected sex with soldiers or prison inmates. When few of these men became infected, the research approach changed to direct inoculation of soldiers, prisoners, and mental hospital patients. Gonorrhea was transmitted by inoculations into the urethra; chancroid by skin injection; and syphilis by a variety of means including skin injection and exposing the foreskin of the penis to infectious material. About 1,500 study subjects were involved. Although institutional officials were aware of the study, the study subjects were not informed of the purpose of the study and did not provide consent. The researchers indicated that they treated the vast majority of persons who contracted gonorrhea and chancroid, and most who contracted syphilis. However, the research suggests that some of the persons infected with syphilis were prescribed only partial treatment or not treated at all. At least one patient died during the experiments, although it is not clear whether the death was from the experiments or from an underlying medical problem. There are inadequate records to determine if the commercial sex workers were treated.

After reviewing the U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases Inoculation Study, which details how the patients were treated (and that they gave no consent to these studies), President Obama called on the bioethics commission to oversee a fact-finding investigation into the specifics of the study, seeking the insight and perspectives of international experts (including from Guatemala). The president expects findings and recommendations by September.

Obama has also agreed to work with the Guatemalan government and provide them with all the information uncovered in this investigation.

“While I believe the research community has made tremendous progress in the area of human subjects protection, what took place in Guatemala is a sobering reminder of past abuses,” said Obama in a Nov. 24 memo to Dr. Amy Gutmann, chair of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. “It is especially important for the Commission to use its vast expertise spanning the fields of science, policy, ethics, and religious values to carry out this mission. We owe it to the people of Guatemala and future generations of volunteers who participate in medical research.”

Doing its own investigation, the Associated Press dug up 40 similar studies, which included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, giving the pandemic flu virus to Maryland prisoners and injecting chronically-ill New Yorkers with cancer. The AP notes that in most cases, the studies did not produce useful results.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is leading the nationwide investigation into foreclosure fraud, but he's in danger of losing re-election. (Flickr: Iowa Democratic Party)

With unusual unanimity across the political spectrum, all 50 state attorneys general announced a coordinated investigation on Oct. 13 into recent revelations that mortgage servicers routinely used “robo-signers” to approve hundreds of thousands of foreclosures without scrutinizing the underlying documents. Because state law governs the mortgage lending industry for the most part, consumer advocates and experts believe this investigation will be the most effective way to resolve the foreclosure mess and compensate homeowners.

[Congress1] “The fact that all 50 have launched an investigation into potential fraud speaks for itself,” said Kathleen Day of the Center for Responsible Lending.

But after the midterm elections, the individuals holding those offices could vary wildly, and some of the leaders of the investigation, as well as the most aggressive advocates for consumers and against banks, could find themselves out of a job.

Consider this: Of the 12 state attorneys general on the executive committee of the coordinated investigation, only two of them — Roy Cooper in North Carolina and Rob McKenna in Washington — aren’t up for re-election this year. Several of them — Jerry Brown in California, Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Terry Goddard in Arizona, Andrew Cuomo in New York and Bill McCollum in Florida — are running for higher office and will not return to their posts. And other races are closely contested.

Currently, 32 of the 50 attorneys general across the nation are Democrats, to 18 Republicans. According to Governing Magazine, the GOP is poised to pick up anywhere from six to 13 of those seats after November, dramatically changing the makeup of the attorneys general across the country — and potentially the nature of their investigation.

“There are good AGs and not so good AGs,” said Ira Rheingold of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “The question is, who will be the leaders of the investigation and who will drive the decisions they make?”

Take Ohio, for instance. Attorney General Richard Cordray (D) was the first to sue a major mortgage servicer, GMAC Mortgage, over faulty foreclosure documents. “Nobody’s very comfortable with the notion that people are committing fraud upon the courts on a deliberate and systematic basis,” said Cordray of his attorney general colleagues. He seeks not only damages of $25,000 per fraudulent document, but restitution for homeowners who may have been illegally evicted from their homes. But he faces former Sen. Mike DeWine (R) in a re-election battle on Nov. 2, and a Suffolk University poll from early October showed DeWine ahead 44-38 among likely voters.

Or look at Iowa, where Tom Miller, who has been Attorney General off and on since 1978, heads up the 50-state investigation. He has been investigating abuse in the mortgage lending industry for years, and is widely recognized as one of the best attorneys general on consumer protection in the country. “Tom Miller being involved is a really good thing,” said Rheingold. “Tom has been doing this for years, and has a demonstrated record on consumer protection.”

But Miller is being challenged strongly by Brenna Findley, a Sarah Palin-endorsed 34-year-old who previously spent seven years as the chief of staff for conservative Republican Rep. Steve King. She’s raised twice as much money as Miller and has campaigned more energetically in the state. There has been no public polling since August, but with the Republican lean in statewide races in Iowa, most experts see Miller’s odds as a tossup at best.

While no attorney general candidate, Democratic or Republican, has actually pledged to drop out of the investigation into foreclosure fraud, many of the GOP candidates have focused their attention elsewhere, saying little about the issue on the campaign trail. In Iowa, Findley has run almost entirely on her vow to join the lawsuit against the federal government over health care legislation, and on an aggressive effort to crack down on sexual predators. In Florida, Republican candidate Pam Bondi has a section of her website labeled “Protecting Our Consumers” that talks generally about consumer protection and barely mentions mortgage fraud or housing at all.

While the investigators for the probe are likely to be career bureaucrats at the staff level who would probably not change from one administration to the next, the decision-makers at the top play a central role. Reuters reported last week that banks have already initiated talks with the attorneys general to reach a quick resolution to the matter. State attorney general settlements in the recent past, with lenders like Countrywide and Wachovia, have included mandates for mass mortgage modifications that would allow homeowners to stay in their homes.

“Those who understand the issues know what the remedy needs to be,” said Rheingold. “Other AGs may have political calculations. For example, they might want a one-time pot of money to give out to homeowners, so they can do a press conference and declare victory. That wouldn’t be a serious move. This should be about what you make the lenders do to comply with state law.”

Several attorney general candidates on the Democratic side have boasted of their consumer protection credentials. In California, one of the states hardest hit by foreclosures since the housing bubble popped, San Francisco district attorney and statewide candidate Kamala Harris touted her past efforts, including the formation of the first-ever stand-alone mortgage and investment fraud unit in the district attorney’s office. She has already made several indictments through the unit, which has a $1 million grant from the Justice Department to investigate fraud. Harris trails Republican Steve Cooley in public polling, and Cooley has raised more money as well, while getting support from million-dollar independent expenditure campaigns led by former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie. Cooley has stressed public safety in his campaign more than consumer protection.

The campaigns for Cooley, Findley and several other Republican attorney general candidates did not respond to repeated requests for comment about their views on foreclosures and the 50-state investigation.

In New York, a key state because of the presence of Wall Street and the fact that New York trust law governs some thorny national legal issues which may determine whether or not servicers even have the standing to foreclose, Democratic candidate Eric Schneiderman said he would strongly support investigations into the banks’ activities. “I held the first hearing in the history of the state about the under-prosecution of mortgage fraud,” said Schneiderman, who supports a moratorium on foreclosures while the investigation proceeds. “The economic meltdown was driven by pools of bad mortgages. A lot of New Yorkers got stuck with those bad mortgages. Everyone in the state of New York should get a fair hearing before they’re foreclosed on.”

Schneiderman’s race in particular is emblematic of the stark difference between Democratic and Republican attorney general candidates on the issue of the financial industry, including the foreclosure crisis. His opponent, Daniel Donovan, has derived around 25% of all his campaign contributions from one hedge fund, Elliott Management, according to The New York Times. Donovan has been quoted on several occasions saying that he “doesn’t want to be anybody’s sheriff,” a reference to former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, nicknamed the Sheriff of Wall Street.

“Dan Donovan has said that we shouldn’t ‘disturb the garden’ of Wall Street,” Schneiderman said. “The central tenet throughout my career, as a public interest lawyer and a public servant, is that I have sought to do justice and fight against unfairness. I don’t like bullies. I don’t like when people use their power to take advantage of people who are weaker.” Donovan, on the other hand, writes on his website that “Wall Street is the financial backbone of our state, and we must ensure that it continues to create jobs and remain the economic generator our state depends on.” Although New York Democrats are running away with races at the top of the ticket, Donovan has cut into Schneiderman’s lead, trailing in a recent Siena College poll by just seven points, 44-37.

Similarly, Florida Republican nominee Pam Bondi, who led Democrat Dan Gelber in an October Mason-Dixon poll by five points, criticized her opponent as an “activist” who would prosecute too cavalierly. (Gelber, like Schneiderman, supports a foreclosure freeze as allegations are investigated.) She told the St. Petersburg Times, “Unlike Mr. Gelber, I understand the difference between using the attorney general’s office to responsibly protect consumers vs. attacking businesses as an activist AG in the mold of Eliot Spitzer.”

An attorney general with this kind of measured, pro-business worldview, in the midst of a politically charged national investigation against the biggest banks in the country, can change the focus of the probe. “The bureaucrats won’t change over the years,” said Rheingold, “but sometimes they have to keep their heads down” when their new boss doesn’t support their actions.

“The emphasis can change with a new AG,” he added. “The goals change.”

And that would have wide-ranging effects for what Rheingold described as “the most important game in town,” the investigation by the 50 attorneys general. “After all, it’s their laws being broken,” he said. “Congress is not going to do anything. The administration has not been strong thus far. The most important challenge to the banks comes from these attorneys general.”

Correction: This story initially stated that the campaigns of Pam Bondi and Brenna Findley did not respond to requests for comment. Steve Cooley should have been listed here, not Bondi, whose campaign was not contacted. We regret the error.

David Dayen writes for the News Desk at firedoglake.com. His work has been cited by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Washington Post, and he has been a guest on NPR, Pacifica Radio and Air America.

Today, 49 all 50 state attorneys general — representing every state, save for Alabama – announced an investigation into the foreclosure fraud crisis. Here is the release:

It has recently come to light that a number of mortgage loan servicers have submitted affidavits or signed other documents in support of either a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure that appear to have procedural defects. In particular, it appears affidavits and other documents have been signed by persons who did not have personal knowledge of the facts asserted in the documents. In addition, it appears that many affidavits were signed outside of the presence of a notary public, contrary to state law. This process of signing documents without confirming their accuracy has come to be known as “robo-signing.” We believe such a process may constitute a deceptive act and/or an unfair practice or otherwise violate state laws.

In order to handle this issue in the most efficient and consistent manner possible, the states have formed a bi-partisan multistate group to address issues common to a large number of states. The group is comprised of both state Attorneys General and the state bank and mortgage regulators. Currently 49 state Attorneys General have joined this coordinated multistate effort. State bank and mortgage regulators are participating both individually and through their Multistate Mortgage Committee, which represents mortgage regulators from all 50 states. Through this process, the states will attempt to speak with one voice to the greatest extent possible. At the end of this statement is a list of the participating states.

Our multistate group has begun inquiring whether or not individual mortgage servicers have improperly submitted affidavits or other documents in support of foreclosures in our states. The facts uncovered in our review will dictate the scope of our inquiry. The Executive Committee is comprised of the following Attorneys General Offices: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington; and the following state banking regulators: Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, New York State Banking Department, and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking.

The crisis stems from improper foreclosure documentation. In 23 states, mortgage servicers, working on behalf of banks, need to file affidavits testifying to personal knowledge of a homeowner’s financial situation with a court to continue with a foreclosure. Cases have shown those affidavits to be false, and other documentation has proven faulty in the states that do not require court supervision for foreclosure.

“This group has the backing of nearly every state in the nation to get to the bottom of this foreclosure mess, and we plan to work together as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, leading the 49-state investigation, said in a release. “Since this issue affects peoples’ homes and has clear economic implications, this probe and its outcome need to be fair both to homeowners and also to lenders.”

Update: Here is the press release from the Alabama attorney general’s office:

“To be clear, no violations of Alabama law have been alleged at this time. That said, we are troubled to see that mortgage lenders around the country were violating the procedures of our sister States. Accordingly, we are joining the national investigation (all 50 States) to ensure that the lenders’ wrongdoings did not extend beyond what is already known to encompass actions that violated Alabama law and thus adversely affected Alabama citizens. If the investigation does not uncover any wrongdoing under Alabama law, then the lenders have nothing to fear from us. If the investigation does uncover wrongdoing in Alabama, we stand ready to take the appropriate action. “

In the letter, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote the sheriff’s office must turn over documents by Aug. 17 to avoid a lawsuit:

“MCSO’s refusal to cooperate fully with the Division’s investigation makes it an extreme outlier when compared with other recipients of federal financial assistance, which have uniformly recognized their obligation to cooperate with the Division’s investigations of alleged discrimination. Although we would prefer voluntary compliance in this case as well, we will not hesitate to commence litigation after Aug. 17, if MCSO continues to take the position that it need not cooperate with the Division’s investigation.”

Arpaio, an outspoken supporter of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, has been criticized for his extreme approach to immigration enforcement, which earned him the nicknames “America’s Toughest Sheriff” and “Hitler.”

The chief of DoJ’s Environment and Natural Resources division, Ignacia Moreno, and civil division leader Tony West were sent to New Orleans early on, Holder told reporters, “to lead our efforts to protect not only the people who work and reside near the Gulf, but also the American taxpayers, the environment and the abundant wildlife in the region.”

Indeed, Moreno is no stranger to the complex process of navigating corporate liability claims in the aftermath of large-scale contamination. Before joining the DoJ, she was a leading player in the longstanding Superfund battle between General Electric and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — on the side of GE.

ProPublica reported in May 2009 that several EPA attorneys were privately echoing the frustrations of anti-pollution groups with the choice of Moreno to head environmental enforcement at DoJ. From their story:

When Moreno’s nomination was announced in mid-May, she was actively defending GE against charges brought by the very division of the Justice Department that she has been appointed to lead.

In court documents filed in that case, the EPA said that GE owes the federal government nearly $10 million for the government’s cleanup of 800 barrels of toxic waste that GE improperly disposed of at a Superfund site in New Hampshire.

GE, with the help of Moreno, argued that it was not responsible for the Superfund site because it thought it had sold the waste to a company that was going to reuse it to make paint. GE said it didn’t know that the waste was instead being dumped, according to court filings.

Before getting confirmed by the Senate, Moreno promised to recuse herself from any GE-related matters that could arise during her tenure at DoJ. Following another prolonged court battle over Superfund law, GE last year began a cooperative effort with the EPA to dredge contaminated sediment from the Upper Hudson River in New York.

Afghan relatives wait outside a hospital in Kandahar. (EPA/ZumaPress.com)

A very disturbing — and disturbingly vague — announcement came early this morning from the U.S. military command in Afghanistan. According to Army Lt. Col. Joseph “Todd” Breasseale, a command spokesman, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division is investigating whether an unknown number of American soldiers are responsible for the “unlawful deaths” of “as many as three” Afghan civilians.

[Security1]Breasseale’s statement leaves many key details vague, including how many soldiers are involved in whatever incident CID is investigating; specifically where it took place; and when it occurred. But whatever occurred was serious enough to get additional soldiers from the same unit to come forward to their chain of command with knowledge of the incident earlier this month. The statement makes it sound as if the potential criminal act was planned in advance of its commission, as allegations of “illegal drug use, assault and conspiracy” are involved, although it isn’t clear if those allegations have to do with the incident or with the cohort of soldiers under investigation more generally.

One of the soldiers in question is being held in pre-trial detention. No charges have been filed yet.

Breasseale said in an email that he couldn’t discuss further detail about the case right now. “The bottom line is that we are executing this investigation by the numbers and will not compromise our ability to gather and maintain evidence,” he said. He added that more specificity about the case will probably be available “once the charges are preferred,” an indication that CID’s investigation has progressed to the point where it is more likely than not that the soldiers involved will face charges.

It is unfortunately difficult to infer what incident this case involves. Over the past few months, despite the restrictions on rules of engagement that Gen. Stanley McChrystal issued last year to minimize civilian casualties, there have been several high-profile cases of civilian deaths at the hands of NATO forces. A so-called “night raid” earlier this month in Nangahar Province left locals saying 11 civilians were killed by U.S. troops, even though NATO considers all to be insurgents, and their anger led to a violent protest in which Afghan police killed someone. On February 12 in Gardez, also in Afghanistan’s east, U.S. Special Forces killed two men and three women — two of whom were pregnant — during a house raid, and had to correct an initial mistaken announcement that attributed the women’s deaths to insurgents. And although this incident doesn’t sound like the one under investigation, a misunderstanding at a Kandahar checkpoint led soldiers to open fire on a passenger bus, leaving four civilians dead.

Before McChrystal took command in Afghanistan, he said that the perceptions of the Afghan people that the NATO coalition is interested in protecting them from harm and the Afghan government is interested in enriching their lives would be “strategically decisive” in the nearly nine-year war. His counterinsurgency guidance instructs his troops to assume additional risk to their own lives in the interest of preventing civilians from being accidentally killed. After the Paktia incident, McChrystal consolidated his hold over Special Operations Forces operating in Afghanistan.

To be credible, any such hearing must also be fair. Any hearing must encompass the basic principles of due process. To the greatest possible extent, basic protections must be in place to ensure that the hearing develops a complete and balanced public record. Massey supports a hearing that is fair and credible, as well as open and transparent.

Proponents of such transparency have argued that a closed-door investigation would likely benefit Massey, because the company’s lawyers would probably be representing a number of the miners questioned during the process. But that was before the Mine Safety and Health Administration announced yesterday that it’s creating an investigative unit to field testimony on the blast in “a safe, confidential venue” where the public and mine workers can “speak freely … without fear of retaliation or the need to reveal their identities.”

Ever the skeptic, The Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. wonders today whether Massey, in its call today for an open investigation, isn’t simply searching for new ways to quiet any would-be critics in light of MSHA’s recent announcement.

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship gives an interview on Tuesday after an explosion at Massey's Upper Big Branch Mine killed at least 25 people. (Xinhua/ZUMApress.com)

The federal investigators readying their probe into the massive explosion that killed at least 25 West Virginia coal miners this week might take note: The dozens of other active tunnel mines owned by the same energy company have run up thousands of safety violations this year alone, according to a review of federal records by TWI. Hundreds of those citations target the same problems with ventilation and methane buildup that many suspect sparked the West Virginia disaster.

[Environment1] Massey Energy — the Virginia-based coal giant that owns the Upper Big Branch mine, the site of Monday’s tragedy — also controls 41 other underground coal mines currently active in Appalachia. Investigators have cited those projects for 2,074 violations since the start of the year, according to federal documents. The citations run a spectrum, but hundreds charge mine operators with failing to maintain air quality detectors, failing to ensure proper ventilation, allowing combustible material to accumulate, and a host of other infractions related to miner safety.

At the Upper Big Branch — where rescue teams were still searching Wednesday night for four missing miners — investigators had cited 124 similar safety violations this year. More than 50 of them were issued in March alone.

On Wednesday, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, a branch of the Labor Department, sent a team to Upper Big Branch to begin investigating whether the conditions cited in those violations sparked the explosion.

“The very best way we can honor [the miners] is to do our job,” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a statement announcing the team.

But as those officials prepare to look backwards in search of what went wrong at Upper Big Branch, a growing chorus of voices is urging policymakers to examine also the corporate culture that, they say, has led companies like Massey to disregard worker safety in the name of profit-making.

“This incident isn’t just a matter of happenstance, but rather the inevitable result of a profit-driven system and reckless corporate conduct,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “Many mining companies have given too little attention to safety over the years and too much to the bottom line.”

As far as recent safety violations go, the Upper Big Branch mine has plenty of company. In fact, it doesn’t even rank first among the Massey-owned underground mines with the most safety violations this year. That distinction goes to Freedom Mine #1, in Pike County, Ky., which tallied 187 such citations, according to documents posted by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Among the infractions, investigators cited accumulations of combustible materials and a failure to maintain escapeways. A man answering the phone Wednesday at Freedom Energy Company — the Kentucky-based Massey subsidiary that operates the mine — hung up on a reporter.

Other notable Massey-controlled mines currently in operation include:

• The Justice # 1 Mine in Boone County, W.Va. Operated by the Independence Coal Company, the project has been hit with 115 safety violations this year, including citations surrounding air-quality detectors and ventilation plans. (A woman answering the phone for Independence Wednesday said the company doesn’t talk to reporters.)
• The Alloy Powellton Mine in Fayette County, W.Va. Run for Massey by the Mammoth Coal Company, the operation has received 80 citations this year, including those targeting its plan to control methane buildup. (No one answered the phone at Mammoth Wednesday.)
• The Slip Ridge Cedar Grove Mine in Martin County, Ky., which has attracted 40 citations this year, including problems with combustible material found too close to ventilation fans. (The Marfork Coal Company, which runs Slip Ridge, referred questions to Massey. Massey didn’t return calls for comment.)

Outside of coal country, the infractions have flown largely under the radar. But in the wake of Monday’s explosion — the worst mining tragedy in at least 26 years — there are new calls, on and off Capitol Hill, for better enforcement of the nation’s mining safety regulations. And Massey, no stranger to controversy, will be the center of attention.

Indeed, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) — a long-time defender of the coal industry who represents the miners killed at Upper Big Branch — told CNN Wednesday that it’s “valid” to question Massey’s dedication to worker safety. “Something’s fishy,” he said. “This company has a rather maverick reputation.”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) also took a shot at Massey, issuing a statement maintaining that miners “deserve … an employer who respects and values their safety.”

Massey did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday. But CEO Don Blankenship this week has defended the company’s performance, telling the West Virginia MetroNews that safety violations are “a normal part of the mining process.” Massey’s safety operations, he told CNN Wednesday, “are typically in better shape than others.”

For Massey, the scrutiny is hardly new. And the outspoken Blankenship has only stoked the coals of criticism. In a now infamous 2005 memo, for example, Blankenship instructed his deep mine superintendents to ignore any requests unrelated to coal production.

“If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e. – build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal,” the memo said. “This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills.”

In another telling episode, a young Blankenship outlined his business philosophy in a 1984 interview.

“Unions, communities, people — everybody’s gonna have to accept that, in the United States, we have a capitalist society,” Blankenship said. “And that capitalism, from a business viewpoint, is survival of the most productive.”

With congressional leaders already calling for hearings on Monday’s explosion, Blankenship will almost certainly have a chance to tell lawmakers that himself.

We are aware that several media outlets are airing footage depicting gunfire from a U.S. helicopter and claiming that this footage was recorded during an incident in 2007 in which two Reuters reporters were killed. At this time, we are working to verify the source of the video, its veracity, and when or where it was recorded. The incident presumably associated with this video was investigated in 2007, and the releasable portions of that investigation are available [here].

The link will take you to a U.S. Central Command webpage containing a plethora of internal inquiries in response to the apparent incident. I’m not at a place where I can go through them all immediately but will update as soon as possible.

Update: Looks like Massa’s resignation might have been a shrewd move. From the Post:

The committee concluded that Massa’s resignation put him outside the reach of any punishment the committee could dole out, and would render any findings of wrongdoing irrelevant. But the move appears likely to set up a political battle with House Republicans, who are already complaining in campaign ads that Congressional Democrats are unwilling to look too deeply into or punish the ethical transgressions of their own.

Republicans signaled Wednesday morning, just before the House ethics committee was set to hold a meeting, that they wanted the probe to continue. Republicans sources said that the public deserved to know who in the House Democratic leadership knew about the swirling allegations and what they did upon learning that congressional staffers might be victims of harassment.