The Political Chase

Feingold Questions Gonzales Confirmation Testimony

TalkLeft picked up on allegations Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has made against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Feingold charged on Monday that Gonzales misled the judiciary committee at his Senate confirmation hearing on January 6, 2005. Jeralyn’s posting of the transcript is more comprehensive, but the excerpt below is sufficient to see that Gonzales has at minimum contradicted himself, if not perjured. Gonzales was indeed cognizant of the president’s violation of FISA at the time of his sworn testimony.

I have not fully read the white paper Gonzales submitted to Congress almost two weeks ago, which provided supporting justification for the president to violate the law. Gonzales had to be quite slick in his argument to circumvent or discredit his confirmation hearing testimony.

More to come…

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I’m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you’ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, that sounds to me like the president still remains above the law.

MR. GONZALES: No, sir.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Again, you know, if this is something where — where it — you take a good look at it, you give a presumption that the president ought to follow the law, that — you know, that’s — to me, that’s not good enough under our system of government.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he’s not above the law. But he has an obligation, too. He takes an oath as well. And if Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, there is a practice and a tradition recognized by presidents of both parties that he may elect to decide not to enforce that law. Now, I think that that would be –

SEN. FEINGOLD: I recognize that, and I tried to make that distinction, Judge, between electing not to enforce as opposed to affirmatively telling people they can do certain things in contravention of the law.

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

Technorati Tags : Russ+Feingold, Alberto+Gonzales, confirmation, hearing, FISA, Snoopgate

Matthews Plays Hardball with DeLay

Chris Matthews put the squeeze on Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) last night on Hardball and DeLay responded with some misleading to laughable responses.

MATTHEWS:  You don’t think that the prosecution will try to squeeze one of them, to try to get them to say something against you?

DELAY:   There’s nothing they can say against me unless they lie.  I’ve had it all checked out by my lawyers and everything that we’ve done has a clean bill of health. Department of Justice has told my lawyers on several occasions that I’m not a target of this investigation.  We have no problem here.  All we have are leftist groups trying to create a sense of guilt by association in this case.  They can not tell you or charge me with one thing that’s against the law or against the House rules or even unethical. [Emphasis added.]

If you followed the Plame Wilson matter leading to Scooter Libby’s indictment, you know that target letters are sent by prosecutors only when the subject is in serious jeopardy of indictment. In other words, target letters can be viewed as a pleasantry – “this is an advance notice that you will be arrested in the immediate future.” DeLay’s careful choice of words keeps him out of the liar mode, and attempts to give the viewing audience that he is not being scrutinized.

Furthermore, DeLay capitalizes on unethical behavior. Note the quote above and the following.

MATTHEWS:  Okay I’ve got to ask you a cosmic question, you’re Tom Delay.  You’re not in this business for the money.  You live modestly.  You commute back and forth from Washington to Houston, Texas.  Why?  What drives you every day?

DELAY: It’s what I believe in, the Constitution of the United States, Ronald Reagan got me involved in this. I fight every day for what I believe in:  Strong national security, protecting the American family, values. I want to see this country led in a different direction than when I found it, when I got in politics twenty-some years ago.

And, then there’s that little matter of golfing in Scotland, etc.

MATTHEWS: Are you worried that the Democrats will be able to use iconic pictures, that’s probably a fancy word, but graphic pictures like golfing in Scotland, to bring you down?

DELAY: Oh sure they’ll try all of that.  I mean they want to lie about what’s going on.  I’m very involved in international affairs. That Israel is against the religious persecution in China; or for Taiwan-against China; getting persecuted Jews out of Russia.  I’ve been involved in a lot of foreign affairs.  Uh, yes, when I go over somewhere for that I take a day off or a half a day off and I play golf. 

MATTHEWS: But there’s no religious persecution in Scotland.

DELAY:   No, but Margaret Thatcher was in England and I met with a lot of conservative organizations trying to them win against the Labor Party.  I was very involved with the conservative movement in England. 

MATTHEWS:  So that picture of you-that picture we keep seeing of St. Andrews-I’m not much of a golfer but, you’re a better golfer obviously-but do you think that’s unfair to say that you went over there on a junket?

DELAY: It’s incredibly unfair.

MATTHEWS:  Why?  Who paid for the trip?

DELAY:   A legitimate conservative organization. 

MATTHEWS:  But wasn’t there a pass through?

DELAY: No, there was no pass through.

MATTHEWS:  They came up with the money themselves.

DELAY: That’s exactly right. They raised their money themselves.

MATTHEWS:  That public policy group…

DELAY:   That’s exactly right.

MATTHEWS:  So you don’t have any problem with that trip?

DELAY:   Not at all.

MATTHEWS:  Nobody’s asked you about it down here.

DELAY: Uh, not really, no.  Actually, a lot of people play golf down here.

MATTHEWS:  But not in Scotland.

DELAY: It’s good to play golf down here.

So DeLay is a modest man and these trips were all legit, right? Here’s the AP’s reporting on DeLay’s unethical activities and who paid for what.

As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants _ all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.

Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates have visited places of luxury most Americans have never seen, often getting there aboard corporate jets arranged by lobbyists and other special interests.

Public documents reviewed by The Associated Press tell the story: at least 48 visits to golf clubs and resorts with lush fairways; 100 flights aboard company planes; 200 stays at hotels, many world-class; and 500 meals at restaurants, some averaging nearly $200 for a dinner for two.

Instead of his personal expense, the meals and trips for DeLay and his associates were paid with donations collected by the campaign committees, political action committees and children’s charity the Texas Republican created during his rise to the top of Congress.

Put them together and an opulent lifestyle emerges.

I’m sure the DOJ has reviewed a few of Jack Abramoff’s and the organizations mentioned above, credit card transactions. Of course there has been no unethical activity, and God forbid, outright bribery. No one could possibly conceive or infer a person with the nickname “The Hammer” would be involved in nefarious activities.

Technorati Tags : Tom+DeLay, Jack+Abramoff, politics, St+Andrews, golf, Scotland

—–

Alito is Confirmed

Samuel Alito dons a new robe and has a reserved seat at the State of the Union Address tonight.

—–

Corretta Scott King

Corretta Scott King:  April 27, 1927 - January 31, 2006

—–

State of the Union - What It Should Be

Except for his statements on Jimmy Carter and possibly those on drug entitlement, George Will, The Washington Post, scores a direct hit in a few words on Bush’s State of Union remarks tonight .

[…]Four days after Hamas provided evidence that the United States cannot anticipate, let alone control, events, the New York Times inadvertently suggested this thought: If the Times and the Bush administration each had sufficient self-awareness, they might be mutually mortified by recognizing their similar mentalities regarding America’s power.

[…]Tonight, on the 1,050th day of the Iraq war (the 912th day of American participation in World War II was D-Day), the nation needs an adult hour, including a measured meditation on overreaching, from the Middle East to Medicare’s prescription drug entitlement. But in State of the Union addresses, rarely is heard a discouraging word.

The Democrats have already been heard from. In their "pre-buttal" to the State of the Union, they promised, among much else, that, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, if they come to power, "every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years."

Which tells you something about the state of the Union.

Without specifically stating so, Will rightfully suggests by quoting Bush, a response to his historical statments and extant ideology is a prerequisite.

"The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

— George W. Bush

State of the Union, 2005

My take – except for trying to wiggle out of Snoopgate and some hyperbole on Hindenburg automobiles, expect little to nothing. Moreover, one certainly isn’t disappointed when an expectation is not present.

—–

Trying to get back in the swing

My most sincere apologies for the absence of posting. The events of the past month have been overwhelming. Notwithstanding the mental impact, I have had my hands full managing probate matters. Suffice it to say, sorting through the unknown of a reasonably well organized estate is indeed a challenge.

—–

Bush’s 39% or Why Bush Is President

Approximately 33% to 41% of Americans, depending on the poll, believe the president is doing just fine. The remainder, 59% to 67%, disapprove (or can’t decide) of the president’s performance. Fourteen months ago, 51% of Americans unbelievably renewed Mr. Bush’s license to continue his malpractice of managing the U.S. government. For those of us that are still scratching our heads over the questions: who and what are the people that reelected the president and give him a thumbs up today, The Washington Post provides the answers, about as well as can be provided.

The Post focuses on Randolph, Utah; population — 480. Bush’s base: 95.6% of the 480 people eligible to vote in Randolph cast their ballot for the imperialist president. 17 people voted for John Kerry. Gator’s Drive, where the don’t know what Dijon mustard is, appears to be where Randolph’s brain trust assemble.

Gator’s Drive Inn, where the customer, at the front of the line [non-resident on her way to a ski resort, who will be lifted by helicopter to the top of the mountain] is ordering a patty melt.

“Patty melts! No one makes patty melts anymore,” she is saying to the counterman, Ryan Louderman, who knew she wasn’t local as soon as he heard the sound of a car being locked. “Can I get it without onions?” she says. “And can I get mustard? On the side? Dijon mustard?”

[...]“No onions? With mustard?” says Orton, [owner and cook] who voted for Bush in 2004 and 2000. “Oh, God, we get some weird ones”

[...]“Dijon mustard,” Louderman says as the woman drives away. “I don’t know what Dijon mustard is. Don’t care to find out, either.”

As many of us anxiously await for the president to deliver tonight his vision of the future and mea culpa for two mistakes spanning 5 years, many Americans like Debra McKinnon will probably watch Andy, Barney, Gomer and Aunt Bee.

Debra McKinnon, 53, who says she nearly dropped dead nine months ago from heart failure and is working for one reason only: health insurance. She takes 12 pills a day, for which she pays several hundred dollars a month, which, without insurance, would be four times that. Is that Bush’s fault, though? “No,” McKinnon says. “It’s a problem from the drug companies to the lawyers to the doctors to Congress, and it’s not because Bush isn’t a caring man. I think he’s a very caring man. I think he’s a decent, God-fearing person, and I hope we are, too.”

What about Pat Orton, entrepreneur — Gator’s owner and cook? Probably not.

“I don’t think there’s anything he could say that would make me dislike him,” she says.

Bottom line, the president will deliver an intellectual speech written completely by others, that will be heard primarily by those who can comprehend it, will reflect upon it, and most likely are a majority of the 59% to 67% that disapprove of Bush’s performance and capabilities.

Maybe the Brits now have the answer to their post-election question posed on the cover of a major UK periodical, “How can 59,000,000 people be so dumb?”

Technorati Tags : george+bush, politics, state+of+the+nation, speech

The Supreme President

Based on reporting from The Washington Post and The New York Times, the president and his DOJ lawyers need a simple reminder of what the responsibilities of each branch of the U.S. government.

• Congress makes the laws
• The President enforces the laws
• The Supreme Court interprets the law

The Justice Department, in a white paper on NSA legal authorities, submitted yesterday, contend that the President’s authority is supreme. The DOJ submits that the president’s authority supersedes laws passed by Congress. Furthermore, the DOJ has the chutzpah to assert presidential powers determine what the laws are or are not, and that the president has the authority to interpret the laws.

The Justice Department’s lengthy legal analysis also says that if a 1978 law that requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping is interpreted as blocking the president’s powers to protect the country in a time of war, its constitutionality is doubtful and the president’s authority supersedes it.

Some presidential powers, particularly in the area of national security, are simply “beyond Congress” ability to regulate,” it said.

This is the same ideological, autocratic approach the administration has exerted in virtually every activity — from campaigning for election to executing its responsibilities; if the president says “it is so”, it is fact and not subject to challenge.

And then there is the ever present Dick Cheney, who always embellishes the debate.

While some current and former officials have challenged the value of the N.S.A. program in deterring an attack on American soil, the vice president said: “The activities conducted under this authorization have helped us to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. As such, this program is critical to the national security of the United States.”

More scare tactics; win by instilling fear in the people. Bush has made similar statements in the past. The Bush administration previously noted a few foiled terrorist attacks, but were they circumvented specifically as a result of Snoopgate?

More to come…

Back to Work

I am pleased to return from what has seemed like a journey through the abyss. My hiatus was considerably longer than I expected. Those of you who have managed the affairs of someone recently deceased have a good perspective on the enormity of that burdensome task.

Obviously, I have some catching up to do. I have not been able to keep up with current events. Today is the first time I have gone beyond just scanning above-the-fold items and that has been on a limited basis.

Regrettably, Iraq is still a mess, Alito seems closer to confirmation, the president still has his head eloquently placed in the sand, while maintaining his derriere on the throne and bin Laden continues to play Jack-in-the-Box.

Thanks for your patience - there is more to come with Attorney General Gonzales probably topping my list.

Away from TPC

Due to the death of my father, I will not be posting for a few days.

Abramoff Flips

Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to federal charges for fraud, public corruption and tax evasion. After entering his plea for federal charges, Abramoff will plead guilty to charges in Florida for fraud and conspiracy. In exchange for pleading guilty, Abramoff has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors, which will more than stir the pot in Congress.

Sunnis Denounce New York Times Report

IslamOnline reports that Iraqi Sunni leaders refute the New York Times’ article, which states Muslim scholars were part of the American propaganda machine in Iraq. The Pentagon has paid tens of millions of dollars to The Lincoln Group to manage the dissemination of American propaganda via the Iraqi media outlets. In addition to refuting the Times’ news article, the Association of Muslim Scholars returned fire by saying that a political process is not possible in Iraq as long as American troops remain in Iraq.

Iraqi Sunni leaders on Monday, January 2, refuted as baseless and a clear attempt to undermine anti-occupation powers a report by a leading US newspaper that few Sunni scholars were on the payroll of US companies orchestrating media campaigns to polish the US army’s badly bruised image.

“Of course we dismiss this (report) in form and essence, but it also asserts our long-standing position that any credible political process in Iraq is impossible under occupation,” Mohamed Ayyash Al-Kubeisy, a spokesman for the influential Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), told IslamOnline.net.

“Any political process could never be held away from pressures by occupation forces,” he averred.

Hat tip to American Future.

Technorati Tags : politics, Iraq, propaganda

NSA Shares the Wealth

The NSA passed on their ill-gotten eavesdropping information to other US agencies. The Washington Post cites the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), but does not specify what other agencies received information. The DIA denied the allegation and interestingly enough Negroponte would not comment.

At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources. A DIA spokesman said the agency does not conduct such domestic surveillance but would not comment further. Spokesmen for the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, declined to comment on the use of NSA data.

Negroponte’s silence is a bit telling. No comment can often be interpreted as guilty. Negroponte was involved in this project and he has certainly had time to look into the “gotchas” since this story broke. If the information was contained to the NSA, then why would he not eliminate speculation immediately when asked the question?

The DIA will most likely get caught in a lie, because information from “senior administration officials” usually sticks.

Another interesting aspect to the Post’s piece is they reference three senior administration officials (current and former) as sources. Given the limited scope of people knowledgeable about the project, and the limited number of senior officials, the administration has a high percentage of top dogs providing information to the press. Bush has to be pounding on his desk about this revelation or the administration purposely leaked the information for reasons I cannot interpret today.

I don’t know what the specific laws are regarding passing information between agencies, except the IRS and Social Security, but I think this would/should be routine under legitimate circumstances. The rub in this situation is, the information was gleaned illegally, and accepted illegally, so what was passed along and what did the respective agencies do with the information? How many people have their names in an unquantified number of “black list” databases, when they should not be? How many innocent people have non-incriminating information about them in multiple databases, but the information can be defamatory?

Technorati Tags : George+Bush, Snoopgate, Politics, NSA, DIA, Bush+Administration, terrorism

Just a Few

“Dad, I only had a few beers.” How many times has that statement been used when caught drinking under age or even worse, involved in an accident after drinking? Whether just a few or a whole brewery, drinking under age is against law. President Bush seems to think that “a few” makes everything okay. In addition to blatantly dismissing an explicit law, FISA, yesterday the president repeatedly dismisses his illegal actions by saying the violations were not voluminous.

“This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America, and I repeat limited,”

“The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers called… [Emphasis added.]

Breaking the law only a few times doesn’t dismiss or lessen the severity of the action. As I recall, Republicans salivated over Bill Clinton lying to a federal grand jury one time about his sexual escapades in the Oval Office. Moreover, just how many are a “few?” From the dictionary

few (fy)

adj. few-er, few-est1. Amounting to or consisting of a small number:

Usage Note: The traditional rule holds that fewer should be used for things that can be counted (fewer than four players), while less should be used with mass terms for things of measurable extent (less paper; less than a gallon of paint).

When I use or hear the word “few,” in my vernacular, it means I can count whatever it is on one hand; at most two.

The New York Times reported more than a “few” when it broke this story (sub. req.) on December 16, 2005. The Times based its story on approximately a dozen different sources.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore, there is that little issue that continues to come up when the president speaks. It is integrity. I hope the president doesn’t have any delusions about being memorialized with long told anecdotes like chopping down cherry trees. On April 20, 2004, the president said:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Yesterday, when confronted with those statements, he denied misleading the public.

“I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking, and that’s what we’re doing,”

“They attacked us before, they’ll attack us again if they can,” he said. “And we’re going to do everything we can to stop them.”

Let’s go back to sixteen notable words Bush said on January 28, 2003.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

I could fill the page with similar references. The president and his apologists just don’t get it, yet most Americans do. Spying on terrorists is appropriate, but it must be done within the rule of law. The president needs to read his job description again.

Technorati Tags : George+Bush, NSA, Politics, Snoopgate, FISA, intelligence, spy

Happy New Year