Archive for June 13th, 2007
Jun 13, 2007 at 11:32 PM by Political Chase
As a result of its class-action civil suit against AT&T, Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that AT&T provided the National Security Administration (NSA) an office and apparently unfettered access to its customers’ email and other Internet communications.
Some of the unsealed information was previously made public in redacted form. But after negotiations with AT&T, EFF has filed newly unredacted documents describing a secret, secure room in AT&T’s facilities that gave the National Security Agency (NSA) direct access to customers’ emails and other Internet communications.
EFF filed the class-action suit against AT&T last year, accusing the telecom giant of illegally assisting in the NSA’s spying on millions of ordinary Americans. The lower court allowed the case to proceed and the government has now asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case, claiming that the lawsuit could expose state secrets.
If they were given a room to work in, obviously there was a measurable amount of time the NSA was there eavesdropping. Did they have a FISA court judge present or were they running back and forth to the court house between every byte transmitted?
Jun 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM by Political Chase
Apparently Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were not pleased with the facts of Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey’s testimony yesterday either. They fired a letter off to Bush telling him in no uncertain terms his strategy is a failure.
In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed. That is also the view of a substantial majority of the American people. Rather than respond with a new plan immediately, Administration officials as well as Republican congressional leaders suggest that your flawed Iraq strategy not be revisited until September when General Petraeus is scheduled to provide Congress with a progress report on Iraq. The only step you have proposed in the interim is to divest your National Security Advisor of control over Iraq policy and create a “war czar” position, an act that has only served to create further confusion and concerns about your plans for Iraq.
The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act now. That is why we intend to again send you legislation that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end. These are goals consistent with both the national security of the United States and the will of the American people. We respectfully request that you reconsider your previous opposition to proposals that would accomplish these goals, and work with us to give our troops a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. We look forward to discussing these issues with you when we meet at the White House later today to discuss stability in the Middle East. Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Read the entire letter here.
Jun 13, 2007 at 8:11 PM by Political Chase
The Justice Department released a new set of emails last night linking Sara Taylor, former White House Political Director and top Karl Rove aide, to the U.S. attorney scandal.
The emails are exchanges between Taylor and Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, discussing Karl Rove’s protege Tim Griffin, and Bud Cummins, the fired U.S. attorney Griffin replaced. Taylor and Sampson discuss retribution against Cummins for Cummins going public on his firing.
Since I am still recovering from the system crash two days ago, I cannot read the specific emails yet, but ThinkProgress has the full story. According to ThinkProgress, this is from the first exchange where Sara Taylor writes to Kyle Sampson about firing Cummins.
I normally don’t like attacking our friends, but since Bud Cummins is talking to everyone - why don’t we tell the deal on him?
There are several exchanges between the White House and Main Justice that were sent through the Republican National Committee’s email servers, rather than White House servers in a effort to obviously mitigate scrutiny. Too bad they got caught because that is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, but that’s probably the least of their worries right now.
Check ThinkProgress for more details, meanwhile I should have things back to normal soon.
If you want to go directly to the emails, they are here (PDF).
Jun 13, 2007 at 7:00 PM by Political Chase
Like someone who pleads the Fifth Amendment, when the White House refuses to cooperate with Congress, it is easy to presume some level of guilt, right? If they will not turn documents over or testify, they must have something to hide; it just looks too suspicious. Well, they may have something to hide, and I believe they have plenty to hide, but let’s briefly give Mr. Bush et al the benefit of the doubt. The moment the White House releases the information Congress is asking for - testimony or documents - it immediately gets very expensive for each individual potentially involved.
They all have to retain their own lawyers. The government’s lawyers cannot help them nor can the government reimburse them. Not even the president. While the president has the White House counsel, there comes a point when he (Fielding) can’t represent George Bush personally, because his client is the Office of the President, not George Bush. If the president wants his personal interests managed, he has to go down the street and find a lawyer, and it is not cheap.
For middle level staffers, I seriously doubt if any DC firm would consider a retainer of less than $100,0000, which is maybe enough to just get the conversation started. That was the starting point for someone I know, who was involved in a relatively small Justice Department investigation of their business. His/her counsel consumed the retainer in less than a week. So, they all have plenty of motivation to stall regardless of guilt or innocence.
If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton still owed something like $7 - 8 million in legal fees when he left the White House, and that does not include what he had already paid.
Now, at what point does stalling become obstruction of justice?
Jun 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM by Political Chase
Today is obviously subpoena day. The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider tomorrow (Thursday) authorizing subpoenas for documents related to the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) demanded documents “related to the legal opinions and analysis surrounding the controversial program” in a letter last month Roll Call reports. Leahy and Specter specified a June 5 deadline, but as anticipated, the White House refused.
On the other side of the Capitol, the House is moving in the same direction. Steve Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, told the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) the DOJ would not turn over requested documents because of their “confidential nature.”
(Duuude, the government can be quite creative with titles and names of committees. I would like to see Bradbury’s business card.)
The Justice Department and the White House will have to do some serious digging because Leahy and Specter are asking for everything back to 2001, the beginning of Bush’s administration. I presume the House will have similar requirements.
Jun 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM by Political Chase
Why, you may ask, was Karl Rove, the Turd Blossom in Chief, not subpoenaed? From Roll Call (sub. req.):
The two committees pointedly avoided issuing a subpoena to presidential adviser Karl Rove, who also has been implicated in the scandal. One senior Democratic aide said lawmakers were “trying to build an investigation” and the timing was not yet right for subpoenaing the White House political guru.
In other words, the more information they have before talking to Rove, the tighter the box Rove will be in. Less room for ambiguity and I don’t recall.
Jun 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM by Political Chase
The Constitutional showdown begins.
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees issued subpoenas for Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, former White House political director over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, and other items crumb trails have led the committees to during their investigations. The subpoenas demand documents and testimony.
“By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate panel. “The White House cannot have it both ways–it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses while claiming nothing improper occurred.”
Related Links:
From the office of Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Full release;
Sen. Patrick Leahy’s cover letter to Sara M. Taylor;
Sen. Patrick Leahy’s cover letter to Fred Fielding;
Text of subpoenas;
Backgrounder on key evidence of White House involvement in project to fire and replace prosecutors
June 8, 2007 letter from Fielding (PDF) refusing to cooperate with Committees, restating offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews only
House Subcommittee subpoena for Harriet Miers (PDF)
Jun 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM by Political Chase
Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey gave a report on Iraq that could at best be described as dismal. A trained Iraqi army capable of insuring the safety and security of Iraq is a primary prerequisite for U.S. troop withdrawal under President Bush’s strategy (such as it is). According to Gen. Dempsey’s report, the condition of the Iraqi army is so poor, one could only surmise that withdrawal of any U.S. troops will not happen in the foreseeable future, and certainly not by middle of next as many in Congress have suggested.
These reports are troublesome, but it is far better to have an accurate view of reality, which President Bush has never provided. This raises two issues. Why does it take a Congressional nomination hearing to get the slightest bit of accurate information on the status of Iraq? It seems that since January, when President Bush announced his cure-all-to-end-all surge strategy, about every six to eight weeks, an announcement or revelation is made that requires more troops or the situation has worsened enough that is reasonable to expect an increase in U.S troops will soon follow to remedy the problem. And, then the cycle just repeats, never getting better.
Gen. Dempsey reported the Iraqi must increase its troop levels by at least 20,000 troops, but that is a meaningless number.
Even then, Iraq will remain incapable of taking full responsibility for its security for many years — five years in the case of protecting its airspace — and will require a long-term military relationship with the United States, said Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who until recently led the U.S. military’s training effort in Iraq.
Bill Maher has frequently and seriously raised the notion that things would likely be much better in Iraq if Saddam was back. Putting Saddam back would be a tad difficult since he is dead, but the point is made and understood. A political comedian talking about bringing Saddam back is one thing, but when the proposed Deputy Commander of Central Command inserts the notion in his Congressional testimony, that is entirely different, and woefully telling.
Dempsey depicted the level of violence tolerated by Iraqis as “mind-numbing” and acknowledged that a dearth of security has made some Iraqis nostalgic for the rule of Saddam Hussein
Although Dempsey’s testimony is believable, one of his statement is a bit perplexing to me.
Iraqi security forces will require growth in scope and scale similar to what we accomplished in 2007 in order to ensure sufficient force to protect the population throughout Iraq.
What have they accomplished in terms of sustained, big picture success?
According to Dempsey, and many others, not much. Roughly 25 percent of the Iraqi soldiers are on leave at any given time, and of those not on leave, only 50 percent bother to show up. What really gives a view into how well things are going and the level of commitment from the Iraqi government is this.
He pointed out that when units showed up in Baghdad at 50 percent strength for their 90-day rotations, the American officers were upset, but “senior military leaders of the Iraqi government were kind of pleased that they had gotten 50 percent to come.”
So, the Iraqi army needs to be increased by 20,000, when 50 percent of the present army doesn’t show up? That makes a hell of a lot of sense. They can’t get 50 percent of the existing army to show up, but they are going to add 20,000 more? Will the additional 20,000 show up if they can enlist them? I suppose it is too much to ask why can’t the U.S. and Iraqi military leaders force the existing Iraqi troops to show up?
The efficacy and commitment of the Iraqi army and its leadership is indeed frustrating, but that pales in comparison to the inequity between U.S. troop requirements and Iraqi troop requirements. U.S. troops must serve multiple 15-month tours, but 25 percent of the Iraqi troops are on leave at any given time, and only have 90-day rotations. Obviously given the policies in place, Iraqi blood is far more valuable than American blood. I think not.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq,
Dempsey
Jun 13, 2007 at 4:40 AM by Political Chase
This isn’t a joke…well, it is a joke, but the report is real. The Connecticut for Lieberman Party is calling for Sen. Joe Lieberman to resign from the Senate, and his own party, due to the remarks Lieberman made about attacking Iran on “Face the Nation.”
The Connecticut for Lieberman Chair, Dr. John Orman, called for Lieberman’s resignation saying that he “crossed the line” and “no longer represents the views of the citizens of Connecticut.”
