Archive for December 17th, 2007
Dec 17, 2007 at 11:31 PM by Political Chase
Bill Clinton and/or Hillary may have just shot themselves in the foot. In Orangeburg, SC today, Bill said Hillary will task him and George Bush’s father George H. W. Bush (41) to go around the world cleaning up the mess that his son has made.
“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife’s “number one priority” would be as president.
That doesn’t sound like something that just came to mind. Bill Clinton is too smart to make that mistake. If it isn’t a confirmation of closed-door discussions, I don’t know what is, but…
So, Poppy Bush is going to admit to the entire world that W. has royally screwed things up? Bill’s statement is analogous to the question, “When did you stop beating your wife?” But Bill has put it out there, therefore Poppy Bush has two options: accept and admit the obvious, or decline and make Bill’s campaign statements lack credibility. And what about the domestic political implications? By January 20, 2009, I doubt seriously few will want to hear the name Bush for awhile, much less appointing one as an ambassador of good will.
Of course there’s always the third point to consider. Maybe Bill has decided and Hillary has not been clued in yet. Think about it.
Related post:
Elder Bush rejects Clinton goodwill trip
Dec 17, 2007 at 10:46 PM by Political Chase
I’m a bit late getting to this, but…the Boston Globe endorsed Barack Obama.
I have not read the piece yet, but will comment as appropriate after doing so.
Dec 17, 2007 at 10:37 PM by Political Chase
It’s not a direct endorsement from Iowa’s governor, but it might as well be.
Iowa’s first lady, who had said she would stay neutral in the presidential race, has changed her mind and plans to endorse Democrat John Edwards Monday.
"I decided to join in the fray," Mari Culver said in an interview today.
Culver said her husband, Gov. Chet Culver, will not endorse anyone, and she said her stance does not imply that he supports Edwards. "If the governor wanted to show a preference for a candidate, he would do so," she said. "My endorsement is as Mari Culver, Iowan. … I’m my own person. I have my own political interests."
Dec 17, 2007 at 10:17 PM by Political Chase
What is Reid doing? (See update below.)
Reuters:
U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Monday abruptly postponed until next month consideration of a measure to give immunity to telephone companies that participated in President George W. Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program.
“Everyone feels it would be to the best interest of the Senate that we take a look at this when we come back after the first of the year,” Reid, facing a pile of unfinished work, said on the Senate floor.
“We have tried to work through this process, and it appears quite clear at this stage on this bill we’re not going to be able to do that,” Reid said.
And of course the standard fear-mongering from the White House:
The White House said in a statement, “Providing liability protection to these companies is a just result” and warned that allowing litigation “risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding intelligence sources and methods.”
Update: Many seem to view Reid’s decision to be a victory, albeit not permanent nor long-term. I suppose I would go along with that. Although it was deferred until January, it did not sail through, passing quickly, as many would have preferred.
Dec 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM by Political Chase
Check out Hillary’s new “softer” strategy - “The Hillary I Know”
Oh, if you have forgotten all the words to Kum Ba Yah, you can find them here. You’ll need to have them memorized before you go.
Dec 17, 2007 at 9:46 PM by Political Chase
 |
| Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) |
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers responded to Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s refusal last week to appear before his committee this week regarding the CIA destroying videotapes of detainee interrogations. Although Judge Mukasey may have interpreted Conyers’ request as an opportunity for them to get acquainted — Mukasey being new and all — but that was not what Conyers had in mind.
It appears Judge Mukasey’s refusal to testfy may have not only insulted the Chairman, it may have inspired a notion of "cover-up of the cover-up." Conyers raises the tenor of the letter by saying: "Our interest in hearing from a Departmental official is more urgent in the wake of your December 13th response to the Committee’s December 7th letter requesting information." In other words, you have more than peaked my interest.
Chairman Conyers succinctly reminded Mukasey that the Attorney General does in fact report to Congress and the DOJ isn’t the only investigative body in town.
[T]his Committee has jurisdiction over the Department and an obligation to perform meaningful oversight of the Department’s activities…We also note that congressional precedent dictates that parallel congressional and executive investigations occur frequently, and therefore should not be used as a shield against proper and necessary oversight.
I do not know if Conyers specifically requested Mukasey to appear but, if he did, Conyers cut him some slack, but not much. Don’t send any water boys, because he expects "the Department will provide a high level official to testify." And be prepared to explain "the Department’s attempts to forestall legislative or judicial inquiry."
Chairman Conyers’ letter:
December 17, 2007
The Honorable Michael Mukasey
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
I am writing to follow up on communications by my staff to the Department regarding the Judiciary Committee’s hearing this Thursday, on the “Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws to the Interrogation of Detainees.” The committee has requested orally to the Office of Legislative Affairs that the Department provide an official to testify at this hearing. Our interest in hearing from a Departmental official is more urgent in the wake of your December 13th response to the Committee’s December 7th letter requesting information pertaining to the destruction of the CIA videotapes showing interrogations of detainees. In that December 13th letter you refused to provide our Committee with any of the requested information, other than a statement that an investigation is pending. Letters to other congressional committees similarly declined to provide information and asked that congressional investigations be delayed for an indefinite period of time. The Department has also resisted judicial inquiry into these issues.
As you well know, this Committee has jurisdiction over the Department and an obligation to perform meaningful oversight of the Department’s activities, and other committees have oversight responsibilities concerning the CIA. We also note that congressional precedent dictates that parallel congressional and executive investigations occur frequently, and therefore should not be used as a shield against proper and necessary oversight. In light of the importance of the issue surrounding the Department’s investigation into destruction of the CIA tapes, we expect that the Department will provide a high level official to testify on this subject matter, specifically including the Department’s attempts to forestall legislative or judicial inquiry.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Jerrold Nadler
Hon. Robert C. Scott
Hon. William Delahunt
Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. Louie Gohmert
Hon. Brian Benczkowski
Copy of original letter here (pdf).
Dec 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM by Political Chase
Following up on the federal judge’s ruling today that the White House must turn over its visitors log, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth…ordered the Secret Service to produce records within 20 days. However, there may be nothing to produce.
The judge, in a separate ruling Monday, said he lacked the authority to order the Secret Service to stop destroying its visitor records once copies were turned over to White House officials. But Lamberth noted the National Archives had to approve any destruction of the logs.
And the outlook could get bleaker. considering the administration’s spending on paper shredding has increased more than 600 percent since Bush took office, and as illustrated, it dramatically increased during the second term.
 |
| Graph by John Cook |
John Cook reports the federal government spent $452,807 in 2000 for paper-shredding related costs. By 2006, the costs increased to $2.9 million, and by “halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting.”
If the administration does not appeal today’s ruling, well…let’s just say maybe they didn’t feel like it was worth the effort — kind of like Scooter Libby’s appeal.
On a side note, look at the chart and consider the timing of these events. Invade Iraq in March 2003. By early 2004 it was pretty well established there were no WMD’s in Iraq. In July 2003, Bob Novak outed Valerie Wilson, prompting the CIA Leak Case. In 2005, the CIA Leak Case investigation exploded, culminating with Libby’s indictment in October. Also, in December 2005, the New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping. But there’s no correlation I’m sure. All just fun facts to know and tell.
Thanks to John Cook and Radar for the chart and metrics. Also h/t to Campus Progress.
Dec 17, 2007 at 6:05 PM by Political Chase
 |
| Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) |
The “conventional” Republican presidential candidates view Ron Paul’s bid for the White House as a joke. The Des Moines Register dismissed him as “extreme.” If anybody is extreme, it is Paul’s supporters. They’re extremely serious and convey their seriousness in the form of big bucks. $6 million dollars worth of extreme in one day (Sunday) and $18.2 million for the quarter as of this morning.
After their record-setting fundraiser last month generated $4.2 million in one day, his supporters decided to have another “slam-dunk” fundraiser to coincide with the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Appropriate indeed, given Paul’s libertarian views. It worked, and with thousands of new contributors for this event, which is quite telling. Of the 56,000 contributors (that’s not a typo) Sunday, 25,000 were first-time contributors.
The next time Rudy Giuliani laughs at, not with, Ron Paul on the debating stage, Paul should turn towards the Mayor (with dubious friends and plummeting ratings), put his golden goose on his podium, give it a comforting stroke across the back,, and politely smile.
Dec 17, 2007 at 4:49 PM by Political Chase
Presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) stood tall today in his filibuster effort, while many of his Democratic colleagues, most notably, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Dianne Feinstein, were unimpressed with his patriotic position. Instead they fell in lockstep with George Bush, Dick Cheney, Kip “Surf’s Up!” Bond, and Mitch McConnell, as the Senate voted 76-10 to advance the FISA amendment (S. 2248) to advance the bill for consideration.
Roll call vote info to follow…
Dec 17, 2007 at 4:04 PM by Political Chase
For seven years the White House has managed to successfully use one of its most powerful tools, the fabled invisible cloak, to keep its visitors from the public’s eyes. Their fairy tale may be coming to an end. A federal judge ruled today the cloak must be removed by declaring that visitors logs for the White House and Dick Cheney’s residence are subject to public records requests.
White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws.
The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives.
The records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Bush administration has ordered the data turned over to the White House, where they are treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.
We may finally learn about Dick Cheney’s secret energy-policy meetings and how frequently felons, such as disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, had crumpets and tea with the president.
In January of this year, I noted that the White House had taken the unprecedented step of ordering the Secret Service to keep visitor’s logs secret. Their intention was to thwart investigators from learning how frequently Abramoff had visited the White House and to fight lawsuits seeking information about Dick Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings.
Maybe we’ll learn about the president’s wiretapping activities in 2015.
Dec 17, 2007 at 12:51 PM by Political Chase
Here is part of Chris Dodd’s speech in the FISA debate. It is not a perfector an official transcript and should not be used as such. I was typing fast and have surely made a few errors. In some cases I summarized what he was saying and in other places omtted some of his comments. There was much that he said about the bill and the adminisrtation before these remarks, but these reflect a key point - if they did nothing wrong, then why do they need immunity.
Any updates to his speech I will I will post them as comments.
For this Executive Branch, secrecy is power…we see a pattern of secrecy stretching back to the first months of this administration…It’s push for immunity is no different, secrecy is at its center. And tellingly the administration’s original immunity proposal protected not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program…In their original proposal they wanted to immunize themselves. Think about that.
They speak to their fear and perhaps their guilt. Their guilt that they have broken the law. Their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew better than anyone else what they had done and they must have good reason to be afraid.
Thankfully, executive immunity is not part of the current bill before us, and I’m grateful for that. But the origin of immunity tells us a great deal about what’s at stake here. That it is and has always been a self-preservation bill. Otherwise, why not have the trial and get over with it. …If the president’s allies believe is what they say the corporations would win in a walk. After all look at the thing from their perspective. In their telling, when our biggest telecom corporations help the president spy without a warrant they were doing their patriotic duty. When the listend to the executive branch and turned over private information the were doing their patriotic duty. When one company gave NSA a secret eavesdropping room in its own corp. headquarters it was simply doing its patriotic duty. When the president asked, the telecoms answered, “Well shouldn’t that be easy to prove Mr. President? The corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given and they’ll be in and out of court in five minutes. But if the telecoms are as defensible as the President says why doesn’t the president let them defend themselves? If their case is so easy to make, why doesn’t he let them make it? Why is he standing in the way?
Our federal court system has dealt for decades with the most delicate national security matters, building up expertise in protecting classified information behind closed doors…We can expect no less in these cases I would add, and if we’re worried about national security being threatened as a result, we can simply get the principals a security clearance.
A federal judge has already ruled that these proceedings can take place without compromising national security. (Very summarized here.)
Dec 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM by Political Chase
The Senate has begun debate on Senate Intelligence Committee’s bill to amend FISA. The Intelligence Committee’s bill, unlike the amendment proposed by the House Intelligence Committee, provides amnesty to the telecommunications companies and the Bush administration for their illegal wiretapping activities that began in 2001.
The bill being debated, S. 2248, is without doubt one of the most important issues Congress has ever debated. The provisions of the Fourth Amendment and the very principles of the Rule of Law are at stake. If Congress passes this bill, they will side with the president’s view that existing law is meaningless; if one wields enough power, all that is necessary is to lobby Congress sufficiently with campaign contributions and fear-mongering, and they will grant absolution for countless acts of lawbreaking.
Majority Leader Reid, a supporter of the bill, has scheduled a vote for 12:00 PM ET today. Sen. Chris Dodd is expected to filibuster the bill. I will provide additional updates as the session progresses.
Following is a summary of the bill. A full copy of the bill is available here, and a complete history of the bill is available here.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 or FISA Amendments Act of 2007 - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to authorize the Attorney General (AG) and Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize, for periods up to one year, the targeting (electronic surveillance) of persons located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information. Requires specified targeting and surveillance minimization procedures to be followed, with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court) review of such procedures.
States that chapters 119 (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications) and 121 (Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access) of the federal criminal code and FISA shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of domestic communications may be conducted.
Requires the AG to submit semiannually to the congressional intelligence committees copies of any orders of the Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that include significant construction or interpretation of FISA.
Revises generally provisions concerning the application for, and issue of, Court orders. Allows the AG to authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance under certain circumstances, including: (1) determining that an emergency exists; (2) informing a Court judge of such determination; and (3) applying for a Court order authorizing such surveillance. Provides similar authority an outlines similar procedures for the emergency employment of a physical search.
Requires the AG, after authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device on an emergency basis, to apply to the Court for an authorization order within 168 (current law requires 48) hours after the emergency installation and use.
Authorizes the Court to sit en banc when: (1) necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of Court decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
Provides limitations (and preempts state law) on civil actions against electronic communication service providers and persons providing assistance in connection with an intelligence activity.
Related Posts:
Dec 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM by Political Chase
Wow! The New York Times has jumped in the melee that has been created by the despicable reporting the Washington Post does, and more specifically about the Post’s front-page smearing of Barack Obama on November 29. I’ve never seen the Times report on the integrity of the Post or vice-versa. And the Post deserves every bit of the criticism that is being thrown at them.
The Post’s journalistic standards are worse than reprehensible. I recently wrote a scathing post about Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, when he did a major hit job on John Edwards. It had to be one of the harshest things I’ve ever written. Apparently, there are others who don’t hold the Post’s quality of journalism in high regard either.
The piece on Obama was uncalled for, to put it mildly. But it’s become the standard for the Post. Columnist serving hit men and women. The Columbia Journalism Review said the article “may be the single worst campaign ’08 piece to appear in any American newspaper so far this election cycle.” And things really took off when Chris Daly, a Boston University journalism professor, slammed the Post and Perry Bacon, the author of the Obama hit job, in his blog.
“Since when does The Post assign 27-year-olds to write Page 1 presidential campaign pieces?," wrote Mr. Daly, who is 53 and had written for The Post as a freelance regional correspondent for eight years starting in 1989. “This is fast-tracking with a vengeance.”
And it’s turned into a cat fight since. I mentioned the hit job they did on Obama in my smackdown of Dana Milbank.
The Post has some good reporters, but most of them have been there awhile and have been forced to take a back seat to the somewhat younger staff that serve as hit men and women rather than reporters and journalists. Walter Pincus, a tenured reporter at the Post, talked about this very issue on Bill Moyer’s Journal last week.
When the Columbia Journalism Review makes a statement like they did, and the criticism rises to the level where the Times publishes a story about it, it’s well past time for the Post to do a little reflection and contemplation. Being slapped by the Columbia Journalism Review, is like being slapped by your mother.
