Don’t make him angry. . .

. . . because you won’t. . . oh, never mind.

"I pretty well understand anger," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid after the vote of the Democratic caucus.

"I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was but I also believe that if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'boy, did we get even?'"

By now you know about the vote within the Democratic Caucus that allowed Republican sock-puppet Joe Lieberman to retain his seniority and his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In a deal that was brokered behind the scenes over the weekend, Lieberman was forced to step down from his seat one the Environment and Public Works Committee. (A tiny slap on the wrist, but I will try to make a little lemonade here by hoping that this might help kill off once and for all the Lieberman-Warner global warming “effort”—which was a faux-solution designed to check off a box on a congressional to-do list without actually doing anywhere near enough.)

Of course, I, and any other honest, caring Democrats, don’t give a damn about how angry Harry Reid might have been. I’ve been angry at Joe Lieberman for a decade now because of so very many things that he has done to betray his party, his state, and his country—but anger has nothing to do with it. Neither does “getting even.”

Nor, honestly, does the possibility that Lieberman will make the 60th vote in a cloture-ific super-majority (congratulations to our latest Democratic Senator-elect, Mark Begich, by the way). That was just another straw man thrown out there by Senate leaders and media elites to distract us from what this was really all about.

Even if Minnesota’s Al Franken and Georgia’s Jim Martin go on to join the other 56 Democrats and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Senate majority, Joe Lieberman (Party of One-CT) will never be the 60th vote on any matter of importance—and I promise you that will include attempts to end roadblock Republican filibusters. Never.

Remember, Joe was a member of the “Gang of Fourteen,” a group of supposedly “centrist” Senators that undercut Democratic attempts to stop a series of ultra-right Bush nominees from littering the federal bench.

Remember, Joe wouldn’t even vote for cloture on a non-binding resolution to condemn the lawlessness of former AG Alberto Gonzales—when even seven Republicans found the courage to do just that.

Remember, Joe was the guy who just last month warned how dangerous it would be if Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. . . and campaigned like crazy to try and prevent that from happening.

(Some talking heads like to tell us that Joe won’t matter because Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and/or Arlen Specter will be willing to join with Democrats on a whole host of issues; color me unconvinced—I could give numerous examples of all three talking tough and then voting with their party on a litany of important issues.)

No one was seriously arguing that Lieberman should be kicked out of the Democratic caucus (because no one ever asked me), but those that understand the dynamics of power were arguing that Joe needed to be stripped of his committee chairmanship. If Democrats had done that, it would have permanently marginalized Lieberman with little effect on any majorities Dems might amass. Lieberman might have switched parties (though I don’t think that was anywhere near certain, since he had little to gain by doing so), and I expect that he will vote with the Republicans just as often as a nominal “Independent Democrat” because Lieberman has shown time and again that he has no respect for the Democratic Party or, honestly, much of what it stands for. And he has proven that he has no sense of allegiance or gratitude to those that have helped him in the past.

What Joe was never serious about was resigning his seat so that Connecticut Governor Jody Rell, a Republican, could appoint a Republican to replace him. Never would have happened. Not in a million years. I know, and you know, Joe is all about Joe (and practically nothing else), and Joe would never willingly give up the power or the fundraising prowess of his Senate seat. (Seriously, I was amazed resignation was even being discussed on the news shows—it was absurd.)

Now, thanks to Reid’s all-anger-no-action reaction, and similar behavior from a majority of his colleagues, we have the worst of all possible worlds (yes, I said possible—see above). Lieberman will never help his caucus in any meaningful way—I just know this—but he will hurt them, likely repeatedly.

As head of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Joe the Chairman could have used his position to investigate many of the misdeeds of the Bush Administration, but he did nothing of the sort (absolutely nothing). But in that same seat during the Obama Administration, just watch and see if Lieberman suddenly finds the need for scrutiny and oversight (and lo unto the Democrats if they then try to remove or silence him—not only would taking away his gavel mid-session require a Senate vote subject to filibuster, it would unleash the right wing and establishment media hounds).

Watch and see if Joe doesn’t convene some new “gang” of some number—a group of pretend moderates who only exist to thwart Obama Administration or progressive Democratic initiatives—to create for himself a sense of importance and a renewed media interest. I am expecting this, too.

And watch, because you will have no choice but to watch, as the Liar of the Senate goes on news show after news show, filling the designated Democratic seat, and then using the opportunity to bash President Obama or fellow Democrats. He did it throughout the campaign, and, indeed, throughout the last four years (or more), and that was when he supposedly had something to lose; I can pretty much guarantee this will come to pass.

For a generation now, party loyalists and pundits alike have turned with some self-assurance to the pseudo-amusing saw “Democrats never fail to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.” But with the elections of 2006 and 2008, it seemed, if just for a moment, that Democrats might have put that one to bed—but that was before Joe made Harry the Hulk angry. . . . And, I guess Nevada’s answer to Bruce Banner was right—at least for me—I don’t like him when he’s angry.


(With apologies to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby)



(cross-posted on The Seminal)

Meanwhile, back here at home. . .

While it is all well and good that a “very ruly crowd” of some 500 lawyers gathered yesterday outside the county courthouse in lower Manhattan for a brief rally to show solidarity with lawyers and judges jailed and persecuted since General Perves Musharraf declared martial law in Pakistan, I can’t help but wonder why a crisis abroad has them so hot and bothered.

After all, for more than six years now, the law has been under assault here at home. Where were the lawyers when the ironically named “USA Patriot Act” papered over or watered down about half of the Bill of Rights? Where were the lawyers when it was revealed that the Bush Administration had ignored the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Security Act and illegally spied on their fellow citizens? Where were they when the administration, and then the Republican Congress, eliminated Habeas rights for, well, for practically anyone that The Decider decides is an enemy? Where were they during the politicization of the entire federal justice system, from the US Attorneys, through the Courts of Appeals, all the way up to the Supreme Court? Where were they during the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft? Attorney General Gonzales? Attorney General Mukasey?

For that matter, where were they after Justices Scalia and Thomas refused to recuse themselves (because of blatant conflict of interest) in Bush v. Gore?

While some members of the bar in this country fight, and fight hard, every day for an end to torture, to rendition, and unlawful detention, while some fight, and fight hard, for a restoration of Habeas Corpus and FISA, and in defense of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments, far too many of those with direct experience and a detailed understanding of the laws of the land have chosen to go about their business as if nothing much has changed here in the United States. And while American jurists are far from the only citizens who have come up light on the outrage scale, I am hard-pressed to think of a group that is better positioned—in terms of education, employment, status, and first-hand knowledge—to make a less than joyful noise about what has happened to this country’s legal principles and protections.

The jurists of Pakistan have been out in the streets everyday, protesting in the face of beatings and mass arrests, so, by all means, stand in solidarity with them--they deserve your support. But beyond shouting “No more Musharraf,” beyond simply supporting the Pakistani lawyers, it might be good to learn from them, too. How about regular gatherings of American jurists to stand in solidarity with our Constitution? How about shouts against the myriad ways that our less than legitimately elected President has abused the law and its practitioners right here at home?

. . .

I heard the head of the New York Bar on the radio speaking in support of Pakistani lawyers because, he said, the Musharraf government had tortured some of them. Well, the American government is torturing people, probably every day, probably for some six years now—do they have to torture lawyers to get you to stage protests of your own government’s behavior?


(cross-posted on Daily Kos and The Seminal)

Ashcroft and the Times: credibility on the line

I didn’t know that the New York Times now ran advertising on its op-ed page.

And free advertising, at that.

Op-Ed Contributor
Uncle Sam on the Line

. . . .

John Ashcroft was the United States attorney general from 2001 to 2005. He now heads a consulting firm that has telecommunications companies as clients.

While I applaud the New York Times for running a disclaimer, of sorts, in the “about the author” space at the foot of the article, my question is why bother to run this “opinion” piece at all?

I mean, honestly, is it still called an opinion if you are getting paid large sums to express it? To me, that sounds like a job.

And the Times is frankly much too happy to augment Ashcroft’s pay.

Worse still, the former attorney general’s column is so filled with sophistry and outright lies as to render its publication the height of journalistic irresponsibility.

First, Ashcroft follows his pal Jay Rockefeller in perpetuating a dangerous myth while running cover for his corporate benefactors. Last week, the Senator from West Virginia shilled for a telecommunications industry that has given him tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions while lying about the origins of the warrantless surveillance program(s) ordered by the Bush Administration. Monday, Ashcroft reiterated the same blatant falsehood with his first sentence:

FOR almost two years, the country has debated whether the Bush administration acted properly and lawfully in undertaking emergency surveillance operations of suspected foreign terrorists on presidential authorization in the wake of 9/11.

By my dictionary, “wake” means “after,” and we now know, as a reportedly outraged Ashcroft knew many years ago, the illegal spying started before the attacks of September 11, 2001. (I provided over a dozen citations for this point in my discussion of Jell-O Jay’s WaPo op-ed.) So, here, Ashcroft, like Rockefeller, is lying.

Next up in Mr. Ashcroft’s bullshit-filled billet-doux to the telcos, this little gem:

Whatever one feels about the underlying intelligence activities or the legal basis on which they were initially established, it would be unfair and contrary to the interests of the United States to allow litigation that tries to hold private telecommunications companies liable for them.

Of course, this comes from a man that threw a shroud over the statue of Justice. Nothing could be more fair than to allow both the plaintiffs and the phone companies their day in court, where both side could air their evidence before an impartial arbiter. In fact, it is the former chief law enforcement officer that prejudges, here—inherent in his plea is the assumption that the telecoms are guilty.

And nothing could be less “contrary to the interests of the United States” than getting this nefarious behavior—certainly in the case of the administration of which Ashcroft was once a part, allegedly in the case of companies like AT&T and Verizon—out in open court, where its legality and efficacy could be debated with both sides under oath. It might be contrary to the interests of the White House, or to the interests of Mr. Ashcroft and his telco clients, but moving forward with the various court cases would benefit this country’s democracy immeasurably.

Ashcroft continues:

Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.

To deny immunity under these circumstances would be extraordinarily unfair to any cooperating carriers. By what principle of justice should anyone face potentially ruinous liability for cooperating with intelligence activities that are authorized by the president and whose legality has been reviewed and approved by our most senior legal officials?

As a practical matter, in circumstances involving classified intelligence activities, a corporation will typically not know enough about the underlying circumstances and operations to make informed judgments about legality. Moreover, for an initiative like the terrorist surveillance program — which the Office of Legal Counsel made clear was based on the Congressional authorization for the use of military force and the president’s war powers under the Constitution — a telephone company simply has no expertise in the relevant legal issues.

Here, the mind boggles. First, American corporations maintain legions of high-priced lawyers specifically because they don’t believe that they can take government officials at their word. Laws and regulations are interpreted almost daily. And, as the case of Joseph Nacchio, former head of Qwest Communications, proves, corporate lawyers can and have disagreed with the “assurances” of government apparatchiks as to the legality of secret activities.

Qwest’s attorneys seem to have understood something that Ashcroft and so many of his former administration colleagues don’t—we are a government of laws, not of men.

As a practical matter, in these specific circumstances, the telecommunications corporations involved knew plenty about the underlying circumstances and operations to make a judgment—as Qwest, indeed, did. The NSA was quite specific about what they wanted, and in fact drew up rather explicit technical requests, since early on (again, before 9/11), the spy agency had decided to outsource much of its fiber-optic infrastructure. (This is not a secret. Qwest’s expectations of receiving contracts for this project are at the heart of Nacchio’s legal woes.)

In addition, thanks to just the sort of legal proceedings that Ashcroft wants to suppress, we also know the outline of what the Bush Administration asked of the telecoms, and we know that the telecoms understood what was requested—because most of them cooperated. Though it can be debated what was part of the Total Information Awareness program, what was part of project Groundbreaker, and what was part of Pioneer-Groundbreaker, we know that taken as a whole, the White House and the NSA were seeking both to split fiber-optic lines to harvest all the digital data that those lines carry, and also to collect all the call records of Americans that made or received an international call—and perhaps the records of those that had only made domestic calls as well. And the Bush Administration sought to do this without going through the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court—which is (or was, until Congress capitulated to White House demands in August) a violation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Moreover—to borrow Mr. Ashcroft’s transition—the Office of Legal Council does not have the authority to make any such determination as to the legality of this program. John Ashcroft, of all people, should—and does—know this. After all, it was Ashcroft that rose from his hospital bed to rebuff then Bush counsel Alberto Gonzales on Gonzo’s attempt to do an end-run around the Attorney General, or acting Attorney General, as James Comey was for the time that Ashcroft was hospitalized, on one of the aspects of the warrantless surveillance programs now under scrutiny.

Further, it is a matter of public record that allowances for such spying without a court order were not granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The administration came to then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for such FISA workarounds, and Daschle specifically excluded this authority from the AUMF. That Ashcroft would again posit such a specious argument is the height of factual dishonesty and personal disrepute.

And the hits keep coming.

Even more important than the inherent unfairness of requiring companies to second-guess executive-branch legal judgments are the acute dangers to which it would expose the country. One of our nation’s most important comparative advantages over our adversaries is the creativity and robustness of the private sector. To cut ourselves off from that advantage would amount to a form of unilateral disarmament.

Yet if we allow the litigation to continue, that is precisely what we will do. The message that will be sent to American companies is that they can be exposed to crippling lawsuits for helping the government with national security activities that they are explicitly assured are legal. The only rational response would be for companies to adopt an attitude of extreme wariness, even in the most urgent or clear-cut situations. To put the matter plainly, this puts American lives at risk.

This might be news to the former head of law enforcement, but the judicial branch, not the executive, makes legal judgments. And, going further, the last thing any American, from the founding fathers forward, would want would be to leave our security to the “robustness of the private sector.” I know that’s something that intrigues the patrons of Blackwater USA and other initiatives to outsource responsibility, but we elect a government and fund all three branches through our taxes so that the public sector will take the lead on national security. And we have a Constitution to make sure that they do so within the rule of law.

As for those purportedly “crippling lawsuits,” I guess the only smart response would be for companies to be extremely wary, especially when, as the Qwest case has shown, an administration that plays fast and loose with the Federal Code will punish you for not cooperating. And, as is too often conveniently forgotten by proponents of breaking surveillance law, the FISA statute allows for three days, and sometimes up to a year, of spying before a FISA warrant must be sought. If a situation is so urgent that spying must start immediately, without going to a secret court, it can. If the urgency persists, than certainly a case could be made for putting an extra lawyer or two on the warrant application to comply with future deadlines.

But, as is often the case with Bush, Cheney, and their comrades, it is lines like that last one in the quote above—the waving of the bloody shirt—that are so thoroughly shameless. . . and shameful.

There is no instance—not one—where the Bush Administration can point to a life lost because of a legal requirement, nor can they show us any lives saved because they have ignored them. If anything, the last two years of revelations about the illegal spy programs prove quite the opposite.

As put forward in the discussion of the Rockefeller op-ed, since these programs began as early as February of 2001, if the warrantless surveillance was intended to catch terrorists, than 9/11 proves the program to be a failure. As is the case in so many instances where administration officials claim it necessary to violate US or international law, all of the information the government needed to foil the September 11 attacks was obtained through conventional, legal means, and was available to Bush, Cheney et al. had they been interested enough to pay attention.

Not content with that insult to our intellect and decency, Ashcroft continues:

Although the lawsuits are couched in the language of accountability and the public’s right to know, they would really have the effect of showing the world and our enemies sensitive secrets about how our national security agencies do their work.

This might come as news to Ashcroft (though it shouldn’t), but terrorists realized long ago that talking on telephones and sending e-mail was not a secure way to communicate. How did they find this out? Mostly because time after time, Bush and various high-ranking administration officials spoke in public about ongoing investigations in order to score political points. In fact, Ashcroft himself has been accused of just such a misstep.

Today, it is believed that alleged terrorists more often carry data by hand, or coordinate via an assortment of websites. These websites are published for all the world to see, but it takes good, old-fashioned intelligence work to find, watch, and translate these sites. The intel community has complained on previous occasions that such productive methods have been given short shrift while the administration dedicated personnel and financial resources to high-tech and often warrantless surveillance. (There was also a recent case in which an on-going investigation that relied on website intelligence was compromised by an eager to scare, blabbermouth Bush.)

Ashcroft has more:

For domestic purposes, proper accountability already exists — through the people’s elected representatives on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It is through the legislature, not lawsuits, that we as a nation have tried to balance the need to let our intelligence agencies operate in secret, as they must if they are to be effective, and the need to ensure that they do so lawfully.

Again, the former head of the Justice Department fails to understand or at least acknowledge the role of the courts as explicitly outlined in the Constitution. It is through the checks and balances exercised by all three branches of government that we as a nation moderate the excesses of any one branch. The matter of determining whether any one program or pursuit is lawful or constitutional is expressly given to the Judiciary. Any C student should be able to fill-in Ashcroft on these finer points of high school civics.

And, speaking of civics, Ashcroft informs us:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has voted 13-2 to grant immunity to telecommunication carriers that have been sued for helping the country after 9/11. Unlike most everyone else, this committee had the necessary and relevant facts when it rendered judgment.

Well, what Ashcroft fails to disclose is that, first, it was the Senate Judiciary Committee that had requested that they be availed of these “necessary and relevant facts,” but the Bush Administration prevented them from seeing this information, instead favoring the much friendlier eyes of the Jay Rockefeller-lead SSCI. (The administration finally relented and allowed Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Arlen Specter to see documents last week, and it should be noted that they still oppose immunity.) Second, the House Intel Committee passed a revised FISA bill that specifically did not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Third—again, a civics lesson—it requires the entire Senate (and the entire House) to vote for a bill before it has a chance at becoming a law (someone needs to send John a DVD of Schoolhouse Rock). Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has placed a hold on the bill, and says he won’t allow a draft that contains immunity to come to a vote, so the future (and general acceptance) of Ashcroft’s much-loved workaround is, at the very least, still an open question.

And, finally, Ashcroft sums it up for us:

Assuming that the country’s communications companies helped the National Security Agency track Qaeda operatives and other terrorists after being assured that their conduct was lawful, they acted as patriots, not privacy violators.

Alas, poor Ashcroft, a judge (remember those, John?) has already ruled on this assumption:

[F]ederal judge Vaughn Walker ruled against AT&T in Aug. 2006, specifically citing the fact that the company was not operating in “good faith” when it participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. Judge Walker wrote:

AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.

I believe there’s some fancy Latin term that’s appropriate here, but I’ll put it in plain English, so that legal half-wits like John Ashcroft can understand: By your definition, the conduct of the telecoms and the government that coerced them was unlawful. They were not patriots, they were violators of our privacy, of the FISA law, and of the Fourth Amendment. Q.E.D. (I couldn’t resist.)

Once again, as he did so many times when he was Attorney General, Ashcroft has exhibited a zealous pursuit of personal interests and a glaring ignorance of the law. He is, as someone once admonished, entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. When we as readers of the New York Times turn to the opinion page, we are entitled to informed, thoughtful, and earnestly argued opinions; we should not be subject to columns of calumny for cash.

I was going to simply call it advertising, but advertising is actually required to back up its assertions. Because his opinion has been commissioned rather than researched, Ashcroft—and, so, the Times—cannot.

(h/t hhex65)

(cross-posted to Daily Kos and The Seminal)

Take the Terkel challenge

While Marcy Wheeler explains how Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and his Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have drafted a law on warrantless surveillance that not only gives retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their illegal complicity in White House supervised domestic spying, but immunizes President Bush and then WH Counsel Alberto Gonzales for their intentional violations of US Code and DoJ guidelines, as well, Studs Terkel, a plaintiff in one of the suits against the telecoms, puts the whole program in chilling context.

Terkel, writing in the New York Times, details a history of government transgressions that color his long life. From the Palmer raids, through the Red Scare, and on past protests for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War, Terkel’s humanitarianism landed him on many lists, including the blackest one:

In the 1950s, during the sad period known as the McCarthy era, one’s political beliefs again served as a rationale for government monitoring. Individual corporations and entire industries were coerced by government leaders into informing on individuals and barring their ability to earn a living.

I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them. I had signed on in opposition to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and in favor of rent control and pacifism. Because the petitions were thought to be Communist-inspired, I lost my ability to work in television and radio after refusing to say that I had been “duped” into signing my name to these causes.

Terkel explains how every movement for social justice was met with more secret government surveillance—of private citizens, journalists, even members of Congress—until a congressional committee with a backbone and a belief in the Constitution pulled back the curtain:

Then things changed. In 1975, the hearings led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho revealed the scope of government surveillance of private citizens and lawful organizations. As Americans saw the damage, they reached a consensus that this unrestrained surveillance had a corrosive impact on us all.

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which placed national security investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect, but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of electronic communications.

President Bush, as Terkel explains, tore up the FISA law and violated the social compact—and, I might add, unilaterally voided the Constitution—purportedly to save the country from some terrorist threat. But, we now know that the electronic dragnet predated the attacks of 9/11, and so, in reality, fits more appropriately into the dark history of government repression that Studs Terkel has experienced for some 90-odd years.

Terkel understands that the SSCI bill violates the Fourth Amendment, runs counter to current case law, and deprives him, and all of us, of a chance to air grievances and redress the wrongs in court. But Terkel, in that proud and pragmatic way that he has, washes away the cynicism and invokes a wisdom that “Jell-O Jay” can’t even hope to buy with his tens of thousands of telco dollars:

Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing. By revealing the truth in a public forum, the American people will have the facts to play their historic, heroic role in putting our nation back on the path toward freedom. That is why we deserve our day in court.

Can J-Rock, or DiFi, or any of the other members of the Intel Committee honestly say otherwise? Can “Give ‘em Hash Harry” Reid really contradict Studs? Would any of them, Democrat or Republican, dare to tell Terkel he’s wrong?

How about we ask? Here is a list of the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Rockefeller (D-WV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Bayh (D-IN)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Feingold (D-WI)
B. Nelson (D-FL)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Bond (R-MO)
Warner (R-VA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Snowe (R-ME)
Burr (R-NC)

as well as the ex officio members:

Reid (D-NV)
Levin (D-MI)
McConnell (R-KY)
McCain (R-AZ)

If you live in any of these states, why not give your Senator a call. Ask him or her if he or she is aware of the Studs Terkel piece. Offer to send over a copy. Read a staffer the last paragraph about the American people deserving all the facts and their day in court. Wave off the SSCI rationalizations that Wheeler so carefully refutes. And then ask if the Senator stands with Studs Terkel or against him. Challenge them to tell a 95-year-old Pulitzer Prize winner that he doesn’t understand what America is all about.

I’m curious what you will hear.

(cross-posted to The Seminal and Daily Kos)

You Don’t Take the Punching Bag Out of the Gym

Many analysts and bloggers are all hopped up this week about the parade of rats leaving the perceived-as-sinking ship, SS Alberto Gonzales. Representative Adam Putnam, Chair of the House Republican Caucus, said the attorney general’s loss of credibility “diminishes the justice department.” Fox “News” anchor Chris Wallace announced on Sunday that no one would come on his show to defend AG AG. Senator Arlen “Mumbles” Specter has apparently given the White House a deadline of high noon today to clean up the barf that the attorney general left all over a Senate hearing room last week. (If they refuse? Senator Mumbles will no doubt threaten to be very displeased at some point in the future, after additional deliberation, but let’s not be too hasty.) Even a sanctimonious shill like Senator Orrin Hatch slipped up on Sunday and admitted that Fredo has a credibility problem.

But if we have learned nothing this year, we have learned that reports of Fat Albert’s imminent demise are about as valuable as Dick “Death Throes” Cheney’s assessments of the Iraqi insurgency.

Yes, in an average time, with an average presidency, dealing with an average number of failures, scandals, and misdeeds, a high-ranking figurehead as fucked up as Fredo would be considered a drag on the administration. But these are not average times, and for a well below average president with a well above average number of failures and scandals, his lil’ friend, Alberto Gonzales, is the best thing that could happen.

Instead of focusing on a president’s blatant violations of the Constitution, instead of discussing the administration’s massive domestic spying program—warrantless eavesdropping, wholesale data mining, unsupervised surveillance of US citizens—we are debating whether the country’s chief law enforcement officer perjured himself, or just almost perjured himself.

Instead of screaming from the highest hills that the purge of US attorneys was, at its roots, part of a grand plan by the White House to corrupt the democratic process and steal elections, we instead wonder about how much various Gonzales underlings knew, and who they talked to, and whether the attorney general was directly involved, and who serves at the pleasure of the president, and whether we should hold various officials in contempt of Congress or just threaten to do so.

While Bush and Cheney continue to fail the American people, line the pockets of their friends, and systematically dismantle the Constitution, various members of Congress are threatening to call for a special prosecutor—to investigate Gonzales!

How about, instead of us all doing the Gonzo shuffle, we get a special prosecutor to look into some of the corrupt actions of the Attorney General’s bosses? From sleazy energy deals, to lying us into the Iraq war, to the money gone missing during the reconstruction of Iraq, to the no-bid contracts for cronies, to the failures before and after hurricane Katrina, to the domestic spying, to the politicization of public agencies, to the CIA leak case, to the secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, and torture, to the US attorneys scandal, and so many more, the number of dodgy, disingenuous, dishonest, and downright dastardly dealings that merit an investigation could keep attorneys and prosecutors busy for the next six or seven of the vice president’s defibrillator batteries.

While there is no doubt in my mind that Abu Gonzales deserves to be, no, needs to be impeached, I am no longer content to fiddle with Fredo while the Constitution burns. If our Representatives and Senators can walk and chew gum at the same time, if they can investigate and impeach Gonzales while going full bore after the real kingpins of the crime syndicate known as the Bush/Cheney Administration, then I wish them Godspeed. But, if we continue as we have this last week, and so many weeks this year, then my considered opinion at this point is: skip it.

Of course, if there suddenly were no Alberto Gonzales to kick around anymore, then Congress, the establishment and non-establishment media, and, indeed, the rest of America, would have to turn their attentions elsewhere. . . perhaps somewhere just up the org chart.

As Orrin Hatch repeated many times this weekend, “Gonzales is being used a punching bag by Democrats and, frankly, some Republicans.” Which is why you won’t be seeing anyone in White House accepting the Alberto Gonzales’ “resignation” anytime soon.

(cross-posted from guy2k)

The Base Stench of High Crime

Let’s face it—this one fails the smell test.

Forgive me if you’ve heard some of this before, but humor me a moment. To the best of my recollection, as they say, the timeline goes something like this:

Fall 2006—The Republican-lead Congress passes a provision secretly slipped into the Patriot Act renewal that gives the Attorney General the power to appoint interim US attorneys on an indefinite basis, thus avoiding the usual Senate confirmation process. President Bush signs that provision into law.

December 2006—The Department of Justice fires seven US attorneys without cause. The reason for their dismissals later surfaces: they were deemed by the White House and DoJ not to be “loyal Bushies.” More specifically, the fired attorneys had either pursued corruption investigations against Republicans, or had failed to pursue Democrats or charges of so-called voter fraud aggressively enough to satisfy the executive. (Several other US attorneys, though not officially fired, appear to have been forced to resign over the Summer and Fall of 2006.)

Winter-Spring 2007—Purge-gate, AKA the US Attorney scandal, blossoms to reveal a web of Justice and White House officials working in concert to fill the ranks of the US Attorneys with partisan hatchet-men and women and former associates of Karl Rove using the new authority granted by the shady provision in the Patriot Act.

Spring 2007—Responding to the rush of revelations about the scandal, both the Senate and House vote in overwhelming numbers to strip the interim appointment authority from the law and restore the previous checks and balances to the process.

June 4, 2007—Congress sends S.214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, to President Bush for his signature. Bush takes no immediate action.

June 13, 2007—Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is notified by DoJ that Acting US Attorney for the Central District of California, George Cardona, will be appointed to the post on an interim basis by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales using the authority granted under the 2006 USA Patriot Act. Cardona will be able to serve indefinitely without Senate scrutiny. (The Central District was run by Debra Wong Yang until she resigned last October. Yang had been leading an investigation into “lucrative ties” between a lobbying firm and Republican Representative Jerry Lewis, and is believed to have been targeted for ouster by White House Counsel Harriet Miers.)

Senator Leahy reacted this way:

That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the president’s desk since June 4th. Do you know it seems he just can’t bring himself to sign it? Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the attorney general has used the power that we voted to repeal again.

It’s almost like they live in an alternate world, as though they’re not realizing the reaction of Democrats and Republicans about this misuse of this power. That’s wrong.

June 14, 2007—Late Thursday night, The White House released this two-line statement:

On June 14, 2007, the President signed into law:

S. 214, the “Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007.”

Which brings us to today. . . .

Gosh, when you put it all out there like that, it kind of stinks, don’t it? Kind of looks like the President and the Attorney General conspired to subvert the will of Congress, right? People might get upset if they knew how this went down. . . .

If they knew.

Now, what I just did wasn’t hard; I was able to research and type it up in a relatively short time. Indeed, if you are even a semi-regular reader of political blogs, you probably knew most of this already. Yet, a quick look at today’s papers’ on-line editions—including a couple from Central California—reveals no such chronology—in fact, I can’t even find anything on Cardona’s interim appointment beyond the blog work I link to above.

Will tomorrow’s network newscasts deal with this? I doubt it. Will it even show up as a blip on the cable news channels? I’m not holding my breath.

Now, it’s not like no one has noticed. Leahy’s office has, Think Progress and Raw Story have, but that seems to be the full extent of it. Granted, Thursday was a bit full of news (Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon. . . a nasty Supreme Court decision no one has noticed much, either), but this—this clearly intentional foot-dragging to do an end-run around Congress, this collusion between the White House and Justice to pack the ranks of the US attorneys with one more partisan hack, this conscious counteraction to the desire of the American people, this aggressive deceit—this is not trivial, folks!

In fact, this is exactly the kind of stuff that runs afoul of this:

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Like I said, it fails the smell test, but, in doing so, it passes the Constitutional one. Maybe if members of the establishment media took the short time to explain this scandal, as I did above, then the logical next step wouldn’t be so difficult to comprehend. I mean, c’mon, what drives ratings and sells papers better than a good scandal—especially one that leads to impeachment proceeding for the nation’s top cop and the nation’s top crook?


(cross-posted to Daily Kos)

Fill In The Blanks

As Alberto Gonzales is to Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Washington press corps.

Well, if you answered “David Broder,” give yourself an A:

The Democrats' Gonzales

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

Broder would be a “continuing embarrassment” to his inside-the-beltway brethren if any of them tried talking to the rank-and-file instead of reading each other’s clippings. But, like Gonzales, Broder relies on years’ worth of well-rubbed elbows and the noblesse oblige of the Capitol cocktail party set to maintain his position as the titular head of his guild (Gonzo as the nation’s top lawyer, Broder as “The Dean” of Washington newspapermen).

If they were to ever go back to doing what journalists are supposed to do—reporting, newsgathering, that sort of thing—what “The Dean” and all of his dean-iacs might notice is that while Alberto “I can’t recall” Gonzales is at the very least an embarrassment to his party, but more like a disgrace to the nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is saying out loud and to the president what wide majorities of Americans believe and would say themselves if anyone thought to ask.

Fortunately, for the truly curious among us—and, no, that doesn’t include Broder—we have something called “opinion polls,” and here’s what a very new one has to say:

Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?
Yes, victory in Iraq is still possible....... 36
No, victory in Iraq is not still possible.... 55
Not sure......................................…. 9

Thinking of the situation in Iraq over the past three months, do you think the situation there has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Gotten better.............................. 12
Gotten worse.............................. 49
Stayed about the same................ 37
Not sure.................................. 2

When it comes to the debate on Iraq who do you agree with more?
The Democrats in Congress, who say we should set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq;
OR
President Bush, who says we should NOT set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq?
Democrats in Congress/should set deadline.... 56
President Bush/should NOT set deadline........ 37
Some of both (VOL)................................... 3
Not sure................................................... 4

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing as president?
Approve............................. 35
Disapprove......................... 60
Not sure........................... 5

I could say the numbers speak for themselves, and leave it at that, but I will add an observation. When you hear Senator Reid saying the Iraq war is “lost,” you are hearing from a man who is not only the Majority Leader (and yes, that means he’s in the majority), you are probably hearing from a man who reads the front sections of several newspapers—in other words, the news pages, and not just the opinion page, of newspapers from inside and outside of the (literal and metaphorical) DC beltway.

When you read David Broder, you read the words of a man very much like not only the Attorney General mentioned at the beginning of this extended analogy, but also somewhat like that AG’s patron, George W. Bush.

For as Broder and his establishment media cohorts have spent the last two or three decades cloistering themselves with the power elites on which they are supposed to report, they have joined those elites inside the same echo chamber. It is no secret that President Bush doesn’t like to hear a lot of critical “perspective,” so when you work your way into the king and his courtier’s close confidences, you are likely not to hear much of that criticism, either.

In fact, Broder and his aging band of beltway brothers are probably a little horrified (if not terrified) by the behavior of the next edition of the ruling class. After all the prostration and prostitution, after all the hard work and heavy drinking, after all the time spent earning a season’s pass to the conservative construct of Utopia—what the establishment media calls “access”—the fortunate of the fourth estate cannot simply turn to the left and bow down to the new order. (It’s hard on their aging backs, and the new majority might not trust them—or party with them—anyway.)

And that can’t be a fun position for The Dean. For, while Broder no longer seems to read today’s news, he probably remembers some ancient history. I’m thinking here of Sir Thomas More who, despite working his way up to Lord Chancellor, still found his body a good distance from his head after refusing to acknowledge that there was a new Queen in town.

Of course, I am not going to be recommending The Dean for sainthood any time soon (nor ever). Where Saint Thomas More might have held his ground out of deep moral conviction, Dean David Broder’s allegiance is likely a matter of expedience. He’s assessed on which side his bread is buttered, and he’s scared to death of being toast.

Much like that blankity-blank Alberto Gonzales, don’t you think?


(Hat tips to Josh, and Joan, and about half of the blogosphere, I figure.)


(cross-posted to Daily Kos)