Former Gov. Don Siegelman's (D-AL) case has made it to Washington. His cause has been taken up by Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who wants the House Judiciary Committee to look into Siegelman's story at a hearing on selective prosecution by the Department of Justice.

Davis, himself a member of the House Judiciary, sent a letter (available here) to the head of the committee Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) today saying that the case against Siegelman has been called "unusually weak," with only one witness corroborating bribery charges with second-hand information. He also noted the claims made by Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson that implicate Karl Rove playing a role in the investigation.

A politically-motivated prosecution is not "implausible," Davis said, citing how former US Attorneys David Iglesias and Jack McKay said they were pressured to bring indictments against Democrats. Davis also reminded Conyers of how the Seventh Circuit tossed out a conviction of a former Democratic governor's aide in Wisconsin, calling the case "beyond thin."

Siegelman's case deserves a review, Davis argues because:

The trading of favors for official acts is reprehensible, and stains the reputation of the political process. But it would shatter the system if a Justice Department built a culture in which prosecutors’ career advancement depends on their willingness to press exotic legal theories that might advance the electoral interests of the Republican Party.

Meet Mahtaub "Mattie" Hojjati. A well-connected government and business consultant Hojjati is about to embark on a new career: revolutionary provocateur. She has two missions: to hasten the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and to convince the American public to support her.

Under the byline of Mattie Fein -- her husband is Bruce Fein, the prominent Reagan-era Justice Department lawyer last seen calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney -- Hojjati penned an op-ed in the Washington Times last week heralding the creation of a new think tank, known as the the Institute for Persian Studies, devoted to pushing the regime over the abyss. From her perspective, the nearly 30-year old Iranian Revolution is in a terminal phase. "The cue that most of the population is looking for is international support," she tells TPMmuckraker, "but right now, they're getting mixed signals."

Exile politics played a crucial role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq war. From the late 90s until the invasion of Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi persuaded many in Washington that deposing Saddam Hussein and imposing a democratic regime in its place would be relatively cost-free. (The cooked WMD and terrorism propaganda didn't hurt, either.) While Hojatti balks at a U.S.-Iranian war -- something Chalabi embraced -- her project bears some similarity to prewar Iraq exile politics in D.C. She's not pushing any dubious intelligence. But she does want to "reeducate" the American public as to why "Iran is so critically important in a geopolitical sense, why they should care." Caring, in this sense, means supporting the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy -- with air strikes, if necessary, Hojjati says.

Read more »

After the 6th District Court of Appeals dealt the ACLU a loss in its suit against the National Security Agency, Legal Director Stephen R. Shapiro indicated that the civil-liberties organization may seek to have the Supreme Court rule on the president's stated authority to issue wiretaps without a court order:

"We are deeply disappointed by today's decision that insulates the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. As a result of today's decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance.

"It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful.

"We are currently reviewing all of our legal options, including taking this challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime it is now more important than ever for Congress to engage in meaningful oversight."

Just out from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who's locked in his own imbroglio with the Bush administration over warrantless surveillance:

“The Court’s decision is a disappointing one that was not made on the merits of the case, yet closed the courthouse doors to resolving it. I hope the Bush Administration will finally provide the information requested by Congress regarding the constitutional and legal questions about this program so that those of us who represent the American people can get to the bottom of what happened and why. There is a dark cloud over the White House’s warrantless wiretapping program, and a full response to the outstanding subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee by this Administration would be a good start to clearing the air and moving forward in ways that allow us to better protect against terrorists while honoring the rule of law and the liberties of law-abiding Americans.”

So much for the ACLU's suit against the National Security Agency over the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Last year, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan ordered an injunction against the NSA program, an action crucial to the Justice Department's January announcement that the Bush administration would get out of the warrantless wiretapping business. This morning, Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Taylor's injunction based on the plaintiffs' (a group of journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas) lack of standing.

Update: This post initially attributed dissenting views on the legality of the warrantless surveillance program to Batchelder's majority opinion. We deeply regret the error.

Those jihadis. Hopped up on paper bags filled with glue, amped from too much Nintendo, understimulated after the last day of school, they went back to their old ways: trying to kill Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf. As Musharraf's plane took off outside the capitol of Islamabad, gunmen fired shots at the presidential aircraft in an unsuccessful assassination attempt. A security official blamed the attack on "miscreants," a bizarre way of referring to would-be killers. TPMmuckraker has learned that the nudniks next intend to rip up Musharraf's lawn after he spends all afternoon sodding it.

Read more »

Tony Sanchez, a longtime public official from Guam, has resigned. Sanchez is facing multiple counts of conspiracy, theft and public misconduct for his relationship with Jack Abramoff. (Pacific Daily News)

A 2006 spill at a uranium production factory closed the plant for seven months, but the general public never complained. That’s because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report was labeled “Official Use Only”, which means that even though the information is not a state secret, it cannot be shown to the public. Even worse, only one of the five NRT commissioners made an effort to inform Congress of the disaster. (NY Times)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has earmarked $100 million to help build an engine for the Pentagon’s infamous Joint Strike Fighter, even though the Pentagon and two independent boards have declared the engine redundant. (Associated Press)

A little Canadian muck: up to 40 radioactive devices monitored by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have been lost in the past five years. Just another reason to be wary of our neighbors from the North. (Globe and Mail)

A nationwide shortage of firefighters comes at the wrong time, as this summer promises prolonged fire danger levels. (Associated Press)

Things just aren't what they used to be.

Nowadays, hardly an arbitrary exertion of executive power goes by without examination. Fire eight U.S. attorneys at once, and Congress starts asking questions. Commute the sentence of your former aide who was convicted of lying to protect senior administration officials and within a week, there's a hearing. Even your off-the-record email system is exposed, so that now there might be a record of Karl Rove's communications.

The White House is not happy, as spokesman Scott Stanzel made clear during yesterday's press briefing. Clearly, the Democratic Congress is in some sort of oversight frenzy, cross-eyed and foaming at the mouth, issuing subpoenas every waking hour:

I would note that we do get a lot of inquiries from the Hill. They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews...And they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days -- so that's about six oversight hearings a day. And we've turned over 200,000 pages of documents as an administration.

It's just no fun being in power any more.

Of course, Democrats, with characteristic skepticism, question the White House's numbers:

Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.

"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of course and transparency," Manley said.

Full transcript below.

Read more »

Just when D.C.'s johns got comfortable again.

Today, a federal judge denied the government's attempts to keep Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the D.C. madam, from disseminating her business' phone records. Now she's free to do what she will with them. The government sought a restraining order on Palfrey back in March, too late to stop her from giving most of her records (Palfrey says it was about 80% of years 2002 to 2006) to ABC News, which busily matched thousands of numbers to names. Those records led to Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias' resignation. Brian Ross, during ABC's 20/20 report on Palfrey's service, said that there were plenty of high-profile D.C. types on the lists -- numbers of "Georgetown mansions and prominent CEOs, officials at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and lobbyists both Republican and Democratic" -- but that there were no members of Congress or White House officials that they could find. Maybe in that remaining 20%?

Prosecutors want more prison time for former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) if the judge decides not to require him to pay restitution* imposed on an acquitted charge.

A judge ordered Siegelman to pay $181, 325 in restitution for money he was accused of taking during a scandal involving state government-contractor GH Construction. Siegelman's lawyers want the fee eliminated, arguing that a judge can only require restitution when a defendant has been convicted of the underlying charges.

The prosecution responded today asking the judge to keep Siegelman behind bars longer if he lifts the fine:

To negate the $181,325 dollars in restitution without increasing the penalty in some other way would unfairly reduce the punishment the court obviously considered proper for this defendant and constitute a clear windfall not contemplated when the Court departed well below Siegelman’s guideline range.

Read more »

That wasn't so painful, was it?

For those curious readers who wonder whether Scooter Libby's friends kicked in to help here too, the chairman of the Libby Legal Defense Trust told The Washington Post it's not coming from them.

Sometimes it's just too easy. From this afternoon's White House press briefing:

Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law." But this is a unique case, there's no doubt about that. And we have said that there are a lot of people on all sides of this issue who've made good points. The President took a very measured approach to it. He believed that the jury verdict should be respected and -- but he did feel that the sentence was excessive, in terms of jail time. But this is a unique case, and there's no doubt about that.

More below....

Read more »

There's no shortage of problems in constructing the new, 21-building U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. For starters, the lead contractor on the project, First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting, is under investigation by the Justice Department for potential use of coerced labor. (A State Department Inspector-General's report found no evidence of such wrongdoing (pdf).) If true, then coerced labor hardly translates into quality performance. Today's Washington Post reports that First Kuwaiti's construction of a facility to house embassy guards -- private contractors themselves -- is pretty shoddy, with melted wiring, emission of toxic fumes within the building and leaking fuel. An opaque organizational structure from First Kuwaiti has hindered embassy officials' ability to bring their concerns to a sole, responsible manager. And if that wasn't enough, the State Department's Overseas Building Operations is hitting back at allegations against First Kuwaiti, claiming that they're a fig leaf for KBR to horn in on First Kuwaiti's $592 million contract.

To sort out this whole mess, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced today that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing on the "waste, fraud and abuse" in the embassy-construction project on July 26. The so-called "NEC" -- New Embassy Compound in bureaucrat-ese -- is slated to be finished by September, and it looks to be a swank place: the Times of London recently reported that it will include "what is rumoured to be the biggest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from favourite US food chains, tennis courts and a swish American Club for evening functions." That level of comfort doesn't come cheap -- raising many questions about First Kuwaiti, which, according to CorpWatch, wasn't the low bidder on the embassy contract. We'll see if Waxman's hearing can come up with any answers.

(Thanks to reader TZ.)

The Department of Transportation is citing "confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch" as the reason for hanging on to at least 53 documents the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to see.

The committee requested the documents for its investigation into whether DOT improperly lobbied Congress on behalf of the auto industry. DOT maintains that anti-lobbying measures do not apply in the alleged scheme because members of the agency contacted Congress directly. The measures only applies when an agency enlists citizens to lobby officials, lawyers for DOT argue.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) still wants a full look at the case. The situation emerged from California's request for an Environmental Protection Agency waiver that would allow it to heighten emissions standards in the state. When the deadline for EPA to make a decision neared, DOT employees contacted members of Congress about how the decision could affect the auto industry in their districts.

From this morning's press gaggle:

REPORTER: Tony, why do you ... in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong ...

SNOW: Well, this is ... no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you've got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don't know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.

To refresh your memory on Hillary Clinton's remarks:

"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it.... This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

The rest of the gaggle is posted below.

Read more »

It turns out that a president can't make the unprecedented move of commuting a former aide's prison sentence without some consequences.

On Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has already called for hearing next Wednesday at noon titled "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials." According to a committee aide, the hearing will have an eye to the future as much as the past. President Bush thinks jail time is "excessive" for an administration official convicted of lying to protect higher administration officials. In his statement announcing the hearing, Conyers worried about such a precedent: "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch." The aide told me that potential witnesses for the hearing include legal scholars, pardon experts, and administration officials.

That's not all. The president's order has created some confusion for Judge Reggie B. Walton, the Bush appointee who was responsible for that "excessive" 30 month sentence. Walton's scratching his head over Bush's move to remove the incarceration portion of the sentence while retaining the two-year period of supervised release which was to follow Libby's jail time, something not technically possible. He's asked both sides to weigh in on what should be done.

But the biggest impact is likely to come on the broader legal front. As The Los Angeles Times showed yesterday, Libby's prison sentence was not "excessive" by legal standards, but such a statement by the president is sure to be embraced by defense lawyers all around the country (experts have already dubbed such an argument "The Libby Motion"). They're also sure to mention Bush's assertion that Libby's sentence as it stands after the commutation ($250,000 fine and two years probation) is "harsh." Meanwhile, the Times reports, "Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences." This from an administration that's continually and inflexibly pushed for truly harsh penalties. The New York Sun reports that the first such invocation of Bush's order might come from an alleged Hamas operative convicted of obstruction charges.

The Secretary of the Interior has put forth a new plan intended to free his department from scandals associated with Steven Griles and with the Klamath River. However, the initiative is already suffering setbacks; the chair of the newly formed Conduct Accountability Board has already quit, and career staff are complaining that the plan makes no effort to curb political appointees, who have been the source of corruption. (PEER)

A grand jury investigation has concluded that local officials from the Jurupa Community Services District illegally sold land to Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) by not first offering the land to other public agencies. (The Press-Enterprise)

The House has blocked the President’s request to grant more power to the obscure Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The request would have given political appointees greater power over how government regulations are written. (Associated Press)

Read more »

As TPMmuckraker has reported, Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf is increasingly under pressure to step aside as president -- making what appeared to be an unalloyed win for him over Islamic extremists seem all the more important. Those extremists, however, are determined to give him a Pyrrhic victory.

This week, students at the Red Mosque, a Taliban-simpatico hotbed of radicalism in the capitol city of Islamabad, got into a firefight with Pakistani security forces, killing sixteen people. In May, the mosque held four policemen hostage in a tense standoff that opened the embattled Musharraf to widespread criticism. But this time around, Musharraf scored big by capturing the mosque's leader, Abdul Aziz, as he tried to escape the ensuing siege yesterday dressed in a women's burqa, and displayed him on television in it, making him look like both a coward and a drag queen. (Reuters has a good recap of events here.)

Read more »

Special interest groups can't buy a multi-millionaire like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), as he has claimed since his recall election campaign in 2003. But charities can use tax-deductible donations to pick up the tab on his private jet jaunts and stays in top tier hotels, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a millionaire many times over, bills much of his overseas travel to an obscure nonprofit group that can qualify its secret donors for full tax deductions, just as if they were giving to skid row shelters or the United Way.

Whether journeying to China, Japan or last week's destinations — Austria, England and France — Schwarzenegger typically flies on top-of-the-line private jets like the plush Gulfstream models and has booked hotel suites that can run thousands of dollars a night.

What could be questionable about this set up?

By giving to the foundation, donors avoid having their identities made public, because charities are not governed by the disclosure rules that apply to campaign contributions. And they can donate unlimited amounts to the nonprofit, which is not subject to contribution ceilings the way campaign accounts are.

Read more »

Yesterday Don Siegelman's lawyers weighed in on the parallels between their client's case and Scooter Libby's. Vietnam and Gulf War veteran, Victor Rita's case is another with interesting similarities.

Last month the Supreme Court heard Rita's appeal for a lighter sentence after being convicted of perjury and giving false statements. At the time, the Bush Administration wrote a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the sentence.

Rita's lawyers argued that the 33-month sentence he received was unreasonable, much like the conclusion President Bush drew in the case of Scooter Libby. Libby, like Rita, was also convicted of perjury and lying and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Both men were working for the government when the committed their crimes and both maintained their innocence even after conviction. One significant difference between the two cases is that Rita had previously been convicted of a similar crime.

In Rita's case, the Supreme Court upheld his sentence finding the sentence reasonable.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DL) flagged Bush's apparent change of heart on what constitutes a reasonable sentence:

The questions we should all be asking ourselves today are: Why is the President flip-flopping? Why does Scooter Libby get special treatment?"

From the AP:

President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences....

...attorneys noted some irony in Bush's decision to override Walton.

"The party who appointed him is now unhappy with what he appointed him to do," said Scott L. Fredericksen, a defense attorney who served as a prosecutor under every president since Ronald Reagan.

Also noteworthy, defense attorneys said, was seeing the White House urge leniency just weeks after the Bush administration announced a tough new crime bill that would bar judges from going easy on criminals. They would be free to impose longer sentences, but not shorter ones.

OK, here's the last you'll hear from this morning's press conference. As we noted earlier, Tony Snow cited a respect for the jury's decision as one of the driving considerations for the commutation, but he also strove to cast the president decision as in line with with the probation office, which makes sentencing recommendations to the judge. In Scooter Libby's case, the probation office recommended 15-21 months imprisonment and cited some possible grounds upon which the judge might reduce that sentence. The judge disagreed with the probation office and sided with the prosecutor's arguments that a 30-36 month sentence was more appropriate, ultimately deciding on 30. (Unfortunately, the probation office's actual recommendation is not public.)

But to hear Snow tell it, the probation office had recommended no jail time for Libby.

Snow: ...He does respect what the judge says, but he also respects what… if you took a look at the trial record at what the parole commission [he means the probation office] recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the president thought was an appropriate punishment here.

Q: Well, no they talk about 16, 16 plus months.

Snow: Now, that is there’s a range.. what what you’re taking a look….this gets very complicated….

You have obstruction of justice and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down – and the bump down gets you, according again to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation.

Libby's lawyers, of course, argued for such a "bump down" (or "downward departure" in the legal lingo). So what Snow is really saying is that the president agreed with Libby's lawyers interpretation of the probation office's recommendations. Which is no surprise at all.

Update: Bush also cited the probation office's recommendation in his statement on the commutation: "In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation."

Update: Here's the AP's straightforward take on this:

"To hear Snow tell it, Walton ignored the recommendation of probation officials and sentenced Libby to prison. That isn't what happened. Probation officers recommended Libby serve 15-21 months. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months. Libby's attorneys asked for probation.

Walton accepted Fitzgerald's interpretation of the law, which said Libby should be sentenced more harshly because of the seriousness of the investigation he obstructed."

Here's the meat of Tony Snow's presentation of Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence to one without jail time. Snow was eager to portray the decision as a "principled" one -- "the president does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone."

"You need to respect the jury system," Snow said, and "it is important to make clear our faith in what really is a pillar of the American justice system, which is everybody’s right to be tried before a jury of our peers.” What about that other pillar of our justice system, the judiciary? Well, not so much.

More from his comments:

The key considerations were... let’s figure out what we think is appropriate, what he thinks is appropriate in terms of punishment and let’s also do it in a way that does not do violence, but in fact shows respect to a system of justice... not going in and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constituted jury. That, to me, demonstrates just the opposite of political consideration....

Why consult the Justice Department when President Bush and his aides in the White House know all they need to know about Scooter Libby's case?

That's the position Tony Snow took in today's press conference, explaining the administration's decision not to consult the Justice Department's pardon attorney or the prosecutor on the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, which is the normal process for such cases. Usually that consultation happens in order to refresh memories about the case, Snow said -- but here, "it's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances."

As we pointed out at TPM yesterday, the president's decision was a departure from the normal circumstances or process for a commutation in more ways than one.

From this morning's press briefing:

In explaining why he wasn't "closing the door" on the idea that Scooter Libby might be pardoned in the future, Snow said that the president had done what he thought was "appropriate," but that he didn't want to "read the president's mind" about what might happen in the future.

More from the briefing soon.

A Reagan-appointed federal judge thinks a secret written reprimand is too soft a punishment for a prosecutor who fails to disclose critical evidence to a defendant's attorneys. And he finds it "disturbing" that the Department of Justice would have different stances on the issue in public and private, The New York Times reports.

That's why Chief Judge Michael J. Wolf of Boston sent a frustrated letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and also asked state officials to investigate the prosecutor's conduct.

Assistant US attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn quietly received a written reprimand after it became clear that he never disclosed key evidence in a 1992 mafia case where Vincent Ferrara pleaded guilty to ordering the murder of Vincent J. Limloli. Ferrara was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Wolf ordered Ferrara's release in 2005 when he found out that a key witness had told a police officer a different story than what was used as evidence against Ferrara.

Wolf also flagged Justice Department behavior in his complaint:

In a secret report in January 2005, the Office of Professional Responsibility, or O.P.R., at the Justice Department had also concluded that the memorandum contained exculpatory information and should have been turned over.

Publicly, however, the Justice Department took a different position in appealing Judge Wolf’s order releasing Mr. Ferrara. In an April 2006 brief, for instance, Justice Department lawyers said they had no duty to disclose the detective’s memorandum because it contained no material information.

A former federal prosecutor quoted in the story said this is highly unusual, and if the judge's statements are true, "it looks like a black mark on the department."

The clock is ticking down for Guantanamo Bay. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, the legislation passed to bless the Bush administration's military tribunals for enemy combatants charged with war crimes. The act itself was a fallback: the GOP Congress passed it only after the Court struck down the tribunals in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, leaving Bush with no claims to the lawfulness of his preferred remedy for trying al-Qaeda detainees.

Now, facing the prospect of the Court again striking down the tribunals, the administration is looking to preempt the legal challenges to Guantanamo. A faction led by National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and Defense Secretary Bob Gates is exploring a legislative remedy to close the facility and, perhaps, create a new legal framework for trying its inmates:

Essentially, the administration would propose legislation that would result in dividing the estimated 375 Guantánamo detainees into three legal categories. The one that would call for legislative action would include detainees like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 2001 attacks, and others whose trials would risk exposing intelligence operations. This group, estimated at two dozen to 50, would be placed indefinitely in military brigs on American soil.

A second group would also be moved to the United States, most likely to face trial in military courts, but perhaps with more legal guarantees than in the current military tribunal system.

The third, and largest, group would consist of detainees to be released to their home countries.

Strange as it sounds, such a fix would mean the administration is, at different turns, expanding and abandoning its long-held stance that enemy combatants aren't entitled to due process.

Read more »

The House’s efforts to pass ethics reform that give weight to outside complaints has stalled yet again; it is now two months since a task force was supposed to have presented a model for going forward with legislation. For his part, task force leader Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) doesn’t understand why his peers are wary of oversight. (Associated Press, The Hill)

Angry at Libby, but you don’t remember why? Here’s a timeline of the CIA leak to refresh your memory. (Associated Press)

The New York Times’ lawsuit against the Justice and Defense Departments has been dismissed. The Times was suing both agencies for refusing to turn over documents associated with the warantless wiretapping program. (Associated Press)

CREW has just completed a study of the Bush administration’s enforcement of executive authority entitled "Crossing the Line". The analysis can't quite be called exhaustive as it came out yesterday, back when Scooter Libby was still going to jail. (CREW)

Read more »

Yesterday, the president played his part. The injustice of Scooter Libby serving one day of jail time for lying to investigators and a grand jury in order to shield the vice president has been averted.

But don't forget that for the past several months, other prominent elements of the Washington establishment have been playing their parts, too. The Scooter Libby Defense Trust has collected close to $5 million, and its many moneyed donors rejoiced at the news, reports The Washington Post:

Former ambassador to Italy and developer Mel Sembler was returning from a fundraiser, and his chartered flight had just touched down in St. Petersburg, Fla.

"I got off the airplane and picked up my telephone and turned it back on again and found about 12 phone messages," said Sembler, the chairman of the Libby Legal Defense Trust. "I was most pleased with my president."

Richard Carlson, former ambassador to the Seychelles, was standing near his wife when he heard the news from an Associated Press reporter.

"My wife burst into tears," Carlson said.

But, sadly, the hard work the trust's patrons have had to endure (all because of the unquenchable bloodlust of a certain prosecutor) is not over. $5 million is not enough, apparently. Their man is still burdened with a conviction, two years probation, a $250,000 fine (which will not be covered by the fund, Sembler tells the Post), and only Libby's lawyers can save him now. And his lawyers must be paid. So their quest continues.

Who are these champions of justice? A roll call:

The advisory committee of Libby's trust is made up of developers, investors, publishers, think-tankers. There's former senator Fred Thompson, the "Law & Order" star and Republican presidential aspirant -- who even held a fundraiser for Libby at his McLean home, according to Carlson....

There are former Cabinet-level officials, including Ed Meese, Jack Kemp and Spencer Abraham. There is conservative thinker Bill Bennett and political philosopher Francis Fukuyama. There's Ron Silver, of "West Wing" fame. There's Mary Matalin, a former Cheney adviser, and Nina Rosenwald, chairwoman of the Middle East Media Research Institute. There is Steve Forbes, who knows a thing or two about writing checks.

If 30 months of prison time was too stiff a sentence for Scooter Libby, then seven years is far too long for former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), according to one of his lawyers.

Montgomery-based attorney Susan James, who handled Siegelman's sentencing hearing, predicts that President Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence will be referenced in briefs across the country soon -- including her own.

"[Bush] has basically come in and said the sentence is too harsh," James said. "I'll find some way to weave that into our argument."

Siegelman was convicted on corruption charges stemming from appointing a healthcare CEO, Robert Scrushy, to a public board. Like Libby, he was also convicted of obstruction of justice charges, which were related to a $9,000 motorcycle transaction. But unlike Libby, who was give six to eight weeks to report to jail, Siegelman was taken into custody immediately after the judge announced his sentence. Before the commutation announcement this evening, Siegelman's lawyers had argued that he should have been allowed to remain free while awaiting his appeal.

"He doesn't want to be treated like Paris Hilton, but he does want to be treated fairly like Scooter Libby," said another one of Siegelman's lawyers, Vince Kilborn.

Read more »

Posted just now on CNN, from Lea Anne McBride, spokeswoman from Vice President Cheney:

"Scooter has dedicated much of his life to public service at the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House. In each of these assignments he has served the nation tirelessly and with great distinction. I have always considered him to be a man of the highest intellect, judgment and personal integrity -- a man fully committed to protecting the vital security interests of the United States and its citizens. Scooter is also a friend, and on a personal level Lynne and I remain deeply saddened by this tragedy and its effect on his wife, Harriet, and their young children. The defense has indicated it plans to appeal the conviction in the case. Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man."

From Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

“The President’s muted words and deeds in the aftermath of this conviction pale in comparison to what he said before the investigation was launched.

"The President has the constitutional power to do this. But accountability has been in short supply in the Bush Administration, and this commutation fits that pattern. It is emblematic of a White House that sees itself as being above the law."

Just got off the phone with Joe Wilson, whose exposure of the hollowness of the Niger-Iraq uranium claim set in motion the chain of events that led to Scooter Libby's perjury and, today, his sentence's commutation by President Bush. Wilson -- who is pursuing a civil suit against Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney -- called on Bush and Cheney to release the transcripts of their interviews with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "to let the American people know what they knew and when they knew it." If not, Wilson says, "Congress should hold hearings on the president's role in the obstruction of justice."

Wilson:

"From my viewpoint, the president has stepped in to short circuit the rule of law and the system of justice in our country. In so doing, he has acknowledged Mr. Libby's guilt for, among other things, obstruction of justice, which by definition is covering up for somebody in a crime. By commuting his sentence, he has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."

Asked if he expected Bush to pardon or commute Libby's sentence, Wilson replied, "I have never known what to expect. The administration is now trying call this compromise. At end of day, it's allowing a neoconservative cult to engage in special pleading. … This from the president who refused to listen to the Pope's clemency appeals over the execution of first female prisoner in Texas since the Civil War," referring to the 1998 execution of Karla Faye Tucker while Bush was governor.

Wilson noted the commutation will have no impact on his lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney. Today's presidential decision, he said, "should demonstrate to the American people beyond a reasonable doubt how unbelievably corrupt this administration is from top to bottom."

From Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

From Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office (D-NV):

"The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President's Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law."

From Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

“As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle.”

Just out from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):

"Until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking Administration official leaking classified information. The President's action today makes it clear that he condones such activity. This decision is inconsistent with the rule of law and sends a horrible signal to the American people and our intelligence operatives who place their lives at risk everyday. Now that the White House can no longer argue that there is a pending criminal investigation, I expect them to be fully forthcoming with the American people about the circumstances that led to this leak and the President's decision today."

Update: According to a senior aide at the House Judiciary Committee, the committee is planning a hearing on the commutation, "as early as next week."

Taking his lead from Oliver North, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has hired Brendan V. Sullivan, Washington's most expensive and most powerful lawyer, The Washingtonian reports.

The move makes it look like Stevens isn't taking any chances in the ongoing federal probe into his dealings with Alaska oil services company Veco Corp.

Sullivan is used to going to bat for heavy weight defendants, including North, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who pled guilty to a single misdeamenor at the end of a $9 million probe, and four FBI agents involved in the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootout.

Breaking, from the AP: "President Bush commutes the prison sentence for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby."

Update: The president has reduced Libby's original sentence of thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine by stripping the sentence of the 2 1/2 years of jail time.

Update: Here is the president's statement released by the White House:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation.The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

So much for punishing an infamous nuclear proliferator.

Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, who ran a global network of nuclear-weapons technology -- catering to such clients as Libya, Iran and North Korea --was placed under house arrest by strongman Pervez Musharraf in 2004 under pressure from the Bush administration. House arrest was a compromise: Musharraf feared imprisoning Khan, a national hero, due not only to popular outrage but fear that Khan might disclose collaborators in Musharraf's government. Now, however, the AP reports that Khan is "virtually a free citizen," and has been for "several months," according to Pakistani officials:

In what is believed to be his first public comment in about three years, Khan told The Associated Press that he was recovering from treatment for cancer, but declined to discuss other topics.

Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, confessed in 2004 to heading an international ring of smugglers that supplied sensitive technology to Iran and others.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pardoned him while confining him to his tightly guarded villa in the capital, Islamabad. He has been permitted few visitors.

Musharraf refused to allow U.S. intelligence officials to question Khan, and Congress has raised questions over whether the proliferation network Khan created is truly out of business. Meanwhile, Musharraf's grip on power is loosening, raising the prospect that Khan's newfound freedom is a cynical pander by an increasingly desperate dictator.

From Bloomberg:

Lewis "Scooter'' Libby, an ex-aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, must go to prison while appealing his conviction for obstructing a CIA leak probe, a U.S. appeals court said.

Libby may be behind bars within weeks under the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which denied his request for release during his appeal. The decision will increase pressure on President George W. Bush to decide soon whether to pardon Libby, 56, as the former White House official's supporters have urged.

It sounds like it wasn't even close. The decision by the court was unanimous, the AP reports, while Reuters says "the appeals court turned down Libby in a one-paragraph order, ruling he has not shown that his appeal 'raises a substantial question.'"

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said yesterday that he was prepared to go to court if the White House did not comply with subpoenas the committee issued for information pertaining to the firing of US attorneys. The White House has claimed executive privilege over documents and over testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. (Associated Press)

While the Environmental Protection Agency was considering a waiver that would allow California to implement restrictions on vehicular greenhouse gas emissions, the Transportation Department lobbied against granting the waiver by phoning lawmakers. Emails provided by the Transportation Department show that its employees called lawmakers from states reliant on auto industries and recommended contacting the EPA to say the waiver would hurt the domestic auto industry. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said that the Transportation Department’s actions were inappropriate and possibly illegal. (USA Today)

The transcript for plea hearings for Thomas Kontogiannis, who pled guilty to bribery charges for his involvement in the Duke Cunningham scandal, will remain sealed following a decision by a federal appeals court on Saturday. Federal prosecutors filed to keep the hearings classified. Kontogiannis is expected to be a witness in the trials of his nephew John Michael and defense contractor Brent Wilkes. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

A federal judge ruled last Friday that the chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee of Noxubee County in Mississippi, which is in charge of administering Democratic primaries in the county, violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against whites. It was the first such action by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the history of the act. (Washington Post)

Read more »

At least Lyndon Johnson was introspective. That's the takeaway from Peter Baker's big Washington Post exploration of George W. Bush's "tranquility" in the midst of the compounding disasters of his presidency, from Iraq to Katrina to Alberto Gonzales. Enduring what Baker calls "the most drastic political collapse in a generation," Bush holes up in the White House, turning down appearances where he might face public disapproval, as when he declined to throw out the first pitch for the Washington Nationals' opening day. Even when he calls historians to the White House to discuss precedents for Iraq war strategy or the "nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world," he remains surprisingly confident:

In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.

"You don't get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can't tell you which."

Read more »

What is a politician to do when the other politicians won’t play with him?

Rep. Thomas Wright is an eight-term Democrat in the North Carolina House legislature. This past May 15th, the State Board of Elections looked into Wright’s finances, and were disturbed by what they found: like evidence suggesting that Wright had used over $200,000 of campaign funds for personal use, fraudulently obtained a mortgage, solicited money from a charity with a fake federal tax number, failed to report hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions and forged his campaign treasurer’s signature on checks. The Election Board was so worried that it sent reports to both the House leadership and the local District Attorney.

Now Wright is stuck between two probes: one from state prosecutors and one from the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. But Wright, as he has been quick to remind his detractors, is innocent until proven guilty, and has remained steadfast in his commitment to serve his constituents, despite the fact that the governor, lieutenant governor and Speaker of the House have all called for his resignation (all three are fellow Democrats). Wright says of his situation, “I was elected by the people of my district and I'm here to serve them.... I'm voting and doing what I'm supposed to do.”

Read more »