Lott Opens New Lobbying Shop

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 5:39PM

Surprise, surprise. From Roll Call (sub. req.):

Putting weeks of speculation to rest, former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) confirmed Friday they plan to file paperwork next week to form a powerful lobbying partnership called The Breaux Lott Leadership Group....

“This is not a well kept secret to say the least,” Lott said. “We’ve worked together for many years in the House and Senate and in the leadership together in the Senate. We thought it was a good opportunity and a fun opportunity to work together.

“We start next Monday and we’re hoping to find some business.”...

While Breaux left the Senate three years ago, Lott abruptly resigned his seat late last year — a move that fueled speculation that he wanted to leave his post before new, stricter lobbying restrictions took effect.

MLB Steroids Scandal

Waxman Invites Clemens, Other Players to Testify

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 5:07PM

House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) has set a date, January 16th and invited a stable of players fingered in the Mitchell Report to testify, he announced today. They are: Brian McNamee, Kirk Radomski, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, and Roger Clemens.

Tough luck, Spencer. Looks like the Yanks are very well represented.

Norman Hsu

Hsu Heads to Prison

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 4:28PM

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better for Norman Hsu, the bizarre Hillraiser and fraudster.

He's been sent off to prison for 3 years to serve time for the fraud he was convicted of way back in 1992. And he still has to go to trial for the Ponzi scheme he was charged with by federal prosecutors in New York.

Torture

Padilla Sues DoJ Official for Authorizing Torture

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 2:50PM

Here's an approach I haven't seen before. From The Chicago Tribune:

In the latest legal contest over the treatment of detained terrorist suspects, attorneys for Jose Padilla filed a suit in a California federal district court this morning against John Yoo, the former deputy assistant Attorney General whose legal opinions formed the basis for Padilla's detention and the interrogation techniques used against him that the attorneys call torture....

The suit filed this morning in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, turns the spotlight of blame on Yoo, the author of a series of legal memoranda known collectively as the "Torture Memos." Drafted in 2002, when Yoo was a deputy assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, they provided the legal justification for the interrogation techniques used on suspected Al Qaeda operatives that many, from former generals to presidential candidates, have since decried as torture.

"John Yoo is the first person in American history to provide the legal authorization for the instiution of torture in the U.S.," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney representing Padilla in the suit. "He [Yoo] was an absolutely essential part of what will be viewed by history as a group of rogue officials acting under cover of law to undermine fundamental rights.it never would have happened without the legal green light. That made it possible."

Election 2008

How Much Will The FEC Shutdown Affect The '08 Election?

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 1:45PM

The Federal Election Commission, the agency that administers and enforces campaign finance laws, has shut down.

How big of a deal is that? Well, the consequences will not be immediately felt -- but if it stays shut down, it could significantly affect the 2008 elections.

As of now, the FEC has only two commissioners. It needs four to do anything. The reason for the shortage, of course, is the Senate stalemate over vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky's nomination. Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others have opposed Republicans' efforts to have Spakovsky bundled with three other FEC nominees (2 Dems and another Republican).

And when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to hold up-or-down votes on each of the nominees separately in December, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked it. And that's where things stand. The White House says that it's standing behind Spakovsky (even though he's packed his bags and gone).

The FEC's shutdown could affect the election in a number of ways. The first and most obvious is the oversight role it plays with third party groups, such as 527s and nonprofits that spend tens of millions of dollars each election. But there are other -- probably greater -- ramifications.

For instance, the FEC disburses public matching funds for candidates. Since it's shutdown, it's prevented from doing that. And since John Edwards is the highest profile candidate to participate in that system, it might become a problem for him.

In December, The Washington Post hit on this, and Edwards staffers pronounced themselves unconcerned:

Read more »

Election 2008

We Can't Be Too Careful!

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 11:39AM

As far as dirty tricks go, I'm sure we're going to see a lot worse this campaign, especially when it comes to the general election.

But the anonymous letters sent to Iowa pastors supporting Mike Huckabee still deserve a tip of the hat:

Rev. Brad Sherman of Iowa was kind enough to pass this one along. He said it came in an envelope with no return address and addressed with a printed mailing label. Enclosed was a printout from the IRS website.

It's not clear yet how many people received this letter. Huckabee's spokesman has made noises about possibly seeking a criminal investigation, but given the crudeness and lameness of the attempt (if you're going to pull a dirty trick, why not at least pose as the IRS or the Justice Department?), I doubt that would get very far. Clearly it didn't have much of an effect.

U.S. Attorneys

Return to The Fold

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 10:16AM

From The Swamp:

Mukasey announced today that he's appointing Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the Attorney General's advisory committee of U.S. attorneys.

Fitzgerald was on the committee from 2001 until 2005, but his appointment to it preceded his service as special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation....

Gonzales... did not re-appoint Fitzgerald to the advisory panel, which counsels the attorney general on law enforcement issues.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

Andrew Berger | January 4, 2008, 10:07AM

The President's questionable pocket veto of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act has left the future of some military bonuses uncertain. Until the bill - which provides funding for bonuses - becomes law, the bonuses for the Army and Air Force will not be guaranteed, although they are expected to be paid retroactively. (Army Times, Air Force Times)

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman will have to stay in prison while he appeals his conviction for bribery and obstruction of justice, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller argued that Siegelman's conviction was not likely to be overturned. (Birmingham News)

The criminal inquiry into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes is pitting the FBI against the CIA. Agents from the FBI, which has been critical of the CIA's interrogation practices, are leading the investigation. (New York Times)

Despite Hans von Spakovsky's resignation from the Federal Elections Committee, the White House says that his nomination for the FEC is still active in the Senate and has not been withdrawn. (The Politico)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | January 4, 2008, 9:46AM

You can say that the Bush Administration is a band of crooks. You can say that they're by and large incompetent. But you can't say they lack chutzpah.

And when it comes to chutzpah, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson clearly has got what it takes. But will he hold the line now that Congress is bringing its probing power to bear?

Late last month, Johnson denied California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. It was an act of pure, unmitigated, just-because-I-can chutzpah.

A little background first: California's rule would seek to cut emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016. Not surprisingly, that's a much steeper cut than the Bush Administration (and the auto industry) wants. Since other states are following California's lead, half of the American population (and car consumers) could be affected. The CEOs of Ford and Chrysler met with Dick Cheney late last year to have a chat about this.

But Johnson came through. Consider Johnson denied California its waiver (states have to get the EPA's OK before instituting environmental rules) despite:

-- the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs that he should grant the waiver

-- being told by the agency's legal staff that if he blocked the waiver, EPA would lose in court when California and environmentalists sued, but that if he granted the waiver, the move would stand in court no matter who challenged it

-- not having any real reason for denying the waiver

-- California has never had a waiver denied in the Clean Air Act's 37-year history

So far, in the two weeks since Johnson made his move, journalists haven't had much luck finding anyone who will say that his decision is supportable. The Washington Post quoted William Reilly, who was EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush as saying, "What I want to know from the [administration] is: What possible grounds would there possibly be to deny California this waiver?"

As for Johnson and the administration, their tactic seems to be to brazen their way through this.

The President has offered a "clear national solution" to the problem of auto greenhouse omissions, Johnson said. He had to block California's rules because it would lead to a "confusing patchwork of state rules."

And about that unanimous-staff-revolt thing? His spokeswoman says that Johnson "tremendously values the legal and technical expertise of his staff," but that "the Clean Air Act states that the authority to decide waiver requests rests with the administrator. He evaluated the waiver ... and obviously he made his decision." So there.

President Bush certainly thought Johnson made the right call. "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" So much for state's rights.

But now comes the real test of Johnson's chutzpah reservoir. House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) says that he'll investigate the decision. Senate environmental committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will hold hearings. And yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) requested that the EPA's inspector general launch an investigation.

And don't forget the courts. That lawsuit with the foreordained outcome has already been launched. Yesterday, California, 15 other states, and five environmental group filed suit.

How will Johnson hold up under Waxman's questioning? Stay tuned.

U.S. Attorneys

AP: Vet Prosecutor Replaces Fresh Faced Bushie Phenom

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 5:41PM

Out with the new, in with the old:

The Justice Department is replacing youth with experience, naming veteran prosecutor Frank Magill to take over for embattled Rachel Paulose as U.S. attorney for Minnesota.

Magill, 48, the first assistant U.S. attorney, will take over the position on Sunday, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said. Under federal law, he can remain acting U.S. attorney for up to 210 days, Carr said.

Now, will Magill invite Paulose to his coronation?

CIA Tapes

Harman Warned against Destroying Tapes in 2003

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 2:53PM

The CIA's initial defense for destroying the videotapes showing interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees was that they'd briefed members of Congress about their intention to do this long ago.

To which, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the former chair of the House intelligence committee responded: yes, we were told, and I told them not to do it. She said that she'd made that explicit in a letter to the CIA's general counsel in February of 2003, but that the letter was classified. She asked the CIA to declassify it.

Well, the CIA declassified the letter and today she released it (I've posted it below in full). Here's the relevant excerpt:

You discussed [in a briefing the previous week] the fact that there is videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry. I would urge the Agency to reconsider that plan. Even if the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law, the videotape would be the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future. The fact of destruction would reflect badly on the Agency.

The reply from the CIA's General Counsel Scott Muller later that month, also posted below, did not address this issue.

You can see a scan of Harman's letter here (pdf).

Read more »

Conrad Burns

Justice Dept. Says Ex-Sen Burns is Off The Hook

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 11:50AM

It came about a year too late to do him any good, but the Justice Department has notified ex-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) that he's no longer under investigation for his ties to Jack Abramoff. Burns, you may remember, lost very narrowly to Jon Tester (D) last November, with Burns' Abramoff problem a huge issue in the election.

The feds had been investigating whether Burns helped Abramoff's tribal clients in exchange for tens of thousands in campaign contributions and other goodies. Abramoff himself said that he got whatever he wanted from Burns and that his staffers "pratically" used Abramoff's D.C. restaurant Signatures "as their cafeteria."

Abramoff continues to busily cooperate with investigators from prison. But whatever prosecutors came up with on Burns, they apparently didn't think it would stick in court -- bribery cases, of course, are notoriously hard to make.

Burns, who spent around $300,000 in campaign contributions on defense lawyers, fittingly got a lobbying gig after his forced retirement. And how does he feel about not being under investigation for the first time in more than two years? He says that he feels "so great that it's unbelievable." I'll bet he's "ready to go get knee-walking drunk."

Update: Don't forget that Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) are still very much on the hook.

CIA Tapes

The Second Coming

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 11:12AM

The papers take a look at John Durham, the prosecutor Attorney General Michael Mukasey tapped to investigate whether anyone broke any laws by keeping secret and then destroying the CIA's torture tapes, and find that even if he doesn't have the same independence as Patrick Fitzgerald, he's made from the same stuff.

From The Los Angeles Times:

"Think of him as the second coming of Patrick Fitzgerald," said Jeffrey Meyer, a professor at Quinnipiac University law school in Hamden, Conn., who worked alongside Durham as a federal prosecutor for many years. "So far as I could tell, he does not have a political bone in his body. He is nothing but thorough and dogged in the way he pursues cases."

From The Washington Post:

Four friends said they could not recall him losing a case in more than 30 years as a prosecutor, almost all of it spent fighting organized crime and gang violence in Connecticut....

"He's Fitzgerald with a sense of humor," said Hugh O'Keefe, a Connecticut criminal defense lawyer who has known Durham for 20 years.

Civil Rights Division

Hans Has Left The Building

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 10:25AM

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Hans von Spakovsky threw in the towel on New Years Eve, in an e-mail sent out to supporters....

"Today was my last official day as a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission," he wrote. "The Senate officially adjourned today without acting on my nomination... I wanted to thank everyone for their support over the past two years while I was going through this confirmation battle. All of the telephone calls, emails and notes I received from people were great encouragement for me."

Von Spakovsky attached an endorsement by the Wall Street Journal, though he added that "it did not help in the end in convincing the Democrats to vote to confirm me."

I'll guess he'll just have to intimidate federal employees and work to disenfranchise minorities from outside the government now.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

Andrew Berger | January 3, 2008, 10:05AM

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was penalized last year by the FEC for failing to disclose that his campaign fund went into debt for legal expenses related to the Mark Foley (R-FL) investigation. Hastert announced last year that he would retire from the House of Representatives. (Washington Post)

Politicians and lobbyists are already finding ways around the new ethics rules that took effect this year. And some new rules have not been implemented at all because of the battle in the Senate over nominees to the Federal Election Commission. (New York Times)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has not received replies to his requests from Bush administration officials asking for more information about allegations that female employees working for KBR, a government contractor, have been raped or sexually assaulted in Iraq. (ABC's The Blotter)

Read more »

George Bush

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | January 3, 2008, 9:43AM

The eight year Constitutional law seminar that is the Bush Administration continues!

Today's lesson: the pocket veto.

Last week, the president claimed to have sunk Congress' defense authorization bill by pocket veto. Now Democrats are saying he can't do that.

We'll start first with the Constitution says, and then go on to what the Bush administration says it says.

Article I, section 7 of the Constitution says that the president must sign or veto legislation passed by Congress within ten days (not counting Sundays). If he signs it, it becomes law. If he vetoes it, then Congress can override his veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses. And if he does not sign or veto it while Congress is in session, it becomes law. But if Congress is not in session and he doesn't sign it, then it neither becomes law nor can Congress override it. The bill is dead. That's a pocket veto.

So on December 28th, the president proclaimed that the defense authorization bill was dead by pocket veto. (For some background on the substance of the dispute -- why Bush doesn't like the bill and Dems' frustration with the fact that the administration didn't raise the objection until after the bill passed -- see here.) Congress will just have to start over. Keep in mind that the bill passed both houses with veto-proof majorities.

But, as Kagro X at Daily Kos first pointed out, there's a problem with that. Though the president said that "adjournment of Congress" allowed him to pocket veto, Congress was not, in fact, in adjournment.

To prevent administration monkey business during the holiday recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) kept the Senate in pro forma session throughout. By keeping the Senate nominally in session (someone shows up for a few minutes every third day), Reid stifled the administration's desire for a bunch of recess appointments.

So now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is saying that the pocket veto is bunk. From The Hill:

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.

Now, it's possible that the White House just didn't think this one through. Or maybe they thought no one would call them on it. In any case, the White House has responded with a Constitutional interpretation that seems somewhat improvisational.

True, the Senate was in session, they say. But we sent the president's veto to the House, and they were in recess. So voila! pocket veto!

The White House argues it pocket-vetoed the defense bill on Dec. 28 by sending it back to the House with a message of disapproval. It argues that a pocket veto was possible because the House, where the bill originated, was out of session.

“A pocket veto, as you know, is essentially putting it in your pocket and not taking any action whatsoever. And when Congress — the House is out of session — in this case it’s our view that bill then would not become law,” White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Monday.

The Hill gets a take on the White House's tap dancing from a Constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress -- he gives it a resounding thumbs down.

As for what happens from here, it's not clear. If the House moves for an override next week and the White House objects, the whole thing could end up in court. That's probably not something the administration wants to happen. The pocket veto seems to be an executive power which, like executive privilege, is very infrequently tested in court. But with this administration's fervent belief in the executive's power, you never know.

Do we have our first contestant for the Bush Administration's dumbest legal arguments of 2008?

CIA Tapes

Pols Vow to Continue Tape Probes

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 6:03PM

Congress and the Justice Department didn't play together very nice last year. And there may be more of that to come.

For the record, just because Michael Mukasey has ordered a criminal investigation into the CIA's torture tapes, lawmakers want everyone to know that Congress isn't backing down.

That's the word from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who says in a statement:

"We... have an obligation to continue our own congressional investigation and that is exactly what we will do.

“Our negotiations with the CIA and DOJ over the scope of our investigation are ongoing. I fully expect their continued cooperation, including relevant testimony and documents, so that the Committee can thoroughly review and publicly report on all actions related to the destruction of the tapes.”

And House intel chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), whose probe has been much more aggressive, says the same:

Read more »

CIA Tapes

Conyers "Disappointed" Mukasey Didn't Appoint Special Counsel for Tapes Probe

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 5:13PM

A statement just out from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hits on Mukasey's decision not to tap Durham as a special counsel:

While I certainly agree that these matters warrant an immediate criminal investigation, it is disappointing that the Attorney General has stepped outside the Justice Department’s own regulations and declined to appoint a more independent special counsel in this matter. Because of this action, the Congress and the American people will be denied – as they were in the Valerie Plame matter – any final report on the investigation.

Equally disappointing is the limited scope of this investigation, which appears limited to the destruction of two tapes. The government needs to scrutinize what other evidence may have been destroyed beyond the two tapes, as well as the underlying allegations of misconduct associated with the interrogations.

The Justice Department’s record over the past seven years of sweeping the administration’s misconduct under the rug has left the American public with little confidence in the Administration’s ability to investigate itself. Nothing less than a special counsel with a full investigative mandate will meet the tests of independence, transparency and completeness. Appointment of a special counsel will allow our nation to begin to restore our credibility and moral standing on these issues.

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey Statement on CIA Tape Probe

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 3:24PM

Michael Mukasey's statement on opening a full-blown criminal investigation of the CIA tapes probe is below.

Interestingly, Durham has not been tapped as a special counsel (like Patrick Fitzgerald (pdf) was) -- rather, because the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia recused his office from the probe, Durham will be serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Update: What this means, as Marty Lederman puts it, is that Durham is neither an "outside," nor "special," nor "independent" prosecutor. "Durham will still report to the Deputy Attorney General, who in turn reports to Judge Mukasey."

Read more »

CIA Tapes

Mukasey Taps 30-Year Vet Prosecutor for Tapes Probe

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 3:12PM

The man Michael Mukasey chose to lead the CIA tapes probe is John Durham. Who is John Durham? Well, the short answer is a 30-year veteran prosecutor with some serious experience with tough prosecutions.

We've posted his work experience below, as passed along by the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut, where Durham serves as the deputy.

As the AP puts it, "Durham has a reputation as one of the nation's most relentless prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI's use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public officials to prison."

Update: From The Washington Post:

Durham is well known in New England legal circles as a tough, publicity-averse prosecutor who has specialized in organized crime cases. Former attorney general Janet Reno named Durham as a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that FBI agents and police officers in Boston had ties to mafia informants. He is a registered Republican, according to Connecticut voter records.

The Boston probe led to the 2002 racketeering conviction of retired FBI agent John J. Connolly Jr., who was the handler for gangster James "Whitey" Bulger, a former FBI informant who is now a fugitive.

Durham's history is below.

Read more »

CIA Tapes

Breaking: Mukasey Opens Criminal Probe into CIA Tapes' Destruction

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 2:54PM

Breaking from the AP:

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey appointed an outside prosecutor to oversee the case....

"The Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation," Mukasey said in a statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee the case.

Durham is the deputy U.S. attorney in Connecticut, where he worked with Kevin O'Connor, who's currently the acting #3 at the department. We'll have more on him in a second.

Update: The AP doesn't have this quite right. Durham is not an "outside counsel."

CIA Tapes

9/11 Comissioners Wag Finger at CIA

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 12:27PM

There really wasn't much doubt about what members of the 9/11 commission thought about the CIA's failure to tell them about the videotapes of agents interrogating Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri.

But in today's New York Times, the commission's chairman, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean (R), and its vice chairman, Lee Hamilton (D), make the bottom line clear. The op-ed runs under the title, "Stonewalled by the C.I.A."

The commission never explicitly asked for videotapes of interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees, they write, but "the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot" was crystal clear. When they felt unsatisfied with the information the CIA had provided about the interrogations of Zubaydah and others, the commission even sought to interview the detainees directly. After extensive back and forth, the administration denied that request -- but didn't mention that videotapes of the interrogations existed.

One of the things the Justice Department inquiry of the tapes' destruction will (or should) be looking at is whether the failure to produce the tapes to the 9/11 commission constitutes a crime. Kean and Hamilton, for their part, make a point of using the "O" word in their conclusion:

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

Andrew Berger | January 2, 2008, 9:50AM

Push-polling is alive and well in the Iowa Democratic Caucus. Voters have reported receiving anonymous phone calls criticizing all three of the top Democractic candidates. (AP)

In the deadliest attack in Baghdad in months, a suicide bomber killed 30 people yesterday. The bombing was one of a number of attacks to hit Iraq yesterday, leaving a total of no less than 40 people dead. (New York Times)

Last week was a busy week in the case of Cyril Wecht, a former Allegheny County Coroner who is facing trial for fraud (and whose lawyers, former attorney general Dick Thornburgh among them, say that he's the victim of political prosecution). Last Friday prosecutors moved to dismiss 43 of the 84 charges against Wecht, claiming that this would "streamline the proof and timing of the trial." That same day Wecht's defense attorneys asked the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the judge, Arthur J. Schwab, claiming that he is biased against their client. And last Thursday three local media organizations challenged in appeals court Judge Schwab's order to seat a nearly anonymous jury in the case, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | January 2, 2008, 9:37AM

It turns out the Pakistani government is as good at public relations as they are at detective work.

After absurdly insisting for days that Benazir Bhutto had died from the blow of her head against the sun roof of her vehicle (when she ducked down due to the close range gun fire), the government seemed to finally come clean.

It was all the fault of the Interior Ministry's hasty spokesman, who'd floated the sun roof theory, it turned out. During a meeting with Pakistani newspaper journalists, the Interior Minister, Hamid Nawaz, asked them to "please forgive us and ignore the comment." Because, well, "we are not so articulate to present our views as you journalists can."

But it was only a couple of hours, apparently, before the government took back the take-back -- in the form of a "clarification." As Pakistan's News summarizes a government press release, "As a matter of fact [Nawaz] had merely appealed to the editors to overlook the tone and style of the spokesman which may not have been received well."

So it's back to the sun roof.

Meanwhile, The Chicago Tribune had a good rundown yesterday on the government's "bizarre" inquiry into Bhutto's assassination. Beyond the now-infamous decision not to perform an autopsy, there was the decision to cordon off the crime scene and wash it down with fire hoses afterward.

I'm worried that CSI:Islamabad just won't make it off the ground.

Alphonso Jackson

TPM´s Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials

Paul Kiel | December 31, 2007, 11:20AM

Boy, was it time for an update.

Late last year we decided to take stock of all the Bush Administration officials who'd been accused of corruption and/or resigned in the face of scandal. Although we had fun doing it, we altruistically started the project in order to help our friends at Powerline, who professed an inability to think of any Bush officials beset by scandal.

This year´s result, which built on Justin Rood´s original gem, is, like our catalog of the administration´s efforts to disappear information, a staggering monument to the Bush Administration. And it wouldn't have been possible without TPM's research hounds, Adrianne Jeffries, Andrew Berger, and Peter Sheehy.

A quick note on methodology. Since a complete catalog of administration officials who've been accused of some form of corruption or abuse of power would be endless, we tried to maintain a high standard for inclusion. Most of those below were the subjects of criminal probes, but we also included officials who were credibly accused of acts that, if not criminal, were a corruption of office (like the U.S. attorney scandal). And even then, such officials were only included if their accusers had them dead to rights (which is why Karl Rove didn't make the cut). We also limited ourselves to officials who were either political appointees or whose actions were so political that they were effectively political appointees (like John Tanner).

Enjoy:

Read more »

Torture

The Tale of The Tapes

Paul Kiel | December 31, 2007, 10:20AM

Why did the CIA choose to videotape its interrogations of the first Al Qaeda detainees?

The short answer provided by The New York Times piece this weekend, based on "interviews with two dozen current and former officials," proves misleading. And there are a host of competing theories to sort through. But in the end, it´s really not so complicated.

The story's straightforward headline, "Tapes by C.I.A. Lived and Died to Save Image," is based on the idea that the videotaping was "prompted in part by worry about how [the agency´s interrogation methods] might be perceived — by Congress, by prosecutors, by the American public and by Muslims worldwide," as the Times puts it. According to this theory, the CIA was trying to cover its ass by showing that it was keeping to authorized techniques. That same fear was behind the drive to destroy the tapes.

But the bulk of the reporting of the piece tends towards a very different interpretation. There were plenty of reasons to want to videotape the interrogations, and one simple reason to want them destroyed. Buzzy Krongard (yep, that Buzzy) -- one of the very few CIA officials who spoke to the Times on the record -- puts it best:

Read more »

The Daily Muck

The Daily Muck

Andrew Berger | December 31, 2007, 10:10AM

The FBI's chat with Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) led to new revelations in the case against the congressman. During questioning in August of 2005, Jefferson led investigators to James Creaghan, a lobbyist who asked Jefferson for help obtaining contracts in Africa. Of the thirteen bribery schemes alleged in the indictment against Jefferson, five are linked to either Creaghan or one of his business associates. (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

South Carolina Republicans are investigating the origin of a fake holiday greeting card purporting to be from Mitt Romney's family. The card cites passages from the Book of Mormon such as "God the Father had a plurality of wives." (Los Angeles Times)

Objecting to the use of torture in interrogations, Navy JAG Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Williams has resigned his commission. In his letter of resignation, Williams cited both Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann's refusal to call waterboarding torture and the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes as reasons for leaving the Navy. (Think Progress)

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | December 31, 2007, 9:33AM

The year's end is a time for remembering -- and we here at TPM are just falling all over ourselves in a general fit of nostalgia. While the Golden Dukes constitute our tribute to the brightest stars in 2007's constellation of muck, there's just too much to commemorate for one website to bear.

Dahlia Lithwick has as good an approach as any over at Slate, celebrating "the Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year." Now, as you can imagine, these arguments are not simply singled out for their stupidity. They are honored for their brazen opposition to common sense and the facts.

The administration's gravest offenses get special billing: "The United States does not torture" gets number one. And "the NSA's eavesdropping was limited in scope," kicks off the countdown.

But while the gravity of those assertions makes me question whether they can be described as "dumb," there are plenty of truly stupid legal arguments to go around: "The vice president's office is not a part of the executive branch" and "Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege," for example. And fittingly enough, "Alberto Gonzales" gets number three on the top-ten list, special recognition for a man who not only parroted a vast catalog of stupid and/or dishonest arguments, but looked dumb doing it.

Enjoy. We'll miss you 2007! But not to worry, as long as Dick Cheney -- and especially David Addington, who has a genius for dumb legal arguments -- remain in office, 2008 won't disappoint.

Note: Dahlia´s list is perfect as is, and she had to stop somewhere. But the White House's desperate efforts to keep the Secret Service's visitor logs secret deserve a special commendation for stupidity. Readers are invited to nominate others.