The administration's strategy became clear yesterday: there will be no compromise. The Democrats will back down and pass the Senate's version of the surveillance bill (with retroactive immunity for the telecoms), or they will be consistently attacked for exposing the country to risk.

The strategy continued today. For the second day in a row, Republicans boycotted talks to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the surveillance bill.

And Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey got in the act, sending a letter to House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that claimed that the lapse of the Protect America Act this past weekend has already had a significant impact on intelligence collection. You can read that whole letter here. They write:

"We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act."

Democrats and experts have said that wiretapping of certain terrorist groups authorized under the Protect America Act will be good for a year. New wiretaps would be authorized under the old FISA law. But the DNI and AG are saying that the telecoms or other private sector partners in wiretapping are balking -- at least in part because it's now unclear whether they will be granted immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. They write that "most partners" are still cooperating, but they've expressed "deep misgivings."

Later on in the letter, they write that the "significant difficulties" the administration had working with the private sector due to the failure to get them immunity "have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill.... Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate."

In a statement responding to the letter and the Republicans' continued boycott of the bill talks, the chairmen of the judiciary and intelligence committees charged that this was further evidence of Republican efforts to politicize the debate:

"They cannot have it both ways; if it is true that the expiration of the PAA has caused gaps in intelligence, then it was irresponsible for the President and congressional Republicans to block an extension of the law. Accordingly, they should join Democrats in extending it until we can resolve our differences."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) echoed a similar line:

“If this is true, then it was grossly irresponsible for the President to threaten to veto and Congressional Republicans to vote against a PAA extension and any intelligence gap would be one of their own creation. Again, if Republicans truly believe gaps are created by a PAA expiration, they should support a temporary extension and join us in quickly crafting a strong, bipartisan FISA modernization bill that represents the best of the House and Senate passed bills.”

Eric already posted this over at EC, but it's worth repeating here. Here's a new web ad from the House Republicans about the current surveillance bill showdown.

I don't really have anything to add besides, "Wow." Do not watch that in the dark.

Remember that yesterday, Republicans made it clear that there will be no negotiating. So either Dems give in and award the telecoms immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, or the Republicans will strive for even better produced efforts at fear-mongering.

From Reuters:

But at a campaign stop in Indiana, McCain replied with a dismissive "no" when asked if he was concerned by the FEC's letter.

"It's not a decision. It's an opinion, according to our people," he said.

See my rundown of the issue here. Essentially what McCain is saying is that since the FEC is effectively shut down, a letter from its chairman carries no weight.

It's a take that drew a sharp analogy from Republican election lawyer Jan Baran, who was quoted by The Washington Post as saying that McCain's position ""is like saying you're going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) had more forceful words than John McCain's for Rick Renzi:

"The charges contained in this indictment are completely unacceptable for a member of Congress, and I strongly urge Rep. Renzi to seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances."

As we mentioned earlier, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) is one of two dozen co-chairs of John McCain's campaign in Arizona. When reporters asked him today what he thought about Renzi's indictment, he seems to have gotten a little tongue-tied. From the AP:

McCain seemed surprised when asked in Indianapolis for his reaction to the indictment, choosing his words carefully, shaking his head and speaking slowly.

"I'm sorry. I feel for the family; as you know, he has 12 children," McCain told reporters on the presidential campaign trail. "But I don't know enough of the details to make a judgment. These kinds of things are always very unfortunate. ... I rely on our Department of Justice and system of justice to make the right outcome."

While the timing of the indictment might have been a surprise, it should not have been unexpected. The federal investigation of Renzi was first reported in the fall of 2006. The FBI raided his wife's office in April of 2007.

Back then, as Renzi was pressured to resign from all three of his committee assignments. He did. He was also pressured to resign. McCain refused to join in those calls -- and also expressed a similar ignorance about the case, the details of which had been widely reported:

When asked Wednesday if the embattled Renzi would continue to play a part in his campaign, McCain said: "Look, Rick obviously has got great difficulties now. I know nothing about his case. He's in my prayers. He's in my prayers. And that's all I'm going to say. All this stuff will come out."

Well, now it's finally come out. And it's still unclear as of right now whether Renzi will continue to play a part in the campaign.

The Pentagon was successful in preventing Col. Morris Davis from testifying before Congress. But he's taking a step that could be even more damaging: agreeing to testify as a defense witness in a Guantanamo Bay tribunal. From the AP:

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned in October over alleged political interference in the U.S. military tribunals, told The Associated Press he will appear at a hearing for Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

"I expect to be called as a witness ... I'm more than happy to testify," Davis said in a telephone interview from Washington. He called it "an opportunity to tell the truth."

At the April pretrial hearing inside the U.S. military base in southeast Cuba, Hamdan's defense team plans to argue that alleged political interference cited by Davis violates the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, told the AP.

The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.) that Morris' testimony could potentially impact all of the tribunals.

Davis also repeats to the AP what he told The Nation: that William Haynes, the Pentagon official currently overseeing the tribunals, had told Davis in 2005 that "We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions."

We noted this yesterday. But The Washington Post does a good job today in sizing up the situation and its possible mammoth consequences for McCain's campaign.

There are really two completely separate issues here.

First, McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year. It meant that his struggling campaign would get $5.8 million in public matching funds in March. Now that he's effectively the Republican nominee, he wants out, because the system entails a spending limit of $54 million through the end of August. He's almost spent that much already, according to the Post.

So the McCain campaign sent the Federal Election Commission a letter (pdf) earlier this month saying that he was opting out. But there's a problem. And FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, made it plain in his letter (pdf) yesterday: McCain can't tell the FEC that he's out of the system. He can only ask.

And the FEC, which normally has six commissioners, can't give him an answer until it has a quorum of four commissioners. It currently only has two. That's because the Senate has been deadlocked over four nominees; Democrats insist on a separate confirmation vote for vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky, and Republicans insist on a single vote for all nominees.

The second issue has to do with McCain's tricky loan and whether the FEC will conclude that it locked him into the system. But for now, that's really ancillary to the first issue.

It is a serious issue. As the Post reports, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."

Read more »

From the AP:

Republican Rep. Rick Renzi has been indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges related to a land deal in Arizona.

A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Arizona accuses Renzi and two former business partners of conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government. The sale netted one of Renzi's former partners $4.5 million.

Here's the indictment.

Update: The charges boil down to this, basically. Renzi (who's already said he won't seek re-election) is charged with doing everything he can as a congressman to strong-arm others into buying land from his buddy James Sandlin -- Sandlin then allegedly kicked back sizable chunks of cash back to Renzi in a series of complicated financial transactions (thus the money laundering charge). The main details of these charges were reported by the Arizona papers and The Wall Street Journal last year.

Update: Yikes. In a completely separate matter, the indictment charges Renzi with a conspiracy to "embezzle and misappropriate client premiums [from his insurance company] to fund his congressional campaign."

Update: It's worth recalling that the Renzi case played a small role in the U.S. attorneys' firings scandal. One of the fired U.S. attorneys was Arizona's Paul Charlton. The investigation dates way back to June of 2005, but it did not surface publicly under shortly before the 2006 midterm elections. Renzi's people, obviously, weren't happy, and an aide to Renzi put in a call to Charlton (who in turn reported the contact to the Justice Department leadership).

And the Wall Street Journal later reported that investigators and prosecutors in Arizona had been frustrated with senior Justice Department officials' general reluctance to pursue the investigation. The thrust of the piece was that the investigation had been slow-rolled in the run-up to the election.

Update: Renzi is, at least for the time being, a co-chair of John McCain's Arizona Leadership Team (he's one of 24 co-chairs). One imagines he won't be such a public advocate for McCain this election.

A group of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, many who have been held for seven years as enemy combatants, have pleaded with the Supreme Court that any further delay in the appeals about their detention (filed under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) would be "unconscionable." The Bush administration, however, is seeking to delay or derail the appeals process because it believes that due process will "impose extraordinary compliance burdens" and pose a "serious threat to national security." (New York Times)

The CIA now admits that when the U.S. government assured Great Britain and the American press that the U.S. had not used British territory for refueling planes that were transporting alleged terrorists to secret overseas prisons, it made an "administrative error." Prime Minister Gordon Brown seems to be accepting the "mistakes were made" argument, yet Brown shares "the disappointment that everybody has" about the use of Diego Gracia in the U.S.'s "extraordinary rendition" program. (AP)

Despite the fact that Pakistani President Musharraf was routed in the recent elections, President Bush believes that Musharraf should continue to play a role in the new government and that the new government should not reinstate the judges that the former president dismissed last year. Bush's position has caused friction with his own Department of State and diplomats fear that it could provoke turmoil in Pakistan. (McClatchy )

Read more »

It still remains to be seen whether yesterday's New York Times piece will be the last word on John McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman. For now, the Times quoted anonymous aides saying that they'd suspected there was an affair ongoing; McCain denies that there was.

But remember that the Times piece ran under the memorably lame headline, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk." There's a broader point there. Set aside the issue of the nature of his relationship with Iseman, and you have the undeniable conflict of McCain, the chest-beating reformer, being so undeniably close to lobbyists. That, many have pointed out, is the real story. The man who's absurdly proclaimed that "I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to" is surrounded by lobbyists.

And The Washington Post, a day after it ran its own Iseman story on page one, goes with that story on today's front page under the concise headline, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists."

The story involves quite a roll call:

-- "His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications."

-- "His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways."

-- "Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae."

-- "McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals."

-- "McCain's top fundraising official is former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who heads a lobbying law firm called the Loeffler Group. He has counseled the Saudis as well as Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Toyota and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America."

McCain, of course, insists that he's incorruptible. During yesterday's press conference, he proclaimed “I’ve never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group — that’s a clear, 24-year record.” Maybe he just keeps all those lobbyists around to test his fortitude.

Jake Tapper over at ABC takes a look at John McCain's remark during this morning's press conference that we noted earlier.

And the McCain campaign tells him that when McCain said "the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play," he meant the then-former chairman, Reed Hundt (a frequent TPMCafe contributor) -- not the FCC chairman in 2000, William Kennard. Kennard, obviously, felt unduly pressured by the letter. Hundt, apparently, thought "nothing was objectionable."

As we noted in another post, the McCain camp has stretched to the limit of credibility in trying to downplay McCain's role in the Paxson letters. But certainly this meaning of the line would have substantially changed the way we approached our earlier post.

Well, this is probably why the Republicans didn't show up today to help hash out a compromise. There's not going to be one. From the AP:

President Bush on Thursday stood by his demand for legal protection for phone companies that help the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, saying he sees no prospect of a compromise with congressional Democrats on the subject....

Asked about a potential deal with Democrats, Bush said, "I would just tell you there's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection." The administration says it needs the help of the phone companies for its post Sept. 11, 2001, surveillance.

Bush said his strategy for breaking the deadlock on the surveillance bill will be to keep talking about why it should be passed on his terms. "The American people understand we need to be listening to the enemy," he said.

Update: Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), ranking member of the intelligence committee, echoes the sentiment in a statement:

“Last week, the House Democratic leadership had the opportunity to put national security first but they chose instead to leave town for a twelve day vacation. Today’s so-called bicameral staff meeting is nothing more than a partisan attempt by Democratic staff at the 11th hour to dismantle the bipartisan compromise that a majority of the Senate and the House support.

“The time for excuses and more meetings is over. House Democratic leaders have had months to work in a bipartisan fashion yet they have done nothing but stall. If they want to work in good faith they should give their members the opportunity to pass the bipartisan compromise that protects civil liberties and gives our terror fighters the tools they need to keep American families safe.”

So the Republicans have done their negotiating -- and it resulted in the Senate bill, which contains retroactive immunity. The negotiating is over.

If John McCain was too close for comfort with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, what did she have to show for it?

The New York Times story made a run at cataloging the possible favors. And with the exception of the letters I noted in my earlier posts, it's pretty thin gruel.

The Times sums most of it up in a single paragraph (here's the McCain camp's point-by-point rebuttal):

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence? When the Times took a look at McCain's actions as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee back in 2000, it reached the conclusion that McCain had frequently taken actions benefiting campaign contributors.

Iseman's client Paxson was a case in point. The company and its lobbyists had contributed $20,000 to McCain and flown him around on their corporate jet. And that was the obvious angle to the stories about McCain's letters to the FCC in late 1999: that Mr. Straight Talk Express and campaign finance reform was at the beck and call of special interests.

But Paxson was far from unique. The Times also reported that McCain had weighed in on behalf of Baby Bell telephone companies seeking to enter the long-distance business; two of those companies -- neither of them clients of Iseman -- had contributed a total of $167,000 to McCain.

So while The Washington Post reports that Iseman would frequently tout her access to McCain to other lobbyists, it's not clear at this point what remarkable favors that supposed access won her.

After all the fear-mongering, charges of fear-mongering, counter-fear-mongering, and so on, the surveillance bill discussions went behind closed doors when Congress left for the week.

The chairmen and ranking members of the judiciary and intelligence committees are supposed to be the ones forging that compromise. But a statement just out from the Democratic chairmen of those committees in the House and Senate (including the pro-immunity Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)) indicates that things aren't going so well:

"In what should have been a bipartisan, bicameral meeting, staff members of the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees met today to work in good faith to reach a compromise on FISA reform. As we have said, we are using this week to work on a compromise that strengthens our national security and protects Americans' privacy. Unfortunately, we understand our Republican counterparts instructed their staffs not to attend this working meeting, therefore not allowing progress to be made in a bipartisan, bicameral way. While we are disappointed that today's meeting could not reflect a bipartisan effort, we will continue to work and hope Republicans will join us to put our nation's security first."

We'll let you know if we get a response on this from the Republicans.

Update: A Democratic aide clarifies that this was to be the first meeting of the staff.

Update: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) statement is more to the point:

“...The decision to not participate, coupled with their vote against an extension of their bill - the Protect America Act - only serves to reinforce the perception that Republicans prefer to have a political issue rather than a strong new FISA bill in place as quickly as possible. Certainly Republicans do not really believe that the role of the House is to simply rubberstamp whatever bills the Senate passes.

Update: See the Republicans response here.

TPMm Reader AC writes in with a little more context to McCain's December, 1999 letter to the FCC.

As I mentioned in my post, the McCain campaign has responded at length to the New York Times story, and the statement strives to beat back any impression that McCain had given any undue consideration to clients from Vicki Iseman's firm, Alcalde and Fay -- in this case, Paxson Communications, which was seeking the FCC's approval of a deal.

The statement goes out of its way to claim that no one from Alcalde and Fay had ever "personally asked" McCain to send the letter. The statement also says that while McCain's staff had met with "representatives" from that firm, the staff had also met with activists who opposed the deal. Both camps wanted the issue resolved, and "both parties asked the staff to contact the FCC regarding the proceeding," according to the statement.

There are a couple things wrong with that. For one, the lawyer who represented opponents of the deal told The Boston Globe back in 2000 that McCain's letter was " improper, unethical, violated FCC rules barring such contacts on pending FCC matters, and appeared designed to assist a major contributor." It certainly doesn't sound like she or her clients were consulted.

And when The Washington Post posted a story the next day, the paper had a clear take as to who had wanted the letter sent:

As for the Paxson letter, McCain's aides confirmed that he had written the missive at the request of Alcalde & Fay, the Washington lobbying firm retained by Paxson.

Whatever you may think of this morning's New York Times and Washington Post stories, they turn on whether John McCain did legislative favors for Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist with whom McCain denies having had a romantic relationship.

And McCain was keen to hit back hard on that account at his news conference this morning. When one reporter asked him about one of the key details in the Times piece -- that McCain, then the chairman of the Senate commerce committee, had written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of one of Iseman's clients -- he responded:

On the "letters" to the FCC. Interestingly, this was brought up in the year 2000 by The New York Times. I wrote a letter because the FCC, which usually makes a decision within 400 days, had gone almost 800 days. In the letter, I said I’m not telling you how to make a decision, I’m just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate. And the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play as chairman of the oversight committee.

While it's true that the letter did not request a particular decision (more about that below), it's not true that the FCC chairman saw no issue with the letter.

As The Boston Globe reported way back in 2000, William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, had immediately objected to McCain's December 10, 1999 letter, replying four days later that it was "highly unusual" and that he was "concerned" at what effect McCain's letter might have on the decision process.

An earlier letter from McCain on the issue in November had not brought a similar rebuke. And McCain frequently wrote letters to the FCC requesting that it act on particular issues. But the December letter was remarkable for its insistence and call for each of the five commissioners to explain why they hadn't come to a decision.

McCain's comments today also skirted the issue of whether Iseman had sent information to his office for help in drafting the letter, as the Times reports, and elides discussion of the letter's effect. Iseman represented Paxson Communications, which was pushing for the FCC decision because it would have cleared the way for Paxson to buy a Pittsburgh television station. The lengthy statement out from McCain's campaign states that no one from Iseman's lobbying firm or Paxson "personally asked" McCain to send the letter to the FCC.

But as the Times reported way back in 2000, it was no secret on the commission what outcome McCain was seeking. And on a 3-2 vote only days after his December letter, the commission approved the deal. Opponents of the sale cried foul, pointing in particular to the $20,000 Paxson and its lobbyists had contributed to McCain.

Update: You can see the exchange of letters between McCain and Kennard here.

Later Update: The McCain camp now says McCain wasn't referring to Kennard, who actually received the letter, but to a different former FCC chairman.

The trial for representative William Jefferson (D-LA), scheduled to begin next week, will likely be delayed by Jefferson's recent challenge to the judge's refusal to dismiss numerous bribery-related charges. Jefferson alleges that the Grand Jury that indicted him last year was presented with tainted evidence. (Times Picayune)

The unfolding financial scandal at the National Republican Congressional Committee continues to shake up the NRCC's officers. Treasurer Christopher Parana (who had replaced Christopher Ward in 2007) now is being replaced by Keith Davis. The NRCC's spokesperson explained that "we thought it was prudent during this transition period to bring in an extremely experiences [sic] and highly respected longtime expert." (Politico)

After Trent Lott (R-MS) announced his resignation from the Senate last fall, he denied that his decision had anything to do with the indictment - which came two days after the announcement - of his brother-in-law Richard "Dickie" Scruggs for allegedly attempting to illegally influence a Mississippi judge. Now federal investigators are looking into whether Lott played a role (sub. req.) in both that case and a separate one in which Scruggs allegedly tried to influence a different state judge "by promising that Mr. Lott would recommend Judge Delaughter for a seat on the federal bench." (Wall Street Journal)

Read more »

This John McCain does not need.

While he's busy this morning responding to this morning's New York Times story, the AP reports that the head of the Federal Elections Commission is questioning whether McCain will be allowed to drop out of the public financing system.

The reason, of course, stems from McCain's too-clever-by-half $4 million bank loan in December. We outlined the deal on Monday.

To review briefly: in December, McCain, who'd earlier opted in to the public financing system, needed cash. The FEC had already certified that he was owed $5.8 million in public matching funds -- but he wouldn't be getting that money until March. And he didn't want to absolutely commit yet to using that system, because it would limit his campaign to spending only $54 million through the end of August. And FEC rules say that using public matching funds as collateral locks a candidate into the system.

So McCain struck a deal with the bank: he promised to only commit to using the system if he lost the primary. If he won, he would opt out of the program, and he'd be more than able to pay the bank back, because the funds would come flowing. McCain's lawyers were evidently very pleased with the canniness of this arrangement.

If you're confused by this, don't worry: so, apparently, is FEC Chairman David Mason. McCain officially notified the FEC earlier this month that he was no longer in the public financing system for the primary. Now Mason has responded with a letter saying essentially, not so fast. It looks like you used the public matching funds as collateral.

Update: You can read the letter here.

If the FEC ultimately decided that McCain could not opt out of the system, the consequences would be severe for him. He'd be limited to spending $54 million through August -- meaning that the Democratic nominee would be able to outspend him several times over.

But there's a major catch, of course. The FEC can't take any official action, because it's still shut down over the deadlock in the Senate. The FEC needs four commissioners to act; it currently only has two.

So all the FEC can do for now is send inquiries. But if by some miracle the impasse in the Senate were broken, it could mean trouble for McCain.

It's official: staging a car crash is not the best election strategy. Not only did Gary Dodds lose the Democratic primary for New Hampshire's 1st District Congressional seat, but he's been convicted for the stunt. From the AP:

A jury convicted Gary Dodds of falsifying evidence, causing a false public alarm and leaving the scene of the April 2006 crash. He showed no emotion as the verdicts were returned on the first day of deliberations after a 15-day trial.

Dodds, 43, claims he injured his head in a crash on the Spaulding Turnpike and nearly drowned in a river before being rescued 27 hours later from the snowy woods. Prosecutors say he spent part of that time soaking his feet in cold water to make it appear he spent the night outdoors, all to boost his faltering campaign.

"He had a story that he was going to stick to," County Attorney Thomas Velardi said during closing arguments Friday. "It would've been a heroic story. It would've been a great story — all the people who hadn't heard of him before ... really would've known who he was."

I'm still not clear on how getting into a one-car accident and then going missing for a day, and then being discovered wet and shivering makes for a "heroic story." But in any case, staging it is a crime.

No real surprise here. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted against a bill in the Senate that would have confined the CIA to interrogations outlined in the Army Field Manual -- that means no ambiguity about the use of waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation" techniques. We explained his position at length here.

The President has threatened to veto the bill, and because sometime swing votes like McCain, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) oppose it, a veto override vote in the Senate seems certain to fail. Today, McCain told reporters that Bush should veto the bill and said he's banking on the consistency of his position on the issue of torture overriding the subtlety of his stance. From the AP:

"I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture.

"I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," McCain said. "So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture.

Of course, that's the administration's position, too: we don't "torture."

Interestingly, McCain also took the opportunity to outline a real difference between himself and the president: he says that if he were elected president, he wouldn't use signing statements -- those statements Bush has tacked on to a number of important bills (including McCain's anti-torture amendment) that essentially say, "NOT." As McCain put it: "If I disagree with a law that's passed, I'll veto it."

As we noted Monday, a Swiss bank convinced a California judge to issue an order blocking access to WikiLeaks.org. The New York Times makes clear this morning that it was a ham-handed and probably unconstitutional move.

Ham-handed because even though the injunction was sweeping in its scope (disabling access to the domain name), it will certainly not accomplish its goal, which was to restrict dissemination of the documents. Not only have dozens of mirror sites cropped up to host the documents, but the publicity from the move has also increased scrutiny on the bank, Julius Baer, and heightened WikiLeaks' supporters' resolve. Update: And the site is still available via its IP address. The documents allegedly show the bank's efforts to set up shell entities to hide money. And as for the unconstitutional part:

Judge [Jeffrey] White’s order disabling the entire site “is clearly not constitutional,” said David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School. “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”

The narrower order [also issued by the judge], forbidding the dissemination of the disputed documents, is a more classic prior restraint on publication. Such orders are disfavored under the First Amendment and almost never survive appellate scrutiny.

When I asked Julian Assange, a member of WikiLeaks' advisory board and its investigations editor, whether WikiLeaks plans to contest the injunction in court, he replied by email, "Bloody oath we will."

He said that WikiLeaks, which relies on pro bono representation, was currently in talks with a number of lawyers and organizations for possible representation. As Wired reported, the site was caught by surprise late last week, receiving "notice only a few hours before the case went to a judge who accepted the agreement between Dynadot [WikiLeaks' domain registrar] and the bank."

My inquiries to Julius Baer's attorneys about possible future actions were forwarded to a spokesman for the bank in Switzerland, who replied "We have always sought to act in the best interests of our clients and shall continue to do so."

At this point, it's not even controversial to say that the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay are a sham. The current chief judge there has written that the military tribunals have “credibility problems." And the former chief prosecutor, after resigning, publicly criticized the system as "deeply politicized."

Now that former prosecutor, Col. Morris Davis, has given more evidence of that politicization in an interview with The Nation after the six Gitmo detainees were charged. Davis says that in an August, 2005 meeting with William Haynes, then the Pentagon's general counsel, Haynes seemed to completely discount the possibility of the military tribunals acquitting any of the detainees. Now, of course, Haynes has been installed as the official overseeing the whole process, both the prosecutors and the defense. From The Nation:

"[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time," recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, something that had lent great credibility to the proceedings.

"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"

Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions' chain of command. "Everyone has opinions," Davis says. "But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders."

Back in December, the Defense Department blocked Davis from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's becoming increasingly clear why.

As a result of the Secure America Act, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is constructing an 18-foot steel and concrete wall at the Texas-Mexico border that will pass through the backyards of family homes (whose owners face condemnation lawsuits if they protest) but will stop short of the River Bend Resort and golf course. The fence will resume at the other side of the resort. A similarly proposed border wall will bypass the property of Dallas billionaire and friend of President Bush, Ray Hunt. DHS has failed to provide answers about how it decided where to build the border fence but the Texas Observer has learned that SBInet - private consortium of contractors led by Boeing Co. - is making almost all of the decisions. (Texas Observer, Think Progress)

A closely watched Iraqi trial of high-ranking Shiite officials (accused of running militias that killed and kidnapped hundreds of Sunnis) is regarded as a test for Iraq's judicial system, but it is already an embarrassment. Before the trial started, one judge was removed because he allegedly agreed to find the defendants not guilty, and on the fist day a key witness failed to appear - perhaps because of pervasive witness intimidation. (New York Times)

Pentagon Prosecutors have challenged a military court's decision that grants Osama Bin Laden's driver (Salim Ahmed Hamdan) the right to send written questions to alleged al Qaeda detainees held at Camp 7 in Guantanamo Bay. The defense asserts that answers to their questions will determine what defense witnesses they need to call, but a military commissions spokesperson says that prosecutors believe that access to detainees in camp 7 raise ``a lot of complicated issues.'' (Miami Herald)

Read more »

You remember former CIA official Jose Rodriguez. He's the guy at the center of the criminal investigation into the destruction of the CIA's torture tapes. The videotapes, you'll remember, documented interrogation techniques authorized by Justice Department lawyers and the White House on two detainees. CIA interrogators (and possibly contractors) waterboarded the two detainees and possibly exposed them to a range of other techniques, such as inducing hypothermia. The investigation is not focusing on the use of those techniques, though. The focus is the destruction of the tapes.

But back to Rodriguez. The line from White House and senior CIA officials has been that they repeatedly advised against destroying the tapes. Rodriguez (via his lawyer) says that advice was never unequivocal. The New York Times has a story today exploring that breach between Rodriguez, who ran the CIA's clandestine service, and the leadership.

The story goes something like this: Porter Goss, then the director of the CIA, was viewed as something of a buffoon by the career officers. They didn't like the crew he brought in (like his #3 Dusty Foggo, who was subsequently indicted for taking bribes from Brent Wilkes), and they didn't like the way he ran the place. So Rodriguez pretty much ran things the way he thought they ought to be run in his division. And when the issue of whether to destroy those tapes arose again in late 2005, he did what he thought was right. He saw the tapes as "a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them."

And Goss... did nothing. The Times reports that there is "no record of any reprimand or punishment" in Rodriguez's personnel file at the agency. Because:

People close to Mr. Goss, who knew from his Congressional years how explosive accusations of cover-up could be, insist he told Mr. Rodriguez the tapes should be preserved.

But if Mr. Goss believed Mr. Rodriguez had disobeyed him, why did he not punish the clandestine service chief? One former C.I.A. official said White House officials had complained about the news media firestorm that accompanied the departure of [two CIA officials who'd resigned] a year earlier, and Mr. Goss felt he could not risk another blowup.

And of course the administration kept the whole thing quiet for more than two years until the Times blew the whistle. Too bad there's never a convenient time for "another blowup."

Even if Brent Wilkes can breathe a sigh of relief that he did not get the 25-year sentence that prosecutors were gunning for, it was far from a good day.

The judge sent Wilkes to prison immediately, because he could not be trusted to remain free while his appeal of the verdict was pending. That's because, Judge Larry Burns wrote in his order (which you can read here), he "doubts Mr. Wilkes trustworthiness."

For one thing, he lied on the stand when he said he didn't bribe Cunningham, the judge wrote. And when he claimed not to have had anything to do with getting Cunningham a prostitute in Hawaii, "his testimony was utterly unbelievable and thoroughly contradicted by the weight of the evidence."

What's more, Judge Burns concluded that Wilkes had lied when he'd claimed that he was too broke to be able to afford a lawyer. Based on that representation, Burns had assigned him public defenders. "The Court finds Mr. Wilkes materially misrepresented his financial condition in an improper effort to obtain legal representation at the expense of the taxpayer."

So it's off to jail Brent Wilkes goes.

So it appears that Brent Wilkes will get only a slightly more severe sentence than Duke Cunningham. Wilkes, convicted last year on all counts, was reportedly sentenced to 12 years in prison today -- prosecutors had asked for as much as 25 years and no fewer than 15. The probation officials had recommended as much as 60.

But Judge Larry Burns, for whatever reason, decided on 12. Cunningham himself was sentenced to a little more than 8 years after pleading guilty. We'll have more information when it's available.

Update: The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that "the judge disagreed with prosecutors who contended Wilkes masterminded the scheme." As the prosecutors had put it in their sentencing recommendation, “There can be little doubt Wilkes was the spider, and Cunningham the fly, in this web of corruption.”

Apparently Judge Burns thought Duke was at least part-spider. He may have been really dumb, but he knew what he was doing.

Remember that Wilkes had contended that he was just playing Cunningham's game -- a system he termed "transactional lobbying."

Update: It's worth mentioning that though this sentence is well below what prosecutors requested, it's the most severe sentence meted out for political corruption in the last several years (see update below). Even Jack Abramoff himself is likely to finally be sentenced to fewer than ten years in prison.

Update: Ask and you shall receive. A TPM Reader writes in to flag a more severe sentence meted out to the former mayor of Lynwood, California -- he got about 16 years. There very well might be other examples of less widely known cases with similarly severe sentences. But certainly, when it comes to the flurry of congerssional corruption cases in D.C., Wilkes has received the most severe sentence so far.

Update: More from The San Diego Union-Tribune:

The judge disagreed with prosecutors who contended Wilkes masterminded the scheme, yet said he was troubled by Wilkes' demeanor in court.

“Mr. Wilkes, you have not indicated any sense of contrition to this day,” he said.

“I'm not big on sending a message, but I do think people will pay attention to what happened here,” Burns said.

Update: More here.

From the AP:

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Tuesday to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

The justices' decision, issued without comment, is the latest setback to legal efforts to force disclosure of details of the warrantless wiretapping that began after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union wanted the court to allow a lawsuit by the group and individuals over the wiretapping program. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored.

There are still a number of suits ongoing. But the hurdle in this case and most others challenging the program is a high one -- the court has refused to hear the lawsuit because the journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit can't prove that they were wiretapped under the program. Of course, that information is secret, and the government refuses to say.

Not all judges have found that to be a problem. For instance, district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued an injunction shutting down the program in August, 2006 -- and proclaimed in her opinion that "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights." An appeals court dismissed the suit last July, citing the lack of standing.

This suit was against the National Security Agency itself, not against the telecoms. Those suits are ongoing -- for now. They would be automatically dismissed if the administration got its way and the new surveillance law contained immunity for the companies' participation in the program.

It's gotten to be a common occurrence. When Congress has a scheduled recess, the Democratic leadership keeps the Senate (and sometimes the House) in pro forma session in order to prevent any administration recess tomfoolery.

The main concern, of course, has been that the president would push through controversial recess appointments. But this time around, the Politico reports, a main concern is that the administration would try a coup de théâtre -- i.e. use the president's power to force the House into special session as a way of putting further pressure on the House Dem leadership to pass the Senate's surveillance bill and win that coveted retroactive immunity for the telecoms:

Pelosi, fearing that Bush would try to capitalize on the House’s absence to call Congress back into a special session, scheduled two pro forma sessions on Tuesday and Thursday. The Senate will do the same at the same time. Since neither chamber goes out for more than three days, Bush cannot take the dramatic step of calling the Congress back for the first special session since Harry Truman did it in 1948.

Not to worry, though, as you can be sure that the administration will find somehow, some way to issue periodical warnings about our imperiled nation this week. They seem to have taken a break on President's Day, but we'll let you know when they're back at it.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the House and Senate judiciary and intelligence committees are negotiating a compromise bill. No word yet on how things are going.

A newly released British document from 2002 asserts that Saddam Hussein had acquired uranium and technology necessary for chemical weapons. But the document does not include the crucial allegation used to justify the Iraq invasion - that Hussein was capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. A later draft of the document did include this assertion and critics believe that Prime Minister Tony Blair's press advisers ordered its inclusion to bolster the case for war. (AP)

Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Kit Bond (R-MO) have called for an investigation into why officials from the Marine Corps turned down a 2005 request from commanders for more blast resistant vehicles in Iraq. The call comes after a study found that "hundreds of United States marines may have been killed or wounded by roadside bombs in Iraq" because of the refusal of the request. (AP)

Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey whose office gave former Attorney General John Ashcroft a contract worth between $27 million and $52 million to monitor a settlement in a fraud case, has been asked to testify before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee next week. The committee, which wants to ask Christie "about the process by which [Ashcroft] was selected to be the monitor and what exactly he’s doing to earn the fee," has also asked Ashcroft to testify. (AP)

Read more »

Victory! Only 47 years after the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro has toppled from power. Or resigned to hand power to his brother. In any case, he's gone.

You can read his resignation letter here. In it, the relic of the Cold War looks forward to the future:

Fortunately, our Revolution can still count on cadres from the old guard and others who were very young in the early stages of the process. Some were very young, almost children, when they joined the fight on the mountains and later they have given glory to the country with their heroic performance and their internationalist missions. They have the authority and the experience to guarantee the replacement. There is also the intermediate generation which learned together with us the basics of the complex and almost unattainable art of organizing and leading a revolution.

The path will always be difficult and require from everyone’s intelligent effort. I distrust the seemingly easy path of apologetics or its antithesis the self-flagellation. We should always be prepared for the worst variable. The principle of being as prudent in success as steady in adversity cannot be forgotten. The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong; however, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century.

On the adversary's side of things, the scramble begins. President Bush has chimed in with his hope that Castro's move will usher in a new era. And it's a prime opportunity for primary candidate jockeying -- already the calls are coming for the candidates to outline a new approach to Cuba.

As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.

It's an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts."

Here's the back story. As of December, McCain was still enrolled in the public financing system, but had yet to actually receive any public matching funds. The Federal Election Commission had certified that the campaign would be receiving $5.8 million in public funds. But they wouldn't get that money for a couple more months. In need of even more cash beyond the $3 million loan he'd already secured from a Maryland bank (he'd taken out a life insurance policy as collateral), the McCain campaign was stuck in a bind. They needed more money, but the bank needed collateral.

The promise of those public matching funds (to the tune of more than $5 million) was the only collateral the campaign could offer. But there was a problem with that. Using that promised money as collateral would have bound McCain to the public financing system, according to FEC rules. And the McCain camp wanted to avoid that, because the system limits campaigns to spending $54 million in the primary (through August). That would mean McCain would get seriously outspent by the Democratic nominee through the summer. (McCain has separately pledged to enroll in the system for the general election; that would give him $85 million in taxpayer funds for use after the party convention through Election Day but bar other contributions.)

So here's what the McCain campaign did. They struck a deal with the bank that simultaneously allowed his campaign to secure public funds if necessary, but did not compel his campaign to stay in the public system if fundraising went well (i.e. if he won the nomination). As McCain's lawyer told the Post, "We very carefully did not do that."

Read more »

From the BBC:

Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.

Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.

However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileak from its servers.

Wikileaks has been the source for a number of revelatory documents, including the U.S. military's manual for Gitmo and the rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Iraq.

But see it for yourself, wikileaks.org is indeed out of commission. The Belgian wikileaks, however, is still up.

As for why this California judge ordered the whole site taken down over a few documents, that's not clear. As the BBC reports, "The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion." Why didn't the judge just didn't order the documents taken down instead of the whole site? We hope to get some expert guidance on the question.

Update: Just spoke with Steve Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy, who offered a clue. "My hunch is that the action was dictated by the practical options. [The judge and Julius Baer] don't know who wikileaks.org is or who the responsible parties are upon whom a court order could be served. What they did know was the U.S. based internet service provider." So they got the ISP to shut the site down. "If they had known who to serve the order to – who represents Wikileaks --, then they might have chosen a more targeted action." Nevertheless, he thought the judge's move was "extraordinary," based as it was on the bank's contention that these were legally protected documents.

A large number of mirror sites have sprung up to counter the judge's move -- sites mirroring not only wikileaks, but also the Julius Baer documents at issue.

"Wikileaks had boasted that they were impervious to censorship," Aftergood told me. "This is the most serious test they've faced in their year-long existence. They may lose their current website, but dozens of mirrors around the world will endure. And I expect they will regroup."

Update: Here's the judge's order. And here's the motion for injunction filed by Julius Baer.

The court documents show that no lawyer has stepped forward to defend Wikileaks in the case, and that Wikileaks did not respond to Julius Baer's legal filings, including the original complaint, which was filed February 8th.

Update: The link to the judge's order has been fixed. Thanks to commenter rincewind below.

Update: Wired has a good tick-tock of the case -- and an explanation for why Wikileaks does not have a lawyer of record in the case and hasn't yet contested the suit in court. Also, Wikileaks has posted some of its correspondence with lawyers for Julius Baer.

An internal military study alleges "gross mismanagement" in Marine Corps officials' denial of an urgent request for mine-resistant vehicles in 2005, a decision that may have caused hundreds of fatalities caused by roadside bombs. The study reveals that cost was a major factor as to why battle commanders were denied the equipment they needed. The report's author, Franz J. Gayl, has filed for whistle-blower protection. (New York Times)

Last year Chris De Rosa, the former director of the division of toxicology and environmental medicine at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), was reassigned to a non-supervisory "special assistant" position shortly after he produced a report about the potential public health threats from industrial pollution in the Great lakes region. De Rosa, who also helped publicize the formaldehyde problems with FEMA's trailers, believes that the government is suppressing the Great Lakes report. (Washington Post)

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the CIA sought to expand its ability to monitor terrorist activity by setting up front companies overseas where case officers would operate under "nonofficial cover": "meaning they would pose as employees of investment banks, consulting firms or other fictitious enterprises with no apparent ties to the U.S. government." The program became the source of a "bitter fight" within the CIA, and "after concluding they were ill-conceived and poorly positioned for gathering intelligence" on terrorists and "unconventional weapons proliferation networks," the agency closed all but two of the companies. (Los Angeles Times)

Read more »

Did you feel it at the base of your stomach when you woke up Sunday morning? That fear? No wonder: the Protect America Act finally expired Saturday night.

The nation is currently undefended. Well, that's not true. The National Security Agency can no longer surveil terrorists. Well, that's not true either. The NSA can continue surveillance of terrorist groups authorized under the Protect America Act for one year, and new warrants sought need to be authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the FISA law. The new warrants will mean more paperwork.

The president hit the airwaves for the fourth consecutive morning on Saturday to drive the fear home.

But Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, a man well acquainted with the taste of his own foot, put it unfortunately succinctly during an interview with NPR:

"It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. We can't do this mission without their help."

Perhaps realizing the unfortunate quotability of that phrasing, McConnell took to Fox News yesterday to reassert the direness of the situation. McConnell, once upon a time broadly respected by lawmakers of both parties, seems determined to destroy the vestiges of his credibility. Keep in mind that even The Washington Times ran a story that concluded the sunset of the Protect America Act "will have little effect on national security."

McConnell's main theme was once again guaranteeing immunity for the telecoms ("the private sector, although [they] willingly helped us in the past, are now saying, 'You can't protect me. Why should I help you?'"). But he also strove to make the case that returning to the FISA law would be a calamity -- it would mean "increased danger." Besides reintroducing the old canard that the FISA law had not been updated since 1978 and so was hopelessly unable to deal with modern technologies, McConnell argued that the necessary paperwork would cripple surveillance. "If I'm in court arguing for an authorization, then I'm missing a dynamic situation," he argued. To listen to McConnell, you'd think the same people monitoring the surveillance were the ones stuck in court (actually, they have lawyers for that). And never mind that the old FISA law permits a period of surveillance prior to securing the warrant.

Of course, McConnell said way back in August that having a debate about surveillance was a bad idea, because "some Americans are going to die." So you can understand his frustration that it's still drawing on.

Motown just keeps on giving -- to journalists, if not to its citizens, who now are on the hook for $9 million and counting, thanks to Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s futile determination to keep his office affair from going public.

With the scandal still raging, the city council is clearly on edge. All we know for sure about last Wednesday’s city pension board meeting is that two of its members had to be restrained. But as for who was assaulting whom... both sides have their witnesses. The Detroit papers have been straining to keep up.

According to Sheila Kneeshaw, a trustee on the board, City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers came late to the meeting and took umbrage at mayoral assistant DeDan Milton’s refusal to consider an issue that had been discussed before her arrival.

"There was threats made. There was vulgar language," Kneeshaw said. "And it wasn't DeDan Milton's fault. [Conyers] was ranting and raving."

David Clark, chair of Detroit's General Retirement System, agreed.

"She ran at him," Clark said. "She told him she would get a gun if she had to and that she has four brothers and they would whup his a-- if she asked them." (Apparently Clark did not recall Conyers's mentioning whether her husband, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), would participate in the ass whuppin'.)

Another witness saw it differently.

Sam Riddle, Conyers’s chief of staff, asserted that Conyers, not Milton, was the victim. She was reacting to Milton’s profanity.

"Monica is no shrinking violet," Riddle said. "He starts yelling at her. She responds aggressively and in street lingo. It was on."

Milton filed a police report the following day in which he charged that Conyers "threatened to shoot [Milton] with her gun" and made "several aggressive movements" toward him "in a threatening manner." The report said that Conyers also threatened to "have my brothers [mess] you up."

It's not clear what the charged crime would be. Apparently the police filed it under "harassing communications."

Riddle claims that Conyers never threatened to shoot Milton.

"What she said was: 'I've got a bigger gun than your gun, my husband,'" Riddle said. "She was talking about a political gun." So apparently the Chairman was invoked.

Conyers responded to Milton's report by filing a police report of her own a few hours after he did. In it she accused him of being the aggressor. But she also reported that the two had made up in a back room before the meeting was over.

Read more »