No surprise here. From The Washington Post:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey refused yesterday to refer two new House contempt citations to a federal grand jury, saying the White House aides involved in the case cannot be prosecuted because they were following legal advice from the Justice Department.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Mukasey said the refusal by White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet E. Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas "did not constitute a crime."

So now it's on to court, where we'll have the novel situation of the House Judiciary Committee suing the White House.

Yeah, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all.

From The New York Times:

A federal judge on Friday withdrew his earlier order disabling a Web site that allows the anonymous posting of documents to discourage unethical behavior in governments and corporations....

In reversing himself at a hearing here on Friday, Judge White acknowledged that the bank’s request posed serious First Amendment questions and might constitute unjustified prior restraint. He also appeared visibly frustrated that technology might have outrun the law and that, as a result, the court might not be able to rein in information once it had been disclosed online.

“We live in an age,” Judge White said, “when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law.”

And voila, WikiLeaks.org lives again. (Not that WikiLeaks, with a number of mirror sites, was ever really dead.) Apparently WikiLeaks never did get counsel, but the ACLU, EFF, and a variety of journalistic organizations stepped into the breach.

The Times piece gives the distinct impression that the judge had no idea what he was getting into when he granted Julius Baer's request to block access to WikiLeaks.org.

Well, it all came crashing down rather quickly for Tim Goeglein.

Early Friday morning, blogger Nancy Nall published her post "Copycat." By Friday evening, Goeglein had resigned. And The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, announced that their internal investigation of Goeglein's columns had revealed that of the 38 columns Goeglein had published over the last eight years, plagiarized passages were discovered in 20.

Somewhat puzzlingly, the paper says that Goeglein was never paid for his "unsolicited, guest" columns, which he's been publishing for some twenty years. So I guess his plagiarism was its own reward.

Hats off to Tim, though. The paper's list of plagiarized sources shows that he often drew from articles in the major papers. So it's quite impressive that he managed to get away with it for this long.

From Justin over at ABC:

"We were just made aware about Tim's column and his actions this morning," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. "Obviously this is not acceptable." Lawrimore would not comment on whether the president would ask Goeglein to resign, saying the White House was still "looking into the details."

As we noted in an update below, commenters over at blogger Nancy Nall's site have been dredging up example after example of Goeglein's instances of plagiarism. Judging by a selection of his columns, Goeglein's trouble stems from his preeningly erudite writing style, a style he was evidently unable to sustain on his own.

On the Senate floor today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a 30-day extension to the Protect America Act, the administration's surveillance bill that expired two weeks ago.

Given that the President and Republicans have been making speeches and running ads claiming that the nation is at risk because Democrats let the law lapse, you might say it's a reasonable proposition. Just yesterday, the President said that it's "important" for the American people to "understand that no renewal of the ... the Protect America Act is dangerous for the security of the country."

As Reid put it on the Senate floor this morning:

As we move forward [with negotiations between the Senate and House surveillance bills], there is no reason not to extend the Protect America Act to ensure that there are no gaps in our intelligence gathering capabilities. Even Admiral McConnell, the Director of national Intelligence, has testified that such an extension would be valuable. But the President threatens to veto an extension, and our Republican colleagues continue, inexplicably, to oppose it.

But no. When Reid offered the measure as a unanimous consent measure, the Republicans objected.

It's no mystery why. The Republicans and the administration want all the political pressure they can bring to bear on Dems who oppose retroactive immunity.

After two years of deliberations -- and against the unanimous recommendation of his staff -- EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson decided to prevent California from instituting strict greenhouse gas emission rules.

When he issued the decision, it came in the form of a two-page letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Such decisions are usually delivered in the form of a lengthy, formal paper. Critics of Johnson's decision (i.e. Democrats, environmental groups, and attorneys general from several states) have pointed to that as evidence that Johnson issued the decision hastily, arbitrarily, and without technical or legal backup.

Well, today, two months after that two-page letter, the EPA finally submitted the paperwork. The basic reasoning remains the same. The thrust behind the 48-page document is that California's request does not meet the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" necessary for a waiver to be granted since global warming is a problem not unique to California -- an argument that his staff directly rejected, as agency memos have shown.

This filing allows the lawsuit filed by California and 17 other states to finally get going. EPA memos also show that staff warned Johnson that the EPA would lose such a lawsuit -- but Johnson, much to the satisfaction of the auto industry and the White House -- went ahead and denied the waiver anyway.

Johnson has already been grilled twice about his decision, and he's got at least a couple more rounds in the ring to look forward to. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, will hold a hearing March 5th. And House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) will most likely invite Johnson to get grilled at some point in the future once his oversight committee finishes interviewing EPA staffers and collecting evidence.

Ironic that a man with a name so close to "Google" should be caught plagiarizing?

Special Assistant to the President Timothy Goeglein works in the White House's Office of Public Liaison, where he's tasked with serving as the "pipeline" to the president for the administration's "most conservative supporters," as New York Times and Washington Post profiles put it. Goeglein worked under Karl Rove up until Rove's departure. He also writes a regular editorial column for The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.

And as blogger Nancy Nall discovered (via google), yesterday's column, a philosophical ramble on the purpose and nature of education, contains entire passages from a 1998 article in The Dartmouth Review by Jeffrey Hart, a former speechwriter for Richard Nixon. Nowhere in the piece does Goeglein cite Hart. It's about as open and shut of a case of plagiarism as you're ever likely to find (see below).

We've placed calls to the News-Sentinel and the White House seeking comment, and we'll let you know what we hear.

Update: Goeglein fesses up. From The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:

“It is true,” Tim Goeglein wrote to The Journal Gazette in an e-mail. “I am entirely at fault. It was wrong of me. There are no excuses.”

He said he wrote to the author of the essay, Jeffrey Hart “to apologize, and do so categorically and without exception.”

Update: The News-Sentinel's editor has also declared that the paper will be investigating Goeglein's past columns to find other examples of plagiarism. Something tells me that he might find other examples. A lot more.

Here's one of the three passages that Nall identified as having been lifted directly from Hart's piece:

Read more »

Ever since the expiration of the Protect America Act, President Bush has been arguing that Congress should pass the Senate's version of surveillance legislation, which includes immunity for telecommunications companies who may have participated in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. In yesterday's press conference Bush talked about surveillance once again; the Associated Press has checked his statements against the facts. (AP)

Chemical industry lobbyists of the American Chemistry Council managed to remove an award-winning toxicologist, Deborah Rice, from an the Environmental Protection Agency research panel studying the dangers of a flame retardant commonly used in electronic equipment. The lobbyists claim that Rice is biased and EPA officials cite the "perception of a potential conflict of interest." Meanwhile, a review of seven EPA panels organized last year reveals that "17 panelists are employed or funded by the chemical industry or had made public statements that the chemicals they were reviewing were safe." (LA Times)

A year after the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had unlawfully refused to "decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change" and must begin to regulate carbon dioxide, the EPA has still failed to act. The EPA has stated that "the agency does not have a specific timeline for responding to the remand" but that it is "taking very seriously our responsibility to develop an effective, comprehensive strategy." (Think Progress)

Read more »

More than 10 months of the Bush Administration remain, and the government is already limping toward the finish line.

You know about the crippled Federal Election Commission, the government's campaign finance watchdog that has been crippled for two months now. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) certainly doesn't need reminding of the situation.

But that's not all. As the Politico reports, negotiations between the Senate leadership and the White House are at such an impasse over nominees that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission are all crippled.

Update: A TPM Reader reminds us that the SEC is also crippled: it currently has three Republican commissioners and no Democrats.

Now, of course, the White House points the finger at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Reid points it right back.

But it's funny how people get suspicious of a stridently pro-business administration when it lets half a dozen regulatory bodies go dark. From the Politico:

“It’s the worst last year of a two-term presidency since we created a two-term presidency,” said Paul Light, an expert on federal nominations at New York University. “It’s a real tribute to the problems of the Bush administration that [Bush’s] eighth year is even worse than Clinton’s.”...

Light said that Bush’s ambivalence toward government regulation plays a role in the stalemate. “If the Consumer Product Safety Commission is not able to promulgate rules, is that a bad thing for an anti-regulatory administration? Probably not,” he said. “If you’re in an anti-regulatory mood, having a regulatory commission unable to regulate is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it’s going to regulate against industry.”

So who's to blame? In a lengthy letter to the White House yesterday, Reid laid out his rebuffed offers for compromises on nominees, offers to confirm as many as 80 Republican nominations in exchange for confirmation of eight Democratic slots on various federal boards and agencies.

But the fight over the FEC can serve as a fitting test case. Democrats object to the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to be a commissioner, because of his vote suppression bona fides and role in politicizing the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Spakovsky, who originally got on the FEC via a Bush recess appointment (which has expired), is one of four pending nominees -- two Dems, two GOPers.

Democrats, particularly Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) vowed to block any vote on the commissioners as a block, i.e. a vote that would consider the commissioners all together. Democrats finally offered in December to hold a simple majority vote on Spakovsky separately. If he got 51 votes, he would go through and the fight would be over. Republicans refused, still insisting that it was all or nothing.

And that's where things stand today. The White House so far refuses to nominate anyone else -- at the same time complaining that its nominees are entitled to an "up-or-down vote," which is precisely what the Democrats have offered here.

Meanwhile, if no compromise is reached, we can look forward to a very, very interesting election.

Update: Another TPM Reader writes in to add:

Read more »

Actually, it's nothing at all:

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted today to form an investigative subcommittee to probe whether indicted Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) has violated the chamber's Code of Official Conduct....

Based on recent precedent, it is likely the panel will defer most further proceedings out of deference to the Justice Department's prosecution of Renzi, who is scheduled to be arraigned in Tuscon March 6th.

Just another sign that with the House ethics committee playing possum, the FBI has been forced to take up the slack.

Meanwhile, prospects for reform aren't looking too bright.

Update: CREW's Melanie Sloan has a bright idea: "The trick would be for the Ethics Committee to spearhead an investigation of a member alleged to have engaged in misconduct before the Justice Department gets involved."

A breakthrough of bipartisan comity? A joining of hands? A ray of hope?

The Politico reports that a number of Republicans are attending a meeting today about surveillance issues -- the first time that Republicans have attended such a meeting. Ever since House and Senate Democrats began talks last week to work out a compromise between the houses two versions, Republicans have boycotted the discussions. That can only mean progress, right?

Wrong. Sen. Kit Bond's (R-MO) spokeswoman sends word that Bond, the ranking member of the Senate intelligence committee is only attending the meeting to hear from the director of national intelligence about the "degradation of intelligence" since the Protect America Act expired almost two weeks ago -- "not to renegotiate the bipartisan terrorist surveillance compromise."

So it's still the Senate bill (with retroactive immunity) or nothing.

Meanwhile, the Politico also notes that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said this morning that he's "very hopeful" that the House could take up surveillance legislation next week. Whether that signals progress in the ongoing discussions between Democrats -- Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) advocates granting the telecoms retroactive immunity, while the other chairmen taking part are opposed -- is still to be seen.

Two weeks ago, the House passed a contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. The two refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee as part of the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.

Today, after House lawyers dotted their i's and crossed their t's, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally followed up by referring the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for D.C.

What will happen next is not much of a mystery. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already said that the Justice Department would not act on such a referral and convene a grand jury, as required by federal law. That's because Miers and Bolten didn't comply with the subpoenas because the President said they couldn't -- it would violate executive privilege.

In a letter to Mukasey, Pelosi anticipated that answer, but argued that "there is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so."

She concluded: "I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim."

If Mukasey, through D.C.'s U.S. attorney, rebuffs the referral as expected, the House has a backup plan. The House also passed a resolution that would allow the House Judiciary Committee to pursue a lawsuit against the White House over the subpoena. If a judge agreed to hear the case, it might lead to a decision as to whether the President's sweeping invocation of privilege is Constitutional.

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson made his second appearance before the Senate environmental committee for a budget hearing. And once again, he put on a masterfully uninformative performance (unfortunately, no video is available).

The issue, remember, is that Johnson, despite the unanimous recommendations of his staff, blocked California's attempt to institute strict greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks. But when asked by committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) if he remembered a key meeting in May of 2007, when staff briefed him on the decision, he said he did not -- and shot back "Do you remember what you were doing on Tuesday May the 1st of 2007?"

"If I saw my calendar, yes I would," Boxer responded.

And what discussions did he have with the White House about this issue? Asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for any information about such contacts, Johnson gave the same answer again and again: "I have routine contacts with various officials on a wide range of issues. . . . I value the ability to have candid discussions that are part of good government." As Johnson's last hearing showed, questioning the man is a bit like boxing an iceberg.

Rebuffed, Boxer said "I don't know what you're hiding... It's as if you're taking the Fifth Amendment."

All this moved Sen. Whitehouse to bestow the highest honor for an administration witness: a comparison to Alberto Gonzales. As he put it in a statement:

Read more »

For the past week, a group called Defense of Democracies, an off-shoot of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has run a national TV ad campaign designed to put the squeeze on House Democrats. Since the Dems' refusal to go ahead and submit to granting the telecoms retroactive immunity had "crippled" the nation's intelligence, the ad argues, citizens ought to call lawmakers and tell them to do the right thing. The ad targeted 15 Dems in particular.

Given the size of the buy -- Newsweek puts it at $2 million -- there was a natural suspicion that the telecoms might have played a role in putting up the money. When I asked the question of the group's spokesman, he laughed, but then told me he didn't know who had funded the group.

Newsweek reports that Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) -- who was up until Monday a member of the board of advisors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies -- had similar questions and wrote in his letter resigning from the board that "since the only real dispute involves retroactive immunity, I assume the Foundation's ads are funded by telecommunication companies or others seeking immunity."

But Clifford May, the group's president (and the former communications director of the RNC, it's worth noting), says that the money "had come from individual donors" and that "he had not received 'one dime' from the telecom companies—though he did not rule out receiving money from them in the future to finance further ads."

Newsweek also cites "sources at both Verizon and AT&T as saying that their companies weren't involved in FDD's campaign. Of course, given that the telecoms seem unable to comprehend who their real friends are, maybe this shouldn't be such a surprise.

Who those "individual donors" are, the group's not saying -- and isn't required to say by law. Whether they are just "patriotic Americans," as the group's spokesman put it to me, or conservative donors who, like the House GOP, see a political point ripe for exploitation, is an open question.

As expected, President Bush used today's press conference to bang that drum on the surveillance bill. It's "dangerous" that the House Democrats aren't giving in.

Despite the speedbump of CBS' Bill Plante asking the unusually blunt question of whether Americans, left with no recourse for challenging the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, should just "suck it up" (Bush disapproved of putting it that way "in public"), Bush recovered to hit all the talking points.

Here's the video:

As in prior appearances, the omissions and distortions came some fast and furious. "You can't expect the telecoms to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued" (of course, they wouldn't be sued for complying with an unambiguously lawful program); the administration's warrantless wiretapping program "was legal" (yes, by the Bush/Cheney/Addington view of the Constitution); it's "important" for the American people to "understand that no renewal of the ... the Protect America Act is dangerous for the security of the country" (House Republicans and the administration led an effort to prevent a second extension of the Protect America Act); etc.

A rush transcript is below.

Read more »

The Boston Globe offers a great refresher on John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal. William K. Black, a senior federal savings and loan regulator at the time of the Keating Five scandal, remains "very upset that what they did caused such damage" ($3 billion to the federal government) and Dennis DeConcini, the former Democratic senator from Arizona and another Keating Five player says that McCain got a "free ride." Black also asserts that McCain pressured federal regulators to ease off of Lincoln because his wife had invested money with its chair, Charles Keating, and because Keating contributed money to McCain's campaign and loaned him his house in the Bahamas. (Boston Globe)

Amidst rumors that disgruntled members of the minority party have threatened to bring ethics charges against key House Democrats under a proposed new ethics panel, Democrats in the House have postponed a vote on the Office of Congressional Ethics. A new Republican counterproposal has also caused delay. The Republican plan would allow for outside groups to file complaints, require monthly reports to the public, and alter the proposed composition of the panel to include four former lawmakers. (Politico)

Crucial federal regulatory agencies are hamstrung by unfilled seats - the Consumer Product Safety Commission does not have enough members to meet, the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission can't achieve a quorum, the Council of Economic Advisers has a single member, the National Labor Relations Board can fill only two of its five seats, and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has three of of its five positions filled. President Bush blames these regulatory failings on the Senate, but an expert on federal nominations at New York University believes that it is " a real tribute to the problems of the Bush administration." (Politico)

Read more »

You can understand their exasperation. The administration and Congressional Republicans have done everything in their power to protect the telecoms. They used every legislative tactic at the ready, made every speech or public pronouncement possible, and even engaged in occasional theatrics to drive the point home: Congress will not be passing, and the President will not be signing, any surveillance bill into law that does not give the telecoms retroactive immunity for having helped the administration break the law.

And despite all that, the telecoms still seem not to understand which side their bread is buttered on. "GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecommunications industry," Roll Call reports (sub. req.):

“It’s quite discouraging,” said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general.

“These companies just won’t do anything,” the aide said. “Even when you have the Democrats working against their bottom line.”...

[A Republican lobbyist said] “There’s no question that from time to time staff, and maybe some Members, say to fellow travelers: ‘Are you giving us some air cover? Are you helping us help you?’”

The news is not all bad. The telecoms still give more money to Republicans than to Democrats, Roll Call reports; "Of the four major phone companies, only Sprint is now favoring Democrats overall." The other three, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, still know their bread and butter, but are favoring Republicans "by slimmer margins than in years past." The reason is clear: with the Dems in power, of course, the telecoms need to spread the wealth.

But the House Republican campaign committee, Roll Call points out, is $29 million poorer than its Democratic counterpart. How are the Republicans supposed to return to power if they can't even convince companies whom they're working to protect from billions of dollars in lawsuits to pony up?

Perhaps, as one GOP leadership aide puts it, the telecoms will find religion again when they realize “these guys are not good for business.”

Today on Fox News:

It's similar to a question that the White House has also often asked.

When we last left Common Sense Issues, they were still calling millions of people in key primary states, giving them the lowdown on how John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney fell short on key conservative issues (and how Mike Huckabee passed with flying colors). But even after their robo-voiced push polls spread the word about McCain's support for "medical experiments on unborn babies" or his role in passing "the most restrictive assault on free speech ever passed in America," Huckabee was beaten in state after state after Super Tuesday.

The group stopped making calls after Huckabee's defeat in Virginia. All in all, state totals provided by the group add up to more than 11.5 million phone calls during the primary in the 11 states. The group also ran a couple TV ads against Mitt Romney and a radio ad in Virginia.

With Huckabee virtually eliminated from contention, it's time for the group's next act. They've started up a site called convinceus.org, where they've posted an "open letter" to John McCain, from "Common Sense Conservative American Citizens Wanting to Trust You."

In the letter, the group lays out eight issues that it says it needs McCain's "assurance" on. They range from a pledge that he would support amendments outlawing abortion and gay marriage, to signing "the No New Taxes pledge," to a promise that he'd support gutting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law "to protect citizens’ free speech." And then there's the kicker: he must publicly offer to have Mike Huckabee as his running mate.

Patrick Davis, the group's executive director, said that the letter did not amount to a commitment that Common Sense Issues itself would work on McCain's behalf. Rather, the letter was written on behalf of "conservatives around the country" who are looking for "John McCain to convince them that he can be trusted on conservative issues." Without such assurances, Davis says, conservatives might just stay home this November.

Read more »

With the parade of administration officials who've testified about waterboarding in the past several weeks -- that it was once legal, but is not anymore (though it could be found legal again); that it may "feel like" torture, but that doesn't mean it is torture; that as the U.S. practices it, it bears no relation to the technique used by the Spanish Inquisition (it's more in line with the Khmer Rouge way of doing things) -- you can be excused for feeling more than a little confused.

And you may have despaired of ever seeing a clear, unequivocal exchange on the topic with a government official. Like this one from today's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, with Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked, "General, do you believe that waterboarding is consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?"

After pausing a moment to think, Maples replied, "No, sir, I don’t."

"Do you think it’s humane?" Levin asked.

"No, sir, I think it would go beyond that bound."

Later, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), apparently uncomfortable with the deceptive simplicity of that exchange, added some much needed context, pointing out that CIA interrogators had waterboarded detainees "only three times," and that they had done so before the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions must apply.

Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) problems continue to multiply. The Democratic mayor of Anchorage Mark Begich will throw his hat in the ring today, and initial polls already show him leading.

From Stevens, you can expect much of what voters have been hearing from Rep. Don Young (R-AK): repeated reminders of how much pork the legendary earmarker has brought back to the state -- and how many millions are still to come.

As a kind of preview of those tributes to the earmark, the senators' office has released a galvanizing series of videos titled "What Are Earmarks?"

To Stevens, the virtue of the earmark is incontestable. In this video, for instance, Stevens proclaims that "I don't think the President was looking at Alaska when he said he wanted to reduce [earmarks by] 50%." Surely not!

Of course, Alaska is long the reigning and undisputed champion of the earmark. A database of this year's spending bills by Taxpayers for Common Sense showed that Alaska (even with two of its three lawmakers under investigation) led the states in earmark spending per capita. $346,073,350 in earmarks for 683,478 residents put that per capita spending at $506.34 -- drubbing the second highest spending state per capita, Hawaii, more than two to one.

You can understand Uncle Ted's chagrin that Alaskans would even consider biting the hand that feeds them.

Why bother? From The Washington Post:

After promising last year to search its computers for tens of thousands of e-mails sent by White House officials, the Republican National Committee has informed a House committee that it no longer plans to retrieve the communications by restoring computer backup tapes, the panel's chairman said yesterday.

The move increases the likelihood that an untold number of RNC e-mails dealing with official White House business during the first term of the Bush administration -- including many sent or received by former presidential adviser Karl Rove -- will never be recovered, said House Democrats and public records advocates.

As we reported Monday, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies launched a national ad campaign lambasting House Democrats for not passing the Senate surveillance bill, which comes complete with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

As of Friday, the group, which claims to be non-partisan, boasted a number of Democrats on their board of advisors. Those were: Donna Brazile, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY), Rep. Jim Marshall, and former Georgia governor Zell Miller. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), listed as a Democrat on the site, is one of five "distinguished advisors."

Since the group launched the ads, Brazile, Schumer, Engel and Marshall have all resigned from the group. Zell Miller, well, he spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Our call and email to Sen. Lieberman's spokesman were unreturned.

In her statement, Brazile said that no one from the group had consulted her about its activities "in years." And that the once "bi-partisan organization" had, "due to the influence of their funders... morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans."

TPM alum Spencer Ackerman, reporting on the resignations over at The Washington Independent this morning, cites Democratic sources as saying that Marshall was "appalled" by the ad.

Schumer also said that he hadn't been consulted about the group's activities and that he regretted the "partisan agenda that the organization has pursued." His full statement is below.

Brian Wise, the group's spokesman, said that he was "sorry that the senator feels that way," but that the ads are "not political ads, they're issue based ads." The ad, which you can see here, ran nationally, with a slightly different version airing in local markets targeting 15 House Dems. Those ads ended by encouraging viewers to contact their representative and urge them to convince the House leadership to bring the Senate bill to a vote -- because "the law that lets intelligence agencies intercept Al Qaeda communications" has expired, "crippling" surveillance. They will run throughout the week, Wise said.

Wise has refused to reveal the donors behind the ad, which was run by a 501(c)(4) affiliate group simply called Defense of Democracies. Wise told me yesterday that group was formed last week. When I asked if telecommunication companies had put up the money (Democratic officials estimate the buy to be in the millions), he laughed, then conceded that he didn't know who had. "To my knowledge, we've never been associated with the telecom industry." He added "we have no interest in any outcome other than national security."

Read more »

Wikileaks just got some legal backup.

The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion last night to intervene in the case. The two groups are seeking to roll back a federal California judge's sweeping order earlier this month that blocked access to wikileaks.org. The order came as a result of a Swiss bank's complaint that the site was distributing confidential documents that allegedly show shell accounts used to hide assets.

A lawyer for the ACLU and EFF said that shutting down the site was a case of "burning down the house to roast the pig." It's wrong, the groups argue, that the public has lost access to all of the documents that wikileaks has to offer (well, at least through wikileaks.org -- a number of mirror sites have sprung up to counter the order).

The groups are seeking to intervene in the case on behalf of themselves, the Project on Government Oversight, a D.C. watchdog, and Jordan McCorkle, a student at the University of Texas who uses wikileaks on a regular basis.

Update: Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition have also sought to intervene in the case.

Update: A group of journalism organizations has also sought to file an amicus brief on Wikileaks' behalf. Those organizations are: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, E.W. Scripps, Gannett, Hearst, The Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Association, the Newspaper Association of America, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and the Society of Professional Journalists.

The Marine Corps has ordered Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser, to halt work on his scathing report about "gross mismanagement" in the Marine Corps' delay in producing and delivering Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to soldiers in Iraq. It's not that the Corp officials can't handle the truth, rather Gayl's inquiry has moved "beyond its initial purpose." (USA Today)

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald issued a grand jury subpoena to the White House during the Libby-Plame investigation in order to obtain insight into the internal dynamics of the Bush-Cheney White House. It now appears that the prosecutor did not get all of the e-mail requested. Testimony from a former White House computer expert, Steven McDevitt, revealed yesterday that all e-mail from Cheney's office was missing for the week of Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003 - the "opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame." (AP)

For the first time since becoming a captive of the U.S. in secret detention and then at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Zubaydah has met with two attorneys who will now represent him. The lawyers, Joseph Margulies and Brent Mickum, will challenge their new client's status as an "enemy combatant" through a federal appeals process. (Miami Herald)

Read more »

I don't know how the administration can be expected to successfully fear-monger with articles like this being written. It's not helpful.

Ever since the Protect America Act lapsed a little more than a week ago, the administration has been emphasizing the grave danger the country is in. Sure, experts and Democrats say that surveillance of terrorist groups authorized under the lapsed law should continue unabated. But don't listen to them.

The administration delivered what should have been the coup de grâce on Friday, when the director of national intelligence informed Congress that the feared consequence of the law's lapse was already upon us. "We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," they wrote, underlining the sentence to add that needed emphasis. Telecoms weren't cooperating with wiretap requests out of that "uncertainty." Unfortunately, the troublesome telecom apparently quickly became certain, because those administration officials had to announce that the dark hour was over only "hours later."

The New York Times sheds some much needed light on the situation this morning. The most crucial revelation is this:

Theoretically, intelligence officials would have to revert to older — and, they say, more cumbersome — legal standards if they were now to stumble onto a new terrorist group that was not covered by a previous wiretapping order. But that has not happened since the surveillance law expired, administration officials said.

This is crucial because the administration's direst warnings have had to do with being unable to wiretap new targets. But apparently the powers granted by the Protect America Act were so sweeping that after a week, the NSA hasn't run into that problem yet.

The apparent "uncertainty" which the administration hyped last week for one telecom had hinged on a legal issue: "whether the government could expand existing wiretapping orders to include new phone numbers or e-mail addresses in surveillance of the same targets covered by the original orders," the Times reports. That issue has been resolved. And an anonymous "lawyer in the telecommunications industry" tells the Times that he's "seen little practical effect on the industry’s surveillance operations since the law expired."

BUT that doesn't mean Democrats and Americans should not be afraid: administration officials "emphasized that the uncertainty of the legal landscape threatened to disrupt future operations."

You can be sure that you'll be hearing about every bump on the road until the administration gets its precious retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

From the AP:

A computer expert who worked at the White House provided the first inside look at its e-mail system Tuesday, calling it a "primitive" setup that created a "high" risk that data would be lost.

Steven McDevitt's written statements placed on the public record at a congressional hearing asserted that a study by White House technical staff in October 2005 turned up an estimated 1,000 days on which e-mail was missing....

McDevitt's statements detailed shortcomings that he said have plagued the White House e-mail system for six years. He declared that:

_The White House had no complete inventory of e-mail files.

_There was no automatic system to ensure that e-mails were archived and preserved.

_Until mid-2005 the e-mail system had serious security flaws, in which "everyone" on the White House computer network had access to e-mail. McDevitt wrote that the "potential impact" of the security flaw was that there was no way to verify that retained data had not been modified.

You can see McDevitt's full answers here (pdf).

Remember that as The Washington Post outlined last month, the Bush Administration managed to dismantle the Clinton Administration's email archive system without replacing it with anything at all.

Yesterday we brought you Karl Rove's expansive denial of Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson's testimony to Congress and comments to 60 Minutes.

Simpson responded last night on MSNBC's Dan Abrams show: "Since Karl Rove has said that and he feels so good saying that, what I want him to do is go and swear before the United States Congress and swear what he's saying is true."

Simpson also responded to accusations from the Alabama Republican Party that Simpson had never worked for the party and no one had ever heard of her. She said that phone records would show conversations with party officials in Alabama and Washington, D.C. in 2002 and 2006.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Don Siegelman case in October, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) produced phone records showing that Simpson had spoken with William Canary, a Republican operative, on the day in 2002 that she said Canary had told her on a conference call that his wife and another U.S. attorney would "take care" of Siegelman.

You've heard from President Bush over and over and over and over again about the imminent danger the country is in. And you've heard from the director of national intelligence and attorney general about how the telecoms are quaking over the uncertainty created by not securing retroactive immunity.

Yesterday, four former top national security officials put forward a different line in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. The officials -- Richard Clarke (former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council), Rand Beers (former Senior Director for Combating Terrorism at the National Security Council), Lt. Gen. Don Kerrick (former Deputy National Security Advisor), and Suzanne Spaulding (former assistant general counsel at the CIA) -- all worked with McConnell in the past. McConnell led the National Security Agency from 1992 through 1996. The letter was distributed today by the National Security Network.

McConnell and the administration, they wrote, was distorting the truth about surveillance capabilities after the lapse of the Protect America Act. The country is not "at greater risk," they write. "The intelligence community currently has the tools it needs to acquire surveillance of new targets and methods of communication."

And they're also not buying the administration line on how crucial it is that the telecoms be granted retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program:

Telecommunications companies will continue to cooperate with lawful government requests, particularly since FISA orders legally compel cooperation with the government. Again, it is unclear to us that the immunity debate will affect our surveillance capabilities....

The Administration has made it clear it believes this entire debate hinges on liability protection. As previously stated, it is unclear that liability protection would significantly improve our surveillance capabilities. It is wrong to make this one issue an immovable impediment to Congress passing strong legislation to protect the American people.

You can read the entire letter below.

Read more »

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: no one will ever accuse Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson of a lack of chutzpah.

Johnson, remember, blocked California's effort -- and 15 other states by extension -- to combat greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. He made the decision despite an apparent unanimity of opinion on his staff that he had no real justification for doing so. The decision was certainly to the White House's and automotive industry's satisfaction.

The Senate environmental committee, along with the House oversight committee, has been investigating the decision. Johnson made a blandly combative appearance (heavy on the "gobbledygook") before the Senate panel last month. And today, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released more evidence that Johnson overruled his staff.

A set of talking points prepared for a senior official in the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality for a meeting with Johnson was most explicit:

From what I have read and the people I have talked to, it is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying this....

You [Johnson] have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances. This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it. If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged.

Update: The New York Times reports that the talking points were "drafted by Christopher Grundler, deputy director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the agency, for his boss, Margo T. Oge." They were used by William K. Reilly, the administrator from 1989 to 1993, in a conversation with Johnson.

Monica Goodling is set to cross the line -- into matrimony.

The former Justice Department White House liaison of U.S. attorneys firing fame is engaged to blogger Mike Krempasky, one of the founders of Redstate. (Presumably he passed Goodling's questionnaire with flying colors.)

The legal blog Above The Law, which first reported the engagement, has some nice pictures. Krempasky confirmed the news in an email.

One wonders: will Alberto Gonzales and former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty be invited to the wedding? Probably not.

The House Judiciary Committee has reached an agreement with John Ashcroft securing his testimony at a federal hearing concerning the $27 million to $52 million no-bid contract he received from his former subordinate, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. The committee was preparing to subpoena Ashcroft if he refused to testify voluntarily. Christie, however, will not appear at the hearing because the Justice Department has decided to send a U.S. Attorney from Georgia instead. (AP)

The Marine Corps, following the lead of senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Kit Bond (R-MO), has called for the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate delays in the deployment of blast-resistant vehicles in Iraq and whether the delays led to hundreds of unnecessary deaths and injuries. (MSNBC, AP)

Former military prosecutor Col. Morris Davis claims that the plea deal that sent Australian David Hicks - so far the sole detainee at Guantanamo Bay to have been convicted of a crime under the U.S. military tribunal system - to prison was rushed for political reasons. According to Davis "there appeared to be some impetus to try to help" former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who was then facing a difficult re-election campaign. The Pentagon denies the allegations. (Herald Sun)

Read more »

It's a free country, damn it, and the FEC ought to quit hasslin' John McCain.

That, at least, is the shorter version of the letter the McCain campaign's lawyer Trevor Potter (a former FEC chairman himself) sent the FEC yesterday. In the letter, Potter argued that the campaign didn't need the FEC's say-so to opt out of the public financing system. As the AP reports:

...Potter said the Supreme Court concluded that public financing for campaigns is constitutional because it is voluntary. "As a result, candidates have a constitutional right to withdraw from the program."

To recall the stakes: the public financing system for the primaries entails a $54 million spending limit, an amount that McCain has pretty much already spent. If the FEC were to decide that he could not leave the program, it would be an incredible problem for his campaign.

Of course, the chances of the FEC of doing anything are zilch right now, because David Mason, the Republican chairman, is one of only two commissioners. Four nominees are stuck in the Senate because of the fight over Hans von Spakovsky. But Mason has written the McCain campaign to tell them that McCain cannot withdraw from the program without the FEC's say-so, since McCain effectively entered into a contract when he opted in to the program last year.

Potter, as you can see above, doesn't think much of that argument. But then there's the other problem: the McCain campaign's creative financing, the very clever $1 million bank loan last December. The burning question for Mason is whether the loan was just clever enough or too clever by half.

We outlined the deal in detail here. But the basic idea is that McCain's lawyers knew he could not use the $5.8 million in public matching funds the FEC had certified for his campaign as collateral for the loan, since that would have effectively locked him into the program. So the campaign promised the bank that if he lost the primary, he'd opt out of public financing, but stick in the race, and then opt back in, get those matching funds, and then pay off the bank. That way, voila! he wasn't using that prior certification as collateral. If you're confused, you're not the only one.

The bank's lawyers (one of them another former FEC chairman) laid it out in a letter which also made its way to the FEC:

"The bank does not now have, nor did it ever receive from (McCain's campaign) committee, a security interest in any certification of matching funds," [Scott] Thomas and lawyer Matthew S. Bergman wrote....

The loan documents specifically state that the collateral did not include McCain's right to the public funds. But the agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Bethesda, Md., required him to reapply for matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests.

"It is our understanding that, to date, none of those events have occurred," the bank lawyers wrote.

Very clever.

So now we'll see if the FEC's current chairman buys all this. And no matter what he says, it seems likely this issue is far from resolved.

Last week, Col. Morris Davis, the former prosecutor told reporters that he'd had a conversation with the Pentagon's general counsel William Haynes, during which Haynes had said about the Gitmo tribunals that "We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions."

It made Haynes, already a controversial figure because of his role crafting the Pentagon's interrogation policies, even more controversial. Davis said that he resigned when he was put under Haynes' chain of command.

And now Haynes is gone.

A press release this afternoon from the Department of Defense:

The Department of Defense announced today that General Counsel of the Department of Defense William J. Haynes II is returning to private life next month.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said of Haynes, “I am sorry to see Jim leave the Pentagon. I have valued his legal advice and enjoyed working with him. Jim held this important post longer than anyone in history and he did so during one of America’s most trying periods. He has served the Department of Defense and the nation with distinction.”

Said Haynes, “I thank the President and the Secretary of Defense for their confidence and for the opportunity to serve. I leave the Pentagon humbled and inspired by the selfless sacrifices of the men and women, uniformed and civilian, who defend our country. And, I thank their families.”

Haynes had already tried to move out of the Pentagon once -- the White House nominated him to be a federal appeals court judge, a nomination that ultimately failed due to Democratic opposition.

From Justin over at ABC:

Thirty-five counts won't keep Rick Renzi down.

The Arizona congressman will not step down in the face of a federal indictment handed down last Friday, he announced in a press release late Monday evening.

"“I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent," the statement read. "My legal team. . .will handle these legal issues while I continue to serve my constituents."

Renzi is scheduled to be arraigned on March 6th.

Karl Rove, now a frequent talking head on Fox News, for the first time publicly addressed the Don Siegelman case today. You can watch his appearance here:

It amounted to a complete denial that he ever knew Dana Jill Simpson (he might have met her at a fundraiser, he said, but didn't "believe" that he ever had) and that she ever worked on any campaign with which he was involved. "I never asked her to do a darn thing," he said. "It's a lie what she said."

Simpson, a Republican lawyer, told 60 Minutes and congressional investigators (under oath) that Rove had asked her to take a picture of Siegelman cheating on his wife -- and that this was just one of many requests that he'd made of her. Simpson also has testified that she was on a conference call where Rove's friend William Canary recalled talking to his buddy Karl about sicking the Justice Department on Siegelman, adding that “my girls would take care of him,” referring to U.S. attorney Leura Canary (his wife) and another U.S. attorney in the state.

Rove also took the opportunity to scold 60 Minutes for not interviewing him again after first conducting an off the record interview with him "five months ago." He did not say whether he would have agreed to do an on-camera interview if he'd known precisely what 60 Minutes was going to report. But "60 Minutes is now the National Enquirer of network news," in his estimation.

Simpson will be on MSNBC tonight on the Dan Abrams show.

Another day, another public declaration by President Bush that the Democrats are exposing the U.S. to another terrorist attack.

Meanwhile, reporters tried to get White House spokeswoman Dana Perino to explain how the White House simultaneously condemns the Democrats for letting the Protect America Act lapse when the law lapsed because the administration and Republicans opposed it. See if you can target the recurring theme. From today's press briefing:

Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democrats that accuse the President of using scare tactics and playing political games? And they say if the President really believed the expiration of the act created a danger, he should have accepted their offer for an extension.

MS. PERINO: Well, one, the House proved that they couldn't even pass an extension, so that wasn't an option. An extension wasn't an option. But we had a response to the op-ed, that I issued.

I think that fear-mongering and the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is something that the Democrats -- it must be, like, one of their favorite words, or it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time.

What we have done is state facts; that this is what the law said; this is what the intelligence community says that they need; this is what the bill in front of the House says, and it's one that was designed with the intelligence community, in concert with them, so that they would be able to have the buy-in and say that they would get what they need out of that bill. It passed 68-29; we think they should go ahead and pass it.

The issue really right now between the House and the Senate, as far as I can tell, the biggest issue is retroactive liability protection, and in their op-ed they just had a passing glance to that issue. But it is one of the biggest sticking points, because at the end of the day if we don't have the companies helping us, then we won't have a program.

And later:

Read more »

In the wake of last night's 60 Minutes report, attorneys for Don Siegelman will be requesting a special counsel to investigate the politicization of the prosecution.

Vince Kilborn, one of the attorneys handling Siegelman's appeal, said that the request, which will be addressed to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, will focus on 60 Minutes' revelation that prosecutors had such problems with Nick Bailey, the government's star witness, that he had to write out his testimony over and over again to get it straight. Such notes would have been required to be turned over to Siegelman's counsel before trial. Prosecutors turned over no such material, 60 Minutes reported.

Kilborn said that the request will focus on the obvious conflict of interest for the local U.S. attorney's office and the Justice Department to initiate an investigation. The request will be placed in the context of the U.S. attorneys firings scandal, which demonstrated the politicization of the Department. "There needs to be a hard look at this case by someone independent."

Mukasey has said that issues with Siegelman's case should first be heard on appeal. But Kilborn said that would mean that Siegelman would spend another "year or so, maybe two" before he had a hope of being vindicated. "That's just not acceptable."

Kilborn said he expected to send his letter tomorrow.

Rep. Rick Renzi's (R-AZ) case is moving along, with the judge setting an arraignment date for March 6th.

Renzi's lawyers have said that he's innocent and will plead not guilty. The judge also set a trial date for April 29th (a date one would expect to be pushed back).

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) began a push for Renzi to resign on Friday, but for now, at least, he seems to be laying low.

Stepping up the pressure on House Democrats, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has launched a national ad campaign criticizing Democrats for not passing the Senate's surveillance bill.

According to the group's press release, the ad "will be seen on cable and satellite stations throughout the country and is also seen locally in 17 media markets across the United States." The ads target 15 House Democrats, such as Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN). Brian Wise, the spokesman for the group, told me that the group had chosen the 15 because they were Dems "who we believe understand the issue and who would be the most effective to pushing the House leadership to vote on this." He added: "politics really has nothing to do with it."

You can see the ad here:

It's similar in tone to an ad the House Republicans put together last week -- and similarly misleading. It claims that the lapse of the Protect America Act has meant that "new surveillance against terrorists is crippled."

Dems, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the force behind the Senate bill, vehemently disagree. And as even The Washington Times concluded, the lapse of the law would have "little effect" on surveillance collection.

Wise said that the lapse of the act has meant that "we can no longer do electronic surveillance on new targets" without a warrant and that such warrants "can take hours, days, weeks to process." Administration officials have claimed that the lapse has "impaired" intelligence collection.

You can see the group's press release below. The ad is actually paid for by an affiliated 501(c)(4) group called Defense of Democracies, which Wise said was formed last week.

The group claims to be "non-partisan," but has a decided rightward slant in its leadership. Wise said that the group had never run ads before, but that "the importance of this issue" had pressed the group to act. He said a "number of donors, patriotic Americans, we like to call them," had provided the money for the buy. He would not disclose who they were, and such non-profits are not required to disclose their donors.

Update: The Minnesota blog Bluestem Prairie, which got on the case this weekend, lists the following Dems as targets:

Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy (CT); Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes (NH); Jason Altmire (PA); Ron Klein and Tim Mahoney (FL); Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell (AZ); Jerry McNerney (CA); Melissa Bean (IL); Joe Donnelly (IN); Nancy Boyda (KS); Michael Arcuri and Kirsten Gillbrand (NY) ; Steve Kagen (WI)

Read more »

The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint (pdf) today with the FEC concerning Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign financing problem. So where do things stand then? Keep in mind this is an unprecedented situation, so it's not really clear where things will go next.

The main problem remains: FEC Chairman David Mason says that "a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission” when that candidate opts in to the public financing system, so McCain will just have to wait until the FEC is up and running again to be formally released (remember that a logjam in the Senate over four nominees for the FEC has tied its hands). To which McCain and his lawyers say phooey: It's a candidate's "constitutional right" to opt out.

Very soon, the McCain campaign, already spending its way past $50 million, will be in violation of the public campaign financing system's $54 million spending limit for the primary (that cap lasts through the party's convention). Barring a miracle in the Senate, the FEC will remain unable to act officially with only two commissioners.

The DNC's complaint adds another variable to the mix. After receiving the complaint and giving two weeks for a response from McCain's campaign, FEC staff will ultimately give a recommendation to the commissioners whether to initiate a formal investigation. But ... since the FEC doesn't have a quorum, i.e. the four commissioners needed to act, the FEC could not approve an investigation.

From there, things could find their way into court. “The DNC may simply be setting the stage for a federal lawsuit to make John McCain obey campaign finance laws,” observed David Donnelly of Campaign Money Watch.

The McCain camp has said that they will respond to Mason's letter from last week. They'll do their best to explain why the campaign's very clever bank loan did not lock McCain into the system by using promised federal matching funds as collateral. But even if Mason were to conclude that McCain should be able to opt out (a big "if"), he's made clear that McCain cannot opt out without the FEC's say-so. So things seem likely to continue to get more and more interesting regardless of what happens.

In an election season when the electorate is passionately debating the relative merits of change, experience and straight talk, Milwaukee’s 6th District gave their one-term alderman, Michael McGee, a plurality of their votes in a 9-candidate race last Tuesday. He will face Milele Coggs in the aldermanic runoff in April.

What’s so unusual?

McGee is running his re-election campaign from his jail cell. He was arrested last May, and is still behind bars. Charged with 12 counts of election fraud, bribery and contempt in the state court and nine federal counts, which include bribery and extortion, he faces a theoretical, though unlikely, 115-year sentence if convicted of all the felonies. Though he posted bond on the state charges, the judge in the federal court is holding McGee without bail because he was allegedly intimidating witnesses even from prison in order to influence their testimony. McGee could take office from jail if elected, because his trial dates are after this April’s runoff. If convicted as a felon, he would be removed from office.

Read more »

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) disclosed in a letter to Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that it is investigating the "circumstances surrounding" the production of memos authorizing the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding during the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The OPR is also investigating the DOJ's authorization of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. (Washington Post)

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee in 1998, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) warned the head of the Federal Communications Commission that if the FCC closed a broadcast ownership loophole he would do his best to overhaul the agency. That loophole was significant to a client of Vicki Iseman, Glencairn Ltd. McCain's campaign insists that McCain was not acting on behalf of Iseman (who was in contact with McCain's staff about the issue) but merely wanted the FCC to “not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent.” (New York Times)

The House Judiciary Committee will vote soon on whether to issue a subpoena to former Attorney General John Ashcroft so that it may learn more about the no-bid, 18-month monitoring contract, worth $28 million to $52 million that Ashcroft was awarded from a former employee. The House committee had initially invited Ashcroft to testify at a hearing Tuesday but the hearing has been canceled without any explanation. U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, who awarded Ashcroft the contract, has stated that if the Justice Department instructs him to testify to the House committee, he will go. (New York Times, PolitickerNJ.com)

Read more »

Got your popcorn? If it's too early for that, a cup of coffee will do. Last night 60 Minutes finally aired its segment on the Don Siegelman case, and here it is, in all its 9-minute glory:

Ever since June of last year, the Siegelman case has, more than any other, been the prime example of selective prosecution in the Bush Justice Department, culminating in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last October. Siegelman, a popular Dem governor when prosecutors set their sights on him, is currently serving out his sentence for bribery charges.

60 Minutes' piece is an excellent distillation of the case. There's Republican lawyer Jill Simpson's recollection of a conference call where Karl Rove's friend William Canary recalled talking to his buddy Karl about sicking the Justice Department on Siegelman, saying that his “girls would take care of him,” referring to U.S. attorney Leura Canary (his wife) and another U.S. attorney in the state. And there's the Justice Department's renewal of vigor after the first prosecution against Siegelman fell flat on its face.

But there was more, the most significant revelation being that prosecutors had coached their star witness to the point where he had to write his carefully recollected testimony over and over again to make sure he got it right. Such notes, 60 Minutes reports, should have been turned over to Siegelman's defense attorneys. They were not.

And there seems to be a fitting capstone to the piece's broadcast. At least one CBS affiliate in Alabama, Scott Horton and Larisa Alexandrovna report, went dark during the broadcast. Just went dark. The station claimed that there was a technical difficulty which lasted only for the segment on Siegelman ("NewsChannel 19 lost our program feed from CBS"). Boy, is that bad luck. But not to worry -- they got the problem worked out and rebroadcast the segment that night at 10. During the Oscars.

Whoops. Strike that: the sky is not falling. But it'll probably fall soon. So Dems should still give in, pronto. From The Washington Post:

The Bush administration said yesterday that the government "lost intelligence information" because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.

But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.

Laura Rozen has the bizarre press release the DNI and AG sent out yesterday.