It never did look very good for Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, the well-known plantiffs attorney, Dem fundraiser, and brother-in-law to ex-Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). If you got associates rattling on about knowing where the bodies are buried on a wiretapped conversation, then it's generally safe to say that you've got problems.

And so Scruggs, who was indicted last November, has gone down easy for his "boneheaded bribery scam" to bribe a judge. From the AP:

Scruggs, 61, and co-defendant Sidney Backstrom both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. Scruggs' law partner and son, Zach, also is charged in the case but did not enter a plea and is expected to go to trial.

Prosecutors said they would recommend five years in prison for Scruggs and 2 1/2 for Backstrom, penalties significantly lower than what they could have faced.

There is nothing in the plea agreement to indicate that Scruggs will be cooperating with prosecutors in return for a lower sentence. So indications for now are that he was the big fish here.

Just out from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

“I am very encouraged by House passage of a new FISA bill. The new House version adopts the basic structure of the Senate-passed bill, but contains added privacy protections. Now is the time for Republicans to come to the negotiating table so we can resolve the last few issues. The President should stop giving high-handed speeches in the Rose Garden and start working with Congress to finalize this important national security bill.”

The House Dem leadership's surveillance bill just cleared the House by a vote of 213-197 with 1 vote of present. 12 Dems crossed the aisle to vote against it.

The bill has stricter privacy safeguards than the Senate's version -- and of course does not contain a provision granting retroactive immunity for the telecoms' participation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

As for what's next, it's over to the Senate where it's sure to undergo some modifications. In a statement earlier this week, Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that "considerable work remains" on reconciling the House's latest version and the Senate version. Rockefeller said he's willing to adopt a number of the House's provisions, including a much shorter sunset (2 years) on the law, but notably omitted the topic of immunity. Rockefeller supports blanket immunity for the telecoms.

The Senate is certainly a different place. Today, 12 House Dems voted against a bill that does not contain retroactive immunity (and some of those were from liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)). Last month in the Senate, 18 Dems voted against an attempt to strip retroactive immunity from the Senate bill.

Update: Here's the roll call.

OK, so Hans von Spakovsky's nomination to the Federal Election Commission has left the Senate hopelessly gridlocked, and the FEC crippled. And he packed his bags and left the building months ago. But the man is still keeping busy.

The vote suppression expert has just released his latest call-to-arms on the voter ID front at the Heritage Foundation. It's called "Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes: A Case Study in Voter Impersonation."

In it, Spakovsky takes on those liberal critics who claim that there's no voter fraud (like, say, The New York Times) by unearthing a 1984 grand jury investigation in Brooklyn, NY during which, he says, numerous episodes of voter fraud dating back to 1968 were uncovered.

Just because the case was 24 years ago and no indictments were issued shouldn't give us pause. The point is that it's evidence that fraud does occur. And therefore there's a strong case for requiring ID at the polls. And if the law disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters, I guess that's just collateral damage. The Supreme Court is expected to decide by late June whether Indiana's voter ID law is unconstitutional.

So you can see that Spakovsky is still on the case, though thankfully not still at the Justice Department, where he took a number of steps that had the effect of making it more difficult for minorities to vote. Bush put Spakovsky on the FEC by a recess appointment in December, 2005.

As voting law expert Rick Hasen points out, the piece is a brazen move for a guy who's been accused of being too partisan. Apparently Spakovsky is not holding out for winning Democrats over.

A recent report (pdf) by the Election Assistance Commission's inspector general served as a reminder for why Spakovsky is so controversial. In it, former Commissioner Paul DeGregorio, a Republican who frequently clashed with Spakovsky when he was at the Justice Department, is quoted as saying that "too many of [von Spakovsky's] decisions are clouded by his partisan thinking" and that Spakovsky thought that DeGregorio should use his position to advance the Republican Party's agenda.

The House is expected to finally vote on the leadership's surveillance bill this afternoon and debate is ongoing now. We'll keep you updated on how it goes.

The reason the vote was delayed, of course, was the extremely rare secret session requested by Republicans (only the fifth since 1825).

It's unclear exactly what went on. For one thing, it appears from comments Republicans made going into the session that they didn't actually discuss the details of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) tells the AP that he had read aloud the titles — but not details — of intelligence reports "that shows the nature of the global threat and how dynamic the situation is, and how fluid."

Democrats are as dismissive afterwards as they were skeptical going in. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) dismissed it as "mysterious hocus-pocus" on the House floor this morning. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that he didn't "hear any new information" that dissuades him from supporting the Dems' bill. (Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said in a statement that he was satisfied with the session and “As members go home, I hope the information and debate we heard will help inform their decisions when we consider the legislation that will be before the House tomorrow.")

Dana Milbank writing in The Washington Post can hardly restrain his mockery of the whole thing -- and has a hard time deciding whether the debate to go into closed session was sillier than the closed session itself.

But if it was a PR stunt, I have to say that the secret session seems to have fallen far short of the GOP's staged walkout in garnering publicity.

So former National Republican Campaign Committee treasurer Chris Ward seems to have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRCC. But the NRCC was not the only one he might have been taking from, according to The Politico:

One GOP insider said Ward also diverted funds from the leadership PACs and re-election campaigns for which he worked, usually in smaller amounts, although the insider said the total taken from those PACs and campaigns may actually end up being greater than the losses suffered by the NRCC itself....

A GOP source said that, in some cases, Ward cut checks, in small amounts, from a lawmaker’s campaign or leadership PAC directly to his own bank account. At other times, the sources said, Ward used a dummy company as a go-between, but the money finally ended up in his account.

The source said that Ward issued a $4,208 check to himself in December from Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s (R-Texas) PAC, although he returned that money in early February, after the NRCC accounting scandal became public.

President Bush has issued an executive order weakening the Intelligence Oversight Board, which was created by the Ford administration following a Congressional investigation into abuses by intelligence agencies. Among the changes: the order "deleted the board's authority to refer matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation" and "terminated the board's authority to oversee each intelligence agency's general counsel and inspector general." (Boston Globe)

The goal posts have been moved so many times that it's worth recalling that when President Bush called for a "surge" of troops in Iraq, the stated goal was to create the stability required for the Iraqi government to function effectively and begin the process of reconciliation. By that standard, General Petraeus conceded yesterday that the "surge" has failed. Petraeus informed the press that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the government's ability to provide basic public services. (Washington Post)

A recently released Justice Department report revealed the FBI's abuse of intelligence-gathering privileges through the use of "national security letters," and yesterday two government audits of this abuse revealed that the agency obtained records that the FISA court had deemed protected by the First Amendment." Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's Inspector General discovered that the FBI attempted to skirt the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court after it twice rejected an FBI records request because "the 'facts' were too thin" and the "request implicated the target's First Amendment rights." (Washington Post)

Read more »

If there's one thing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson doesn't like to talk about, it's his conversations with the White House. When questioned about some decision that just happened to delight the White House, Johnson, the most disciplined adherent to talking points in recent memory, responds with a version of "the final decision was mine and mine alone" or "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."

But unfortunately, sometimes you just can't keep a lid on things. Earlier this week, the EPA issued a new rule on the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air. It was a decision taken against the unanimous advice of EPA scientists, who advised a much lower standard than the one ultimately decided upon. That has come to be a sadly regular occurrence. But this time, the role of the White House -- and President Bush himself -- is clear. From The Washington Post:

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The White House's intervention was so last minute and arbitrary that the Justice Department was evidently set to scrambling in an effort to find the legal support for it. As the Post reports, the effect of the decision will likely be long term: "Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade."

The White House's influence (first reported by The Los Angeles Times earlier this week) was made evident by documents that the EPA was forced to produce in support of the decision. And in those documents, you can see the different ways EPA scientists and White House officials approached the problem. One the one side, you have concern for the environment. On the other, concern for "personal comfort and well-being":

The EPA's documents suggest that senior officials and scientific advisers resisted the White House's position. Last year, the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee wrote -- using italics for emphasis -- that it unanimously supported the EPA staff's conclusion that "protection of managed agricultural crops and natural terrestrial ecosystems requires a secondary [ozone standard] that is substantially different from the primary ozone standard. . . ."

When the OMB's Susan E. Dudley urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone further on "economic values and on personal comfort and well-being," the EPA's Marcus Peacock responded in a March 7 memo: "EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being."

You can be sure that Johnson's next trip to Capitol Hill will put his talking points to the test.

We'll keep you updated. And we'll see how that historic closed session goes.

House oversight committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) follows through on his threat.

Yesterday, news broke that the Pentagon had decided to squelch release of a study that had definitively concluded that there were no operational links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda, a major underpinning of the case for war. There would be no press conference and the report would not be emailed to reporters. Anyone who wanted it would have to get it by mail.

As I observed, it was a disappointingly lame effort at suppressing inconvenient information from the administration that's set the gold standard.

We were told by the Joint Forces Command that our copy was mailed today. But ABC News has already got its copy and posted it for all to see. So here you go (pdf). Behold! "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

From CQ:

The House was to meet Thursday in its first closed session in 25 years to debate a Democratic leadership-backed rewrite of electronic surveillance law....

Earlier, Minority Leader John A. Boehner said Republicans would ask for the closed session to have an “open and honest debate about some of the important details about this program, that don’t need to be heard in public.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., has agreed to the request.

“We’re having debate on the bill. And I don’t have any problem with having part of it in closed session, and part of it in open session,” Pelosi said.

House Judicary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) is skeptical:

"The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats. My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.

Read more »

As expected, the National Republican Campaign Committee today released the preliminary results of an investigation of its accounts -- a probe that seeks to determine how much the committee's former treasurer Chris Ward might have stolen.

For now, here's what they have to say. Ward, who'd worked at the NRCC since 1995, seems to have faked all the NRCC's audits from 2003 through 2006. During that time, the committee says in a press release, Ward made "several hundred thousands dollars" in unauthorized transfers to other fundraising committees he managed, money that eventually was transferred to his personal accounts. See my earlier post for how Ward was found out.

"The exact dollar figures are currently a moving target," according to the NRCC press release. But indications are that it could be in the neighborhood of $1 million. "At year end 2006, the NRCC’s actual cash on hand was approximately $990,000 less than the amount reported to the FEC," according to the release. The review is being conducted by the law firm Covington and Burling and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

As NRCC Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) puts it, "the evidence we have today indicates we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual."

The NRCC's last report to the FEC in February showed that the committee had approximately $6.4 million in cash on hand. But the investigation has reduced that number by $740,000, so that the correct number is appoximately $5.7 million. The DCCC reported $35.4 million in cash on hand.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responding to the president's remarks this morning that the House bill will "undermine America's security":

QUESTION: Don't you think the president is lying?

PELOSI: Am I saying the president is lying?

QUESTION: Yes.

PELOSI: That's the same question I got in 2001 when they asked me -- when I said the intelligence on Iraq does not support the threat of -- an imminent threat to our country that the administration is contending.

That's what they said to me then. They said, "Are you saying the president is lying?" I said then and I say now, "I am stating a fact."

The president is wrong and he knows it.

It's hard keeping up with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's many efforts at squelching staff recommendations and issuing industry-friendly decisions, I know. But House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) is doing his best. And interviews with EPA staff are revealing the extent of Johnson's foot-dragging and stonewalling.

Last week, we noted that Johnson seemed to be ignoring a decision by the Supreme Court. The Court said the EPA could no longer avoid deciding whether greenhouse gases were pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. But almost one year later, Johnson still hasn't released an official determination.

But as Waxman has found out -- and as he detailed in a letter to Johnson yesterday -- the EPA has already done all the necessary work. EPA employees told his staff in interviews that a team of 60 to 70 hashed it out last year and actually sent it to the White House in December (the EPA, of course, found that greenhouse gases did endanger public welfare). They also produced new regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and trucks and sent that off to the Department of Transportation. But since then, nothing has been heard. It's just sitting on the shelf.

Read more »

Lawyers for Ali al-Marri, a detainee held at the Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, will assert in court papers that al-Marri was systematically abused and informed that there were numerous videotapes depicting the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency's handling of him. In a related matter, Defense Department officials are reviewing interrogations at military facilities from Iraq to Guantánamo Bay, and have found approximately 50 tapes, including one that depicts a detainee being forcibly gagged. In February, Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research reported that it had discovered "new evidence of a longstanding government practice of recording interrogations at Guantánamo Bay," suggesting that "the two CIA tapes that were destroyed were only a tiny fraction of perhaps 24,000 recorded interrogations." (Washington Post, New York Times, Seton Hall University School of Law)

The White House's Office of Management and Budget proposed a new rule last year that obligated contractors to report waste or fraud they encountered in government contract work. However, the rule has a loophole that exempts such mandatory reporting on foreign soil. (Washington Post)

Two detainees at Guantanamo Bay were captured and imprisoned as juveniles. Mohammed Jawad was captured when he was 16 and Omar Khadr was captured when he was 15. The detainees' lawyers are asking for leniency but Military prosecutors say that there is no provision for juvenile status under the 2006 war-crimes tribunal laws. (AP)

Despite high profile support for an earmark moratorium, any measure banning lawmakers' ability to fund home-state projects is likely to fail. The Senate will likely reject the moratorium today and even Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who initially seemed supportive of reform, has tempered her support. Meanwhile, The Hill reports that "congressional candidates in tight races, from Alaska to New York, are vowing to pursue earmarks despite the intensifying movement against pet projects." (Washington Post, The Hill)

Read more »

Later today, the House will vote on its surveillance bill, a bill that rejects retroactive immunity for the telecoms who cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program and provides a number of tougher civil liberty checks on the surveillance going forward.

The general expectation is that the bill will pass, but the vote might be quite close. As CQ reported last night, none of the 21 Blue Dog Dems seem prepared to say where they'll vote -- a number saying yesterday that they hadn't even read the bill yet.

It was a defiant move for the House Dem leadership to bring such a bill to a vote, and the administration clearly is not happy. This morning, President Bush just made umpteenth public statement on the surveillance bill, full of the usual canards about greedy trial lawyers exploiting the telecoms' patriotic participation in the program, "dangerous intelligence gaps," and the specter of the telecoms refusing to cooperate going forward because the lawsuits did not get wiped out. His message was clear: "voting for this bill would make our country less safe" and (just in case they weren't clear on this) Americans "want their children to be safe from terror." The House should not leave for its planned two-week Easter recess, he said, without passing the Senate's bill, which the White House supports.

Here's video of Bush this morning:

If the House were to pass the bill today, it would make its way over to the Senate, where it would be sure to undergo some significant modifications (including, most likely, reinserting retroactive immunity). Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has said as much. That's a process that wouldn't get underway until April. But the White House is impatient and evidently hopes that moderate Dems will join with Republicans in voting down the leadership's bill, after which the administration would continue to exert pressure to pass the Senate bill. You can be sure that outside groups would continue to pound Dems with ads screaming that the country has been left defenseless.

Inconveniently enough for the administration, there's still plenty more to be learned about just how the administration's warrantless wiretapping program worked. For instance, just this morning, The New York Times reports that the FBI used so-called "blanket" letters -- letters that were a "one-step operation used to justify the collection of hundreds of phone and e-mail records at a time" -- at least 11 times in 2006. That and other abuses of national security letters by the FBI are illustrated in this report (pdf) by the Department of Justice's inspector general.

And as we learned only this Monday (thanks to The Wall Street Journal), the FBI's data feeds the NSA's massive driftnet, which in turn can result in wiretaps through the Terrorist Surveillance Program. But the administration, of course, wants the issue closed. Dems should "stop playing politics with the past," as Bush put it this morning -- it's time to succumb to the politics of the present.

After holding out for months, the administration finally turned over documents from the warrantless wiretapping program to the House Judiciary Committee. It was a transparent bid to convince Democrats to get on board with retroactive immunity for the telecoms, a plan that largely worked with the Senate intelligence committee.

But, obviously, it didn't work. The Dems, led by Chair John Conyers (D-MI), reviewed the documentation. And in a statement today, Conyers and 19 members of the committee explain in detail why they concluded "that the Administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill."

They cite a number of factors as to why it would be inadvisable to remove the issue from the courts and give the telecoms a free pass on lawsuits challenging the program. But the overarching reason seems to be that it's far from clear that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal, as the administration insists. In fact, they write, "our review of classified information has reinforced serious concerns about the potential illegality of the Administration’s actions in authorizing and carrying out its warrantless surveillance program."

The House is expected to vote on the new bill (which Conyers helped write) tomorrow.

Did you think that just because taxpayers funded a study that showed conclusively there was no operational link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda that it would be released without a fuss? Well, this is the Bush administration we're talking about here -- a group who've shown themselves over the years to be masters at disappearing inconvenient information. It looks like we've got another addition to our ever-growing catalog.

From ABC News:

The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.

The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.

I have to say, though, that this method of squelching leaves much to be desired. Maybe they're losing their touch, but the way you squelch a report -- as the Army showed with a 2005 RAND Corporation report that upbraided the administration for inadequately preparing for the postwar occupation -- is to keep it really quiet. (Even better, as a cursory browse of our list will show, is to make sure the report never gets written at all.)

But McClatchy and ABC News have already published stories on the report's findings. And ABC even has a link (pdf) to the report's executive summary. And, really, some nosy reporter is just going to post a link to the entire report at some point if you're mailing the darn thing out. So what gives? I expect more.

It's gotten to be almost a dog bites man story. The EPA has overruled its staff once again. From The Washington Post:

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to lower the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency's scientific advisers urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The new smog rules -- one of the most important environmental decisions President Bush will make during his final year in office -- will be a major factor in determining the quality of the air Americans will breathe for at least a decade....

Nearly a year ago, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were "unanimous in recommending" that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion and that the agency should consider reducing ozone levels to as low as 60 parts per billion. Public health advocates, including the American Lung Association, have lobbied for a 60-parts-per-billion ozone limit.

Remember that leaders of the union representing EPA staff have already withdrawn from a cooperation agreement with political appointees there out of protest of just this sort of thing.

The EPA was under a court order to produce a decision by tomorrow. The actual announcement of the new standard is expected later today.

It's the burning question of the Bush Administration: malfeasance or incompetence? Did the White House just lose an untold number of emails because of their "primitive" archiving setup? Or is there something worse at play -- something criminal?

CREW, which has been pursuing a lawsuit over the lost emails, wants to know. And today the group wrote (pdf) FBI Director Robert Mueller to request that he investigate whether White House officials deleted emails relevant to the Valerie Plame investigation.

The complaint is based on evidence that "for the period September 30 through October 6, 2003, there were no e-mails for the entire Office of the Vice President on either the White House servers or on a back-up tape created on October 21, 2003, with the exception of e-mails that had not yet been erased from individual OVP employee mailboxes." Then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales had notified all White House employees that the Department of Justice was investigating the Plame outing on September 30th.

In its release, CREW says that it doesn't have all that much confidence that the FBI will follow up. That's because of their experience with ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): months before the scandal exploded, the group brought evidence to the FBI of Foley's inappropriate advances toward male House pages. The FBI did not open an investigation, but when the scandal broke, unnamed FBI officials were quoted claiming that was because CREW had withheld key evidence -- a claim that was later shown to be untrue.

You might be impressed with Stonewall Johnson's performance over at the EPA. Or you might think that no department in the government could hope to transcend the politicization of the Justice Department, with its "loyal Bushies" and "good Americans." But please give the Department of Housing and Urban Development its due. Because if there's a department that's shown the clearest evidence of cronyism and hard-nosed politicization, it's HUD.

That's thanks in part to its chief, Alphonso Jackson, who's currently the focus of a federal investigation for slipping housing contracts to his buddies. All the trouble started when Jackson publicly questioned, "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?" Indeed, "Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

But Jackson apparently had quite a team over there with similar beliefs. From The Washington Post:

After Philadelphia's housing director refused a demand by President Bush's housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.

"Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?" Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.

"Take away all of his Federal dollars?" responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, ":-D," at the end of her January 2007 note.

Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: "Let me look into that possibility."

Greene is suing Jackson for retaliating against Philadelphia because he'd denied Jackson's buddy, conservative soul songwriter Kenny Gamble, a city property. "On the date these e-mails were sent," the Post reports, "HUD notified the [Philadelphia] housing authority that it had been found in violation of rules requiring that 5 percent of housing be accessible to disabled residents."

But it gets better. Cabrera abruptly resigned from his post last November. It was later reported that Cabrera had spoken to the feds as part of their investigation, and that he was not on "speaking terms" with Jackson. It was no coincidence: "HUD insiders say that the secretary was angry with Cabrera for speaking to investigators and considers him 'a snitch,'" National Journal reported. You can imagine Jackson's chagrin, since Cabrera seems like such a team player.

But it's a rough place, HUD.

Last night, the House passed an ethics reform bill, which will create an outside panel to review ethics complaints against lawmakers. It's a noted improvement over the current setup -- which isn't saying much since the House ethics committee has been a punchline for many years.

The outside panel, which will have six members (3 GOPers, 3 Dems), won't have subpoena power. And it will simply forward recommendations to the actual House ethics committee for further action after investigating. That's why some critics like CREW's Melanie Sloan call it a "paper tiger." Other good government types have given their support on the theory that something is better than nothing.

As The Hill reports, the Dem leadership pushed hard for the reform bill despite Republicans and a number of senior Democrats digging in their heels and doing what they could to prevent the vote. As The Washington Post reports, "Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control." Some of the choicer quotes from last night's debate:

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS): "If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no."

Mighty reform foe Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): “We have a New York governor in the news right who shows that you can’t legislate ethics. It always comes down to the individual.”

And most quotable of all:

Read more »

The House, overcoming the objections of 23 Democrats and 159 Republicans, has finally passed a much debated ethics bill that will, for the first time ever, allow nonmembers to initiate investigations. The reform measure comes at time when two House lawmakers are under indictment, two have been sent to prison, and several others are under federal investigation. (Washington Post)

John McCain boasts that he was crusading against excessive spending and legislative corruption when he helped block the Boeing-Air Force air tanker contract. But lobbyists in his campaign, including his finance chair, helped Airbus beat out Boeing last year for a $35 billion contract to build aerial refueling tanker planes. McCain is under scrutiny in this deal because he sent letters "urging the Defense Department, in evaluating the tanker bids, not to consider the potential effects of a separate United States-Airbus trade dispute." (Washington Post, New York Times)

All Muck Is Local favorite Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) accused his critics yesterday of having an "unethical, illegal, lynch mob mentality." Kilpatrick is facing calls for his resignation over a text messaging scandal that revealed he had a romantic relationship with his chief of staff and has led to possible perjury charges. (AP)

Read more »

How exactly did the feds end up snagging Eliot Spitzer? We've been asking the question since the story broke on Monday. Reports from a number of news outlets have been providing more and more details so that now, with the help of the feds' filings, it's possible to piece together a reasonably detailed timeline of how the investigation went down. So, without any more ado, here it is:

7/07: North Fork Bank in New York sends a Suspicious Activity Report to the Treasury Department about transfers in Spitzer's personal accounts. The "bank's report was triggered by Spitzer's attempt to structure a $10,000 cash transaction into three parts." Spitzer also reportedly asked the bank to "take his name off the wires." The report reportedly sits "unnoticed in a vast Treasury Department database in Detroit" for several months.

Fall, 2007: Another bank, HSBC, sends a Suspicious Activity Report to the Treasury Department "about suspicious transactions connected to two shell companies, which drew the attention of investigators. That touched off an inquiry that led investigators to discover the July report on Mr. Spitzer, which showed he had made several wire transfers to those companies, according to three people briefed on the inquiry."

10/07: The FBI and the IRS-Criminal Investigative Division launch an investigation "focusing on an organization suspected of conducting prostitution and money-laundering crimes in the United States and Europe" -- i.e. the Emperor's Club VIP.

1/8/08: Investigators begin wiretaps of Emperor's Club managers.

1/26/08: The FBI stakes out the Mayflower hotel in Washington, D.C. “after concluding from a wiretapped conversation that Spitzer might try to meet with a prostitute when he traveled to Washington to attend a black-tie dinner.”

2/7/08: Authorization for wiretaps expire.

2/11/08: Investigators renew wiretaps of Emperor's Club phones.

2/12/08: Wiretaps pick up Spitzer (reportedly "Client 9") discussing payments with Emperor's Club managers and setting up a rendezvous for D.C. the next evening.

2/13/08: Spitzer has his rendezvous with "Kristen."

3/5/08: Prosecutors arrest four managers of the prostitution ring. Investigator filings in support of the arrests detail the activities of "Client 9."

Update: This post has been updated to reflect later reporting.

The House just voted down an attempt to override the President's veto of the intelligence authorization bill late last week. The final tally was 225-188 (with five Republicans voting for the override and three Dems voting against) about sixty votes short of the two-thirds needed.

So Republicans stood strong behind the president. Almost all Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), have agreed with his take that robbing the CIA of its battery of "enhanced interrogation" techniques (which have included waterboarding and inducing hypothermia) "could cost American lives." Of course, a number of military officials and the FBI have a different take.

The bill would have restricted the CIA to the Army Field Manual's guidelines for interrogation.

Put Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) down as in support of the House bill:

Read more »

Well, we know what the administration thinks about the Dems' surveillance bill. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, as you'd expect, has a different take.

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with EFF, told me that the group is "very glad that the House leadership has taken a courageous stand against the administration's demands for telecom amnesty." Bankston is one of the lead attorneys in EFF's class action suit against AT&T for illegal spying.

"We've been advocating that the only reasonable compromise is a solution to the state secrets problem, where the government prevented the telecoms from putting forward their defense" he said. "It will guarantee that the courts actually rule on the heart of the issue: did the telecoms break the law?"

"So we're very pleased that the House has listened to us."

A statement from Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the House's bill:

“I have worked hard in recent weeks to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House FISA bills and produce legislation that strengthens intelligence collection against foreign terrorist targets and addresses liability protection for telecommunications companies. Regrettably, the Administration and Republicans chose to boycott these discussions and refused to play a constructive role in producing such a bill that could have strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House.

“Today’s House proposal reflects progress in bringing the two bills together, and it is a step in the right direction. But, considerable work remains.

“I continue to believe that the Senate FISA bill can be made even better through a limited number of changes, such as a shorter sunset, strengthened exclusivity, and improved accountability – modifications that in no way inhibit the collection authorities needed by the Intelligence Community.

"As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, Senate and White House can support."

Rockefeller's support, of course, would be essential for any compromise bill to carry the Senate. But he's supported retroactive immunity for the telecoms and it appears from his statement that he's got a number of problems with the House bill.

You knew that the administration wouldn't like the House Democrats' new surveillance bill. And indeed they don't. This afternoon, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell released a statement criticizing the bill, saying that "we are concerned that the proposal would not provide the Intelligence Community the critical tools needed to protect the country."

They focused on the bill's requirement for warrants to precede surveillance and the lack of retroactive immunity for telecoms as two particular areas of "concern."

They also don't like the two-year sunset period set out for the bill, saying that the "uncertainty created by a short sunset does not provide the stability needed for intelligence operations." And that congressional commission to investigate the program? They don't like that either, saying that it would only "redo the extensive oversight done by the intelligence committees in Congress over the past two years."

They conclude:

“We remain prepared to continue to work with Congress towards the passage of a long-term FISA modernization bill that would strengthen the Nation's intelligence capabilities while protecting the constitutional rights of Americans, so that the President can sign such a bill into law.”

And what do the Dems have to say to all this? Here's a statement just out from House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX):

“The Administration, which has refused to even attend negotiation sessions between the House and the Senate, has now apparently launched another round of scare tactics and falsehoods. The American people expect government officials to wrestle with these difficult issues and reach common sense solutions that protect Americans from terrorism and preserve our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the President’s advisors seem more inclined to issue ‘my way or the highway’ press releases concerning a bill the Administration hasn’t even read. The Congress will continue to give this issue the careful consideration it deserves and we hope the Administration will change course and join us in this effort.”

In his statement announcing his resignation today, Adm. William Fallon "cited the disrespect of the President in a recent magazine article, the resulting embarrassment, perceptions of differences between his views and Administration Policies and the resulting distraction from CENTCOM missions."

That article, of course, was Thomas P.M. Barnett's 7,500-word hagiographical profile of Fallon in this issue of Esquire. Below are the key excerpts to give you an idea of why Fallon might have been so uncomfortable with it:

[W]hile Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon-and apparently Fallon alone-to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Those are fighting words to your average neocon-not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough….

…well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

And later in the piece:

Read more »

Just out from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as commander of CENTOM:

“I am concerned that the resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and a military leader with more than three decades of command experience, is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomed in this Administration.

“It is also a sign that the Administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq war, which has so damaged America’s security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Democrats will continue to examine these matters very closely in the coming weeks and months.”

You know that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is no slouch at rebuffing Congressional inquiries. He's never met a question he couldn't talking-point his way through. And his staff is quite skilled at redaction.

Ever since Johnson made his decision (against the advice of his legal and technical staff) to reject California's petition to pass strict greenhouse gas emission rules for cars and trucks, House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) has been on his case. Back in February, Waxman issued a subpoena to compel the EPA to turn over certain documents. It did. Now he's on the verge of issuing his second subpoena of the investigation (pdf), as he wrote in a letter yesterday to Johnson.

That's because Waxman and his staff have been engaged in prolonged negotiations with the EPA over documents, but patience is wearing thin. The EPA, citing an “Executive Branch confidentiality interest" because the documents "reflect internal deliberations and/or attorney-client communications," has been busily redacting pages. And they also continue to withhold "communications between EPA and the White House and the Department of Justice," Waxman writes -- "hundreds of documents" worth. Johnson has refused to discuss any communications with the White House about the California waiver.

If Johnson doesn't respond with an indication of when Waxman can expect more documents by tomorrow afternoon, he writes, then he'll be forced to consider another subpoena.

This afternoon, the House is set to attempt an override of President Bush's veto of the intelligence authorization bill late last week. Bush