The Bush Administration has rejected plans to regulate the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, despite an EPA staff report that backed the idea.

The AP reports:

The White House on Thursday rejected EPA's conclusion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act "can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change." Instead, EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with climate change.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson released a 588-page federal notice (pdf) that included the EPA's "staff draft" in favor of regulation, but said it does not reflect the administration's policy.

To support that conclusion, Johnson included in the notice 95 pages of submissions from non-EPA federal officials who raised questions about any proposed regulation.

According to the Washington Post, a top White House concluded that concerns from those other federal officials prohibited reaching any firm decisions about regulation:

"The issues raised during interagency review are so significant that we have been unable to reach interagency consensus in a timely way, and as a result, this staff draft cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration," [White House Office of Management and Budget Susan] Dudley wrote. "As reflected in these letters, there is strong disagreement with many of the legal, analytical, economic, science and policy interpretations in the draft; however these letters do agree with you that the Clean Air Act is a deeply flawed and unsuitable vehicle for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

(That's the same Susan Dudley who may be held in contempt of Congress along with Johnson.)

Critics of today's notice said it pitted politics against science.

John D. Walke, director of the Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said, "This appalling document pits the Bush administration's political machinery against EPA's scientific and legal experts, with the machinery grinding up sound global warming science, legal authority, smart economics and solutions to the problem. These actions by the administration's political machinery deserve to end up, along with the administration's irresponsible global warming legacy, in the dustbin of history."

The notice was released under pressure from the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the EPA should consider whether to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.

Johnson made clear his views on the matter in a letter that accompanied the release od the 1,000-page report.

One point is clear: the potential regulations of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy.

We sort of knew this was coming, since the White House had refused to open an email delivering the EPA staff's conclusions about greenhouse gases.

Alaska State Sen. John Cowdery (R) was "holed-up" in the Prospector Hotel in Juneau yesterday, when he was indicted on two charges of bribery and corruption. He flew to Anchorage, where the Federal Court is located, arriving on Thursday night.

From KTUU in Anchorage:

He was asked at the ariport [sic] if he plans to fight the charges.

"I'm going to win it," Cowdery said. "I'm not guilty."

Cowdery said he had nothing more to say and that his attorney has already said it.

Cowdery's attorney released this statement:

"We believe, along with many others who are familiar with Sen. Cowdery's long and exemplary service to the people of this state, that the government has done a substantial disservice to Sen. Cowdery in charging him. This will be exposed for the mistake it is."

Cowdery is expected to be arraigned today at 5:30 ET.

It took a New York Times article; a dozen phone calls and an over-eager intern running to a publishing house in 92 degree heat-- but we got it: Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side," which I've been poring through for the better part of the day.

So why the rush? The book reveals new details on the CIA's torture of high-level Qaeda captives with information from a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to Mayer, the 2007 report which was shared with the President and Secretary of State described the CIA's actions, "categorically, as 'torture'" and warned that the abuse placed the "highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

But besides that enormous and, (possibly) devastating claim, Mayer's "sources familiar with the ICRC report" also give horrifying details about the CIA's techniques.

One detainee claimed in the report that he was forced to stand on one leg for hours without his prosthesis and his arms chained to the ceiling.

The detainee, Tawfiq Bin Attash, was linked to the attack on the USS Cole but is being charged as part of the Sept. 11 attacks. Attash, also known as Khallad, had lost his leg below the knee following an injury in the Afghan-Soviet War.

Other detainees described similar stress positions to the ICRC, Mayer reports:

They described not just standing, but being kept up on their tiptoes with their arms extended out and up over their heads, attached by shackles on their wrists and ankles, for what they described as eight hours at a stretch. During the entire period, they said they were kept stark naked and often cold.

The International Committee of the Red Cross isn't so happy that news of this report is out. As they told the New York Times, "its work is more effective when confidential."

Is there anyone over at the Office of Special Counsel who is still loyal to thier boss, Scott Bloch?

Apparently bad morale reaches all the way up Bloch's inner circle.

The Special Counsel's top deputy, Jim Byrne, resigned yesterday and we heard it's due to frustrations with his boss -- and the White House's apparent refusal to take any action.

NPR heard the same thing:

Sources close to Byrne describe this as a resignation in protest over the way the office has been run under Special Counsel Scott Bloch.

Bloch, appointed to be Washington's top investigator for allegations of retaliating against whislteblowers, has struggled ever since he came under investigation for retaliating against whislteblowers himself.

That FBI raid was pretty embarrassing.

Byrne didn't mention Bloch at all in his terse farewell email to colleagues:

Colleagues,

As you may have heard, I am resigning my career Senior Executive Service position as Deputy Special Counsel effective July 19, 2008. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been afforded during my time at OSC, and I leave with a deep admiration for all of you -- the men and women who dedicate their lives to safeguarding the merit system and to protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices. Please let me know if there is anything that I need to tend to prior to my departure. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

All the best,

Jim

A spokesman for Bloch's office did not return a call for comment.

By our count, Bloch has been through at least three deputies since he took office in 2004.

The mysterious Alaskan "State Senator A" -- a.k.a. Sen. Don Olson (D) -- has been cooperating with federal prosecutors for "about a year" on their investigation of the massive public corruption scandal involving half a dozen state senators -- including former State Sen. Ben Stevens-- bribery by local oil and gas company VECO.

According to the Anchorage Daily News, Olson testified to a federal grand jury last month and has been "interviewed maybe a half dozen times about the events" covered in the recent indictment of State Sen. John Cowdery (R). Cowdery is charged with two counts of bribery and conspiracy.

Though Olson was cited in the Cowdery indictment as being the target of a bribe, it is unlikely that he's about to be charged with anything:

Olson has no assurance that he won't be prosecuted, but [Olson's attorney Paul] Stockler said it appears highly unlikely that he will be.

"I don't believe Donny Olson did anything wrong," Stockler said. Olson never received the $25,000.

Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has four rent-stabilized apartments in one of Harlem's most luxurious apartment buildings. Rangel pays a meager rent of under $4,000 a month for these apartments despite the growing rate of evictions in similar rent-stabilized apartments throughout the city. (New York Times)

The Mayor of Jackson, Miss., was indicted Wednesday on federal civil rights charges. The charges stem from his unannounced 2006 demolition of a duplex, during which he personally broke the windows. He claimed it was a crack house, but no drugs were found in the house. (New York Times)

The Federal Election Commission is back and ready for action after a seven-month paralysis. This comes after deadlock over a Bush appointee that left only a two commissioner membership out of the necessary six. (Washington Post)

Read more »

In a secret report last year, the International Committee of the Red Cross found that the CIA's interrogation techniques were "categorically" torture, a new book reveals.

From the New York Times:

The book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," by Jane Mayer, who writes about counterterrorism for The New Yorker, offers new details of the agency's secret detention program, as well as the bitter debates in the administration over interrogation methods and other tactics in the campaign against Al Qaeda.

. . .Citing unnamed "sources familiar with the report," Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document "warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

Late Update: The book also reveals new specifics on Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding. Contrary to administration reports that the technique was used "on only three occasions," Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross that he was waterboarded "at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times a day."

And there's new info on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well. "KSM" says he was "kept naked for more than a month" and "kept alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room."

Bob Schaffer voted for the war in Iraq in 2002, then left Congress and went to work for the oil men hoping to profit from it.

We recently learned that the energy company that the Colorado Republican went to work for in 2003, Aspect Energy, is among the handful of companies who signed deals with Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government last year.

Those oil deals were officially opposed by the Bush administration, but maybe tacilty endorsed behind closed doors.

Schaffer visited Iraq's Kurdish region in November 2006 along with other officials from Aspect Energy.

State Department officials say those oil deals have threatened security in Iraq by undermining the federal government in Baghdad, which about 150,000 U.S. troops are now helping to prop up.

Schaffer said he had no idea that U.S. officials formally opposed to such deals.

Schaffer said he was unaware the State Department had warned energy firms not to strike oil deals with the Kurdistan Regional Government at the time of his visit. "We didn't experience any discouragement," Schaffer said.

Reader EL points out that Schaffer's ties to big oil have been a big campaign issue for him in his race for the Senate this year.

Late Update The Daily Sentinel in Colorado has a taped interview of Schaffer talking about his trip to Iraq and the oil contract.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

The indictment identifies the senator Cowdery was trying to influence only as "state Senator A," but [Cowdery's attorney Kevin] Fitzgerald said that person is Donny Olson, D-Nome, who at the time was running for lieutenant governor.

The document describes a series of phone calls as well as a June 25, 2006, breakfast meeting. Olson, Cowdery and Veco chief executive Bill Allen met at the Sunshine Grill in Anchorage, Olson's lawyer, Paul Stockler of Anchorage, said this morning.

[Late Update]: Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has called for Cowdery to resign from the Alaska Senate.

Alaska State Sen. John Cowdery (R) was indicted today on two counts of conspiracy and bribery. Cowdery is the latest Alaskan politician to fall in the wide-reaching public corruption scandal.

Former VECO Corp. CEO Rick Smith testified in September of last year that he had bribed Cowdery, and four other State Senators, including Stevens, for favorable legislation on an Alaska gas pipeline.

Cowdery was a former co-worker and friend of former State Senator Ben Stevens, who has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Cowdery's indictment can be found here.

Karl Rove stood by his claim last week that he wouldn't be showing up to testify about anything to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, despite its subpoena, on the grounds of executive privilege.

The Subcommittee quickly passed a motion to reject Rove's claim of privilege, with Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking minority member, the lone voice of dissent. Since Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) threatened contempt last week, we're expecting a vote on that in the near future, but it won't be happening today.

An Army general was accused by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Wednesday of misleading Congress about problems with the defense contractor KBR. Sen. Dorgan claimed that General Jerome Johnson made false statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee about widespread problems with KBR supplied water. (New York Times)

Defense Secretary Gates announced Wednesday that the contract for a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. will be re-opened due to a flawed bidding process. This decision comes after last month's ruling by the GAO that the Air Force mishandled the bid by giving Northrop more credit than it deserved. The Air Force no longer has the authority to choose the plane. (LA Times)

The Justice Department plans to revise guidelines for white-collar criminal cases in an attempt to delay department opposed legislation. The proposition would result in changes to the McNulty Memorandum of 2006 which helps prosecutors determine when companies are deemed cooperative with an investigation. (Wall Street Journal)

Read more »

There a whole host of issues confronting the Justice Department that remain unaddressed-- overall politicization, the Office of Legal Counsel memos, torture memos, hiring and firing practices, and selective prosecution. But when it comes to hard answers to Congressional Oversight, Attorney General Michael Mukasey dances around the questions, usually deflecting criticism that stems from the Gonzales era.

When Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) requested a listing of the OLC memoranda that the DOJ chose not to review, Mukasey stated that he didn't know that it "would serve anybody's interest" to do so.

When Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned him about why Judith Miller was left in jail, he demurred, stating that it fell into the responsibilities of special counsel.

When Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to know if anyone was planning on reviewing Gitmo detainees files to see why they were being detained, Mukasey deferred noting the cases were before the D.C. district court.

And when Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) demanded accountability for the loss of valuable civil servants to the politicization of the DOJ Honors Program, the Attorney General stated that it had already been "covered by the OIG report."

But when it was Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) turn to ask questions, he took a more straight forward approach, tearing into Mukasey as an "enigma," "acting like you float above up in the ether somewhere."

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a new federal wiretapping law this afternoon by a vote of 69-28.

After last month's approval of a similar measure in the House, today's vote essentially clears the way for the bill to go to the White House for a final signature.

The bill approved includes sweeping and retroactive immunity for telecom companies that provided information about customers to government officials without a warrant as part of the Bush Administration's surveillance program imposed after September 11, 2001.

The vote was all but assured after the senators struck down three key amendments this morning that would have overhauled the spying laws without granting immunity to the telecom companies.

Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for the bill.

Moments before the final vote, a handful of senators voted to filibuster the vote, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

So what does that mean? It means that the nations largest telecom companies no longer have to worry about a batch of multi-million lawsuits filed by customers angered that the companies turned over their personal information to the government without a warrant.

It also means that if you are at home making an overseas phone call to a suspected terrorist, the government can monitor that call without a warrant.

And it's not clear how intel agents define who is a suspected terrorist.

Late Update: This post has been revised from its original version to correct the reporting of Hillary Clinton's vote on the motion for cloture.

The Senate defeated the final -- and least-divisive -- of three amendments to the new federal wiretapping bill it's considering today.

It was closer than the other two votes today -- this one shot down 56-42. Rules required 60 votes to approve the amendment.

The third and final amendment called for Congress to wait until after reviewing a pending inspector general's report about the White House's surveillance program before determining whether to grant immunity to telecom companies. It was sponsored by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

The defeat of those amendments all but guarantees that the broader FISA law will pass when the Senate takes it up, probably later this afternoon.

The senators broke for lunch.

An amendment calling for federal courts to review whether telecom companies should get retroactive immunity was defeated in the Senate this afternoon.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was knocked down by a vote of 61-37.

The main bill would grant sweeping retroactive immunity for telecom companies that provided information to the government about their customers without a warrant.

This amendment would have limited retroactive immunity to instances in which a federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.

Many prominent Democrats voted in favor of the amendment, including Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility reached out for the first time to the Don Siegelman camp on Monday, asking in a letter to Siegelman's attorney for "information and documents that would assist" them in investigation the allegations that the "selective and politically motivated" prosecution of the former Alabama governor.

Vince Kilborn, Siegelman's attorney, said that he would take the OPRs request for assistance as an opportunity to focus on the reasons behind U.S. Attorney Leura Canary's recusal of herself from the case.

From the AP:

[Kilborn] wants a Justice Department review of the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman to focus partly on the reasons a federal prosecutor in Montgomery stepped aside from the case.

. . .Kilborn said the office, an arm of the Justice Department, should seek documents regarding a decision by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary -- a GOP appointee -- to recuse herself from the prosecution of Siegelman, a Democrat. Canary's husband, William, leads the Business Council of Alabama and has been a Republican political consultant.

A copy of the OPR's letter to Kilborn is here.

An amendment sponsored by hold-out Democrats and designed to strip the Senate's wiretapping bill of legal immunity for telecom companies was defeated today with a 66-32 vote.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI), is the first of three the Senate is voting on today dealing with the immunity provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law.

Without any amendments, the law will effectively end a stack of lawsuits filed against telecom companies that provided information about customers to the government without warrants as part of the White House's surveillance programs after September 11, 2001.

The Senate is wrapping up debate on the FISA law and its proposed amendments today and a vote on the overall law is expected later today.

A bill with similar immunity passed in the House last month and is expected to be signed into law by the president.

The Attorney General is headed to the Hill to testify this morning in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on oversight of the Justice Department. It starts at 9:30 ET, with a break for the FISA vote at 11:15. We'll be watching and posting developments on both so stay tuned for more.

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Department of Justice to make detainee cases at Guantanamo Bay a priority. The judge argued that the detainees have been waiting for their day in court for too many years, and that they must be dealt with. In response, the Justice Department said that that one in five of the roughly 270 remaining detainee cases at Guantanamo have been cleared for release. (AP)

Congressional Republicans are blaming the federal government for not having appropriate safety standards for chemicals in FEMA trailers used by Hurricane Katrina victims. This removes blame from the trailer companies for using high levels of formaldehyde in the trailers. (AP)

A new report out from the GAO claims federal officials often delete government email, creating gaps in the public record. The report was released on the eve of a scheduled House vote on a bill that would establish standards for email preservation by federal agencies. (Washington Post)

Read more »

From the Miami Herald:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.

ACLU director Anthony Romero on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of "obstruction of justice" by delaying approval of the license, which the government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists.

"Now the government is stonewalling again by not allowing Americans' private dollars to be paid to American lawyers to defend civil liberties,'' Romero said.

Dr. Ada Fisher lost the 2006 bid for a North Carolina Congressional seat by a wide margin -- 34 points.

But that didn't discourage her fundraisers, BMW Direct, a Washington-based political firm.

Just a few days after Fisher lost to Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), an official from the fundraising firm emailed the candidate about mounting a post-election money drive -- and maybe signing on for another race.

Ada,

Attached is a debt reduction letter. We still owe outside debt to vendors and this will go to pay it off.

I would also like to set up a time to speak with you about running again. With more time to mail, I think we could do even better.

Timothy

That's an email from Timothy Webster, a founder of BMW Direct, and it was provided to TPMmuckraker by Fisher. She wasn't very happy with the firm, which raised more than $400,000 on her behalf but, after taking out the costs of its own direct mail effort, only provided her campaign with about $30,000.

She also provided us with a draft copy of a "debt reduction letter" drawn up by BMW Direct.

Fisher told us she's not sure whether she ever signed off on the letter and agreed to let BMW send it out.

Read more to see the letter's full text.

Late Update: Jordan Gehrke, BMW Direct's director of development, said in a written response to a query from TPMmuckraker: "To the best of my knowledge we did no debt reduction letters for Dr. Fisher."

Read more »

We've previously followed some of Sharon Weinberger's coverage at Wired on former Representative Curt Weldon's ties to shady arms-dealings. Weldon, a defeated Republican from Pennsylvania was employed as Chief Strategic Officer for Defense Solutions after losing his election in November 2006.

Lost in the holiday weekend traffic was a Wired story on the Pennsylvania based arm dealer's multiple contracts, potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to corner the supplier market from Eastern Bloc countries to to Iraq. The deals, which the magazine describes as "often legally murky" were brokered by Weldon, who is currently under investigation by the FBI for corruption stemming from his work in Congress.

In an update yesterday, Weinberger expanded on Defense Solution's claim that they had an exclusive deal with Ukraine to supply their armored vehicles to Iraq. The boast was bolstered by a signed letter from Ukraine's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andri Veselovsky, to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Stephan Minikes.

Defense Solution's CEO, Tim Ringgold, bandied the letter about as proof of their relationship -- that is until Veselovsky told Wired the letter was a fake, and that it wasn't his signature. Now Ringgold seems to be taking it all back.

In an update on Weinberger's Wired blog DANGER ROOM:

Timothy Ringgold, the CEO of Defense Solutions wrote DANGER ROOM to express some objections with this post. His letter, with our answers, follows......

Ringgold writes: Your article of July 7, 2008 11:07 a.m. has a number of significant inaccuracies, not he least of which deals with your allegation of forgery:
As I informed you during our phone conversation, I have no knowledge of a "letter" from Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister, but I am aware of an email dated February 25, 2008 received from the Deputy Foreign Minister. Since I spoke with the Deputy Foreign Minister after receiving it, I think it safe to conclude the email was genuine.
[DR: The forgery allegation is not ours; it is Veselovsky's. He stated quite clearly it is not his signature on the letter. When asked about the Veselovsky letter during the interview, Ringgold acknowledged it, until he was told the Veselovsky denied signing it.]

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is wielding more than his gavel against Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

In a letter to the AG today, Waxman brought out the big guns, stating that the Committee would vote to hold him in contempt on July 16, if he failed to produce a report on an interview with Vice President Cheney regarding the Valerie Plame leak scandal.

From Waxman's letter:

Despite the Committee's repeated requests, you have consistently refused to provide these reports to the Committee or unredacted versions of the reports of FBI interviews with White House staff. In response to the Committee's June 16 subpoena, you wrote: "we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews wi t h t he President or Vice President from the leak investigation" because of "core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles."

. . .I regret that your failure to produce responsive documents has created this impasse, but Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Therefore, unless all responsive documents, with the exception of the FBI interview report of President Bush, are provided to the Committee or a valid assertion of executive privilege is made, the Committee will meet on July 16 to consider a resolution citing you in contempt. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and comply with the duly issued subpoena.

We've gotten our hands on an interesting mailer sent out by BMW Direct, the Washington political firm that raises campaign cash and spends most of the money on its own direct-mail efforts.

This one was sent out on behalf of Dr. Ada Fisher, a black Republican who ran for a North Carolina Congressional seat back in 2006.

It refers to the black leaders Al Sharpton and Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, rallying opposition to their "liberal policies" that are "harming America."

With Fisher's photo in the top corner, the letter reads: "We need proud conservative Republicans to bring our message to the African American Community...Ada you're just what the Republicans need!"

Click on the letter to see a full-size version.

Vice President Dick Cheney's office apparently worked to cut swaths of the Center for Disease Control's congressional testimony on the effects of greenhouse gases.

The information was revealed in a letter from recently-resigned associate deputy EPA administrator, Jason Burnett, obtained by the AP, to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

"The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change," Burnett has told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

. . . The letter by Burnett for the first time suggests that Cheney's office was deeply involved in downplaying the impacts of climate change as related to public health and welfare, Senate investigators believe.

Cheney's office also objected last January over congressional testimony by Administrator Johnson that "greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment."

An official in Cheney's office "called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed" with references to climate change harming the environment deleted, Burnett said. Nevertheless, the phrase was left in Johnson's testimony.

As we've reported, the Senate and House have been trying for months to check communications and other documents on the role of political influence in the EPAs work.

Burnett left the EPA in June after disagreements over the "agency's response to climate change":

The White House, at the urging of Cheney's office, "requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change," wrote Burnett.

"CEQ contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony," Burnett said in the letter to Boxer.

But he said he refused to press CDC on the deletions because he believed the CDC's draft testimony was "fundamentally accurate."

[Late update]: To view the letter from Burnett to Boxer, click here.

A memo written in March by the EPA's chief enforcement officer claims that the EPA's guidance document on wetlands policy is undermining the Clean Water Act. The memo was obtained by Greenpeace and released by two Democratic committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and James Oberstar (D-MN). (Washington Post)

KBR, along with other contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, is planning on a major PR campaign to fight back against charges of corruption and malpractice. The campaign, run by former Republican staff director of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee David Marin, plans to erase the "anti-contractor climate on Capitol Hill" through lobbying. (Politico)

A new disclosure form on an ethics law passed last year may do more harm than good in bringing sunlight to lobbyist activities. The form is said to have a large number of discrepancies that get in the way of ethics oversight. (Washington Post)

Read more »

With all the talk about the new wiretapping law the Senate is expected to approve this week, there are many federal surveillance programs that are going largely unmentioned -- and unmonitored.

A story from the Baltimore Sun points out how limited the proposed FISA legislation is when considered against the whole alphabet soup of surveillance programs run by the federal government.

Although the latest FISA proposal includes numerous provisions for a secret court to monitor and authorize surveillance, and for inspectors general to keep tabs on who's being monitored by various agencies, little oversight exists for surveillance programs that fall outside FISA scrutiny.

For example, the new law will limit whether a CIA transcript of a conversation between a alleged terrorist and his relative in the United States could be shared with other spy agencies and analysts.

But it would have little control over whether, say, the Department of Homeland Security can share wiretaps or satellite surveillance with local law enforcement officials.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have requested information about these other surveillance programs, but many agencies are often reluctant to comply, citing security or secrecy concerns, the Sun reports:

Even when Congress has received information, lawmakers say their questions or concerns are often addressed within the agency that is responsible for the surveillance, amounting to a practice of self-policing.

"You don't have to look far into history to know that when the government, any government, is given secret authorities, that those authorities are ultimately abused," said Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "You don't even have to attribute bad motives to anyone. In an intelligence officer's zeal to protect the country, they often will overstep their bounds."

In response to concerns, the Department of Homeland Security has created a privacy czar to see that federal agencies do not infringe on privacy laws or violate civil liberties. But some suggest that should be a Cabinet-level post in the executive branch since new technologies are constantly creating new questions and concerns.

"We should have what Canada has, which is a minister of privacy, someone looking out for the privacy issues of Americans," said James Bamford, an intelligence expert and author on two books about the history of the NSA. "We have armies of people out there trying to pick into everyone's private life, but we have nobody out there who's an advocate."

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports today about concerns that non-government surveillance is being abused for advertising purposes.

Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee plans a hearing on the privacy issues raised by online advertising. Critics, meanwhile, are questioning whether the practices used by NebuAd and other ad-targeting companies violate wiretap laws, which prevent carriers from monitoring customer communications.

It's been a long, difficult few years for Dr. Cyril Wecht, The former coroner of Allegheny County, celebrity forensic pathologist and prominent Democrat, who has been at the center of a so-called political prosecution, but at least he picked up some friends along the way.

After serving on the jury for Wecht's federal trial that ended in a mistrial earlier this year, five of the former-jurors who had voted for acquittal sought out the good doctor, and his legal team to voice their support. It wasn't long before the group was organizing outings-- most recently to a Pirate's baseball game complete with tailgating.

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A message on PNC Park's electronic scoreboard welcoming a special group to a recent baseball game went unnoticed by those it was intended to honor.

That's because Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, along with five jurors who voted to acquit the former Allegheny County coroner at his federal public corruption trial, still were tailgating in the parking lot.

The group get-togethers have been going on since the trial ended in April, ranging from lunch at the food court in downtown Pittsburgh to a 60th anniversary celebration.

"A group of them five of them reached out to us, and told us they'd like to meet with us and talk to us because of how they felt about what had happened," Wecht's attorney Jerry McDevitt told TPMmuckraker.

"They started telling us how strongly they were against the retrial. So, not only did they not convict him, they thought he was a decent guy. . . The whole thing hasn't exactly renewed my faith in the government, but it's certainly renewed my faith in the jury system."

Dr. Ada Fisher doesn't have much good to say about BMW Direct, the Washington political firm that raised money on behalf of her 2006 bid for a North Carolina House seat.

"They sort of -- what shall I say? -- screwed me," Fisher said in a recent interview.

BMW Direct raised more than $400,000 for Fisher during the last election cycle, but only about $30,000 made it back to her to use in her campaign against U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC). Sound familiar?

Fisher complained that she never understood where the money raised on her behalf was going. She did not know that many key vendors used by BMW Direct were owned or operated by BMW staffers.

"They make it seem like each of these people is a private entity. But as you listen more and more and you get smarter, you realize they all work together," Fisher said.

BMW Direct and its staff operate a handful of companies out of a downtown Washington office building -- data processors, donor-list rentals, mail services, etc.

Fisher said BMW Direct urged her to "hire" its FEC compliance officer, Scott Mackenzie in Washington, to serve as her campaign treasurer, as he has done on other long-shot campaigns. But she refused, she said, and had a friend serve as treasurer.

So BMW Direct raised the money on her behalf, processed it and then doled out information and cash at its own pace.

Just a day or two before FEC filing deadlines, the firm would send Fisher large files of fundraising data for her to copy and submit under her name.

"We'd fill out the FEC forms based on the information they gave us. They would just tell us: This is how much money you raised," Fisher said.

Fisher's biggest complaint was that the fraction of money she did actually receive came too late. The firm never told her how much money to expect and was unable to plan for the fall campaign.

In late September 2006, she received her first check from BMW Direct for $5,000 and several similar checks followed in October.

"By that time, it was too late," she said.

But according to BMW Direct, Fisher's case was a unique.

Jordan Gehrke, BMW Direct's director of development, agreed that the fundraising efforts for Fisher were not as successful as those of other clients.

That's because she contacted the firm later than most candidates, after the election cycle was underway, Gehrke explained. That shortened the window of time for fundraising, which is critical for direct-mail efforts.

"In Fisher's case, we started eleven months before the election. She was an attractive candidate, and we believed her appeal would enable her to outperform the usual time window," Gehrke said in a written response to questions from TPMmuckraker.

"We firmly believed in her candidacy, and we think we would have been very successful if we had had another six months. For all kinds of reasons, fortune had its say, and things did not work out as we hoped."

The fees -- which in Fisher's case took up more than 90 percent of the total money raised -- are clearly explained to all clients from the outset, Gehrke said.

"We have a very clear contract. We take a lot of time going through this stuff with our clients yo make sure they understand the process....Nothing gets paid without the clients' approval," he said in an interview.

Even if a candidate loses a race, Gehrke said, the direct mail effort is still a valuable way to build a candidates name recognition and shape perceptions about the Republican Party.

"Is it worth it? Yes. If she doesn't win this year, maybe she ends up turning it into a state senate seat a few years later and then runs for congress again," Gehrke said. "Going into a district where Republicans have not traditionally competed and having a black doctor on the ballot is a way of saying this is not your father's Republican Party. This is what building a party is about. This is what expanding your coalition is about. The point is, it has value."

After the news that a class action suit had been filed against former Justice Department officials Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, we've been waiting for the other shoe shoe to drop: bar complaints.

Sure enough, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints in the wake of the Inspector Generals report that found both McDonald and Elston in violation of federal law for taking "political and ideological" affiliations into account when hiring for the U.S. Attorney's Honors Program:

The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and conduct that "seriously interferes with the administration of justice." By illegally taking political and ideological affiliations into account in screening applicants for career DOJ position, Mr. Elston and Ms. McDonald may have violated bar rules could be subject to discipline.

CREW's executive director Melanie Sloane told TPMmuckraker that due to the findings of the independent OIG report, the complaint should be taken fairly seriously. "The only question left for the bar is whether their violations of the law rise to level of professional responsibility," Sloane said. "And I bet that they do."

The complaint was filed, with the OIG report attached, against McDonald in the District of Columbia and Elston in Virginia. Copies of the complaint were sent to all other jurisdictions where they were bar members.