« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
Remember when there were lots of U.S. Attorneys to be fired? Here's the story of another who made the list. John L. Brownlee is the U.S. Attorney for Virginia; he settled a huge federal case against Oxycotin. On the final day that the drug company could accept a settlement deal, Brownlee received a call suggesting that he give the company a few more days to decide. The only problem is that the call came from Michael Elston, then chief of staff to DAG McNulty. Brownlee ignored the suggestion. Eight days later, he appeared on the firing list. (Washington Post)
A 2004 Inspector General report into the Klamath River incident found no evidence of Dick Cheney's involvement. Reasonable people can disagree as to why that is; of course, one former official with the IG's office thinks it is hard to find evidence of involvement when no one is looking for it. She says that throughout the inquiry, the office never asked for any information on the Vice President. (Washington Post)
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Georgia will implement its voter identification law starting in September, following the Georgia Supreme Court’s refusal to reconsider a lawsuit that contends the voter ID law would place an undue burden on voters. Georgia voters will be required to show ID in a September special election. (Boston Globe)
States are finally showing showing signs of reigning in the conflicts of interest presented to individuals assigned to oversee their election processes. One problem that need fixing: five secretaries of state (who oversee elections) were on Bush' last reelection campaign. Here's another: five states have had voting officials go immediately into lobbyist positions for the voting machine industry. (NY Times)
A recent study has confirmed that Florida voting machines are still flawed. The machines can be easily manipulated to show different results, and there is only a low probability that tampering will be detected. Better be careful about picking poll workers for the next election. (Associated Press)
Despite the Bush administration’s claims that al Qaida in Iraq is the root cause of instability in Iraq, senior military American officials say it is in fact the Shiite militias that pose the main threat. While President Bush has made dubious claims that al Qaida in Iraq has “the same people” that were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, military officials point to the intense Shiite militia fighting in southern Iraq, where al Qaida in Iraq has little to no presence. (McClatchy News)
Some highlights of the ethics bill the House passed yesterday include an earmark rule that would require lawmakers to disclose the project two days before a vote and certify immediate relatives will not benefit from the earmark, a rule banning House members from flying on private planes, and a two-year ban on lobbying after a senator has left office. And of course, a pledge to hate Jack Abramoff forever for ruining all the fun. (Boston Globe)
The Journal of the American Medical Association, recently claimed that force-feeding prisoners at Guantanamo violates medical ethics. Currently, 20 detainees who are on hunger strike are force fed their meals. (NY Times)

Comments (6)
Ben wrote on August 1, 2007 10:23 AM:I believe you want "reining in" in the fourth paragraph--with a "g", it means something rather different. :-)
JEP wrote on August 1, 2007 10:37 AM:Ben;
TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 11:00 AM:Maybe it's not really a typo, it's just a subtle commentary... subconscious snark, maybe not LOL quality, but worth a snicker at least.
*****Project for Constitutional Compliance******
Project needs your help!
The Anonymous Poster is posting information faster than we can handle. Please help us.
1. You can go back and do a post or diary on any aspect of the poster's comments. (Try May 16th for a start. And Especially July 29th. Look on Muck threads for the poster without a name.)
2. We should break this project up into pieces. Data mining pieces. Auditing pieces. Links to foreign policy or events pieces. Please help us figure out the various aspects. Or simply choose one and do your part.
3. If you're unaware what I'm talking about here, click my name and you'll be able to get a bit of background, through that post and the former post.
4. May have given good comments and kudos to Anon whose work is prodigious and hopeful. Please pick up the baton and carry this forward.
5. No one is in charge here. It's a volunteer project - and anyone can help, whether by posts, comments, analysis, or simply getting the word out.
Yesterday's posts generated some troll activity. We can expect more. This, to me, tells us we are on the right track.
Keep digging, Muckrakers!
Anonymous wrote on August 1, 2007 11:01 AM:I'm very confused about the Ga voter law. Isn't the problem a federal constitutional matter? Why isn't this in federal court? The article cited to said:
"A lawyer challenging the law in federal court said he will ask a judge to block it yet again. A federal judge had blocked enforcement of the law last September but stayed his ruling pending a decision in the state court appeals."
It would seem that the feds certainly believe that there is proper standing, no? And a federal violation. Why did it have to go through state courts first?
Very confusing to me . . .
trog69 wrote on August 1, 2007 12:59 PM:Perhaps the federal courts were hoping the state would do the right thing, similar to SCOTUS and executive privilege.
trog69 wrote on August 1, 2007 1:00 PM:Perhaps the federal courts were hoping the state would do the right thing, similar to SCOTUS and executive privilege.