Another Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy employee has pleaded guilty to tax evasion as part of the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal.

Environmental and energy policy news site Greenwire has the story (sub required):

Jared Carpenter, CREA's vice president since 2000, admitted July 6 he failed to pay taxes for three years on about $238,000 worth of salary between 2001 and 2003 -- when the group was funded primarily by Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.

Last month, CREA co-founder Italia Federici pleaded guilty to a similar tax evasion count and for lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee about her role as an intermediary between Abramoff and former Interior Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles (Greenwire, June 8).

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI) warned Harriet Miers' attorney today that the former White House counsel will risk contempt proceedings unless she complies with a committee-issued subpoena for testimony.

Miers was supposed to testify before a Judiciary subcommittee yesterday on the US attorney firings, but she did not appear after a White House attorney instructed her to stay home. The White House claims that executive privilege cloaks Miers from testifying.

Chair of the sub-committee, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) disagreed with that assertion, and ruled yesterday that the executive privilege claim wasn't properly asserted anyway.

Read more »

Yesterday's White House "benchmark" report on Iraq noted some backsliding on Iraqi troop readiness, in particular on the important question of whether Iraqi troops can operate independently.

At his press briefing this afternoon, the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Marine General Peter Pace, conceded the point, and clarified that the number of Iraqi Army battalions operating independently has declined from ten in January to six today. But he also cautioned against reading too much into the drop-off:

Let's concede Pace's point that as "units operate in the field" they incur casualties and equipment damage that impact readiness. That's military reality. But the broader question is why there aren't offsetting increases for those declines based upon improved capabilities among other battalions as they progress from being "in the lead" of operations to outright independence. Pace concedes the issue when he talks about wanting to see battalions progress through the overall readiness assessments. That, however, should probably make Pace more concerned about the backsliding than he emphasized this afternoon.

The Republican National Committee has been slapped with a subpoena from a House Judiciary subcommittee demanding e-mail messages that could shed some light on Karl Rove's involvement in the firing of nine US attorneys.

The subpoena is online here. The RNC's custodian of records has until Tuesday at 10 a.m. to give the subcommittee the e-mails it wants.

The House Judiciary Committee was more friendly with the RNC in April when it sent a letter asking for the e-mails. The White House jumped in and told the RNC not to hand them over until all the messages had been reviewed, citing an "executive branch interest."

Ever since a March report by the Justice Department's inspector general highlighted mistakes made by the FBI in obtaining e-mail and financial records without a court order -- through what's known as a National Security Letter -- Bureau and DOJ officials have pledged to establish institutional safeguards against further abuse.

Today Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that attorneys will form an oversight office within DOJ's National Security Division to examine "all aspects of the FBI's national security program for compliance with laws, regulations, and guidelines," according to Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein. Additionally, FBI will create an integrity and compliance office for internal policing over all FBI activities, which a DOJ announcement terms a "substantial innovation."

Time and further scrutiny will tell how exactly this will all work -- to say nothing of how well -- but Wainstein termed the move "historic." One question: will there be an office in place to ensure that Gonzales reads reports he receives about FBI abuse?

Additionally, in a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney and congressional leaders, Mueller and Gonzales noted that the FBI has just completed a "historical audit of the FBI's use of NSLs in all 56 field offices." The two say that it largely confirms the inspector generals' findings. We'll bring you the report as soon as we have it.

In his first public remarks since President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison term, Judge Reggie Walton said he was "perplexed" by the president's belief that Walton's sentence was "excessive."

Walton, a Bush appointee to the D.C. district court, wrote yesterday in a court filing that while he doesn't question Bush's constitutional authority to commute prison sentences, Libby's 30-month sentence was "consistent with the bottom end of the applicable sentencing range as properly calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines." Underscoring his displeasure with the commutation -- which calls his professionalism into question -- Walton referenced Alberto Gonzales's June 1 statement that sentencing guidelines should be considered "a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion." By ordering the commutation, Walton wrote, Bush has "has effectively rewritten the statutory scheme" for sentencing "on an ad hoc basis." Perhaps appropriately for a Bush appointee, Walton is basically explaining that judicial restraint compelled him to follow the sentencing guidelines -- and that 30 months in jail is rather merciful, considering what the guidelines require.

Libby will have to report to the federal Probation Office with "all requisite haste." If he doesn't, he might actually spend a night in jail.

You can read Walton's statement here.

According to a U.S. Army investigation, the Iraqi Police assisted a brazen January assault on U.S. troops in the southern city of Karbala -- an attack that a U.S. military spokesman tied to Iranian operatives earlier this month.

USA Today obtained a copy of the Army's February 27 report. The report found that the Karbala policemen exploited "a level of trust" that U.S. commanders placed with them to provide security for a provincial headquarters where a contingent of soldiers were stationed. In the assault, one of the most sophisticated on U.S. troops to date, gunmen passed themselves off as part of a U.S. security team and entered the compound past police checkpoints, eventually killing five soldiers.

Read more »

Sharpen those number 2 pencils, Alaska lawmakers. In a move to combat the corruption scandals that launched the FBI's probe into the state's politics, a new state law requires legislators to undergo ethics training.

Gov. Sarah Palin signed the law earlier this week, right after former state Rep. Tom Anderson (R) was found guilty of seven counts of extortion, bribery, conspiracy and money laundering. Anderson was accused of taking bribes from the private prison industry in exchange for pushing for facilities across the state.

The legislature hopes the new law will help clean up its image.

House Bill 109 tightens up the definition of bribery, requires legislators to make financial disclosures when leaving office, puts new disclosure requirements on consulting fees and meals purchased by lobbyists for lawmakers and makes numerous other clarifications in laws applying to both the executive and legislative branches.

Unless Congress treads lightly on delicate private equity and buyout firms like The Blackstone Group, we could see an end to entrepreneurship as we know it, the Bush administration warned this week. But under current tax law it could take Blackstone a mere 15 years to get back all the taxes it paid -- plus pocketing an extra $200 million -- on the $4.75 billion it made from going public on June 22.

Call it triumph of the good will.

According to a story in New York Times, Blackstone will pay a tax bill of $553 million on its earnings from a going public, a nice deal in itself, but over time will get back $750 million.

Here's how Blackstone pulled off the feat:

Blackstone’s tax maneuver hinges on its use of good will, an accounting term for the value of the intangible assets, like a well-known brand name, that are built up by a company over time. That value is part of the reason a company is worth more than the sum of its physical parts, like buildings and equipment.

Individuals who create good will cannot deduct it. But when good will is sold the new owners can because its value is assumed to erode. The Blackstone partners sold the good will from their left pocket to their right.

In simplest terms, the Blackstone partners paid a 15 percent capital gains rate on the shares they sold last month in the initial stock offering to outside investors (those shares represented a stake in the Blackstone management company, not its funds).

Blackstone then arranged to get deductions for itself for the $3.7 billion worth of good will at a 35 percent rate. This is a twist on the “buy low, sell high” stock market adage; in this case it would be “tax low, deduct high.”

Read more »

Senator David Vitter has given a whole new meaning to roll call. Deborah Jean Palfrey (aka DC Madam) placed five phone calls to Vitter while he was a House member from 1999 to 2001, including two during roll call votes in the House that Vitter was present for, according to Palfrey’s phone records and congressional records. Meanwhile, another name has appeared on the list that keeps on giving; this time it is conservative pundit and strategist Jack Burkman. (Boston Globe, Think Progress)

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was convicted of accepting a $20,000 bribe and sentenced to three years in prison yesterday. Santiago Efrain Valle offered to drop charges for a Mexican national who was in an ICE detention facility in exchange for the bribe, although Valle denies this and plans to appeal. (Boston Globe)

The intrigue into the BAE-Saudi fraud scandal deepens. Weeks before the investigation was called off, the London ambassador to Riyadh informed the British government that continuing the investigation would cripple their diplomatic cooperation on counter terrorism. (Thomson Financial)

Read more »

Back in the heady days of spring, it was a full-time job just keeping up with the bogus justifications for the U.S. attorney firings that were pouring out of the Justice Department.

But as Sara Taylor, Karl Rove's former aide, showed yesterday during her testimony, the tide's not over yet. A key part of Taylor's testimony was about her old friend Tim Griffin, another former Rove aide who became the U.S. attorney for Little Rock.

Griffin was only appointed, she said, because U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins had said he wanted to retire from the spot. He'd been quoted in the press to that effect, she explained. According to Taylor, Cummins wasn't really forced out -- as Cummins says he was and, well, as senior Justice Department officials have testified.

Cummins explained to Salon what that "press account" was Taylor kept referring to in her testimony:

Sometime in 2005, Cummins did tell a reporter for the Arkansas Times, a local newsweekly, that he was not likely to stay through the entirety of Bush's second term. [He subsequently reconsidered.]...

"If they're suggesting that, A) they monitor our free weekly tabloid in Arkansas to keep tabs on what their U.S. attorneys' plans are, and B) that they held on to that clipping for a year and a half and remembered it in June of 2006 without even picking up the phone and talking to me, it's kind of silly."

According to practically every available intelligence report, the summer of 2007 is eerily similar to the summer of 2001: numerous, compounding threats, without specificity, emanating from a souped-up al-Qaeda with save haven in South Asia.

In the summer of 2001, with voluminous intelligence chatter indicating an al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. somewhere, White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and CIA Director George Tenet had their "hair on fire," in the memorable words of the 9/11 Commission, trying to raise the issue with a preoccupied Bush administration. Now, with a new intelligence report circulating, titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," Clarke writes for ABC News that it's feeling a lot like summer 2001: al-Qaeda, seeking European Muslims for use as jihadist operatives, is planning something, though it's not clear what or where. Clarke calls this "a disturbance in the Force." What to do? Clarke on his 2001 actions:

I ordered counterterrorism units to cancel leaves and directed FAA, FBI and other domestic agencies to send out warnings.

Overseas, we urged DOD to put its bases on high Defense Condition status and to move ships from vulnerable harbors in the Middle East. State Department embassies were directed to go on heightened security status.

Read more »

Here's our highlight reel of this morning's House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring Harriet Miers' very empty chair:

Subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled Miers' decision to abide by the White House's claim of executive privilege as invalid -- and was subsequently backed up by a party-line vote on the committee. That's the first step towards finding Miers in contempt -- the next would be a full vote in the committee.

To Democrats, the issue was simple. Miers was legally obligated to show up, and she didn't. As Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) put it, "Are Congressional subpoenas to be honored or are they optional?"

The Republicans on the committee responded with their usual accusations of Democratic overreaching and claims that the U.S. attorney firings investigation had uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing by the administration. But ranking member Chris Cannon (R-UT) also offered a more nuanced argument against proceeding with contempt proceedings -- without "evidence of criminality" on the part of the White House (he cited the example of Nixon), the House would likely lose the battle in court. And such a loss, he feared, would hurt the House's ability to investigate the White House in the future.

Rep. Conyers (D-MI) didn't think it was so complicated: "If we do not enforce this subpoena, no one will ever have to come before the House Judiciary Committee again."

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), who made it clear during the hearing that he's a big fan of executive privilege, interrupted to say that this was a unique circumstance, and that it's "not every day" that a witness produces a letter from the White House saying that he/she can't testify. "I don't think it's ever happened before," he said.

To which Conyers replied dryly, "It happened yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Read more »

As expected, the House Judiciary Committee voted today to authorize subpoenas for those White House emails on Republican National Committee email accounts relevant to the U.S. attorney firings.

It's up to Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) to pull the trigger, however, and actually vote to issue the subpoena.

Harriet Miers, as expected, defied a Congressional subpoena and did not show for her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.

In response, subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled that the White House's claim of executive privilege was invalid. We'll have more soon.

Sanchez's opening statement is below.

Read more »

Well, at least it wasn't during Lent. From The Times-Picayune:

A phone number for Sen. David Vitter, R-La., appears at least five times in the billing records of what federal authorities say was a Washington call-girl operation, the first just four months after he was sworn in to the U.S. House in 1999 and the last on Mardi Gras of 2001.

Under pressure earlier this week, Vitter acknowledged committing a "very serious sin" and that his number showed up in the records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who has come to be known as the "Washington, D.C. Madam." An attorney for Palfrey earlier said that Vitter's number was found once in the records, but a search of the documents by The Times-Picayune turned up four more calls to a number once registered to Vitter. The attorney said that clients also used phones in hotel rooms, so that not all the numbers can be traced to individual callers.

The records show that Vitter number was called by Palfrey's service beginning Oct. 12, 1999 and ending Feb. 27, 2001, which was Mardi Gras. Palfrey has said she was running an escort service that her employees were instructed not to engage in sex acts. But federal prosecutors say she was running a prostitution ring that netted more than $2 million in assets.

Records show that the return calls to Vitter's number generally lasted a minute or two and were placed in the evening. The phone number had a Washington, D.C., exchange. Vitter keeps an apartment in Washington where he stays while Congress is in session.

The Justice Department released a broad legal opinion on the issue of the White House ignoring Congressional subpoenas for information on fired U.S. attorneys. Guess which side Attorney General supports. (LA Times)

CIA Director Michael Hayden reported to the Iraq Study Group last November that the Iraqi government inability to govern seemed “irreversible,” which set the tone for the group’s eventual recommendations for Iraq. (Washington Post)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for ensuring the safe distribution of nuclear material in the United States, gave a company radioactive material after a short, cursory review of the company’s background. Which is unfortunate, because the company was actually a dummy operation run by the Government Accountability Office; apparently, the GAO is less than pleased to discover how easy it is to obtain enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. (Reuters)

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona refused to name individuals who instructed him to privilege politics over science, but the hunt is on to uncover the culprit. Vegas odds point to Dr. Cristina Beato, Carmona’s former boss and now the deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization. (NY Times)

Read more »

Harriet Miers had some backup.

The Los Angeles Times points out something that we didn't stress yesterday about Miers' refusal to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing today even though under subpoena. And that's that Miers and the White House are relying on a new opinion by the Justice Department, dated July 10th, that argued that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee." The opinion was described in White House counsel Fred Fielding's letter to Miers' attorney.

Update: You can read the opinion here.

The opinion, as paraphrased by Fielding, says it's not even close:

"...this constitutional immunity exists to protect the institution of the Presidency and, as the Department's opinion illustrates, this position has been shared by numerous Administrations, Republican and Democratic, for more than 60 years."

The Times of course rolls out a couple legal experts to say that the Department is, to put it mildly, overstating the case.

But there's a likely practical effect to the opinion, as the Times points out: it does more than just provide Miers and the White House some cover, it "raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation."

If Congress were to vote Miers in contempt of Congress, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. would be charged with enforcing it -- something less likely to happen if his Department has taken such a view.

Now, there are other ways for Congress to pursue their citation of contempt if the U.S. attorney refused to enforce it, and as I reported earlier this week, it seems likely that somehow, some way, the whole mess will land in court. And if it gets there, the Department's extraordinarily expansive view of privilege will finally be put to the test.

Meanwhile, it's all made Chairman John Conyers' (D-MI) decision about whether to move for a contempt citation much easier.

You don't hear many Democrats calling on Bush to grant Scooter Libby a full pardon. But today at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the president's commutation power, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) made an interesting case for it.

Davis' rationale? Since the commutation allows Libby continued appeals to contest his conviction, he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the event that Congress calls him to testify about the Plame leak.

"If a pardon had been granted this committee could have immunized him and brought him here," Davis said.

In this video, Davis runs his point by sentencing expert Prof. Douglas A. Berman of the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law.

During a press conference this afternoon, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt released the phone record that led to Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) admission that he'd been a customer of Pamela Martin & Associates, the escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, otherwise known as the D.C. Madam.

Flynt's investigator, Dan Moldea, matched the D.C. number -- which appeared February 27, 2001 for a 1.2 minute conversation on Palfrey's records -- to Vitter last Friday. Hustler called Vitter's office for comment on Monday afternoon; Vitter then released his statement to the AP admitting to using the service Monday night. Vitter was a member of the House at the time.

During his conference, Flynt said that he'd outed Vitter -- and would be outing others, because of his hypocrisy; or as he put it: "I'm not exposing anyone's sex life, I'm only exposing hypocrisy."

Flynt took out a full-page ad in The Washington Post in June, offering $1 million for "documented evidence of illicit sexual or intimate relations with a Congressperson, Senator or other prominent officeholder." He said that Hustler had a number of investigations still going as a result, and that he'd be releasing the data "as we have it."

Update: See the update on this here.

Despite knowing that alternatives existed for providing vehicular armor kits to the Army and Marine Corps, Pentagon procurement officials awarded over $2 billion in "sole-source" contracts to two big defense companies that had difficulty delivering the armor on time, according to a June 27 Defense Department Inspector General report. At the time the contracts were awarded to Force Protection and Armor Holdings, senior officials argued for competitive bidding.

Says the report:

Force Protection, Inc., did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting vehicles to the theater. In addition, (U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command) Life Cycle Management Command and Marine Corps Systems Command decisions to award commercial contracts to Force Protection, Inc., may have limited the Government's ability to ensure it paid fair and reasonable prices for the contracts.

As for Armor Holdings -- which, by the way, is being purchased by the much-investigated BAE Systems -- one subsidiary, Simula Aerospace and Defense Group, delivered to TACOM armor kits with "missing and unusable components" and missed several shipment deadlines, resulting in "increasing risk to the lives of soldiers." According to the IG report, Simula didn't qualify under the Federal Acquisition Regulation as a "responsible prospective contractor," but it got its contracts anyway.

Read more »

The Republican lawyer who gave traction to former Gov. Don Siegelman's (D-AL) claims that his prosecution was politically motivated is standing by the affidavit she signed in May. She also raises new allegations of questionable -- and possibly illegal -- political machinations in Alabama.

The key points in Dana Jill Simpson's sworn statement have not been explicitly disproven, though they've been artfully denied by some. Not only has Simpson faced criticism in the Alabama press, but she's been attacked by some of the GOP operatives whom she accused of discussing ginning up a criminal investigation of Siegelman to get him to concede the 2002 election. Simpson hit back today at her detractors in a public statement available here. Siegelman was convicted of bribery in June 2006 and sentenced to seven years in prison.

In addition to standing her ground on her sworn statement, Simpson outlines an experience -- entirely separate from the 2002 talks about investigating Siegelman -- that prompted her to go to the Alabama bar to discuss ethical implications of what she knew about Republican tactics in the state:

A former lawyer came to see me and said he was sent by Governor Bob Riley and Gerald Dial. This man asked me to do things that I worried were illegal and certainly unethical in the Senate election contest against Democratic Senator Lowell Barron, Senator Zeb Little, Senator Roger Bedford and Senator Hank Sanders. I did not want to get mixed up in these things and told him I was not interested in any involvement.

Read more »

"Bud is lazy – which is why we got rid of him in the first place."

That's what Sara Taylor, Karl Rove's senior aide, wrote to Kyle Sampson in February of this year. During the hearing this morning, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) wanted to know: who was "we"?* Who'd decided that U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was lazy? And who decided on that basis to "get rid of him?" It certainly doesn't sound from the email that this was the Justice Department's decision.

A few answers, several digressions, and many minutes later, Taylor finally refused to answer the question and invoked executive privilege to protect internal White House deliberations.

Sen. Whitehouse responded that it was a prime example of the "ludicrous and extreme" assertion of privilege by the administration that Taylor couldn't testify about an email that the committee already had.

It's case in point for why Democrats want to hear more from Taylor and others to find out whether the White House was behind the firings.

*Note: "We," Taylor said, was "the administration" -- of which both Justice Department appointees and White House officials are a part.

Taylor apologized earlier in the hearing for calling Cummins lazy.

On the same day President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, Vietnam veteran Victor Rita reported for the start of his 33-month term.

The two cases are strikingly similar: both defendants were convicted of perjury and obstruction, both had a history of public service and both were sentenced to similar prison terms. Rita appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court, where he lost. Libby, of course, didn't spend a day behind bars.

Rita's attorney, Tom Cochran, a public defender from North Carolina, testified before a House Judiciary Committee hearing today on the president's commutation power. Here, he lays out the similarities between his client's case and Libby's:

Later in the hearing Cochran explained that his complaint is not that Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

"It's an issue of fairness," he said.

Harriet Miers' attorney has told the House Judiciary Committee that she will not appear for her scheduled hearing tomorrow -- taking a much different tack from that taken by Sara Taylor today.

In his letter to the committee sent last night, Miers' attorney George Manning referred back to his letter sent Monday, in which he said that "Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president."

As Marty Lederman lays out here, the president's assertion of executive privilege is not legally binding -- but the committee's subpoena is. Miers could defy the president's direction (such as it is), or take the approach Taylor chose and refuse to answer certain questions.

Chairman Conyers responded in a letter to Manning:

"A congressional subpoena, such as the one issued to Ms. Miers, carries with it two obligations: the obligation to appear, and the obligation to testify and/or produce documents. Even if a witness intends to assert privilege in response to a subpoena, that intention to assert privilege does not obviate the obligation to appear....

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

We are prepared at the hearing tomorrow to consider and rule on any specific assertions of privilege in response to specific questions. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow pursuant to her legal obligations.

The committee will meet tomorrow morning, regardless of whether Miers shows.

The family that's investigated together, stays together.

Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) said his fellow senators have stood by him now that he faces federal scrutiny for his involvement with oil field services company Veco Corp.

During an interview with reporters last week in Alaska, a local public radio station grabbed audio of Stevens saying:

There is sort of a cloud out there, but it's not harmed my role as a senator for Alaska, if anything, it's is a strange thing, it's enhanced it because senators read papers too, and it's sort of a family, the senate family comes around when someone's got a problem. And they've all encouraged me: "Don't get excited about this because so many people have been through it in their own states and it's not an easy thing."

Too bad Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) wasn't around to provide a shoulder to cry on.

The audio is online here.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a former U.S. attorney himself, pursued the most grueling, unrelenting and outright damning line of questioning of the day.

Whitehouse wanted an answer to a simple question. The topic was those by-now famous briefings that Karl Rove and his aides (Taylor included) gave at a number of agencies throughout the federal government. The slides from one of those briefings, given at the General Services Administration, showed that Rove's aides had briefed officials there on which Republican Congressional candidates were in danger.

Whitehouse wanted to know: during those briefings that Taylor gave, did she mention the "names of particular candidates?"

It took about three minutes for a rambling, stuttering Taylor to admit it. Taylor didn't want to. She talked about how the briefings were "informative," how they were meant to "thank employees," how they were meant to impart some knowledge about the "political landscape." Finally, she admitted, "It's hard to give the landscape without talking about the people who were the stars in the show."

But she wanted to make clear: “The purpose of those briefings was to inform people, it was not to direct people.” That, of course, is the narrow distinction on which Rove has relied.

"I took an oath the president, and I take that oath very seriously," Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.

And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. "Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?" Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.

"I know that the president refers to the government being his government -- it's not," Leahy reminded her.

A couple revealing moments from the hearing:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Taylor whether any other administrations had fired 10% of the U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term. The answer is no. But Taylor wasn't sure -- maybe Clinton or Reagan had done it in a "more artful" way?

Later, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) wanted to know whether Taylor had ever gotten specific complaints from Republicans around the country about certain U.S. attorneys. Taylor said she couldn't remember, because she'd gotten so many complaints about so many things. In fact, Taylor said, “I can’t remember what I had for breakfast last week.”

The former U.S. Attorney for Little Rock Bud Cummins was going to step down, and Karl Rove's former aide Timothy Griffin was just the logical one to replace him -- that's the story Sara Taylor told today, under questioning from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).

You can see her lay it out here:

It all sounds so harmless. But there's a number of problems with that. First, if Bud Cummins had long planned to step down, no one told him that. Taylor cited press accounts that Cummins was looking to retire as U.S. attorney, but Cummins had not informed his superiors at the Justice Department that he was leaving and had not requested to be replaced. And when Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last February, he said that Cummins had been fired in order for Griffin to take his place.

Taylor couldn't account for that discrepancy, only saying that everything would gone better (it was "awkwardly handled") if there had been "better communication."

But there's another problem with that, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out in her questioning.

Taylor had written in an email to Kyle Sampson after the firings that Cummins was "lazy," which was "why we got rid of him in the first place."

Taylor apologized to Feinstein for that "unnecessary comment" and said that she'd "heard that," but that it was not a fair comment.

Karl Rove and his aides at the White House have regularly used email accounts provided by the Republican National Committee to send and receive emails that should have been sent and received on the official White House system under the Presidential Records Act. When Sen. Leahy asked Taylor about this, she said that the email system had been created in order to avoid violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government resources for political means.

That's true, of course, except that Rove and his aides seem to have used the RNC emails for just about everything, regardless of whether it was a political matter. When Leahy pressed Taylor as to why she'd emailed Justice Department aide Kyle Sampson about the replacement of U.S. attorneys using her RNC account, Taylor answered that she'd done it as "someone trying to be efficient with their time." If so, Rove's shop must have been very efficient.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wanted to know: Since the 2004 election, had Sara Taylor spoken with the president about replacing U.S. attorneys?

Taylor declined to answer, citing the president's invocation of privilege. Leahy replied that he wasn't after the content of the discussion, just whether it occurred. Taylor declined again.

It's just a sample of the testimony as it's progressed this morning, where Taylor has actually answered a number of questions that would seem to be covered by privilege, but not others. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) later remarked that Taylor's willingness to answer certain questions had "weakened" the White House's claim of privilege.

Update: Later in the hearing, Taylor answered the question -- it was no.

That's from Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) opening statement at the hearing, as he made a point of saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee's fight is not with Sara Taylor, but "with the White House," which, he said, had issued a "gag order" in the form of an assertion of executive privilege.

Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) said that he hoped that the committee would not seek to cite Taylor with contempt for refusing to answer questions that the president claimed was protected by privilege.

Sara Taylor, until recently Karl Rove's former aide at the White House, will begin her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a matter of minutes.

You can see Taylor's opening statement here. In it, she says that she intends "to follow the President's instruction" and not testify about conversations she had at the White House about the U.S. attorney firings. However, there may still be certain questions she can answer:

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege...

I look forward to answering those questions not covered by the President's assertion of executive privilege."

We'll bring you updates as the hearing (which will probably be relatively short) continues.

Update: For those wanting to watch, the hearing is on C-Span3 and streaming from the committee's website.

The FBI is looking to clean up its act after repeated allegations that the agency abused its newfound Patriot Act powers. Instead of the agency illegally holding information about American citizens, the FBI wants to pay private firms to hold it for them. Additionally, the FBI is now using its data-mining software to sort through records on identity theft, real estate transactions, car accidents, etc. to profile Americans as potential terrorists. Sen. Leahy has already expressed that such a database is “ripe for abuse”. (ABC’s The Blotter, USA TODAY)

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) is keeping his options open. A spokesman for Calvert said the lawmaker will not rule out selling his illegally procured land back to the company that originally sold him the land. A grand jury concluded that water and sewer company Jurupa Community Services District violated California law when it sold four acres of public land to Calvert and investment partners before offering it first to public agencies. (The Hill)

Louisiana senator and marriage advocate David Vitter (R) has been keeping a low profile since yesterday’s announcement that he was once a patron of the D.C. Madam. But now the “Canal Street Madam” is rising to defend him, claiming that the Senator occasioned her New Orleans brothel and was nothing but a gentleman. (The Hill, Times-Picayune)

Read more »

Admit it: when George W. Bush is gone, you're going to miss him. Who else would politicize the surgeon general's office? Who else would embed junk science into a mostly ceremonial post? And who else could turn a congressional hearing into strengthening that sinecure into an exploration of political corruption?

Yesterday, Richard H. Carmona, U.S. surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about the Bush-inflicted horrors he experienced during his tenure. Some of Carmona's experience will be familiar to administration-watchers, like a dismissal of global warming as "a liberal cause" by senior officials. Health and Human Services cronies struck references to stem-cell research from his speeches while instructing him to mention President Bush three times on every page. Come election time, the nation's doctor was to prescribe voting for the GOP ticket.

Other aspects are more inventive, even for President Bush. Consider the case of the Special Olympics:

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”

Read more »

If at first Rahm doesn't succeed, try, try again in the Senate.

This afternoon, a Senate appropriations panel chaired by Dick Durbin (D-IL) stripped $4.8 million out of Vice President Cheney's budget for not complying with security rules for classified information. The move -- on a day consumed by Iraq -- came two weeks after a previous effort in the House by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) failed. It's unclear if the move will survive a full Appropriations Committee vote, but if Cheney wants his money back, all he needs to do is allow the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to perform a few unobtrusive inspections. Don't hold your breath, though.

It gets thornier.

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will vote to authorize subpoenas against the Republican National Committee for emails relevant to the U.S. attorney firings. The RNC, you'll remember, provides email to a number of White House aides, including Karl Rove and his staff.

Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) requested the emails back in April, and yesterday, he got his final answer from the RNC, via the White House: no. In a letter to the RNC's counsel, White House special counsel Emmet Flood wrote that the RNC emails, since they involved White House officials, were covered by the president's assertion of executive privilege last week. The RNC has said that it will abide by the White House's direction. You can see Flood's letter to the RNC here.

The committee's subpoena, if issued later, would add yet another dimension to the fight over documents and testimony and yet another test, if the battle goes to court, of the president's claim of privilege.

Note: House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has also been conducting an investigation of the White House's off-the-record email system.

Former White House counsel Harriet Miers will comply with the president's assertion of executive privilege, her lawyer wrote the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. Nevertheless, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcomittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) have asked Miers to appear anyway.

The committee subpoenaed Miers last month, ordering her to appear this Thursday. In a letter to Conyers yesterday, Miers' lawyer George Manning wrote that Miers is "subject to conflicting commands, with Congress demanding the production of information that the Counsel to the President has informed her she is prohibited from disclosing." He went on, overstating the president's power to stop Miers from testifying:

Ms. Miers is, of course, respectful of her obligations to respond appropriately to the subpoena issued and served upon her. In these circumstances, however, as I am sure you know, Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the president in his letters mentioned above. This is particularly so because, as the members of the Committee are aware, the assertion of the privilege in this circumstance is supported by the thorough and reasoned opinion of the Solicitor General of the United States....

Accordingly, and will all due respect, I must inform you that in light of the President's assertion of Executive Privilege, Ms. Miers cannot provide the documents and testimony that the Committee seeks.

As I reported yesterday, Miers does in fact have a choice. She could choose to defy the president's direction, though the move would certainly send the battle to court. You can read Manning's letter here.

Conyers was straightforward in his reply, saying that he was just writing to confirm that Miers would be appearing Thursday:

I understand from your letter that Ms. Miers may decline to produce documents or answer questions based on your interpretation of letters you have received from the White House, and those claims will be considered at the hearing, but it is of course incumbent on Ms. Miers to appear at the hearing pursuant to the subpoena.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has taken the same approach to Karl Rove's former aide Sara Taylor, who's scheduled to appear before his committee tomorrow.

From The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Mark Geragos, the high-profile lawyer for indicted Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes, was removed from the case by a federal judge yesterday because he refused to go through a background check that would allow him to see classified information.

Wilkes, remember, is accused of bribing Dusty Foggo, the former executive director of the CIA. Without access to classified information, Geragos couldn't represent his client, prosecutors said. But Geragos, who represented Michael Jackson, Gary Condit, and other celebrities, took a stand, telling the judge, “I am just not going to, under any circumstances, submit myself to a security clearance so I can represent my client in federal district court." So the judge tossed him off the case. The Union-Trib says that Geragos may appeal.

That puts Wilkes, who's indicted for bribing Duke Cunningham in addition to Foggo, in a jam. Before Cunningham went down in 2005, Wilkes was swimming in government contracts. But it's been a long time, and Geragos, you can be sure, doesn't come cheap. Wilkes told the judge that his resources were "stretched beyond the point of breaking," the SDUT reports.

But that wasn't all the bad news Wilkes had yesterday.

Read more »

Former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) won't have to pay $118,000 in restitution on charges of which he was acquitted, the judge overseeing his case decided.

Originally, Siegelman had been ordered to pay the money to reimburse the state for losses based on a warehouse scandal. A jury acquitted Siegelman of charges relating to that scandal, but the prosecution pressed for punishment during the sentencing portion of the trial. The judge changed his mind yesterday, siding with Siegelman's lawyers.

The prosecution's decision to push for a harsher sentence based on the warehouse scandal and a variety of other charges of which Siegelman was acquitted sparked outrage from the defense lawyers. Siegelman's supporters pointed to the decision as more evidence of a political vendetta behind the initial investigation.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) has sent a letter to the head of the House Judiciary Committee asking that the case be looked into as part of the broader investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department.

Following up on today's Washington Post bombshell that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales knew about abuses of FBI counterterrorism powers years before a Justice Department inspector general's report earlier this year, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said the misdirection went beyond Alberto Gonzales' spoken testimony before Congress in 2005 and then again in April of this year. The Justice Department had misled Congress in written responses to questions for the record as well, which were provided to Congress just last week. For instance, a response, signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, read:

"Prior to the release of the Inspector General's report on March 9, 2007, the Inspector General provided drafts of the report for classification and factual review. Upon learning of the findings contained in the report, the Attorney General was concerned, promptly ordered a detailed review of the report's findings and recommendations, and directed senior Department officials, including officials at the FBI, to address the shortcomings identified in the Inspector General's report."

Unless "prior" means "two years before," the DOJ's reply to the committee neglects to mention that Gonzales received numerous alerts as to FBI abuses of the sort the inspector general found.

Read more »

A press release just out from Kim Dower, Larry Flynt's spokesperson:

Larry Flynt's ongoing investigation into the dirty secrets of prominent elected officials has exposed another hypocrite. Monday's confession of marital infidelity by GOP right-wing marriage-protection advocate Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was the result of a multi-pronged investigation launched and run by Larry Flynt, publisher of HUSTLER Magazine.

Within hours of a phone call from the offices of HUSTLER Magazine asking Vitter to comment on an article HUSTLER reporters were working on, Vitter ran to the Associated Press in an attempt to get ahead of the story.

As of 2 p.m. West Coast time on Monday, only Larry Flynt and the HUSTLER investigative team knew that Vitter¹s phone number appeared on the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called D.C. Madam. Within hours of obtaining the phone records, Flynt¹s team found what ABC News has so far been unable to ferret out. Flynt's team is currently continuing its investigation into improprieties by other high-ranking elected officials.

Senator Vitter, a churchgoing Catholic who is married and has four children, is seen as a hard-line right-winger. A staunch supporter of President Bush, Vitter has built his reputation on family-values platforms such as marriage protection and abstinence-only programs.

In opposition to same-sex marriage, Vitter recently stated, "Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and stability for our very social structure."

Sen. Vitter announced his support for Rudy Giuliani in March and was tapped by the presidential nomination candidate to serve as his Southern Regional Chair.

Update: Here's more on this from Justin over at the Blotter.

Update: So maybe Vitter doesn't have such a blind faith in the Fourth Estate. Oh well.

It wasn't immediately apparent from the stories yesterday, but Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) showed great faith in the Fourth Estate yesterday, admitting to being a customer of the D.C. madam as a sort of preemptive measure. The madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, released her business' phone records to the press last week and uploaded the records to her website (currently down) yesterday. Apparently Vitter thought it was just a matter of time before some muckraker found him out.

Update: Actually, Hustler Magazine says it was behind Vitter's sudden statement.

Vitter's statement only admits obliquely that Vitter's number was on one of Palfrey's old lists. The AP's New Orleans' bureau apparently received the statement yesterday, and then spent some time trying to confirm its authenticity. "Vitter's spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement Monday evening in an e-mail to The Associated Press," according to an early version of the wire story.

No one seems to know when (or how often) Vitter used the service; all his statement says is that it was "prior to his running for the U.S. Senate" in 2004. He'd been a congressman since 1999, and Palfrey's records date back to 1996. The AP still hadn't seen the records as of last night, since reporters were "unable to connect to Palfrey's website."

The records contain thousands upon thousands of numbers without names. Most of the recent records, dating from 2002 to 2006, were released to ABC News back in March; a team of researchers set to matching the numbers to names. Jeff Schneider, a spokesman for ABC News, said that they had not found Vitter's number in those records. "With the release of a full ten years of records, it seems clear that his number came up in one of the records we did not have access to," he told me.

As for now, the race is on for who can pile up the most vividly hypocritical quote from the family values (or as he put it, "Louisiana values") conservative. In the running: Sen. Vitter maligning the "Hollywood left" for violating the "sanctity of marriage," and Vitter arguing that President Clinton should step down for his extramarital affair (Vitter, by the by, replaced Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) after the speaker was forced to step down because of an affair). There are, you can be sure, many more. Glenn Greenwald has a rundown here.

Update: The prevailing quote of the day seems to be this one:

In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.

His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse reporter: If her husband were as unfaithful as Livingston or former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Rodham Clinton?

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

“I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage,” she added. “Don’t put fear down.”

The federal government has been very good to two of Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) business partners, Leonard Hyde and Jonathan Rubini, reports (sub. req.) John Stanton of Roll Call.

In 2004, Stevens slipped them a $3.5 million earmark for an empty plot of land in Anchorage that was to be used by the National Archives and Records Administration. The deal meant $2 million profit for Hyde and Rubini.

What's happened since the initial windfall for Stevens' business partners? Not much:

Since the land deal was finished, federal funding has slowed significantly for the project. Despite a price tag of at least $29 million in construction costs, Stevens appears to have taken only modest interest in securing funding for the project since the land transfer. Stevens set aside $3 million in 2005 for site preparation, while the archives earmark diminished to just $1.9 million last year.

However, according to a May 11, 2007, Anchorage Daily News story, $290,000 tagged for the construction has been reprogrammed for a new speed-skating-rink project being planned next to the NARA land. Stevens also secured a $940,000 earmark specifically for the skating rink in 2004, according to the story.

Read more »

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), come on down! Vitter is the most recent name to appear in the phone records of the notorious D.C. Madam. (Associated Press)

Here is a short Q&A to help explain the concept of contempt of Congress. (Associated Press)

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is joining Senator Specter (R-PA) on a bill meant to challenge President Bush’s habit of using signing statements to selectively enforce legislation. (Boston Globe)

Rep David Scott (D-GA) is facing charges from a former aide that the lawmaker made his staff work for his campaign during their time on his congressional payroll. (The Politico)

Read more »

Alberto Gonzales lied, the FBI spied.

In March, and again last month, the Justice Department's inspector general and internal FBI reviews found that the bureau repeatedly misused its Patriot-Act power to subpoena e-mail or financial records without court orders. But years before the reviews were completed -- and word of them became public -- Attorney General Gonzales knew that the abuses surrounding so-called National Security Letters existed. And yet this is what he told Congress on April 27, 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse."

Reports the Washington Post:

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

Read more »

Earlier today, the White House made it official and asserted executive privilege with regard to former White House aides testifying before Congress about the U.S. attorney firings. What happens next?

Enter the experts.

I asked Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School and Marty Lederman of Georgetown Law to walk me through.

First, although the president has "directed" Sara Taylor, Karl Rove's former aide, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, not to testify, the decision is still up to them, both said. Although the traditional expectation is that aides will comply with determinations of executive privilege by the president, both could still refuse. It would be a "career ending move" to be sure, Turley added, but there is no legal impediment.

Taylor is still scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, and Chariman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said yesterday that he expects her to show. You might call that an optimistic stance. Taylor's lawyer Neil Eggleston has not said outright that she won't testify. But he sent Leahy a letter on Sunday saying that the president would be asserting his privilege and that "absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee." In other words, it sounds like Taylor will accede to the president's assertion.

Even if Taylor decided to defy the president's direction and testify, the White House would surely seek to bar her testimony in court through a restraining order, an injunction, or some other means, both experts agreed.

But if Taylor refuses to testify, then the ball's in Congress' court.

Read more »

Here are the witnesses who are scheduled to testify this Wednesday for the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence:

Ambassador Joseph Wilson

Roger Adams, US Department of Justice Pardon Attorney

Douglas A. Berman, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University

Tom Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Middle District of North Carolina (Attorney for Vincent Rita, Rita v. US)

David Rifkin, partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, former Justice Department official during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations

Says Conyers:

"Congress must now look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused. Taken to its extreme, and possibly in the case of the Libby clemency, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

All parties agreed today that Scooter Libby should, in fact, serve two years of probation, most likely paving the way for the judge to conclude the same.

Judge Reggie Walton had asked Libby's lawyer and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to weigh in on the special predicament created by the president's commutation of Libby's sentence last week: Bush had eliminated the jail time, but left in place the two-year period of supervised release that was to follow incarceration.

In his motion today, Fitzgerald argued that Libby's probation should have started July 2nd, the date of the commutation. Fitzgerald also pointed out in passing that Libby's sentence, which Bush judged "excessive," had been on the "the low-end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range." In addition to Libby's 30 months in prison and two years of probation, Libby was hit with a $250,000 fine, which he paid last week.

Libby's lawyers echoed the White House line, made official in a letter from counsel Fred Fielding earlier today, that the president's commutation should rule over any discrepancies with the sentencing statute.

You can read Fitzgerald's argument here. It's not clear when Judge Walton will make his final decision.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) told the Associated Press that the ongoing federal probe into his dealings with oil services company Veco could have ramifications at the polls:

"The worst thing about this investigation is that it does change your life in terms of employment potential," Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't matter what anyone says, it does shake you up. If this is still hanging around a year from November, it could cause me some trouble."

Stevens also commented on his home remodeling project overseen by Veco that's reportedly of interest to investigators:

"I'm working to get this concept out of my mind that someone is trying to make something illegal out of all this, That's what's really disturbing."

While Stevens was in Washington, Veco executives made sure his house was safely ratcheted off the ground and a new first story slipped in.

This weekend the annual Kenai River Classic brought together members of Congress, like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), and heads of major defense companies to help raise $1 million for Alaska salmon habitat preservation.

The 200 or so participants (who each contributed at least $4,000) were shown a good time. They fished the Kenai River for giant king salmon where a hospitality boat handed out bloody marys and cigars and they wined and dined along the riverfront. The Anchorage Daily News has two great photos you can see here.

The annual event has gone on for 14 years, drawing major corporations as donors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing and the heavily-investigated BAE Systems.

But some locals have piped up about the invitational, saying it does more harm than good. This year, the Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition took out an opposition ad in the print edition of the local paper to complain about the environmental and community damage caused by the event. You can see the print ad here. The group, which includes 10 fish biologists, calls the message of the fundraiser disingenuous, arguing that the money ends up promoting non-sustainable growth along the river, ultimately hurting the habitat. The alliance is also rallying against the murky politicking taking place.

Read more »

The White House hasn't been in much of a waiving mood lately, but it's worth a shot.

In a letter today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) asked President Bush to waive executive privilege for any aides who might testify before the committee this Wednesday about Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. As Conyers notes, "When President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich stirred its own controversy back in 2001, former President Clinton took the forthright step of waiving Executive Privilege and permitting some of his closest aides to testify about the facts of the matter." Conyers wants the same deal for his hearing this Wednesday.

The full letter is below.

Read more »

Last week, the judge presiding over Scooter Libby's case said he was confused: the president's commutation of Libby's sentence had eliminated the jail time, but left in place the two-year period of supervised release that was to follow incarceration. By law, supervised release follows a prison sentence .It wasn't immediately clear how to deal with that, so the judge asked the two parties to weigh in on how they thought this should be resolved. There have been whispers that Libby might not even have to serve his two years of probation as a result of the discrepancy.

Today, White House counsel Fred Fielding wrote Patrick Fitzgerald in an effort to clear this up. When the president said "supervised release," he meant it, no matter if that clashes with the law. The president's commutation power would "unmistakably govern," Fielding wrote. You can read the letter here.

So here's yet another instance of shadiness to add to the BAE bribery scandal.

Up until December, the British Government's Serious Fraud Office had a wide-ranging corruption investigation open into alleged kickbacks paid by defense giant BAE Systems to prominent Saudi officials -- including, allegedly, Prince Bandar, the ex-ambassador to the U.S. -- in order to secure a multi-billion arms deal. Suddenly, then-PM Tony Blair announced an abrupt end to the SFO inquiry, citing unspecified national security concerns. And while the inquiry ended, the stain on BAE's reputation by the probe was enough to push the Justice Department into opening its own corruption investigation of the company ahead of its scheduled purchase of a U.S. armor manufacturer.

But it may be that Blair wasn't so worried about the probe's effect on British national security. It turns out BAE is negotiating a whole new arms sale to the Saudis -- something very lucrative for the British government. The deal would send 60 Hawk trainer jets to Saudia Arabia and establish a multi-year partnership between the Royal Air Force and its Saudi counterpart for training pilots worth "billions of pounds."

Read more »

OK, so the White House and Congress are locked in a pitched battle over the testimony of key aides. But that doesn't mean Democrats have to be mean about it.

Some highlights from White House counsel Fred Fielding's letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees this morning:

Let me begin by conveying a note of concern over your letter's tone and apparent direction in dealing with a situation of this gravity. We are troubled to read the letter 's charge that the President's "assertion of Executive Privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply." Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President's assertion of Executive Privilege was performed without "good faith."...

One final observation underscores the preordained futility of any White House compliance with this demand. When your letter states that your Committees ''will take the necessary steps to rule on [the President 's] privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas" and that the Committees will enforce their subpoenas "[wjhether or not [they] have the benefit of the information" (emphasis added), only one conclusion is evident: the Committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of the production of any privilege log. In such circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation."

Fielding gravely concludes: "And I likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) replies:

"We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter. While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House, they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims. Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the Courts that will decide whether an invocation of Executive Privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is more to the point (and, well, a little mean):

“I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one."

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) shared his thoughts on his job as a member of Congress with the Anchorage Daily News:

"When you are chairman of a committee, you represent the whole nation; you don't represent one district, which is in my case is one state," Young said. "Earmarks are good for the country and good for the people you represent.

"That is the role of a congressman. If you can't get money for your district, you shouldn't be in Congress," he said.

And when you're tired of rolling pork home, send it to Florida.

The White House makes it official.

You can read Fred Fielding's letter here.

From the AP:

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides in connection with the firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said on CNN's "Late Edition" that he may call Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to testify about his prosecution of Scooter Libby. (Bloomberg)

The benchmarks set forth in January by President Bush for the Iraqi government are becoming a problem for the Bush administration, as al-Maliki’s government appears to make little progress in reaching these goals. Instead, the administration is preparing an interim report due next week that will highlight “alternative” achievements. (Washington Post)

Approximately one-quarter of of the leadership positions at the Department of Homeland Security are unfilled, causing concern about the coverage of an agency staffed with providing counter-terrorism measures. (Washington Post)

Read more »

A 25-year veteran of the Justice Department writes in The Denver Post today to remind everybody what it's all about:

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

There's a reason you don't typically hear from lawyers who are still with the Department. And that's because if there's one thing at which this administration has proven itself reliable, it's their their consistency in attacking critics. John Koppel, the author of the op-ed, is mindful:

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

There are a number of deadlines for congressional subpoenas for White House documents and/or testimony approaching over the next couple weeks -- two, for instance, this week regarding the U.S. attorneys investigation. It seems that we'll soon learn how many different ways the White House can say, "no."

From The Washington Post:

The White House has decided to defy Congress's latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, sources familiar with the decision said yesterday. Such an action would escalate the constitutional struggle and propel it closer to a court showdown.

Senate and House committees have directed President Bush to provide by tomorrow a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding plans to tell lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log of the documents, the sources said.

The standoff suggests that neither side is prepared to budge in the fight over documents and testimony in the widening U.S. attorney investigation. Officials in both camps said no serious negotiations are taking place to resolve the dispute. Fielding plans to follow up his letter by further asserting executive privilege later this week, the sources said, directing former White House aides Harriet E. Miers and Sara M. Taylor not to testify in response to congressional subpoenas.

You can see last week's request from the committees for that log here. "A serious assertion of privilege," the chairmen wrote, "would include an effort to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply." According to the Post's sources, "White House officials viewed the request as a backdoor attempt to get sensitive information about deliberations."

George Torres-Ramos is the owner of a successful chain of supermarkets situated throughout low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles County. He's also under indictment, facing 59 counts of charges spanning from racketeering, violence in aid of racketeering, conspiracy to harbor illegal immigrants and several types of fraud that netted over $100 million. Along the way, Torres has been accused of bribing several officials to help secure liquor licenses. He’s also suspected of orchestrating three murders.

The trail to his indictment traces back to the end of the Clinton era. Officials at the Drug Enforcement Agency had long held suspicions that Torres was trafficking cocaine in his grocery trucks, but had never had enough evidence to to charge him. Torres’s business association with one Horacio Vignali eventually changed that.

Vignali had been identified as one of Torres’ business partners by the DEA, but any investigation into Torres had subsequently run out of steam. But Vignali became public news when his son's prison sentence for cocaine trafficking was commuted by President Clinton on the way out of office. Remarkably, President Clinton had received commutation requests from the sheriff, the U.S. Attorney, two Congressmen, the L.A. County Supervisor and the current mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Read more »