1 Boring Old Man

I’m still cogitating on why Bush would not sign the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 and Alberto Gonzales would make an appointment under the renounced Patriot Act provision when both he and the Administration are under so much pressure on this topic – and on record as denying they ever planned to use it as a method to get around Senate Confirmation of U.S. Attorneys. It’s tempting to jump conclusions and say that they’re exerting power just because they have it, like a bunch of playground bullies in Elementary School. And that may also be true.

But several things occur to me. First, if he vetos the bill, his veto will likely be over-ridden. This bill passed by 70% of the House and 94% of the Senate. He can’t get away with a Signing Statement I don’t think. This bill isn’t up for interpretation. It only "undoes" a provision of a previous bill. I don’t think he’s willing to put anyone up for U.S. Attorney. The Senate Confirmation process opens him up to great vulnerability. It killed Nixon. So stonewalling is his only choice, since Congress doesn’t have much in the way of power to enforce things left to them, except through the Courts – Courts Bush is close to controlling. So, I guess it makes some sense.

His vulnerability is sailing in open water. With the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, he’s only safe if he keeps people from tesifying, from being exposed on television. And his greatest vulnerability is the White House/GWB43.com emails. Like the White House tapes in the Nixon days, these emails could bring him down. He’s [they’re] more vulnerable than they’ve ever been…

They’ve got a lot of spinning plates in the air, and they’ve got a lot of Congressmen very angry, and they’ve got a war that can’t be won in the Middle East, and they’ve got domestic crises all over the place, and there are lots of operatives who see Scooter being sacraficed, and Bush and Rove not as smart as they think they are. Like with David and Goliath, one well-placed rock…

"Senator Feinstein’s U.S. Attorney bill….repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to circumvent advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys. That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the President’s desk since June 4. It seems he just cannot bring himself to sign it. Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the Attorney General has used the power that we have voted to repeal, again," said Senator Leahy, the committee’s chairman.

"I just don’t understand ." When other people it that, I always say, "You mean you don’t like what they did." Of course I don’t like this, but in this case, I really don’t understand. It seems ludicrous to continue to make an interim appointment like this when Congress had this kind of  vote:

Mar 20, 2007: This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 94 Ayes, 2 Nays, 4 Present/Not Voting.

May 22, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 306 Ayes, 114 Nays, 12 Present/Not Voting.

Are they saying, "Screw you!" to Congress? or "Screw you!" the the people?

Ex-Justice Dept. lawyer can’t recall his role in controversial policies

 

Another former Justice Department lawyer went before Congress on Wednesday with few answers for his Democratic interrogators and a spotty memory.

Hans von Spakovsky, who’s seeking a full six-year term on the Federal Election Commission, deflected questions about whether he undermined voting rights laws, saying, "I was not the decision maker in the front office of the Civil Rights Division."

Time and again during his confirmation hearing, he cited either the attorney-client privilege or a cloudy memory for his purported role in restricting minorities’ voting rights.

Von Spakovsky couldn’t remember blocking an investigation into complaints that a Minnesota Republican official was discriminating against Native American voters before the 2004 election.

Under oath, he also said he didn’t recall seeing data from the state of Georgia that would have undercut a push by senior officials within the Civil Rights Division to approve the state’s tough new law requiring photo IDs of all voters. The data showed that 300,000 Georgia voters lacked driver’s licenses. A federal judge later threw out the law as unconstitutional.

Von Spakovsky was among four nominees to the bipartisan FEC, which regulates federal campaign finance laws, to appear before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. He and two of the others have had presidential recess appointments since early last year.

Nearly the entire two-hour hearing focused on von Spakovsky and on allegations from former career Justice Department lawyers that he was the administration’s "point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division’s mandate to protect voting rights" of minorities during his more than four-year tenure.

Citing a scathing letter from six former senior officials of the Voting Rights Section, Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told him bluntly: "It is really a problem for this body to vote for someone with this letter on the record."

2 Former Aides to Bush Get Subpoenas
Miers, Taylor Had Roles in Firings Of U.S. Attorneys

The White House gave no indication that it intends to comply with the demands. "It’s clear that they’re trying to create some media drama," said spokesman Tony Snow, referring to Democratic lawmakers.

By targeting two former administration officials, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) are hoping that Miers and Taylor might decide to reach accords with the House and Senate committees, regardless of the administration’s interests, according to congressional aides.

A similar tactic resulted in damaging public testimony earlier this year from D. Kyle Sampson and Monica M. Goodling, two former senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who were at the center of the prosecutors’ dismissals.

Today’s article in the Washington Post describes the subpoenas as a "tactic" to induce these two women to testify regardless of what the Administration says. Tony Snow likewise sees these subpoenas as a strategy to create "media drama." Bush, as usual, dismisses it as "political" – a motive familiar to him. In our government, we do seem to describe most debated issues with these terms – terms that impy that the motive for what people say are hidden behind their words, and those motives are discounted as greedy or underhanded "political" motives.

I suppose it’s the nature of politics to do that – to attack hidden, unsavory motives rather than directly address the ‘straight’ message. It’s why we have courts, and laws. The legal system is, in essence, designed to deal with the self-serving nature of human logic. A suspected criminal tells their version of the story, the prosecution tells the other side, and a Judge or Jury decides where the relative truth is in this sea of selfish logic.

That’s what makes this particular crisis so critical. At it’s core, this is an assault of "the law" itself. We’ve heard from David Iglesias, John McKay, Todd Graves, Bud Cummins. They are all Republicans. They are all Republican appointees. We’ve seen Patrick Fitzgerald. He’s a Republican appointee. We’ve heard James Comey. He’s a Republican and a Republican appointee. I was impressed. While they didn’t say what I wanted them to say all the time, I believed them almost from the moment they started talking. I felt the same way about Valerie Plame [but I could certainly be accused of having other motives there]. But I sort of felt it, to my surprise, with Monica Goodling. There were times when the Congressmen attempted to get her to conclude things that she evaded – that seemed natural. But she had ‘stepped over the line’ and said it. She was being conned by Gonzales and said it. As opposed to what she did as I am [partisanize the DoJ], as a witness – I mostly believed her.

When Tony Snow says, "It’s clear that they’re trying to create some media drama," I don’t believe him. I think he’s attacking the congressional investigators as a way of trying to discount them, rather than face their allegations. When George W. Bush says anything, absolutely anything, I don’t believe him. I never have, and I doubt I ever will. When Dick Cheney speaks, I actually believe that he believes what he is saying, but that he has a paranoid illness that so clouds his judgement and logic that whatever he says is suspect – period.

It would be naive to decry politics – people making self-serving arguments to further their cause. It’s just the way things work in a Democracy. But it is completely right to decry this assault on our legal system. The Republican Administration of today is so cynical, that they don’t even believe in relative truth – the best we can do in the face of human narcissism. They think that politics is all there is, and that legal decisions that don’t go their way are always partisan. Therein lies the danger of this Administration. They are, themselves, deeply cynical people. They see only the dark side of human beings – and act accordingly. They ridicule and laugh off what’s decent in others out of hand. Unfortunately, what this means is clear. You can’t see in others what you don’t have inside yourself.

Watching the Hearings, I admit that Leahy and Schumer are more "political" than I would like, though they’re also pretty solid citizens. But Feinstein, Whitehouse, Conyers, and Waxman, are as credible a group as anyone could ask for. That’s why we need to hear from Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor [and ultimately, Karl Rove]. When it’s all said and done, we are the ultimate Jury in this country, and this one needs to come to trial in front of us. In spite of the assault on our legal system, we’re still out here intact – and this is a decision we need to make. We can no longer count on our usual method of dealing with things – a special prosecutor.

I’ve been saying that our salvation is in the Congress. But I now think that’s not totally true. We are our own salvation. The Congressional Hearings get the case into the court of public opinion. Ironically, it appears that we’re who the Administration is trying to hide from…

White House Subpoenas
by Congressman John Conyers

I wanted to share with all of you the reasoning behind a significant step I have taken in the investigation of the mass firings of federal prosecutors and the politicization occurring within the Department of Justice.

Today, I issued subpoenas to former White House Counsel Harriett Miers to compel her to testify before the House Judiciary Com

I consider these subpoenas to be essential because the evidence our investigation has uncovered points to the pivotal role the White House played in the U.S. Attorney firings.  We have only sought to compel cooperation through subpoenas after more than three months of stonewalling by the White House.  

I had hoped that the White House would be more forthcoming in assisting our investigation. Unfortunately, this subpoena provided the only legal means for the American people, through their elected representatives, to find out how their government functions.  

This subpoena represents a very serious step by Congress not to be taken lightly. Defiance or failure to comply would run counter to the checks and balances that are the foundation of our constitution and democratic government.

Here is what we have learned in our investigation so far: [a clear summary of the mounting evidence follows]

Given what we have learned, clear answers from the White House are needed to shed light on its role in this process. These steps today will hopefully bring us closer to those answers.

As for this comment, "Defiance or failure to comply would run counter to the checks and balances that are the foundation of our constitution and democratic government." It’s good to hear him say that. The Administration’s offer to have closed, no-oath, no-transcript "testimony" is completely absurd. Even more absurd is "it’s that or we’ll evoke executive privilege." What could be more typical of the Bush Administration than that? They don’t even bother to offer some rationale for such a ludicrous offer, they only deal in power. "I can, so I will" with no acknowlegement of the reasons for the powers they broker. They perceive themselves as regaining the Presidential Powers given away after Nixon abused those powers. What they are doing is creating a situation where those powers will be curtailed for all time because of the Bush/Cheney attempt at creating a monarchy.

Watching the news tonight, Tim Russert was reporting on the recent MSNBC/WSJ poll. Americans disapprove of everything – the President, Congress, our direction. All I have to say is that it’s about gaddamn time! Congress is choked. The Democratic Majority is not large enough in the Senate to over-ride a veto, pass cloture on a no confidence vote, etc. Bush can be stymied, but things can’t yet be reversed.

Our salvation is in the hands of the Congressional Investigators, the last bastion of sanity in a government infiltrated down to the people who order paper clips. Although it didn’t make it to the nightly news – there’s plenty going on. The House Rules Committee interviewed and unrepentent, smart, arrogant Hans Von Spakovsky today. He took responsibility for none of his dirty deeds in the "voter fraud conspiracy," he was just under orders of the infamous Bradley Schlozman. What a pair. Lurita Doan continued to try to explain to an increasingly impatient Congressional Hearing why her being a Party Operative shouldn’t bother them. In response to last night’s damning email dump, the Judicial Committees of both Houses of Congress issued subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor – probably facing the "executive privilege" dance for longer than we’d like. Any day where that many Republican Operatives are being looked at is a good day. We have to take what we can get.

when the bough breaks,
the cradle will fall,
and down will come baby,
cradle and all.

These are the ‘withheld’ emails that involved Sara Taylor as we knew about them before yesterday’s email dump:

Here are three of those emails as they were ‘dumped’ yesterday:

• First – the ‘Description’ in the table of withheld emails hardly fits the email itself.
• Second – notice the email address, st@gwb43.com.
• Third – Sampson is less than subtle in hinting that they should talk about this off the radar – "I’m out of the office but will call you" "I look forward to visiting with you about this."
• Fourth – Sara Taylor is incredulous: "Why would McNulty say this?"  "… poorly handled on the part of the DoJ." She’s upset that the truth is being told – that it’s not being "handled" better.
• Fifth – She uses the Royal "We," implicating the White House in the firings.
• Sixth – What does "Bud is lazy" mean? We haven’t heard that before…
• Seventh – Can anyone think of any reason these emails were withheld other than the DoJ and WH didn’t want us to read them?

For several years, I’ve pondered how the Republican machine worked, what turned the wheels that allowed Rovites to have so much influence over the voting apparatus? It hasn’t been a question of if it happening, it’s been a question of how. We’ve learned a lot about that in the last six months. With the U.S. Attorney Firings, we’ve learned about, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Sara Taylor, Harriet Miers, Michael Elston, to mention just a few in the DoJ [which stands for the Department of Justice?]. Then we learned about Mark "Thor" Hearne, a private operative with the National Republican Lawyers Association, and his bogus American Center for Voting Rights, a veteran of the Florida "hanging chad" debacle. Then recently, we’ve been treated to the likes of Bradley Schlozman, who came from the Civil Rights Division [another modern misnomer]. He seemed more like someone who came out from under a rock somewhere.

Well, tomorrow we have a real treat in store for us – Hans Von Spakovsky. He’s up for a position on the Federal Elections Commission. He may be ground zero in the voter fraud conspiracy. There’s a blistering letter about him from career voting rights attorneys to Dianne Feinstein – blistering. Here’s a sample:

Here’s what TPM-Muckraker has to say:

… von Spakovsky was "the point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division’s mandate to protect voting rights." Von Spakovsky reported to Schlozman, and the two worked together to purge voters from the rolls, ensure that voter ID laws were approved with no fuss, and punish lawyers who did not toe the line.

But while Schlozman was the enforcer, von Spakovsky seems to have been the brains of the operation. Von Spakovsky, unlike Schlozman, had a background in election law and had been pushing the voter fraud canard for years — to great effect.

…

Not surprisingly, von Spakovsky delivered once at the Justice Department. As the former voting section attorneys argue in their letter, von Spakovsky attempted to force widespread purging of voter rolls based on a very restrictive reading of election law (which von Spakovsky knew inside and out, since he helped draft the Help America Vote Act). "For example," the lawyers write, "in one letter, he advocated for a policy keeping eligible citizens off the voter rolls for typos and other mistakes by election officials." And as McClatchy detailed last month, he extended his activities to making sure the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that serves as the government’s election information clearinghouse, published research that conformed to the voter-fraud orthodoxy. He was a busy man.

Where in the hell do they find this kind of operative? Oh Lord, he’s from Georgia! Atlanta!