Gonzales Now Says Top Aides Got Political BriefingsBy Dan Eggen and Paul Kane | Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer | Saturday, August 4, 2007; Page A05
Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.
...
Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department and sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directly in election campaigns or other political activities, a Justice official said yesterday. ... But the official, who declined to be identified publicly discussing the issue, said the type of meetings held at the White House did not appear to run afoul of department policy.
...
Political briefings by White House aides have become a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill in recent months. Waxman is investigating whether the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity on federal government property. ...
Friday, August 31, 2007
"it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party"
Conyers Threatens Contempt Proceedings against RNC ChairBy Paul Kiel - July 17, 2007, 6:41 PM
Now on to the third development of this afternoon in the U.S. attorney firings subpoena battle.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for the emails of White House staffers who used the RNC addresses -- the Justice Department emails show that Karl Rove and his aides often used the email addresses to communicate about the U.S. attorneys. The RNC has deferred to the White House on this, and the White House has in turn refused to turn over the emails, citing executive privilege.
...
Conyers accordingly agreed to postpone the subpoena deadline, but warned the RNC in a letter (see below) that "it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party" (i.e. the White House). It's not for the RNC to decide whether to hand the documents over, Conyers wrote -- if the White House wants to stop them, then the White House should do that in court.
But if the RNC still decides not to produce the documents, Conyers says that the committee may conduct contempt proceedings against RNC Chairman Robert Duncan. ...
Now on to the third development of this afternoon in the U.S. attorney firings subpoena battle.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for the emails of White House staffers who used the RNC addresses -- the Justice Department emails show that Karl Rove and his aides often used the email addresses to communicate about the U.S. attorneys. The RNC has deferred to the White House on this, and the White House has in turn refused to turn over the emails, citing executive privilege.
...
Conyers accordingly agreed to postpone the subpoena deadline, but warned the RNC in a letter (see below) that "it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party" (i.e. the White House). It's not for the RNC to decide whether to hand the documents over, Conyers wrote -- if the White House wants to stop them, then the White House should do that in court.
But if the RNC still decides not to produce the documents, Conyers says that the committee may conduct contempt proceedings against RNC Chairman Robert Duncan. ...
Former Texas State Attorney Says She Was Dismissed For Comments Regarding Rove's Legal Voting Status
Attorney In Rove Article Fired, Sues | Former Texas State Attorney Says She Was Dismissed For Comments Regarding Rove's Legal Voting Status | AUSTIN, Tex., Aug. 21, 2007
A former attorney for the Texas Secretary of State has filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired for political reasons after she spoke to a newspaper about presidential adviser Karl Rove, according to a media report.
...
In Texas, state employees can be fired at will. Her attorney claims the firing violated her constitutional right of free speech.
Williams has previously said Reyes was let go because she violated agency policy. He said she was not authorized to discuss controversial issues with the media.
Williams is a major Republican fundraiser and a longtime ally of Rove and President George W. Bush. He is thought to have political ambitions of his own, perhaps as a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.
The Post article, dated September 3, 2005, told of Rove's reimbursement of Washington, D.C. property taxes amounting to $3,400 because he took a homestead deduction on his D.C. property for which he wasn't eligible, being a registered voter in Texas. (For three years, from 2001 until the sale of his Austin home, Rove claimed homesteads in Texas and Washington, which the article noted was technically illegal.)
In the article, Reyes stated that ownership in and of itself doesn't make a residence, and that in Texas registering to vote where you do not reside can bring voter fraud charges. While she said that Rove's rental cottage in Kerr County "doesn't sound like a residence to me, because it's not a fixed place of habitation," she acknowledged that "questions of residency are ultimately for the court to decide."
A former attorney for the Texas Secretary of State has filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired for political reasons after she spoke to a newspaper about presidential adviser Karl Rove, according to a media report.
...
In Texas, state employees can be fired at will. Her attorney claims the firing violated her constitutional right of free speech.
Williams has previously said Reyes was let go because she violated agency policy. He said she was not authorized to discuss controversial issues with the media.
Williams is a major Republican fundraiser and a longtime ally of Rove and President George W. Bush. He is thought to have political ambitions of his own, perhaps as a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.
The Post article, dated September 3, 2005, told of Rove's reimbursement of Washington, D.C. property taxes amounting to $3,400 because he took a homestead deduction on his D.C. property for which he wasn't eligible, being a registered voter in Texas. (For three years, from 2001 until the sale of his Austin home, Rove claimed homesteads in Texas and Washington, which the article noted was technically illegal.)
In the article, Reyes stated that ownership in and of itself doesn't make a residence, and that in Texas registering to vote where you do not reside can bring voter fraud charges. While she said that Rove's rental cottage in Kerr County "doesn't sound like a residence to me, because it's not a fixed place of habitation," she acknowledged that "questions of residency are ultimately for the court to decide."
Leahy asked the investigation not be limited just to "criminal violations" the Attorney General may have committed
Leahy asks for internal Justice Department investigation of Gonzales | Nick Juliano | Published: Thursday August 16, 2007
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, frustrated by his own battles with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has asked the Justice Department's top investigator to examine Gonzales's "potential misleading, evasive or dishonest testimony."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on Thursday asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine for the investigation.
"I have identified numerous instances in which the Attorney General appears to have contradicted his own previous testimony or the statements or testimony of other senior officials, or where he appears to have engaged in efforts to mislead," Leahy wrote. "I have given him an opportunity to clarify and revise his testimony, but he has not meaningfully addressed our significant concerns."
Leahy asked the investigation not be limited just to "criminal violations" the Attorney General may have committed. (Last month, four members of the Judiciary Committee requested a special independent prosecutor be appointed to investigate allegations of perjury on Gonzales's part.) ...
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, frustrated by his own battles with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has asked the Justice Department's top investigator to examine Gonzales's "potential misleading, evasive or dishonest testimony."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on Thursday asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine for the investigation.
"I have identified numerous instances in which the Attorney General appears to have contradicted his own previous testimony or the statements or testimony of other senior officials, or where he appears to have engaged in efforts to mislead," Leahy wrote. "I have given him an opportunity to clarify and revise his testimony, but he has not meaningfully addressed our significant concerns."
Leahy asked the investigation not be limited just to "criminal violations" the Attorney General may have committed. (Last month, four members of the Judiciary Committee requested a special independent prosecutor be appointed to investigate allegations of perjury on Gonzales's part.) ...
"grave violations suffered by Padilla were not isolated occurrences by...lower-level officials," : Donald Rumsfeld and 59 others responsible for abuse
Padilla sues US officials over confinement | By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor | from the August 24, 2007 edition
Despite his conviction on terror conspiracy charges, his lawyers say he suffered 'psychological abuse' during military detention.
Convicted Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla is seeking to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and 59 other US officials responsible for what his lawyers say were abusive and unconstitutional tactics used against Mr. Padilla while he was held in military custody as an enemy combatant from 2002 to 2006.
...
"Mr. Padilla suffered gross physical and psychological abuse at the hands of federal officials as part of a scheme of abusive interrogation intended to break down Mr. Padilla's humanity and his will to live," the 30-page complaint says.
"The grave violations suffered by Padilla were not isolated occurrences by rogue lower-level officials," the suit says. Besides Mr. Rumsfeld, it names Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby, among others, who "personally ordered and/or approved Mr. Padilla's detention and interrogation program." ...
Despite his conviction on terror conspiracy charges, his lawyers say he suffered 'psychological abuse' during military detention.
Convicted Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla is seeking to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and 59 other US officials responsible for what his lawyers say were abusive and unconstitutional tactics used against Mr. Padilla while he was held in military custody as an enemy combatant from 2002 to 2006.
...
"Mr. Padilla suffered gross physical and psychological abuse at the hands of federal officials as part of a scheme of abusive interrogation intended to break down Mr. Padilla's humanity and his will to live," the 30-page complaint says.
"The grave violations suffered by Padilla were not isolated occurrences by rogue lower-level officials," the suit says. Besides Mr. Rumsfeld, it names Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby, among others, who "personally ordered and/or approved Mr. Padilla's detention and interrogation program." ...
[Hatch Act] scale of Rove's effort is far broader than previously revealed; they say that Rove's team gave more than 100 such briefings during the se
How Rove Directed Federal Assets for GOP Gains | By John Solomon, Alec MacGillis and Sarah Cohen | Washington Post Staff Writers | Sunday, August 19, 2007; Page A01
Bush Adviser's Effort to Promote the President and His Allies Was Unprecedented in Its Reach
Thirteen months before President Bush was reelected, chief strategist Karl Rove summoned political appointees from around the government to the Old Executive Office Building. The subject of the Oct. 1, 2003, meeting was "asset deployment," and the message was clear:
The staging of official announcements, high-visibility trips and declarations of federal grants had to be carefully coordinated with the White House political affairs office to ensure the maximum promotion of Bush's reelection agenda and the Republicans in Congress who supported him, according to documents and some of those involved in the effort.
"The White House determines which members need visits," said an internal e-mail about the previously undisclosed Rove "deployment" team, "and where we need to be strategically placing our assets."
...
Investigators, however, said the scale of Rove's effort is far broader than previously revealed; they say that Rove's team gave more than 100 such briefings during the seven years of the Bush administration. The political sessions touched nearly all of the Cabinet departments and a handful of smaller agencies that often had major roles in providing grants, such as the White House office of drug policy and the State Department's Agency for International Development.
Bush Adviser's Effort to Promote the President and His Allies Was Unprecedented in Its Reach
Thirteen months before President Bush was reelected, chief strategist Karl Rove summoned political appointees from around the government to the Old Executive Office Building. The subject of the Oct. 1, 2003, meeting was "asset deployment," and the message was clear:
The staging of official announcements, high-visibility trips and declarations of federal grants had to be carefully coordinated with the White House political affairs office to ensure the maximum promotion of Bush's reelection agenda and the Republicans in Congress who supported him, according to documents and some of those involved in the effort.
"The White House determines which members need visits," said an internal e-mail about the previously undisclosed Rove "deployment" team, "and where we need to be strategically placing our assets."
...
Investigators, however, said the scale of Rove's effort is far broader than previously revealed; they say that Rove's team gave more than 100 such briefings during the seven years of the Bush administration. The political sessions touched nearly all of the Cabinet departments and a handful of smaller agencies that often had major roles in providing grants, such as the White House office of drug policy and the State Department's Agency for International Development.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee are investigating whether any of the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using federal resources for election activities. They also want to know whether any Bush appointees pressured government for favorable actions such as grants to help GOP electoral chances.
"What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week. ...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
VP has more than 50 documents related to a congressional investigation of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program - refused subpoena
Cheney has warrantless wiretapping documents, won't turn them over | Nick Juliano | Published: Tuesday August 21, 2007
Vice President Dick Cheney's office has in its possession more than 50 documents related to a congressional investigation of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, but Cheney's lawyer on Monday refused to hand over the documents in response to a subpoena.
In a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the vice president's lawyer, Shannen W. Coffin, identified dozens of presidential authorizations of the program and Justice Department memos on its legal justifications in Cheney's possession. Coffin refused to hand over the documents, citing a president's right to keep deliberations with his advisers private. ...
Vice President Dick Cheney's office has in its possession more than 50 documents related to a congressional investigation of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, but Cheney's lawyer on Monday refused to hand over the documents in response to a subpoena.
In a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the vice president's lawyer, Shannen W. Coffin, identified dozens of presidential authorizations of the program and Justice Department memos on its legal justifications in Cheney's possession. Coffin refused to hand over the documents, citing a president's right to keep deliberations with his advisers private. ...
"almost two months since service of the subpoenas, three weeks since the time they asked for additional time. ... still nothing"
Leahy Threatens Bush Aides With Contempt | JESSE J. HOLLAND | August 20, 2007 05:45 PM EST
WASHINGTON — A top Senate Democrat on Monday threatened to hold members of the Bush administration in contempt for not producing subpoenaed information about the legal justification for President Bush's secretive eavesdropping program.
...
"It has been almost two months since service of the subpoenas, three weeks since the time they asked for additional time. And still, we have nothing at all," Leahy said.
Leahy also questioned whether the Senate would again reauthorize laws that expand the government's authority to spy on foreigners without the subpoenaed information.
...
"For Congress to legislate effectively in this area, it has to have full information about the executive branch's interpretations of FISA," Leahy said. "We cannot, and certainly, we should not legislate in the dark, where the administration hides behind a fictitious veil of secrecy."
...
"I don't think he had a valid claim of executive privilege, because all the testimony has been it wasn't discussed with the president. If it wasn't discussed with the president, there's no executive privilege," Leahy said. ...
WASHINGTON — A top Senate Democrat on Monday threatened to hold members of the Bush administration in contempt for not producing subpoenaed information about the legal justification for President Bush's secretive eavesdropping program.
...
"It has been almost two months since service of the subpoenas, three weeks since the time they asked for additional time. And still, we have nothing at all," Leahy said.
Leahy also questioned whether the Senate would again reauthorize laws that expand the government's authority to spy on foreigners without the subpoenaed information.
...
"For Congress to legislate effectively in this area, it has to have full information about the executive branch's interpretations of FISA," Leahy said. "We cannot, and certainly, we should not legislate in the dark, where the administration hides behind a fictitious veil of secrecy."
...
"I don't think he had a valid claim of executive privilege, because all the testimony has been it wasn't discussed with the president. If it wasn't discussed with the president, there's no executive privilege," Leahy said. ...
[Elections by Secret Ballot] Open-records laws in Ohio mean anyone can follow the machines' paper trail to see who voted for which candidates.
E-voting predicament: Not-so-secret ballots | By Declan McCullagh | Staff Writer, CNET News.com \ Published: August 20, 2007
Open-records laws in Ohio mean anyone can follow the machines' paper trail to see who voted for which candidates.
Ohio's method of conducting elections with electronic voting machines appears to have created a true privacy nightmare for state residents: revealing who voted for which candidates.
Two Ohio activists have discovered that e-voting machines made by Election Systems and Software and used across the country produce time-stamped paper trails that permit the reconstruction of an election's results--including allowing voter names to be matched to their actual votes.
Making a secret ballot less secret, of course, could permit vote selling and allow interest groups or family members to exert undue pressure on Ohio residents to vote a certain way. It's an especially pointed concern in Ohio, a traditional swing state in presidential elections that awarded George Bush a narrow victory over John Kerry three years ago. ...
Open-records laws in Ohio mean anyone can follow the machines' paper trail to see who voted for which candidates.
Ohio's method of conducting elections with electronic voting machines appears to have created a true privacy nightmare for state residents: revealing who voted for which candidates.
Two Ohio activists have discovered that e-voting machines made by Election Systems and Software and used across the country produce time-stamped paper trails that permit the reconstruction of an election's results--including allowing voter names to be matched to their actual votes.
Making a secret ballot less secret, of course, could permit vote selling and allow interest groups or family members to exert undue pressure on Ohio residents to vote a certain way. It's an especially pointed concern in Ohio, a traditional swing state in presidential elections that awarded George Bush a narrow victory over John Kerry three years ago. ...
GOP Powergrab Scheme in California Could Swing 2008 Election If It's Not Stopped
GOP Powergrab Scheme in California Could Swing 2008 Election If It's Not Stopped | By Barbara Boxer, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted August 20, 2007.
ust when you thought it was safe to start thinking about having a Democrat in the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by Republican operatives. And unfortunately, it's happening right here in my own state of California.
...
Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.
What does this mean? Well, if the last few elections are any guide, rather than the Democratic nominee winning all 55 of California's electoral votes in 2008, this new partisan scheme could hand 20 of California's electoral votes to the Republican candidate and only 35 to the Democrat.
Don't get me wrong: After the 2000 and 2004 election debacles, I'm a strong advocate for election reform. But it's absolutely wrong for California to go it alone. It's just patently unfair for a large "blue" state like California to change our system for awarding electoral votes while other large states which trend "red" like Texas and Florida don't change their system at the same time.
This isn't reform -- this is a partisan power grab by Republican operatives in the Karl Rove tradition. ...
ust when you thought it was safe to start thinking about having a Democrat in the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by Republican operatives. And unfortunately, it's happening right here in my own state of California.
...
Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.
What does this mean? Well, if the last few elections are any guide, rather than the Democratic nominee winning all 55 of California's electoral votes in 2008, this new partisan scheme could hand 20 of California's electoral votes to the Republican candidate and only 35 to the Democrat.
Don't get me wrong: After the 2000 and 2004 election debacles, I'm a strong advocate for election reform. But it's absolutely wrong for California to go it alone. It's just patently unfair for a large "blue" state like California to change our system for awarding electoral votes while other large states which trend "red" like Texas and Florida don't change their system at the same time.
This isn't reform -- this is a partisan power grab by Republican operatives in the Karl Rove tradition. ...
Monday, August 20, 2007
Bush administration may have prevented Attorney General John Ashcroft from conducting a review of a spying program, while seeking his approval ...
Notes Show Ashcroft Kept in Dark on Spying | By Matt Renner | t r u t h o u t | Report | Thursday 16 August 2007
Notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller, released Thursday by Congress, revealed that Bush administration officials may have prevented Attorney General John Ashcroft from conducting a review of a spying program, while at the same time attempting to gain Ashcroft's approval of the program.
...
According to Conyers, these notes confirm Comey's testimony and raise questions. "Director Mueller's notes and recollections concerning the White House visit to the Attorney General's hospital bed confirm an attempt to goad a sick and heavily medicated Ashcroft to approve the warrantless surveillance program," adding that "this heavily redacted document raises far more questions than it answers. We intend to fully investigate this incident and the underlying subject matter that evoked such widespread distress within the Department and the FBI." ...
Notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller, released Thursday by Congress, revealed that Bush administration officials may have prevented Attorney General John Ashcroft from conducting a review of a spying program, while at the same time attempting to gain Ashcroft's approval of the program.
...
According to Conyers, these notes confirm Comey's testimony and raise questions. "Director Mueller's notes and recollections concerning the White House visit to the Attorney General's hospital bed confirm an attempt to goad a sick and heavily medicated Ashcroft to approve the warrantless surveillance program," adding that "this heavily redacted document raises far more questions than it answers. We intend to fully investigate this incident and the underlying subject matter that evoked such widespread distress within the Department and the FBI." ...
[Hatch Act] Cabinet members and other political appointees aren't permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates
Commerce, Treasury funds helped boost GOP campaigns | Marisa Taylor and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers | Aug. 18, 2007 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Top Commerce and Treasury department officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.
Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings - all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.
...
Under the Hatch Act, Cabinet members are permitted to attend political briefings and appear with members of Congress. But Cabinet members and other political appointees aren't permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates.
...
Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review of the events by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House's political guidance in mind.
WASHINGTON - Top Commerce and Treasury department officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.
Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings - all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.
...
Under the Hatch Act, Cabinet members are permitted to attend political briefings and appear with members of Congress. But Cabinet members and other political appointees aren't permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates.
...
Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review of the events by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House's political guidance in mind.
[Rove's politicizing government / Hatch Act]: "the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party
How Rove Directed Federal Assets for GOP Gains | By John Solomon, Alec MacGillis and Sarah Cohen | Washington Post Staff Writers | Sunday, August 19, 2007; Page A01
Bush Adviser's Effort to Promote the President and His Allies Was Unprecedented in Its Reach
Thirteen months before President Bush was reelected, chief strategist Karl Rove summoned political appointees from around the government to the Old Executive Office Building. The subject of the Oct. 1, 2003, meeting was "asset deployment," and the message was clear:
The staging of official announcements, high-visibility trips and declarations of federal grants had to be carefully coordinated with the White House political affairs office to ensure the maximum promotion of Bush's reelection agenda and the Republicans in Congress who supported him, according to documents and some of those involved in the effort.
"The White House determines which members need visits," said an internal e-mail about the previously undisclosed Rove "deployment" team, "and where we need to be strategically placing our assets."
Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. ...
...
"What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week.
Bush Adviser's Effort to Promote the President and His Allies Was Unprecedented in Its Reach
Thirteen months before President Bush was reelected, chief strategist Karl Rove summoned political appointees from around the government to the Old Executive Office Building. The subject of the Oct. 1, 2003, meeting was "asset deployment," and the message was clear:
The staging of official announcements, high-visibility trips and declarations of federal grants had to be carefully coordinated with the White House political affairs office to ensure the maximum promotion of Bush's reelection agenda and the Republicans in Congress who supported him, according to documents and some of those involved in the effort.
"The White House determines which members need visits," said an internal e-mail about the previously undisclosed Rove "deployment" team, "and where we need to be strategically placing our assets."
Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. ...
...
"What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. ... The king can do no wrong,"
Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim | By Karl Vick | Washington Post Staff Writer | Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A04
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 -- Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.
"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward. ...
...
The panel represents the highest court so far to consider conflicting claims about the legality of ambitious surveillance efforts secretly launched by the Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. About 50 separate lawsuits charging that those efforts are illegal have been consolidated before the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. ...
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 -- Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.
"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward. ...
...
The panel represents the highest court so far to consider conflicting claims about the legality of ambitious surveillance efforts secretly launched by the Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. About 50 separate lawsuits charging that those efforts are illegal have been consolidated before the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. ...
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Joe Biden: Consider Criminal Charges Against Administration
Joe Biden: Consider Criminal Charges Against Administration
Joe Biden recently sat down with Newsweek to discuss his presidential campaign and his thoughts on 35 years in the Senate. When asked about impeachment, Biden said he's against the idea because impeachment proceedings would paralyze Congress and take the nation's focus off other, more important matters. But he has a pretty stunning Plan B.
The alternative, and it's taken me time to think through, I think we should be acquiring and accumulating all the data that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date.
Somebody call Elizabeth de la Vega! She's already made the case. ...
Rove: "uncanny ability to manipulate federal prosecutors into going after the officeholder his client was trying to unseat."
Rove Done in by 'Bama Case (Updated) | by whenwego | Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:22:45 PM PDT
So Rove resigns on a Sunday, not a Friday. Clearly "spending more time with my family" and "Bartlett pushed me out" are silly excuses. The real reason had to be something big, something compelling, something legal. Now Leahy may be a threat, but that is controllable. "Executive privilege" or what used to be called the Divine Right of Kings, will keep Leahy away, specially with a pliant Supreme Court. So what is not controllable that just got hotter? Here is Harpers:
At the center is an affidavit which exposes a Republican political cabal aimed at using the machinery of prosecution to bring down the Democratic governor as the first step in an effort to retake the Statehouse in Montgomery for the GOP
The case has now attracted attention across the United States and around the world. Forty-four former attorneys general from across the nation—Democrats and Republicans—have petitioned Congress asking that a special investigation be undertaken to examine the now obvious gross irregularities associated with the case.
In a bizarre twist in an increasingly inexplicable case, prosecutors in proceedings in Montgomery today argued to federal district court judge Mark Fuller that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should be sentenced to thirty years in prison on account of accusations they presented to the jury, and the jury rejected. Even more remarkably, Fuller appears prepared to accept these arguments. ...
...
A Texas Republican campaign manager I know, who cut his teeth working in the Lone Star State, and often with Karl Rove, told me that Rove owed his reputation to two things: "direct-mail marketing and an uncanny ability to manipulate federal prosecutors into going after the officeholder his client was trying to unseat."
...
The case was conducted in a strange manner. Judge Fuller allowed the prosecution to present their evidence more than once—through direct testimony and then under the guise of preparing for the use of demonstrative evidence. Later, at the conclusion of the case, this evidence was disallowed. But when defense objected to this abusive practice, their motions were overruled. In fact, from the outset of the case Judge Fuller disallowed virtually every motion brought by defense counsel. ...
...
Ask Dana Jill Simpson, the Rainsville Republican lawyer who notes that as soon as she told some friends that she had resolved to file an affidavit exposing what was going on in the Siegelman case, unfortunate accidents started happening. Like a fire at her home, and a brush with a motor vehicle operated by an off-duty law enforcement officer that resulted in her car being totaled. Well, maybe these were just accidents. ... Susan James, reports that her office was ransacked ... In addition, the daughter is afraid for her own safety...she has left the country. ...
...
... Read the whole story at Harpers.org by Scott Horton, whose work I am merely parroting! Could this be the reason Rove resigned? ...
...
... [JUDGE] Fuller also was the chairman of a Republican congressman's campaign committee for several years up to his nomination, and was formerly a member of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee. ...
So Rove resigns on a Sunday, not a Friday. Clearly "spending more time with my family" and "Bartlett pushed me out" are silly excuses. The real reason had to be something big, something compelling, something legal. Now Leahy may be a threat, but that is controllable. "Executive privilege" or what used to be called the Divine Right of Kings, will keep Leahy away, specially with a pliant Supreme Court. So what is not controllable that just got hotter? Here is Harpers:
At the center is an affidavit which exposes a Republican political cabal aimed at using the machinery of prosecution to bring down the Democratic governor as the first step in an effort to retake the Statehouse in Montgomery for the GOP
The case has now attracted attention across the United States and around the world. Forty-four former attorneys general from across the nation—Democrats and Republicans—have petitioned Congress asking that a special investigation be undertaken to examine the now obvious gross irregularities associated with the case.
In a bizarre twist in an increasingly inexplicable case, prosecutors in proceedings in Montgomery today argued to federal district court judge Mark Fuller that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should be sentenced to thirty years in prison on account of accusations they presented to the jury, and the jury rejected. Even more remarkably, Fuller appears prepared to accept these arguments. ...
...
A Texas Republican campaign manager I know, who cut his teeth working in the Lone Star State, and often with Karl Rove, told me that Rove owed his reputation to two things: "direct-mail marketing and an uncanny ability to manipulate federal prosecutors into going after the officeholder his client was trying to unseat."
...
The case was conducted in a strange manner. Judge Fuller allowed the prosecution to present their evidence more than once—through direct testimony and then under the guise of preparing for the use of demonstrative evidence. Later, at the conclusion of the case, this evidence was disallowed. But when defense objected to this abusive practice, their motions were overruled. In fact, from the outset of the case Judge Fuller disallowed virtually every motion brought by defense counsel. ...
...
Ask Dana Jill Simpson, the Rainsville Republican lawyer who notes that as soon as she told some friends that she had resolved to file an affidavit exposing what was going on in the Siegelman case, unfortunate accidents started happening. Like a fire at her home, and a brush with a motor vehicle operated by an off-duty law enforcement officer that resulted in her car being totaled. Well, maybe these were just accidents. ... Susan James, reports that her office was ransacked ... In addition, the daughter is afraid for her own safety...she has left the country. ...
...
... Read the whole story at Harpers.org by Scott Horton, whose work I am merely parroting! Could this be the reason Rove resigned? ...
...
... [JUDGE] Fuller also was the chairman of a Republican congressman's campaign committee for several years up to his nomination, and was formerly a member of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee. ...
Friday, August 10, 2007
prosecution may have been a political hit: [Republican] United States attorney in Birmingham - would "take care" of [Democrat] Mr. Siegelman...
Selective Prosecution The New York Times Editorial Monday 06 August 2007
One part of the Justice Department mess that requires more scrutiny is the growing evidence that the department may have singled out people for criminal prosecution to help Republicans win elections. The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating several cases that raise serious questions. The panel should determine what role politics played in all of them.
Putting political opponents in jail is the sort of thing that happens in third-world dictatorships. In the United States, prosecutions are supposed to be scrupulously nonpartisan. This principle appears to have broken down in Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department - where lawyers were improperly hired for nonpolitical jobs based on party membership, and United States attorneys were apparently fired for political reasons.
Individual Democrats may be paying a personal price. Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor, was the state's most prominent Democrat and had a decent chance of retaking the governorship from the Republican incumbent. He was aggressively prosecuted by both the Birmingham and Montgomery United States attorney's offices. Birmingham prosecutors dropped their case after a judge harshly questioned it. When the Montgomery office prosecuted, a jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman of 25 counts, but convicted him of 7, which appear to be disturbingly weak.The prosecution may have been a political hit. A Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, has said in a sworn statement that she heard Bill Canary, a Republican operative and a Karl Rove protégé, say that his "girls" - his wife, the United States attorney in Montgomery, and Alice Martin, the United States attorney in Birmingham - would "take care" of Mr. Siegelman. Mr. Canary also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that Mr. Rove was involved. ...
audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It's the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay's 2003 midterm redistricting in Tx
Votescam By Hendrik Hertzberg The New Yorker 06 August 2007 Issue
At first glance, next year's Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes-votes that it wouldn't get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
..
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that's good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller-it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina's fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats-but the hands would be just as dirty.
...
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It's the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay's 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
At first glance, next year's Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes-votes that it wouldn't get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
..
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that's good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller-it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina's fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats-but the hands would be just as dirty.
...
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It's the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay's 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" [while] breaking some and refusing to enforce others ... 1,000 "signing statements"
Reining In an Out-of-Control Executive Posted July 16, 2007 10:26 PM (EST)
Our Founding Fathers created three separate but co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other so no one branch would become all powerful. Indeed, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "The preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct." Madison warned, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The American colonists were reacting against a police state.
More than 200 years later, we have another King George. In the last six years, George W. Bush has sought to accumulate all governing powers in the same hands -- his. In the Declaration of Independence, the framers charged that the King "refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution's command that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," by breaking some and refusing to enforce others. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws; after both houses pass a bill, the President can only sign it or veto it. Bush, however, takes a different tack. He has vetoed just three bills, then quietly attached "signing statements" to more than 1,000 congressional laws, indicating his intent to follow only those parts with which he agrees.
...
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, was just published. Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com.
Our Founding Fathers created three separate but co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other so no one branch would become all powerful. Indeed, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "The preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct." Madison warned, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The American colonists were reacting against a police state.
More than 200 years later, we have another King George. In the last six years, George W. Bush has sought to accumulate all governing powers in the same hands -- his. In the Declaration of Independence, the framers charged that the King "refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution's command that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," by breaking some and refusing to enforce others. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws; after both houses pass a bill, the President can only sign it or veto it. Bush, however, takes a different tack. He has vetoed just three bills, then quietly attached "signing statements" to more than 1,000 congressional laws, indicating his intent to follow only those parts with which he agrees.
...
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, was just published. Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com.
FISA: ‘Unnecessary And Dangerous Expansion of President Bush’s Powers’
Editorials On FISA: ‘Unnecessary And Dangerous Expansion of President Bush’s Powers’
Last week, under heavy political pressure from the White House, Congress approved the White House-backed version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provided expansive spying authority to the Bush administration. The White House had earlier rejected a compromise bill that provided powers sought by the Director of National Intelligence, opting instead to play politics with the issue.
In the past two days, at least nine major newspapers have editorialized against the FISA legislation, with the New York Times today calling it an “unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers.” Some examples:
USA Today: A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. ... [Link]
Washington Post: To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions. [Link]
The New York Times: While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. ... [Link]
The Los Angeles Times: You know something’s wrong with this Congress when a Democratic champion of privacy rights feels compelled to vote for Republican legislation that compromises those rights. ... [Link]
San Francisco Chronicle: ... the shift guts any semblance of oversight, leaving the picking and choosing of targets to spy agencies. [Link]
Last week, under heavy political pressure from the White House, Congress approved the White House-backed version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which provided expansive spying authority to the Bush administration. The White House had earlier rejected a compromise bill that provided powers sought by the Director of National Intelligence, opting instead to play politics with the issue.
In the past two days, at least nine major newspapers have editorialized against the FISA legislation, with the New York Times today calling it an “unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers.” Some examples:
USA Today: A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. ... [Link]
Washington Post: To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions. [Link]
The New York Times: While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. ... [Link]
The Los Angeles Times: You know something’s wrong with this Congress when a Democratic champion of privacy rights feels compelled to vote for Republican legislation that compromises those rights. ... [Link]
San Francisco Chronicle: ... the shift guts any semblance of oversight, leaving the picking and choosing of targets to spy agencies. [Link]
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
"The whole idea is to keep people on the voter registration roll."
State's voter rolls shrinking | By STEVE BOUSQUET, Tallahassee Bureau Chief | Published August 6, 2007
The trend may seem unlikely considering Florida's growth, but a closer look shows a law is behind it.
TALLAHASSEE - Despite Florida's rapid growth, the number of voters in the state has dropped to its lowest level in three years, a trend that could have an impact in a close, high-turnout presidential election in 2008.
On the surface, it's a stunning contradiction: a shrinking pool of voters in a high-growth state.
The main reason for the dropoff is a state law that requiring that in odd-numbered years, voter rolls be purged of people who have moved but never updated their addresses and those who have skipped two straight statewide elections.
...
An inactive voter who skips two consecutive statewide elections is removed and must re-register to vote.
Since November, more than 63,000 voters in Pinellas County and more than 57,000 in Hillsborough County have been listed as inactive or removed from the rolls. In Pinellas, that's nearly one of every 10 voters who were registered last fall.
...
"It's inane. It's just crazy," said the state's chief elections official, Secretary of State Kurt Browning. "The whole idea is to keep people on the voter registration roll." ...
The trend may seem unlikely considering Florida's growth, but a closer look shows a law is behind it.
TALLAHASSEE - Despite Florida's rapid growth, the number of voters in the state has dropped to its lowest level in three years, a trend that could have an impact in a close, high-turnout presidential election in 2008.
On the surface, it's a stunning contradiction: a shrinking pool of voters in a high-growth state.
The main reason for the dropoff is a state law that requiring that in odd-numbered years, voter rolls be purged of people who have moved but never updated their addresses and those who have skipped two straight statewide elections.
...
An inactive voter who skips two consecutive statewide elections is removed and must re-register to vote.
Since November, more than 63,000 voters in Pinellas County and more than 57,000 in Hillsborough County have been listed as inactive or removed from the rolls. In Pinellas, that's nearly one of every 10 voters who were registered last fall.
...
"It's inane. It's just crazy," said the state's chief elections official, Secretary of State Kurt Browning. "The whole idea is to keep people on the voter registration roll." ...
Ohio ... ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order
In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing | By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted July 30, 2007.
In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.
...
The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus.
...
On Sept. 11, 2006, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ordered the election boards "to preserve all ballots from the 2004 Presidential election, on paper and in any other format, including electronic data, unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this Court." ...
...
Since the 2004 election, a handful of media organizations, civil rights groups, attorneys, historians and authors have been investigating how the president won in Ohio by 118,775 votes. These inquiries have had two primary focuses: examining Republican-led voter suppression tactics and problems with the vote count, suggesting vote count fraud.
The partisan voter suppression tactics have been easier to document. Before the election, Blackwell, who was co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign, issued numerous administrative orders that fueled an extreme partisan climate. One of the most notable came as Ohio was seeing large voter registration drives in mid-2004. Blackwell issued an order, which he later rescinded under pressure, saying only voter registrations on 80-pound paper would be accepted and processed. At the time, Republican Gov. Robert Taft told reporters that directive could disenfranchise 100,000 voters. The state Republican Party also threatened to send thousands of poll challengers to local precincts, to ensure only properly registered voter exercised that right. ...
In 56 of Ohio's 88 counties, ballots and election records from 2004 have been "accidentally" destroyed, despite a federal order to preserve them -- it was crucial evidence which would have revealed whether the election was stolen.
...
The lost records violate Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day, and a U.S. District Court order issued last September that the 2004 ballots be preserved while the court hears a civil rights lawsuit alleging voter suppression of African-American voters in Columbus.
...
On Sept. 11, 2006, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ordered the election boards "to preserve all ballots from the 2004 Presidential election, on paper and in any other format, including electronic data, unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this Court." ...
...
Since the 2004 election, a handful of media organizations, civil rights groups, attorneys, historians and authors have been investigating how the president won in Ohio by 118,775 votes. These inquiries have had two primary focuses: examining Republican-led voter suppression tactics and problems with the vote count, suggesting vote count fraud.
The partisan voter suppression tactics have been easier to document. Before the election, Blackwell, who was co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign, issued numerous administrative orders that fueled an extreme partisan climate. One of the most notable came as Ohio was seeing large voter registration drives in mid-2004. Blackwell issued an order, which he later rescinded under pressure, saying only voter registrations on 80-pound paper would be accepted and processed. At the time, Republican Gov. Robert Taft told reporters that directive could disenfranchise 100,000 voters. The state Republican Party also threatened to send thousands of poll challengers to local precincts, to ensure only properly registered voter exercised that right. ...
Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut ...
A Red Play for The Golden State | By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek | 13 August 2007 Issue
...
Right now, every state except Nebraska and Maine awards all of its electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in that state. So in mammoth California, John Kerry beat George W. Bush and won all 55 electoral votes, more than one fifth of the 270 necessary for election.
Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary). The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected. ...
...
Right now, every state except Nebraska and Maine awards all of its electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in that state. So in mammoth California, John Kerry beat George W. Bush and won all 55 electoral votes, more than one fifth of the 270 necessary for election.
Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary). The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected. ...
Friday, August 03, 2007
four reasons why Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go: replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure
Why Bush Won't Ax Gonzales | Thursday, Aug. 02, 2007 By MASSIMO CALABRESI
...
So why the extraordinary support for Gonzales in the face of a protracted meltdown at the Department of Justice (DOJ)? Here are four reasons why Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go:
1. Gonzales is all that stands between the White House and special prosecutors. As dicey as things are for Bush right now, his advisers know that they could get much worse. In private, Democrats say that if Gonzales did step down, his replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure in order to be confirmed by the Senate. ...
2. A post-Gonzales DOJ would be in the hands of a nonpartisan, tough prosecutor, not a political hand. ...
3. .... Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues.
4. Nobody at the White House wants the legal bills and headaches that come with being a target of investigations. ...
...
So why the extraordinary support for Gonzales in the face of a protracted meltdown at the Department of Justice (DOJ)? Here are four reasons why Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go:
1. Gonzales is all that stands between the White House and special prosecutors. As dicey as things are for Bush right now, his advisers know that they could get much worse. In private, Democrats say that if Gonzales did step down, his replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure in order to be confirmed by the Senate. ...
2. A post-Gonzales DOJ would be in the hands of a nonpartisan, tough prosecutor, not a political hand. ...
3. .... Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues.
4. Nobody at the White House wants the legal bills and headaches that come with being a target of investigations. ...
Omertà ... Honesty is dishonorable; silence is manly; penitence is weakness. Loyalty trumps law. Protecting higher-ups is patriotism. Stonewalling is
The three stooges | By Sidney Blumenthal
The president won't fire Alberto Gonzales. He needs him to protect White House secrets, including the scheming roles of Cheney and Rove.
Omertà (or a code of silence) has become the final bond holding the Bush administration together. Honesty is dishonorable; silence is manly; penitence is weakness. Loyalty trumps law. Protecting higher-ups is patriotism. Stonewalling is idealism. Telling the truth is informing. Cooperation with investigators is cowardice; breaking the code is betrayal. Once the code is shattered, however, no one can be trusted and the entire edifice crumbles.
If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were miraculously to tell the truth, or if he were to resign or be removed, the secret government of the past six years would be unlocked. So long as a Republican Congress rigorously engaged in enforcing no oversight was smugly complicit through its passive ignorance and abdication of constitutional responsibility, the White House was secure in enacting its theories of the imperial presidency. An executive bound only by his self-proclaimed fiat in his capacity as commander in chief became his own law in authorizing torture and warrantless domestic wiretapping and data mining. Following the notion of the unitary executive, in which the departments and agencies have no independent existence under the president, the White House has relentlessly politicized them. Callow political appointees dictate to scientists, censoring or altering their conclusions. Career staff professionals are forced to attend indoctrination sessions on the political strategies of the Republican Party in campaigns and elections. And U.S. attorneys, supposedly impartial prosecutors representing the Department of Justice in the states, are purged if they deviate in any way from the White House's political line.
...
Just this week, Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker about the suspicion that fell on the U.S. attorney in Washington state, John McKay, who was fired in the wholesale purge because of his interest in devoting full resources to an investigation of the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney, Tom Wales, who had been a prominent local advocate of gun control. On July 31, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, Va., John Brownlee, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the night before a guilty verdict was delivered in his case against the drug manufacturing company that produced OxyContin, he received a call from a Justice Department official asking him to slow down his prosecution.
...
The mystery surrounding Gonzales' position deepened with the bizarre attempted defense of Gonzales offered by Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, who sent a letter Tuesday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., explaining that the warrantless wiretapping was part of a much larger surveillance program authorized by a single executive order of the president. If this is true, then Gonzales' past efforts to describe the policy as narrow and relatively small are false. This defense, therefore, provided grist for further incrimination and failed to shine any light on Gonzales' patently misleading testimony.
...
Bush cannot afford to have Gonzales resign or be removed. Gonzales' leaving would ratchet up the administration's political crisis to an intense level. Bush could not nominate a replacement without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee's inevitable request for information on every matter that he has attempted to keep secret. On every unresolved and electrified issue the Senate would demand documents -- the entire cache on the development of policy since 2001 on torture, the gutting of the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. attorneys and much more. Only Gonzales' perpetuation in office holds back the deluge.
...
Now, in light of the Times' revelation of Cheney's order to Gonzales, the relevant committees of Congress are justified in requesting or subpoenaing documents from the Justice Department about the intrusion of the Office of the Vice President into domestic legal matters. ...
...
If executive privilege were to be applied in this instance to the Justice Department, then the unitary theory of government in which all power resides in a single vessel, a great Decider, would render the Constitution's grant of powers to three branches of government defunct.
Even Nixon, in asserting executive privilege in the heat of the Watergate scandal, did not claim that it applied to decisions made in the Justice Department. Attorney General John Mitchell, found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, could not be protected from prosecution for his part in what he called the "White House horrors." ...
The president won't fire Alberto Gonzales. He needs him to protect White House secrets, including the scheming roles of Cheney and Rove.
Omertà (or a code of silence) has become the final bond holding the Bush administration together. Honesty is dishonorable; silence is manly; penitence is weakness. Loyalty trumps law. Protecting higher-ups is patriotism. Stonewalling is idealism. Telling the truth is informing. Cooperation with investigators is cowardice; breaking the code is betrayal. Once the code is shattered, however, no one can be trusted and the entire edifice crumbles.
If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were miraculously to tell the truth, or if he were to resign or be removed, the secret government of the past six years would be unlocked. So long as a Republican Congress rigorously engaged in enforcing no oversight was smugly complicit through its passive ignorance and abdication of constitutional responsibility, the White House was secure in enacting its theories of the imperial presidency. An executive bound only by his self-proclaimed fiat in his capacity as commander in chief became his own law in authorizing torture and warrantless domestic wiretapping and data mining. Following the notion of the unitary executive, in which the departments and agencies have no independent existence under the president, the White House has relentlessly politicized them. Callow political appointees dictate to scientists, censoring or altering their conclusions. Career staff professionals are forced to attend indoctrination sessions on the political strategies of the Republican Party in campaigns and elections. And U.S. attorneys, supposedly impartial prosecutors representing the Department of Justice in the states, are purged if they deviate in any way from the White House's political line.
...
Just this week, Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker about the suspicion that fell on the U.S. attorney in Washington state, John McKay, who was fired in the wholesale purge because of his interest in devoting full resources to an investigation of the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney, Tom Wales, who had been a prominent local advocate of gun control. On July 31, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, Va., John Brownlee, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the night before a guilty verdict was delivered in his case against the drug manufacturing company that produced OxyContin, he received a call from a Justice Department official asking him to slow down his prosecution.
...
The mystery surrounding Gonzales' position deepened with the bizarre attempted defense of Gonzales offered by Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, who sent a letter Tuesday to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., explaining that the warrantless wiretapping was part of a much larger surveillance program authorized by a single executive order of the president. If this is true, then Gonzales' past efforts to describe the policy as narrow and relatively small are false. This defense, therefore, provided grist for further incrimination and failed to shine any light on Gonzales' patently misleading testimony.
...
Bush cannot afford to have Gonzales resign or be removed. Gonzales' leaving would ratchet up the administration's political crisis to an intense level. Bush could not nominate a replacement without responding to the Senate Judiciary Committee's inevitable request for information on every matter that he has attempted to keep secret. On every unresolved and electrified issue the Senate would demand documents -- the entire cache on the development of policy since 2001 on torture, the gutting of the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. attorneys and much more. Only Gonzales' perpetuation in office holds back the deluge.
...
Now, in light of the Times' revelation of Cheney's order to Gonzales, the relevant committees of Congress are justified in requesting or subpoenaing documents from the Justice Department about the intrusion of the Office of the Vice President into domestic legal matters. ...
...
If executive privilege were to be applied in this instance to the Justice Department, then the unitary theory of government in which all power resides in a single vessel, a great Decider, would render the Constitution's grant of powers to three branches of government defunct.
Even Nixon, in asserting executive privilege in the heat of the Watergate scandal, did not claim that it applied to decisions made in the Justice Department. Attorney General John Mitchell, found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, could not be protected from prosecution for his part in what he called the "White House horrors." ...
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war
Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War By Adam Cohen 07/23/07 "New York Times" -- --
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
...
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
...
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
...
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
...
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king
It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy.
When executive privilege becomes executive disdain
The Bush administration, which has been pushing presidential power to new extremes, is reportedly developing an even more dangerous new theory of executive privilege. It says that if Congress holds White House officials in contempt for withholding important evidence in the U.S. attorney scandal, the Justice Department simply will not pursue the charges. This stance tears at the fabric of the Constitution and upends the rule of law.
...
The next question is how Congress will enforce its right to obtain information, and it is on that point that the administration is said to have made its latest disturbing claim. If Congress holds White House officials in contempt, the next step should be that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia brings the matter to a grand jury. But according to a Washington Post report, the administration is saying that its claim of executive privilege means that the U.S. attorney would be ordered not to go forward with the case.
...
This showdown between a Democratic Congress and a Republican president may look partisan, but it should not. ............. It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy.
The Bush administration, which has been pushing presidential power to new extremes, is reportedly developing an even more dangerous new theory of executive privilege. It says that if Congress holds White House officials in contempt for withholding important evidence in the U.S. attorney scandal, the Justice Department simply will not pursue the charges. This stance tears at the fabric of the Constitution and upends the rule of law.
...
The next question is how Congress will enforce its right to obtain information, and it is on that point that the administration is said to have made its latest disturbing claim. If Congress holds White House officials in contempt, the next step should be that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia brings the matter to a grand jury. But according to a Washington Post report, the administration is saying that its claim of executive privilege means that the U.S. attorney would be ordered not to go forward with the case.
...
This showdown between a Democratic Congress and a Republican president may look partisan, but it should not. ............. It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy.
White House, Pentagon cite executive privilege to hold up documents on friendly fire victim Tillman | Michael RostonPublished: Friday July 13, 2007
White House, Pentagon cite executive privilege to hold up documents on friendly fire victim Tillman Michael RostonPublished: Friday July 13, 2007
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed on Friday afternoon that the White House and Pentagon were holding up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the friendly fire death of former professional football player and Army Corporal Patrick Tillman.
...
But the White House has apparently again invoked its executive privilege to hold up the documents sought by Waxman and Ranking Minority member Tom Davis (R-VA).
...
"These questions have implications for the credibility of the information coming from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and raise significant policy issues about how to prevent the future dissemination of untrue information," Waxman and Davis wrote to Fielding. "They also have a profound personal impact on the Tillman family. It is for these reasons that the Committee requested documents from the White House." ...
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed on Friday afternoon that the White House and Pentagon were holding up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the friendly fire death of former professional football player and Army Corporal Patrick Tillman.
...
But the White House has apparently again invoked its executive privilege to hold up the documents sought by Waxman and Ranking Minority member Tom Davis (R-VA).
...
"These questions have implications for the credibility of the information coming from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and raise significant policy issues about how to prevent the future dissemination of untrue information," Waxman and Davis wrote to Fielding. "They also have a profound personal impact on the Tillman family. It is for these reasons that the Committee requested documents from the White House." ...
“Sometimes vote suppression is as important in this business as vote-getting.”
June 20, 2007 by J. Gerald Hebert Inside the Vote Cage: Griffin, Goodling and McNulty (No, Not Another Lawfirm)
“Sometimes vote suppression is as important in this business as vote-getting.” - Carl Golden, Republican Campaign Spokesperson [1]
...
This Administration appointed to the post of U.S. Attorney in Arkansas an RNC operative suspected of developing a caging scheme in Florida in 2004 targeting minority voters – many of them serving overseas in the Armed Forces. And when the Ohio Republican Party was challenged in court to stop a vote caging scheme days prior to the 2004 election, the DOJ weighed in – against the voters who were trying to stop it.
...
The problem with using a caging list to challenge voters is simple. First, the list is most often produced using criteria aimed at a particular racial group (picking out African-American precincts, for example). Second, there are plenty of reasons why mail sent to a validly registered voter might be returned as undeliverable or without the signed return receipt requested. For instance, the voter may be serving abroad in the military or away at college. Address errors, especially in urban areas, are common. A voter may have forgotten to put his or her apartment number on the voter registration form. Typographical errors in preparing the list of voters to whom mail will be sent – Gonzalez becomes Gonzales – can also result in a piece of mail being returned as undeliverable when in fact the voter may live there. Moreover, such typographical errors on registration rolls can also lead one to conclude, in error, that someone is not registered to vote when in fact that person is validly registered.
Most common, the voter may have recently moved but still be validly registered to vote. In vote caging schemes where a return receipt is requested, voters simply may not want to accept mail from that particular political party. Reportedly, this was the case in Ohio in 2004, when African-American voters did not want to accept mail from the GOP.
“Sometimes vote suppression is as important in this business as vote-getting.” - Carl Golden, Republican Campaign Spokesperson [1]
...
This Administration appointed to the post of U.S. Attorney in Arkansas an RNC operative suspected of developing a caging scheme in Florida in 2004 targeting minority voters – many of them serving overseas in the Armed Forces. And when the Ohio Republican Party was challenged in court to stop a vote caging scheme days prior to the 2004 election, the DOJ weighed in – against the voters who were trying to stop it.
...
The problem with using a caging list to challenge voters is simple. First, the list is most often produced using criteria aimed at a particular racial group (picking out African-American precincts, for example). Second, there are plenty of reasons why mail sent to a validly registered voter might be returned as undeliverable or without the signed return receipt requested. For instance, the voter may be serving abroad in the military or away at college. Address errors, especially in urban areas, are common. A voter may have forgotten to put his or her apartment number on the voter registration form. Typographical errors in preparing the list of voters to whom mail will be sent – Gonzalez becomes Gonzales – can also result in a piece of mail being returned as undeliverable when in fact the voter may live there. Moreover, such typographical errors on registration rolls can also lead one to conclude, in error, that someone is not registered to vote when in fact that person is validly registered.
Most common, the voter may have recently moved but still be validly registered to vote. In vote caging schemes where a return receipt is requested, voters simply may not want to accept mail from that particular political party. Reportedly, this was the case in Ohio in 2004, when African-American voters did not want to accept mail from the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)