How to Get the Transcripts
Skdadl asked, with due skepticism, whether Mukasey would ever hand over the Bush and Cheney transcripts. I was thinking about just that on my walk with McCaffrey the MilleniaLab. Here’s how I think–if HJC were to play it correctly–it might play out.
In his letter to Mukasey, Waxman used McClellan’s public statements to demonstrate the need to release the transcripts and FBI reports.
New revelations by fonner White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan raise additional questions about the actions of the President and the Vice President. Mr. McClellan has stated that "[t]he President and Vice President directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby." He has also asserted that "the top White House officials who knew the truth including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney – allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie." It would be a major breach of trust if the Vice President personally directed Mr. McClellan to mislead the public.
In his FBI interview, Mr. McClellan told the FBI about discussions he had with the President and the Vice President. These passages, however, were redacted from the copies made available to the Committee. Similar passages were also redacted from other interviews. There are no sound reasons for you to withhold the interviews with the President and the Vice President from the Committee or to redact passages like Mr. McClellan’s discussions with the President and the Vice President. [my emphasis]
Now, as I understand it, Mukasey didn’t actually turn over the transcripts themselves to the Oversight Committee–he just let them look at the reports. Nevertheless, some smart staffer on Waxman’s committee must have notes of the context of the redactions in McClellan’s FBI reports.
So the first thing HJC needs to do is get a copy of the notes that staffer took.
Then, they should address a question to Scottie that goes something like this:
Mr. McClellan, In the course of your interview with the FBI on November XX, John Eckenrode asked you about your discussions with Bush and Cheney regarding the Plame leak. Can you tell us what you said in response?
Now, there’s something odd I’ve been puzzling over. We know from Waxman’s letter that there are clear references to Bush and Cheney in McClellan’s FBI interview report. But in his book, McClellen describes being asked in the grand jury, for the first time, about Bush’s exoneration of Rove.
After hearing the second new question, I was momentarily taken aback. Zeidenberg asked if it was true the president told me in the Oval Office that Karl Rove told him he was not involved? It was the first time I’d been asked about something the president knew or said. Since the president had not been questioned yet, I knew that Andy must have discussed it with investigators at some earlier point. [my emphasis]
There are several possible explanations for this. Perhaps McClellan didn’t remember he had said something to the FBI earlier (doubtful). Perhaps the FBI questions focused primarily on Cheney, even, perhaps, asking whether McClellan knew that Cheney had first learned of Plame’s identity. Perhaps they asked McClellan about his Libby exoneration, but not his Rove exoneration. Or perhaps those FBI questions about Bush and Cheney were about another subject altogether.
In any case, some smart Congressman on HJC needs to walk McClellan through his FBI interview not–as John Dean would have it–because there’s much we don’t know in there, but because we want to be able to demonstrate that Mukasey is redacting information directly pertaining to Bush and Cheney’s cover-up of the leak of Plame’s identity.
At the same time, I would hope, another smart Congressman on HJC will be entering the abundant circumstantial evidence that Cheney ordered Libby to leak Plame’s identity into the Congressional Record.
And then, having demonstrated in a forum with a legal record that 1) Mukasey redacted information from McClellan’s FBI report that pertains to Bush and Cheney’s cover-up of the leak and/or their knowledge of Plame’s identity, and 2) circumstantial evidence indicates that Cheney ordered the leak of Plame’s identity, John Conyers sits down and writes a letter:
Dear Michael "No, I won’t investigate torture" Mukasey:
I understand my colleague Henry Waxman has been nagging you for FBI 302s and Bush and Cheney transcripts since last December. Since you have been unresponsive to Waxman’s requests, I can only assume you refuse to turn over selected materials because you deem them unrelated to the Oversight Committee’s investigation into White House treatment of classified information. In a hearing reviewing new revelations from Scott McClellan about the obstruction of the CIA Leak investigation within the White House, we have determined that there is credible evidence of such obstruction. We have reason to believe that the materials that you have refused to turn over to Congressman Waxman are directly relevant to our investigation of obstruction of a criminal investigation.
Having reviewed with Mr. McClellan the content of his FBI report, we have reason to believe that those redactions were made solely to hide clear evidence of Bush and Cheney’s role in this obstruction. We believe those redactions say, "Cheney called Bush and convinced him to ask me to make a public exoneration of Libby." That is, the redacted material indicates that the Vice President and President interceded–after being officially informed of a criminal investigation–to clear a chief suspect’s name, one who had been ordered by the Vice President to leak the information in question.
Since this material is central to our investigation and the withholding of this information would constitute further obstruction, I’m sure you see the importance of turning over that information to the House Judiciary Committee.
We believe those materials contain evidence of a potential crime–a crime of the magnitude that Congress is constitutionally empowered to investigate, particularly where the President or Vice President may be involved. As SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Nixon, the Executive Branch cannot withhold evidence of criminal behavior. Given that we are investigating whether obstruction did nor did not occur, we would consider anyone who withheld such information from the Committee to be party to the crime. Please provide us with hard copies of those documents by June 28.
Love, John Conyers
Of course, all this presumes that Congress is willing to at least pretend that they are constitutionally authorized–indeed, even obliged–to investigate such abuses of power. Which is a pretty big presumption, I know. But it seems that, if they really want to, they can tell Mukasey he either turns over the materials or he commits an act that–just seven months before a new AG comes in–appears to be criminal obstruction.
Wishful thinking, I know.
Update: Fixed abundant typos per Funnydiva.
Thanks ew.
digg
EW!!!1!!1!!!
I hope Conyers and HJC (well, their staffers) are reading this.
If I might put on my editor hat for a moment:
“Skdadl asked, with due skepticism, that Mukasey”
(whether?)
“We believe those materials contain evidence of a potential crime–a crime of the magnitude that Congress is constitutionally empowered to conduct in the case of”
(investigate? conduct investigations?)
Thanks for your response to John Dean and for the Timmeh thread, too.
Funny-Hussein-Diva
Jeebus. It’s as if I hadn’t even reviewed the damn thing!! Thanks muchly.
Funnydiva2002….
They are reading it. I made sure (yesterday and today’s diaries).
Hi EW,
It seems to me the real problem with your suggestion of how HJC can get Mukasey to turn over the transcripts is that the release of those records and (presumably) direct evidence of Cheney/Bush criminality would only highlight the Democratic Leadership’s big problem.
A growing majority of the electorate is quite aware that the Bush Administration appears guilty of several major crimes, but Congress doesn’t want to risk its chances of a landslide election by drawing too much attention to how well they’ve enabled the Boy King.
If Conyers successfully puts the screws to Mukasey and uncovers even more, convincing evidence of a serious, impeachable offense do you think Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid will throw up their hands and let loose the dogs of Whitehouse, Wexler, Fiengold, et al?
I ask b/c I really don’t see it. I see the Scotty hearings as another attempt to mollify us DFH’s while The Democratic Leadership tries to “whistle past the graveyard”.
FWIW, this has been going on for almost five years now.
When Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, he basically told the entire US population to take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut.
Hoyer, Pelosi, and Reid are asking millions of us to accept that the solution to criminal conspiracy for treason in a time of war is to vote for Dems.
And I’m calling bullshit.
There are times when simply voting jerks out of office is enough to address the damage they’ve caused.
Unfortunately, the problems in this case are so outrageous that ‘an election’ is not an adequate solution to address the problems created by criminal conspiracy and treason.
Unfortunately, when it comes to separation of powers and oversight, you are correct, we have a pro forma Congress. Conyers writes a good memo; perhaps he should retire and become an English Professor.
Slightly O/T I read on a blog, the secretor of unknown consequences raising its ugly head, in that our next Prez, hopefully Obama, will have the same level of power that Bushco was given/took. I would hope, if it’s Obama, he’d do some down and dirty investigations, executive orders, and unilaterally clean house of entrenched Bushies. After getting our Republic back in balance, he’d of course renounce these tyrannical powers and demand legislation to close the loophole Bushco swam through. I wish.
Fine, except you got the order wrong. First you renounce the tyrannical powers, then you clean house, using the rule of law as your broom.
Doing it in the order you listed never, ever works. It’s one of the classic mistakes, a clear cut example of exactly the sort of hubris that gets us into these messes.
– MarkusQ
Except it wasn’t hubris that allowed Cheney/Bush to grab the powers being wielded: Cheney and Rummy have worked decades to gain unitary executive powers and once gained, what Prez. would give it back.
Hopefully, Obama, and before he joined them in making the Constitution quaintly obsolete.
Bravo..its the rule of law stupid not the economy. The dems are about politics not “The rule of Law”. MarkusQ has it we are a nation founded on law as a protection from the tyranny we sought to defeat.
Could that be a plan…I know I am too hopeful and naive. Sure would be something to witness the very same “unitary executive powers” be used to bite these thugs in the ass.
I would change “Love, John Conyers” to “Hugs, John Conyers”, as this would more clearly demonstrate the good working relationship between Conyers and Mukasey.
Hey! Where’s my spew alert! It’s still coffee hour you know…
That’s a really important point. Thankfully, I had finished my morning java and had moved on to green tea.
i agree with tross.. thanks for all your work emptywheel.. i read this site but post very infrequently…
Me, too. I lurk here just about everyday, but my comments are rare. Good to see someone else de-lurking.
Thanks for both of you for posting. The more the merrier.
Hey de-lurk away. I am truly a blue collar peasant and once in a while I get my ass kicked here for seemingly stupid statements and I have witnessed some of what I believe to be discrimination, but generally a great deal of patience with my lack of knowledge about the law and have learned a great deal and developed more respect for the high and fair minded intentions of many of the lawyers and people in the know at this site.
Thanks Leen,
I have a law degree and am a practicing paralegal (will be taking the bar in ‘09), but I am in awe of EW and the comments here. I love coming to this site and soaking up the knowledge, but I usually learn so much from reading that I never want to waste time commenting.
I’m now reading Scotty’s book, so I’ll probably have a lot to say pretty soon.
Man, there is still time for you; flee to a sane profession while you still can! Seriously, never be shy here, it is a tough, but very good group and very accepting.
HA! I’m actually circling back to the law after becoming an entrepreneur after law school. Sanity seems to have eluded me quite a while ago. Right around the time I decided to chuck a legal career for a career in business.
In any case, I figure regular reading here should help me along the way as I start the process of turning back on my legal synapses.
Heh, given that, I think you are probably in a decent place then, having a good normal framework underneath you before delving into the churning waters of law. That should serve you very well. If there is anything I can help with, don’t hesitate to ask.
First you turn them on in law school.
Then you turn on them after.
Then you want to turn them on after school
Sounds like your life is a big turn on.
Not without frequent virtual feedings of English real ale, bourbon and branch water, and good French wine.
The closest I’ve come to being in the legal profession was typing labor arbitration opinions back in the days before personal computers. But like you, “I love coming to this site and soaking up the knowledge, but I usually learn so much from reading that I never want to waste time commenting.” Thanks to EW for providing this rich forum of ideas and to those who provide such good questions as well as good answers.
“blue collar”??? geez, Leen, I look for your comments while I lurk away… There are a lot of really intelligent people here. You’re one of them. If I wanted to hear all the variations possible on one person’s opinion (Darth’s), I’d watch something like Faux Noise. 8^)
Thanks. Although I say “blue collar” in a proud way. Not formally educated but have been able to direct three daughters that way and that has not been easy.
Think it is important to mix up the make up of the meeting of the minds. Ask those that know the law like the backside of their hands to put it in lay terms so that those of us out here who are very aware that the severity of the crime should be matched to the severity of the punishment can attempt to make some sense of the many Justice Systems in our country. You know the Justice system that folks who are connected can snake themselves through and not pay a price (Plame outing, WMD lies etc) and the laws for the rest of us.
I have not been able to just “get used to it” as of yet.
OT – McClatchey today has come out with a series of articles as part of a detainee review project.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/hom…..38772.html
The sidebar on the link has links to a whole series of articles they have posted. Real journalism.
Agree–just reading it now.
George Tenet stated on national MSM television “We Do Not Torture”! The white house was good with that and wasn’t Scotty the white house spin doc at the time? Naomi Klien and the International Human Rights tribunals have documented the torture of hundreds of thousands of Latin American citizens. As well, iraqis have been systematically tortured using the CIA book of techniques called Kubark to wipe their minds into a tabla raza primarily with electric shock and water boarding.
Only inhumane people would tolerate this, those being ourselves as We The People. Are we letting our elected representatives obfuscate and allow the tools of Big Corp[oration to walk? Is it ok with the commentors and readers of this post? If it is OK then expect us all to live under that threat.
OMG, I’m so glad it’s a Sunday.
And two lurkers de-lurk!
More later… looks like I’ll get in a long cycle ride in front of the monitor today; still have to catch up on the McClellan posts from last week.
Thanks again, EW!
(massaccio will just have to have a post-vacation-vacation when he gets back Stateside in order to catch up ;-))
It’s true I can’t keep up from here, especially as I do have some duties as the spouse of the invited guest on this excellent trip. I have some hope of finishing reading Boumediene later today (It’s Monday, a bit after 8 am here).
OT report from Guangzhou, China. I mentioned that the forecast here is for “tons of rain”. I thought at first it meant enough rain beating against the window to wake up a person sleeping under the influence of ambien on the 11th floor of a hotel. But no. We noticed that in many places the curbs are a foot high. That’s the actual explanation for the term. It means enough rain in a short enough period of time to require foot high curbs to keep the water from flowing into the shops on the ground level of the sidewalks. It rained so hard yesterday that the local folk were laughing about it. The cars were restricted to the center lane, because the other lane was flooded. It would have been funny if it were not so dangerous. The headline from the China Daily is: “57 killed as rain, floods lash south”.
I was out in yesterday’s downpour, and I was drenched. I did see some stunningly beautiful jade pieces, including a carved Jade Plant that was eye-popping. One of our hosts comes from a family that deals in jade, and even she was impressed. Today I go back to that area and see what I can do on my own in the Pearl Market.
Thanks for sharing. I remember in the mid 80’s some friends of mine biked across one of the provinces. They came back with the most amazing slide show of people on their bikes. Just remember at that time they threw out that there were only 55,ooo cars in the whole country at that time. Sure is a differenet story now
My last trip to Thailand I was staying 10 buildings away from the place where I was doing a training session. Lucky it was Ford, bc all the Escapes the employees were granted were necessary to drive me across the street and 10 buildings down bc of hte floods.
I think that qualified as heavy rain, too.
Well, if we’re all going to stick our noses over the transom this morning, hello all!
For all the delurkers, if I may be so bold, as an on again off again commenter I would suggest the following. Don’t be afraid to chime in at the risk of making a fool of yourselves. Though I am sure the risks for you are low I can vouch for the fact that the consequences of doing so are bearable while the value of kaleidoscopic insight, great.
Ditto that.
Believe me, from personal experience, “stupid questions” or “stupid statements” are often extremely important to setting the right work in motion. They may give voice to the unspoken that must be said in order to align our efforts.
If you knew that asking the “stupid question” could change the fate of the world for the better, wouldn’t you ask it? Unfortunately we can’t know the outcome until some time after the question has set answers in motion — don’t hold back on that account, ask away.
And since we are all of us going down a path untrodden, with no sign posts except for the occasional bent twig that guides like EW can see, there really are no “stupid questions.” De-lurk and ask, or chime in some other way.
What Rayne (& JThomason) said.
I know several folks who lurk regularly here, & hey, train’s on the platform. “Welcome Aboard.”
And I want to ditto Rayne. If stupid questions were a barrier, I would have been ejected from Planet Emptywheel about the second I touched down. Also, part of the wonderful service of this site is that it gets the facts out and answers questions, from the brilliant and complex to the simple and obvious. But if you have a question, there may be a thousand other people with the same question or area that needs clarification. What we do here is not just for us, it is about you and everybody. The better informed and more clear that each and all of are, the better we can go forth into our individual societies and convey the knowledge and information to others, and them onto others successively. That is what it is going to take to win this battle, because the media are not doing it.
oooh, I love that phrase. I’m going to use it!
Does anyone think that Schumer, Feinstein and the other Democrats who voted for Mukasey knew that they were throwing up very serious roadblocks for Justice?
If Mukasey refuses to hand over the documents can Congress throw his ass in jail? I mean I know it will not happen…but can they do it legally?
Based on what Scottie has revealed in his book will anybody else be called into testify? Fleisher, Hannah etc?
I would add a last sentence as just a nice little tidy parting shot a millimeter above his bow.
Just because, well, because it is true.
You mean this is too subtle for the top law enforcement officer (and a former judge) in the country:
Ahem, well sometimes I am not particularly subtle. Actually, I think that may have been pointed out a couple of comments back, and for that I apologize; however I call em as I see em. In answer to your question, yep I think Mukasey would probably get it from your language; my thought was to leave no uncertain terms, nor any question, to anybody (read mindless media) what the scope and stakes are. I fully realize that neither your subtle advisory, much less my blatant one, will likely make the cut.
That’s what I was wondering about yesterday. What are the new questions and who needs to be asked? Also I had asked about Russert, have we lost any potential information with his passing?
OT — does it say something about our society that 56,000 people wrote essays as part of the competition process to play in a foursome with a football star, a media personality and a pop rock star at Torrey Pines?
Why can’t we muster 56,000 people writing to Conyers that he should threaten to impeach Mukasey?
Does the essay winner get a round of golf with EW/JH/CHS?
The Democrats seem to have convinced themselves that politics is like making sausage: the public would rather not know too much about it. I think Upton Sinclair proved them wrong, oh, a hundred years ago.
The Democrats’ position is self-serving, self-perpetuating and self-abusive. Many Democrats agree with this President. They see nothing wrong in what he’s done; some of them aided and abetted the President in doing it. But now that the pendulum is swinging away from CheneyBush, they aren’t so sure they want their prior support for Bush known or used against them. Others are afraid of any controversy. (Why, then, are they in politics?) Still others are afraid they can’t compete with the Rovian slime machine, or think doing so will distract from their search for power or getting things done. (What would that be if not this?).
I guess none of them read the polls. Americans are desperate for the Democrats to stand up to Bush’s lawlessness, his incompetence, his devotion only to the haves and the have mores. Perhaps it’s that most of them are now like the “journalists” who cover them. They’re too rich, fat and happy and don’t want to rock the boat. Which means that though they may gain the White House, they won’t bother using those paddle thingies to take it anywhere.
Well, let’s see if we can make the wind blow and the current move to remind them that they are public servants on the public payroll. Investigating and stopping Bush’s abusive and illegal behavior is precisely what they have been elected to do, along with actually running government well instead of pretending it’s only purpose is to give them jobs and enrich their friends.
Boy howdy. Pelosi and Hoyer won’t even breathe the word impeachment because it would interfere with their legislative goals. And what exactly is it that would be so interfered with? Screwing us on the Bush/Cheney wet dream FISA Amendment? Thanks for that fucktards. If the time and effort that has been expended on schlepping through said Bush/Cheney FISA dream had been placed on answering the questions posed in this and the previous post, we would be far better off.
It’s my understanding that Democratic (and also GOP) leaderships in Congress have orientation sessions shortly after the elections for the new members during which they are cajoled and intimidated into meekly following the leadership. Some prominent progressives in Congress (e.g. Waxman, Wexler in the House, Feingold in the Senate) should contact the progressive candidates for open or GOP-held seats so as to build a progressive network among them prior to the election and organize a progressive caucus. That might be a means of exerting some influence.
Of course, this is a view from Flyoverland and is probably floated in ignorance of the realities inside the Beltway.
from democracy now! on friday:
Food for thought about why treating Democrats with kid gloves in hopes that they gain the White House – and do something – might not be a good idea. That might simply be another expression of the tyranny of low expectations (speaking of many CongressCritters, but not Sen. Obama):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
About that needless FISA capitulation by the Democratic Party’s “leadership”. Expect it to happen no later than the Fourth of July weekend, when everyone will be enjoying McSenile’s Ribs:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Glen is correct, the nature of the bill has been crystal clear for over a week now actually. I think they will start the legislative process on it next week actually.
EW, your post nails it…ummm…nails Mukasey. Since when is it his job to protect Bush and Cheney from Congress? That would be Addington etal’s job.
Worse than Gonzo. He is even more blatant in the obstruction of the investigation into what is clearly a crime.
As I’ve said before, the man has had a successful career…why would he want to go down in history linked to these people this way. Dumb move Mukasey.
I’ll go one further, I think that given the nature of his position as head of the DOJ, he not only doesn’t have a duty to protect Bush, Cheney et al., he has an affirmative duty, in light of the clear prima facie case, to see the truth disclosed.
Boy, LS, I think that too, every word of it. I cannot figure that man out. That he seems to be worlds more competent than Gonzales just makes the question more obvious: why did he do this?
Brilliant post, EW. Every time I think that I have grasped what’s going on, you go one layer deeper. It’s like having a new Le Carré to read so many days here, when it isn’t one of the Graves (heinous imperial corruption and depravity) days.
Friday is the one day this week that I absolutely have to be away from the machine, and I am so frustrated. For hours I will be among people who won’t have a clue about what I’ll be babbling on about. I’m thinking of dreaming up a diplomatic illness, although I may have worn out that ruse by now.
Call in with an “upset stomach”…they won’t ask for the details…*g*…hee, hee.
“the man has had a successful career…why would he want to go down in history linked to these people this way”
I dont know enough about his pre-judicial [?] career to feel comfortable commenting on that perception of success or what caused it, but looking at nothing more than how he conducted the court oversight of the Padilla investigation suggests he ‘earned respect’ by showing he could hold his Kool Aid & still stay on message- & as such ‘talent’ worked for every single one of the Gang of 4 in the SCOTUS- that earned him the benefit of some dubious notion of doubt among …well- just enough Dems on the HJC.
So the question is not so much: Why Mukasey would want to be linked to “these people”…as its: How do these people keep getting away with this?
I keep wondering how much of ‘off the table’ is the result of Hoyer whispering in Pelosi’s ear that the public won’t support impeachment, notwithstanding all our letters, e-mails, faxes, and phonecalls.
I think investigating Hoyer might be worthwhile.
When Murtha was bumped due to ??? for Hoyer I wondered what was up?
Pelosi is not reading the signs of anger in the bingo halls, V.F.W’s, Moose lodges and nursing homes across the nation. People are pissed and wondering when the Democrats will really show some spine.
She needs to visit some of these places instead of standing where Hoyer and Emmanuelle can whisper in her ear.
You know, I have always admired cboldt’s legal reasoning. And here is a prime example of why that is; found deep in the comments from a few threads back.
Spot on I would say.
EW, one more wee typo as it seems fonner should be former.
I’m guessing that the usual suspect of copying and pasting from a PDF is to blame. I know that’s exactly what it did when I tried it.
Somebody needs to learn Adobey how to spel. *g*
And this means that at a minimum, Junya, Scottie and Andy were all physically present when Junya directed Scottie to exonerate Turdblossom.
I think Conyers really, really needs to have Andy Card come on down!
That was exactly my thought when I read that. Not only that…the FBI stuff says “discussion(s)” with W and Dick….that is pleural and it is not just someone telling you something…there was back and forth on more than one occasion.
Where is Andy?
Still Googling, but no sign of him just yet.
Last I saw of him, he was being booed off the stage at the commencement ceremonies of UMass, Amherst. (There are YouTubes; just search Andrew Card.) Heh. Memories of my misspent youth.
Thanks for the lead, skdadl. Most amazing video of the honors graduates filing in with “
Card” red circle and slash signs pinned to their gowns, sleeves, mortarboards. One vid is of a (presumed) local TV report. The newscaster and reporter’s words were actually startling in their clarity. It was definitely not from a local Faux Noise station.Were you amongst those marchers?
Oh, no, although I would have loved to be there.
When you see how many of those kids were willing to do that on their commencement day, it’s really impressive, isn’t it? That was a big demo. It makes you realize that the anger isn’t just ours. There are a lot more angry people — and especially younger people — than the msm seem to have noticed or credited yet.
Furiously working on his memoirs, I’d imagine.
Currently, Mr. Card is a senior counselor at the global public relations firm Fleischman-Hillard, serving on the international advisory board. He serves on the board of directors at Union Pacific Corporation. Mr. Card is also consulting for PBS on a documentary about the first 100 days of the new presidential administration set to air in Fall 2009.
Wiki reports “He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Union Pacific Railroad.”
Just the normal everyday corporate welfare doled out to members of the ruling class who ain’t employable on their own merits.
And in railroad parlance, I’d guess that would make him a free-loader.
One can imagine many such books being written (quickly now) and the book editors are reading some amazing stuff. Can it be possible they wouldn’t let a bit of it slip out pre-publication? In the right circles the conversation would be fascinating.
We are the right circle.
I’ve been fretting on these threads for months why Conyers (and Waxman as well) don’t subpoena interviews/FBI 302s of tBush, Cheney, Rove, Martin, Rove and any/all other WH employees, NBC employees (including all Russert’s contradictory interviews), Time, and Newsweek employees–that’d include Viveca Novak, Satan Novak, and Matt Cooper (Mr. Mandy Grunwald–will my wife ever collect the more than $700,000 Clinton owes Grunwald Communications so we can clothe the kid, school the kid, send the kid to college, get the house in Nantucket, and eat dinner the way Washington elitsia are accustomed to?).
When Mukasey refuses to produce them they should throw the little prick Mukasey who tried to make medical diagnoses on inmates in his courtroom from the SDNY bench with no training into a closet after invoking inherent contempt.
Conyers and Wasman move with the speed of an amputated snail.
“Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. said for the first time yesterday that he resigned from the Bush administration last year in part because “the president needed for me to leave, and the administration needed to have me leave.”
““It’s often the case that someone gets put off as the sacrificial lamb, when the president needs to show something, that he’s taking action,” she said.
“There is so much more myth about [the White House Iraq Group] than there is reality,” he said.
“According to Card, the group’s role was to present information to the public consistent with Bush’s stance on Iraq by coordinating information between national security groups including the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the State Department.
“Doesn’t it make sense to get together to say, ‘Okay, let’s not put press releases out on the same day that say things that aren’t consistent with the direction that the president has said we’re heading in? So let’s coordinate it,’” he said of the group’s rationale.”
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520408
Anyone else notice the “language”…such as “the president needed for me to leave, and the administration needed to have me leave”, and “sacrificial”…brings to mind Libby’s note.
Needed for me to leave…sounds similar to the reports that Rove was told in the Church that the President “needed” him to leave…
McClellan, Rove, and Card. All three needed to leave.
Where there is smoke, there is fire.
While I agree in the distinction between a formal declassification and a covert leak is it really necessary to delve into this speculation and indulge this distinction. Do I remember correctly from what I have seen here that Fitzgerald who had access to the statements and interviews of Bush and Cheney said Plame’s identity as a CIA operative was classified and so did Gen. Hayden? If an insta-declassification scheme had been afoot wouldn’t these statements been more reserved? And if an unquestionable declassification defense were available why would Fitzgerald have taken the trouble to suggest there is a “cloud” over the Vice-Presidency in his presser after the Libby verdict?
I am right with you on the lack of reservation to those two assertions – but may I humbly suggest the critical issues of how things get classified & unclassified & the timing of the same.
In other words: it depends on what the meaning of the word “was” was.
Those are all good questions. To me, however, in some regards, for the purpose instantly at hand, it doesn’t matter. As EW has cogently demonstrated, there is royal duplicity at hand irrespective of which way the truth on that plays out in the end. The goal right now, since we don’t know how it went down for sure, is simply to demonstrate that the acts were of a questionable, and potentially traitorous, nature either way and that there has been overt fraud and deception that has materially obstructed justice either way. Which is pretty clear. This exercise will have the additional benefit of putting Bush and Cheney’s personal interests at direct loggerheads, where they belong; and a whole lot of other cages will rattle in the process.
The only way they are directly at loggerheads is in the context of an overriding insistence on the truth in the oversight threat of simultaneous impeachment proceedings. For what other reason would either one of them fold?
So why would Dean have been purposely and publicly challenged Fitz?
Because he’s frustrated that Rove wasn’t nailed. I’ve been critical of Fitz for not doing it but Bmaz made a statement yesterday that probably accurately characterizes Fitz. Fitz is hardly out of his league with this WH, and is one of the best litigators/investigator supervisors at DOJ–but he has been screwed by graymail, deliberately trashed servers and email on the servers, and unfortunately we can’t know what Fitz knows.
I’d sure like to have transcripts of the six Rove interviews, and all the interviews of WH personnel, Time, Newsweek, NBC employees involved.
Because he is just as frustrated as we are & from his bitter disappointment at the prospect of these criminals getting away with worse than Watergate he clings to his own bible: faith in the rule of law- & his own gun: the image of Professor Archibald Cox cast in sepia from the passage of time.
Plus what Dean did in his testimony to Congress was an act of enormous courage- including the courage to let the chips fall- & since in this far worse epoch Fitzgerald stands even alone I think there’s bound to be some identification. Its sort of the secular humanist equivalent of prayer- or a toned-down version of the rant by the character played by Albert Finney in Network.
I’m with David Sirota: relying on an individual to do something reminiscent of the scene specialty of those such as Gary Cooper & Chuck Heston & Clint Eastwood & Bruce Willis IE reenacting the stand at the Alamo except the good guys win doesn’t cut it- It takes an uprising.
Progressives are at the far edge of that uprising. For that matter we who worship at the sign of the emptywheel are towards one of the edges of progressive camp.
Obama is convinced the only way to change things is to take a very big bite right out of the middle. Everything he says & does makes sense once one sees that. And given that Dean’s great act of courage & his proselytizing ever since has not prevented things from getting worse than Watergate, it appears Dean both sees that fact & accepts it as a better plan than anything else out there.
But Dean’s still mightily pissed the bastards did right in our faces & are going to get away with it, & further there’s the usual concern with not blowing away all the zombies: they just go off & multiply & return in greater numbers & that much more “robust”.
I think Obama believes that if we can cox them out of the ooze in their swamp it will take them out their pack mentality & eventually promote such a civilizing factor they will end up part of the community – or at least they’ll act a lot more like household pets than wolves.
I know Dean’s pissed I go to his site all of the time and link his words all over the blogosphere, had the pleasure of asking him direct questions on the Diane Rehm show and Talk of the Nation and was able to attend the salon at FDL when he graced us with his wisdom.
What I don’t get is was this an attempt to put more of a fire under Fitz’s ass and why did Dean miss the opportunity to “check” congress as Ew has so clearly pointed out? Or was his agenda to get all of us talking about the upcoming testimony sooner than later?
Just find it so interesting the way he approached the topic
I don’t think that fold is the correct word. I think that once this line of logic is established, and on the record, with Congress contemplating going further, that it makes their interests adverse and all kind of fissures and other benefits start to appear. We can’t get very far without piercing their unified veil somehow or another. I think also that Bush is weak and would sell out Cheney to save himself if it got down to that. I dunno, but the steps have to be taken to do anything; they should have been by Congress years ago
Of course I appreciate the suggestion tactically.
Then Cheney would sell out Bush. As EW said the other day, it would be really good fun to see the two of them go after each other!
Not only the trouble to “suggest”. Fitz said that the VP had put that cloud there himself and then hit the ball into congress’s court.
The Rule of Law is to defend against crimes? To expose crimes? Obstruction of justice is to defend crimes to cover them up from view. To protect the perpertrator of those crimes.
High crimes against the people…that seriously injure the public good are what is being obstructed. Continuing crimes against humanity are being allowed. These crimes have to be shared by the defenders of obstructiuon as coequal participants. In the courts it is known as “Accessories”.
We as a civilization are at that point where we degenerate into a morass of immorality. How could anyone in good conscience watch the annihilation of human kindness, morals or ethical behavior as a guiding principle of our government?
The crimes are palpably vile.
What declassification defenses legal or common sense are available when declassifying Plame’s shop exposed a number of agents to harm/death and some of them may have been turned into stars on a piece of granit?
In that case I meant defense as in “roll of the dice.”
Ms E Wheel-
On the thrust of your post here IE your suggested course of action for Chairperson Conyers to gain unredacted [effectively not classified] transcripts of the various witnesses from the inner circle of this Hellish White House, I get the impression that your strategy sets aside the unsworn statements of the two crime bosses- & so implies that Conyers ought to engage in a chess match with Mukasey. I dont see the basis for assuming that the lawyer & congressman Conyers is a better chess player than the lawyer & former judge Mukasey- & tho Conyers has on his side the WAXMAN- an indisputable grandmaster- firstly theres a critical difference between advising & helping out on the one hand versus doing it yourself- & secondly its not as if Mukasey is all by his lonesome on his side- & thirdly Mukasey himself is not a free agent: hes answerable up the ladder to Fielding & theoretically then to Bush- which means to the law firm of Fielding & Addington acting on instructions from Cheney. Viewed as such one recalls why the gold medal the USA hockey lads won in the 1980 Olympics ranks so highly on any rational list of sports miracles.
freep could put this better than I can: If Conyers wants all this radioactive material from Mukasey he will have to pry it from the latter’s cold dead hands. No matter how one parses it: giving up the impeachment tool has consequences – & were looking at them.
Yes, I agree. The solution is to start an impeachment investigation and ask for the documents in that context.
Yes, I agree. The solution is to start an impeachment investigation and ask for the documents in that context.
YES… it’s the only tool that will work because it cuts their tricks down to almost zero.
All I am really suggesting is that given the public record, including Cheney’s shooter interview, should any one really give him the benefit of the doubt in not pressing the issue. You know some apt politician may get an idea rather than pleading special legislative knowledge.
Here’s what I think went down:
Cheney and Libby were both over at CIA for a long time trying to drum up supporting evidence for the war marketing project. Cheney and Libby both probably knew Valerie Plame as Valerie Plame. Cheney asked CIA to find out if something from Niger was sold to Iraq. Plame suggested Wilson to those in her office. Wilson went and reported back that no there was no evidence of that..Cheney decided to spin it anyway. The words went into the speech. Bushco went to war. Wilson wrote his op-ed, pissing off Cheney. Cheney and Libby poked around and found out that Plame was Wilson’s wife. Cheney and Libby via WHIG said go get both of them…tell reporters, etc., discredit both of them. Then shizzola hit the fan, and Cheney found out he leaked something illegal, because he didn’t have that authorization; so he went to Addington, who prepared the “fix” by creating a new EO giving Cheney declassification powers…”after the fact”…to cover his butt. He had to get Bush to sign off, which of course he did. Only when the reporters were putting pressure on McClellan, did he go to W to find out what to say to the reporters. That is where McClellan, Card, Bush, Cheney and others were planning damage control…they had multiple discussions. but were still denying Rove was involved to McC…, and McC was telling reporters that Rove was not involved…but not denying Libby was involved. McC goes to Libby and Rove, who both deny they were involved. McC tells reporters they were not involved and he had spoken to both of them. Then McC gets told to exonerate Libby. Then McC finds out both were involved.
So, what I think is that it is clear that Cheney was the leaker and did not have the authority to leak her name at the time it was leaked. Everything else was a cover-up and damage control, and the cover-up continues with the aid of Mukasey. Just my 2 cents.
Two cents? Hey what a coincidence: Thats the membership fee here!
And you want some real fun? Go back in time to the thenexthurrah.com & read all the posts & view all the artifacts that the pre-eminent plameologist & her followers came up with in determining…what you just said.
Oh, I know. I’ve been reading it all along. I guess that it occurred to me with clarity that the way her “name” became known, was because Cheney and Libby knew it all along…way, way before the leak happened. I was just thinking out loud…sorry if it seemed like D’uh…*g*
The problem lies in what Valerie Wilson cannot reveal.
Thats “a” problem. “The” problem is this gigantic ugly cancerous authoritarian beast being watered & fed & protected by large swaths in this society. And instead of DDT we have the vote: Im told its not even toxic.
I just have this impression that there was an understanding when Dean came forward that there was a constituency that would honor his forthrightness. The beast must have known that this was one way that it would be vulnerable and so cultivated the politics of personal attack in anticipation of defending this weakness sharpening its teeth on John Snow and Richard Clarke and the like.
…oh yeah and it tried to take a bit out of Joe Wilson.
And Joe and Valerie bit back hard and they are hanging on for the harm done to Valerie, the intelligence world and our nations security.
I can just hear Bush yell through his cheerleading megaphone “bite me”
Yes, I totally agree with you. I was referring to the problem of getting to the truth in the Plame case. One of a myriad of “problems” with Bushco…trying to nail these people down…there’s always a damned if you do, damned if you don’t…it’s like trying to catch an eel with your hands….an electric eel, in fact. Only eels aren’t criminals.
With all the god-forsaken grants of immunity that Congress has foised upon us ever since Watergate, it disheartens me that they can’t/won’t make such a grant in the cases of Plame and Sibel Edmonds. All that’s keeping them from telling what they know is the threat that it’s illegal for them to say it aloud. Their crime has yet to be committed and it would only be the crime of telling “Truth to Power”. The current Dem leadership was clearly defined today by Glennzilla.
Exactly. Well, my own personal opinion, is that Cheney has spent years and years and years…to plan for this; with the help of Addington. They have crafted escape from current law, together with wagering that the Dems would do nothing, via every loophole out there in order to to take over. This has been a long time in the planning.
That is just me. Pointing that out causes outcries of “conspiracy theorist”..but I believe there is a conspiracy. So, bite me!!
Isn’t that just a logistics problem?
And the real trick is to prove it- which is this is instance isn’t “like” prosecuting the prosecuter- it IS prosecuting the prosecutor.
In the spirit of Fathers Day expressed earlier on in this thread: Theres lots to do on that front- so pull out your tool & dig in.
Mr. “I won’t investigate anything” Mukasey.
Bush continues to remain in a stronger position than Cheney, as has been insinuated, if he is pressed on his promise that anyone who leaked Plame would be “relieved” he will just rattle off the names: Ari, Libby, Rove, Card. He didn’t promise to announce his actions. He lacks the constitutional power to discharge Cheney.
Mucklazy
Somewhat OT, though Olbermann was mentioned earlier as a preferred replacement for Russert on MTP, here’s a story up on The New Yorker website about Olbermann and his impact on how the news is presented. Here’s a teaser quote, regarding the pre-show discussions of Olbermann’s special commentary on Dumbya’s ‘giving up golf’ gaffe:
I’m not a fanatic about Olbermann (just about Mac computers), but I watch his show because no one else on TV today (save Bill Moyers) is saying out loud at all what he’s willing to say nightly. Give Rachel Maddow a show, retire Buchanan and Tweety, and NBC would be worth watching more than an hour a night (with a minor h/t to Dan Abrams for his Siegelman coverage).
They’ll never retire the Tweetster. Tney’ll never move Buchanan off the air. As Frank Rich aptly pointed out this morning, MSNBC and CrazyNews Network have been pushing the meme that Obama has an uphill battle capturing the votes of white women when he already has the votes of most of them.
I’d like to do a retrospective superimposing on point questions with each of those luminaries interviewed by Russert of the questions Russert was either afraid to ask or not smart enough to ask. Russert managed to miss key questions with everyone he interviewed, certainly with Cheney, and the Clintons. All respect due to The Boss, Russert often failed to hold feet to the fire.
It’d be a great day if KO took the reins of MTP. David Gregory is doing a fine job of missing key questions and paralleling Russert in that respect.
Women and McCain
Co-host Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan. Now that would kick up some dust.
I’m all about Washington Week’s Glenn Ifill..ing Russerts shoes. The white boys at MSNBC need to mix it up. An intellect, a woman and black. Still wondering if Glenn would take a step down in integrity and accept more power and $$$$$?
We know MSNBC/GE would never offer Bill Moyers the job. Over at Crooks and Liars someone suggested Helen Thomas.
If there is a god it looks and acts like Helen Thomas.
there is a poll going on over at Newsvine which MSNBC owns, on who should fill Russerts shoes. (sorry unable to link from this computer) The list of contenders is interesting.
My vote is for Glenn Ifill who is not on the list.
She is very impressive.
She was at NBC prior to PBS. I don’t think either party are contemplating a return.
The fox is guarding the henhouse.
I was sure that there was no one that would protect Bush like Gonzo did, so flagrantly disregarding the law and saying “I forgot” whenever he was asked a question. But Muklazy is just as bad, in a different way. He rationalizes every reason not to do anything. He usually gets back to Congress fairly quickly with reasons why he won’t be investigating this or that. But there hasn’t been a response to Waxman’s letter yet, has there?
June 10 was the deadline given. It’s five days past. I haven’t heard that they received anything.
OT-What ever happened to Scott Bloch? Talking about a bolt of the blue to potential accountability.
Obstruction of ONGOING crimes against humanity that have been continuing for decades.
The war on terror was a cover for creating an environment for Big Business top thrive. The costs are health care for children. Food for starving masses and the constructuion of police states in the name of democracy. The total demise of our planet as environment under which coming generation will not flourish.
Obstruction of ongoing crimes by US Congress and the Whitehouse!
Drag Mukasey up there and make him answer some questions, then impeach him for not doing his job.
…”bite”, even.
Whoever takes over for Russert has to run all of the other shows as well, unless they hire many people to do his job…which would probably be the “healthiest” thing to do. I wonder if Abrams is in the running…
He is not on the poll over at Newsvine.
That white boys club at MSNBC needs to mix it up oh so bad.
If the Dem leadership is afraid that investigating/prosecuting/impeaching bush* et.al. because it might jepradize a landslide election, are they planning to take action after the election is held and in the bag?
Will the excuse then be that they are afraid that bush* will pull some coup and refuse to give up power?
And after Barack Obama is inaugurated will they then use the excuse that it will just look like a witch-hunt to smear bush* (like they did to Clinton)?
BTW, frequent reader/lurker, occasional poster. IANAL but my dad was.
from glenn greenwald:
“landslide election” in their dreams. Are you looking at the numbers. During a year when it should be a “slam dunk” for the Democrats the numbers are far too close.
If John McCain took up the ACCOUNTABILITY issue on Plame the pre-war intelligence…the Republicans could take it.
spit.
No
Maybe; along with other excuses
Yes along with the “We’ve got to move forward” crappy meme
Don’t need to be a lawyer here (You are better off not being one trust me) step up and engage!
Barack Obama is not going to be inaugurated into Congress. He might coatail some downticket people in, but Congress will remain the Nexus of Inertia as always.
The co-conspirators in the torture exported by “CIA advisors” to any country of interest to the multi national corporations that operate in the “Global Corporate Environment” are supported by the 950 some US Military bases around the globe. These groups are the terrorist that are exporting CIA torture education teams (read Shock Doctrine for a summary).
Co-conspirators
does that ring a bell? The FISA obstruction is the massive coverup of the Bushco Corporate cover up. The giving of $300.00 to taxpayers was corporate welfare to keep the cash flowing for them and a bribe.
Rewind back to Nixon he opened China so Big Corporation can move our jobs off shore to a fascist state that uses slave child labor. NAFTA was on the think tank tables then. The joke is on big corp thay have no consumers left to buy their “bargain goods”. The crimes are ongoing.
I am still trying to figure why George McGovern’s $1000 didn’t measure up to Bush’s $600.
Explain: McGovern was never president?
I $1000 payment per citizen was one of his promises and planks, it was savaged by his republican opposition as irresponsible economics. The dull butter knife apparently doesn’t cut both ways.
I’ll make my predictions on replacing Russert on MTP. Andrea Mitchell is the odds-on favorite. For the villagers, she has to be the perfect pick. Don’t ever forget that MTP has always been about the villagers. David Gregory is a distant second.
A more interesting question for me is whether any of the other networks will take this opportunity to try to leapfrog MTP by coming up with a new host. CBS is probaby too moribund to dump Schieffer (who, in my opinion, is the best of bad lot anyway). Fox won’t be a serious contender anyway. That pretty much leaves ABC. They have every reason to dump Stephanopoulos and try to bring in somebody from the outside. If you were them, who would you pick? Remember, the key is picking somebody who can bring some sort of credibility to the show so that the right guests will show up.
WO – People have been asking me since Friday, about a name for MTP, and I have been moribund in the same batch as all of us. It just came to me, and I am dead serious about this, he has an encyclopedic knowledge base, is calm and reassuring, yet asks very tough and often unexpected questions. He would be superb. Aaron Brown, who was the anchor of the CNN evening news before Anderson Cooper became the “it” guy. Since he left CNN, he has been special chair at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism here at ASU, and he was an accomplished newspaperman before his TV work. Perfect. No glitz, but a ton of credibility.
From Wikipedia:
oh my god yes. and he actually asks the right questions (as I remember from way back then)
Credible? Andrea Mitchell? How many times did she stick up for Bob Woodward? She may be next in line but credible is not Andrea’s middle name.
I want to see that white boys club mix it up with intellect, gender and race. Glenn Iffil.
Dan Rather is winning big over at the Newsvine poll
I should have been clearer. Credibility to the villagers is what matters. I don’t believe a word that comes out of the woman’s mouth unless I can independently verify it.
Aaron Brown maybe.
But what about Dana Priest? (Didn’t she do the black ops reporting and also break the story about Walter Reed?)
Except, I hate to think of losing a good print reporter….
And some of the McClatchy people should be invited on those shows A LOT more often – look at the markets that McClatchy serves. Quite the distributed network from the looks of it.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of Aaron Brown before; he is really good and would be very good in that format I think. But I also think WO is right; it is going to have to be a villager name. My bet is that it will be Brokaw or Mitchell, or a combination thereof, with a gradual transition into David Gregory. If it has to be a big village name, I would prefer Rather, and if not him, Koppel. Hey, they may not be ideal, but they are big names and a hell of a lot better than what we’ve had.
Yes, Aaron Brown would be great…but he didn’t play ball. He probably wasn’t a “good corporate citizen” to quote Mrs. Greenspan while referring to Russert.
GE makes money from war. They all work for GE…not NBC…GE.
Sadly, I agree. Completely. I am just kind of dumfounded it took me this long to think of him. I’ve been asked who I would want since Friday. Twenty minutes ago i finally come up with a name I really would want. I am totally lame.
You are not lame. Aaron Brown would be awesome. Stranger things have happened…such as the loss of Russert.
NBC is clearly in a huge mess…they just don’t know what to do…Russert had his fingers all over everything…it will take several people to fill his job duties…
They will have to split up “the job”…there will be several people wearing Russert’s two shoes.
Intellect and Andrea Mitchell are a nexus that will never meet on this planet. She ain’t gonna be it.
If Mitchell were picked, and I doubt she would be, she would fail to ask even more key questions than Russert did and that would be quite a few.
Andrea Mitchell is one of the most worthless people on TV.
She can always manage to capture almost none of the salient points in a story.
Rachel Madow would be a creative choice, but the suits at GE/NBC?Universal aren’t comfortable with Lesbians. They’re made of the material that longs to get the feature article in the NYT Weddings Column.
I don’t recall seeing the NYT featue any gay or lesbian marriages/unions in these pages.
I give KO a fair shot. It would be an excellent choice, and the more people it would piss off the happier it would make me.
Hey they “let” that wiz of a woman Rachel Maddow on as MSNBC correspondent or whatever her title is. You can tell Rachel has to slow her intellect down on the David Gregory news program.
How about David Gregory/Rachel Maddow co-hosting MTP?
Or David Gregory/Glenn Ifill?
I am telling you Ifill ain’t going back to NBC. Period. There was bad blood there.
Does the same chain of command exist now that was there when she was there? Ultimately she is my pick, I know it’s not going to happen the white boys club at MSNBC is too thick.
How about Rachel Madow/Marcy Wheeler/Keith Oberhmann as long as we have the chance to pick ‘em.
How does that go “when Hell freezes over”. I would think I had died and gone to heaven. But I would prefer Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler, Amy Goodman and Ralph Nader rotating. It really would have to be called “Eat The Press”. There would be no way around it.
But I’m with William Ockham I would like to see them rotate the MTP moderator for the summer, you know they could watch the ratings and we could hope for the best.
We could put Glenn Greewald and Bmaz in the dream rotation. I should be running NBC.
Yes to Bmaz and Greenwald in the rotation. Will up you one with LHP (loose headprop) in the rotation. and I know most here would say yes to you running the joint.
Seems appropo for this discussion since it involves impeachment. Just received this from Wexler:
Last Thursday the largest newspaper in my congressional district – the South Florida Sun-Sentinel – published an editorial lambasting my enthusiastic support for immediately holding impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Numerous letters to the editor have also criticized my support for this movement.
Below, you’ll find the original Sun-Sentinel editorial, followed by my response, which was printed yesterday.
I assure you that I will not back down from this fight – no matter the consequences or political cost. The only thing that maters is that we deliver accountability for the Bush Cheney Administration and defend our government and our constitution.
If you would like to write a letter to the Sun Sentinel, you can email [email protected].
Thank you for your continued support.
Robert Wexler
Sun-Sentinel Editorial
Impeachment not worth another minute of anybody’s time
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
June 12, 2008
ISSUE: Some in Congress want an impeachment.
The nation does have a few pressing issues pending that could use some attention from our federal lawmakers.
Let’s see. There are a couple of wars going on, unemployment is on the rise as the value of a house continues to fall, millions of Americans have no health insurance, and did we mention that gas prices are expected to hit $5 a gallon? You get the idea. And still, some in Congress feel the nation is just itching for another presidential impeachment.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who has made a career out of eye-rolling issues like these, said this week he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, who is smarter than this, supported the Articles of Impeachment, which won’t go anywhere and thankfully have been buried in a committee not likely to hold hearings before Bush leaves office.
Last year, Kucinich led the misguided charge to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, and Wexler supported that. In the case of Bush, Wexler called it a “sworn duty” of Congress to act.
Actually, it’s nobody’s sworn duty to take up any time to go after a badly battered president with only a few months left in office. This is a president so unpopular, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain won’t make many public appearances with him. This is a president who is such a non-entity, peace activists didn’t even
bother to protest his appearance in Berlin this week.
Nor should Congress bother with the ridiculous idea of impeachment, which Kucinich contends is warranted because Bush deceived the nation into war.
There’s plenty of evidence to fuel Kucinich’s ire, but not his choice of remedy. If Congress needs more things than impeachment to keep lawmakers busy, it has myriad options.
BOTTOM LINE: Get on with REAL issues.
Copyright (c) 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
The Wexler Response:
The Sun-Sentinel recently ran an editorial criticizing my support for the articles of impeachment against President Bush opining that Congress should instead “get on with REAL issues” such as the Iraq war. In fact, it is this very war — entered into following an unprecedented campaign of lies and manipulated intelligence by the Bush Administration — that necessitates impeachment hearings. This war has cost us the lives of 4,090 US soldiers, injuries to over 30,000, and more than a trillion taxpayer dollars when it is all said and done.
It is a dark day when the Sun-Sentinel has the gall to tell the parents of the soldiers who have died in Iraq that pursuing
consequences for those that prosecuted this war of choice based on outright deception is not a “REAL” issue that Congress should address.
Sadly, the war is only the beginning. We now know that this Administration illegally ordered the torture of prisoners, obstructed justice by lying about the outing of a covert CIA agent and authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens.
No one can deny that if proven these allegations amount to High Crimes. Our failure to act sets an awful precedent and enables future Presidents to break the law and violate our Constitution without sanctions from Congress.
The Sentinel says impeachment is the wrong “remedy” for this litany of crimes. What then is the proper remedy? A harsh lecture? A strongly worded editorial? Or how about doing absolutely nothing in the face of these outrageous abuses of power?
Impeachment hearings need not distract us from other important priorities such as the economy, gas prices and bringing the troops home from Iraq. Congress can and should address all important issues – including safeguarding our constitutional rights and obligations.
OT, but there’s a new item up at the NYT on insurance giant AIG sacking their CEO today. Hmmmm… another Sunday afternoon board meeting… scrambling a bit, are they?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06…..nsure.html
The article references a ‘Maurice Greenberg,’ whose name has been associated with the ‘outing’ of Eliot Spitzer (who brought fraud charges against him in 2005), and who was forced out under a dark cloud by the AIG board in 2005. Links off that name in the article are rather interesting for anyone interested in fraud and its implications.
This is interesting in part because the mortgage crisis was really the first phase of economic meltdown; the second phase appears to be setting in now, which are the problems with the securitized instruments collapsing involving industries (like insurance) that counted subprime loans as assets.
So Scott McClellan may have lots of competition for news this week.
And a nation really, really primed to see people called to account for criminal conduct.
How about Marcy Wheeler on MTP if you want some quality on that show? She leaves Russert in the dust.
You are talking about pulling the finger out of the dike. Nice to think about.
The “Eat The Press” show with Amy Goodman and Marcy Wheeler. Gadzooks
Folks,
I’m predicting, not stating a preference. I feel sorry for whoever gets the MTP gig. In the villagers’ eyes, Russert will cast a long shadow.
I think Matthews has been the chosen understudy, but he’s got liabilities right now that will mitigate against him.
At least Matthews ask tougher questions. Although he recently let McCain get away with repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran on his college tour. Soon after Matthews realized he had been completely duped by the Bush administration on the WMD hogwash he started ripping into them and has been ever since. I don’t think Frum, Kristol, Woolsey will ever come on his program again I saw him rip into these radicals within the year after the invasion. Now would it have been far better to do it before the invasion. Hell yes.
Matthews was also one of the first MSMers to go into Walter Reed and do several shows out of there, he has had many returning soldiers on his program, has had folks from Daily kos, and a few other blogs. I believe he had Rachel Maddow on first as a participant and has had Amy Goodman,Katrina Van Heudel, and David Corn on nummerous times.
I think Matthews is one of the best of the worst on the list over at the poll on Newsvine.
I want to see a co-host job. Matthews and Maddow would also shake up the dust.
If I were making the choice, I’d pick Bill Moyers. Unless I was feeling really crazy, then I’d set up a rotating schedule with Rachel Maddow, Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, and Michelle Obama. I bet that would get better ratings.
amy goodman.
in my dreams.
Hey back to EW’s open “how to get the transcripts” If Mukasey does not hand them over, I thought I heard Conyers say something about sending out the “sergeant of arms” knocking on doors. Is that possible?
so what will happen when Mukasey does not hand them over? Subpoena, ignore, stall…nothing happens?
For the rest of us, we can just go on over to Cedar Rapids or Des Moines and pretend we are in Asia!
I’ve seen storms like this one before, just not that heavy for three hours.
So, I went down to breakfast, and there were the Lakers and the Celtics. And, a bunch of bus boys watching the game, while the women working there just roll their eyes, including the one clearing my table. Just like home.
Heh, America spreads it’s culture around the world; men watching sports and annoyed women!
‘Scuse me?
You still want to run trash talk come football season??
;-p
Nitpicking
Singular not plural.
Full court press.
Shouldn’t Meet the Press, be Meet a Press?
I will restrain my inner grammarian and point you to this.
Wow. Now, that’s way beyond what I could have told you, and I’m supposed to do at least some of this for a living. I guess that’s why I’m getting ready to retire, eh?
Those guys are way beyond me, as well. Some of their posts, I can barely understand. But I achieved a life-long goalwith this reference.
Bravo! Oh, dear, WO: you shouldn’t have got me started on that. I thought of Sometimes a Great Notion right away too, but now I’m going to spend the day wandering around muttering to myself, either about how some of those aren’t true cases at all or trying to come up with new ones.
OT-Tom Lasseter on “The Worst of the Worst” held by US
America’s prison for terrorists often held the wrong men
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/det…..38773.html
Unspeakable History…perhaps will assist enquiring minds.
Nixon did not “open up” China. China’s Mao and Premier Chou En Lai realized the timing was politically correct for China, as well as tempting for a president [Nixon] who must be anguished by failure. So in late 1972[?]Chou met Amer. writer Ed Snow in China and asked him to relay the invitation for Nixon to visit. Btw, Chou and Snow 1st met 1936[?], each on mules, in a open field; journalist Snow went on and took down Mao’s [auto]biography …Red Star Over China, in a Yenan cave.
Public hearings in House and Senate are preceded by closed-door interviews, interrogatories and examination of docs by committee investigators. Most of that data is rarely made public. In any following public hearing, what is said by witnesses has pretty much already been established. It is showtime. The specific questions asked are pretty much a public relations effort. E.g. in public, Senate Hearing, Alexander Butterfield suddenly revealed to the nation Nixon’s secret tapeing system in response to a question. The facts of the tapeing system, the question that would be asked and even who would ask the Q at the Hearing were already known and agreed-upon before the public hearing.
Who knows what Conyers and Waxman etc know and are not telling? Or their agendas? No questions will likely be asked of witnesses that have not already been answered behind closed doors.
Where is the explanation for the Fascist logo of “fasces” means? The axe-wrapped-in-bundle-of-sticks was carried in front of travelling Roman magistrates to let public know “he has the power to punish [sticks]you or kill [axe] you”…so make way.
There is history and there is faux-history. There is public record and there is public faux-record. If things seem confused or don’t make sense, there is missing data or false data. Obstruction of justice is the usual suspect.
It seems to me that very few of us are willing to watch Meet the Press or any of the other Sunday morning talking head shows. A lot of us comment on how grateful we are for the hardy souls who do and report on the goings-on. I like to read the NYT on Sunday morning, and am not likely to change my habits, no matter who the host is, not that I’m in a desirable demographic and thus worthy of attention. Bigwigs go on those shows to talk to the other villagers about the latest in spin points, not to convey information or answer real questions, and if real questions were asked, they would just go to the other channels or the the loving embrace of Fox. This is a clear case of the atrocious driving out the bearable.
What we really should hope for is some suck-up so monumental that even the villagers will throw up a little in their mouths when they go on to explain the world to the little people.
Bmaz, EW thinks you should correct the typos as indicated above.
Now that’s more like it ; )
If Mukasey remains reluctant to produce unredacted versions, how about follow-up asking for DoJ summary of the redacted sections so that relevance to Congressional inquiries could be gauged? And justification for redaction, citing legal precedent. Waxman doesn’t have to wait for a non-response from Mukasey, just send another letter, saying “in addition to my earlier requests…”
There is no such thing as unredacted to any DOJ, and this DOJ makes the Sopranos look like the Vestal Virgins of Rome.
Mukasey is Sylvio Dante, Stevie van Zandt’s character. He did two stints at the firm Horton used to work at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. Fredo Gonzales was a near moron politically elevated to the Texas S. Ct. because he helped Bush cover up DUIs and avoid coke convictions.
Mukasey handled big money clients in complicated cases. He’s best remembered in SDNY for rounding up scores of innocent people from the bench and imprisoning them as material witnesses, hence Material Witness Mukasey.
He once made a fool of himself after a defendant had symptoms of blunt abdominal trauma and a GI bleed (knowing nothing medical except where his little pecker was located) of trying to diagnose the prisoner from the bench exclaiming “he looks fine to me.” That’s the Bill Frist School of Medicine, from where Dr. Frist once diagnosed a woman tragically decerebrate on MRI for 15 years as just needing a little rehab, and it took the 11th Circuit and Judge Birch to put a stop to that idiocy.
They ain’t givin’ up jack shit ever. Conyers and Waxman can subpoena ’til the cows stroll home. Ain’t nothin’ comin’ of it. They lack the guts/or other anatomical parts to invoke inherent contempt on Rove, and Bolton and anyone else they try and fail to question.
When and if any of ‘em do show up they sit there and give non-sensical vegetable brained answers like Gonzales did.
Way ot. Over at Juan Coles. The situation in Afghanistan keeps getting worse.
1200 prisoners were freed as the main prison in Kandahar was blown up. It’s hard to know how many were genuine terrorists, and how many might have been innocents held without charges that were just swept up. Bombing the prison and freeing an inmate does obviate the need for habeas proceedings though. It would save a court a lot of time processing appeals and/or later a habeas wherever those particular prisoners would have filed appeals. Prison breaks to streamline the clogged appellate courts–what a marvel of efficiency.
One point with all the recent Boumediene habeas and other filings pending discussion, is that normally in federal court appellate procedure 18USC § 2255 mandates that the appeal be exausted before you can even file a habeas and that the habeas must be filed within exactly a year after the last appeal is exhausted which confuses lawyers and inmates by the dozen. But in this crazy surrealistic platform, I don’t know what will happen since the goofy trials haven’t even been held yet. These prisoners at Gitmo or wherever else they end up when Obama becomes President could be held for an awful lot of years before they are even eligible to file habeas.
I forget whether ‘knock and enter’ are still in effect in America. Can’t Congress just kick the door down and grab what they need now?
With respect to Andy Card moving to the board of Union Pacific Corporation: I recall Qwest laid its fiber in the land strips alongside those tracks. Well more specifically Qwest founder Philip Anschutz owned Southern Pacific Railroad and was laying Qwest fiber his tracks. At some point Southern Pacific and Union Pacific merged, but I am uncertain who swallowed who.
What other interests would Card have in a railroad? Import/export?
That was really “Knock and Announce” and, to be honest, it has been effectively dead for quite a while.
A Sober Assessment of Afghanistan
Outgoing U.S. Commander Cites 50% Spike in Attacks in East
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 15, 2008; A16
At Washington Post today (sorry cannot link from this computer)
My friend from Aghanistan who has been studying here in the states heads back to Afghanistan tomorrow. His very large family has been saying the situation there with the Taliban has been getting steadily worse for the last four years. According to them the situation was better just after the U.S. invaded Afghnistan for about two years at best. Headed down hill ever since. I am terrified for this young mans family. Three of his cousins have been killed by the Taliban in the last three years for working with the U.S.
Well, two suggestions for your further reading.
First, the beginning of today’s McClatchy series on how the BushCheney subversion of law and venturing into rendition and torture have captured ‘goat herders and farmers’ with very little intel value: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/det…..38773.html
Then click over to the Guardian, which has a bit called “Lost in Translation” in which they show a US Army captain in a dusty Afghan village trying to communicate with the red-bearded elder who finally shows up. And the Guardian’s video format translates the Pashtun of what the village elder actually says — and it’s not at all the same meaning that the translator tells the US Army captain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..ohndmchugh
Thanks so much for reminding me about the Guardian that used to be a regular stop for me. Will watch the other also.
Been thinking about the long coming PHASE II REPORT and what will become of it? Will congress do anything with the confirmed findings. Will Ledeen and the rest continue to do dirty business in the name of the U.S. We know Ledeen and the crew will continue to push hard for a pre-emptive strike in Iran instead of going to jail for “stovepiping” bad intelligence into the White House.
Will congress hold these bad intel criminals ACCOUNTABLE?
My background is in cross-cultural mediation. One of my greatest criticisms of our military forces is the lack of cross-cultural training. This includes the proper way to work with a translator in order to make sure you are getting the correct translation.
I enjoyed the Guardian piece. Read it last night just before you posted. Thanks for putting it up.
I guess I should explain. My phrase ‘knock and enter’ is a snarky response to the Supreme Court decision in 2006 (Hudson v. Michigan) whereby evidence does not have to be supressed in a case where the police with a warrant did not follow the ‘knock and announce’ rule completely–forcefully entering the home 3 to 5 seconds after announcing themselves.
oops should have kept reading
My friend argued the Hudson side of that. He says he is positive he had Kennedy, and a win, until Alito came on then they had to reargue it and–you are correct–now they don’t have to knock.
OT — before I hit the hay, something fun to ponder:
Whose jet is this?
This kind of reporting needs to stop.
Shouldn’t reporters differentiate between the 109th and the 110th Congress?
From the first link of RoTL at 181.
Thanks.
You are a good trooper.
Round 1
AP versus Bloggers
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06…../16ap.html
LOL
So Drudge took the first hit. I think the name of the blog is more accurate this way, too.
OT
Since the McClatchy detainee series was referenced up thread, I thought I would post these amazing quotes:
No surprises on THAT response.
Again, no surprise there…
The investigative piece/series is quite graphic and just more damning…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/det…..38775.html
Thanks for your last two excellent posts EW. I printed them off and sent them to my congress critters…Conyers and Waxman…
What a good idea, klynn. Just did the same.
The American Dream — a term that became obsolete after Bush v Gore
It would appear ersatz USA Bradley Schlozman (aka Alvin the Chipmunk) may be in a further bit of trouble. What a pity. From WSJ via TP:
Investigation Advances For U.S. Attorneys Scandal
WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers have filed a grand-jury referral stemming from the 2006 U.S. attorneys scandal, according to people familiar with the probe, a move indicating that the yearlong investigation may be entering a new phase.
The grand-jury referral, the first time the probe has moved beyond the investigative phase, relates to allegations of political meddling in the Justice Department’s civil-rights division, these people say. Specifically, it focuses on possible perjury by Bradley Schlozman, who served a year as interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo.
Christy’s got a post up.
Thanks, LooHoo. Was just over there. Who can forget Schlozman’s feeble testimony to the SJC. Rivaled Fredo, & that’s saying a lot. Looks like Alvin may have to answer for his lies yet.
Think we’ll see Monica and Sara as well … sort of a Congressional “The Weakest Link” ?
Maybe Schlozman’s just for starters- one can only hope. I still have a lot of kettle corn left over from the last time the DoJ rogues gallery testified.
I will never forget Bradley, just as I will never forget Kyle or Monica or Sara or … well, there were so many. In some ways, 2007 was a very good year.
It Was A Very Good Year
Happy Monday !
Monica was given immunity in order to say that she crossed the line on hiring good republican types.
E-mail today:
Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity
House “Majority” Leader Steny Hoyer doesn’t understand the meaning of NO.
On March 14, we won a huge victory when the House voted 213-197 for a bill to strengthen FISA without providing immunity for Bush and the telcos who illegally spied on millions of Americans without a warrant. Thanks to your lobbying efforts – including over 58,000 petitions! – just six Bush Democrats voted for immunity.
Even Steny Hoyer voted against immunity. But Hoyer kept conspiring with Bush to sneak immunity through Congress when no one was watching. And on Friday, Hoyer quietly announced a new bill to provide retroactive immunity for past warrantless wiretapping and allow new wiretapping for six more years.
So it’s time for us to tell Congress once again that we will not tolerate warrantless wiretapping by George Bush or any other President, and we demand full accountability for George Bush through impeachment. Our last wiretapping petition sent over 58,000 emails to Congress – let’s see if we can double that number to over 100,000.
Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity – Sign the Petition
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/141
Discuss this with Democrats.com members here:
http://www.democrats.com/wiret…..t-immunity
___________________ Sponsored message
Join the Intelligent Optimists- Request Your Free Issue of Ode Today!
The word “unconventional” get thrown around quite a bit these days, generally being used to describe the most recent incarnation of the same old stuff. If you are seeking genuine “unconventional” ideas, ideas that bravely challenge the economic, political, social and cultural assumptions of our times, then click here to get a FREE issue of Ode magazine today. While other magazines tell you what went wrong last month, Ode adds to the mix smart reports on what went right. Each issue of Ode brings you stories about the people, places and ideas challenging the status quo and changing the world – one good idea at a time. Join the conversation – click here to get your FREE issue of Ode now!
___________________
Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment Gain Support, Need More Co-Sponsors
On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich made history on the floor of the House by reading 35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, now H.Res. 1258.
In just six days, over 25,000 of you emailed your Representatives to co-sponsor the 35 Articles:
http://www.democrats.com/35-ar…..mpeachment
The first three co-sponsors were Robert Wexler (FL19), Lynn Woolsey (CA06), and Barbara Lee (CA09).
The charges presented by Rep. Kucinich are so serious that every Member of Congress should demand Judiciary Committee hearings by becoming a co-sponsor.
Here’s what you can do to persuade your Representative:
http://www.democrats.com/impea…..ors-wanted
E-mail received
Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity
House “Majority” Leader Steny Hoyer doesn’t understand the meaning of NO.
On March 14, we won a huge victory when the House voted 213-197 for a bill to strengthen FISA without providing immunity for Bush and the telcos who illegally spied on millions of Americans without a warrant. Thanks to your lobbying efforts – including over 58,000 petitions! – just six Bush Democrats voted for immunity.
Even Steny Hoyer voted against immunity. But Hoyer kept conspiring with Bush to sneak immunity through Congress when no one was watching. And on Friday, Hoyer quietly announced a new bill to provide retroactive immunity for past warrantless wiretapping and allow new wiretapping for six more years.
So it’s time for us to tell Congress once again that we will not tolerate warrantless wiretapping by George Bush or any other President, and we demand full accountability for George Bush through impeachment. Our last wiretapping petition sent over 58,000 emails to Congress – let’s see if we can double that number to over 100,000.
Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity – Sign the Petition
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/141
Discuss this with Democrats.com members here:
http://www.democrats.com/wiret…..t-immunity
___________________ Sponsored message
Join the Intelligent Optimists- Request Your Free Issue of Ode Today!
The word “unconventional” get thrown around quite a bit these days, generally being used to describe the most recent incarnation of the same old stuff. If you are seeking genuine “unconventional” ideas, ideas that bravely challenge the economic, political, social and cultural assumptions of our times, then click here to get a FREE issue of Ode magazine today. While other magazines tell you what went wrong last month, Ode adds to the mix smart reports on what went right. Each issue of Ode brings you stories about the people, places and ideas challenging the status quo and changing the world – one good idea at a time. Join the conversation – click here to get your FREE issue of Ode now!
___________________
Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment Gain Support, Need More Co-Sponsors
On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich made history on the floor of the House by reading 35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, now H.Res. 1258.
In just six days, over 25,000 of you emailed your Representatives to co-sponsor the 35 Articles:
http://www.democrats.com/35-ar…..mpeachment
The first three co-sponsors were Robert Wexler (FL19), Lynn Woolsey (CA06), and Barbara Lee (CA09).
The charges presented by Rep. Kucinich are so serious that every Member of Congress should demand Judiciary Committee hearings by becoming a co-sponsor.
Here’s what you can do to persuade your Representative:
http://www.democrats.com/impea…..ors-wanted
This Scott Bloch update from the end of last week was interesting:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..post_5.php
I had wondered for a while if JODI was a Department Of Justice Investigator who would frequent just to “muck up” the threads…
Anyway…
I wonder who Schlozman can or will throw under the bus to save his fat rear end?
There may be quite a few he could throw under the wheels & wouldn’t it be nice if he did.
Are you still in Guangzhou, masaccio? Is the weather any better @ all?
Weather.com shows rain in Guangzhou throughout its 10 day forecast. Jeez.