Waxman Subpoenas the Bush and Cheney Transcripts
Well, it looks like Henry Waxman isn’t going to wait around for HJC to follow my suggestions on getting the Bush and Cheney transcripts.
Oversight Committee Subpoenas Justice Department for Plame Documents
Today, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Mukasey compelling the production of FBI interview reports of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other documents regarding the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
Update: the due date on the subpoena is June 23. It asks for the same materials requested in Waxman’s June 3 letter.
What happens when Mukasey ignores a Congressional subpeona?
Constitutional Crisis?
Dunno. But we’re going to have a new AG in 9 months.
not soon enough for me—or for the country.
I’m assuming you’re kidding. All that will happen is we’ll add one more item to the list of subpoenas that the White House is currently defying.
I recall that Bush controls the people who actually enforce the subpoena. He said he would simply instruct them not to work on it.
Boxturtle (And with impeachment off the table, that works just fine)
GREAT SCOOP!
digg
keeping 3 threads going at once?
SuperMarcy!
Did Mukasey respond at all to that letter last week?
dugg
O/T but it looks like, for now, CREW has hit somewhat of a roadblock with the missing e-mails.
Judge Kollar-Kelly ruled that the Office of Administration (OA) [despite being a FOIA-able Agency throughout its history] – is not an Agency and therefore not-FOIAable.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/31995
Hah! As if. What has Waxman (as useful as a wax man too) done about any other ignored subpoena. No doubt he has a ready-to-sign stern letter ready to post as soon as Mukasey ignores or rejects the subpoena.
Waxman is a joke, as is the entire Democrapic Congress of do-nothings. The only thing that is more of a joke is how often many of you fall for the game and get all into praising how great Wax Man is or Pelosi is, etc, etc, when they PRETEND to do their jobs. How many times are ya’ll going to fall for this trick? NOTHING WILL COME OF THIS! Nothing is INTENDED to come of it. It is a political game with no threat behind it.
The House is absolutely and totally disarmed. They have NO powder, wet or dry, to fire because “Impeachment is off the table(tm)”. Without that arrow in the quiver, the White House is truly and absolutely free to ignore anything and everything that comes from Congress. Why should they actually respond? What will happen? Nothing at all.
Send out the Sergeant of Arms. We need to see some action
That is only slightly less likely than impeachment.
Worth the call to Waxmans office. (how long will that take you 3 minutes) If Mukasey refuses send out the Sergeant of Arms. Enough all “fookin’ ready Enough!
Call Waxman’s office 202-225-3976
When is the last time Congress used the Sergeant of Arms?
And who else are you inviting to your pity party?
Please post a link to the last FDL post supportive of the Speaker of the House.
If you’re not going to support Waxman, where is your basis of support? Are you going to ask Sensenbrenner for help? What do you suggest?
There are times in the past when Pelosi would make a noise that sounded like she was doing the right thing and WHAM! “Yay Nancy!” Of course, it was a mere political ploy on her part with no substance behind it (she is a hollow shell that has no substance). Wax man make a LOT of the right noises but the extent of his follow-through is a sternly-worded letter.
There is not a single “investigation” in Congress that has done anything. There is not a single “investigation” in Congress intended to do anything but feed the base and garner votes in the Fall. I have long since given up on the Democraps doing anything that appears to be their friggin’ jobs. Hell’s bells, they are about to sign away the 4th (and 5th) Amendment by handing a pass to BushCo and the telecoms on illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying!
Seriously, I hate to be a wet blanket but I am a wet blanket. I was soaked with water time and time again with each and every failure of the Democraps in Congress to actually hold the Executive branch accountable for its MANY illegal activities. They just don’t care! It is too much work, or too “ugly” and “rude” to do their actual jobs as per the Constitution. Their oath of office is simply a minor hazing ritual whereby they robotically repeat the oath simply because it is one of those things they have to do (like kids standing there reciting the Pledge of Alliegence in school or prayers in church – just words devoid of meaning and import that have to be spoken so that they can get on with whatever).
As far as the Vichy Dems are concerned, you make excellent points. I think you’re absolutely correct to criticize them and to wait until we see more accomplishments.
I would just humbly invite you to consider that people like Waxman are all we’ve got. Until we elect better Dems, imho, we have to work with what we have.
Apologies for my “pity party” comment.
Yes, when the good Alan Grayson running for congress in FL stopped by this weekend, I applauded him on thinking outside the box ie suing re contractors vs. going through more traditional routes. When he facetiously asked “box, what box?” I replied “congressional hearings”.
I too have become quite cynical about hearings.
Let’s call the sgt at arms for more action. I think that office would love to hear from us.
I kind of agree. Even though most of it happened under the Republican Congress, Congress just kept giving away it’s power to the Executive Branch. I can only assume they did this because of the massive fund raising ability that Bush had at the time. In a place where power is so valuable, I still don’t get why Congress gave it away so easily.
At least, all these investigations will still be open next year (as Bush will stall them out as much as he can), so maybe they’ll get some of the documents with the next president. It’s a small chance, but you have to keep some faith, don’t you?
I disagree with you here. I fully expect the White House to ignore the subpoena, but I think that the House now has quite a bit of “powder” to work with. For starters, impeachment may be rhetorically “off the table”, but Kucinich still introduced articles of impeachment on the floor of the House. Which means Conyers can say, “You know, if you want to keep ignoring our subpoenas, I’ve got 35 other things that I work on while we wait.”
But he still has to get it by Nancy. Which I consider a non-starter.
Um, my money would be on Conyers over Pelosi in any sort of Congressional cage fight. If she wants to save face, she can just hand over the gavel for a little while and let someone else “set the table” for her.
let’s hope you are right
Just to clarify: I’m not saying we’ll get all the way to impeachment. But I do think that we’re going to be able to move the ball down the field quite a bit. As EW has pointed out, transparency is to Republicans as sunshine is to vampires. Those transcripts are going to be explosive. Fitz hasn’t said anything about what’s in them, but that’s typical Fitz. What’s NOT typical is the praise that Bush has heaped on Fitz for how well he’s run his investigation. I take that to mean something along the lines of: “Man, Dick fucking LOST it during that meeting. I sure as hell hope no one ever finds out about THAT.”
It appears as though Conyers & Waxman are engaging a concerted drive. Even if they don’t get to impeachment, they will raise this issue enough to embarrass the Repugs.
I agree with many commenters here though, they should have been on full offense from Jan. ‘07 like they promised …
They should have invoked inherent contempt when their subpoenas were defied and they haven’t. That coupled with being slower than snails with complete amputations makes their efforts a joke. Going to the D.C. Circuit district courts and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals via the avenue of Civil Contempt will produce nothing except a lot of legal expenses with your money.
In nearly every challenge that’s important, the D.C. District Court and Court of Appeal sides with State Secrets, or Bush destroying emails, or Executive Privilege. It’s like busting the door down at the office in back of the Bada Bing trying to launch a complaint against the Soprano controled construction companies.
You’re fucked going in.
Inherent Contempt–pick the assholes up and throw them in a closet.
This time next year, everyone will be lamenting that nothing has been done by HJC or Waxman’s so-called Oversight Committee.
I’ll have half a plate of whatever Marcy had this morning. Waxman moving forward good news. Now if they get that Sergeant of Arms ready to go arrest Mukasy’s ass after he refuses to hand them over.
Wonder if Code Pink would stake out Mukasey’s house and conduct a citizens arrest?
Anyone who wants to call Congressman Waxman and thank him for subpoenaing the Bush Cheney transcripts, here’s his DC office number (202) 225-3976
Happily phoned in to thank Congressman Conyers and the staffer was extremely courteous and clearly pleased. Thanks emptywheel for your amazing multi-tasking gifts and all that good stuff.
Sucker. Now Conyers knows that sternly worded letters and ignored subpoenas are all that are necessary for him to get his tummy rubbed.
Nice job.
IANAL, BUT – isn’t there a qualitative difference between Exec. Branch funtionaries defying a subpoena which DOJ refuses to enforce, and the goddamn Attorney General defying a subpoena?
I’ve updated the post–but the deadline on the subpoena is June 23. It asks for the same things Waxman asked for in his June 3 letter. But they won’t post the subpoena onling.
Don’t ya know that they don’t have the votes? Too cowardly to push for accountability. Notwithstanding that executive privilege goes out the window in impeachment proceedings.
I don’t get Mukasey. He usually responds with something, some dumb ass reason for ignoring reality and doing nothing. Why’s he suddenly so quiet?
He’s busy right now. He just got brutalized by the Supreme Court, and McClatchy put the icing on the cake.
McClatchy? Link?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
Hiya Lindy !
Hi, Petrocelli!
((((( Lindy )))))
How’s things ?
(((Petrocelli)))…still dealing with Katrina-related boondoggles. Still scattered over half the country (my family, that is). Other than that, I’m fine. My garden at least is producing.
Lots of hugs to all of you … Bush should be ashamed of his incompetence and gross negligence, if he had a conscience.
Who’re you hoping to be Veep ?
Sorry for the delay. Was trying to see Al Gore. He still hasn’t shown up. Anyone but Joe Lieberman.
Wish the MSM would turn their spotlight on some of those Katrina “boondoggles.
At the Libby trial I was able to directly and politely remind Chris Matthews (who was at the trial) that he had said that “Katrina had ripped the scab off of racism and poverty in our nation”. I mentioned to him that his news program had “ripped off the scab for about a month and since then nothing” about what was going on in New Orleans. Nothing.
Thank you for that Leen. I hope it caused him some sleepless nights, but I doubt it.
Two words, when Waxman and/or Conyers gets inevitably stiffed by Sylvio Dante Mukasey, do they have the guts to invoke “inherent contempt?” So far the answer is no and so far Rove has successfully defied two subpoenas. And if you’re looking for them to get successful relief from the D.C. trial courts or D.C. Circuit with 18/21 judges Bushie cowed and compliant Gederalist Society members, get real.
Court goes along with email coverup
Meanwhile, back at the D.C. ranch, the District Court government cheerleader, former and loyal DOJ member Koleen Kollar-Kotelly, proud to be cowed and conservative, did her part to cover up the Bushie email hiding/destruction.
Handing CREW, Attorney and former AUSA Melanie Sloan’s Organization a defeat in district court, alleging that the Office of Administration (OA) is not an agency, the Judge further facilitated the coverup of the White House on a number of fronts that the emails could light up.
CREW RESPONDS TO COURT RULING THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION IS NOT AN AGENCY
D.C. District Court Judge Judge rules for White House in e-mail controversy
What I don’t get on this ruling is the difference between the FOIA and the Presidential Records Act. Can someone enlighten?
FOIA – allows citizens to request and access Executive Agency/Department records and documents from their government today and NOW. The government must respond within a narrow window of time or have an explanation as to why they can’t or why the information is priviledged.
PRA – ensures that all records created during a Presidential administration are saved, and, in time, available to the public on a schedule following the end of an Administration. Some Presidential records can take over 50 years to open up.
OT — Oklahoma overwhelmingly declares sovereignty in order to get out from under onerous and (the proponents assert) unconstitutionally imposed Federal mandates. Oklahoma legislature vote recorded here (92/3/6). They’re saying they don’t have to go along with certain idiocies of both this and prior Presidential administrations.
OT — I apologize, that’s not news, it happened on 3/13/2008. Please excuse.
Yeah, but how’d that work out for them?
I don’t know. Still a state…
Does that mean they secede? Can we just say okay bye now?
No, secession would be wholly different. From reading the text of the resolution, the OK legislature would appear to be attempting to put the State Federal relationship back on what they regard as a more Constitutional footing by shaking off what they evidently regard as excessive Federal mandates imposed by this and recent Presidential administrations. I’m certain many, many folks would agree with the perspective.
Has Obama – either directly or through surrogates – given any indication of how or if he intends to follow up the Plame/Liddy affair, or any of the various dozens of other scandals?
He hasn’t been specific and no candidate would be specific at this point in time, and given that Plame still has a civil case on appeal with Melanie Sloan as one of her lead attorneys, and Pat the Fitzie Fitz still uses your money to keep his Special Counsel Office Open for who knows what down the pike, it’s hard for any candidate to be specific.
And *g* you have wrongs the magnitude of Hugh’s gigantic lists and EW’s blogs about them so there are a voluminous potential of wrongs to try to correct.
Again, though, much of the real lifting is up to Congress as to oversight and correcting of a lot of these issues, and real oversight has yet to occur.
Second question: assuming Mukasey ignores the request, does he open himself to charges of obstruction of justice in the future?
The pardon list grows right here before our very own eyes.
PetePierce, could you turn your feelings down just a tad? Because you’re getting awfully close to
s
c
r
o
l
l
.
I haven’t even projected my feelings. I reported decisions. I reported that Conyers and Waxman have had no success in enforcing subpoenas.
So could you be specific about precisely what content bothers you instead of projecting your discomfort at my name?
If there is something specific you take issue with I’ve said here-
Perhaps you think Senate Judiciary and House Judiciary and House Oversight haven’t had their subpoenas thrown in the trash, or perhaps you think D.C. District Court did not hand Crew an email case defeat this morning, or perhaps you think that Congress has no role in oversight and among the many foreign policy messes Obama will inherit, he is supposed to say specfically now what he’ll do to repair a Constitution that has been attacked and shreded for eight years.
Your graphic is interesting although I don’t understand the meaning of it.
How about you PJ Evans, do you have anything specific as to content that you want to comment on?
HJC has subpoenaed Rove to answer questions on the hijacking and politicization of DOJ. He has refused despite his attorney Luskin’s promise he would show.
HJC has and Congress have held Harriet Miers in Josh Bolton in contempt and nothing has happened nor will happen as their civil contempt effort winds through the D.C. Circuit possibly to be heard by an S. Ct. with a different composition 2 years from now.
Senatate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for Rove and Bolten and held them in Contempt with approval of the Senate. Nothing substantive has followed.
I’ve made those points. I fail to see any point you’re making except you don’t like me making the points.
Do you have any specific comment on the subpoenas by those committees or by Waxman’s or on the decision by the D.C. District court because those have been the topic of my comments.
To pose as some supervisor who wants a comment toned down is of no help whatsoever. Why not make your own comment on the subjects and your own criticisms butressed with fact?
bate
Wow…how fast do you type anyway??!
The nice list of abject (intentional) failures on the Dems’ part is precisely why I believe that the Democraps should be ignored and not given any coverage for their faux moves to do the right thing. It is all a lie, one after another after another, intended to obtain a pat on the head from the base and that is it. Sadly, the base all too often falls for this cute trick and DOES give them pats on the head and a promise to vote for them come the November election.
I myself am literally leaning towards specifically and intentionally voting AGAINST the Dems (rather than for anyone) specifically because they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The thing that will seal it for me, absolutely and unequivocally, is if they pass telecom immunity and the rest of the atrocity that goes with that. They do that and as far as I’m concerned, the Dem party is dead and I will do my utmost to help bury it. It is stinking up the government with its rotting corpse and I’m sick of smelling it day in and day out.
They have to actually EARN my vote with REAL action and REAL substance from now on instead of mealymouthed pandering and hollow words.
It is true that the Democratic Congress has been abysmal as to delivering substance for eight years whether in the narrow majority or minority. I think you should be careful though in lumping Obama’s potential with them (yep he is a Senator but one of his most ambitious initatives was blocked and Clinton was one of the blockers on getting a stronger Ethics law.
You can take a look at your Congress and Senate candidates and try to make an informed decision. If you think McCain is the way to go, I’d try reading a little bit of his flip flop positions on Cliff’s blog or FDL or the panoply of blogs linked on their pages or EW’s including Glenn Greenwald’s.
I think Cboldt’s comments the other night on what’s going on with FISA on one of the EW threads are dead on and comport with your comment as to inaction, but don’t give any reasons for your choice to use a McCain vote to vote against the Dems.
I am not lumping Obama in with all the Dems. Where I live, the Democraps are as functional as shoes on a corpse in a coffin. They SUCK. Furthermore, I literally would go so far as to call them “treasonous” in the true sense of the word rather than the Naziesque manner of using the word that the Rethugs use it. I mean “treasonous” in that they ARE violating their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Senator Bayh is a traitor to the United States, for instance. He never saw a bill violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he didn’t support.
I will NOT vote for any Dems this year if retro immunity goes through. I stand on principle and in a very strong desire to see the Democrap party destroyed utterly in retaliation. For President, I will vote Green. For all other offices, I will vote anything and everything BUT Dem (or Rethug). There MUST be consequences for treasonous behavior from Democraps. They spit on their oath, then they need to be drummed out of office until someone is seated that will actually uphold and defend the goddamned Constitution by actually impeaching a criminal President when s/he violates federal laws (treaties, de facto federal law, etc). No ifs, ands, or buts. No prevaricating.
And never ever EVER voting to gut a single Amendment to the Constitution out of any perceived political expedient. If they wont do this last, then they MUST go because nothing can be worse. Literally. GOP or Dem, there is no difference when neither obeys the oath to the ONLY thing that matters: the Constitution.
I would add that I can give a name to a lot of the obstruction that has diluted the Dems efforts and it is Mitch McConnell.
You’re playing right into their hands.
Harry and Nancy will bury any liberal attempt at a third party. Do you think the Unions will follow liberals? Do you think the Black Caucus will follow liberals? Fuggedaboutit, they’re staying inside the big tent.
Do you think the media will pay any attention to third party liberals? You won’t get third party liberals nominated on a school district ballot, much less get them elected.
My point is more to defeat their attempts to gain seats (made up of fellow travelers) rather than give them the false claim that “the people support our non-actions!” They must pay for bad leadership, bad decisions, and violations of their oath of office. No ifs, ands, or buts. Rewarding crappy behavior and craven behavior begets more of the same.
Pelosi cannot be trusted and should go. Hoyer cannot be trusted and must go. Emmanuel cannot be trusted and must go. Every single Dem that pretends to hold the Admin accountable and, as examples of this, points to sternly-worded letters MUST GO.
Action, not kabuki.
Here here! Unfortunately this country’s collective indifference has chosen the option of kabuki but I certainly have always agreed. Read Cboldt’s comments a few thread’s back on FISA and Cboldt is about as impartial as they come. He is the paradox of someone hugely talented, well versed in the law and the arcane procedures of the Senate and Congress, who knows the kabuki workings in fantastic depth, yet still follows every action in the Senate on his blog with dedicated meticulous detail.
Pete I am with you on this and P.J. that does not mean I am against you just what you said. Strong language and outrage is overdue when it comes to the crimes committed by the Bush administration and Pelosi and others complacent “impeachment if off the table” attitudes should infuriate Americans. How many times have I heard folks wonder out loud “where is the outrage” Well Pete shares some of his and thank “fookin” goodness.
The other day in Athens Ohio I was at service station filling up. Ran into a dear friend Professor Chuck Overby. Chuck is a retired enginerring professor and a WWII and Korean Vet who was a pilot during both wars. Chuck hates the Bush administration and I do mean hates what they have done. When he was unable to fill up without walking in and paying he lost it, started screaming “do you think an 80 year old man is going to run away after they have filled up?” I then began to feed his fury shouting “tell us like it is Chuck” He began to scream about the Bush administration and how “fucked up they were” “what criminals they were”. I let folks know who were around in big southeastern Ohio trucks that this guy was a VEt and and put his own ass on the line (unlike Bush Cheney and the majority of the Bush administration). By the end of Chucks outrage “the Bush administration are taking you to the cleaners as well as taking the lives of your relavtives and the Iraqi people” Horns were honking and five local kinda guys were thumbing up and smiling and Chuck was feeling a whole lot better by sharing his understandable “OUTRAGE”.
Our nation needs more of this not less. Go Pete Go Professor Chuck Overby!
I think we know that that is not true. He hardly cost anything in the first place, and he would only be charging something now if he reactivated for some reason … which, if it happened, would be immensely encouraging to us all.
Wrong Scadadl. He costs a great deal at Special Counsel and all those attorneys are paid salaries. They also have special investigators assigned to their office, and they have press personnel.
It costs a substantial amount. I have said many times Fitz is one of the better litigators at DOJ but I have said he stopped short of indicting Rove and he should have and I don’t think anyone here knows why he didn’t.
I would be delighted to try to total the current costs of Fitz’s Special Counsel Office in D.C. if you can’t understand it from Canada.
The fact that Libby was not indicted for leak related offenses sure as hell does not mean that he cannot be on some future date.
Plame’s office was in the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are); she was definitely covert, and Fitz or some other proseuctor has a lot of work to do.
These investigations and prosecutions and a Special Counsel’s office costs in the millions and unless you use that for valet parking on the weekend, that’s a lot of money. It’s not being covered by Canadian taxes though, so in that respect it’s nothing to you.
My guess is that he was fully planning on indicting Rove along with Libby, and then Rove claimed he had new information. I think Fitz rolled his eyes at that and said, “Fine, we’ll have you testify again.” And I think Rove testified again, and really didn’t do anything to convince Fitz or the GJ that he wasn’t lying his ass off. And I think he WOULD have been indicted even then, were it not for the fact that Richard Armitage was reminded by Bob Woodward that he betrayed Plame’s identity to Woodward, and Woodward had tapes. There was no way to try Rove without having Rove’s lawyers call Armitage to testify, and then you would have to explain to a jury why Rove was being charged for “forgetting” about his conversation with Cooper, but Armitage was NOT being charged for “forgetting” about his conversation with Woodward.
This may be very accurate. I wish we had access to those hidden/discarded emails, and the FBI interviews and the 302s. Executive Privilege and the State Secrets doctrine are being given so much overwhelming deference by the Courts that any greater good for the American people are being thrown overboard. You add to that the obstruction by Republicans in Congress and finding out what went on becomes an almost insurmountable task.
we ain’t prosecuting armatige because bob woodward has a security clearance
woodward is a “former” naval intelligence officer
ain’t exactly kosher, but woodward has authorization to have such information. And woodward didn’t publish the information or pass it along to another reporter
solve that mystery for ya ???
Woodward has a CURRENT security clearance? WTF?
I heard Woodward all over the MSM (CNN, NPR) undermining the Plame outing. All the time knowing that he had been one of the reporters who had been leaked to. I saw him on Larry King LIve say the Plame outing “Was much ado about nothing”
Media matters has a great article about how many times Woodward undermined the Plame outing without revealing that he was one of the reporters that had been leaked to.
Wash. Post’s Woodward’s misleading, disingenuous statements on Plame investigation Nov 16 2005
“On the October 17 edition of CNN’s Larry King Live, Woodward said of Fitzgerald: “And there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this, but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean, I used to call [Newsweek investigative correspondent] Mike Isikoff, when he worked at The Washington Post, the junkyard dog. Well, this is a junkyard-dog prosecutor, and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.” At no point did Woodward disclose that he, too, was a “rock” he did not want Fitzgerald to turn over.
Woodward also defended syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally made Plame’s identity public in a July 14, 2003, column but has since refused to identify his source. Woodward was quoted in a December 1, 2004, Editor & Publisher article saying that “Bob Novak has taken a stand that is supported by many in the press,” adding, “He is protecting his sources. He has done nothing that is illegal or improper.”
At no point in making these comments did Woodward note that he had a specific and personal interest in Fitzgerald’s inquiry: Even as Fitzgerald was subpoenaing reporters, Woodward knew that his testimony, in which he too would presumably be forced to reveal his sources, would have been significant to the investigation.”
On several occasions, Woodward dismissed the controversy as much ado about nothing or opined that he saw no evidence of a crime — again, without disclosing that he had a personal interest in the course the investigation took and in an ultimate determination that it was, in fact, “much ado about nothing.” On the July 7 broadcast of National Public Radio’s Fresh Air, Woodward said: “There was no national security threat. There was no jeopardy to her life. There was no nothing. When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great.”
Really twisted that Woodward has National Security Clearance with an attitude like that and so willing to undermine such a serious investigation having to do with National Security. Sure makes you wonder who Bob Woodward has been working for when he paints Valerie Plame Wilson’s outing as “much ado about nothing”
No, it doesn’t. Rove would’ve been charged with lying to the Feds and perjury, just like Libby was, NOT an IIPA violation. Rove’s defense would be that he “forgot” his conversation with Matt Cooper, which is why he didn’t tell anyone about it. That defense would have been bolstered by the fact that Richard Armitage also “forgot” his conversation with Bob Woodward, and they could have said, “See? People forget leaking state secrets to reporters all the time! And Rove had no idea she was covert! Honest!.” I’ve followed this case pretty closely, and I think Rove’s a lying shitbag, but even I would have a hard time not seeing “reasonable doubt” there.
Libby, on the other hand, was running around saying things like he learned it as if it was new. That was a bald-faced lie, and he got busted for it.
Woodward has played an underhanded game in this investigation. Trumping Fitz’s ability to nail Rove down and then publicly undermining the investigation. Then telling the public that there has not been any damage. WTF?
The role Woodward played in this has definitely made me question his supposed “maverick” journalistic skills in regard to Watergate.
The roles Novak and Woodward played in this investigation makes me wonder about a Official Secrets Act. I mean when journalist obviously have some other agenda than getting accurate info to the public and undermine National Security in the process of outing an underoover agent…these “alleged” journalist should suffer some serious consequences.
There was a grand total of $187,420 spent for the six month period that ended September 30, 2007 (i.e. April-September 2007) for the Office of Special Counsel. There was a fair amount of activity to attend to during that period including the entire preparation for and litigation of the sentencing of Libby and related matters attendant to Bush’s subsequent pardon. That is quite simply an ASTONISHINGLY frugal amount for all of that work in light of transcript costs, travel, lodging, etc.
Since that time, I do not have specific figures on the SC expenditures, but my understanding is that they have been nominal at most, and are comprised almost entirely of nominal office rental (and Fitz reduced the amount of space down literally to a tiny office) and a couple of phone and computer lines.
So bottom line is any argument that Fitzgerald and the SC is costing anything noticeable is pure baloney.
What has it produced that has impacted the leak of clandestine operatives by the President of the US, the VP, and Karl Rove. Not a damn thing. Any claims that it has are pure balony.
Libby as you know well was convicted for perjury. He was not charged with the major crime committed by these people. And as to pissing away money, perhaps Fitz’s Special Counsel operation is small potatotes, but the fact remains that you will defend a lot of people accused of things that have nowhere near damaged this country to the degree that Rove, Cheney, and Bush have and they haven’t been touched.
Rove’s mouth runs anytime there’s a TV camera in front of it. He hides from any oversight committee after flashing them the bird.
Time will tell as to what Fitz is doing and why. I have never said he’s not a talented litigator who works hard; I fully agreed with your paragraph accurately summarizing his work and the obstacles the other night, but Rove, Bush and Cheney are skating and Fitz should have prosecuted Rove at the very least and he should still prosecute Libby for facilitating the leak of the ID of a clandestine CIA agent and her fellow agents. There very well may have been more than one or several deathsas a result of this deliberate vendetta driven leak.
And none of this has escaped you for a nanosecond–that I know.
Well time will tell if anything else comes out of it; my guess is there will not be directly; my point is simply that it is costing almost literally nothing at this point for the office to remain open, and that has been the case since last fall. I don’t know what, if anything he is doing, but it ain’t costing us anything, so i am happy for him to leave the office “open” as opposed to closing it. It is not like Ken Starr and his bunch of rubes milking the government; so who cares? My guess is that it is a couple of thousand a month going out; that is chicken feed.
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08541.html
GAO audit of Specail Counsel’s expenditures. Pete, you are simply wrong on your facts
Interesting figure, and I agree, it’s truly curiously low. So I’m curious. So here’s a question (that likely only shows my ignorance): Is there any possibility that Fitz’ office’s investigation(s) have been continuing apace, but with some different funding source?
What is that the cost of one second in Iraq?
LHP if I may. What is your take on why John Dean publicly took a shot at Patrick Fitzgerald and said that he had often thought that Fitz might have been “out of his league”…”outfoxed” in the Plame outing investigation. Why did Dean publicly target Fitz and not Congress?
Again Leen he’s frustrated. I think most people would agree that Fitz is one of the most principled and better litigators DOJ has going. He’s also probably a team player which has created (to me) a conflict with Fitz. I’d love for Comey to write a tell all book and Fitz too but we won’t see them for a while.
I don’t think Fitz has resolved in his mind whether he’s through with Plamegate, but maybe he has.
Inherent contempt for Mukasey seems pretty unlikely. I thought there was a better chance of getting Rove under that. Sending the Sergeant at Arms to the DOJ to arrest the AG is just too provocative.
I think it’s delightful. I’d like to see a missle faceoff. In the most serious tone, I don’t see any of these subpoenas or contempt citations yielding anything. I always appreciate and consider it a privilege to get Marcy’s take on it and the commenters’ impressions, but I’ve just seen too many subpoenas, too many contempt citations go nowhere George.
Back in the day a subpoena from these commitees and contempt actually meant something and had teeth. But now the courts or cowed by 911 and that’s a premise for every chicken decision they make.
I want to remind you that when State Secrets was claimed in the a number of appeals, there were not four cert votes in the Supreme Court for a hearing and I though that was very ominous. I’m talking Sybil Edmonds, the torture case of someone innocent who was rendered, etc.
You will recall this blog by Marcy:
If You Keep Getting Stopped at Airports, That’s Not a Secret
The Sargeant at Arms has not used his power in 74 years. If not now, when?
The thought crossed my mind earlier today — how much are we paying this supposed “Sergeant at Arms”? It sounds like he has a plum assignment if he is not accountable, or have anything to do… Why is this person in the budget if he doesn’t do anything?
Tradition. Remember Congress is big on tradition, whether it’s reasonable, sensible, or totally off-the-wall.
(Heck, I belong to a group with an honorary-and-perpetual sergeant-at-arms, among other honorary officers. We have our own traditions: Death Does Not Release Us.)
Times a wastin we need “provacative” We need them to follow what you lawyer folks call the “rule of law” When the “fook” is this going to happen? Enough! ENOUGH!
I hope Code Pink folk stage a demonstration outside Mukasey’s house if he does not hand the documents over. Citizens arrest!
Out of respect for EW, I shall control my temper. I also will not do anyone else’s research for him when he is so writing wildly.
((((( Skdadl )))))
Tact is also something that costs us nothing but has tremendous value, especially here.
Again, I’ve followed these special counsel and Independent Counsel investigations for years from the US. They cost a helluva lot of time, money, man hours on the part of DOJ personnel, the Office of Independent (when we had it) and special counsel, and it can run close to a hundred million bucks as it did in White Water which yielded as Gore said angrily to Russert not a damn thing except the jailing of Susan McDougald for contempt, her husband with no record of drug use whatsoever having a fatal MI during the stress of being forced to try to pee into a cup while two morons from BOP were watching him, and 4 people like Amy St. Eve getting the reward of a federal trial bench or appellate bench from Bushie.
So while you allude to your “research” invoking your temper do you mind sharing your “research” that Fitz’s prosecution and investigation costed nearl “nothing.” In fact his appeal efforts by his staff costed many thousands of dollars. The entire Special Counsel Office thus far has spent a good deal of money.
Do you mind sharing your source(s) of information. They’d be very illuminating.?
Have you ever been involved in a federal appeal in this country?
Ken Starr cost $30 million.
Pat Fitz less than $2 million and most of that was NOT an out of pocket expenditure it was an accounting fiction. PatFitz and and the other members of his team were alread federal employees and got paid only their regular federal salaries.
The “salary” cost in his buget was an allotment of a percentage of the salaries they owuld have been paid anyway over to the Specail Counsel budget. BUT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER.
The rest of the buget was ofice rent, office supplies and mailgs cost, and travel. You know, schlepping back and forth from Chicago.
Regular salaries would be a different funding source (per me @ 69). Do we know no relevant investigation is being pursued on regular salaries (because it falls within the job descriptions governing the regular salaries), for example a related matter discovered during the Scooter investigation?
All we know is that PatFitz has publicly said he has shut down except for answering inquiries from Congress and unless soemthing new comes along.
I don’t know if Scot McClelllan’s book fits the bill or not. I don’t know if there is information in the book that is new to the investigation.
Thanks, LHP.
By the way, I’m slightly curious: other than the late Mr. Russert, do we have any other deceased fact witnesses?
Well, there is that star that appeared on the wall at the CIA. I have no idea if those rumors are true or not.
No idea what you mean here, bmaz, but it’s certainly intriguing. Might I trouble you for a link or micro-recap?
I got this on teh Google for you. I would like to again assert that i was being a tad flippant when I said that above; I have no idea whatsoever about the truth or falsity of the rumor.
(Not sure whether this has gone OT or not; if so, apologies) — Thanks, bmaz. Very interesting. CIA itself sez there is definitely an anonymous star though of course since the name and details are classified, it can’t be clearly tied to the VPW leak. Some folks think it appears to be in the appropriate timeframe though. Hayden, who (at the risk of stating the obvious) can’t exactly be considered uncompliant to Administration concerns, presided over the ceremony, so can be presumed to have participated in the decision to classify/obfuscate this one.
According to this Kos comment quoting CNN, there appear to have been contemporaneous leaks claiming there was “damage”:
You mean wo testified at trial? I don’t think so. Anybody else who may have been interviewed in the course of the investigation? I don’t know, nor does anybody I don’t think out side the investiagtion, know the ID’s of all interviewees.
Well, I was thinking about the whole investigation, but now that you mention it, you’re right, we don’t know who-all appeared at the GJ, much less who-all was interviewed.
Huh. From teh Google it would appear that Russert was autopsied on the day he died, and though his own doctor announced the autopsy results, and apparently observed, it’s not clear (due to the passive construction ‘autopsy was performed’) who actually performed the autopsy. Anybody heard?
In many states all autopsies are done by the office of medical examiner.
The patient’s own GP or internist wouldn’t really have the expertise. You need a forensic pathologist. BTW, (and I say this as a person who has spent many hours touring water pollution control plants and large bore sewers) one of the worst smells inthe world, the ME’s office. Just a bad bad smell
Boy howdy, you got that right. Stinky and creepy joints they are.
Well, that’s rather interesting, because Teh Google says Russert’s autopsy was performed at the hospital where he was taken for the emergency care.
There are different levels of autopsy. My guess is they only were hot to examine the heart/cardio core here due to his history. Not unheard of for the medical examiner to go to the facility to do something like that; although it sure isn’t an everyday occurrence.
I have seen a lot of comments on this thread about Tim Russert’s autopsy/cause(s) of death. It’s believed that he had asymptomatic CAD for years, and treadmills, and the panopoly of other tests can often miss plaque. MRI of the coronary arteries is not yet routine’ it’s a work in progress, and it is dependent upon a number of factors including the lumen diameter of the coronary arteries.
Russert is said to have had a fresh embolus in the LAD causing a fatal MI. Sometimes there is time for an embolectomy, a so-called Transradial Intracoronar Cathete-Aspiration Embolectomy and here there wasn’t, unfortunately.
One important autopsy fact that is not communicated enough is that if there is concommitant MI or MI as a result of the coronary thrombosis, it takes over 12 hours for minimal muscle damage to occur structurally/anatomically to show up under a scope let alone grossly because it takes time for the inflammatory response to develop and the polys to group. Evidence of MI on autopsy also depends on the extent of muscle involved.
The timing and histologic findings of AMI on autopsy are detailed here
Histology of AMI
In Tim Russert’s case, unless he had previously undetected lower grade MI’s that were asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, there would not have been time for these findings to occur or even time for tropin levels in the blood to reflect what might have been going on.
uh oh, tin foil time, and cheney is with no doubt a sociopath
Tryin’ real hard not to go there, just tryin’ to find out whether the autopsy reporter is known, and if known, is a reliable person.
I ME’s can get into cars. Hospital Forensic Pathologits can be on contract with the ME’s office.
It’s not like Crossing Jordan or CSI. It’s much more mundane.
Good point. If it was a large hospital, there is undoubtedly a staff pathologist certified and under an as needed contract to the county.
In case like Russert’s, the hospital where he died will usually insist on an autopsy before the attending signs the death certificate. Nobody wants any doubt about the cause of death for a celebrity.
Hmmm, on further mulling:
1. Doesn’t “except for answering inquiries from Congress” read an awful lot like “Oh I know! I know! Call on me! Me!”
2. Let’s do hope Mr. McClellan’s book and/or interview statements while promoting same constitute “something new”. Certainly HJC thinks so, otherwise his appointment book for June 20 would be considerably more open.
3. Do we know the last date when PFitz (or his office) said they were shut down?
He has said on several occassions that the office was for all intents and purposes shut down.
Yes, it does sound like “ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, pick me!”
Further when Big Hank Waxman invited the Fitzmonster in for an informal chat, Pat made a point of saying that he had been “reminded” by the office of legislative affirs that all decisions about what the Dept shares with COngress go through them.
Which is why he should have been goven a nice fat butt covering subpeona.
Exactly. It is crap like that that makes me wonder how hard they are trying. I am a little hick in the desert and I knew that one. WTF?
It may be something as stoopid as not wanting to appear to disrespect him. Normally, the good guys come in to testify w/o subpeona.
It’s only the naughty ones and hte ones you want to publicly humilate that get the process server treatment.
That’s why there was so much Sturm und Drang when the fired USA’s wanted subpeonas. It’s just “not how it’s done”.
A subpeona would crystalize a whole bunch of things and would allow Pat to apply for an order unsealing the GJ minutes. you know, to comply with legal process?
Oh, I understand completely, but in light of Charlton et. al, it almost seems like it would be a good thing to do here and would have been positive cover for him. Of course I would have preferred that they throw in a little duces tecum language for his files…. (yes, I know I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. h/t John Lennon)
I find the failure to issue a subpeona to Pat very frustrating. It may well be that there is some back story that we don’t know about. Like the possibility of Mukasey firing him if Congress pushes too hard. There could be something really out in left feild. We don’t know
Wonder if Fitz has the integrity or the kahunas to hand over the documents anyway if the big boys say no, no no? You know pull a Daniel Ellsburg.
I mean Fitz is the one who gave us all that hooey about truth and our Judicial system. Let’s see how did that go Fitz ” truth is the engine of our judicial system”. Fitz also told us to “take a deep breath and allow the system to work” and that the Vice President has a “cloud” over him . We have been holding our breaths for a long fucking time and doing everything that is possible for responsible and deeply concerned citizens to do. So far it appears the Judicial system has had a train wreck and the engine has gone up in flames.
Sorry I get worked up but I have been hanging out with a bunch of old teamster WWII Vets this winter (you know the guys who put their lives on the line for this country and who have worked 45 years paying into a system that screws them royally at the end of their lives). These are the guys who get huge tears in their eyes and lumps in their throats when they talk about the young soldiers lives who have been destroyed by this unnecessary war in Iraq and screwed when they return.
What these guys are suggesting that should happen to the Bush warmongers can not be repeated here.
Fitz isn’t likely to do anything to jeopardize his ability to practice law. If he can find a legal way to tell what he knows, he probably will. He did suggest that Congress invite him to testify.
The one thing we know is new is the story of Libby and ROve comparing notes in July 2005 (because it happened after Scottie testified). But that’s not enough to reopen an investigation on. The other stuff, McC describes testifying to.
Though if Scottie tells an interesting story about discussions after Bush admitted to autohrizing the NIE on Friday, things might get interesting.
I’m getting the popcorn and the stingers ready to watch that performance.
Don’t put all your popcorn kernels in one fake-butter-laced bucket. Remember, this is still HJC we’re talking about, which doesn’t have the best track record for effective hearings.
too true that. But Scotty seems to want to confess and clean his conscience. Perhaps he will lead the blind.
Oh, and the stinger is to deal with the probable disappointment and frustration.
Drat … when are they going to appoint one person to do the questioning ?
What time does the show start ? Should we get 3-D glasses ?
*ducks and runs*
not sure. I think 10 am. But I’m sure that it will be adequately announced here and at FDL. I hope the servers are ready.
I saw Scotty on some news show right after it came out that he was going to testify before Congress. Hefirst said that his book contained the sum of his testimony. A couple days later he backed off that and said the bok was consitant with his GJ testimony.
I’m wondering how many more details are in the book than were in his testimony.
Not that he necessarily held back in the GJ, but it’s differnt talking from memory rather than having the luxury to go and check your facts before committing words to paper.
The book would necessarily be more fullsome.h
True.
Except the stuff that is more detailed than what he said he testified to/was asked about is not all that interesting. Does the fact that Allen called Rove after being told, off the record, who the two leakers were constitute enough to reopen the investigation? Nope. It is interesting though.
The one exception I’d add–which is rather significant–is that Scottie said unambiguously that the Cheney exoneration call went from Cheney to Bush, not to Andy Card. Fitz was unclear on this in the trial, so it may be stated more strongly in the book than in his testimony.
Also note, Scottie is either lying or really really evading the truth in his book. I hope, for his sake, he was more honest in his GJ testimony.
But there’s the possibility that he’ll be backed into a hole about his evasiveness on Friday.
BTW, I totally agree on your take on Scott’s book that he is still protecting/in denial about Bush. In the book e keeps making excuses for Shrub about how Shrub had all these noble ideas and the “peranent campaign” would let shrub be shrub.
Like the permanent campaign was a person with magic powers
Is his testimony Thursday or Friday?
LHP–
If Fitz get’s a subpoena from Waxman, Conyers, or Laehy and he should have, OLC will tell him to disregard it in all probability. I haven’t seen McCasey responsive to anything yet and he has 8 more months to continue to be unresponsive.
It sure does. Which makes it all the more frustrating that Waxman can’t get the interviews of all WH personnel including Kathie Martin and the FBI 302s and 302As.
I wonder what other impression Scott McClelland’s book made on you, and how it impacts your perception of the Plame investigation, the Libby case, and work left undone/that could be done/that should be done.
Pat Fitz’s SC office is definitely open now. If the investigation has closed, it hasn’t been shared with the public but then almost no scintilla of any information has been shared with us since Mukasey left Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP to begin his concerted coverup of Bush criminality and DOJ criminality.
Pat Fitz was appointed and opened his office on December 30, 2003. The GAO report you linked covered a 6 months period from 6 months March 30, 2007 ended September 30, 2007. I’m not sure what the point of taking a fraction of months is in an office whose costs began 4.5 years ago. 6 months is 11.1% of the time that office has been open.
Whitewater didn’t yield much at all in the way of scalps; and it’s enormous expense didn’t stop the hemorrhage of money from the activities in the White Water schemes nor did it get it back.
Ray claimed in his report closing the investigation it was $60 but it actually cost very close to $95 million. It yielded very little in terms of scalps as I said. And the figures we differ on(yours is half of what Ray called the cost in his report (who was one of Starr’s assistant’s as you know) don’t even begin to calculate the indirect costs of the investigation The indirect costs are a multiple of that, in terms of the diversion, the time spent, the cost to individuals, the payment of attorney fees by honest government employees who have been put through the wringer, and many innocent people called before the grand jury repeatedly and harassed who had costs for attorneys that could be a sizable percentage payment on a home mortgage.
Pat Fitz less than $2 million and most of that was NOT an out of pocket expenditure it was an accounting fiction.
Can I take an accounting fiction and pay my hotel bill at the NYC Four Seasons? The office is still open and I don’t know where you got your figure fictional or real dollars. Let me know the next purchase you purchase by whipping fiction out of your purse.
The people who worked on the appeals for Fitz and the attorneys at trial were not being paid only a regular AUSA salary from some other jurisdiction and laboring for love. I wonder if you remember the large suit the AUSAs lost a few years back suing DOJ for overtime in the D.C. Circuit that went to the D.C. Court of Appeals?
The “salary” cost in his buget was an allotment of a percentage of the salaries they owuld have been paid anyway over to the Specail Counsel budget. BUT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER.
If you waltz down to Avenue “A”, check out the many shell games on the street because that little ball is under one of the shells at all times.
There is still schlepping and the results remain to be seen. Your points are fully taken as to evidence but I will always maintain Fitz could have and should have been able to nail Libby already, and we both know that Libby can certainly be prosecuted for the leak of a clandestine CIA agent. I know you read McClellan’s book, but I don’t think you’ve posted whether his revelations and his lies in the book changed your outlook on criminal liability of the players in the leak in the White House.
Ahh Whitewater. That was the investigation where LHP claimed that it was common place for the US attorney’s offices in various districts to subpoena documents and just roll over for months or years like a scared puppy. I can site hundreds of cases where DOJ raided and tossed homes and businesses within a relatively short period of time after people stiffed them.
Amy St. Eves jailed Tony Rezko after he refused to turn over documents. She ordered Rezko jailed in late January, after he failed to disclose a $3.8 million wire transfer he got from Lebanon. That money originated with Iraq-born billionaire Nahdmi Auchi, who bought Rezko’s interest in a 62-acre South Loop parcel. She freed him after 2.5 months when 30 of his friends pledged their homes as property equity for a total value of $8 million. During that time what the public always fails to realize but DOJ lawyers and alumnae know full well, Rezko’s ability to communicatge with his attorney was all but foreclosed because phone contact was limited by BOP and visits by the attorney were limited severely.
At no time was access to any legal resources limited during this 2.5 months or the entire trial by Fitz’s team in ND Illinois, with the full funding of DOJ at their disposal. Yeah they have budgets, and have to get request approved, but they are damn deep because heh they’re you’re frigging money.
Ken Starr cost us $95 million conservatively. He costed us the reward of four Federalist martinets from his office now on the federal bench–Amy St. Eves a case in point. We won’t even get into the medically dangerous litigation she propelled while corporate counsel at Abbott after leaving DOJ at least here now. Let’s just say Amy wasn’t on the side of the medically consuming public pharmacologically speaking.
Another loser who has done the most damage to the Constitution and this country from WW staff roster is Mike Chertoff who took his incompetence on the 3rd Circuit bench into DHS where he now pushes a million person no fly list, a dozen secret agencies to watch you in your home and tape every phone call from your home and law office and cell on the go, and to intercept every one of your emails sent and received at all your different aliases.
Viet D. Dinh former Assistant AG at DOJ has been lobbying hard for four years for a judicial appointment, after helping trash the Constitution at DOJ, and he turned his DOJ website into a cheerleading camp for Bush judicial nominees even though DOJ is supposed to be non-partisan. The idea there of course was quid pro quo–I’ll push you from DOJ and you make sure you alwaydecide every motion in our favor. I can pull up scores of websites that Viet Dihn hijacked to explicitly cheerlead for a Republican judician candidate. It was totally inappropriate for the Assistant AG of DOJ to promote a particular judicial candidate for the bench since they are litigating before the federal bench in every criminal trial and appeal as well as civil rights issues from DOJ, and the insipdly inexperienced Monica her Twitness Goodling (never litigated a traffic ticket except her own) appointments to immigration judgeships of individuals who have never litigated a nanosecond in Immigration Court nor in any other federal court.
Hillary Clinton voted against VD being confirmed Assistant AG because of his role at WW.
The infamous Alice Fisher was a former White Water investigation employee. Fortunately Fisher is back at Latham and Watkins, and her ass should be in prison for obstruction of justice.
Julie Myers now at the White House was one of the many White Water lulapalooza employees.
$30 million of the taxpayers money to catch Clinton for lying under oath about an extra marital affair. = Convicted…Impeach
$2 million of the taxpayers money to try to catch the gang of traitors (how many participated in Plames outing…23?) who purposely outed an undercover agent.= Commutation
These are the priorities of our nation. This is what our children are watching. Unfuckingbelievable!
Marcy one noit to pick. The waxman letter says he want FBI reports of interviews.
Those are not “transcripts’
They are FBI form 302, memoranda written in the agents words not verbatim transcripts of what the witness actually said.
Your title is just ever so slighty not on target.
In the case of Bush and Cheney, it was Fitzy himself that did the
interviewing. Am I right on this?
So, the story goes.
So does congress have the right and responsibility to ask for the actual transcripts and not the F.B.I. reports about the interviews?
They’ve asked for both.
On CSpan 1 right not a panel discussion from the ACS, American Constitution Society (?)
on what needs to happen in the DOJ in the next administration. Decent panel. Worth watching.
He needs solid evidence for that, or someone needs to roll over on Karl.
This was discussed, at great length, last year.
Maybe you missed it?
No I have not missed it PJ; I have gone after archive threads from EW many many times and pasted them into emails to myself for faster retrieval. I consider EW’s post an extension of her previous book and a preview of her future ones. It’s a lot of well written material though and I have to go back and review it and sometimes I have to google like hell to context some of it so it takes time. But it’s a great source.
I have spent a good deal of relative time trying to figure out why Rove was not prosecuted. I think the evidence is there.
The emails and the graymails or greymails if you prefer, sure do muddle the situation.
Because we are not being allowed to see the interviews as well as the FD302s (FD 302s are the notes the FBI uses to summarize their interviews and Marcy refers to them or Forms for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony; 302As are continuations of these notes) of not only Bush and Cheney but Rove and Cathie Martin and a number of other WH employees we are further at arm’s length or in the dark.
Well, let’s speculate on who should be top dogs in Obama’s DOJ.
AG: Whitehouse?
Criminal Division: ? Fitzgerald?
Civil Rights: ?
OLC: Lederman?
If we don’t like what we’ve got, who would do it better?
Janet Napolitano that is who.
Fill us in on why.
Napolitano is not just well versed and experienced with constitutional law and civil rights, she has sizable experience not only as the Arizona Attorney General (pretty big office) and as Arizona governor, but she was the US Attorney for the District of Arizona as well. The job ahead is going to, in addition to the legal skills, require someone with Federal experience and the established ability to manage a giant bureaucracy. She has a pretty rare combination of background and experience to fit that bill. One, she has actually run an USA office very successfully, and two, she has very successfully led several bureaucracies (AZ AG, AZ USA, and the State of AZ s governor). The attention to bureaucratic detail, not just in DC, but in all of the 93 or whatever USA offices is going to have to be immense. There is a lot of wholesale institutional change that needs to be implemented and malefactors rooted out. I think she has this ability in droves over any other mentioned candidate for AG. she is spectacularly good at bureaucratic detail and getting big entities working as an efficient team, and she has a very feel good aura around her. There are a lot of things at play here other than just having somebody you respect and admire. she is every bit as impressive as Whitehouse in terms of legal skills I guarantee you, and her skills at maneuvering a bureaucracy are far more accomplished.
Hired!
You’re quite a salesman bmaz. I mean that in a good way.
Thanks! you answered my (impatient) question @86
Thanks bmaz, I had the same question. Interesting facts and nice analysis.
Janet Napolitano at Main Justice or as AG would be an immensely positive paradigm shift in so many areas. The damage is huge and it is systemic and it has multiplied exponentially at DOJ IMHO.
We have had a DOJ and an Executive Branch for nearly 8 years that has taken the stance it is beyond good and evil and the damage to DOJ and the fallout in the federal court system has been of epic proportions.
State Secrets should not be blocking getting at the truth. Neither should opinions like the email opinion in the D.C. district court this morning.
well, yeah, but what about her in particular makes you think she would be good there?
WRT protest voting: I fully understand not wanting to return ineffectual Dems to Congress. However, BTW, FWIW I’m registered Green but don’t generally vote Green for national offices. That’s because I know that even if all the registered Greens in the US plus (an overwhelmingly generous estimate:) 20% of the Dems were to vote for the Green candidate, that candidate could not win from a mathematical POV. Therefore — and I stress I am only offering the logic I use for myself, and in no way insisting anyone else look at it the same way — voting Green in a national office race is in my view very likely to take away a vote that in most cases would otherwise go to a Dem, thus strengthening the Rep candidate. This is the Nader 2000 problem. I’ve personally decided I will not support that dynamic. In my (admittedly aging, too-practical, and increasingly colander-like) mind it’s a question of choosing to contribute to the least bad outcome, vs. essentially abstaining on principle and as a reliably predictable side effect further enabling the Permanent Republican Majority. Can’t have that.
Keep this in mind Hmmmm. When Glenn Greenwald at Salon wrote about the IMMINENT capitulation on telecom immunity by the House Dems, “lead” by Hoyer (and by extension, supported by Pelosi), he asked a legitimate question: Since the Dems took control of Congress, can ANYONE name a single thing that has turned out differently than they would have if the GOP had retained control?
This is rhetorical, obviously, because there is NOTHING to identify the difference between the previous GOP Congress and the current Dem Congress. The same bills were passed in the same form they would have been had the GOP retained control, the same basic rights are being destroyed in exactly the same way they would have under the GOP, and the war is being funded and continued in EXACTLY the same way it would have had the GOP retained control.
I don’t want to hear any crap about “narrow majority” blah blah. BULLSHIT. The Dems control the agenda, they control what bills are brought to vote, they control the rules. They do NOTHING to change ANYTHING except in kabuki fashion and PURELY for wasted vote mongering for November. The problem is, their false actions give them NOTHING to actually recommend them for continued “control”. They are no different than the GOP, just whinier and pathetic rather than purely vile and disgusting.
That is what Jonathon Turley pointed out on Countdown a few weeks ago. That Pelosi and many of the rest of the Dems have been “complicit” with the Bush administration. “colluding” with the Bush administration.
Conyers sends Rove and Gold Bars a letter:
I would certainly staff Main Justice and the USA’s with the absolutely the best talent I could find. Not only does the department’s work justify it, it should be used as the model for revivifying the federal bureaucracy.
As a collateral matter, I would restore union membership rights to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees — many at DHS and the Pentagon — who were stripped of those rights by George W. Bush. The few exceptions, which Bush used as his public justification for his global anti-union policies, like covert field agents, could easily be dealt with by discrete exceptions. Not many Valerie Plames and James Bonds work out their grievances with ”M” by going on strike. But they might need union protections to make sure that a Cheney-like successor doesn’t strip them of their pensions or security clearances because they insisted on being professional rather than playing ball.
Off topic, but not entirely. Josh Marshall is bringing up Scott Bloch and it seems that some clarity is emerging as to his various activities.
I think both Marcy and lhp might find something here to mine.
So is the Spec Counsel’s office “in house” enough that Mukasey has care, custody and control of the docs instead of Fitzgerald? And does that imply that the delegation of oversight that sent from Comey to Margolis has somehow, since, migrated back to Mukasey. I’m just trying to keep straight how Mukasey became the go to for production.
LHP – what did you make of the multiple references in Fitzgerald’s letter to the fact that his delegated authority could be modified or revoked at any time, at will?
I know Sebellius gets a lot of press pump for an Obama admin position, but Napolitano is who impresses me.
Mukasey became the “go to” guy for production b/c Pat said in his letter that he had been “reminded” that all requests from Congress for info from DOJ get handled through the Office of Legislative Affairs. Translation: It’s not Pat’s decision to make whether or not Waxman or COnyers get the stuff they are asking for.
Not wasting time with underlings, they seem to have skipped up the chain to the boss of the guys at Leg Affairs.
The statement that he could have his comission revoked at any time may be him passing along a threat from higher up, or it could be nothing. The statement is literally true and is was the subject of litgation over his status ans an “inferior federal officer”
Could the “delegated authority could be modified or revoked at any time, at will” language be a dog whistle to come and get it while they still can?
I’m still waiting for a duces tecum to Luskin or Fitzgerald for the Rove “clearance” letter too. Unless Mukasey has control of those files now too?
Mukasey would not control Luskin’s file
why does anyone think subpeona will be honored?
if it’s honored at all they will simply redact the entire frigging transcript and say;
“there it is, everything else is priviledged”
we here are under the impression this president is bound by precedence or law, he is bound by neither and he will continue his lawless behavior until congress puts those how defy subpeona in jail
In Watergate that’s when they went to court and got the court to decide what, if any, [parts of the tapes were privledged. Privlede kinda goes out the window when the president is the target of the investigation.
McClellan’s book seems to put Shrub further into the center of the action than the Libby trial did. that was one of the things I noticed. The Libby trial seemed more about what OVP was doing, but Scott’s book makes Shrub every bit as mucha co-conspirator.
When Shrub vouches for Rove to McClellan, that jumped out at me.
Okay, so I’m not crazy then, cause I thought that was what I was reading.
And Al Gore has tossed his strong support to Obama.
And Congress is moving forward with subpoenas, rather than screwing around holding hearings all summer.
So at the moment, I can look forward to voting in Nov after all, because it appears the Dems are actually taking action. Hopeful sign.
these are not the same judges, nor is this the same president, nor did nixon have the “all necessary power” edict from congress
nor did nixon have to balls to say, “so what, I ain’t giving it up”
the president has as much power as he wants until congress says that’s it, you are out of there
and congress is not saying it so the president is king
122 – I know, and Luskin would have the original – but while he feints and fizzles, a copy is certainly in the Spec Counsel files (and I’m not clear right now on who has those – Fitzgerald or Mukasey)and since they already have a production request out to Mukasey, they could have added it on. But they didn’t and no one seems real interested in getting the letter.
119 – but Legs isn’t even who got the subpoena is it? Isn’t it Mukasey directly who got the subpoena? Even if he has to go to Mukasey bc Mukasey is his boss (or is it Margolis vis a vis the investigation and materials?) and let him know, it seems to me that then Mukasey intervenes and interposes an objection on behalf of the DOJ to production (for whatever reason), but that technially unless there has been revision of the authority delegation, Fitzgerald has the care,custody and control.
Not that it’s a big point one way or the other, I just like dotted i-s and crossed t-s on the roadmap. Has Mukasey served notice that he has taken control of the Spec. Counsel’s investigation and files or only that he has ordered his employee, the Spec Counsel, not to produce anything without AG’s (not even Legs) approval or do we know?
I not only think the revocation/modification is literally true, it’s an argument I made back when the motions on principal status were ongoing. It was just odd to see him raise that several times and it makes me really itch to have someone ask him the questions (about any discussions on revocation or modification or his authority or actions to effect same) and put them to bed.
I don’t know what heppened to that last comment. I inserted partof MAry’s text into the blockquote, but it’s not there and now the blcokquaote tag is open. Sigh
“about how Shrub had all these noble ideas”
Yeah, like the noble fits of giggles he had when, per Tucker Carlson, he did his mimicry of a woman begging for her life.
What a noble guy.
Thanks, bmaz & LHP. Sorry to sidetrack.
Hey John we must have been on some t-mail (telepathic mail) line. Two minutes apart and similar responses to George.
I called Waxmans office today and let them know I hope the Sergeant of Arms is getting ready to go knocking on some doors.
CNN is reporting a Federal District Judge has ruled information about the White House email system is not subject to FOIA. I think it is CREW that was in search of the information via FOIA.
Yep I linked that and CREW’s response above here this morning.
Melanie Sloan immediately filed a notice of appeal and will be appealing this egregious decision by a cowed and compromised judge in the pocket of the Bush administration who is a former DOJster in the D.C. Circuit.
We need more Melanie Sloan’s a former DOJster herself to take on the judges who never mentally left DOJ and are Mukasey’s lackeys to coverup.
I am not sure I agree with Kollar-Kotelly’s decision here at all (although if you are to make a finding of fact that OA is not aan agency, it is the correct decision I think) but she is certainly not “a cowed and compromised judge in the pocket of the Bush administration”. I don’t always agree with all of her decisions, but i have a decent respect for her. I think she is, along with Lamberth, maybe the only thing that prevented us from being run over by Bush’s “Program” in total secrecy.
Having Read her opinion earlier this morn, she quite clearly stated that it was a close one.
I too think she made the wrong decision, but some of that is because the idiots who originally wrote the FOIA laws were clumsy in their construction (i.e. agency vs not an agency, who the fook cares!, it’s about our right to know!).
Mostly I think she misreads the “spirit” of the law which is intended to keep the citizenry in-the-know, and certainly not to be used to shield wrong-doing from the public.
As CREW has filed an appeal, that is slightly hopeful. That said appeal is not likely to happen in a reasonable and effective timeframe has likely closed the door until after a new administration arrives.
I sure hope that next Administration just doesn’t let bygones be bygones, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
I don’t doubt any analysis of her opinion should include a thorough search of appellate decisions, Supremes and D.C. Circuit that define an agency.
It’s disingenuous on its face though, as Melanie Sloan pointed out to her web writer this morning:
OA Order 6/16/08
OA Opinion 6/16/08
Link = http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…..index.html
Random thoughts:
1. Autopsies: I think that there’s a difference between an autopsy that you do to determine cause-of-death (in big hospitals, these are usually done in-house) and an autopsy that goes through the medical examiner’s office. In Russert’s case, there seems to be no suspicion of foul play, and it sounds like he had a history of heart disease, so his autopsy would fall into the former category. High profile cases almost always go the to front of the queue, so it doesn’t surprise me that his was done quickly.
2. Woodward: Please note that Woodward stopped talking trash as soon as the indictment came out. I think that Woodward assumed that Plame’s identity really was common knowledge and no big deal after Armitage tried to club him to death with the info. I also suspect that he had several sources tell him that there was no damage done by the leak. When the indictment came out, he realized what the scope of the situation was and that only a select few reporters had gotten the leak. He also realized that Armitage had “forgotten” that he leaked to Woodward.
3. Fitz and subpoenas: It’s not Fitz’s style to buck the chain of command. I suspect that if Congress subpoenaed him and Mukasey told him not to show up, Fitz would go to court and ask a judge to decide what he should do.
don’t buy that about Woodward. Why did he withhold from his boss that he had been leaked to while going out into the MSM undermining the investigation. If Woodward was told that there was no serious damage to National Security or to Valerie’s operation and agents around the world why not expose that information to the public? Take the sting out of Plames outing? That just does not make sense to me.
Plus Plame has inferred that there was serious damage (those eyes)
That’s exactly what he did. He want on TV and basically said: No harm, no foul.
Not Bob”groupthink” “much ado about nothing” Woodward. The Bush administration the powers that be. What would keep them from telling us the good news that there was no serious damage. Especially when that would take the sting out of the outing.
Sorry just do not believe Woodward, he endlessly stuck up for Judy “I was fucking right” Miller. Woodward was almost as bad as Miller before the invasion. Just going right along not doing his job.
So if it comes out of Woodwards mouth it must be true. Not buying it.
Saw Woodward at Ohio University(Scripps school of journalism) during the last year. He got up there and did a song and dance, received some hokey pokey award, and would not take direct questions from the audience. (we were able to write out questions that were filtered through the moderator).
When asked about his Journalistic failings in the run up to the invasion. He admitted that he had been part of the “groupthink”. Then a question came up about Iran and he went into the Bush administrations exact inflammatory rhetoric about Iran. Jesus help us this is what we should expect from these “alleged” top notch journalist?
The Athens Ohio community ripped Woodward up royally after his very flawed performance as a journalist. Woodward is about Woodward
Your commens on the Plame case interactions seem pretty accurate, but unless we get more information I’m going to remain a bit confused the more I read.
I agree with LHPs impressions of McClelland’s book and Marcy’s but we are still left guessing.
Autopsies–
There is a big difference in forensic autopsies and an autopsy like one that was done in Tim Russert as a rule, although there can be overlap with incidental findings seen in the forensic autopsies.
I tried to detail the limitations of actually finding the myocardial correlate of the embolic event in Mr. Russert’s LAD (left anterior descending coronary artery) that reportedly caused his tragic sudden death).
Hopefully we will develop better imaging techniques and (one of the biggest problems) get them available to more people). Currently in your country, the U.S. as many as 12-25% of significantly hypertensive people are untreated for a variety of reasons. 17-18% of hemorrhagic strokes (CVAs) would have been prevented if people were on adequate antihypertensive treatment. There are two recent huge studies reported last week at a eeting that will be published in JAMA and NEJM that show that much of the tight control advocated for AODM has actually much less impact on mortality from cardiovascular events than we historically thought.
That’d be the ACCORD study’s phase reported last week at ADA.
NEJM Early On Line Report of ACCORD Update
Much of medicine’s dogma that is preached in the text books and by med school profs and doctors to patients as fact gets overturned years later with further study. Unfortunately a lot of them never see the studies.
Mukasey has to ignore the subpoena before he can be in contempt. And then Bush can probably stall with some EP claim.
I wonder why the speaker of the house says impeachment is off the table and is allowing hoyer to do immunity?
Either way, she does not appear to be working in concert with the job description in the constitution. She is ignoring impeachable offenses, the looting of our treasury and vast war profiteering, war crimes, shall I go on?
not worthy any longer. It would seem omeone has purchased her vote.
They say impeachment is off the table because they are in a position to win serious control of House and Senate and they don’t want the bad publicity of an impeachment trial. I’m not sure I agree, but that’s their reasoning.
I’m not seeing much coverage of this subpoena in the msm
They never cover stonewalling until somebody breaks through the stonewall. That’s why people keep stonewalling.
Leen @ 172 and 173:
Oh, I don’t believe it for a minute. I think there was quite a bit of damage done. But I think that Woodward’s friends were all telling him that it was no big deal, and he believed them, and he parroted that line to his viewers. In fact, most everyone OUTSIDE the CIA has been trying to minimize this whole scandal from the start, and most people INSIDE the CIA, especially the covert types, probably don’t share cocktail weenies with Bob Woodward.
For me, there are two big red flags suggesting that the damage was substantial: (1) There has been no official report saying that there was no damage, and even if the CIA doesn’t usually publicize things like this, you can bet your ass that the Bush White House would have put one out there if they possibly could have. (2) Michael Hayden got awfully quiet on the whole Plame case shortly after he took over the CIA. He quasi-confirmed that Plame was covert, and he got bludgeoned by Bob Novak for it, and then he PERSONALLY TOLD Novak that (I’m paraphrasing here) he was full of shit when he said Plame wasn’t covert. The man wouldn’t have gotten the job if he weren’t a Bush flunkie, and he STILL won’t carry water on this issue.
Bingo.
If I get nothing else right here, Plame was covert. She was a full fledged member of the spook division her entire career there.
People who would jeapordize her and her collegues are the worst vermin and at the opposite pole of patriotism in this country and this wasn’t some espionage movie where someone had to choose which lives to sacrifice–this was pure meanspirited vegenance where politicization seeped into jeapordizing CIA operatives that were at risk daily for years.
I always thought this was about Team Dick telling every other part of the USG: “You fuck with us, we fuck with you — ten times harder.”
Exactly my point. If the Bush administration could come out and say that there was no National Security Damage for damn tootin sure they would have. They have not. In fact the public may never know the damage (I hope we do) but we know someone knows and it must have been serious.
Woodward is not an innocent by stander here. Mr. Groupthink went out many times and purposely and publicly undermined that investigation and then had the nerve to come out and say “no damage”. Wtf was Woodwards agenda Woodward had some other agenda here and it was clearly not to get accurate and reliable information to the public.( I somehow thought that is supposed to be the job of journalist) Woodward had some twisted agenda and it was not for the good of Plame, National Security or the public.
OT, but I kid you not, Amy Goodman is being interviewed on Hardball (online) as I type this. And she’s doing intelligent women everywhere (and intelligent men!) proud!
Wow!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..9#25198579
Pass me smelling salts please…
Hat tip to the Hardball crew, because it’s heartwarming to see them risk improving public conversation by putting on such a smart, articulate guest who’s not a conventional pundit.
Wow…
Oh, honest – the woman ‘contrasting’ Amy Goodman’s view is saying that ‘women vote based on emotions…’. Sigh.
Goodman more than holds her own, AND provides great data.
141 – the leg affairs letter is older than the references I meant. What I was referring to wasn’t really a letter per se, but rather Fitzgerald’s written responses to questions for the hearing record.
http://static1.firedoglake.com…..080502.pdf
I found it odd that when he was making his thorough comparison, he never mentioned that if the AG overrode an outside special counsel’s determinations, that had to be reported to Congress, whereas no such requirement exists if an inhouse spec counsel’s decisions are supplanted.
But he did make a few reference to the AGs ability to revise and modify the delegation to inhouse counsel as well as to revoke it and even cross reference Walton’s rulling for that. It may be in there, but while I remember arguing at the time that, from an agency standpoint, the bility to revoke is also the ability to modify, I sure thought that Walton left that open and based his rulings solely on revocation powers.
Anyway – the things he said that seemed to require follow up to clear the decks (imo) were:
176/181 – yeah, what you two said.
FISA is nowhere near as much in need of an overhaul as FOIA. The brighter side is that the other CREW/NSArchives suit is another avenue of attack.
OT and I doubt much will come of it, but Levin’s committee has started up some torture hearings and there is a full slate que’d up to testify tomorrow, including Haynes.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/…..tment.html
I remember in the old old days, when having people like Haynes land at Chevron, and Torture Thompson land at Pepsico, would have created some shareholder and public kickback. At least it’s good to know that under the Bush economy, there’s always a lucrative job for a DOJ torture advocate.
And remember, even though every sector of the economy is tanking at light speed, CEO and director income has increased noticeably, even in the last year. So that’s good news! Or not. Screw Haynes and Thompson.
In a sea of bad news, I would like to point out http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25199236/">something more positive. Topless women’s soccer has taken hold in Europe.
positive for whom?
Well, as Eli from FDL pointed out, it really doesn’t affect us here on this side of the pond, so I am not sure. Lecherous male soccer fans in Europe I suppose.
Oh well, guess we’ll just have to wait. Altho I do like klynn’s idea on the sunscreen concession. What’s next? Nude coed mud soccer?
Daughter of a soccer coach here…
Puts new meaning into the executing of a chest trap… OUCH!
So, bottomless men’s soccer must be close behind? (sorry, behind..heh-heh)
I think I just might buy some stock in the top sunscreen manufacturer…
Heh, I thought you particularly might find it interesting; although not as much as your father……
bmaz, you are SUCH a silly man!
Yeah, I can hear a conversation in my head right now. “Dad, it’s just a soccer match,” says Klynn.
“JUST A SOOCER MATCH? RIIIGHHT!” Exclaims Klynn’s Dad blinking his eyes.
Rove is subpoenaed to testify on July 10. Very good things happen on July 10 (just take my word for it). To see Rove held in “inherent contempt” (and Conyers has been moving in that direction this time, IMHO), would be a dream come true.
As far as Mukasey – I’ll have to take the time tomorrow to skim back over and see if I missed someone’s answer to this question, but I’m not sure what the procedure is for AG defiance of a subpoena – is there precedent? (I’ll search tomorrow)
Personally I’d doubt Bush and Cheney telling the truth in the transcripts anyway. I’ve a feeling it’ll come down again to “he said/he said/he said” They weren’t under oath – does felony perjury cover lying to an FBI agent?
BTW, last I heard, McClellan is scheduled to testify this coming Friday – still true? And has anyone heard when Fitzgerald will testify?)
(My apologies if these questions have already been answered, a series of family emergencies and such have left me very little time to keep up with everything that’s going on – thank goodness for Emptywheel and Firedoglake and the episodes of the Daily Show I can actually catch on TV, or I’d be TOTALLY lost!)
Lying to the FBI is a felony. It’s one of the things Libby was convicted of. And those transcripts are key. I strongly suspect that Dick Cheney blew up and said something along the lines of, “I’m Dick Cheney. I can do whatever the fuck I want to.” I really think that what happened was that he told Fitz that he COULD have insta-declassified Plame, and there was no way Fitz could prove he that didn’t. Fitz probably asked, “Well, DID you?” And Dick evaded and started blathering on about reasonable doubt. And then Fitz fried Cheney’s right-hand man with 4 felony convictions. Cheney gets pissy when Wolf Blitzer interviews him. There’s no way he kept his cool with Fitz.
You’re not going to see Rove testify before Congress. You will see him yammer repeatedly in Newsweek Magazine or on the trash network Fox. The only place Rove is talking consistently, Newsweek, convinces me that Jon Meacham is a traditional conservative and a sucker for the Bush administration.
Inherent contempt–I have no indication that Conyers/Waxman/Leahy is moving anywhere towards it. I know Conyers has filed a civil suit in the D.C. district court and it will get him no where as to contempt of Miers and Bolten. You’ll see that occur in your dreams right along with the impeachment so often talked about on the FDL threads that is never going to happen.
Pat Fitzy the Fitzy Fitz or as he is commonly referred to his Fitzness, has coyly suggested he might testify but no one has invited him, and he probably would not be allowed by OLC or Mukasey.
Mclellan or selectively lying Scotty will testify Friday before Conyers’ HJC. Bush and Cheney interviews were subpoenaed by House Government Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman or as his buds call him and some bloggers Hank.
Hint—Psst–it will be infinitely more exciting to watch the moron Elizabeth Hasselback try to ask Michelle Obama a question or as Elizabeth calls it a Queshun on The View Wednesday 6/18. You’ll see a lot more truth displayed from Obama although the Firepuppies think they are going to munch popcorn and have a grand ole time when the Scottster bullshits Conyers (yawn on Friday morning 6/20). It’ll just be one more book promotion gig with giggling staffers asking him to autograph the book which contains many lies, half truths, and self-inflicted self-serving redactions.
18USC 1001 covers lying to an FBI agent and is one of the most commonly prosecuted violations every day of the working week in every district court.
Early in the CIA leak case Fitz had an exchange with a judge explaining some things and seeking clarification. A court document was released at a later date with large sections blacked out. This was before there was popular talk of a conspiracy and involvement of the VP. There was some speculation that the blacked-out part was about cheney. Does anyone remember this and know the document I might be pointing to? I’m wondering if that document might now be more relevant.
THat was the Appeals Court opinion supporting calling journalists, based on Fitz’ two affidavits. A good chunk of both got unsealed after the trial, and much of it was stuff we already know about Cheney and Libby.
EW-Thanks for the response.
OT- Sibel Edmonds and Luke Ryland interviewed by the Austin Scott Horton.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/…..ke-ryland/
O/T: The first of the trials of the Toronto
22181711 has begun, two years after an exceptionally melodramatic raid on a number of places around Toronto: G&M and CBC.The prosecution’s star witness is an RCMP agent provocateur who is at least entertaining (he started blabbing to the press very early on), and obviously very valuable to the defence.
One thing we do well up here is comedy.
EW,
Anyone covering the Senate Armed Services Comm hearing at 9:30 today? McClatchy seems to think there will be some gold nuggets of info irt torture coming out of that hearing… especially from Haynes…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41291.html
klynn, it will be on C-SPAN3 online.
Just about to start a thread.
How cool is that! Thanks so much EW!
Here’s a torture hearing thread.
OT
Reporting from Guangzhou, China, I’m here with my spouse, who is working with a group of principals and others visiting Chinese schools and seeing how they do things. I usually don’t do this, but today I visited a couple of the schools myself. The first was an elementary school in a part of the city called the village. The back story is that this is a city school, which was largely under the control of the local parent group, which ran things as they saw fit, until the current principal showed up. She got the parents pulling in the same direction, by involving them directly in a program of reading Chinese classics together with the kids, and in the phys ed part of the curriculum.
Our bus couldn’t get back into the street, so the kids, first graders, were lined up, introduced themselves and took our hands to lead us to the school. They were the most delightful kids, just bursting with pride to get this honor, and so cute! We had a couple of presentations from the faculty, and then the kids put on a show of various Chinese traditional games and sports, including a dragon dance, and a lion dance. The principal talked a bunch of professional dancers to teach the kids this stuff, and now, even though the kids perform a bit below standards academically, the school is a magnet for kids from other neighborhoods. Then the kids dragged us over to the various groups to try the exercises ourselves, and laughed more or less with us at the predictable results.
At lunch, we talked to some of the parents (the group provides translators), and they were so proud of their kids and their achievements. One of the women said her grandson was entering in the fall, so I said, “O, you’re a grandma”. Of course, “Ma” is the Chinese word for mother, so the others all laughed at that word. It was something, even the US principals were affected by the kids, and the Chinese Principal was so friendly, and invited us back. If only it were a bit cooler here.
The afternoon was a “non-public” school, a joint venture between a developer who was required to build the school as a condition to being allowed to do some large project. The terms of the relationship were not made clear, but again the kids were happy to see us, energetic and polite.
Kids go to school from 8 to 5:30, with a siesta of 1 1/2 to 2 hours for the young ones. Most of them start learning English in first grade. I have this feeling I have met the future.
Wonderful report, masaccio. I really enjoy reading these.
Thank you for sharing. It’s great to learn of other’s travels. It’s important that you are sharing your experience with all of us.
My husband and I were offered teaching positions at a University in China five years ago. Just when we were finalizing contracts Mr. Klynn and I found out that we were expecting a 40th birthday surprise –twins. Our older kids were thrilled (as were the “older” parents). With a history of high risk pregnancies, we had to turn the offer down. We were given a standing offer and told to call whenever we felt we could take on the commitment, no matter how many years may pass. A very polite response.
Good thing we stayed in the US. We lost one of the twins at 5 months into the pregnancy and had a hospital stay beginning at 6 months to save the other. Today, a healthy little 4 year old boy –totally worth it!
Our kids all study Chinese. Our oldest is developing great second language skills. His working knowledge of the language would allow him to survive in China right now.
skdadl: Yep, I saw that this AM. Just wondered if anyone was going to live blog it with “colorful” commentary…
Your kids study Chinese? cool. I asked the English teacher at the middle school how she taught English, given the differences between the languages and even the method of writing. She said they use pattern recognition as the basic tool. I wonder how that would work and whether that is how we would teach Chinese to English-speakers. Most of the words in Chinese seem to be quite short, which make the latter easier, but the ideographic writing seems much more complicated.
Is your 4 yr old starting Chinese? My daughter and her Mom spent a year in The Netherlands starting at age 5. It took her a total of about 4 months to not only learn Dutch, but to start thinking in Dutch when communicating with me by phone. It’s an ideal age for absorbing languages, which I think the Chinese are clearly aware of, and probably so are you.
massacio, thank you so much for these gems; they are such a pleasure to read.
I think that you might find a recently published book of tremendous interest if you have an interest in learning and teaching ‘ideographic writing’. IIRC, the written Chinese language has something like 5,000 symbols – so not something that any child is likely to master by the sixth grade (!). Recent neurological research supports your hunch that it is extremely complex and time-consuming to learn and master ;-))
I’d stumbled several years ago, while working on something software-related, onto some intriguing very early research on the neurology of reading (and writing) Japanese — in contrast to the neurology of reading (and writing) an alphabetic language. All of this fairly recent research relies on brain scans, and it is quite a revelation to contemplate how different types of writing systems ‘wire’ our brains in fairly specific ways.
There is a recently published book (”Proust and the Squid“) about the neurology of reading and writing; the book is written by a professor of child development who works with kids with reading disabilities, and it draws on neurological research done at Tufts in Boston. It is a remarkable book, and is generating tremendous interest among some people that I know in education (K-12).
Here’s a link to the publisher’s page, as it may be of great interest to your wife, her colleagues, and some of your hosts:
http://www.harpercollins.com/b…..cerpt.aspx
I think that if your hosts are unaware of this book, but are able to read English, it would be of enormous interest to them. (I’ve done some work with both children and adults who have problems reading, which is how the book origincally caught my attention.)
I have some [extremely elementary] ability to read (and write) basic Japanese, which utilizes three writing systems — to read the text you must be able to recognize and interpret each of the writing systems and then combine the meanings as you read. As you can imagine, this poses some pretty steep challenges for designing software displays. One element of Japanese writing (’kanzi’) draws on the Chinese system of writing.
More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_writing
should you have time or inclination.
The Chinese may have designed their language instruction curriculum after investigating the latest neurological research about language learning; the earlier the better, but before puberty is definitely best. I recall back in the summer of 1997, the New York Times (Herald Tribune in Europe) published the first news of brain scans revealing that people who’d learned a second language in childhood literally stored the ’second language vocabulary’ in the same general regions of their brains as they stored their ‘first language vocabulary’. This helped explain why their ability to ’switch between’ languages seemed to be more fluid than the efforts of people who learned a second language in adulthood. Some researchers were wondering whether it also helped explain why ‘early second language learners’ were better able to create lists of homonyms and synomyms. As you are perhaps aware, these questions are of great interest – and importance! – to people in the US who teach English as a Second Language.
Those of us trying to learn a new language after adolescence have a far more challenging time of it — this seems to be due to neurological changes that occur during puberty. So teaching a second language to young children has a sound neurological basis! (Most of my reading and writing of Japanese occurred after adolescence, to my everlasting sorrow..). However, there are some interesting implications about language learning that seem to apply to the whole vast topic of software development — in my own case, I’ve found that most [not all!] of the really creative, best software developers that I’ve encountered are multilingual. So the processes in learning ‘natural languages’ also seem to extend to learning ‘machine languages’ as well. So it doesn’t surprise me that you feel you are seeing ‘the future’. Glad to hear that it’s very, very cute, creative, and socially responsible! We can all welcome that…)
I’ll bet those kids are absolutely adorable. How fortunate for you to also be able to meet the parents and teachers!
I hope that our kind hostess EW will indulge my extended remarks on such an eclectic topic. I have enormously enjoyed your comments. Safe journey.
216 – masaccio, thanks for that. Interesting stuff. The children sound adorable.
rOTL, I will look for the book when I return.
The language here is really interesting. I notice that I have a better chance of getting the words right than many of the people I am traveling with. It seems that my music experience really helps me hear and mimic the exact sound. Unfortunately, the sounds are truly nonsense syllables, and I don’t seem to be able to remember tham well.
I have picked up a smattering of French and Italian, and studied German in College. When we travel in Europe, I can make out some of the German all these 40 years later, but if I try to speak, there is no telling what language will come out. It seems like all the foreign words get stored in the same place, so si and oui are about equally likely, especially when I first land, or if the situation is out of the ordinary. That goes away after a few days in the country, and returns if I go to another country.
This really is interesting stuff, isn’t it?
Well, I certainly think so ;-))
And as we are waayyyyyy at the bottom of a thread, well and truly into EPU land, I hope that EW will tolerate our eclectic digressions once again.
The whole idea of ‘language groups’ does hit home when listening to a language with such a very different grammatical and sound structure from English, doesn’t it?
It makes sense that your auditory discrimination, which you use to master opera, would be an advantage on your travels to a land where the sound of the language is so unfamiliar to you. I always find that I need extra sleep after having to ‘listen extra hard’ when traveling.
On the political front, Al Gore gave a stirring speech on Obama’s behalf, and today Carl Levin slammed a series of homers out of left field on the torture investigations in his Senate hearing. Evidently, it was too complex for some of the ‘blonder’ minds in the MSM to follow along. Unsurprisingly, MSNBC covered both stories significantly better than anything that I saw at ABC or CBS. CNN had several good video clips, but the NBC Nightly News did probably the best network coverage that I was able to locate with ‘the Google’.
Meanwhile, McClatchy continues its stunning series this week, which certainly converges with Levin’s revelations.
Safe journey, and I hope that you and your wife are able to eat good dim sum at some point on your travels. (I envy you dim sum, along with the chance to see that dragon dance!) It sounds as if you are meeting some really engaged, energetic educators; what a great reason to travel!