(Hot photo credit to Spencer Ackerman)

Ari Melber starts by asking Scrapple who is he and why he is here.

Scrapple starts by raising choice.

Apparently now if you vote for saving the American economy it makes you a "de facto Democrat."

Specter is filibustering. Ari just broke in: "We’re not in the Senate, we’re not going to filibuster."

You should trust me because I have a record of being a boy scout. Okay. He didn’t say that.

Shorter Scrapple: You should trust me because the elite of your party asked me to flip-flop.

Susie rocks the house: You whine and then vote for things.

Scrapple now trying to justify his military commisison vote. Time for Ari to break in to prevent the filibuster again.

Last question, Scrapple tried to argue he didn’t quaver on bills. Now, he’s not answering the question but he’s demonstrating the certified quaver perfectly.

Scrapple doesn’t know from Nate Silver.

Scrapple’s one campaign slogan: I voted for stimulus.

Scrapple pitches stimulus again.

Scrapple says he’s comfortable looking over his right shoulder. Um, Scrapple? That’s your left shoulder.

Scrapple: Data = generalization.

Scrapple: No one in the Democratic caucus has done four town halls.

Um, Scrapple? You’re in the Democratic caucus, remember.

Come on Susie, now’s the time for the Clarence Thomas smack-down.

Scrapple: I think Grassley’s wrong on his granny comments. I’ll call him and tell him.

Call him now, we say.

Specter tried Grassley, but did not get him on the phone. Says he’ll call back in half and hour.

I was noodling around the intertoobz tonight, and was struck by the thought that the concept of "American Exceptionalism" may refer to our ability to bring teh stupid.

First up to bat are the down with brown anti-immigrant numbskulls. From the Los Angeles Times:

Walt Staton wanted to help people, and his tool was a water jug. On the morning of Dec. 4, he and three others drove southwest from Tucson, to the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, which tens of thousands of illegal immigrants traverse each year.

But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the plastic jugs he left for the immigrants endanger wildlife, and this week Staton was sentenced in federal court in Tucson on a charge of littering. He was given one year of unsupervised probation and ordered to spend 300 hours picking up trash.

The sentence, however, does not quite capture the emotions surrounding the case — yet another testament to the volatility of the illegal immigration debate in Arizona. Prosecutors had asked for a $5,000 fine and five years’ probation. Staton, for his part, had insisted on a trial, rather than pay a $175 fine.

In recent months, as the legal proceedings progressed, each side has essentially accused the other of staging a show trial to bolster its view of U.S. border policy.

Staton, a 27-year-old Web designer and soup kitchen volunteer, viewed his actions as humanitarian. As he had done for five years with the faith-based aid group No More Deaths, Staton in December lugged water up hills and through scrub to remote, migrant-carved trails. Only this time, when he and his comrades returned from leaving eight jugs at their last stop, authorities were waiting, and he was cited by a Fish and Wildlife Service officer.

This is just sick. The Federal government, through the Arizona US Attorney’s Office, egged on by the anti-immigration movement, which is very vocal in Tucson and Southern Arizona, got a burr up its butt and spent over $50,000 to prosecute this heinous criminal who took time away from his volunteer work at a soup kitchen to try to keep some human beings from dehydrating to death in the desert. Littering. The brown hating Lou Dobbs crowd makes a lot of noise and bring a lot of pressure in Tucson and parts due south. I guess they got a trophy Dobbs can crow about now. In the immortal words of Vince Lombardi, what the hell is going on here?

Next, from my local rag, the Arizona Republic, comes the nay on gay ganglion for brains bunch up in Utah:

A southern Utah newspaper has rejected a gay California couple’s wedding announcement, saying its policy is to publish announcements only for marriages legal under Utah law.

The Spectrum in St. George initially accepted a paid wedding announcement for Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones last week, but then changed course, Jones said. The San Francisco couple were legally married June 17, 2008. They wanted the announcement printed in Jones’ hometown paper ahead of a family party next week.

Yep, can’t have anybody knowing that teh gay get hitched. I guess they figure if they don’t print it, no one will ever know. Good grief, can’t we just move on? Please?

Well, at least the fine authorities up there in Utah decided to drop the charges against the gay couple that had the audacity to kiss each other:

The Salt Lake City prosecutor’s office says it will not pursue charges against two men who were cited for trespassing on a Mormon church-owned downtown plaza earlier this month after sharing a kiss.

The United States may have elected a black man president, but you look out there every day and have to wonder just how far we really have come. It is not nearly as far as a great many people in this country think or give themselves credit for. Imagine if that energy was channeled to a productive, instead of destructive, end.

I know I’m going to have a blast visiting with people here at Netroots Nation. But I’ve already done what will likely be the coolest thing I do: a tour of a local steel plant. There were about 30 of us who took a bus out into the Monongahela Valley and all dolled up in hard hats, Nomex suits, and safety glasses to see how they make steel (Jane will be posting a photo of us, but I’m sure it won’t give you the proper sense of just how gorgeous Jane looks in an industrial suit). 

The video doesn’t give you a full sense of the size and heat of the process. The ladle that appears in the early part of the video is maybe a story and a half high, all moved around on a giant pulley system.

There were a number of us who left saying, "next time I hear someone complaining about their job, I will tell them to shut up unless they’re a steelworker." It is hot, there are tons of steps everywhere. But the whole trip was a fascinating way to understand something about Pittsburgh–and about where our cars and stuff comes from. 

As covered here and here, a Motion For Summary Judgment is pending in al-Haramain v. Obama, set in front of Judge Vaughn Walker in NDCA. Just to keep you apprised of the status, there has been a stipulation and order entered to extend certain time limits previously set in the matter.

Counsel for the Government Defendants has conferred with counsel for plaintiffs and sought agreement on a short two-week extension of the briefing schedule and a modification of the hearing date due to the press of business and other scheduling conflicts arising after the plaintiffs filed their motion. To facilitate this agreement, counsel for Government Defendants advised plaintiffs’ counsel that the Government does not presently anticipate submitting classified information in support of the Government’s position in response to plaintiffs’ motion or with any cross motion.

The one useful tidbit here is the government’s avowal that they do not intend to submit or rely on any classified information in their pleading. Certainly not shocking, in fact it is predictable. It is however important because neither we nor the plaintiffs want to delay things even further. There is no reason to give the government another month of delay on top of the delay that would be caused by classified filings, which would of course require proceedings to arrange for plaintiffs to review them under secure conditions per Judge Walker’s previous putative protective order.

One further reason why Coppolino likely isn’t going to do any further classified filing is because Judge Walker has indicated that if the plaintiffs review anything classified, they will probably get to review everything classified, both past and present. That would be crucial because it would mean the plaintiffs get to see the February 2009 filings correcting the so-called "inaccuracy," which you can be sure the government does not want them to see. Obama, Holder and Coppolino will probably do just about anything to avoid plaintiffs seeing those "corrections".

Assuming the government, through lead attorney Tony Coppolino, actually keeps his word and relies on information solely within the public domain, however, it increases the likelihood they will merely restate the same tired old defense that they are entitled to dismissal on state secrets grounds. Yes, I know, how shocking they could once again spew the same old junk. They cannot, however, materially contest the facts proffered by the plaintiff in the motion for summary judgment, because under the rules governing handling and disposition of such motions, specifically Rule 56, that would create a disputed fact set that then gets set for trial to resolve, and the government wants no part of that.

The functional nuts and bolts of the Order are as follows:

1. The Government Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment (and any cross motion) is due on August 20, 2009.

2. Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion (and opposition to any cross motion) is due on September 8, 2009.

3. If the Government Defendants file a cross motion, any reply in support thereof would be due on September 14, 2009.

4. The matter will be heard on Friday, September 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

So that is the new briefing schedule and the hearing/oral argument will be held on September 23rd (not the 25th as was originally asked for by the government) at 10:00 am Pacific time. Also note the mention that the government may "file a cross motion" for summary judgement. The government is undoubtedly saying this is simply to set up the case for dismissal should Judge Walker deny plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. I figure this means they are trying to finagle a way to set up a better path for immediate appeal.

As they say in show biz, stay tuned.

If his first publicly known rendition case is any indication, there may well be a legitimate question as to whether Obama’s rendition program is even more repulsive than that of George Bush. More evidence will be required for an informed answer, but Obama is off to a very inauspicious beginning. From Scott Horton in an exclusive for Huffington Post:

[I]n a federal court in suburban Washington, a case is unfolding that gives us a practical sense of what an Obama-era rendition looks like.

Raymond Azar, a 45-year-old Lebanese construction manager with a grade school education, is employed by Sima International, a Lebanon-based contractor that does work for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has the unlikely distinction of being the first target of a rendition carried out on the Obama watch.

According to court papers, on April 7, 2009, Azar and a Lebanese-American colleague, Dinorah Cobos, were seized by "at least eight" heavily armed FBI agents in Kabul, Afghanistan, where they had traveled for a meeting to discuss the status of one of his company’s U.S. government contracts. The trip ended with Azar alighting in manacles from a Gulfstream V executive jet in Manassas, Virginia, where he was formally arrested and charged in a federal antitrust probe.

This rendition involved no black sites and was clearly driven by a desire to get the target quickly before a court. Also unlike renditions of the Bush-era, the target wasn’t even a terror suspect; rather, he was suspected of fraud. But in a troubling intimation of the last administration, accusations of torture hover menacingly over the case. According to papers filed by his lawyers, Azar was threatened, subjected to coercive interrogation techniques and induced to sign a confession. Azar claims he was hooded, stripped naked (while being photographed) and subjected to a "body cavity search."

I would say that the evidence of torture is an allegation at this point; but the optics of forced rendition for simple contracting fraud are disturbing. No terrorism, no deaths, and it does not even appear that Azar is a principal in the company, Sima International.

But in all three previous administrations, renditions have been considered a rare technique reserved for dangerous terrorists and violent drug kingpins. Azar is at worst a secondary figure in a small-time contract fraud case and is not accused in any way of terrorism. Why such aggressive and dramatic techniques were used in connection with the apprehension of a man suspected of a small-scale white collar crime remains entirely unclear.

Afghanistan is a sovereign country that, by all accounts, Azar was in legally and properly. The Afghan government further appears to have no knowledge of nor participation in, at least that it will admit, the forced removal of Azar at gunpoint by US agents. There are international extradition norms and, although there will certainly be a lot of facts being added to the picture as the case goes forward, the US actions do not seem to comport with them. While the government under Barack Obama seems to remain up to its old (and some new) egregious tricks, the one check and balance left in this country, the Federal Judiciary, seems to be on the ball already:

Azar’s allegations will now go before United States District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, who must test Azar’s claims to have been tortured and act on his motion to dismiss the charges and suppress his confession. Motions of this sort are generally reckoned a long shot, as most judges prefer to have everything fully developed at trial. But at a 90-minute hearing held on July 17, Judge Lee indicated his discomfort with the prosecutors’ conduct, and specifically with their failure to supply the defendants with background information about the capture and interrogation of Azar and Cobos in Afghanistan. He asked three government prosecutors who were present if they were familiar with the Stevens case before Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in which a special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate potential criminal misconduct by the prosecutors. He insisted that the prosecutors immediately turn over to the defendants their records, including interview notes and any exculpatory materials.

Judge G. Bruce Lee. Sounds like a guy not to be messed with. Good.

Amazing isn’t it that the US government can snatch Azar at gunpoint, bag him, tag him and fly him to Virginia for minor contracting fraud by his employer, yet they cannot seem to do so much as stop giving bonuses to KBR who kills American soldiers through their reckless disregard. Nor have they bagged and sensory deprived anybody from DynCorp, who has engaged in major fraud on defense contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Go figure.

Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton have an article on the Purgegate document release in today’s New York Times. There were a few paragraphs by the two Erics that stood out to me:

Aides to former President George W. Bush have asserted that the Justice Department took the lead in the dismissals, which set off a political firestorm that lasted months. Mr. Rove played down his role in the firings in a recent interview and in closed testimony last month before Congressional investigators.

Well that was clearly a pack of lies; let’s call it what it is fellas.

“The amount of backstabbing and treachery involved is just breathtaking,” Mr. Iglesias said of the White House e-mail, in an interview on Tuesday. “It’s astounding that without reviewing the evidence or talking to the F.B.I. or anything, the White House would assume that these were provable cases and that I needed to file them for the political benefit of the party. That’s not what U.S. attorneys do.”

Hey Dave, they didn’t give a damn if the charges were provable, they just wanted them filed to prejudice Democrats before the election. Iglesias was wronged here, but he keeps consistently soft pedaling what occurred so as to remain a good Republican, and the distinction is a critical and clear one. It wansn’t that they "assumed provable cases"; they just didn’t care about the sufficiency of the charges. I really like Iglesias in a way, but this isn’t the first time he has treaded too lightly, he was all mushy over Scott Bloch too. Enough.

Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, said the material released Tuesday demonstrated that there was “absolutely no evidence” the White House had used inappropriate political motivations to punish federal prosecutors. Mr. Luskin said Mr. Rove and other White House aides were legitimately concerned about voter fraud and were debating “completely reasonable and legitimate policy questions.”

Gold Bars is such a total tool. And man does he get around with the media outlets. Does he rent space at all of them or something?

Bush administration officials have publicly suggested that Mr. Iglesias was dismissed because of a subpar performance and absences from the office — he was a Navy reservist.

Those issues do not surface in the newly released e-mail. Rather, the dissatisfaction of New Mexico Republicans over the investigations was the focus in 2005 and 2006. Nonetheless, one message shows that the White House was told that the Justice Department planned to say the New Mexico investigations played no role in the dismissal.

In that exchange, in February 2007, William K. Kelly, of the White House Counsel’s Office, wrote an e-mail message to several senior officials, including Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, and Tony Snow, the press secretary. Referring to the Justice Department, Mr. Kelly wrote, “They are planning to deny that the investigation in question played any role in DOJ’s decision, and to deny that any Member contacted main Justice to complain about the conduct (or not) of any particular investigation.”

Hard evidence of a predetermined plan to deceive the public and obstruct any investigation that could occur (presumably by Congress). And The DOJ was front and center with the WH in complicity. Anybody else see a conflict of interest here in a DOJ investigation by say, I dunno, Nora Dannehy? By the way, when can we expect the charges on all these facts and implications Nora? There are certainly grounds, on several fronts, against several individuals, first and foremost Gonzales, but others as well. Anybody taking odds on whether any charges are filed at all?

As the first Purgegate document thread is getting long in the tooth, do not hesitate to continue here using this as another working thread.

Adam Cohen of the New York Times is a fairly astute writer on legal issues, and he has a new article up on the interesting case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involves the ability of corporations to further pollute elections in the United States with unregulated big money. From Cohen’s NYT article:

The founders were wary of corporate influence on politics — and their rhetoric sometimes got pretty heated. In an 1816 letter, Thomas Jefferson declared his hope to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

This skepticism was enshrined in law in the early 20th century when the nation adopted strict rules banning corporations from contributing to political campaigns. Today that ban is in danger from the Supreme Court, which hears arguments next month in a little-noticed case that could open the floodgates to corporate money in politics.

The court has gone to extraordinary lengths to hear the case. And there are worrying signs that there may well be five votes to rule that the ban on corporate contributions violates the First Amendment.
…
If the ban is struck down, corporations may soon be writing large checks to the same elected officials whom they are asking to give them bailouts or to remove health-and-safety regulations from their factories or to insert customized loopholes into the tax code.

The entire article is not that long and well worth a read for the history and set up for the case at bar. Cohen is right that the ban is in jeopardy; and the Roberts court does seem to have a hard on for this issue, having taken extraordinary steps to wade into this case, which is not that well set up for a Supreme Court determination on such a critical and far reaching issue.

The Court did indeed take a case in which the ban on corporate political contributions was not a central issue and instructed the parties to brief on the ban’s constitutionality. The Court then accelerated oral argument on its calendar to a September date before the new SCOTUS term even starts. This sure looks to be the handiwork of Chief Justice John Roberts; anybody who says Roberts is not an "activist judge", and has no agenda, is nuttier than a fruitcake.

I do wish, however, that Cohen had written a longer piece and gone into some of the other fascinating aspects of this very important case. First off, Cohen did not even mention that this is the infamous "Hillary: The Movie" case from the 2008 primary election campaign. Citizens United is a right wing political hatchet group run by David Bossie, one of the key front men for the Congressional Republicans pressing the Whitewater investigations. There is a lot of wingnut skulduggery rooting around in the background here.

Secondly, Cohen (nor I) isn’t kidding when he says the Court is reaching wildly to frame the issues as it has demanded on corporate campaign donations. The issues on appeal were originally: (1) did the 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC resolve the constitutionality of as-applied challenges to the disclosure and disclaimer rules; (2) do said rules impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to ”political speech” protected by the FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life decision; (3) did the FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life decision require, for regulation, a definite call for a vote for or against a candidate; and (4) whether a feature-length documentary can be treated as if it were an “ad” of the kind at issue in the McConnell v. FEC decision. With, really, a fair amount of emphasis on "4", whether the movie was a political ad. This is a far cry from where the Roberts Court is now heading.

Third, Cohen doesn’t mention the bizarre procedural history behind where the case sits now. SCOTUSWiki has an absolutely great history and explanation, written by Lyle Denniston, of the issues and process of Citizens v. Federal Elections Commission. Suffice it, for here, to say that the case has already been argued to the Court once and ought to be decided by now. Problem seems to be that Chief Justice Roberts was put off by the more liberal members questioning of Ted Olson after some passionate, but mostly tangential, First Amendment arguments he made at the first oral argument. Remember that horse manure that John Roberts pitched at his confirmation hearing about his "job being to call balls and strikes"? He lied through his teeth.

Lastly, there is the advance of the femme fatales Cohen forgot to mention. First, and foremost, is the newly sworn in Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It will be, of course, her very first case heard as the new junior member (Alito must be relieved to be off coffee and donuts duty) of the Court. Here is Russ Feingold questioning Sotomayor about Citizens United v. FEC at her confirmation hearing (as with all questioners, he didn’t get much out of her).

And then, of course, we have Obama’s crack Solicitor General Elena Kagan. At least Sonia Sotomayor has a long and deep history of work in trial and appellate courtrooms, both as an attorney and a jurist, under her belt. Not so Elena Kagan. The Justice Department has confirmed Kagan will indeed personally argue the case on September 9. By all accounts, and all I have been able to discern, Kagan’s first words on September 9 will be the first words she has ever uttered in battle in any kind of courtroom, anywhere, at any time, ever. That, in and of itself, is both fascinating and stupefying.

With all this time, and a whole Solicitor General’s office of more experienced attorneys, not to mention the DOJ, to help her with the training wheels, she should at least not embarrass herself you would think. But, then again, she will be up against Ted Olson, as seasoned a SCOTUS pro as exists on the face of the earth (and a distinguished former Solicitor General himself). We shall see; ought to be worth paying attention to I think.

While this decision will be immediately appealed, in what was a proxy power fight, Thailand has refused to extradite Viktor Bout to the United States to be tried on charges of trafficking arms to terrorists–Colombia’s FARC.

The DEA maintains that Mr Bout agreed to supply ground-to-air missiles that could have been used to target agency operatives assisting Colombia’s attempts to wipe out cocaine crops.

But on Tuesday the court found in favour of Mr Bout.

“The US charges are not applicable under Thai law,” said the judge delivering the hour-long verdict at Bangkok’s Criminal Court. “This is a political case. The Farc is fighting for a political cause and is not a criminal gang. Thailand does not recognise the Farc as a terrorist group.”

The court “does not have the authority to punish actions done by foreigners against other foreigners in another country”, the judge said.

The FT goes on to describe allegations of attempts, by both the Americans and Russians, to bribe the judges in this case. Who knows the relative truth to that claim? But the decision is interesting because the Thais have thus far refused to follow US bidding in what is undoubtedly an attempt to shut down a horrible arms trafficker (though one we have used in the past), but is also an attempt to shut down a challenge to US influence in developing nations around the world.

And yes, I do find it ironic that Thailand–the country that hosted Abu Zubaydah’s torturers–has refused to accept our representations about who is, and who is not, a terrorist.

The House Judiciary Committee has just released all its materials from the Rove and Miers interviews. They are linked below.

I’m going to take a quick glance before I hop in the car to drive to Pittsburgh.  But I’ll take a closer look tonight.

• Rove Interview
• Miers Interview
• White House Documents
• RNC Documents

BTW, here’s what HJC sent out in the press release.

Key new facts revealed in the materials released today include:[

•    2005 White House “Decision” to fire David Iglesias  – It has previously been known that New Mexico Republicans pressed for Iglesias to be removed because they did not like his decisions on vote fraud cases.  New White House documents show that Rove and his office were involved in this effort no later than May 2005 (months earlier than previously known) – for example, in May and June 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent emails to Tim Griffin (also in Rove’s office) asking “what else I can do to move this process forward” and stressing that “I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY.”   In June 2005, Harriet Miers emailed that a “decision” had been made to replace Iglesias.  At this time, DOJ gave Iglesias top rankings, so this decision was clearly not just the result of the White House following the Department’s lead as Rove and Miers have maintained.¹ 

•    Iglesias criticized by Rove aide for not “doing his job on” Democratic Congressional Candidate Patricia Madrid  –   An October 2006 email chain begun by Representative Heather Wilson criticized David Iglesias for not bringing politically useful public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the 2006 elections.  Scott Jennings forwarded Wilson’s email to Karl Rove and complained that Iglesias had been “shy about doing his job on Madrid,” Wilson’s opponent in the 2006 Congressional race.  Just weeks after this email, Iglesias’ name was placed on the final firing list.²

•    An “agitated” Rove pressed Harriet Miers to do something about Iglesias just weeks before Iglesias was placed on the removal list – Karl Rove phoned Harriet Miers during a visit to New Mexico in September 2006 – according to Miers’ testimony, Rove was “agitated” and told her that Iglesias was “a serious problem and he wanted something done about it.”³

•    Senator Domenici personally asked Bush’s Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to have Iglesias replaced  –In October 2006, Senator Domenici stepped up his campaign to have Iglesias replaced.  According to White House phone logs and emails, as well as Rove’s own testimony, Domenici spoke with President Bush’s Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about Iglesias on October 5, 2006, and during October 2006, Domenici or his staff spoke with Karl Rove at least 4 times.⁴

•    Todd Graves removed in Rove-approved deal with Republican Senator – Kansas City US Attorney Todd Graves was removed as part of a White House-brokered deal with US Senator Kit Bond.  In exchange for the Administration firing Graves, Senator Bond agreed to lift his hold on an Arkansas judge nominated to the Eighth Circuit federal appeals court. A White House email stated that “Karl is fine” with the proposal.⁵                             

•    Miers obtained favorable statement on Rick Renzi in violation of DOJ policy  – When rumors of the FBI investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi surfaced in October, 2006, one of Rove’s subordinates contacted Harriet Miers, who called Deputy Attorney General McNulty seeking a possible statement that would have “vindicated” Renzi.  Even though this was contrary to standard DOJ policy, such a statement was issued several days later.⁶

“I have provided a copy of the materials released today to special U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy to assist in her effort to determine whether federal criminal charges are appropriate and to pursue any such charges,” said Conyers.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been prepping for a panel on Saturday on torture. And so I’ve been reviewing all the things DOJ promised us in mid June or early July that they still haven’t delivered on: The OPR Report, the torture investigation, and–as Daphne Eviatar points out–the new State Secrets policy.

As I reported almost two months ago, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 17 that he would issue a new policy on when the government will invoke the state secrets privilege to conceal evidence from the public — and even from federal court judges — “in a matter of days.”

Well, it’s August, and still nothing. After Ed asked me the question, I followed up with Dean Boyd, spokesman for the Justice Department’s national security division, asking him if that policy had ever been issued. After all, maybe we’d just missed it.

Boyd’s response:  “Not yet; still in the works.”

Presumably, DOJ is trying its luck with some of the State Secrets claims outstanding, such as the Jeppesen claim that the 9th will almost certainly sustain (meaning State Secrets can only be applied to evidence and not information generally). 

And presumably DOJ figures that, with SJC occupied until recently with the Sotomayor confirmation, no one would notice.

In case anyone is wondering, Daphne and I have both officially noticed.