Remember the rationale the FBI gave for why he sent anthrax to Senators Daschle and Leahy?

In 2001, members of the Catholic pro-life movement were known to be highly critical of Catholic Congressional members who voted pro-choice in opposition to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Two of the more prominent members of Congress who fell in this category were Senator Tom Daschle, then Senator Majority Leader; and Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings. 

The FBI suggested Ivins was ardently pro-life, which contributed to his selection of Leahy and Daschle as targets.

Problem is, they never actually prove that Ivins was ardently pro-life. Rather, they describe him discussing his wife’s pro-life activities as head of the local Right to Life group.

On July 10, 2002, in an e-mail to a friend, Dr. Ivins identified his wife, [redacted] as the President of the Frederick County Right to Life, as well as having connections to many other pro-life/anti-abortion groups. 

They go on to include another excerpt from the email that suggests he considers himself pro-life–though it also suggests he is not entirely sure an anti-choice stance is the true Christian stance.

Dr. Ivins later states in the same e-mail, "I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-life, but I want my position to be one consistent with a Christian.

Without providing the context of that sentence, Ivins’ use of the conjunction "but" in the sentence does more to suggest Ivins has some doubt whether traditional pro-life activities are Christian than it does to prove that he–and not just his wife–was ardently pro-life.

Yet the claim that Bruce Ivins was pro-life was the primary reason the FBI gave for why Ivins targeted Daschle (they brought up the PATRIOT Act, but focused more on Leahy’s involvement in slowing the passage of the bill). In addition, the FBI explained the "Greendale School" reference on one of the envelopes because of the couple’s joint membership in the American Family Association (with no indication that Bruce Ivins–and not his wife–was the active subscriber of their materials).  

Which is why it’s so damning to the FBI case that Ivins wrote instructions in his will that if his family refused to cremate him and scatter the ashes, he would give a huge donation to Planned Parenthood.

Six weeks after Bruce E. Ivins killed himself, the cremated remains of Mr. Ivins, the Army scientist and anthrax suspect, are stored at a funeral home here, awaiting the outcome of an unusual probate court proceeding.

In a will he wrote last year, a few months before the Federal Bureau of Investigation focused the anthrax letters investigation on him, Dr. Ivins wrote of his wish to be cremated and have his ashes scattered. But fearing that his wife, Diane, and their two children might not honor the request, he came up with a novel way to enforce his demand: threatening to make a bequest to an organization he knew his wife opposed, Planned Parenthood.

“If my remains are not cremated and my ashes are not scattered or spread on the ground, I give to Planned Parenthood of Maryland” $50,000, Dr. Ivins wrote in the will. Court records value the estate at $143,000.

Ivins’ clever trick with the will in no way indicates he was pro-choice. All it does is show that he gambled his wife’s own opposition to choice was stronger than her desire to bury him. But it does make it clear that his wife was the anti-choice zealot in the household, not him. The membership in the American Family Association and the articles opposing Leahy and Daschle? There’s no reason to believe Ivins cared about them or even read them.

But if Bruce Ivins wasn’t an anti-choice zealot, then several more pieces of the FBI case fall apart.

There’s a potential bombshell hidden at the end of USAT’s story on the subpoenas about to be issued in TrooperGate:

Branchflower said he needed subpoenas to interview several Palin aides who had been in meetings about the matter. And in one case, he said, he needed to compel the interview of a state contractor whom he said may have lied to him.

Murlene Wilkes owns Harbor Adjusting Services in Anchorage, which has a contract with the state to process workers’ compensation claims, Branchflower said. She told him the governor’s office did not pressure her to deny a claim for Wooten, he said. But in August, one of her employees called a tip line and claimed there indeed was such pressure, Branchflower said.

"I remember at some point in the conversation she had mentioned or said something to the effect that either the governor or the governor’s office wanted this claim denied," Branchflower quoted the tipster as saying. "I don’t care if it’s the president who wants this claim denied, I’m not going to deny it unless I have the medical evidence to do that."

Wilkes may have had a financial incentive to cover up, Branchflower said. Wilkes did not respond to a voicemail left at her office Friday afternoon. [my emphasis]

As a reminder, when Frank Bailey called State Trooper Lieutenant Rodney Dial in February to pressure him about Wooten, Bailey mentioned "funny business" about a workers comp claim Wooten had submitted–basically that days after Wooten submitted the workers comp claim, he was caught on a snowmobile. Bailey also suggests that Wooten may have hid a pre-existing injury on his Trooper application.

It sounds like someone from the Governor’s office called the workers comp contractor, Murlene Wilkes, gave her this information, and pushed her to deny the coverage on that basis. Wilkes refused to deny the claim. But when Wilkes spoke with Branchflower, she said the Governor’s office had not pressured her. [Update: Andrew Halcro has some on this.]

And Branchflower says, "Wilkes may have had a financial incentive to cover up." Sure, it may just be that Wilkes didn’t want to lose the contract with the state, and so didn’t admit the pressure to Branchflower. Branchflower may just mean that Wilkes decided, on her own, not to piss off Sarah Palin.

But it sure makes you wonder whether someone made the threat of losing the contract explicit. 

It’s now apparent that the McPalin campaign will lie about anything: earmarks, foreign travel, crowd size, even who paid for Meghan’s Prius. As the Obama campaign asked today, "is there anything the McCain campaign isn’t lying about?"

Is it possible that McCain’s bravado about how well Iraq is going is all a lie, too? According to Bob Woodward, that may well be the case.

Woodward’s latest book about the Iraq war, "The War Within," portrays McCain as offering a rosy assessment to the public about the surge’s progress while privately telling U.S. officials he thought the country was on the brink of losing the war.

The book describes McCain’s press conference after visiting the Shorja market in Baghdad in early April of 2007. After touring the market — protected by more than 100 soldiers — McCain said, "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made."

McCain was widely mocked for those statements later after television crews showed the level of protection surrounding him at the market.

But what was not known at the time was how different his private assessment of the war was.

According to Woodward, McCain was invited to visit with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after he publicly made the positive comments at the market. "Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose," Woodward writes.

"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," Woodward quotes McCain as saying to Rice. Woodward writes that McCain "launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department’s role" in the war effort. [my emphasis]

Now, after the WaPo published this story this morning, the McCain campaign issued a rebuttal.

McCain campaign senior advisor Mark Salter sought to clarify McCain’s position Saturday afternoon. "Senator McCain returned from Iraq and met with Secretary Rice to discuss the concerns of U.S. officials in Iraq that the personnel the State Department had sent to Iraq were too few and too junior," he said. "He expressed to Secretary Rice the same opinion of the surge’s prospects he had expressed in public. It would be tough, but it was the last and only chance for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq."

Of course, given the McCain campaign’s pathological inability to tell the truth, there’s no reason to believe Salter’s refutation in any case. But note what Salter didn’t do: fundamentally challenge the story that McCain "let loose" with Condi.

Remember–Woodward has been known to tape important interviews.

McClatchy has an important fact check on Sarah Palin’s latest interview with Charlie Gibson–noting her, um, fluid views on climate change.

Charles Gibson seemed a little confused about Gov. Sarah Palin’s answers on global warming when he interviewed her this week while strolling beside the trans-Alaska pipeline.

The ABC anchor has plenty of Alaska voters for company. Since entering the governor’s race here two years ago, Palin has shimmied back and forth on the key question of whether warming trends are natural or a byproduct of human activity.

Most interesting, though, is the description of where Palin got the money to sue the Federal government in an attempt to delist the polar bear as an endangered species.

Earlier this year, the state legislature approved $2 million for a conference inviting climate change skeptics here to hash out the causes.

"It is important to remember that climate change is occurring, but then it has occurred continuously for millions of years," wrote the legislature’s Republican leaders, House Speaker John Harris and Senate President Lyda Green. "And, so far, there are too many dissenting opinions to state matter-of-factly that it is being caused by humans."

The project was derided by some as a "conference to nowhere" and now appears unlikely to take place. Much of the money was later diverted to fund a lawsuit by the Palin administration against listing the polar bear as a threatened species. [my emphasis]

The reality-haters in Alaska wanted to host a party for similar reality-haters. But instead, the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species gave them their opportunity to challenge reality on a national scale. With the added bonus for them, of course, that if they won, they could continue to trash the polar bear’s habitat with abandon.

I realize Sarah Palin is suing the government for practical reasons, so, if she won, Alaska could continue to get rich off of selling the Japanese gas and oil, without worrying whether it’ll wipe out polar bears once and for all.

But at some level, isn’t she just going after the polar bears as a propaganda stunt?

Photo credit: Steve Hillebrand / USFWS

One of the, um, creepiest things about Sarah Palin is that her husband lurks around the Governor’s business, sticking his nose in where private citizens should have no involvement. This includes oil and gas negotiations, her emails, and hiring and firing decisions–including that of Walt Monegan. In fact, when I was reading Wevley Shea’s warnings to Palin, I kept thinking: "Wevley, Dude, she can’t get out of this because she can’t fire one of the "aides" most intimately involved in pressuring Monegan: her husband."

Well, now she might wish she had, because in addition to the seven Palin aides who are cooperating in the McCain cover-up (and therefore NOT cooperating in the TrooperGate investigation), the investigator has asked to subpoena Todd Palin.

The committee investigating this has to vote on who will get a subpoena–so Todd Palin does not yet have to bone up on his "spousal privilege" (no, not that kind of privilege–with Republicans it’s about the cover-up, you know). 

But at the very least, this ought to focus some attention on whether it is appropriate for Todd Palin to be making the hiring and firing decisions of Alaska’s public servents.

Update: In a bipartisan 3-2 vote, the committee has approved the subpoenas.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 today to subpoena 13 people — including the husband of Gov. Sarah Palin — in an investigation of whether Palin abused her power in trying to get her former brother-in-law fired.

The legislative probe has taken on new significance since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate.

Retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower asked the state House and Senate judiciary committees for power to subpoena the 13 witnesses, including Todd Palin, the governor’s husband.

"He’s such a central figure. … I think one should be issued for him," Branchflower said.

The Senate committees granted the request. Voting for were Sens. Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla, and two Anchorage Democrats, Hollis French and Bill Wielechowski.

If you’ve been watching Sarah Palin’s attempt to cover-up her abuse of power in TrooperGate, it may have reminded you of Bush’s attempt to cover up his US Attorney purge: An executive wants to retaliate against those who have put the rule of law above partisan or personal grudges, so she fires people. And then, when people notice, she starts stone-walling and back-tracking on promises to cooperate.

Kagro X has already made this comparison explicit.

Warning to Democrats Americans: Republicans are fighting this investigation like it was Florida 2000. If you’re harboring any thoughts of taking a hands-off approach, rising above the fray, and then doubling back to investigate it later if she gets elected, think again. At that point we’ll be hearing nothing but how it was "thoroughly investigated" by the Alaska state legislature. The quashing of the subpoenas won’t be mentioned, and all will be forgotten. You know it’s coming.

This is a direct parallel to federal issues playing out as we speak in Washington, with Harriet Miers a no-show once again today on a subpoena that’s now well over a year old.

Turns out, Kagro X isn’t the first one to make such a comparison. One of Sarah Palin’s own personal advisors is.

WSJ broke and CNN did a follow-up story on the warnings Palin’s ethics advisor, Wevley Shea, gave her just as the story that she fired Walt Monegan started to break back in July.

An informal adviser who has counseled Gov. Sarah Palin on ethics issues urged her in July to apologize for her handling of the dismissal of the state’s public safety commissioner and warned that the matter could snowball into a bigger scandal.

He also said, in a letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that she should fire any aides who had raised concerns with the chief over a state trooper who was involved in a bitter divorce with the governor’s sister.

In an interview with CNN, Shea compares the TrooperGate cover-up (and remember–this is a description coming from one of Palin’s friends!) and the US Attorney purge:

"The problem, in my opinion, is that there has been out-and-out cover-up and misleading statements by staffers in the governor’s office," he said. "And the parallel that I tried to draw is, you know, the problem with the firing or terminating of the U.S. attorneys."

But it’s in a later letter to Palin that Shea makes the extended comparison (kudos to the WSJ for linking this–I recommend you all click through and read this series of letters because it is absolutely damning).

On August 4, between the time the investigation began and proof of Palin’s direct involvement came out, Shea wrote Palin a detailed review of Federal rules about Congressional contempt. It then goes into a three-page analysis of the Judge Bates’ July 31 opinion on the Miers/Bolten case, including this passage:

… the Executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege … Ms. Miers is not excused from compliance with the Committee’s subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be made. Instead, she must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.

He then closes with the suggestion that those running the legislative investigation–Steve Branchflower and Hollis French–probably don’t know all that much about executive privilege claims.

This overview is to provide you with Congressional contempt criteria and "immunity" alternatives. I know Investigator Steve Branchflower has a limited understanding of executive privilege. I doubt your leadership in the Department of Law or Senator Hollis French and his colleagues have any in-depth understanding of the capacity of the potential complexity of the issues. I want to emphasize my federal court analysis, especially the United States Supreme Court, may be applicable to your present investigation situation.

Shea appears to have shifted, between his July warnings about the gravity of the situation and his August analysis of Palin’s options regarding executive privilege, from someone advising her to avoid the cover-up to someone advising her of the legal dangers in stone-walling. He seems most concerned about helping her avoid contempt charges–and this concern appears to have borne fruit, since the legislative committee investigating this has promised not to subpoena Palin. And frankly, given Shea’s comment to CNN, he still seems to be just as appalled at the cover-up as we are.

Yet that doesn’t change the fact that he used the Miers/Bolten case as an outline of what she could and could not declare off-limits. Palin is using the Republican experience in the US Attorney purge cover-up and applying those lessons to her own cover-up.

No wonder it all looked so familiar.

Joe Sudbay is right—this interview, in which McCain is challenged to explain why Governor Palin is qualified to be a 72-year old heartbeat away from the presidency, is terrible.

But I’m most interested–disturbed, really–by his latest explanation of how Sarah Palin is qualified on the matter that McCain says matters most: national security. 

Reporter: You say you’re sure she has the experience, but I’m just asking for an example. What experience does she have in the field of national security?

McCain: Energy. She knows more about energy than uh probably anyone else in the United States of America. She represe–is a governor of the state that 20% of America’s energy supply comes from there. And you all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue.

McCain is basically arguing that serving as governor of a state that supplies a lot of America’s energy gives a person great national security credentials.

Hmmm. Governors of states that supply lots of energy … states that supply lots of energy … lets see, those would include Alaska, Louisiana, …

Ut oh.

And Texas.

Now aside from the fact that McCain is wrong about his claim that Alaska provides 20% of our energy supply (it provides 20% of our oil, relatively little–at least thus far–of our natural gas, and insignificant amounts of coal, nuclear, wind, or solar power), he’s basically arguing that a guy like George Bush has the national security qualifications to be President.

And we saw how well that worked out. 

All in all, I’d say, McCain’s making a great case for voting against Sarah Palin.

The McCain campaign, noting that by adding a celebrity to their ticket they can actually fill rallies, has announced McCain and Palin will continue to campaign together after she returns from trying to cover up her dirt in Alaska.

The McCain campaign is "very seriously considering" having McCain and Palin campaign together more often than not in the next two months, a senior campaign aide said, adding it could be the most a presidential and vice presidential candidate campaign in tandem in recent history.

The aide said the two have developed a strong chemistry together and will likely utilize it through joint rallies. He likened it to the chemistry Bill Clinton and Al Gore had in 1992, suggesting it was instinctive.

"Sometimes these vice presidential selections, the pairings, work in a magical way," the aide told reporters on the Palin campaign plane, on condition of anonymity.

Though, really, it’s not so much "chemistry" or "magic." It’s necessity. You can’t promise concert-goers Carrie Underwood and then deliver Lawrence Welk–which is what the McCain campaign will be doing until they get their hot celebrity back on the trail. 

In fact, McCain couldn’t even get through his first campaign rally after Palin left, though that appears to have been Democrats capitalizing on really bad advance work from the McCain team.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain cut short his first public appearance without running-mate Sarah Palin after chanting supporters of Democratic rival Barack Obama interrupted his speech.

After lunching with a roundtable of women at Philadelphia’s Down Home Diner, McCain shook hands with supporters and strode up to a podium to deliver a statement. But as he spoke, chants of "Obama, Obama, Obama" filled the room.

Reporters craned forward trying to hear the Arizona senator. Unfortunately for McCain — and possibly overlooked by aides who planned the event — a section of the diner opened up to a market where a crowd had gathered behind a cordon.

A large contingent of Obama supporters showed up, mixed with some who had bumper stickers reading "Democrats for McCain".

[snip]

His words were barely audible. [my emphasis]

Frankly, this state of affairs has a lot of risk for McCain. He is already depending on her to bring out the crowds–which suggests a real dependency which kind of weakens the whole war hero image.

But I’m most interested in what McCain’s reliance on Palin will do for his ability to campaign. The race is currently effectively tied both nationally and in a number of key swing states. Barring some other big campaign news, those states will be decided by the amount of close attention each candidate gives them–the number of rallies they have. And by setting it up so that McCain has to appear with Palin to draw any crowd (and given the leers McCain has already made towards Palin’s legs, I presume Cindy McCain will continue to chaperone the pair), the McCain team has basically cut their number of potential campaigners by two thirds.

Every day, Barack Obama and Joe Biden split up, head to different swing states, and hit different kinds of voters (Biden, for example, has a much better draw among Catholics and white working class people). In addition, Michelle Obama seems to do at least one event a week, meeting with women to talk about economic issues. Any of the three of these people has the ability to represent Obama and his message proudly. Meanwhile, it looks increasingly like the McCain team will be offering McPalin-and-the-wife, one unit, at one third of the total campaign spots.

Already, the GOP is operating at a disadvantage because they didn’t have anything to excite the Christian conservatives who serve as key campaign volunteers until last week. They’re facing a Democrat who has the best ground game of recent memory.  But now it looks like, on top of those hidden handicaps, the McCain team will be working this election with one third the campaigners.

I’ve just gotten through the first Department of Interior IG report, and wanted to pull out these few discrete details as an example of what Attorney General Mukasey has declined to prosecute.

The first report describes the corrupt acts of Gregory Smith, who managed the Royalty in Kind program. In that program, companies drilling on Federal land, give the government oil or gas, which the government then contracts to sell in lieu of payment for the drilling; one of the scandals underlying this program is that the companies contracted to sell the oil were getting contracts because they were cozy with someone in DOI, not because they could get us the best price. 

Among other things this report reveals is that Smith repeatedly offered himself as a consultant to companies doing business with RIK, promising to alert those companies of opportunities with other companies doing business with RIK.

But what really fries my ass is this bit. 

We interviewed yet another RIK employee who stated that in approximately 2005, Smith "insisted" that she ride in his car from one business establishment to another, and she agreed. 

The employee stated that Smith took "the long way" between the two businesses, and during the drive, he asked to go to her nearby home, but she refused. "He wanted to have sex; I said no," she recalled. Smith then asked if she would have oral sex with him, but she told him she did not want to. She said then Smith "basically forced [her] head into his lap," and she performed oral sex on him while he drove the car slowly. She said she resisted Smith when he pulled her head into his lap, but Smith did not relent and continued to pull her head down. She said Smith was "real persistent" but not violent, and she did not feel as though she had been sexually assaulted by Smith. She stated that it was difficult for her to have sex with Smith because he superivised her and RIK, but she "felt like [she] could get fired," so she did what Smith wanted. SHe said she was "scared" that if she did not do what Smith wanted her to do, it could possibly affect her employment. 

The report goes on to describe Smith telling this employee, when the OIG investigations began, that he was going to deny it if asked about it by investigators.

And the outcome?

The results of this investigation, to include a substantial amount of information obtained through federal grand jury process that is not included here, were provided to the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in March 2008 for prosecutorial consideration. In May 2008, DOJ advised that it was declining to prosecute Smith on various charges.

Now, perhaps this woman just refused to serve as a witness to her own sexual assault. Perhaps DOJ has a good reason not to prosecute this guy that they’re not telling us.

But Smith did this while you and I were paying his salary. And Michael Mukasey’s DOJ seems to think a government manager sexually assaulting a woman on our dime is okay.

Update: Link to report added.

They mean sex, corruption, and political scandal.

I first covered the scandal that is breaking big today at about the same time as Governor Palin took the oath of office in Alaska. 

This appears to have been the scam: Some time ago, the Interior Department introduced a "royalties in kind" program, which allowed oil companies to pay for the privilege of drilling for oil on our land in kind–in oil and gas–rather than in cold hard cash. The gimmick is that it was supposed to facilitate accounting. Up until recently (don’t worry–I’m going to figure out these dates), the oil went into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).* But the SPR apparently is all filled up now, so recently the US government started contracting with companies to sell the oil on the "open market." But, as these things are bound to happen in the BushCo world, we didn’t take open bids for the contracts to sell the oil. We apparently just gave companies with ties to a bunch of Interior Department employees in Denver the contracts, which of course meant we got less money than we otherwise would have.

I even predicted,

How appropriate–this Administration will begin with an oil scandal. And it looks like it will end with one, too. 

That looks to be prescient, as the Department of Interior Inspectors General’s Report describing the scandal has thrown a whole lot of sex and drugs and improper gifts into the mix.

Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said Wednesday.

The alleged transgressions involve 13 Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with — and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from — oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department’s inspector general.

The investigations reveal a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by a small group of individuals "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney.

The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing the oil and gas that energy companies barter to the government instead of making cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such Royalty-in-Kind payments last year. The oil is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation’s emergency stockpile.

Between 2002 and 2006, nearly a third of the 55-person staff in the Denver office received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, the investigators found.

And don’t forget–those "improper gifts" even included a scam on a house for Sue Ellen Wooldridge and Stephen Griles. Sounds like … Ted Stevens, doesn’t it? Or, for that matter, Duke Cunningham, but that wasn’t oil and sex and drugs, just defense contracts and sex and drugs.

See, this is why those Republicans get so worked up when they scream for drilling. It’s not a solution to an energy crisis for them. It’s a shortcut to a gravy train that might just get them laid.

Update: the reports (there are three of them) are here.