March 28, 2024 / by 

 

The Lobbyist-In-Chief Invites His Friends Over

I criticize Mikey Isikoff a lot, but I’m very grateful for this story, via Laura Rozen. Isikoff and Hoseball reveal that the telecom industry is launching a full court press to get Congress to give telecoms immunity for having broken the law in helping Bush spy on Americans.

The nation’s biggest telecommunications companies, working closely withthe White House, have mounted a secretive lobbying campaign to getCongress to quickly approve a measure wiping out all private lawsuitsagainst them for assisting the U.S. intelligence community’swarrantless surveillance programs.

Though Isikoff and Hosenball don’t mention that our government has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, they do provide a list of some of the people who are participating in this campaign.

Among those coordinating the industry’s effort are two well-connectedcapital players who both worked for President George H.W. Bush: Verizongeneral counsel William Barr, who served as attorney general under 41,and AT&T senior executive vice president James Cicconi, who was theelder Bush’s deputy chief of staff.

[snip]

Working with them are a battery of major D.C. lobbyists and lawyers whoare providing "strategic advice" to the companies on the issue,according to sources familiar with the campaign who asked not to beidentified talking about it. Among the players, these sources said:powerhouse Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne Berman (whorepresent AT&T and Verizon, respectively), former GOP senator andU.S. ambassador to Germany Dan Coats (a lawyer at King & Spauldingwho is representing Sprint), former Democratic Party strategist andone-time assistant secretary of State Tom Donilon (who representsVerizon), former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (whose law firmalso represents Verizon) and Brad Berenson, a former assistant WhiteHouse counsel under President George W. Bush who now representsAT&T.

Let me add to the list. Inside the oval office, we have former top lobbyist for AT&T, Ed Gillespie. In DOJ, we now have AT&T lawyer, Peter Keisler. At Director of National Intelligence, we’ve got former Director of Defense Programs at Booz Allen. The telecoms and other contractors have almost as much representation in this Administration as the oil companies do.

Isikoff and Hosenball reveal one more detail that I think might explain the real reason for the panic, assuming bmaz’ arguments are correct.

Wainstein also said that a telecom company’s overseas assets could bethreatened if its collaboration in U.S. espionage efforts wereconfirmed in a court case.

I’m going to try to look for Wainstein’s comments–but it makes sense. In the 1990s, as the world was moving from analog to digital, the United States conveniently rewired backbones to go through the United States. Which, from the perspective of every other country in the world, is a tremendous security risk–it basically just gives the US direct access to the communications of that country (not that we weren’t taking it anyway, but this makes things a lot comfier for US’ snoops, who can sit in the spy room in San Francisco with a Peet’s Coffee while they read email in French). I’m sure every other country is aware of this, now (and probably was before). But publicity about the exposure of other countries to US government snoops is going to make it a lot harder for US telecoms to do business in other countries.


$1.40

Atrios points out that the Euro has just pushed past $1.40.

140

Let’s see. In the last two days, the Fed has cut interest rates by half a point, making what is probably a futile attempt to staunch the subprime crisis. And yesterday, Henry Paulson asked Congress to raise the debt limit before we once again hit our debt limit on October 1–which will make the fifth time Bush has had to ask his creditors to increase his credit card balance.

Is anyone surprised the dollar is at record lows? Good thing my brother-in-law’s wife is having a baby in South Carolina, which means the Irish in-laws will visit the states more frequently. Because Europe is going to be much too expensive for people from banana republics like the Bush-era USA.

Update: Oh jeebus. As Lurcher points out, the Canadian dollar is hovering around parity with the US dollar.


The 1% Leadership Solution

scout prime catches Michael Chertoff looking like the self-important incompetent he is. She finds that:

  • Michael Chertoff has a blog. Yes, that’s right folks. And his blog is called How to Kill a City. No wait. I’m sorry. It’s called Leadership Journal.
  • Faced with yet another intractable crisis, the Bush Administration is doing what it always does. Name a Czar!!

Not to worry. There has never been a problem that could not be solved by flinging a good ‘ol Czar or 2 at it…

We have a moral obligation to help the people of Iraq, especially thoseindividuals assisting coalition forces and putting their own lives atrisk. But we also have a responsibility to prevent terrorists frominfiltrating our borders. Our new Iraqi Refugee Czars will make sure wemeet both of these objectives, and that our re-settlement process movesforward swiftly and with our highest priority. We welcome your commentsand appreciate your time. (scout prime’s emphasis)

  • Chertoff is celebrating the success of the US in resettling 940 Iraqis, which works out to be just a teeny fraction of one percent of the 1.8 million Iraqis who are now refugees.

The Bush Administration folks. Where we can look back with longing on the days of a Gentleman’s C.


CBS Collaborates in Torture

The most interesting thing about the Dan Rather complaint, IMO, is the description it gave of CBS and Administration attempts to spike the Abu Ghraib story.

In late April 2004, Mr. Rather, as Correspondant, and Mary Mapes, a veteran producer, broke a news story of national importance on 60 Minutes II–the abuse by American military personnel of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. The story, which included photographs of the abusive treatment of prisoners, consumer American news media for many months.

Despite the story’s importance, and because of the obvious negative impact the story would have on the Bush administration with which Viacom and CBS wished to curry favor, CBS management attempted to bury it. As a general rule, senior executives of CBS News do not take a hands-on role in the editing and vetting of a story. However, CBS News President Andrew Heyward and Senior Vice President Betsy West were involved intimately in the editing and vetting process of the Abu Ghraib story. However, for weeks, they refused to grant permission to air the story, continuously insisting that it lacked sufficient substantiation. As Mr. Rather and Ms. Mapes provided each requested verification, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to "raise the goalposts," insisting on additional substantiation.

Even after obtaining nearly a dozen, now notorious, photographs, which made it impossible to deny the accuracy of the story, Mr. Heyward and Ms. West continued to delay the story for an additional three weeks. This delay was, in part, occasioned by acceding to pressures brought to bear by government officials urging CBS to drop the story or at least delay it. As a part of that pressure, Mr. Rather received a personal telephone call from General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging him to delay the story.

Only after it became apparent that, due to the delay, sources were talking to other news organizations and that CBS would be "scooped," Mr. Heyward and Ms. West approved the airing of the story for April 28, 2004. Even then, CBS imposed the unusual restrictions that the story would be aired only once, that it would not be preceded by on-air promotion, and that it would not be reference on the CBS Evening News.

By my count, we’ve got:


The Pre-Emptive Cave on Immunity

Glenn Greenwald catches the Democrats preparing to cave to Administration demands for retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

Mr. McConnell argued on Tuesday that the expanded surveillancepowers granted under the temporary measure should be made permanent.

Healso pushed for a provision that would grant legal immunity to thetelecommunications companies that secretly cooperated with the N.S.A.on the warrantless program. Those companies, now facing lawsuits, havenever been officially identified.

Democratic Congressional aides say they believe that a deal is likely to provide protection for the companies. [my emphasis]

But Glenn is just now catching onto something that bmaz has been harping on for some time. So long as the Attorney General approved the program, the telecoms would have indemnity.

With regard to FISA immunity, JAO in commentsmakes the important point that FISA, from its inception, alreadyprovided that telecoms would be immune from liability if the AttorneyGeneral certified that the law did not require a warrant for thesurveillance that they allowed. Presumably, that means that with regardto what they did over the last six years, they had no suchcertification for at least some of Bush’s warrantless activities whichthey enabled.

They may have lacked this certification because Ashcroft refused toprovide it, and/or because Ashcroft was kept in the dark about some ofwhat they were doing, and/or because they are concerned about theperiod of time when (as we now know, as a result of James Comey’stestimony) the DOJ refused to certify the legality of the surveillanceactivities (and threatened to resign en masse if it continued), andBush ordered it to continue anyway. If we lived in a society witheither an open government or a Congress that understood its oversightresponsibilities, we would know why the telecoms lacked thiscertificate and thus are in need of retroactive liability. Since wedon’t, we’re left to guess.

I think Glenn’s speculation–that there is no AG authorization–is, for the most part, incorrect. Here’s bmaz (and see also this comment):

I still maintain that as long as there is a warrant valid on it’s faceor a properly certified AG letter that appears valid on it’s face, thetelcos either have no liability or, alternatively, are entitled toindemnification by the government for any resultant liability and anycosts and expenses incurred by the telcos in defending themselves.There is massive liability here, but I just don’t believe the telcosultimately bear that liability. The attempts ats immunity are all aboutshielding the Bush Administration. Telco immunity is just another shellgame fraud being sold like snake oil to the public so that BushCocontinues to avoid accountability.

Rather, bmaz is persuasive that there is not direct liability on part of the telecoms (except as it relates to the spying that occurred in the 24 hours when Bush authorized it without DOJ, and therefore AG, approval). But there is a great deal of liability on the part of the government. If the AT&T lawsuit goes forward and a court finds AT&T did improperly share customer call data with the government, then Uncle Sam will end up picking up the tab, not the telecoms.


No Input from DOJ

The WaPo reveals that the White House pulled the Clement-Keisler headfake with no input from DOJ.

While Mukasey’s nomination is pending, the Justice Departmentwill be run by former civil division chief Peter D. Keisler, aconservative appointee who this week was a surprise replacement in thatrole for Solicitor General Paul D. Clement.Clement, who was publicly tagged last month as the temporaryreplacement for Gonzales, wound up officially taking the helm at 12:01a.m. Monday and relinquishing it 24 hours later, officials said.

The switch was made on Sunday by the White House with no input fromJustice Department officials, said two sources with knowledge of thematter. The change added another level of uncertainty to life at theJustice Department, where nearly every top senior official has resignedin the wake of controversies under Gonzales.

The article goes on to suggest that Chuck Schumer (whose pick Mukasey was, effectively) is brokering some kind of deal with the White House.

Schumer, who has been in touch with Fielding, stopped short of sayinghe is brokering a deal but said: "I made it clear to the judge howimportant it was to solve this. I’m trying to make sure everythingworks out." Schumer said he talked with Mukasey about habeas corpusissues, wiretapping, "the unitary theory of the executive," andproblems in the civil rights division. Mukasey promised he will returnwith answers.

Though I think Schumer is pretty shrewd, for a Democrat, I also worry that his attempt to leverage the Gonzales replacement could backfire. I expanded on my earlier thoughts on the Keisler headfake in my Guardian column.

By appointing Keisler acting attorney general, Bush has given the slotof chief law enforcement officer in the land to a longtime ally ofAT&T, a telecommuncations giant whose decisions about cooperating(or not) with the government could have tremendous impact on theadministration’s surveillance policies.

[snip]

The longer Democrats stall Mukasey’s approval in the Senate, thelonger they’ll leave the telecommunications fox in charge of theprivacy hen house. Democrats can hold out for the documents they’vebeen demanding for years; if they do so, they may finally learn what itwas about the warrantless wiretap program that so greatly disturbedformer administration officials like James Comey. But in doing so they leave allies of the telecommunications industryin remarkable position to influence the administration’s ongoing agenda- and perhaps to institutionalize the existing surveillance program.

Like I said, Schumer is pretty smart. I just hope he knows what he’s doing. And I hope the brokered deal doesn’t replace an investigation.


House Rules

The WaPo has more on the logic behind the refusal of the 13 Congressmen subpoenaed yesterday to testify.

As required by House rules, the subpoenas were read into theCongressional Record late Monday evening. John D. Filamor, assistantHouse counsel, wrote Geragos on Sept. 6 to object to the subpoenas,citing House rules that forbid members from testifying in judicialproceedings unless their testimony is "material and relevant."

Filamor also cited the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution asa likely impediment to the testimony and to "many, if not all, of thedocuments" Geragos is seeking from a handful of lawmakers. That clauseprotects members from being tried criminally for legislative acts.

We have yet to see the subpoenas themselves, but the mention of documents here suggests that one of the documents Geragos is seeking is the report on the HPSCI’s involvement in approving Cunningham graft–and perhaps other documents that chronicle Congress’ addiction to earmarks.

I don’t think I adequately explained what I meant yesterday when I said Congressional subpoenas are the new graymail. Recall that the goal of graymail is not to actually win a trial. It is to force the government into deciding between actually holding the trial or dismissing the charges against the defendant.

The reason I said this appears to be similar to a graymail attempt is because Geragos subpoenaed testimony that is, arguably at least, protected. If Judge Burns determines that the subpoenaed testimony is relevant to Wilkes’ defense, Congress’ invocation of "speech and debate" and House rules will then be weighed. Given the recent Jefferson decision ruling the FBI’s raid on Jefferson’s office illegal, the speech and debate clause may well be interpreted broadly. Which might–and this is Mark Geragos, mind you, so I say might–mean Congress would be given the choice whether to testify in the trial. And if they don’t, Burns might–again, I say might–have to dismiss the charges.

I doubt it’ll work (not least because there’s only about 3 Congressmen who really have directly relevant testimony, plus that one report), but it’s a novel stunt.


Mr. Sulzberger, Tear Down That Wall

My buddy Pinch Sulzberger wrote me today. He said:

We are ending TimesSelect, effective today.

The Times’s Op-Edand news columns are now available free of charge, along with TimesFile and News Tracker. In addition, The New York Times online Archiveis now free back to 1987 for all of our readers.

Why the change?

Sincewe launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly openenvironment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places andinteract with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances thefree flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. Itwill enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion – as wellas to share it, link to it and comment on it.

Shorter Pinch: We thought we could live without the Dirty Fucking Hippies. But it turns out we needed them more than they needed David Brooks.

Though having learned to live without Brooks, I say we just treat him like the troll he is and continue to ignore him.


Diplomatic Convoys

Two days ago Iraq said it was kicking Eric Prince and his mercenary thugs out of Iraq. Yesterday, Iraq said it would review all the mercenary thugs (and legitimate security entities) to see if they could stay in Iraq. And today, the US announces a curb on land-based civilian travel.

The United States on Tuesday suspended all land travel by U.S. diplomats and other civilian officials throughout Iraq,except in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone. The move follows aweekend incident involving private security guards protecting adiplomatic convoy in which a number of Iraqi civilians were killed.

In a notice sent to Americans in Iraq, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdadsaid it had taken the step to review the security of its personnel andpossible increased threats to those leaving the Green Zone whileaccompanied by such security details.

"In light of a serious security incident involving a U.S. embassyprotective detail in the Mansour District of Baghdad, the embassy hassuspended official U.S. government civilian ground movements outsidethe International Zone (IZ) and throughout Iraq," the notice said.

Question: Is this an reflection of rising violence against American personnel, as some have suggested? Or is it an attempt to forestall the conflict with the Iraqi government over whether Blackwater and others can continue to stay in Iraq? After all, if you were an Administration anxiously hoping to gain a victory on the Iraq debate in Congress, you might attempt to put off conflicts that involve sovereignty, security, and imperialism.


Congressional Subpoenas Are the New Graymail

The AP has the list of Congressmen whom Brent Wilkes has subpoenaed to appear at his trial. There are virtually no surprises on the list–all are either former or current Chairs of the Committees that knew of Wilkes’ behavior and/or noted earmarkers in their own right. Here’s why I think each person was subpoenaed.

Duncan Hunter, R-CA: Duncan Hunter was Chair of the Armed Services Committee when Duke Cunningham pulled off his scams. In fact, Hunter is the one who taught Cunningham how to earmark worthless programs to bring home pork for the district. He showed up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade’s position in Congress. And he’s on CREW’s list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

John Doolittle, R-CA: He shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade’s position in Congress. He’s on CREW’s list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

Jerry Lewis, R-CA: He shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade’s position in Congress. He’s on CREW’s list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen. Lewis Chaired Appropriations in the last Congress.

Roy Blunt, R-MO: Blunt has been very good at the same kind of revolving door earmarking as Cunningham.

Denny Hastert, R-IL: Denny was in charge of Congress when Duke was getting bribed. And he shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade’s position in Congress.

Jerry Weller, R-IL: Willing to craft trade programs for his personal benefit, Weller is on CREW’s list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

Pete Hoekstra, R-MI: Hoekstra was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and refused to declassify that committee’s report on how Duke ripped the US off via that committee.

Joe Knollenberg, R-MI: Knollenberg is a fantastic earmarker in his own right and was lauded by Cunningham for his help in getting lobbyists their due. And boy did he squirm and fidget when I read The Wrong Stuff while sitting next to him.

Darrell Issa, R-CA: Issa’s district is in the neighborhood and he has brought in some earmarks as well (though to Issa’s credit, he started self-disclosing his own earmarks).

Norm Dicks, D-WA: On the Appropriations Committee, Dicks is one of the top earmarkers in Congress.

Silvestre Reyes, D-TX: Reyes is the Chair of the House Intell Committee–and has refused to declassify the committee’s review of how it approved Duke Cunningham’s scams.

Ike Skelton, D-MO: Skelton is the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, one of the committees Duke scammed. There is probably a good deal of relevant paperwork in this committee that is otherwise unavailable thanks to Congress’ expanding immunity from subpoena.

John Murtha, D-PA: Probably the Democrats’ best earmarker, Murtha is also Chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. And if any Democrat was cognizant of Duke’s scams, it’d be Murtha. Murtha showed up on a list of Mitch Wade’s list of re-elected Congressmen who improved his, Wade’s, position in Congress. And he’s on CREW’s list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

For their part, the Congressmen all said they’ll refuse the subpoena. Which is all the more reason, I say, to prompt further scrutiny in these guys. To what degree are they hiding their knowledge of Cunningham’s/Wade’s/Wilke’s activities? To what degree are they engaged in the same kind of massive earmarking that Cunningham was?

Update: Yup, they’re invoking Congressional privilege to avoid testifying.

After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I have determined that compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1152/