March 29, 2024 / by 

 

Edelman Says: “Congressional Oversight Emboldens Our Enemies”

Okay, Hillary didn’t adopt my recommended response to Eric Edelman’s insubordination. Well, she kind of does, insofar as she notes that Edelman is alone in spouting Cheneyisms:

Other members of this Administration have not engaged in politicalattacks when the prospect of withdrawal planning has been raised.

And she demands that Gates choose whether he supports Edelman’s insubordination.

I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman’s letteraccurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

This is a particularly shrewd move, I think, because it forces Gates to disavow the Cheneyist wing–or face confrontation with Congress. Would that we had done this with Colin Powell, to make him disown John Bolton’s Cheneyesque rantings. It might have undercut Cheney’s strategy of having a plant in every agency to ensure his will is done. Let’s hope the strategy works in this case…


With All Due Respect to the WaPo

Amy Goldstein was one of the nicest people covering the Scooter Libby trial and Dan Eggen has been doing excellent work covering the USA Scandal. But their article on the White House’s assertion that no US Attorney can take up the contempt charges that HJC is about to dump on Harriet and Josh Bolten misses some key details. Goldstein and Eggen write:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion ofexecutive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nineU.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

[snip]

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, headed atthe time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who wassolicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contemptcitation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, thenadministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Itconcluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not,indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on hisbehalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branchor the courts require or implement the prosecution of such anindividual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on theSuperfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to blockCongress’s contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turnedover documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has notpreviously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing acontempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials atJustice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot forcesuch action.

And here are some details they miss, from Kagro X, whose batting average on Bush obstruction has been better than anyone’s:


Dear Congress

John Bates has issued a ruling I’ve been anticipating–dismissing the Wilson lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage. If I’m reading correctly, Bates ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule in this matter.

This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ tort claim for public disclosure of private facts.

He therefore did not deal with many of the arguments the Wilsons and the defendants raised in this case–including Cheney’s claim to absolute immunity. But he prefaces his detailed discussion with the following comment.

The merits of plaintiffs’ claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials.

All of which is a 40-page way of saying what Cheney and Libby and Rove and Armitage did was wrong. But a civil suit is not the appropriate venue to address that wrong. And with Bush’s self-serving commutation of Libby’s sentence, the criminal courts have been foreclosed as the means to address that wrong, too.

Which leaves Congress. There is abundant evidence already in the public record showing top members of the Administration–including Bush himself–abused their positions of power to rebut Joe Wilson. Some of those actions–including the commutation itself, since it removed Bush from criminal liability for his actions–fit well within the purview of Congress.

It’s time to step up, Congress. That crappy hearing last week did much to polarize the two parties. But did little to address the evidence before us, pertaining directly to Bush’s potential move to declassify a CIA spy’s identity for political retaliation. Two judges who have reviewed the facts agree the actions were wrong. What is Congress going to do about it?


Oh, It Was Eric Edelman Lecturing Hillary??

Update: Thanks to Scarecrow for directing everyone over here–but don’t miss Hillary’s response to Edelman. She hits all the right notes.

I didn’t realize, at first, when I heard that Hillary had been lectured that public discussion of withdrawal reinforced enemy propaganda, who was doing the lecturing.

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces fromIraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandonits allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam,Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very sameIraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in orderto achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqiconstitution, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate USwithdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politicians asfactions become more concerned with achieving short-term tacticaladvantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary fora stable and secure Iraq.

But now I discover it was Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That makes a whole lot more sense–and really dictates the proper response.

You see, Edelman is kind of a poor man’s Dougie Feith. A total shill–and Cheney asset–though apparently with less flair for propaganda. He’s the bright guy who first suggested leaking Plame’s identity to rebut Joe Wilson. And, as it turns out, he realized after he suggested to Libby that the information in question may have been classified.

After a June 2003 article about Iraq and the uranium issues that caused concern to Edelman and Libby, Edelman asked Libby whether information about how the Wilson trip came about could be shared with the press to rebut allegations that the Vice president sent Wilson. Edelman testified that Libby responded by indicating that there would be "complications" at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly. Ambassador Edelman indicated that he understood that he and Libby could not further discuss the matter because they were speaking on an open telephone line and Edelman understood that this might involve classified information.

Edelman then went on to write a leniency letter, hailing Libby’s loyalty, with no concern that–as the guy who first suggested the leak–the invocation of loyalty reeked of impropriety. You can’t take someone like that seriously!

The proper response to such a lecture, it seems to me, is to point out what a hack Edelman is, to suggest that this is just Dick Cheney lying to the American people again. And an attempt to hide the fact that the war party Has. No. Plan. B.


Senate Dems Corner Bush and Gonzales on Their Attempt to Game Appointments

Oh, this is getting fun.

Remember how I pointed out that Steven Bradbury, the guy who wrote the opinion declaring Harriet immune from having to appear before Congress, was not acting with proper authority?

Well, Leahy, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy have raised the stakes on that issue.

We write seeking information about a memorandum issued on July 10, 2007, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), concluding that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers should be absolutely immunized from responding to a subpoena to appear and testify before Congress. The White House and Ms. Miers are relying on this opinion as the basis for Ms. Miers’ refusal to appear yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee.

There is a serious question about whether this OLC opinion was properly issued. Under applicable law and regulations, the Attorney General has delegated to the Assistant Attorney General of OLC the authority to render opinions and legal advice to the various agencies of the government. The Assistant Attorney General may delegate this authority, but he or she must supervise the delegated work. When there is no Assistant Attorney General, confirmed or acting, the Attorney General must supervise the delegated work. Since you have recused yourself from matters relating to the U.S. Attorney’s scandal, it is unclear under whose supervision the July 10th OLC opinion was issued.

The letter goes on to describe why Bradbury cannot be the acting AAG, explaining what I reported yesterday about the Vacancies Act violation, and therefore had no authority to write the letter.

This move is so priceless on a number of levels. The letter goes on to place this against the background of Bush’s attempts to game the appointments process with the original PATRIOT provision. The suggestion is that this is another attempt to do so (one that parallels his apparent attempt to stretch out the tenure of the USAs currently serving under the PATRIOT provision). It also emphasizes that Bradbury was never approved as AAG (by a Republican Senate) because of his implication in the NSA scandal. And then reminds Gonzales that the problem is that Bush refused to allow OPR to investigate whether the OLC acted improperly under Bradbury. This letter has it all: USA Purge, NSA Scandal, and abuse of Executive Privilege, all rolled up into one.

And if the letter was written without the proper authority? Well, then, Harriet is in contempt by anyone’s measure, not just John Conyers’.


Propaganda Squared

I’ve been referring to Brigadier Bergner as Baghdad Bergner since he first started giving press conferences. There was the press conference where he blamed Iran for the woes in Iraq, based on the interrogation of one Shiite. There’s this press conference where he blamed all the woes in Iraq on Al Qaeda in Iraq. The man clearly has no shame at telling the most transparent lies–from a podium not far from where his predecessor Baghdad Bob used to do the same.

But I gotta say, as someone whose credentials for analyzing all things postmodern are impeccable, this makes me dizzy.

In March, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, andhis purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV. But on Wednesday,Abu Omar Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an Al Qaeda-affiliated groupin Iraq, was declared nonexistent by U.S. military officials, who saidhe was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to aforeign-run terrorist organization.

An Iraqi actor has been usedto read statements attributed to Baghdadi, who since October has beenidentified as the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq group, said U.S.Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

Bergner said the new information came from a man captured July 4,described as the highest-ranking Iraqi within the Islamic State of Iraq.

Hesaid the detainee, identified as Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud MahmoudMashadani, has served as a propaganda chief in the organization, aSunni Muslim insurgent group that swears allegiance to Osama binLaden’s Al Qaeda.

Here’s our shameless propaganda chief, claiming that their shameless propaganda chief invented a bogeyman that we could then say we had captured. Because it’s not like we’ve invented such bogeymans for our own use, nuh uh, not us. And conveniently, this little hall of mirrors ends up right back where BushCo would like to have us, with the claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq is Al Qaeda is the War on Terror is the never-ending war is the big bogeyman no one seems to care about anymore.

Now, to her credit, reporter Tina Susman provides two caveats presumably designed to suggest she can tell bullshit when she sees it:


The IG Loophole

Remember how Senator Whitehouse busted Alberto Gonzales for trying to bury the DOJ’s internal investigation of the USA firing into the Office of Professional Responsibility, which has no authority over potential illegalities and doesn’t issue public reports? Remember how Paul Clement, who has ostensibly been in charge of DOJ’s internal investigation since the time Gonzales recused himself, has at the same time been defending the White House’s ability to keep materials from Congress? Well, that’s not the only way AGAG has managed to avoid any incrimination on this matter. Here’s the second bombshell question Leahy asked AGAG:

Other Inspectors General can investigate misconduct throughout their agencies.  Apparently, the Department of Justice Inspector General suffers under a limitation that restricts his ability to investigation misconduct by you, the Deputy Attorney General, and other senior Department lawyers.  Will you agree to the removal of this limitation on the Department of Justice Inspector General so that the Inspector General may investigate misconduct by you, other senior Department of Justice officials, lawyers, and law enforcement agents?

In other words, all those assurances that DOJ was conducting an investigation into this issue? Well those assurances were utterly cynical and false. DOJ’s IG, apparently, can’t investigate AGAG and his clique!!! Yet we’re supposed to rest assured that DOJ can investigate this themselves???

Frankly, I don’t know why Leahy bothers. At this point, it’s time to call for a Special Counsel to take over the USA Purge investigation. Alternately, HJC can take it on, under the full weight of an impeachment investigation. But it’s well past clear that 1) Alberto Gonzales is actively obstructing any investigation into the USA Purge with his little games and 2) there is no way DOJ can conduct the investigation themselves.


The “PDAG” Who Approved Harriet’s Immunity Had No Authority to Do So

There are two big tidbits in the questions Leahy sent to AGAG to "pre-refresh" his memory before he testifies next week. The first is a question that seems to suggest that the "Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General," Steven Bradbury, who wrote the opinion judging Harriet immune from compelled Congressional testimony was acting as Acting AAG of the Office of Legal Counsel, in spite of the fact that his nomination to be the AAG was already rejected by the Senate.

This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel.  It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.”  Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act?  At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President.

I’m not sure I completely understand this one, because Bradbury was, apparently, PDAAG when he was appointed to be AAG in 2005; I assume that means he would remain PDAAG, even though he failed to become AAG. But I’m guessing the sticking point is that Bradbury is effectively serving as AAG after his nomination was rejected. Leahy seems to be busting DOJ for keeping Bradbury in a functional role that the Senate has already rejected him for. If I’m reading technical jargon correctly, Bradbury can only serve as Acting AAG 210 days, which has long expired.

Note that Bradbury’s been busy in other places, such as when he testified before HJC’s Constitution Subcommittee  on domestic wiretapping.

Update: Ding ding ding ding! Here’s the relevant legal restriction:

Q22.Does the Vacancies Reform Act impose the same time limits on officers whocontinue to serve once their terms have expired as apply under the Act to thecategories of acting officers?

A.   No, the Act sets out an additional limitation on how long such an officer may continue toserve.  In addition to being subject to the general time limits of the Vacancies ReformAct, the Act also provides that the carry-over officer may no longer continue to serve on atemporary basis once the officer’s nomination is either confirmed or rejected by theSenate. [my emphasis]

Update, Correction: I’ve checked with a committee staffer, and the issue is not rejection of a nomination (Bradbury’s nomination was returned, as happens at the end of a Congress, not rejected). The issue is timing. He has served longer than the 210 day limit, so can no longer serve as Acting AAG.


Why Hide the Energy Task Force

Once the CIA released its Crown Jewels, it was only a matter of time before the list of Cheney’s Energy Task Force meetings would be liberated.

A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows thatCheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings withinterest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By thetime of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.

It’s loaded with big oil executives, sure, but the list raises questions about why Cheney would fight so hard to keep it secret. I would suggest the two most important details from this story are the following: First, the observation that the actual Energy Bill had very different emphases than the Task Force report, which talked a lot about conservation and renewables.

The task force issued its report on May 16, 2001. Though the reportwas roundly criticized by environmental groups at the time, some energyexperts say that in retrospect it appears better balanced than theadministration’s actual policy.

Divided into eight chapters, thereport correctly forecast higher energy prices, stressed energyefficiency and conservation, and pushed for boosting domesticconventional energy supplies and increasing use of renewable energy.Although it advocated wider drilling and omitted climate-changemeasures, it also said that "using energy more wisely" was the nation’s"first challenge."

Some key proposals, such as opening the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, have never won congressionalapproval, but some measures to encourage oil and gas production, coaloutput, and the development of biofuels and nuclear power have beenincluded in Bush’s budgets and in the 2005 energy bill.

And, the detail that Cheney had some meetings with people outside the realm of the Task Force.


AGAG Says “Good Job”–but about What?

Al Kamen chronicles the latest joy-ridden interaction between Alberto Gonzales and Patrick Fitzgerald.

In the Justice Department‘s Great Hall (the very room where giant, blue drapes covered the underdressed statuary during John Ashcroft‘s tenure as attorney general), an array of prosecutors, securities regulators and FBI honchos gathered yesterday to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force.

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who famously prosecuted former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby, was chatting with a pair of reporters about his upcoming appearance on the National Public Radio program "Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!" when none other than Attorney General Alberto "Fredo" Gonzales appeared at his side.

"Good job," Gonzales said, extending his hand to Fitzgerald. Must havebeen thinking of Fitzgerald’s office’s successful prosecution last weekof media mogul Conrad Black for fraud, obstruction, etc. Fitzgerald, taken aback, didn’t say much in response, our colleague Carrie Johnson reports.

I suppose the context–an event on Corporate Fraud might support the explanation that AGAG was complimenting Fitzgerald on his successful prosecution of Conrad Black. But that’s not the only thing Fitzgerald has done in the last few weeks that might please Bush’s Fredo. After all, in an attempt to salvage some modicum of punishment for Libby’s obstruction, Fitzgerald argued in support of Fred Fieldings’ interpretation of Bush’s commutation order: that Libby should proceed immediately to supervised detention. No doubt the Bush Administration wanted to ensure they could wave around that "punishment" so as to stave off further pressure for their Get Out of Jail Free card. So it’s possible that Gonzales was complimenting Fitzgerald for fulfilling his bitter duty in arguing for supervised release.

Who knows? With these thugs, such a slap in the face would be par for the course.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1174/