As I suggested in comments the other day, I suspect that the fifth lie that HPSCI referred to the other day is one fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy reported–when, at an HPSCI hearing in February 2005, under questioning from Jane Harman, someone from the CIA lied about detainee treatment.

While we don’t know what the substance of Harman’s questions were, this lie was reported in a 2006 WaPo story.

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, [Mary] McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA’s detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat.

Jan Schakowsky–who is in charge of HPSCI’s investigation–spoke at a reception I attended tonight. While I didn’t ask her whether this lie was the fifth lie the committee referred to, I did ask her whether this lie was in the scope of her subcommittee’s investigation.

She responded that detainee treatment was one of the things the committee was investigating (as is clear from its reference to the lie to Pelosi in 2002), though did not confirm or deny whether that 2005 lie was the fifth referred to the other day.

Which I guess tells us the February 2005 is one possibility among many other lies CIA may have told.

The House Judiciary Committee is going into a classified briefing tomorrow at which, if history is any judge, the Administration will tell them about ongoing terrorist investigations that require the gutting of the Fourth Amendment.

When the members go into that meeting, there are a number of questions I hope they ask. But one of those is, whatever happened to the three Zazi associates described as having purchased acetone and hydrogen peroxide in the government’s detention motion against Zazi?

As you’ll recall, one piece of evidence the government presented to the Court to justify holding Zazi without bail pertained to the actions of “individuals associated” with Zazi:

The evidence will further establish that individuals associated with Zazi purchased unusual quantities of hydrogen and acetone products in July, August, and September 2009 from three different beauty supply stores in and around Aurora. One person purchased a one-gallon container of a product containing 20% hydrogen peroxide, as well as an eight ounce bottle of acetone. A second person purchased an acetone product in approximately the first week of September. A third person purchased 32-ounce bottles of Ion Sensitive Scalp Developer, a product containing high levels of hydrogen peroxide, on approximately three occasions during the summer of 2009.

Now, frankly, I don’t know how these purchases add to the case to deny Zazi bail (there was already far more damning, more relevant information in the motion). Zazi’s more likely, more dangerous potential co-conspirators would seem to be people in NY, where the alleged attack was planned and where his mosque-related affiliates had a history of sympathy for extremists. And it’s not the associates’ purchase of these items, per se, that makes Zazi a threat if he’s out on bail; it would be the possession of these materials by someone who had both instructions akin to Zazi’s on turning the materials into an explosive and the intent to do so. If the associates already have those things, that’s not going to change whether or not Zazi is in custody.

The government’s implication in the detention motion was that these were potential co-conspirators of Zazi–otherwise, why would they be relevant to Zazi’s bond hearing at all???

Only, more than a month after this motion was submitted, we’ve had no reports of arrests, and the attention at least publicly seems to be focused on NY, not on CO.

So what happened to these three people who bought beauty products in Aurora, CO?

Before I pursue that question, look what the government claims about them. The government represents that these are “unusual” quantities of these products. By what measure? All of these purchases are far, far less than Zazi purchased himself (6 bottles of one product and 12 of another, in one purchase). Would a beauty salon that uses Ion Sensitive Scalp Developer [warning: clicking that link may make you a terrorist suspect] go through three bottles of the stuff in three months? Given that the stuff is sold in a gallon-sized bottle as well, how does purchasing one 32-oz. bottle a month qualify as “unusual”? Were the acetone and hydrogen peroxide purchased together? If not, is an 8-oz. bottle of acetone really “unusual”? Note the vagueness surrounding the second person–the person who purchased an acetone product in approximately the first week of September, suggesting the product was purchased after Zazi’s last known attempts to allegedly cook up TATP in August, and potentially even after Zazi left for NY. How can the government assert this is an unusual quantity if it doesn’t even, apparently, know what it was, when it was purchased, and in what volume?

And when the government says these people are “associated with Zazi,” what does it mean? Were they  members of the same mosque (with which, public reports suggest, Zazi was not that closely involved, unlike his mosque in Flushing, NY)? Were they also airport drivers at DIA, perhaps working for the same company but not socializing with Zazi at all? Were they neighbors of one of the residences at which Zazi briefly lived in the eight months he lived in CO?

So now return to the question of what happened to these people. What has happened to them in the last month or so, then? Have they been wiretapped, and if so, under FISA or under criminal statutes? Have their houses been searched, perhaps using a sneak and peek search so they wouldn’t know? Has the government asked their bank, their internet provider, their credit card companies, and credit rating agencies for reports on their actions? If so, did a judge review the government’s request to do so? Has their mosque been watched? Have investigators started asking these people’s neighbors and employers if these people are good upstanding citizens or maybe instead South Asian immigrants who might secretly be terrorists?

And if any or all of those things have happened, then what? Are they still under investigation? Or has the government discovered that they are, instead, a patriotic, law-abiding handyman and beauty salon owner and home-owner who bought products that millions of Americans use every day? And if the latter, then have their neighbors and employers started treating them differently since the time the FBI came and asked a bunch of questions about them?

The FBI is not going to tell me or you the answers to these questions. But it would, presumably, be willing to answer them in tomorrow’s briefing.

If one of your Representatives serves on the House Judiciary Committee (I’ve included numbers for the Dems below), call them and ask that they get answers to those questions tomorrow, before they decide whether to make such fishing expeditions based on the purchase of every day items easier for the government.

John Conyers: 202-225-5126
Howard Berman: 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher: 202-225-3861
Jerrold Nadler: 202-225-5635
Bobby Scott: 202-225-8351
Mel Watt: 202-225-1510
Zoe Lofgren: 202-225-3072
Sheila Jackson Lee: 202-225-3317
Maxine Waters: 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt: 202-225-3111
Robert Wexler: 202-225-3001
Steve Cohen: 202-225-3265
Hank Johnson: 202-225-1605
Pedro Pierluisi: 202-225-2615
Mike Quigley: 202-225-4061
Judy Chu: 202-225-5464
Luis Gutierrez: 202-225-8203
Tammy Baldwin: 202-225-2906
Charles Gonzales: 202-225-3236
Anthony Weiner: 202-225-6616
Adam Schiff: 202-225-4176
Linda Sanchez: 202-225-6676
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: 202-225-7931
Dan Maffei: 202-225-3701

For updates on other events regarding PATRIOT and FISA, join the Fix the PATRIOT Act and FISA Facebook group or follow GetFisaRight on Twitter.

As a number of you have pointed out, the House Intelligence Committee have revealed preliminary results of its investigations into the CIA’s lies and found–wait for it–the CIA lies.

In a hearing of the House Intelligence committee this afternoon, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jan Schakowsky, both Democrats, pointed to at least five instances going back to at least 2001 in which the C.I.A. withheld information from or lied to Congress.

Those five lies are:

1. Lies about torture (to Pelosi)
2. The assassination program that started this probe
3. The Peruvian plane shoot-down that got Crazy Pete Hoekstra on board
4. The destruction of the torture tapes
5. ???

So, first of all, I’m wondering where number 5 is–I’ll follow up tomorrow on that. Was this hearing designed to let CIA know that HPSCI was going to reveal number 5, or did they do so today?

But I’m interested in the inclusion of the torture tape destruction. Is HPSCI asserting that CIA lied about the desruction of the tapes … which would imply that the Committee asked about it in the first place? (I’ll remind you that when the tapes were destroyed, Jane Harman was still on the committee making a stink about the CIA’s other lies about torture)? Or is the Committee just including the torture tape destruction as one misrepresentation among others?

Update: Here’s how The Hill describes it (and they, too, list just four lies).

In addition, the CIA may have failed to properly notify Congress about the 2005 destruction of videotapes recording the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives by intelligence officials, Eshoo and Schakowsky said.

A couple of days ago I pointed out how Steve Rattner, Obama’s auto czar, was absolutely blind to the degree to which his impressions of the auto industry were true, too, for Rattner’s own finance industry. That highlighted an issue I’ve been trying to focus on (between covering Obama’s cover-up of Dick Cheney’s crimes): the huge imbalance in our economy.

I’ll be heading to DC tomorrow for a conference that tries to address that issue, “Building the New Economy.” As Scott Paul, who’s been leading these issues, says,

But chalking up the blame to a few bad apples on Wall Street and their risky financial instruments, and responding by simply providing appropriate regulation in the financial services sector, will ultimately be unsatisfying. There are much deeper, structural issues which must be urgently addressed. Otherwise, the absurd positive feedback loop will continue: consumer debt, subsidized Chinese imports, American job loss and factory closures, the growing U.S. current account deficit, burgeoning Chinese currency reserves reinvested in American debt … These will only inflate new bubbles and reinforce our current problems.

Some of us warned that this day would come. We knew that an economic strategy predicated on replacing wage growth with debt and credit to maintain a certain standard of living was doomed to fail. We knew that this nation could not replace manufacturing jobs and their multiplier effect, as well as their positive impact on the trade balance and wealth generation, with lower-wage service and retail jobs.

If you’re in town, stop by–some cool bloggers–and people like Sherrod Brown and Richard Trumka will be there.

Hopefully, we can fix health care then start talking about how Americans can make something again.

This will be a very significant showdown for the Constitution. The 9th Circuit will rehear the government’s argument in the Jeppesen Dataplan suit. From the ACLU:

A federal appeals court today announced that it will hear the government’s appeal of an earlier ruling that allowed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit to go forward against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., for its role in the Bush administration’s unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program. The government claims that allowing the case to be heard would endanger national security.

In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court dismissal of the lawsuit, brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped, forcibly disappeared and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The lawsuit charged that Jeppesen knowingly participated by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly disappear these men to detention and interrogation. The Bush administration had intervened, improperly asserting the “state secrets” privilege to have the case thrown out. The appeals court ruled, as the ACLU has argued, that the government must invoke the “state secrets” privilege with respect to specific evidence, not to dismiss the entire suit. The Obama administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by an “en banc” panel of 11 judges.

Whichever way the 9th (re)decides, I presume this is headed for Anthony Kennedy’s lap. How can Obama continue to hide all of Bush’s secrets, after all, if he’s only allowed to hide the pieces that are actually classified?

As news outlets are reporting everywhere, Joe Lieberman is threatening to join a GOP filibuster of heath care reform. Brian Beutler reports the news without much elaboration on Lieberman’s stated justification for doing so. (See below for Beutler’s follow-up.)

I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined–i haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined–to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.

The AP provides just a hint of Lieberman’s justification.

Lieberman said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that he’s worried a public option would be costly to taxpayers and drive up insurance premiums.

But the Politico reports Lieberman’s stated justification.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Lieberman said he “very much” wants to vote for health care reform but that he’s worried about stifling “the economic recovery we’re in” or adding to the federal debt.

“I feel this way about a national, government-created health insurance company – whether it’s a trigger or not,” he said. “My answer is – we’re – we have the opportunity to do some great reforms here. These exchanges that we’re talking about, I think, are going to drive competition and probably bring the cost of health insurance down or at least contain the cost increases for a lot of people. Let’s give that two or three years to see how it works to see how it works before we talk about creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers.”

So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:

• Be costly to taxpayers
• Drive up premiums
• Involve cost-shifting to private plans
• Create an entitlement
• Increase the national debt
• Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers

As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.

Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also would cost nothing to the taxpayer, being financed by individual premiums.

Now, there’s the possibility that if the public option was set at Medicare +5, there might be cost shifting, if you ignored challenges to that claim, if you ignored the way insurance companies will game the system to push high cost people into the public option, and if you ignored the many other ways the insurance companies will be cost shifting themselves once this system is set up.

But everything else Lieberman said is horse puckey. He is either completely ignorant about health care works (unlikely, for a Senator from Connecticut). Or, he’s lying his ass off as to his rationale.

Don’t you think the press ought to call him on that?

Update: Here’s First Read, abdicating its role as journalist by letting Lieberman’s explanation go unchallenged.

Update: Kudos to CBS’ Stephanie Condon for doing real reporting.

Lieberman has said he opposes a public option because of the potential burden it could place on taxpayers. However, Democrats have crafted a public option that would be financed by premiums rather than federal funds.

Update: Ooohboy. The Hill goes above and beyond in credulously reporting Lieberman’s BS. They even let him claim that he’s not doing this because of CT’s insurance companies.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of a handful of Senate wild cards in this fall’s healthcare reform debate, says his concern about the Senate bill is based on the national deficit — not the insurers that dominate his state.

[snip]

“Insurers aren’t my biggest concern — I sued them once when I was attorney general, and I’m not afraid to end anti-trust exemptions,” Lieberman said. “I am really worried about what this could do to the deficit.”

Update: Beutler does a follow-up calling Lieberman on his BS.

This is at great odds with the findings of most experts, who say that, by bringing efficiencies into the greater insurance market, and therefore lowering the government’s subsidy burden, a public option will actually save money.

I asked him to square his rationale with the experts consensus, but he was undeterred. “Well all the history we have of health entitlement programs, including the two big ones that I dearly support, Medicare and Medicaid, is that they end up costing more than we’re prepared to pay, and they add to the debt, and then they add to the burden on taxpayers.”

Update: Oh wait!! WSJ just unseated The Hill for being the most credulous on this story!! They let both Lieberman and Bayh get away with claiming they’re concerned about the deficit. And then they let Bayh argue for letting medical device makers off easy!

Mr. Lieberman was not the only moderate to voice concerns Tuesday. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) said he was concerned both about the impact of the bill of the federal budget deficit and the bill’s impact on insurance premiums for families and businesses.

Mr. Bayh also said he would oppose a motion to proceed to the bill in its current form if a provision that would impose $40 billion in fees on the medical-device industry over 10 years isn’t eased.

“Without that, they would definitely not have had my support,” said Mr. Bayh. Medical-device makers have a big presence in his home state.

Update: Bloomberg doesn’t call Lieberman out on his lies or ignorance either.

Update: Fox doesn’t give Lieberman’s excuse, so of course they don’t debunk it.

Update: Jonathan Cohn shows other journalists how it’s done.

It literally makes no sense whatsoever. A public plan does not provide a new entitlement. It just doesn’t. It’s a different form of providing an entitlement. Nor is it more expensive. In fact, the stronger versions of the public plan would cost less money. Lieberman is just babbling nonsense here.

Another reason for his position, of course, is that Connecticut is home to some huge insurance companies, who don’t want any new competition. But the other Connecticut Senator isn’t threatening a filibuster.

Update: MSNBC has done several follow-ups. But they’ve not yet gotten around to actually reporting that Lieberman’s entire premise is bogus.

Update: Mark Ambinder doesn’t bother to call Lieberman on his bogus premise. Instead, he just assumes that Lieberman’s “play for power”–one that relies on the flaccidity of the press–will work.

Now — the final bill, post-conference, is going to look a bit different from the reconciled Senate bill. Lieberman is giving himself the power to influence the final bill. I doubt that the Senate leadership is going to press him too hard right now, preferring to see if he can be accommodated in the final debate.

Update: Dana Bash engages in he-said-she-said, but doesn’t point out that CBO agrees with Dems that Lieberman’s premise is bogus.

Democrats call such claims fear-mongering and say a public option is the best way to bring competition to the market. President Obama has called a public option the best way to help achieve major goals of health care reform, including expanded coverage and lower costs.

Update: USA Today doesn’t bother telling its readers that Lieberman’s premise is bogus.

Update: Nor does CSM.

Update: Nor does the NYT.

This is interesting. Funding for the Blue Dog’s PAC (as distinct from Blue Dogs themselves) has dried up even as Blue Dogs have attempted to gut health care reform.

Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group’s political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.

[snip]

After raising $1.1 million from January to June, the committee raised less than $87,000 between July and September — less than it brought in during any one of the preceding five months. And in just three months, the Blue Dog PAC’s monthly fundraising average dropped by more than $50,000 — probably not the sort of fiscal conservatism the 52-member coalition was hoping for.

Now, that’s the group’s PAC. Individual members seem to be doing just fine. For example, here are some August and September donations to Allen Boyd, who remains opposed to the public option.

• American College of Radiology PAC, $4,500
• American Dental Association PAC, $2,500
• American Osteopathic PAC, $2,500
• SmithKlineBeecham, $3,500

(Interestingly, Amgen took back $1,000 from Boyd during this period.)

And here’s some PAC donations to Mike Ross.

• American Medical Association, $1,000
• American Medical Group, $1,500
• American Optometric Association PAC, $2,000
• American Society of Health System Pharmacist, $1,500
• Assurant, $1,500
• Fresenius Medical Care, $2,500
• Healthcare Distribution Management, $2,500
• RiteAid, $2,500

Both of these men, at least, are still getting a chunk of change from health care companies, even while the Blue Dog PAC is getting nothing.

Obviously, this is not just about health care–Blue Dogs suck at the teat of a range of onerous business interests. But at a time when Blue Dogs might be exercising maximum influence, they’re not getting any return as a group. I wonder if that stems from a lack of leadership as a block–particularly Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s repeated embarrassment as Raul Grijalva repeatedly out-whipped her on the public option.

“Yes, I think there’s momentum, “ said Blue Dog leader Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.). “They don’t have the votes for a public option with Medicare rates.”

But Grijalva noted that 46 members recently signed a letter pledging to vote against the centrist plan. In the numbers game of the House, that is significant, because Republicans are expected to unite against the healthcare bill. So if 39 Democrats oppose the plan, it wouldn’t get the 218 votes needed to pass. There are 52 Blue Dogs, as well as many other centrist members not in the coalition.

“With negotiated rates, you lose votes on the left,” Herseth Sandlin said. “ I don’t know that either public option can get 218 votes.”

Not to mention by Herseth Sandlin’s own squishiness on the public option?

Obviously, this is just two or three months data. But it raises the possibility that the Blue Dogs, as a block, are losing some of their clout.

Vice President Joe Biden is set to make an appearance in his home state of Delaware today to make an announcement that Fisker Automotive will be purchasing, retooling and opening up operations in a shuttered former General Motors facility in Wilmington. From the Washington Post:

Vice President Biden will make the announcement that Fisker Automotive of Irvine, Calif., is expected to invest $175 million to retool the plant.

Fisker, which will pay the old GM $18 million for the facility and equipment, is getting tax incentives from the state of Delaware, although officials there declined Monday to say how much.

Fisker plans to make a car in Delaware that is being developed under the name “Project Nina” after the ship belonging to explorer Christopher Columbus. Russell Datz, a Fisker spokesman, said that the project’s name is meant to be “symbolic of the transfer from the old world to the new in terms of auto technology.” The car is expected to cost about $39,900 after tax incentives.

The Fisker facility is expected to create 2,000 jobs and will likely be operational by 2011. Administration officials said the deal will indirectly create another 3,000 jobs once the plant is fully operational, expected in 2014. Administration officials say that Fisker expects many of the jobs will go to former GM or Chrysler auto workers.

Time will tell, but on the front end this looks like a wonderful deal in a lot of ways. Fisker is a company that has been putting the pieces together behind the scenes for a couple of years for a major production move, and their initial prototype, and soon to be production model, the Karma, is absolutely stunning and, from all reports, technologically sound. Wilmington is an area that, while not as hard hit as Detroit, is certainly depressed and has been further decimated by the recent closing of the large GM plant there as well as a separate Chrysler plant. When fully up and running, the Fisker Nina plant in Wilmington may be able to reemploy many, if not most, of those orphaned workers.

The Fisker Nina will sell for approximately $39,000 after an anticipated $7,500 tax credit and has been described by the company as follows:

Design
“Nina is the project name for a family oriented, user friendly plug-in hybrid featuring cutting edge technology, radical styling and world-class quality,” said Euslberg
It seems likely Fisker already has some significant design development underway, but perhaps no sold models. However, we are going to have to wait a while before seeing any of them. “We are not currently releasing designs,” he said.

Battery
The car will use lithium ion batteries for energy storage. Like the Karma, the new vehicle will also source its batteries from Indiana-based EnerDel (NASDAQ: HEV).

Charger
Fisker will be using level 2 or 240 Volt home chargers built by Lear.

Engineering Architecture
The Karma is utilizing an extended-range electric architecture wherein the car is always powered by the electric motor, and can deliver up to 50 all electric miles, with the gas range extender going on after that.

Even more interesting is the synergy and interplay at work by the government (presumably with Ed Montgomery having a large hand) below the surface. Fisker will be paying GM $18 million for the plant and is expected to invest up to $175 million to retool and fit the plant for their needs and, conveniently, Fisker was awarded last month a $528 million loan from the US Department of Energy’s $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program. The ATVMP is designed to encourage the domestic design and manufacture of new battery technology and electric cars. And, of course, the US government is now a substantial stakeholder in GM itself. If this works, it is a marvelous and efficient interjection of government seed and green stimulus money and everybody will benefit.

It is nice to get this project for Wilmington Delaware, and it is surely needed there. Now that Vice President Biden’s backyard has been greened, how about Michigan? If there is any place in America that could use just this kind of stimulus more than Michigan, it is hard to figure where it would be. And Michigan would have been prime for Fisker as they just opened a design and engineering facility in Pontiac Michigan last year. Fisker may not be able to handle a second new facility this quickly, but surely the Obama Administration can find some analogous love to spread around in the state most desperate for it.

The Corzine campaign is ratcheting up the pressure on the US Attorney’s office to release a number of FOIAed documents. They’re calling on Christie to support full disclosure before the election.

But there’s a detail of their press release I find mighty interesting. The Corzine campaign FOIAed two items relating to Michele Brown just six days before she resigned, on August 19. They FOIAed:

• Any written communications, emails, or any other records of communications since December 2001 between former U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie and Michele Brown that address or refer to the personal finances of either party, including, but not limited to, any loan or mortgage provided by Mr. Christie to Ms. Brown.
• A complete history of all promotions and salaries since FY 2000 by Michele Brown, who is currently the First Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

DOJ refused both of those requests–though the Corzine campaign is appealing that decision.

The timing of these FOIAs adds a fascinating wrinkle to the NYT report from a few weeks ago. As the NYT reported, at almost precisely this time, DOJ told Ralph Marra to take Brown off of the FOIA response. And after DOJ insisted Brown be removed from the FOIA process, she quit.

In March, when Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s campaign requested public records about Mr. Christie’s tenure as prosecutor, Ms. Brown interceded to oversee the responses to the inquiries, taking over for the staff member who normally oversaw Freedom of Information Act requests, according to federal law enforcement officials in Newark and Washington. The requested information included records about Mr. Christie’s travel and expenses, along with Ms. Brown’s travel records.

[snip]

News of Mr. Christie’s loan to Ms. Brown broke in August, dealing a blow to his candidacy, and he apologized for failing to report it on his tax returns and ethics filings.

Less than two weeks later, Justice Department officials told Mr. Christie’s interim replacement, Ralph Marra, to remove Ms. Brown from acting as coordinator of the Freedom of Information Act requests about Mr. Christie’s tenure because of the obvious conflict of interest, according to a federal law enforcement official briefed on the communications. Ms. Brown resigned from the prosecutor’s office the same day, the official said.

[snip]

In August, Mr. Marra defended the office’s handling of the Freedom of Information requests and denied that Ms. Brown oversaw the process, saying she only supplied records relating to herself.

Now, as today’s press release reveals, Brown may have been trying to protect more than records of the travel scam she and Christie had going, whereby she approved of Christie’s excessive travel costs and he, in turn, approved of hers. In fact, she may have been trying to hide the financial terms of her relationship with Christie–both the mortgage that has been reported, but also bonuses and salary.

Indeed, quitting may have contributed to DOJ’s refusal of the Corzine FOIA (I’m checking with the campaign to find out what exemption DOJ claimed for these). After all, an on-going financial relationship with the First AUSA in an office alleged of improprieties is one thing, but it’s an entirely different thing as soon as that FAUSA severs her relationship with the office.

So it may be that Brown quit in an attempt to make it easier to refuse this FOIA. That sort of adds a new twist to Brown’s explanation for quitting that “I don’t want to become a distraction.”

Update: Here’s DOJ’s denial, which was received on August 20. They explain,

You have requested records concerning a third party (or third parties). Records pertaining to a third party generally cannot be released absent express authorization and consent of the third party, proof that the subject of your request is deceased, or a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interest and that significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the request records. Since you have not furnished a release, death certificate, or public justification for release, the release of records concerning a third party would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would be in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a. These records are also generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to secions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552.

So, uh, I’m guessing that Brown is literally preventing this information from coming out.

But then there’s the invocation of the FOIA exemptions, b6 and b7C. Exemption b6 is totally expected–a claim that releasing this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of Brown’s personal privacy. I think you can argue the point, but regardless, I’m not surprised. I am surprised by exemption b7C, protecting personal information in law enforcement records. That is normally used–if I understand FOIA properly–to protect things like names, social security numbers, and phone numbers of those in records pertaining to an investigation. Not personal information in personnel records of law enforcement personnel.

Unless DOJ is honestly arguing that this has become a matter of investigation…

Cynthia Kouril and Adam Serwer and both have really good smackdowns of Mukasey’s op-ed against civilian trials. Cynthia writes,

The thing that bothers me most about this article though, comes near the end:

Nevertheless, critics of Guantanamo seem to believe that if we put our vaunted civilian justice system on display in these cases, then we will reap benefits in the coin of world opinion, and perhaps even in that part of the world that wishes us ill. Of course, we did just that after the first World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

This twisted notion that we would only observe our own laws, our own Constitution, our own Enlightenment Age ideals—if there was something in it for us, if we could somehow profit by it— appalls me.

NO, No, no, no, no. We observe our own laws, we follow our own constitution, we hew to our own Founding Father’s ideals, because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

And Adam, responding as well to Michael Isikoff’s report that 25 detainees will soon be shipped to the US for trial, speculates,

I’m skeptical that the Classified Information Procedures Act, the statute governing the disclosure of classified information in federal court, is inadequate to prevent whatever national security information might be disclosed in any of these trials. But remember, if you look at the more declassified version of the 2006 CIA Inspector General’s report that was recently released, there are 24 straight pages of redacted information describing what was done to KSM. If you’re wondering what Mukasey and the others are worried about a civilian trial disclosing, it’s a good bet that some of it is probably in there.

Perhaps, Adam argues, Mukasey (and Lindsey Graham and John McCain) don’t want civilian trials because they would provide Khalid Sheikh Mohammed opportunity to detail the torture done to him.

There’s one other possibility, though.

If DOJ decides KSM can get a civilian trial, that means there’s enough information to try him and his alleged co-conspirators independent of any evidence tainted by torture. It means the government learned sufficient information about the 9/11 plot via people they did not torture, pocket litter, or in sessions that they believe they can segregate off from the torture they did to KSM.

And that–along with what will surely be extensive litigation about what is admissible–will make it clear how much information was available via means other than torture.

Granted, they’ll be trying KSM just for 9/11 and not, presumably, for the Liberty Tower Plot (though they have information about that, too, via other sources than KSM). But a civilian trial will expose some of what was available without using torture.

And that may be why the apologists are afraid of civilian trials.