As you will recall, former former Bush/Cheney Administration Special Counsel Scott Bloch destroyed evidence by wiping government computers clean, lied to Congress about it and conspired with the DOJ to minimize the conduct and slough it off with a sweetheart plea deal. Then, outrageously, when the court indicated it was inclined to impose the mandatory minimum month in jail, which was mandated by the statute Bloch pled guilty to, Bloch and the DOJ conspired to get the plea, which had already been accepted and entered by the court, withdrawn.

When Bloch and DOJ both worked together to get the plea withdrawn, and frustrate justice, the egregious nature of the attempt was documented here in a fully argued and supported post published on Tuesday March 1, 2011. Subsequent to that post, the court also found questions with the attempt to withdraw the plea and ordered Bloch to file a reply supporting the attempt.

Seeing the specious nature of Bloch’s reply filed on March 3, 2011, the Emptywheel blog got involved and initiated a formal filing with the court. We combined much of the material from the previous blog post on March 1 with new argument directly responsive to Bloch’s Reply, and additional general argument, into a formal sentencing recommendation and filed it with the court. The document was lodged on March 4.

Late last night, after consideration of the various pleadings related to the attempt to withdraw Bloch’s plea, the court filed its decision on PACER. Scott Bloch’s motion to withdraw from his plea, despite the collusive help from the DOJ, is DENIED!

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Defendant, at the time he pled guilty to a violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, was well aware that he could have been sentenced to a period of incarceration of up to one year. His assertion, through his affidavit, that he would not have pled guilty had he “been informed” that he would not receive probation is, simply put, not entitled to credence. This court–like the Circuit, when confronted with a comparable contradiction between the defendant’s answers under oath during the Rule 11 colloquy and the affidavit in support of his motion – finds that “[Defendant’s] argument – if not his affidavit – amounts to a claim that the defect in the taking of the plea consisted of his committing perjury, when, under oath, he acknowledged the truth of the factual recitals in the plea agreement and in the government’s proffer. Lying to a court is not a ‘fair and just reason,’ Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B), for allowing a plea to be withdrawn.” (emphasis added)

The entire ruling by the court is 20 pages long and takes apart every argument Bloch makes limb by limb. As it should have been. Perhaps the best line of Judge Robinson’s decision, and a point we argued strongly, is:

Confidence in the fair and orderly administration of justice is undermined by the suggestion that the court should participate in a process by which a sentence is first determined by Defendant and the government, and then an offense expected to guarantee such sentence is alleged.

Boy, the court sure got that right. Not to mention that confidence in fair and honest government is undermined when the DOJ is willing to not prosecute and/or minimize clear crimes committed by other Executive Branch officers. They tried to soft walk Scott Bloch out of this, and it is still awfully small punishment considering Bloch’s crimes, but at least they did not get away with further obfuscation and frustration of justice. Now let’s get the Obama DOJ to get some more prosecutions for all the other egregious Executive Branch crimes of the previous administration going. It is about time.

Bloch’s sentencing is set for this afternoon at 2:30 pm at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse.

As you will recall, Scott Bloch is the senior governmental attorney who formerly served as head of the United States Office of Special Counsel:

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

In short, it is an unique, but quite important, entity in the federal government, and is entrusted with protecting the sanctity of whistleblowers, who are one of the last checks on an increasingly imperious federal government, and especially the Executive Branch thereof. Mr. Bloch refused to do his job appropriately under the Bush/Cheney Administration and, when members of his own staff, including attorneys, attempted to blow the whistle on Bloch, the man entrusted with protecting whistleblowers unconscionably retaliated against them and blatantly destroyed governmental property and statutorily protected electronic files evidencing his acts.

Once informed of the questionable, inappropriate and/or patently illegal acts by Bloch, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee instigated a formal Congressional investigation of Bloch. On March 4, 2008, in the course of formal interviews with Oversight Committee staff, Bloch withheld critical information and lied. (See Bloch’s signed Stipulation of Facts dated 4/27/2010). Bloch entered into a plea agreement with the government and has been awaiting sentencing by Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson of the District of Columbia District Court.

As Marcy Wheeler and I previously explained, the Obama Department of Justice is furiously colluding with the defendant they are supposed to be prosecuting, Scott Bloch, to ensure that he never does a day in jail for his crimes, and there appears to be no credible reason they are doing so:

The Department of Justice has literally teamed up with Scott Bloch-who previously plead guilty to blowing off Congress–to try to help him avoid any jail time, at any cost to credibility, for that crime. The extent of this collusion first became apparent in a ruling dated February 2, 2011 by Federal Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who is handling the matter.

…

Now, there’s more than a chance that what is going on here is DOJ scrambling to prevent Bloch from doing jail time because they–part of the Executive Branch–like it that people like Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling and John Yoo have managed to avoid almost all Congressional oversight. And, now with Darrell Issa cranking up the not-so-way back investigatory machine, they really do not want a precedent made that executive branch officials who lie to Congress have to – gasp – actually serve jail time.

…

Then, the willingness of the government prosecutors to fight to keep the criminal Bloch from serving one lousy second in jail goes from the absurd to the ridiculous. A mere four days after having filed the whiny Motion to Reconsider, and before it was substantively ruled on, the government, by and through the ever ethical DOJ, suddenly files a pleading encaptioned “Governments Motion To Withdraw Its Motion To Reconsider The Court’s February 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion“. In this pleading, the government suddenly, and literally, admits their February 2 Motion to Reconsider was without merit.

The foregoing is the background that brings us to where we are today, with a DOJ unconscionably, and with at least questionable ethics, literally fighting tooth and nail to help Scott Bloch get out of his pleas deal because he might actually have to serve 30 days in jail for his crimes. What, as the remainder of this article, and argument to the court, will delineate is that there is no merit to the attempted withdrawal and, incredibly, both Bloch and the DOJ entered into written covenants that they would not attempt to do so. For the reasons described below, Judge Robinson should deny Mr. Bloch’s motion to withdraw, and the craven DOJ joinder therein, and sentence Mr. Bloch pursuant to the plea and in accordance with her finding and inclination stated in her February 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion.

I. The Mandatory Minimum Is In The Statute Itself

Defendant Bloch cites and argues Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrP) Rule 11(b)(1)(I) for the proposition he should be allowed to withdraw from his plea because the court did not explain, and he did not understand, there was a minimum mandatory sentence of one month in jail.

This is a specious and meritless argument. The existence of the mandatory month in jail is not the creature of some arcane and separate sentencing provision or the result of the confusing federal sentencing guidelines or some other hard to grasp source. No, the requirement of one month incarceration is directly and specifically in the the statutory crime Mr. Bloch pled guilty to under 2 USC 192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. (emphasis added)

For Mr. Bloch to say he did not know of the mandatory incarceration provision, and that the court did not advise him, defies both clear logic and complete credibility. At the April 27, 2010 plea proceeding in front of the court, under oath and on the record, Defendant Bloch stated definitively and unequivocally that he knew, had read, been briefed by competent counsel and understood completely the charge he was pleading guilty to. Bloch, his attorney and the prosecuting AUSA in charge of the case for the DOJ, Mr. Glen Leon, avowed to the court there was no impairment and no reason whatsoever Bloch did not know what he was doing and could not knowingly enter into the plea. (See Plea Hearing Transcript, Exhibit 1 to Bloch Motion to Withdraw).

The following pertinent portions of the plea proceeding apply:

THE COURT: Do you understand the charge that is alleged in the Information?

THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.

…..

THE COURT: Has anyone promised you what sentence will actually be imposed?

THE DEFENDANT: No one has promised me that, Your Honor.

…..

THE COURT: Do you know that if the sentence is more severe than you now expect it will be, that you are still bound by your plea, and that you will not be permitted to withdraw your plea for that reason?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand that, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand, sir, that parole in the federal system has been abolished, so that if you are sentenced to a period of incarceration, you will not be released early on parole?

THE DEFENDANT: I believe I do understand that, Your Honor. Yes.

THE COURT: Do you need more time to discuss any of the questions I just asked, or any of your own questions about sentencing, with your lawyers before we continue?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I do not, Your Honor

Defendant Bloch repeatedly, under oath, swore he understood the charge, knew the penalties associated with the charge, knew the final sentence was in the Court’s discretion and there was even discussion on the record about the potential for a sentence of incarceration and the temporary provision of pre sentence release. The plea agreement itself specified:

Your client agrees to plead guilty to a one-count Information, a copy of which is attached, which charges a misdemeanor violation of 2 U.S.C. 192 (Criminal Contempt of Congress).

The record is crystal clear. Mr. Bloch himself is an experienced attorney and had the assistance of extremely gifted retained counsel (not just one, but a battery of them). There was no ambiguity as to the offense Defendant Bloch was pleading guilty to. The minimum one month incarceration period is clear as day and directly specified in the elements and body of the criminal statute, 2 USC 192, Bloch pled guilty to.

Further, as the citation to United States v. Padilla, 23 F.3d 1220, 1222 (7th Cir. 1994) in Defendant Bloch’s own motion delineates, “The relevant inquiry must center upon what the defendant actually knows when he pleads guilty.” Well, in the instant case, Defendant Bloch swore under oath and penalty of perjury that he knew exactly the criminal provision he was pleading guilty to, and what he now disingenuously claims ignorance to is in that statute, in glaring black and white, for the world to see. Mr. Bloch’s sudden claim of ignorance is dishonest, in bad faith and does not constitute just cause for withdrawal.

Rule 11(d) specifies that once a plea has been accepted on the record by the court, which is the case here, withdrawal by a defendant can only occur where the court rejects the plea or where “a fair and just” basis is established. Neither circumstance applies in the case of Mr. Bloch.

II. It Was Not A “Probation Plea” and the Terms and Conditions Forbid Withdrawal

The nature and tenor of Defendant Bloch’s motion to withdraw effectively presents a defendant who entered into a probation only plea and is shocked, shocked that he may actually serve some minimal jail time. Yet the plea was not a “probation plea”, and the parties, court, Mr. Bloch, the plea agreement letter and the plea proceeding were all crystal clear that incarceration, within the contemplation of the statute and relevant guidelines, was quite possible, and that Bloch would not be permitted to withdraw if that was the case so long as the sentence was within guidelines.

The plea agreement letter provides in pertinent parts:

The parties further agree that a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range would constitute a reasonable sentence in light of all the factors set forth in 18 USC 3553(a). In addition, neither party will seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines Range or suggest that the Court consider a sentence outside the Stipulated Guidelines Range.

….

It is understood that the sentence to be imposed on your client is determined solely by the Court. It is understood that the Sentencing Guidelines are not binding on the Court. Your client acknowledges that your client’s entry of a guilty plea to the charged offense authorizes the sentencing Court to impose any sentence, up to and including the statutory maximum sentence, which may be greater than the applicable Guidelines range. The Government cannot, and does not, make any promise or representation as to what sentence your client will receive. Moreover, it is understood that your client will have no right to withdraw your client’s plea of guilty should the Court impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range. (emphasis added)

The net result of the above stipulation, made both in the plea agreement letter dated April 19, 2010, and confirmed and further established in the plea proceeding in open court on April 27, 2010, is that Defendant Bloch made a deal in which he

(a) agreed not to contest a guidelines sentence imposed by the Court,

(b) waived his right to withdraw his plea so long as the Court sentenced legally, and

(c) waived the non-admissability of his allocution under FRCrP Rule 11(f).

The plea document literally stipulated:

It is further agreed that any sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range is reasonable.

in conjunction with both parties waiving any appeal rights.

Defendant Bloch entered into a plea agreement, and stood before the court to confirm it, that gave him a sweetheart deal to a misdemeanor crime with liberal and favorable further stipulations that he would be classified under the lowest available sentencing guidelines for calculation and imposition of his sentence. He swore he would not seek to withdraw, and the Court instructed him there would be no such withdrawal permitted so long as he was treated within the parameters of his plea. The proposed sentence indicated by the Court in its February 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion is more than within those constricts. Mr. Bloch’s plea does not permit the action he, and the collusive government, now seek.

Conclusion

The number and quality of felony crimes Bloch could have been, and should have been, charged with are staggering; including obstruction of justice, false statements, perjury, willful destruction of government property and Federal Records Act violations. But Defendant Bloch made a deal to plead to one little misdemeanor with the guarantee he would be considered under the most favorable sentencing guideline conditions imaginable. And, in return for this staggeringly kit gloved treatment, both Bloch and the government swore and promised not to withdraw or appeal. Yet, here they both are in front of this Court seeking to do just that. It is scandalous and should not be permitted by the Court. But there is much more to this case than just that.

It is the duty of the federal court system to provide fair and impartial justice to those before it and to stand as one of the three co-equal branches of government with a solemn duty to protect the sanctity of the government and see that justice is done not just for the powerful and privileged, but for all. For a misdemeanor plea case, there are powerful and critical factors involved in the instant case that warrant consideration by the Court. Central is the question of whether there is now, and will be in the future, meaningful accountability for Executive Branch officials as to the crimes they commit in office and in the peoples’ names.

As described at the start of this essay, our government and constitutional rule of law fails if Executive Branch officials can lie and destroy material evidence, not only to shield themselves from accountability, but to mask their efforts to deny legitimate governmental whistleblowers the light of day with which to inform and protect the public. It is truly that fundamental. And when you then compound the problem with fellow Executive Branch attorneys and officials colluding to minimize the crimes and frustrate even the minimum statutory punishment, the issue, and thus the case of Mr. Bloch, becomes of immense importance.

This Court, in its February 2, 2011 Memorandum Order, noted:

Thus Congress’s intent was to make the penalty for violating the statute punitive. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 755 (1962) (“In enacting the criminal statute . . . Congress invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct.”) (quoting Watkins, 354 U.S. at 207). With respect to sentencing, the statute, as enacted in 1857, provided that “on conviction,” a person “shall” pay a fine and “suffer imprisonment in the common jail not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” Act of January 24, 1857, ch. 19, 11 Stat. 155 (emphasis supplied).

These words and opinion are exactly why this Court should deny Defendant Bloch’s motion to withdraw and sentence him as previously contemplated. It is literally the least he deserves. As the Court stated, the federal judiciary has a duty, in conjunction with Congress, to protect against contumacious conduct. This Court should fulfill that duty, stand for the people and rule of law, and send a message to Mr. Bloch and subsequent Executive Branch officials that there is a penalty for criminal behavior in obstruction and contempt of Congress, and that it will be enforced.

As Marcy Wheeler pointed out, the Obama Administration this morning made an abrupt and seismic shift in its legal policy and position on DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). There are two documents of note in this regard, the Attorney General’s press announcement and the detailed letter to speaker John Boehner announcing the change in policy and describing the legal foundation therefore.

Marc Ambinder explains what this means to the two key cases in question:

The decision means the Justice Department will cease to defend two suits brought against the law. The first was a summary judgment issued in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services last May by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law’s definition of “marriage” as a legal union between a man and a woman.

District Judge Joseph Louis Tauro ruled Section 3 of the act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated states’ rights to set their own marriage policies and violated the rights of same-sex couples in the states that permitted marriages. But the president felt compelled to defend the law, reasoning that Congress had the ability to overturn it. The Justice Department entered into an appeal process on October 12, 2010. Tauro stayed implementation of his own ruling pending the appeal. The department filed its defense in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on January 14.

The second lawsuit, involving the cases of Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management and Windsor v. United States, would have been appealed in the Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit, which has no established standard for how to treat laws concerning sexual orientation.

I would like to say this is not only a welcome, but extremely strong position that has been taken by President Obama, Attorney General Holder and the Administration. You can say they are late to the dance, that it is political opportunism because the boat was already sailing, or that it is a “bone to the base” with an election looming. To varying degrees, all would have some validity. However, the bottom line is that they have done it, it was extremely bold in its forcefulness and it was the right thing to do. Mr. Obama and his Administration deserves credit where due. This is an area where I have expressed extreme disagreement with Mr. Obama and his policy, and he has met exactly the issues that were faulty, and in a strong way.

Another thing should be noted here. From what I know of the 2nd Circuit, and what others very knowledgable about it confirm, the 2nd is going to find this music to their ears. They may not be the equivalent of the 9th Circuit on everything, but their disposition was going to be to knock down DOMA to start with. With this extra ammunition provided today, expect them to write VERY strong opinions knocking back DOMA and finding clear cut Constitutional protection for sexual identity equality. Couple that with the clear position evinced by the 9th Circuit, and the tide is turning. Fast and hard.

I simply do not see how Anthony Kennedy, based both on what I know of him and his clear opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, will not find for sexual identity equality if and when these cases reach the Supreme Court. This is why I have always maintained that Boies and Olson should stipulate to standing in Perry and get the case to the Supremes.

The above linked documents speak for themselves in most regards, but I would like to point out a couple of things. First, the Administration is not just going to cease defending DOMA, they are doing so on the express ground that it “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment”. That is huge. Not just that it is wrong, but that it flat out violates the most fundamental protections within the United States Constitution. Secondly, and to a legal eye every bit as important, if not more so, they have concluded:

…that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Again, huge. They lay out a detailed analysis under Bowen v. Gilliard why this is so, discuss Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, Fontiero v. Richardson and conclude:

Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexualorientation.

and

In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent o f the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.

Ballgame.

And why do I say ballgame?? Because this is far more reaching than just the pending DOMA cases in the 2nd Circuit. No, this seismic change will filter into any LGBT Constitutional rights case pending in federal or state courts. The first case that came to my mind was the Log Cabin Republican case out of the Central district of California (CACD).

I had no sooner started writing about the applicability of today’s Obama Administration announcement to the LCR case, when an even better example of the far ranging consequences came across my desk straight from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. David boies and Ted Olson, on behalf of the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, have filed a Motion to Lift the Stay Pending Appeal on marriage equality in California. Speaking of huge, this instantaneous and hard edged aggressive action by the Perry plaintiffs fits the bill:

Moreover, events of this morning demonstrate that proponents likely cannot prevail even if this lengthy procedural detour were resolved in their favor. In a letter to Congress, the Attorney General of the United States announced the view of the United States that ““classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of”” the Defense of Marriage Act (““DOMA””)——which defines ““marriage”” under federal law to be ““a legal union between one man and one woman””——““is unconstitutional.”” Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the De- fense of Marriage Act at 2 (Feb. 23, 2011) (attached as Exhibit A).

These new developments——this Court’’s certification order, the California Supreme Court’’s response to it, and the Attorney General’’s announcement that the gov- ernment will no longer defend DOMA——are materially changed circumstances that warrant vacatur of this Court’’s decision to grant a stay pending appeal. See SEACC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’’rs, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006).

The long and short of this is that Boies and Olson argue that between today’s announcement of the quantum shift in policy by President Obama and Attorney General Holder and the direction the California supreme Court is heading creates a situation is which there is simply no resolution of the appeal that favors the challengers – the h8ters – actually winning on the merits. There are several ways the case could go down, as pondered through by Boies and Olson, but none of them favor the bigoted proponents of Proposition 8.

Boies and Olson have a pretty compelling point if you total up the legal considerations extant at this point. The other thing I think should be noted here is just how fast the Boies and Olson motion came on the heels of the Obama/Holder announcement. I first heard rumor of the coming announcement of the new Obama policy at 9:15 am PST. Boies and Olson filed their motion and had it entered on the 9th Circuit ECF (Electronic Court Filing) system by 9:56 am PST, a mere 40 minutes later. Trust me, this is not possible, even for ace attorneys like David and Ted.

What the above shows is that there was at least some advance notice to and/or cooperation between the AG/DOJ and the Perry Plaintiffs, and far more than the press got. The Administration should be commended for this as well, when they finally decided to ante in on the right side of the Constitutionality argument, they went all in. Bravo!

[The absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work.]

This is getting ridiculous.

The Department of Justice has literally teamed up with Scott Bloch-who previously plead guilty to blowing off Congress–to try to help him avoid any jail time, at any cost to credibility, for that crime. The extent of this collusion first became apparent in a ruling dated February 2, 2011 by Federal Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who is handling the matter.

In a nice touch, DOJ cited the case of Elliott Abrams–a quintessential example of lack of accountability–for their argument that lying to Congress didn’t require jail time. And why not? He’s among the many criminals Obama now regularly takes advice from.

Now, there’s more than a chance that what is going on here is DOJ scrambling to prevent Bloch from doing jail time because they–part of the Executive Branch–like it that people like Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling and John Yoo have managed to avoid almost all Congressional oversight. And, now with Darrell Issa cranking up the not-so-way back investigatory machine, they really do not want a precedent made that executive branch officials who lie to Congress have to – gasp – actually serve jail time. In spite of the fact that is exactly what the law clearly specifies on its face. Again, from Judge Robinson:

In 1857, Congress enacted a statutory criminal contempt procedure, largely in response to a proceeding in the House of Representatives that year. CRS Report RL34114, Congress’s Contempt Power: A Sketch, by Morton Rosenberg and Todd B. Tatelman at 7. In the enactment, Congress provided for trial of the contemnor before a court, rather than a trial at the bar of the House or Senate. Id. “It is clear from the floor debates and the subsequent practice of both Houses that the legislation was intended as an alternative to the inherent contempt procedure, not as a substitute for it.” Id. (emphasis supplied). In a discussion of the legislative history of the statute, the Supreme Court observed that “[t]his statute was passed . . . as a direct result of an incident which caused the Congress to feel that it needed more severe sanctions to compel disclosures than were available in the historical procedure of summoning the . . . witness before the bar of either House of Congress . . .” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 207 n.45 (1957) (emphasis supplied). Thus, Congress’s intent was to make the penalty for violating the statute punitive. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 755 (1962) (“In enacting the criminal statute . . . Congress invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct.”) (quoting Watkins, 354 U.S. at 207). With respect to sentencing, the statute, as enacted in 1857, provided that “on conviction,” a person “shall” pay a fine and “suffer imprisonment in the common jail not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” Act of January 24, 1857, ch. 19, 11 Stat. 155 (emphasis

supplied).

But avoiding this crystal clear statutory mandate would be utterly consistent with one of the first things the Obama Administration did after taking office–negotiate  a deal between Karl Rove and the House Judiciary Committee that required Rove to testify but prevented HJC from arguing their case to the District of Columbia Circuit–which would likely have set a binding precedent requiring the Executive to testify before Congress. Just can’t have that.

But given the record of this Administration–from the mantra of “look forward” to the refusal to charge Dick Cheney for illegal wiretapping Americans to the refusal to charge Jose Rodriguez for destroying evidence of torture–I think it’s just that they refuse to send an official–one of their own–to jail. They cannot uphold the law, because the law might be upheld against them.

So, back to I guess he won’t see a cell Bloch Scott. Is DOJ really saying that a guy who wiped his hard drive shouldn’t go to jail? Yes, and they are willing to fight for him and with him to see that such is indeed the case. First the government filed a Motion to Reconsider dated February 7, 2011 regarding Judge Robinson’s 2/2/2011 ruling discussed and linked above. The Motion to Reconsider was basically five pages of whining that there was compelling authority to the effect the criminal they were prosecuting did NOT have to serve jail time. Yes, that is one hell of a strange argument for government prosecutors to be making.

Then, the willingness of the government prosecutors to fight to keep the criminal Bloch from serving one lousy second in jail goes from the absurd to the ridiculous. A mere four days after having filed the whiny Motion to Reconsider, and before it was substantively ruled on, the government, by and through the ever ethical DOJ, suddenly files a pleading encaptioned “Governments Motion To Withdraw Its Motion To Reconsider The Court’s February 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion“. In this pleading, the government suddenly, and literally, admits their February 2 Motion to Reconsider was without merit.

As if withdrawing their motion with an admission they were full of manure was not strange enough, then the clincher is injected. The DOJ slides the following in as a footnote at the end:

In light of this Court’s ruling that 2 U.S.C. § 192 requires a minimum penalty of one month’s incarceration, defense counsel has informed the government that the defendant intends to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in this case, on the ground that plea colloquy did not satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(I) that “[b]efore the court accepts a plea of guilty . . . the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, . . . any applicable mandatory minimum penalty.” The government believes that the defendant’s position is well-founded, and will not oppose his motion to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., United States v. Hairston, 522 F.3d 336, 338-343 (4th Cir. 2008) (vacating a guilty plea because the defendant was not properly advised of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence).

The parties are currently in the process of negotiating another plea agreement, pursuant to which the defendant would plead guilty to a different offense should the Court grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Let me put that bluntly for you: the DOJ is helping a guy they have already convicted by way of guilty plea – that has already been accepted by the court – get out of that plea conviction. And they are already negotiating a different deal with the defendant, Bloch, to insure he doesn’t serve one stinking day in jail.

I have been in and around criminal defense law for nearly 25 years; you know how many times I have seen something like this? Never. In a couple of extreme cases, I have had the government “take no position”, but never actively help a defendant withdraw like they are with Bloch. Why? Because it is the government’s job to prosecute and incarcerate criminals; they simply just do NOT care if it turns out the criminal got a month in jail, whether the criminal was expecting it or not. But it is even worse than that, here the DOJ is actively, and somewhat disingenuously, helping Bloch manufacture a basis for the withdrawal.

And, absent some tangible and material just cause, withdrawal of a plea which has been formally accepted by the court is, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, prohibited:

A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:

(1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or

(2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:

(A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(5); or

(B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.

The problem with Mr. Bloch’s case is there is simply no just cause. The mandatory 30 day jail term is part of the charge Bloch pled guilty to under 2 USC 192. Clear as day. And, as Judge Robinson made Bloch confirm, on the record in open court, he understood what he was pleading to and had the advise of counsel before doing so. End of story.

Or, it would be the end of the story, if the Obama Administration and Holder Justice Department were not willing to make misrepresentations and disingenuous arguments to cravenly insure that Executive Branch officials lying to Congress do not serve so much as a day in jail. Man, I guess they must be awfully worried about Timmeh Geithner, eh? Wonder if the DOJ will be so aggressive for Karl Rodney or Roger Clemens?

[Editor’s note – This post was originally started by Marcy, but finished by bmaz. So, you get the best of both worlds!]

There are rapidly emerging signs the Obama Administration and Congress may be actively, quickly and covertly working furiously on a plan to retroactively legitimize and ratify the shoddy, fraudulent and non-conforming conduct by MERS on literally millions of mortgages.

From CNBC:

When Congress comes back into session next week, it may consider measures intended to bolster the legal status of a controversial bank owned electronic mortgage registration system that contains three out of every five mortgages in the country.

The system is known as MERS, the acronym for a private company called Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems. Set up by banks in the 1997, MERS is a system for tracking ownership of home loans as they move from mortgage originator through the financial pipeline to the trusts set up when mortgage securities are sold.

Just to make clear the implications of this craven action, the White House and Congress are conspiring to give a get out of jail free bailout card to the biggest banks and finance companies in the country to cover up and mask their illegal behavior and behavior that did not conform with state, county and local laws throughout the United States. On at least sixty (60%) percent of the existing mortgages in America.

There are dozens of implications to individuals and both private and public entities. At a root minimum, it will likely decimate, if not bankrupt, most counties in every state of the union.

If courts rule against MERS, the damage could be catastrophic. Here’s how the AP tallies up the potential damage:

Assuming each mortgage it tracks had been resold, and re-recorded, just once, MERS would have saved the industry $2.4 billion in recording costs, R.K. Arnold, the firm’s chief executive officer, testified in 2009. It’s not unusual for a mortgage to be resold a dozen times or more.

The California suit alone could cost MERS $60 billion to $120 billion in damages and penalties from unpaid recording fees.

The liabilities are astronomical because, according to laws in California and many other states, penalties between $5,000 and $10,000 can be imposed each time a recording fee went unpaid. Because the suits are filed as false claims, the law stipulates that the penalties can then be tripled.

Perhaps even more devastatingly, some critics say that sloppiness at MERS—which has just 40 full-time employees—may have botched chain of title for many mortgages. They say that MERS lacks standing to bring foreclosure actions, and the botched chain of title may cast doubts on whether anyone has clear enough ownership of some mortgages to foreclose on a defaulting borrower.

Why would the Obama Administration and Congress be doing this? Because the foreclosure fraud suits and other challenges to the mass production slice, dice and securitize lifestyle on the American finance sector, the very same activity that wrecked the economy and put the nation in the depression it is either still in, or barely recovering from, depending on your point of view, have left the root balance sheets and stability of the largest financial institutions on the wrong side of the credibility and, likely, the legal auditory line. And that affects not only our economy, but that of the world who is all chips in on the American real estate and financial products markets.

What does that mean to you? Everything. As quoted above, even the most conservative estimate (and that estimate is based on only a single recording fee per mortgage, when in reality there are almost certainly multiple recordings legally required for most all mortgages due to the slicing, dicing and tranching necessary to accomplish the securitization that has occurred) for the state of California alone is $60 billion dollars. That is $60,000,000,000.00. California alone is actually likely several times that. Your county is in the loss column heavy from this too.

Where will the roads come from? Where will the county courts, judges and prosecutors come from? The Sheriffs? Who will build and maintain the bridges, parks and public works entities? Removal and obviation of this funding mechanism may literally kill any and every county.

That is without even going into the real and myriad effects on individuals, families and communities. This is a death knell to the real property system as we have always known it and the county structure of American society as we have known it. And millions of people will have lost the ability to benefit from the established rule and process of law that they understood and relied on. After the fact. Retroactively. So Obama and Congress can once again give a handout and bailout to the very banks and financial malefactors that put us here.

If the Democratic Party wants to survive the next two years, it needs to find a new baby-sitter for Darrell Issa.

After all, no one was more gleefully prepared after the shellacking last Tuesday to take over and cause trouble for Democrats that Issa. He’s been planning a series of witch hunts for months. And since Tuesday, Issa has made it clear just how expansive he intends those witch hunts to be.

California Rep. Darrell Issa is already eyeing a massive expansion of oversight for next year, including hundreds of hearings; creating new subcommittees; and launching fresh investigations into the bank bailout, the stimulus and, potentially, health care reform.

Issa told POLITICO in an interview that he wants each of his seven subcommittees to hold “one or two hearings each week.”

“I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” Issa said.

Issa is also targeting some ambitious up-and-comers like Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio — all aggressive partisans — to chair some of his subcommittees.

[snip]

To give an idea of how expansive Issa’s oversight plans are, look at the record of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) when he chaired the oversight committee during in the 110th Congress during George W. Bush’s presidency. Waxman held 203 oversight hearings in two years; Issa has signaled he’s prepared to hold about 280 in just one year.

The current Chair of Oversight, Ed Towns, is not up to the task of keeping Issa in check.

As I noted two years ago, Towns was never all that interested in Oversight; to him it was a gavel and nothing more. Plus, he’s funded by some of the industries–like Pharma–that need some oversight.

More importantly, the last two years have proven him unequal to the task of keeping Issa in line. Indeed, Issa has pushed Towns around to do things like focus on the Countrywide VIP program, even while Towns failed to do much positive with his gavel. Keeping Towns on as Ranking Member of Oversight will deprive us of any way of limiting the damage of Issa’s witch hunts.

We need someone with both the intestinal fortitude and the progressive stripes to encourage Issa where we could use more Oversight–such as on the Wall Street bailout, which Issa promises to investigate–while obstructing Issa’s efforts to shut down government or sniff through Obama’s panty drawer, as Issa’s predecessor, Dan Burton, did to Clinton.

We need someone like Elijah Cummings, who considered a run for Oversight Chair two years ago, and who has been one of the few people on Oversight demanding the Committee do what it is supposed to do. Cummings has been very good at using his spot on the Committee to expose the cronyism of government (particularly on the Wall Street bailout). And of critical importance, he speaks well enough to match a showboater like Issa. He has the ability to expose Issa’s more partisan stunts as such. Finally, replacing Towns with Cummings will limit the complaints of the CBC (particularly in case Clyburn loses to Steny in the Whip fight).

The focus since Tuesday has been on the leadership fight between Steny and others. But just as important as picking the right leader to keep the caucus as effective as possible in the minority, we need to pick a better baby-sitter for Issa–someone like Elijah Cummings.

Last night (Tuesday October 19), Central District of California Judge Virginia Phillips entered her order denying the Obama DOJ motion for stay of her surprisingly broad worldwide injunction against enforcement by US Military of the DADT policy. Here is a report from Josh Gerstein at Politico on Phillips’ decision.

As expected, the DOJ has appealed Phillips’ denial of stay to the 9th Circuit, and did so already this morning. Here is the full main brief submitted in support of the motion for stay.

Having read the brief, I will say that it is much better constructed than previous filings by the DOJ regarding the injunction, maybe they are starting to take the matter seriously. By the same token, it is also striking that the filing is much more forceful in its assertion that the policy of President Obama and his Administration is for elimination and repeal of DADT. That message is conveyed by language such as this from footnote one in the brief:

The Administration does not support § 654 as a matter of policy and strongly believes that Congress should repeal it. The Department of Justice in this case has followed its longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality.

That is positive. What is very troubling, however, is that the Administration, by and through the DOJ never – never – indicates that it considers DADT to be unconstitutional on its face. Every objection by team Obama is in favor simply of study and legislative repeal; and, in fact, they doggedly protect the constitutionality of DADT. There is a HUGE difference between the two concepts of saying it is simply something that should be fixed by Congress (increasingly unlikely, it should be added, in light of the massive gains conservative Republicans are poised to make) and saying the Administration fully believes the policy unconstitutional and invidiously discriminatory (the position Obama blatantly refuses to make).

It should also be noted that a refusal to acknowledge the fundamental constitutionally discriminatory nature of DADT is also entirely consistent with the recent history of Obama Administration conduct and statements on the issue. Whether it be Obama himself, official spokesman Robert Gibbs or Valerie Jarrett, every time the direct question on constitutionality of DADT is raised, it is deflected with a flimsy response framed in terms of Congressional repeal. At this point, you have to wonder if Barack Obama and his Administration even consider the blatant discrimination of DADT to be of a Constitutional level at all; the evidence certainly is lacking of any such commitment.

Congress should repeal DADT as Obama suggests, but the basis and harm is much deeper and more profound than simply that. The constitutionality of invidious discrimination based on sexual orientation should be argued with the government taking the lead on saying it is NOT constitutional, has no place in our society or government and that the court should so declare any such conduct invidiously discriminatory against a protected class under equal protection, due process and first amendment grounds. The Obama Administration and DOJ should should have the courage and principle to come out and say just that.

And in the meantime, Obama should help the effort along, and set a positive example, by issuing an executive order under his crystal clear stop loss authority pursuant to 10 USC 12305 stopping all discharges from the United States Military under the pernicious DADT policy. The President has that power and should have the courage to use it.

Obama is doing none of the above and, instead, is paying cheap political lip service only by hiding and trying to frame everything in terms of Congressional repeal. When asked about the court rulings by Phillips in the LCR DADT case, by Tauro in the DOMA case, or by Walker in Perry, the response is always in terms of legislation repealing things in place. legislation affirmatively protecting something in the future, studies to see what is appropriate or some other mealy mouthed baloney.

On the other hand, not a lick of the above described baloney matters if the discrimination at issue is flat out unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, and DADT absolutely is, then studies are irrelevant. What generals and servicemembers wives think and respond to in answers to ginned up surveys is irrelevant. Legislation by Congress is irrelevant. Public opinion, for that matter, is irrelevant. None of that matters because it is a fundamental right for such citizens to be treated equally under the United States Constitution and not be discriminated against. End of story. Seriously, it either is or it is not.

However, the filing by the Obama DOJ speaks for itself as to where we stand today. (And here is a just posted article by Gerstein on the stay attempt in the 9th). As an attorney, I am inclined to agree with their position that the injunctive order by Judge Phillips is of questionable validity in its extension worldwide against the US military. As the government’s brief argues, the standing granted in the Log Cabin Republican case was limited and restricted; it is hard to see how it serves as a proper foundation for the extraordinarily broad injunction she issued.

That said, Judge Phillips’ decision on the root unconstitutionality of DADT is spot on valid and correct and, as cited above, there is nothing to stop the government from voluntarily complying with the spirit of that finding or, indeed, President Obama from mandating evisceration of DADT pursuant to his stop loss authority under 10 USC 12305. What is needed is a profile in courage instead of another example of rank political triangulation.

A lot of hope was placed on the back of Elizabeth Warren and the financial reform act passed by Congress at the behest of the Administration formally known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Concurrent with belittling the liberal Democratic activist base as ungrateful whiners, the Administration and Democratic leadership has touted Liz Warren and Dodd-Frank as prime examples of accomplishments that should thrill and satisfy the base. But are those “accomplishments” really all that and should they mollify Democrats, at least on financial reform issues? The initial returns indicate no.

First, the ability of Dodd-Frank to do the job intended as to rapacious financial institutions is highly debatable at best, and that is being generous. It is already established the bill did not clamp down sufficiently on the reckless casino style trading in derivatives and synthetic financial products, and may even have opened a new portal for abuse by the Wall Street Masters of the Universe high frequency traders.

Gretchen Morgenson in today’s New York Times lays out beautifully the bigger picture on the lack of reform in the “reform”:

THE government is pulling a sheet over TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program created during the panic of 2008 to bail out the nation’s financial institutions. With the program’s expiration on Sunday, we can expect to hear lots of claims from the folks at the Treasury that it was a great success.

Such assertions would be no surprise from a political class justifiably concerned about possible taxpayer unhappiness, the continuing economic turmoil and the midterm elections. But if we have learned anything during this crisis, it is that the proclamations emanating from the Washington spin machine must be taken with an extra-hefty grain of salt.

Consider the claims made last summer that the Dodd-Frank financial reform act reduces the threats that large, interconnected banks pose to taxpayers and the economy when the banks are deemed too big to fail. Indeed, as regulators hammer out the rules governing derivatives transactions, it’s evident that the law has created a new set of institutions that will almost certainly be deemed too important to fail if they ever get into trouble. And that means there won’t really be an effective way to keep those firms from taking big, profitable, short-term risks that are dumped on the taxpayers when the bets fail.

Our roster of bailout candidates includes the clearinghouses, created under Dodd-Frank, that are meant to increase the oversight of derivatives trading. Because most derivatives transactions are expected to go through these clearinghouses, they will be “systemically important” under the law. As such, Dodd-Frank specifically provides that “in unusual or exigent circumstances,” the Federal Reserve may provide such entities with a financial backstop, including borrowing privileges.

Remember this: Financial backstop is just another term for a taxpayer bailout. And the major banks and brokerage firms are the members of the clearinghouses, so a backstop would essentially be for them.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, the entire derivatives market had a gross credit exposure of $3.5 trillion at the end of 2009. Obviously, even a small fraction of that amount could represent a sizable call on the taxpayers if a clearinghouse hit the skids.

So much for eradicating too-big-to-fail.

So much for ending “Too Big To Fail” indeed. Like upwardly spiraling health care costs from “healthcare reform”, it appears all that has been done is to institutionalize the very problems in need of eradication.

Well, how about Elizabeth Warren, surely her placement in the Obama Administration is a giant positive the Democratic activist base can hang their hat on and take to the bank, right? In a word, no. Now, before we go further, I want to make perfectly clear that I admire and respect Warren greatly and probably as much or more than anybody in the public sector today. For that reason, writing the following pains me greatly, but I believe the facts and circumstances warrant honesty about the situation surrounding Liz Warren.

Here is what I said back on September 17th:

I spent a good chunk of the night a couple past reading the bill and the enabling provisions for formation of the CFPB. Done properly, the contemplation is for sucking in huge swaths of power, almost like a smaller version of the reorganization that formed the DHS, but is a good way. I think Warren will be interested in consolidating this power in an agency that might actually help people; I do not think any of the others involved, whether Geithner, Summers, Obama, Banksters, MOTUs and the agencies the power would be carved out from, will be interested in this at to any real degree at all. As is, Geithner and his Treasury team will have the last word on this, not Warren.

But the thing is, the power Geithner has is vested in the head of CFPB once confirmed or installed by recess appointment, which could have been Warren. That is a HUGE difference that Obama has intentionally and actively worked his ass off to prevent occurring. Today is the first big date, the date Geithner specifies the operative date for transfer of powers from other areas and agencies, which is the date the whole formation will then be calendared off of. It is a huge date. That is one of the main reasons why they strung Warren out till today, so she had no input on that. So Obama Could have named Warren immediately and pushed hard for fast confirmation or recess appointed her so that she had the power to do this right. Instead, he intentionally strung her out and insured that Geithner had all the real authority to not make the CFPB what it ought to be and has, further, insured that Warren never is confirmable in the future (the logistics after the mid-terms will make it impossible). Heckuva job.

For any so inclined, go read the actual CFPB enabling provisions in the the Dodd-Frank Bill. I think you will begin to understand what I am describing as to the awesome power that could be in CFPB if it was taken and done right. That power, and the ability to NOT exercise it, however, because of the Obama White House path, stays vested solely in Geithner/Treasury hands, and subject to the incredibly relentless influence of MOTU Banksters until a CFPB head is confirmed or recess appointed. And that, folks, is exactly why the Obama Administration refused to nominate or appoint Elizabeth Warren to be the actual head of CFPB. There was never a chance.

But there is a lot of good Warren can accomplish in her weird hybrid post Obama crafted for her, right? Not really, especially in relation to the awesome power she could have wielded, and should be wielding as head of CFPB. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism sums it up very well:

It is now official that Warren is at best a placeholder; she cannot have much impact. She can’t make much in the way of policy or personnel choices; that would encroach on the authority of an incoming director. And even her ability to influence the choice of a nominee is questionable. Her taking the advisory role now assures that the nomination of the permanent director will come after the midterm Congressional elections. Given the virtual certainty of Democratic losses, the odds are high that Team Obama will settle on a “conservative” meaning “won’t ruffle the banking industry” choice, and argue its hands were tied.

So the Obama camp has played this extremely well. They get to avail themselves of the Warren brand, give her a Potemkin role, and use it to push the timetable for nomination of the permanent director out, which give them cover for installing a more compliant choice.

That is exactly right. And, as I stated above, what the Warren co-option by Obama and Geithner has done is not just to score political points from gullible Democrats desperate for a hint of intelligent financial policy from a moribund Administration, but more importantly to provide cover for the hollowing out of what could have been, and should have been, awesome power of a CFPB in competent and motivated hands of somebody actually interested in real consumer and citizen protection. Someone like Elizabeth Warren. It is a craven bait and switch and you, the consumer and citizen, are on the losing end.

Want more evidence? From Sewell Chan in Thursday’s New York Times:

The Obama administration is starting to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but relief for consumers befuddled by the complex disclosures that accompany credit cards, auto loans and mortgages will not come about right away.

Under questioning from senators on Thursday, the deputy Treasury secretary, Neal S. Wolin, acknowledged that regulators would not have substantive power to write rules governing a vast array of consumer loans until a permanent director of the bureau is in place and until July 21, 2011, when responsibilities from seven other federal agencies are transferred to the new bureau.

…..

At the hearing, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, said that the Treasury Department had emphasized the need to move quickly on writing new rules governing consumer loans, and questioned whether the department could do that “without a confirmed director.”

Mr. Wolin replied that “there is limited rule-writing authority, but it is constrained until such time as there is a confirmed director.

….

Finally, Mr. Wolin acknowledged to the senators that “the authority to actually issue a rule that would bind private parties, for example, in the mortgage area is a tough one until such time as there is a confirmed director.”

Therein lies the truth the Obama Administration has carefully obscured. They not only denied Elizabeth Warren the post she deserved and the power the country needed in her hands, they co-opted her as cover for frustrating the very purpose of the CFPA. There is no real power for the CFPA, and the true “rule writing” cannot occur, until there is a formal head and because of the bait and switch, Obama and Geithner have indefinitely strung out the time when there will be such a formal head of CFPB.

Elizabeth Warren is completely marginalized and, whatever little authority she does currently have disappears the second a real head of CFPA is confirmed. And do not kid yourself, while confirmation of Warren to head the CFPA would have been possible, even granted it would have been a very tough fight, in the current Congress, it will be impossible with the reduced Senate majority in the coming Congress. Thanks to the conduct of the Administration, there is now no chance whatsoever of Warren ever being confirmed and instead a conservative hack vetted and to the liking of conservative Republicans and Wall Street banksters will be the choice. Mission accomplished.

The ever more arrogant and belligerent to the progressive base Obama White House can call it “whiny” all they want, the truth is they are selling the base, and the rest of the country and mostly gullible press, a bill of goods. Admitting the truth isn’t being whiny, it’s being honest.

This is just pathetic:

Vice President Joe Biden travels to Boston Wednesday, where he’s scheduled to team up with Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

A Democratic source tells CNN that the event is a fundraiser for the two-term Democratic senator, who faces a very difficult re-election bid this year.

Blanche Lincoln just joined Republicans to scuttle the defense bill, and with it the DREAM Act and DADT repeal–both purportedly Administration priorities (to say nothing about the Defense bill itself). Moreover, no amount of money is going to get Blanche out of her electoral hole this year. And her patrons, the Waltons, have plenty to give her all by themselves, without picking the pockets of Boston liberals.

So why is Joe Biden wasting some of his precious time and political capital helping a woman who, yesterday, broke with the party on the defense bill? Is this Administration so dysfunctional it can’t even demand discipline from those it’s financially supporting?

Yes, that is Sparky the Sun Devil and the small turd next to him is John McCain (no, it is not a photoshop; is a real picture McCain himself put out on Twitter). As you may have heard, the Arizona primary was last Tuesday and McCain squeaked by the “serious challenge” of gasbag extraordinaire J.D. Hayworth. McCain beat Hayworth by 25 points. But for months, going back even well before Hayworth finally was forced to quit campaigning on his radio show and admit he was actually running, the national media clucking heads were yammering relentlessly about how McCain was “vulnerable” and “in the fight of his political life”. It was, as just about everything with McCain is, a complete gin job and fabrication by the national media.

Here is what I said in an email discussion with a number of colleagues back on February 24 after one of them started talking about McCain being in trouble:

I am telling you, I just do not, at least yet, see any giant tidal wave here for Hayworth. … It may change, but so far in Arizona, the Hayworth bandwagon is far overrated by the national chattering classes.

….

Again, the problem is there is a very established Republican party and attendant power and money machine here and they do not like JD Hayworth for shit and never did; they did not give a rat’s ass about him losing to Harry Mitchell, in fact if they had, he would not have lost. Quite frankly, McCain is not their favorite either in some regards; but he sure is compared to Hayworth historically. Plus McCain has Grant Woods behind the scenes again, and he is very good and pretty ruthless. Hayworth’s sound bites make for dandy fodder for FoxNews, MSNBC and, to a lesser extent CNN, but they do not mean diddly shit here. This is not a national election, it is an Arizona Republican primary.

I tried to correct the record with any number of places and people when I saw this meme, right up to the election; mostly to little avail. I am a native here and have been around a long time, there was just never a chance in hell that Hayworth could even get close to McCain; but you just could not stop the national political horserace chattering chowderheads like Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, Chris Cillizza, the Politico boys etc. from perpetrating this pile of dung.

They were full of it as the vote total demonstrated. Now they have blithely moved on to compensating for their ignorance and/or incompetence by clucking about “yes, yes, McCain won big, but he had to sell out and be someone he wasn’t to do it”. See for instance USA Today, NPR, Reuters, and Dan Balz of the Washington Post.

It is all pure unadulterated rubbish. A con. McCain has always been a completely self serving grifter con who has never been dedicated to any principle or cause other than John McCain. McCain walked out on his first wife and family after returning from Vietnam, after she had waited for him the entire time and while she was crippled and laid up bedridden from a tragic car accident. Left her while they were still married and brought his flim flam carpetbag to Arizona because it provided what he thought was his best shot of anywhere in the country to get a seat in Congress and because there was a very cute and very rich beer heiress here whose family could provide him with the juice and credibility to get elected.

That is the kind of man McCain is and what he stands for. Always has been, always will be. John McCain is a supremely narcissistic self serving belligerent lout that cares about one thing, and one thing only, and that is John McCain. So, when senile political nitwits like Matlock David Broder blather baloney like this:

But now, as the 73-year-old senator prepares for what may well be his final term in a congressional career that began in 1982, the time has come for McCain to look to his legacy — and conditions are right.

In a Congress in which Democrats have pitiful approval ratings and Republicans even worse, McCain is one of the few names that does not draw instant contempt from the voters. The reputation he established for independence — for being his own man, no matter what the pressures — has survived the vagaries of an exceptionally long career.

choke back the appropriate gag reflex to puke and remember just who and what John McCain really is, the belligerent narcissistic turd of a Devil. McCain didn’t change to win this election, doing and saying whatever benefits John McCain at the moment has always been his calling card.

In other news and notes from the Arizona primary last Tuesday, it will be Jan Brewer versus current Attorney General and former Phoenix Mayor Terry Goddard in the general election for governor. It is kind of amusing watching the same chattering media class described above talk about Jan Brewer like she is some political force to be reckoned with. Brewer has been around for decades, mostly as a harmless but batty state legislator. Locals called her “Kooky Jan” as far back as the 1980s because she was, well, kind of kooky.

Brewer’s newfound notoriety and prominence is accidental, not the mark of political shrewdness. She was basically the puppet template that a local right wing political strongman operative by the name of Chuck Coughlin ran for Secretary of State and fell into the governorship when Janet Napolitano was named DHS Secretary. Brewer also stumbled into the SB 1070 Immigration law issue and she and Coughlin were smart enough to know it was her ticket to fend off Joe Arpaio’s thoughts of primarying her and to get her name out as a power player who was capable of actually being reelected (which was not particularly the case before). Brewer is actually personally very nice and not particularly mean spirited, but she saw her ticket to staying in office and ran with it.

Terry Goddard is a good guy and a decent politician, but has little charisma and has been hanging around for so long that he just kind of has the patina of stale. Unless something changes, Kooky Jan is going to be comfortably reelected, which is more than a little mind blowing.

Another very important race is for Attorney General. The uber right wing political climber, and Joe Arpaio acolyte, Andrew Thomas thankfully was defeated in the primary. Unfortunately, the guy who squeaked out the win over Thomas by a few hundred votes, Tom Horne, is not all that much better. And Horne will have a solid advantage over the Democratic nominee Felicia Rotellini. This is a critical post because the Arizona AG decides how to handle the batshit crazy legislation that comes out of the Arizona state legislature. If you have any pull in Arizona, or friends there, give Rotellini some help.

Last, but not least, there is the matter of young Ben Quayle. Also known as Brock Landers. Quayle is an aggressive and incredibly duplicitous punk who needs to be stopped. Quayle at first denied he was party boy Brock Landers, then admitted he had lied. Word on the street here is that a LOT more about Quayle/Landers’ Caligula past will be forthcoming; it already is in multiple forums.

Doug Kahn and Howie Klein have been pounding on the absolutely horrid Blue Dog Gabby Giffords over at Down With Tyranny and supporting progressive Raul Grijalva from the shameless attacks by Giffords and the DNCC.

So that is an update on political life in wingnut hell, otherwise known as Arizona.