Yes, They Are Tracking Hydrogen Peroxide and Acetone

/39 Comments/in /by

Remember how last week I used the hypothetical example of using Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to get records on people who had bought hydrogen peroxide and acetone?

I’m going to make a wildarsed guess and suggest that the Federal Government is doing a nationwide search to find out everyone who is buying large amounts of certain kinds of beauty products. And those people are likely now under investigation as potential terrorism suspects. 

Well, two different Senators used, essentially, the same hypothetical today (albeit in context of National Security Letters).

Cardin: Review tools. Someone buys cleaning products that could be used to make explosive device.

Hey!! That was my suggestion.

Cardin: You don’t want to use NSLs on everyone who buys cleaning supplies in the country. Relevant to investigation. Feinstein pointed out specific and articulable facts. Not going to be second guessed on getting information. Gives us oppty in oversight to make sure not using it for everyone buying cleaning supplies in country.

DiFi: listening to debate. These are given out by many thousand. Specific facts prior to certification. Kyl is right about art-kyoo-la-bull (problem saying that). Would you be amenable to dropping that? Specific is the issue.

Kyl: Good question.

Kyl: If we say that we want to know about Joe Blow buying hydogen peroxide.

I’m not certain, but I think they’d have to use Section 215 rather than NSLs for this purpose.

So while Kyl assures us that they’re not searching everyone in the country buying hydrogen peroxide, it appears very very very likely they are searching some subset of the country for their beauty, home improvement, and cleaning supplies. 

Share this entry

Rahm’s Placeholder, Forrest Claypool?

/36 Comments/in /by

Remember how, in December and January, there were hints that Rahm Emanuel had been trying (in November) to get Rod Blagojevich to help set up a placeholder in his seat, so he could serve as Chief of Staff for two years and then return to the House and run for Speaker?

Well, Blago has repeated and elaborated on that story in a book and the Sun-Times has investigated Blago’s claims in a fascinating article. The Sun-Times reports that Blago claims Rahm asked Blago to appoint Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool to his seat; Blago further claims that Rahm told Claypool he could have a Cabinet appointment when he stepped aside to reopen Rahm’s seat for him after two or four years.

I’m interested in this story partly for the way it would fill out the timeline of Rahm’s and Blago’s contacts. Here’s the chronology the Sun-Times describes.

According to Blagojevich’s recently released book, The Governor, Blagojevich and Emanuel spoke Nov. 7 and 8. They discussed Blagojevich appointing a "placeholder," for the congressional seat, according to the book.

[snip]

Claypool’s announcement that he would not seek Emanuel’s seat came Nov. 12, just days after the discussion between Emanuel and Blagojevich.

On the same day as Claypool’s announcement, Jarrett publicly pulled herself out of contention for the Senate seat. She is now a top adviser to the president.

And here’s how that makes the timeline look (I’ve underlined the new information):

November 6: Rahm Emanuel accepts Chief of Staff position; Blago gives a leak to Michael Sneed designed "to send a message to the [Obama] people" that Madigan might get the Senate seat over Jarrett

November 6-8: Louanner Peters called Eric Whitaker to ask who spoke for Obama regarding his preferences for his replacement; Obama told Whitaker no one had that authority, which Whitaker "relayed" this to Peters

November 6-8: Rahm has "one or two" conversations with Blago, about his own seat, as well as Senate seat [note, Blago says one happened on November 7 and one happened on November 8]; Rahm has four conversations with John Harris about the Senate seat

November 7: Rahm and Blago talk about the Senate seat and about appointing a placeholder; Blago tells Advisor A he’s willing to "trade" the Senate seat for Secretary of HHS; Blago discusses HHS with Harris and Advisor B and talks about 3-way deal with SEIU; Read more →

Share this entry

Vote Fraud in Clay County and the Hanged Census Worker

/180 Comments/in /by

By now, you’ve probably heard the horrible story about the census worker and teacher found hanged in Clay County, KY with the word "fed" written on his chest.

Before we assume that this apparent homicide was a response solely to the attacks Michele Bachmann and others have made on the census, it’s worth recalling how Clay County made news earlier this year, when a bunch of local officials were indicted for vote fraud.

The United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly announced today that five Manchester, Ky. officials, including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers were arrested pursuant to a federal indictment that accused them of using corrupt tactics to obtain political power and personal gain.

The 10-count indictment, unsealed today, accused the defendants of a conspiracy from March 2002 until November 2006 that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO is a federal statute that prosecutors use to combat organized crime. The defendants were also indicted for extortion, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to injure voters’ rights and conspiracy to commit voter fraud.

According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. The indictment accused the defendants of the following criminal actions.

Those indicted include a Circuit Court Judge, the school superintendent, the County Clerk, and an election officer (as well as other locals). That trial is currently set for early next year, though they’re in the middle of discovery right now, with the defendants trying to get the grand jury testimony.

In other words, in Clay County, the federal government is in the middle of prosecuting a number of top county officials for completely corrupting the voting system.

While there’s no more reason to believe Sparkman’s death is connected to this case than that it is connected to Bachmann’s inflammatory statements, it should at least caution us against leaping to conclusions. There may well be very localized reasons why people in Clay County don’t want the federal government going door-to-door.

Share this entry

Travel Week

/35 Comments/in /by

I’m off to the big city this week. As I previously noted, on Wednesday I will do a Nation event with Dan Rather and Jane Mayer.

The Nation presents a conversation on the future of news, featuring legendary newscaster Dan Rather, investigative reporter and best-selling author Jane Mayer, pioneering blogger Marcy Wheeler, and longtime editor and publisher–now publisher emeritus–of The Nation, Victor Navasky. Hosted by Katrina vanden Heuvel.

What will the media look like in five years? The discussion will explore the shape and consequences of fundamental shifts in the media landscape. There will also be ample time for audience questions. A cocktail reception with food will follow the discussion. Take this opportunity to hear from and meet some of the most influential journalists of our time.

Wed, Sep 23 at 7 pm
Leonard Nimoy Thalia
$200; Members $150; Day of Show $250

If you want to go, buy tickets in advance and use this code: RAC102 for half off the ticket price.

The rest of the week, I’m going to be in and out of the Clinton Global Initiative. I should get to see both Clinton and Obama speak, as well as that guy who won the most votes in 2000. 

And, if I can find CSPAN tomorrow and Wednesday, I’ll try to check in on the PATRIOT hearings (11AM Tuesday for HJC; 10AM Wednesday for SJC).

If nothing else, I’ll try to post pictures of all the muckety mucks in NYC this week.

Otherwise, you know the drill: bmaz will be raiding the liquor cabinet, you’ll all trash the place, but by the time I get back you’ll have managed to shampoo the carpets so I can pretend I don’t notice a thing.

Share this entry

No Investigation of Chris Christie for His Rove Chats

/14 Comments/in /by

The Office of Special Counsel has announced that it will not investigate Chris Christie’s campaign discussions with Karl Rove since it couldn’t punish Christie even if it found wrong-doing (it’s only available punishment is termination).

The Office of Special Counsel says it won’t investigate because it has no authority to discipline Christie even if a violation were found. Christie resigned last year to run for governor.

I have asked CREW, though, whether they mentioned this little admission from Christie–that he has talked to still-serving AUSAs about working for him once he becomes Governor (presuming he wins).

You know, we’re going to ferret out waste and fraud and abuse in the government. I think you know I’ll do that better than anybody. I’ve got a group of assistant U.S. attorneys sitting down in Newark still doing their job. But let me tell you, they are watching the newspapers. And after we win this election, I’m going to take a whole group of them to Trenton with me and put them in every one of the departments because they saw a lot of waste and abuse being investigated while we were in the U.S. Attorney’s office that didn’t rise to the level of a crime. So I told them, the good news is, when we get to Trenton we don’t have to worry about beyond a reasonable doubt anymore.

It seems to me OSC ought to at least ask which AUSAs Christie spoke about this with–and whether those AUSAs are currently still employed at the US Attorney’s office.

Share this entry

No One Saw the Bybee One Memo, Either

/89 Comments/in /by

One last detail from last years’ torture hearings before HJC. At the hearing with Daniel Levin, Keith Ellison asked whether, if someone relied on the Bybee One memo (the "organ failure" one), whether they could be prosecuted. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do you believe that the earlier memo gave license to people following its direction to engage in illegal techniques, interrogation techniques?

Mr. LEVIN. Well, it included a definition of torture that I frankly disagreed with and which would have, I think, allowed techniques that I would have concluded violated the statute. And it included this discussion of ways that you could overcome the statute, even if it applied and otherwise would have been violated.

Mr. ELLISON. So if somebody were to rely on that memo, the earlier memo, they would have been violating the law intentionally?

Mr. LEVIN. If somebody relied on the first part of that memo and went up to the limits of what it allowed, in my view they would be violating the law.

Now, again, maybe I am wrong and the earlier memo is correct. If somebody relied on the other constitutional overrides of these defenses, in my view they might well have been violating the law. It obviously would depend on the circumstances.

Mr. ELLISON. Did that ever happen?

Mr. LEVIN. I don’t know. I don’t know. I know there have been lots of investigations into sort of how things ended up happening and who was relying on what. My understanding was that that memo was very—was not broadly circulated. And so I don’t know whether people who were engaging in any conduct were even aware of the memo, let alone relying on it. [my emphasis]

Levin reports–about the Bybee One memo–something similar to what we’ve heard about the Bybee Two memo: that not many of the torturers had seen the document.

Beyond that, officials said it wasn’t clear that any CIA interrogators were ever informed of the limits laid out in the Justice Department memo.

"A number of people could say honestly, correctly, ‘I didn’t know what was in it,’ " said a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the inner workings of the interrogation program.

So if both these reports are correct, then the torturers can’t claim to be relying on the Bybee One memo, nor can they claim to be relying on the Bybee Two memo. 

Read more →

Share this entry

Why Are Jersey Cops Changing Accident Story 7 Years after the Fact?

/33 Comments/in /by

The latest news from Chris Christie’s crappy driving record is that the story he has told about a second traffic mishap is falling apart. He maintains he was heading to a local prosecutor’s swearing in ceremony.

Christie said he was heading to [Union County Prosecutor Theodore] Romankow’s swearing-in ceremony at the time of the accident, but could not remember where he was coming from. He said he also couldn’t recall how he got to the ceremony after the car was totaled.

But the cops are now saying–after having originally corroborated this story–that Christie was headed away from this swearing-in ceremony.

Elizabeth police today adjusted their account of the July 26, 2002 incident. Police Director James Cosgrove said Christie was on his way from — not on his way to — the swearing-in of Union County Prosecutor Theodore Romankow when the accident occurred around 5:30 p.m.

Now, it may be this is just real confusion. Or maybe the cops figured out the timing didn’t work out the way the story was originally told. Or maybe there was a reason–back in the day–to claim to be heading to rather than away from these things (do they serve cocktails after prosecutors get sworn in?).

But Christie’s stories do have a way of falling apart. 

Share this entry

Christie Sued for Accident with Motorcyclist

/58 Comments/in /by

I wasn’t all that interested in the news that Chris Christie knocked over a motorcyclist when driving the wrong way up a one way street–I’m more interested in doing the math to figure out whether he used his position to get the later accidents pled down in a successful effort to keep his license.

But the news that the cyclist Christie hit sued is noteworthy. (h/t scribe)

The motorcyclist was riding down Clinton street ( the right way ) and when he saw Christie in the intersection, the bike fell on its side and slid into Christie’s car, according to the accident report filed by the officer on the scene.

Mendonca was injured and taken by ambulance to the hospital. Not nearby Trinitas, but UMDNJ in Newark which has a trauma center. 

[snip]

We asked Christie about the accident in Atlantic City Friday and he was very curt with his answers. NJN South Jersey Bureau Chief Kent St. John asked if there was a lawsuit. Christie said “no” then “nope.”

But actually there was. According to the Superior Court Record Center in Trenton, Mendonca filed suit in 2004. The complaint filed in Essex County was later dismissed, indicating ( according to the Clerk ) an out of court settlement.

Hey, I would sue, too if I were put in the trauma ward by some bozo driving the wrong way down a one way street. I would settle, too, if I were a politico hoping to run for Governor.

But I probably wouldn’t lie about it when asked. 

Share this entry

Is All This about C Street?

/54 Comments/in /by

I’m curious. Is all the language Mark Sanford uses about God wanting him to remain Governor about C Street?

He’s using the language of the Chosen and–in a state that can match him for fundie cred (or, for those who haven’t admitted adultery, exceed him)–he’s saying his God knows better than others’ God.

Embattled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford acknowledged Tuesday that he has been shaken by the failure of a single fellow Republican to back him in his fight to save his job, but vowed to fight on for conservative causes and for "what God wanted me to do with my life." 

[snip]

He said he intends to complete his term, not to hold on to power but to fight for conservative principles of governance.

"I feel absolutely committed to the cause, to what God wanted me to do with my life," he said in an interview. "I have got this blessing of being engaged in a fight for liberty, which is constantly being threatened."

 Plus, the conflation of "liberty" with "God" seems like solid C Street propaganda.

I’m wondering whether Sanford is refusing to step down because the powers he must answer to–as distinct from SC’s Republican party–have told him to stand his ground.

Share this entry

As Justice Stevens Winds Down, Will Obama Continue SCOTUS Trend To The Right?

/113 Comments/in , /by

From Yahoo News, we hear rumblings Justice John Paul Stevens may be winding down his time on the Supreme Court Bench:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court’s liberals will retire next year.

If Stevens does step down, he would give President Barack Obama his second high court opening in two years. Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court when Justice David Souter announced his retirement in May.

Souter’s failure to hire clerks was the first signal that he was contemplating leaving the court.

Stevens is 89 years old and has been sitting with the Supremes for nearly 34 years; it has been a long and remarkable run. And the article, and the sources quoted therein are quite correct, while certainly not definitive, this augurs very much in favor of the thought that Stevens intends to step down at the end of the upcoming term. There is a pattern and flow of such things as clerk hiring in the Federal appellate bench, and this is very telling.

Sadly, whether it is at the end of this term or next, or god forbid an unplanned event in the interim, it is quite clear that Justice Stevens is nearing the end of his storied stay, and it is time to talk about what person and what ethos will take his place and maintain into the indefinite future. The Supreme bench has been moving ever to the right ideologically for a some time now, and it took another incremental step in that direction with President Obama’s appointment of Justice Sotomayor to replace the departed David Souter.

Whatever opinion one has of Justice Sotomayor, there is simply no way possible to view her elevation to the Supreme Court as doing anything substantive to stanch the rightward flow of momentum on the Supreme Court. And therein lies the concern with what President Obama will do as far as Justice Stevens’ eventual replacement. Quite frankly, Obama ran on a platform of undoing the wingnutting of the Federal Courts, but so far has done nothing to rebalance the equilibrium they once enjoyed.

As to the Supremes, neither the progressives nor the Democratic party as a whole should stand for another conservative centrist pick from President Obama. The only thing controversial about Sotomayor was that she was a Hispanic woman, her Read more →

Share this entry