The Sun-Times reports today that Roland Burris was not very forthcoming when he told the State House what contacts he had had with Rod Blagojevich’s camp.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

[snip]

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

Burris — who did not give money to the Blagojevich campaign fund in response to the previously undisclosed solicitation — provided a copy of the sworn statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Friday in response to questions about his contacts with the Blagojevich camp about fund-raising.

Burris acknowledged having three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund — and one of those was likely recorded by the FBI.

[snip]

In his new affidavit, Burris confirms he also spoke of his interest in the Senate appointment with Blagojevich insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma.

The discussions with Robert Blagojevich about money came after Burris spoke with those people. 

So best as I can reconstruct, here are the contacts Burris had with Blago’s folks:

July or September: Discussions with Lon Monk about picking up lobbying business to the Governor

Unknown: Conversations with John Harris, Doug Scofield, and John Wyma about seat

October: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

November: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

December 26: Conversation with Sam Adam Jr., Blago’s maybe Defense Attorney, about appointment

December 28: Conversation with Adam, then Blago, accepting seat

January 5: Roland signs affidavit that does not address contacts with Blago’s people, beyond the appointment discussions on December 26 and 28

January 8: In State Legislative hearing, Burris admits to contacts with Lon Monk, but does not mention contacts with four other Blago representatives

January 15: Burris sworn in as Senator

February 5: Burris writes a new affidavit, revealing additional conversations

One of the key details is the genesis of the new affidavit. Burris says he sent it after realizing he wasn’t forthcoming to the hearing.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

[snip]

Burris said he sent the new statement to House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) after he read the transcript of his testimony before the impeachment committee she headed and realized it was incomplete. "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony," Burris said. "I voluntarily submitted an affidavit so everything was transparent."

Uh, right, Burris. But you didn’t review the transcript until after you had been sworn into the Senate?

I’m wondering, too, whether in the interim Burris didn’t have a visit with Patrick Fitzgerald’s folks about what got caught on the FBI’s tapes?

AMERICAS MOST ABUSIVE SHERIFF

You have probably heard of the shamelessly self professed "Toughest Sheriff in America", Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. For years he has been making a PR spectacle of himself, all the while running an unconstitutionally deplorable jail system, letting inmates die under tortuous conditions, and violating the civil rights and liberties of everybody in sight, especially minorities. Today, the House Judiciary Committee made public a critical and public step to rein in the Most Abusive Sheriff In America.

From the HJC press release:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) called on Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to investigate allegations of misconduct by Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the rights of Hispanics in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Under the guise of immigration enforcement, his staff has conducted raids in residential neighborhoods in a manner condemned by the community as racial profiling. On February 4, 2009, Arpaio invited the media to view the transfer of immigrant detainees to a segregated area of his "tent city" jail, subjecting the detainees to public display and "ritual humiliation." Persistent actions such as these have resulted in numerous lawsuits; while Arpaio spends time and energy on publicity and his reality television show, "Smile… You’re Under Arrest!", Maricopa County has paid millions of dollars in settlements involving dead or injured inmates.
…
It is time for the federal government to step in and uphold the rule of law in this country, even in Maricopa County."

"Law enforcement is not a game or a reality show, it is a public trust," said Scott. "There is no excuse for callous indifference to the rights of the residents of Arizona, whether in their neighborhoods or as pretrial detainees."

The full official text of the letter to Napolitano and Holder is here.

It is high time that somebody on the national scene notice, and the Federal government take action on, the egregious and violative conduct of Joe Arpaio.

Joe Arpaio is a two bit carnival barker and huckster, not a dedicated law enforcement official. The opportunistic man came into office running against a fellow Republican and incumbent Maricopa County Sheriff, Tom Agnos, by bad mouthing Agnos and arguing that the entire Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department needed to be cleaned up. In fact, Arpaio’s winning campaign was predicated upon his willingness to mock the very department he was running to lead and promise to expose the dirty laundry of Agnos and the Sheriff’s Department for its involvement in the infamous Buddhist Temple Murder case (link is a fascinating three part story), a seminal case in textbooks on coerced confessions (from the fact that four separate coerced false confessions were obtained to a single crime). Arpaio promised to restore honor to the department, and also swore he would serve only one term in office. Five terms and seventeen years later, Arpaio has failed miserably on both promises.

The upshot of the House Judiciary Committee’s missive to Attorney General Holder and DHS Secretary Napolitano is that Arpaio’s:

…repeated course of conduct, which values publicity opportunities over the civil rights of residents of Arizona, is too disturbing to leave enforcement of the civil rights laws to private litigants. There are several tools at the federal government’s disposal to address these allegations, and we urge their prompt consideration and application.

In short, the HJC is demanding that a full panoply of federal civil and criminal laws and remedies be brought to bear by the arms of federal law enforcement. One of the grounds for the HJC demand is Arpaio’s acts earlier this month, described in the letter as follows:

Most recently, on February 4, after making sure to alert the media, Arpaio reportedly paraded approximately 200 suspected illegal immigrants in shackles to a segregated area of his "tent city" county facility, where they will supposedly remain until they are adjudicated and have served any sentences they face for local violations. The New York Times described this conduct as "ritual humiliation." The men who Arpaio is displaying like trophies are reportedly in pretrial detention, not having been convicted of any crime.

If you want to understand the true extent of Sheriff Joe’s war on brown people, the Phoenix New Times’ expose "Guadalupe Made It Clear That Joe Arpaio’s Attacking Anyone With Brown Skin" is an absolute must read. Seriously, it is a long piece, but to call it chilling and important would be an understatement, and it is superb start to finish. Here is a taste:

With spirited protesters and helmeted deputies on horseback, the night of April 3 in Guadalupe was like some historical reenactment, albeit in miniature, of a late-’60s anti-war melee. You know, the kind chronicled by Norman Mailer in one of his seminal "non-fiction novels" of the era, such as Miami and the Siege of Chicago or The Armies of the Night.
…
Following up on his criticism of Arpaio during a César Chávez luncheon in March, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon addressed a letter to the U.S. Justice Department asking for an investigation of the sheriff. The letter was dated April 4, the second day of the MCSO’s Guadalupe sweep, and the MCSO’s actions in Guadalupe figured prominently in the missive.

Egregious to be sure, but hardly the only such acts by Arpaio, and certainly not the worst. Let’s go through some of the others alluded to in the letter, although not described in detail.

Arpaio was little more than halfway through his first term in office when his policies and jail conditions first came under investigation for abuse by the US Department of Justice. Shortly after that, and still during his first term in office, young Scott Norberg died in Arpaio’s jail as a result of said policies:

[Norberg] was in Arpaio’s jail just 15 hours before he was handcuffed by guards, kicked, stomped on, and then strapped into a restraint chair. There, guards held a towel over his head, literally suffocating him. Medical records later revealed that he had been shot with a stun gun at least 14 times and beaten so badly that his larynx cracked.

That one cost the taxpayers of Maricopa County $8.25 million, but did not deter the Most Abusive Sheriff in America; instead, he seemed to get off on the notoriety. There were more unnatural deaths in Arpaio’s jails, from a variety of causes, after Norberg. The belligerent Arpaio finally stopped the deplorable use of the restraint chair in 2006 after fighting demands by citizens and federal overseers on the issue for nearly a decade.

What caused Arpaio to finally give up his demonic obsession with the restraint chair that killed Scott Norberg? Ah, glad you asked:

On March 29, 2006, a $9 million court judgment was leveled against Arpaio and the county in the beating and restraint-chair death of inmate Charles Agster III.

Agster, 33 and mentally retarded, was arrested for trespassing on August 6, 2001. Detention officers at the Madison Street Jail pulled a hood over his head and slammed him into a medieval-looking restraint chair. The hood around Agster’s throat smothered him to the point that he became brain dead. He was pronounced legally dead three days later on August 9, 2001.

Agster’s death should have been prevented. Two years before he was killed, the county had paid $8.25 million to settle the Norberg suffocation suit.

There was at least one more death at the restraints of Arpaio’s cherished chair, Clint Yarborough in 2005. It should be noted that neither Norberg, Agster, nor Yarbrough were ever tried or convicted for the charges they were arrested on; none of them lived to see their first court date and died innocent men under the law. Those are just the deaths associated with the medieval restraint chair, there have been numerous deaths from improper or complete lack of medical care, neglect and other perils.

One of the other examples of the decrepit conditions Arpaio presided over is that of Kathleen Carey:

Like most attorneys, Kathleen Carey leads a busy life. So she didn’t take much time to examine what looked like a pimple on her arm. Twelve days later, Carey’s arm had ballooned to nearly twice its normal size, and pus was oozing from a boil where the zit had been.

After $180,000 in medical bills, four doctors, and two hospitals, Carey learned that the supposed pimple was actually the flesh-eating "superbug" bacteria commonly known as MRSA staph infection. You may recognize MRSA from recent news reports, following a study concluding that more Americans die each year from antibiotic-resistant MRSA infections than from HIV/AIDS.

MRSA commonly spreads through hospitals, but Carey hadn’t been to a hospital or doctor for months before her infection. So where did she get the potentially fatal infection?

Carey says she knows exactly where she got it — the Maricopa County Jail. She wasn’t there as an inmate, but as an attorney visiting her client.
…
Carey is one of many Maricopa County residents who’ve never been booked into Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jails but who are paying dearly for conditions inside his lockups.

Vermin, filth, medical care suggestive of POW camps, chronic mismanagement, the wanton destruction of records, and a steady parade of corpses in Maricopa County jails have cost taxpayers an astonishing — and until now, undisclosed — 41.4 million dollars.

Don’t know if you caught that or not, but that is nearly $42 million dollars (and that was as of over a year ago, the figure is now higher) that Maricopa County has paid out due to the Most Abusive Sheriff in America’s detention policies and procedures. Want to know how that compares to other big municipalities? Get a load of this:

There simply isn’t another jail system in America with this history of taxpayer-financed litigation.

New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, for example, collectively housed more than 61,000 inmates per day last year. From 2004 through November of this year, these same county jails had a combined 43 prison-conditions lawsuits filed against them in federal courts.

In the very same three-year time frame, despite housing a mere 9,200 prisoners per day, Sheriff Arpaio was the target of a staggering 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts.

With a fraction of the inmate population, Arpaio has had 50 times as many lawsuits as the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.

But Sheriff Joe’s reign of terror does not end with the immigrant bashing and inhuman detention policies and facilities. When the Most Abusive Sheriff in America disagrees with colleagues, even fellow police officers, he attacks them with not only rhetoric, but the heavy dark hand of his department:

The sheriff raided municipal buildings in Mesa in what appeared to be nothing more than a blatant political maneuver against Arpaio’s perceived enemy, Mesa Police Chief George Gascón.

As a public safety effort, the pre-dawn October 16 incursion into Mesa City Hall and its library was laughable — it netted just three undocumented workers. A couple of former county Superior Court judges criticized Arpaio’s action in the East Valley Tribune, with former chief judge of the court Colin Campbell calling the raid "bizarre" and "extraordinary."

Last, but far from least, Sheriff Joe has waged a jihad against the local investigative weekly newspaper in Phoenix/Maricopa County, the Phoenix New Times. Arpaio long felt the New Times coverage of him was too strident; not content to address his concerns in the media and public sphere, Arpaio arrested the publishers, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, on trumped up asinine charges (that were almost immediately dismissed without ever seeing the light of a courtroom). However, if you cherish the First Amendment and the freedom of the press, Larkin and Lacey’s arrests by Arpaio were not even the worst part.

In a breathtaking abuse of the United States Constitution, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and their increasingly unhinged cat’s paw, special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, used the grand jury to subpoena "all documents related to articles and other content published by Phoenix New Times newspaper in print and on the Phoenix New Times website, regarding Sheriff Joe Arpaio from January 1, 2004 to the present."

Every note, tape, and record from every story written about Sheriff Arpaio by every reporter over a period of years.

In addition to the omnibus subpoena, which referred to our writer Stephen Lemons directly, reporters John Dougherty and Paul Rubin were targeted with individual subpoenas.

More alarming still, Arpaio, Thomas, and Wilenchik subpoenaed detailed information on anyone who has looked at the New Times Web site since 2004.

Every individual who looked at any story, review, listing, classified, or retail ad over a period of years.

The article the passage immediately above was quoted from, "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution", was written personally by the two publishers, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin, and is as chilling as was Arpaio’s attempt to silence them. Again, it is a feature length article, but a serious must read.

This post could easily be three or four times the already tedious length and still not have room to touch on the bill of craven particulars against the Most Abusive Sheriff in America, Joe Arpaio. But it is a start, and renders an idea as to why Chairman Conyers, Representative Nadler and the others on the House Judiciary Committee have requested the civil and criminal powers of the United States Government be brought to bear on Joe Arpaio. He isn’t the toughest, he’s the most abusive. It is imperative that Attorney General Holder and DHS Secretary Napolitano heed the call and address the long overdue matter. Secretary Napolitano, of all people, ought to understand the menace to society as a whole, and the citizenry of Maricopa County in particular, that Arpaio poses. It is time for it to be stopped.

Darn. We’ll have one less Republican in Obama’s cabinet, at least until Obama nominates Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich to the post. I’m heartbroken.

But, really, does anyone actually believe this claptrap?

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Shorter Gregg: "I just completely stopped listening after the moment Obama said, ‘interested in a cabinet spot?’ and missed all his discussion of retaining the census in Democratic hands." 

Yeah, I don’t find that too plausible either.

I wonder whether Gregg simply got to the point in the vetting process where he realized that he didn’t want his life to be investigated in detail by his colleagues and the press? I mean, it was just hours after Gregg was nominated that it became clear that Gregg’s Legislative Director from 2002 to 2004, Kevin Koonce, had been trading sports and music tickets and booze for legislative favors. As the latest details on the Abramoff make clear, Abramoff and his cronies were asking for $3.5 million earmarks and the defeat of a defense appropriations bill that would have hurt Abramoff’s Native American gaming clients. Koonce’s language, "[Gregg’s office] had the proposed amendment ‘flagged,’" "I got something for you too," "Let me know if I can return the favor," and Abramoff’s language (describing a request from a potential Abramoff client), "Koonce practically lives in our various suites. We are shady," suggest Abramoff’s $10,000 investment in sports tickets did not go to waste. Koonce was delivering on Abramoff’s requests. 

Which sort of means–whether or not Gregg is a subject or a target of the investigation at the moment–his office was trading legislative favors for gifts. And those trades, whether they were made with or without Gregg’s knowledge, certainly don’t say much for Gregg’s ability to shepherd the nation’s commercial interests.

Sure, Gregg tells a nice story about how his lifetime dream was to run a census. But I suspect he’s just hoping to get out of the Senate in 2010 with his honor and his clear criminal record intact.

Immediately below, Marcy described Judge Vaughn Walker’s new homework assignment to the parties in the consolidated litigation in the Northern District of California (effectively all cases except al-Haramain and a few others to which "section 802 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008" are not germane). If you have not read Marcy’s post, and wish to proceed into the legal weeds of this one, I heartily suggest you go back there first.

Okay, as I suggested in comments in Marcy’s post, Judge Walker is looking at the Attorney General option to certify a matter for dismissal pursuant to section 802 of the FISA Amendments Act, and as to said provision:

It is the hyper-equivalent of vagueness. The provisions that are supposed to provide the guidelines, provide … none.

Mary went to the same point but, as usual, with a lot more flesh on the bone in her comment:

… the drafting is bad. It doesn’t say that if x,y and z are met, the AG SHALL give a certification and with that certification, the telcoms walk. It says that the AG MAY give a certification that x,y and z existed and if the AG gives that certification, it’s an out. So it makes the certification discretionary to the AG, but then gives no standards on the exercise of the discretion. So the AG could, under the statute give the certifications to some and withhold it from others under the same factual settings.

So how is a court to know of the AG is complying with Congressional will vis a vis the certifications – if there are no standards specified for the exercise of discretion.

Precisely. So, let’s look at what Walker is legally up to here. It is my contention that he has pretty much determined that he is not down with the government’s program in the least, is going to take the bold move of declaring it unconstitutional and, from all appearances, do so on multiple grounds. The one at issue here is the unfettered and infinite nature and scope of the AG certification process under section 802.

First off Judge Walker posits this:

The parties are directed to address whether section 802 runs afoul of the principle the Supreme Court set forth in Yakus v United States, 321 US 414, 425 (1944):

[T]he only concern of courts is to ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed. This depends not upon the breadth of the definition of the facts or conditions which the administrative officer is to find but upon the determination whether the definition sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.

But you should have some further context to understand Walker’s aim. Here is what the court actually found in in that case; from Yakus, 321 US at 426:

The standards prescribed by the present Act, with the aid of the "statement of considerations" required to be made by the Administrator, are sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts and the public to ascertain whether the Administrator, in fixing the designated prices, has conformed to those standards. Compare Hirabayashi v. United States, supra, 320 U. S. 104. Hence, we are unable to find in them an unauthorized delegation of legislative power.

In Yakus v. United States, the Court was evaluating the authority given to an executive branch "Price Administrator", whose job it was to determine prices of commodities during World War II, and the court found there were sufficient criteria set forth by Congress for the courts to decide, and and the people to understand the basis of the decisions rationally, i.e. how the price determinations were arrived at. In short, the court in Yakus found the situation was not so vague as to be completely arbitrary and capricious.

Appears to me that Walker thinks the situation in respect to the AG certifications in the NDCA consolidated cases do not possess such requisite identifiable criteria for determining the basis thereof as Yakus would require, and is making darn sure that he has given the government a full chance to make their case. Before he holds that they haven’t.

Secondly, in his order, Walker asks that the parties, and, again, he is clearly directing this at the government, brief as follows:

The parties are further directed, in doing so, to give consideration to two principles of statutory construction: (1) a court should treat the “plain meaning of legislation [as] conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters,’” United States v Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc, 489 US 235, 242 (1989); and (2) “[t]he canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction; and the canon functions as a means of choosing between them.” Clark v Martinez, 543 US 371, 385 (2005).

Of these two demands, the key looks to be the second based on Clark v. Martinez. In this regard, here is the full operative section from Clark that Vaughn Walker is basing his inquiry upon (note Clark is a Scalia opinion and is therefore written in his typical oblique style that turns simple concepts into the nearly undecipherable):

If we were, as the Government seems to believe, free to interpret statutes as becoming inoperative when they approach constitutional limits, we would be able to spare ourselves the necessity of ever finding a statute unconstitutional as applied. And the doctrine that statutes should be construed to contain substantive dispositions that do not raise constitutional difficulty would be a thing of the past; no need for such caution, since whatever the substantive dispositions are they become inoperative when constitutional limits are approached. That is not the legal world we live in. The canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction; and the canon functions as a means of choosing between them.

Here, Walker is anticipating an argument he reasons the government will make to try to squirm out of their vagueness hole and, again, after giving them a full opportunity to brief it, he appears ready to bite them. The Clark argument they will try is to say, in simple terms, "Gee judge, if you can’t tell what the parameters of the statute are, you can just assume they are whatever could be appropriate right up to the Constitutional extreme". I don’t think Vaughn Walker thinks that is going to fly in this case. Neither do I.

Ladies and gentlemen, Vaughn Walker is on a mission. As most of you know, I have thought that was the case for quite some time now. But jeebus, and seriously, I have rarely, if ever, seen a judge more on top of a subject, loaded for bear and out in front of a case as we see here. It is awesome and impressive. He is anticipating what the parties are going to argue and how appellate courts are going to rule in the next set of appeals, all from a pre-trial posture. He is treating this case with the respect, depth and care that it deserves because nothing short of our Constitution and Fourth Amendment thereto is at issue. There are precious few bright lights in the dark field of justice these days; irrespective of how it all plays out in the end, so far this sure looks like one of them.

I linked earlier to the House version of the State Secrets Bill. Here’s Leahy’s announcement about the Senate version.

Leading members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined together to introduce the State Secrets Protection Act, a bill that provides guidance to federal courts considering cases in which the government has asserted the state secrets privilege. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Committee Member Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) joined with former Committee Chairman and Member Edward Kennedy (D-Ma.) to introduce the bill Wednesday.

The legislation was initially proposed in the 110th Congress in response to the government’s assertions of the state secrets privilege in cases challenging the constitutionally of several of the Bush administration’s national security programs, including the warrantless wiretapping, rendition and interrogation programs.

Leahy said, "The State Secrets Protection Act will help guide the courts to balance the government’s interests in secrecy with accountability and the rights of citizens to seek judicial redress. The bill does not restrict the Government’s ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases. In light of the pending cases where this privilege has been invoked, involving issues including torture, rendition and warrantless wiretapping, we can ill-afford to delay consideration of this important legislation. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this bill."

Specter said, "While national security must be protected, there must also be meaningful oversight by the courts and Congress to ensure the Executive branch does not misuse the privilege," Senator Specter said. "This bipartisan legislation provides guidance to the federal courts in handling assertions of the privilege. It is designed to protect state secrets from disclosure, while preventing misuse of the privilege and enabling litigants to achieve justice in court, regardless of which party occupies the White House."

Feingold said, "A country where the government need not answer to allegations of wrongdoing is a country that has strayed dangerously far from the rule of law. We must ensure that the state secrets privilege does not become a license for the government to evade the laws that we pass. This bill accomplishes that goal, while simultaneously providing the strongest of protections to those items of evidence that truly qualify as state secrets."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) are also cosponsors of the legislation. The Leahy-Specter-Feingold-Kennedy legislation would:

• Provide a uniform set of procedures for federal courts considering claims of the state secrets privilege
• Codify many of best practices that are already available to courts but that often go unused, such as in camera hearings, non-privilege substitutes, and special masters
• Require judges to look at the evidence that the government claims is privileged, rather than relying solely on government affidavits
• Forbid judges from dismissing cases at the pleadings stage, before there has been any document discovery, while protecting innocent defendants by allowing cases to be dismissed when they would need privileged evidence to establish a valid defense
• Require judges to order the government to produced unclassified or redacted versions of sensitive evidence when possible to allow cases to move forward safely
• Establish security procedures to ensure that secrets are not leaked during litigation, including closed hearings, security clearance requirements, sealed orders, and expedited appeals
• Establish congressional reporting requirements
• Address the crisis of legitimacy surrounding the privilege by setting clear rules that take into account both national security and the Constitution

The legislation was first introduced in January 2008, and was ordered reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2008. A Committee report was filed with the legislation.

They’ve got more firepower here than they do in the House–having Haggis may be very useful. And having centrists like McCaskill may win some votes.

Now let’s see if Harry Reid ever lets this get to the floor. 

We’ve got competing CEOs on the all-Congress channel today, with the Peanut CEO in front of Commerce Committee and the Bank CEOs in front of Financial Services.

There will be some scuttlebutt from the Bank CEOs–as when a few of them admitted they’ve been raising credit card rates since they started sucking on the federal teat.

But the news coverage will open today with Stewart Parnell (CEO) and Sammy Lightsey (Plant Manager) of the Peanut Corporation of America.

Both of them came in, got sworn in, and repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment. Neither of these guys appear to be as bright as their Wall Street counterparts–I got the sense that Parnell, and especially Lightsey–were under very strict orders to say nothing beyond "On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer your question based on the protection afforded me under the US Constitution" Lightsey, in particular, was struggling with all the legalese.

But the highlight of the hearing came when Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) offered up a plastic bin wrapped with big yellow CAUTION ribbons–with Peanut Corporation peanut material inside. Walden asked Parnell and Lightsey if they would be willing to eat some of their own product right there, before the Sub-Committee.

"On the advice of counsel, I uh respectfully exercise my rights Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

A simple yes or no might have sufficed.

In any case, there’s real irony with the competing CEOs show. The ones before the Financial Services Committee, after all, have done far broader damage than the Peanut Corporation–and their actions may well lead to many more deaths than the salmonella outbreak (which is not to minimize the grief of the families affected by the peanut outbreak). 

But no one is asking those CEOs–the bank CEOS–to eat their own toxic products.

h/t RedSoxandStuff

The Washington DC juggernaut is at it again with the persecution/prosecution of athletes. Today it is announced that charges have been filed against Houston Astros, and former Baltimore Orioles and Oakland Athletics, shortstop Miguel Tejada. From Yahoo Sports:

The charges against Tejada, who currently plays for the Houston Astros, were outlined in documents filed in Washington federal court on Tuesday.

The documents indicate that a plea agreement has been reached with Tejada, who won the 2002 American League Most Valuable Player award while playing for the Oakland Athletics and is a five-time All-Star.
…
Tejada faces as much as a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor charge of making misrepresentations to Congress. Under federal guidelines, he would probably receive a lighter sentence.

The charge came in a legal document called a “criminal information,” which only can be filed with the defendant’s consent and typically signals a plea deal. A hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. EST Wednesday in Washington, and Tejada and his lawyer plan to hold a news conference later in the day in Houston.

Now, as the article states, the charging document being an information certainly indicates a plea. Also, this being a misdemeanor for false statement not under oath, it is unlikely that Tejada will serve anything more than nominal incarceration, and, quite frankly, may well serve none.

The bigger point is that this undoubtedly signals Tejada’s cooperation with Federal authorities. That would appear to mean they are still furiously working to bail out George Mitchell and his bud, Selig, for the craptastic Mitchell Report and they are determined to criminally nail Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in that regard. And they are going after anybody and everybody significant in the path to try to break loose evidence on Bonds and Clemens. After all the commotion on the two All Star defendants, the prosecution evidence set, that would be admissible at trial, really still sucks for convicting them.

But wait; there’s more! There always is when it comes to our elected idiots and athletes. Yep, our intrepid Congress is back on the baseball oversight beat; from Newsday:

Alex Rodriguez soon might have to repeat his steroid admission on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) plans to recommend to the head of the congressional committee that has previously hosted baseball players that A-Rod receive an invite to testify about his steroid use, Cummings told Newsday last night.

"I think we’re going to have to see what Rodriguez will tell us," Cummings said in a phone interview.

Now, in fairness, the early word is that House oversight Chairman Edolphus Towns is declining Cummings’ suggestion for a hearing. That, in and of itself, is somewhat shocking; who’d a thunk that Towns would be a more responsible and reliable voice for sanity than Cummings? Towns reportedly said:

"The American people need leaders who will focus on stemming job losses and getting credit to flow in the marketplace before hearing from yet another person who cheated both himself and the game of baseball."

No shit Edolphus. Thank you. But, you know, that goes for the DC US Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice as well. Why are they wasting time on this penny ante bunk? Let’s ponder for a moment what other things they might could be focusing on.

Hey, I know, Alberto Gonzales! There is little question but that Gonzo perjured himself in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, 2007. Heck, talk about bi-partisanship, Senators from both parties on the SJC were outraged and totally convinced it was perjury. I would sure like someone from the DC USA Office to explain to me how in the world they can justify their dogged pursuit of Miguel Tejada and Roger Clemens, but can’t quite seem to find the time for the far more heinous offenses of a cabinet official lying to Congress, and the public, about wholesale evisceration of the Fourth Amendment and defiling of the Constitution.

Or how about the fact that the same USA Office couldn’t bring itself to enforce subpoenas against the Bushbots like Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten and Karl Rove? What about Monica Goodling, who not only violated her immunity agreement with her testimony, but didn’t produce squat in the way of help in return?

There are many other things that would seem to be far more pressing for the DC USA to be focusing their razor sharp prosecutorial skills on than baseball players pumping up. I hope you all feel free to list them in comments. Instead, they will be in court Wednesday morning working the big Miguel Tejada misdemeanor matter. Hooray!

In December, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan wrote a letter declaring that she would not resign at the end of the Bush Administration.

Last month, Buchanan released a letter stating that she had no intention of submitting her resignation. An ideologically committed Federalist Society member, Buchanan is close to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who actively promoted her as U.S. attorney. Following her appointment in 2001, Buchanan quickly gained the favor and approval of the White House. In the key period of 2004-05, while groundwork was laid for what later became the U.S. attorney’s scandal, Buchanan served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the key position at Justice that oversaw all the 94 U.S. attorneys. A later internal Justice Department probe, in which Buchanan figures prominently, highlights the role played by that office in Karl Rove’s plan to sack U.S. attorneys.

She said she had to stick around, at least partly, so she could see her trumped up prosecution of Cyril Wecht through.

The second case is a corruption prosecution of one of the country’s most prominent medical examiners, Dr. Cyril Wecht, also not coincidentally a leading figure in Pittsburgh Democratic politics. The charges brought against Wecht involve a long list of petty accusations, including that he used his office telephone and fax machine for personal matters. These charges happen to bear remarkable similarity to accusations of petty improprieties that flew around Buchanan’s mentor Santorum in the two years before Pennsylvania voters retired him from public life in 2006. Buchanan, however, opted not to pursue any of the accusations surrounding Santorum. Wecht’s defense counsel, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who served under George H.W. Bush and was governor of Pennsylvania, testified before a House Judiciary inquiry that Buchanan’s prosecution was improper and politically motivated. "It is not the type of case normally constituting a federal ‘corruption’ case brought against a local official," said Thornburgh. "There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht ever solicited or received a bribe or kickback. There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht traded on a conflict of interest in conducting the affairs of his selected office." The case was originally tried before a judge appointed by George W. Bush who, though close to Buchanan, refused to recuse himself and forbade defense counsel in any way from referencing Buchanan’s political motivation. The trial ended in a hung jury, which divided sharply in favor of Wecht’s acquittal. Afterward, individual jurors harshly criticized Buchanan’s conduct and she responded by sending FBI agents to “interview” them.

Notwithstanding broad appeals from the Pennsylvania legal community for Buchanan to drop the case, she has pledged to continue it. The judge who originally oversaw the case, meanwhile, has been removed by order of an appeals court. Buchanan cites the supposedly unresolved Wecht case as a reason why she must stay on as U.S. attorney.

But I think she’s got much bigger Democratic fish she wants to stick around to fry: Jack Murtha. The NYT follows up on what ABC reported earlier: that investigators conducted two raids on entities associated with Murtha.

Federal investigators have raided the offices of the PMA Group, one of Washington’s biggest lobbying firms, as part of an investigation into potentially improper campaign contributions, a person briefed on the investigators’ questions said Monday night.

[snip]

Last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation also raided one of the local contractors, Kuchera Industries, which has benefited heavily from his appropriations work while its executives contributed to his campaigns.

Kuchera was not a PMA client, and it is unclear whether either raid is related to Mr. Murtha. But Steve Ellis, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, said PMA’s ties to Mr. Murtha had long been its calling card.

“PMA has been known as the gatekeeper to Jack Murtha,” Mr. Ellis said, “and if you wanted to get an earmark from Murtha you went through Paul Magliochetti and associates.”

Note the timing: Murtha wins his closest election in years in November. And then the Feds raid a lobbying firm closely connected to him. In December, Buchanan refuses to step down. And in January the FBI raids Kuchera–a company that has no clear ties to PMA, but is closely associated with Murtha. 

Mind you, Murtha has long been acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt Democrats in Congress. I’m sure there’s at least something that Buchanan used to justify this investigation.

But just as Murtha has long been acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt Dems, Buchanan has been acknowledged to be one of the most corrupt US Attorneys. Which means, given Buchanan’s obstinate refusal to leave, this one may blow up into a full-fledged political witch hunt.

Now, what do you make of the fact that USAMRIID, the lab at which Bruce Ivins was alleged to have made the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, is having problems cataloging and tracking their high-risk microbes and biomaterials (h/t Danger Room)?

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has suspended research activities involving biological select agents and toxins. Army officials took the step on Friday after discovering apparent problems with the system of accounting for high-risk microbes and biomaterials at the Fort Detrick, Maryland, facility.

The lab has been under intense scrutiny since August, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) named former USAMRIID researcher Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. Although the case never went to trial because of Ivins’s suicide on 29 July 2008, FBI officials have claimed that the evidence against him is indisputable and that he carried out the mailings using anthrax stolen from a flask at USAMRIID.

Officials have begun a complete inventory of all select agents and toxins at the facility. All experiments using select agents will remain suspended until the accounting is finished, which could take several weeks. Several USAMRIID researchers have been grumbling about the decision, which seems to have caught them by surprise, according to a government official not connected to the lab.

The decision was announced by institute commander Col. John Skvorak in a 4 February memo to employees. The memo, which ScienceInsider has obtained, says the standard of accountability that USAMRIID had been applying to its select agents and toxins was not in line with the standard required by the Army and the Department of Defense. [my empahsis]

One key to the FBI case against Ivins, after all, is that he had complete control over the sole flask that contained the strain of anthrax used in the attack. But now we come to find out that, more than six months after his death, they still don’t have a sound inventory of what they have where?

I’d say that FBI case is looking weaker and weaker.

Earlier this morning, Looseheadprop wrote about the case of Binyam Mohamed, the British subject tortured at the hands of the United States at Gitmo, including having his genitals carved selectively with a scalpel. The Mohamed case is of critical significance for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there was an oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco this morning that was to provide a crucial test of the new Obama Administration’s willingness to continue the Bush policy of concealing torture, wiretapping and other crimes by the assertion of the state secrets privilege.

From an excellent article by Daphne Eviatar at the Washington Independent at the end of January:

President Obama’s sweeping reversals of torture and state secret policies are about to face an early test.
…
The test of those commitments will come soon in key court cases involving CIA “black sites” and torture that the Bush administration had quashed by claiming they would reveal state secrets and endanger national security. Legal experts say that the Bush Department of Justice used whatʼs known as the “state secrets privilege” – created originally as a narrow evidentiary privilege for sensitive national security information — as a broad shield to protect the government from exposure of its own misconduct.

One such case, dealing with the gruesome realities of the CIAʼs so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, is scheduled for oral argument before a federal appeals court in early February. The position the Obama administration takes in this case may be the first major test of its new policies on transparency in government.

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. involves five victims of CIA rendition, or “torture by proxy,” as itʼs also known. Abducted abroad, the men were flown by the CIA to cooperating countries whose agents interrogated them under torture. Because federal officials are usually immune from lawsuits, the men later sued the private aviation data company, Jeppesen — a subsidiary of Boeing, one of the largest federal defense contractors — that
knowingly provided the flight plans and other assistance necessary for the CIA to carry out its clandestine operations.

Well, the news being reported out of Courtroom One in San Francisco is not good and indicates that the Obama Administration has continued the walk of the oppressive shoes of the Bush/Cheney regime and has formally continued the assertion of state secrets.

The best hope for transparency on torture cases, wiretapping cases, and a whole host of illegal Bush/Cheney conduct was for Obama to pull back on the previous policy of concealment via the assertion of state secrets. From the official press release of the ACLU, and their attorney Ben Wizner who argued the case this morning:

The Justice Department today repeated Bush administration claims of “state secrets” in a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the “state secrets” privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented today in the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration opted not to change the government position in the case, instead reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”

The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs:

“We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.”

In fairness, the Obama DOJ may view this as protecting information on rendition flights, not details of torture; however, the result is the same, and just as heinous. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.