Archive for category: emptywheel

Via Atrios, people are beginning to wonder whether Jeb Bush was responsible for approving Florida’s purchase of a hefty chunk of the shitpile when he was Governor.

Agovernment money market debacle unfolding in Florida is raisingquestions about former governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush’spossible involvement in the mess.

Florida froze withdrawalsfrom a state investment fund earlier this week when local governmentswithdrew billions of dollars out of concern for the fund’s financialstability.

In the past few days, municipalities have withdrawnroughly $9 billion, nearly a third of the $28 billion fund (which issimilar to a money market fund) controlled by the Florida’s State Boardof Administration (SBA). The run on the fund was triggered by worriesthat a percentage of the portfolio contained debt that had defaulted.

A majority of this paper was sold to SBA by Lehman Brothers(nyse: LEH – news – people).Bush, as the state’s top elected official, served on a three-memberboard that oversaw the SBA until he retired as governor in January. InAugust, Bush was hired as a consultant to the bank. Lehman spokespersonKerrie Cohen, speaking on behalf of Bush, said they had no comment andwould not say when the bank had sold Florida the paper. SBA did notreturn calls.

Which made me wonder what happened to investigations into Jeb’s role in the last piece of shitpile Florida bought: Over $300 million in Enron stock, Read more →

I’ve put together an excel file listing the documents included in Friday’s document dump on the communications DNI McConnell had regarding the FISA amendment. I’ve still got a turkey hangover, so let me know if you spot any errors.

Here’s what I’ve noticed:

• There’s a weird chronology behind the response to the FOIA request
• The DNI’s definition of duplicative is different than my definition of duplicative
• The DNI must consider Republican correspondence classified
• The DNI seems to lose Democratic correspondence

Weird Chronology

First, the chronology. EFF originally FOIAed documents on August 31, asking for records on both meetings with telecoms and discussions with Congress (there were actually two separate FOIA requests–see exhibits K and L here). On both FOIA requests, EFF asked for materials dating from April 2007 to "the present." On September 10, DNI responded to EFF saying it would expedite the EFF request.

Now look at the dates on the documents included. They start with one document from before the time frame–a March 23 letter from the SSCI leadership asking for a FISA bill. It’s a pretty important document because it shows Congress taking the lead on this, which may be why they included it. But then the documents go through September 26–long after the August 31 request, and more than two weeks after DNI said it was expediting the EFF request. But then, it stops short of what are likely to be some interesting events leading up the October 18 SSCI bill.

There is probably a very reasonable explanation: that DNI took "present" to mean that time when it started working on the request. Though if that’s true, it suggests DNI sat on the request for almost two weeks, before it started expediting anything.

"Duplicative"

Now, when DNI explained why the review process took so long (and presumably, why they couldn’t give us document through the "present" of late November), one of the things they claimed they would do is remove duplicate documents.

As the records are located and forwarded to the IMO, the FOIA analyst handling this case conducts a continual analysis and review of the documents located. During the review process the analyst handling this case first removes any non-responsive and duplicative material from the records that are received. She then creates working copies of the documents and document indexes and assesses whether there would be  any necessary consultations and/or referrals with those entities maintaining equity in the documents. She also reviews the records for the application of any FOIA exemptions. [my emphasis]

Which is why I find it curious that there are two copies of McConnell’s May 1 testimony before SSCI and two copies of his September 18 testimony before HJC. I’ll need to go back and look closely to see if these are just two revisions. But if not, it appears that this analyst, who spent at least two months reviewing these documents, still couldn’t find all the duplicative documents.

Also, what’s with the date on McConnell’s September testimony to SSCI? It took place on September 25, but is dated September 20.

Read more →

I know, I know. The indictment against Dickie Scruggs looks bad for Dickie (though not, I keep emphasizing, Zach Scruggs, whose indictment given the evidence mystifies me). But I can’t help but notice a few details from the short form of Judge Lackey’s tell all (I’ll look up the long form after I meet my damn deadline today). First, Judge Lackey’s first thoughts after Balducci broached the subject of a bribe were for Balducci’s future.

“I worried what would become of this young man, his wife, hischildren,” said Judge Lackey. “He was one of the brightest legal starson the horizon that I’d come across, and I worried a great deal aboutthe consequences.”

Balducci, by all appearances, also cooperated in the investigation, though the indictment doesn’t care to tell us that detail. And note, by Lackey’s own admission, it took some time after he recovered from his concern for Balducci before he started cooperating with the USA office.

Also note the emphasis that Scruggs’ defense attorney puts on matters, when commenting on how odd it is that a key witness would do (one whose day job is supposed to be ensuring that the accused get fair trials) is run to the press for an interview.

Scruggs’s attorney, John Keker,said: “I find it remarkable that this high-minded government witness istalking to the national media, and Read more →