Mark Foley Falls into Pelosi’s Lap

/15 Comments/in /by

Not literally, of course. She’s not his type. But the Blotter is reporting that Florida investigators have asked the Speaker’s help in accessing Foley’s Congressional computer, which they had been prevented from subpoenaing because of the William Jefferson ruling extending Speech and Debate to Congressional materials.

Florida law enforcement officials investigating former Republican Rep. Mark Foley, whose e-mails and instant messages to teenage former congressional pages shocked the country, are hoping Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will grant them access to Foley’s House computers.

"We are respectfully requesting access to any and all computer equipment that the U.S. Government possesses that former Representative Foley utilized during his time in office," Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey wrote to the speaker last month.

What makes this request particularly interesting is that Republicans have been trying to drum up a page scandal (yup, you guessed it, a consensual blow job) to blame Pelosi for. Thus, while Congress in general seems to want to use the Jefferson precedent to expand their own prerogatives, the new page scandal offers Pelosi cover for turning over Foley’s computer files.

The early indication, at least, is that Pelosi would very much like to do that–turn over materials to the Florida investigative team.

Spokesman Brendan Daly also said the office wants to cooperate with Florida investigators and will consult with House lawyers.

If she were smart, she’d craft an approach that would make it difficult for all Congressmen to use the Jefferson precedent to hide their legal improprieties. But it’s so much easier to get people in DC to take action to punish sex than bribery.

Share this entry

Dickie Scruggs Timeline

/8 Comments/in /by

I’ve been following the developments on the Dickie Scruggs case on lotus’ blog–and recommend it for anyone wanting to follow along. But since we’ve got so many connoisseurs of timelines  around these parts, I wanted to link directly to one lotus links to–on David Rossmiller’s blog. The timeline is particularly helpful in pinpointing what kind of wiretap the government used when; Rossmiller concludes that the government never tapped the Scruggs’ firm. 

Here’s just one taste–click through for the complete timeline.

  • May 9-September 21.  Balducci has several meetings with Lackey. Indictment. May 9 and September 21 meetings between Balducci and Lackey were taped via video and audio.  Defense motion. It is logical for us to assume that any other meetings between the two were also recorded.
  • September 21.  At a meeting with Lackey, Balducci agreed to pay Lackey $40,000 cash on behalf of Dickie Scruggs and the Scruggs Law Firm for a favorable order.  Indictment.  Immediately after the Lackey meeting, Balducci placed a four-minute call to the Scruggs firm and discussed the bribery transaction with Backstrom.  Indictment.
  • September 25.  FBI Special Agent William P. Delaney makes an application for a Title III wiretap.  Government response.
  • September 26.  A call made from Balducci’s phone at 10:11 p.m. is recorded.  Defense motion. The recording of the call ended abruptly because Balducci was talking to his father about unrelated matters and the government did not record this.  Government response.
  • September 27.  Patterson had a conversation with Balducci discussing the bribe. Balducci delivered $20,000 in cash to Lackey in the judge’s chambers, then traveled to the Scruggs firm in Oxford.  Balducci had a phone conversation with Patterson where Balducci said "All is done, all is handled and all is well." Indictment.  A call was made from Balducci’s phone at 8:36 a.m.  This was recorded.  Defense motion.  The call broke up abruptly because Balducci lost cell phone service.  Government response.
Share this entry

Stupid DOJ Tricks: Don’t Watch this Bush Ad

/69 Comments/in /by

I have to admit. I find this ad totally unappealing. While Bush comes off as the same kind of mob-inciting thug as George Allen did in Macaca, Geoffrey Fieger’s smug delivery doesn’t make me want to have him represent me in any lawsuits. Still, it’s marginally more subtle than most trial lawyer advertisements. And who can fault a guy for trying to make a buck off of being attacked by the astoundingly unpopular Bush?

Still, a pretty harmless ad.

Except that DOJ appears to be preparing to argue that it threatens their ability to try Fieger for crimes relating to campaign finance. They have subpoenaed the firm that made the ad, asking for: Read more →

Share this entry

emptywheel’s Famous Football Trash Talk Thread – Wildcard Weekend Edition

/296 Comments/in , , /by

At long last, the playoffs are upon us. Well, the playoffs are upon us for the NFL anyway; there are still no playoffs for major college football, so we will once again have to settle for a BCS title game with arguably the wrong participants.

Saturday’s Games
Skins at Seahawks – In the their last 26 games at home, Seattle is 22-4. Qwest field is as loud and disruptive an environment as any out there, if not more so. Hasselbeck and Alexander have been playing very well of late (and hey, Hasselbeck’s brain dead sister in law is returning to The View! It must be a sign!). This one seems pretty cut and dried. So I’ll take the Skins in another upset. Joe Gibbs has an even better playoff pedigree than Mike Holmgren and the Skins are really playing as a dedicated team in the aftermath of the tragic murder of Sean Taylor. And Gibbs has a history of playoff runs with quarterbacks pressed into duty out of the dust bin. Todd Collins fits the mold perfectly and Clinton Portis appears healthy.

Jags at Stillers – I don’t know what to make of this one. EW has been riding with the smart money lately on the Jags and they are solid in all aspects of the game. There is something about Rothlisberger that I am always hesitant to bet against; he is one tough kid and a hell of a leader considering how young he is. The absence of Willie Parker is brutal though; the Jags don’t have to worry about breakaway speed from the running game and Rothlisberger’s ability to run play action is hurt. That is the difference; Jags win.

Sunday’s Games
Giants at Buccos – Will Eli be as reliable as one of those Citizen EcoDrive watches? Can the Bucs keep Jeff Garcia protected from the Giants rush? I have no idea on this one; both teams seem flaky to me.

Titans at Bolts – This would a no brainer if we were not talking about the Chargers and Norv Turner. I firmly believe that history has definite patterns and sage lessons to teach, and the history in this regard for the Bolts and Turner is bleak. Vince Young sure isn’t going to be mistaken for Joe Montana any time soon for the beauty Read more →

Share this entry

The “Other” Provision Of The Records Act

/160 Comments/in , , , , , /by

It appears the fluid and constantly evolving rationalization of the Bush Administration for their destruction of the torture tapes may be starting to congeal in an operative theory relying, at least in significant part, on a provision of the Federal Records Act allowing destruction of certain records located outside of the United States during wartime. As EW pointed out in the last post, this defense was revealed in Isikoff’s December 21, 2007 Newsweek article:

But agency officials could be relying on another provision of the records law that permits an agency, during wartime, to destroy records outside the continental United States that are judged to be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States." The CIA has argued that one reason for destroying the tapes was that agency officials feared that if the videotapes were leaked they might compromise the identity of the CIA interrogators.

It is certainly a relief that we don’t have some sort of rogue Administration running around destroying evidence material to a whole plethora of cases and forums, and that their decision was fully in compliance with United States law. That law would be the Federal Records Act, and the pertinent provision, as codified in 36 CFR Part 1228, reads:

a) Destruction of records outside the territorial limits of the continental United States is authorized whenever, during a state of war between the United States and any other nation or when hostile action by a foreign power appears imminent, the head of the agency that has custody of the records determines that their retention would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States, or that they occupy space urgently needed for military purposes and are without sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their continued preservation (44 U.S.C. 3311).

(b) Within 6 months after the destruction of any records under this authorization, a written statement describing the character of the records and showing when and where the disposal was accomplished shall be submitted to NARA (NWML) by the agency official who directed the disposal. (ed. note: see also 44 U.S.C. 3311).

Well, hold on a minute here. Is that their final answer? Of course it’s not their final answer; there is never a final answer, on anything, with the Bush Administration; just a continuing series of intentionally disingenuous obfuscations. It takes no more than a cursory inspection of the foreign war records exception to expect Read more →

Share this entry

The Wheels Of Justice

/63 Comments/in , , , /by

Top of the morning to one and all. As Marcy and family hit the road on their much delayed Christmas expedition, it occurs to me that it is time to grease the wheels of justice and get them rolling down the road of accountability. EW and Mad Dog are right about the implications of the new AP article. The collective insight and wisdom of the community are doing a wonderful job of dissecting the situation. I would like to highlight a couple of the angles that have been raised, and ask that you consider them, and the torture tape situation as a whole, in a broader context.

But no David Addington. Funny. Who would have thought that Addington would be the one lawyer who–at least thus far–doesn’t appear in records as having objected to the destruction of the tapes?
….
No mention of Negroponte, who apparently advised strongly against the destruction in 2005, when he was DNI (and presumably should have had significant sway over the decision). Hey Silvestre Reyes! Didn’t you get Isioff’s telegram?

These are not mere "administration officials"; with the exception of Cheney and Bush, they are as high as you go. Negroponte is DNI and Addington, despite his putative position as Cheney’s counsel/chief of staff, is the legal heart and soul of the Bush Administration. Toss in Gonzales, Miers and Bellinger, and there is simply no viable way to argue that "the White House", did not know about, and was not involved in, the intentional spoiling and destruction of material evidence; which, of course, means direct obstruction of justice.

“CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told lawmakers privately last week that three White House lawyers were briefed in 2004 about the existence of videotapes showing the interrogation of two al-Qaeda figures, and they urged the agency to be “cautious” about destroying the tapes, according to sources familiar with his classified testimony.”

To me, that sounds like they were briefed and urged the agency to be careful about destroying the tapes. In other words, destroy them, but be really careful how you do it. JMHO

LS’s take here is just about right I should think. Ralphbon’s response is dead on the money too.

For those who didn’t see it, ther (almost) consensus from the panel was:
1) that there was no way Mukasey could avoid conflict of interest because he had signed the material witness warrant for Jose Padilla that Read more →

Share this entry

“Trent Lott Called”

/44 Comments/in /by

I haven’t been covering the Dickie Scruggs case mostly because folo has been covering it very nicely. The short update is the whole thing has exploded as four or five different cases merge into one–and none of it looks good for Scruggs. The Scruggses are due to give a deposition just after the new year in one of these cases, apparently to collect evidence on when they first contracted with two whistleblower-sisters who collected evidence against State Farm and got it into the Scruggses hands.

Lotus posted something today that deserves wider notice. In a post describing Trent Lott’s rather hasty retreat from the Senate (both in general, and last night at precisely 10:45 PM), lotus points out that Trent Lott shows up in some of the filings from this time period, in particular the notes of one of the engineers involved in the case. Trent Lott called, the notes begin.

trent-lott-called.jpg

The notes go on and on about Trent’s anger at State Farm, ending with a record of just how mad Trent is.

trent-would-forgo.jpg

Now, lotus speculates more about what this might mean for Trent, particularly since it appears that the Scruggses tried to get State Farm in legal trouble in hopes it would make their lawsuits easier to win.

Asshole though he be, Trent Lott is not totally stupid (though he may have been for a while stupified by rage at State Farm). He knows that, despite all his long years’ effort to the contrary, a large number of Mississippians can read and reason and see this trail he’s left, and where it’s heading. There he is down on paper conferring with the whistle-blower (or thief, depending on your standpoint) who worked with Dickie and Jim Hood to coerce a civil settlement via state-applied – possibly criminally state-applied – pressure. Is he the one who hooked them up to the FBI and U.S. Attorney?

But for the moment, I’m interested in this note, which suggests that the sole reason Trent came back this year is so he could legislate his way to revenge against State Farm–or, at the very least, legislate away the insurance companies’ ability to collude.

we-were-planning-to-retire.jpg

Now, perhaps I’m mis-reading this note. But it seems to reflect Trent’s well-publicized contemplation of retirement last year, rather than running for re-election. It seems to provide an explanation for why he decided, in the end, to run for re-election: to get even with State Farm. Read more →

Share this entry

Scruggs Update: Balducci Did Flip

/in /by

I’ve been following the Scruggs indictment over at Law Blog and folo while I’ve been busy moving. The short version update? The first concern of the judge who allegedly got bribed, Judge Lackey, was for the guy who was doing the dirty work of bribing: Tim Balducci. While a lot of people have a lot of respect for Lackey, it doesn’t sound like many people (besides Lackey himself) have much respect for Balducci.

This is all the more important since Balducci’s plea agreement makes it clear that Balducci has been assisting prosecutors for some time.

The government acknowledges the fact that the defendant has already substantially assisted the government within themeaning of Section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual. Provided the defendant continues his cooperation and substantial assistance, the government agrees to file with the Court a motion for downward departure.

Perhaps that’s why Dickie Scuggs’ brother-in-law, Trent Lott, thinks that Dickie was caught in a sting. Read more →

Share this entry

Why Would Orrin Hatch Need a Defense Fund?

/in /by

Via CREW, CQ has an article on the Members of Congress who have legal defense funds. Most of those listed make sense–there have active legal battles that they’re going to have to pay for:

Jim McDermott: John Boehner’s successful lawsuit holding McDermott responsible for leaking a secretly taped conversation among Republican Congressmen

John Kerry: His ongoing battle with the Swiftboaters

Corrine Brown, FL: (This one I don’t know)

William Jefferson: the $90,000 in the freezer

John Doolittle: Abramoff

Phil English: Lawsuits and other potential legal problems

Tom Feeney: Abramoff

And then there are Orrin Hatch and Brad Miller, both of whom have legal funds that haven’t accepted any donations this year (though Miller’s has paid out some money to a law firm).

Now, Orrin’s legal defense fund looks like it has long been inactive. It appears he has it just sitting there, in case he’ll ever need it. So why is he keeping it around?

And while we’re asking questions, you think Charlie Rangel might explain why he donated $10,000 to Jefferson’s legal defense fund? Or, even more curiously, why Orrin Hatch donated $10,000 to Doolittle? Is this just African-American and Mormon solidarity, respectively?

Share this entry

Fox Wants to See the Shredded Scraps of Our Constitution

/in , /by

At least that’s what they said when Center for Constitutional Rights tried to place this ad on Fox.

CCR is one of the organizations that will go before the Supreme Court on Wednesday in hopes of restoring Habeas Corpus. At the same time, they’re trying to raise awareness of Bush’s attacks on our rights with ads like this and a cool campaign to send Bush a copy of the Constitution (what do you get the President who has everything??). But when they went to Fox to buy time for this ad, Fox asked for proof that Bush had shredded the Constitution.

Perhaps it’s time to launch a campaign to inundate Fox with your favorite proof that Bush trashed the Constitution. Copies of the Risen-Lichtblau scoop on warrantless wiretapping, pictures of the "free speech zones" at Bush appearances, a copy of the report proving NYC spied on citizens and detained many illegally leading up to the Republican convention in 2004. Anyone else have some good ideas?

Update: marksb has a very good question:

Does Fox require proof of erectile dysfunction to place Viagra ads?

Share this entry