Archive for category: emptywheel

First, a correction. I suggested the other day that Dick was one of the three people who voted not to keep Rummy when Bush took a show of hands on Rummy’s fate. But Cheney may not have been among those polled. The WaPo has a review of the book and the incident today, and Cheney is not among those named (though Abramowitz does not identify all of the votes).

For Canning Rummy
Josh Bolten
Andrew Card
Condi Rice
Ed Gillespie
Three more people

Against Canning Rummy
Bush
Rove
Stephen Hadley
One other, probably Cheney

But here’s what I’m really struck by. Ed Gillespie, right there among the paid Presidential advisors, casting a "can Rummy" vote.

I’ve been harping for some time on the problem with a big-time lobbyist entering the White House to take on the Counselor role. After all, when a guy had been lobbying for the telecom industry, a number of front organizations for corporate interests, and those student loan companies that are bankrupting our families, it suggests he might have divided loyalties when he enters the White House.

This anecdote shows that Gillespie had entered the White House in a substantive advisory role long before he stopped being paid by those corporate interests. Ed Gillespie was taking votes on personnel decisions Read more →

I’m trying to pull together as many of the details in the new transcripts about how Tommy Kontogiannis has cooperated (I was going to spell it "kooperate") with the government. The information is actually conflicting–Tommy K wants to portray himself as a good American who was just seeking out powerful Congressman to give intelligence to. But the descriptions of the AUSAs and FBI agents of his cooperation in this matter make it sound like it’s a limited thing.

Here’s K’s description of his reasons for bribing Cunningham.

The Court: The only thing I have a question about is itsays that you believe Mr. Cunningham was in a position to do you somegood. Is that why you were involved in this? You hoped through hisofficial position as a U.S. Congressman that he could advance somepersonal interest of yours?

The Defendant: It was never personal interest, your Honor. Myinterest is United States, basically, and he was in a position that Icould reach and tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world.

The Court: What were you going to get out of this, Mr. Kontogiannis?

Mr. O’Connell: Can I have a moment, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. My question is, what did you hope to get out of all this?

The Defendant: From the first case to bring as much information as Icould to assist us, especially after the 2001 situation. Second, it isgood to have a powerful Congressman that if you ever need anything, youcan ask him to help you or assist you in something you might need.

The Court: That’s really what I am getting at. Did you believe thatyou were buying influence with someone who was in a position to helpyou by involving yourself in these things that have been recited today?

The Defendant: Definitely.

I’m going to come back to this passage–it really makes me wonder how many of the rest of the Congressmen on the House Intelligence Committee are getting bribes from people who want to "tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world." Porter Goss, of course, had to step down as DCI because of his ties to Cunningham’s corrupt buddies. And Rick Renzi has some legal problems of his own.

Now, Judge Burns describes K as either an informer or someone tied into an intelligence network (or likely, both). Exposure of his cooperation would endanger him and others.

They’re doing it with voting rights reports, too (hat tip bmaz).

Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely alignedwith Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To furtherremove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened abipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research andconsulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. Whathappened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July2006, we were barred by the commission’s staff from having anythingmore to do with it.

What was the problem? In all the time we were doing our research anddrafting the report, neither the staff nor the commissioners, who werecontinually advised of our activities and the substance of our work,raised any concerns about the direction we were going or the researchfindings.

Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EACpublicly released a report — citing it as based on work by me and myco-author — that completely stood our own work on its head.

The author, Tova Andrea Wang, ties the manipulation of the report to the corruption at DOJ.

We also raised questions about the way the Justice Departmentwas handling complaints of fraud and intimidation. The commissionexcised all references Read more →

This is my outtamyarse guide to the potential replacement candidates for AGAG floated so far:

Michael Chertoff: I think someone in the Administration floated Michael Chertoff as a replacement candidate before that someone really thought things through. Sure, Chertoff has been approved by the Senate before. But that was before 11/7–and we know that 11/7 changed everything. Not to mention Katrina. Part of me wonders whether the urge to make Chertoff AG was just an attempt to get him out of DHS, where he’s screwing things up royally. And once Fran Townsend refused to take the DHS job as Chertoff’s replacement, the Administration was left with no way to make the transition gracefully and has likely abandoned the idea.

Laurence Silberman: Democrats may be weak-kneed. But there’s no way (I hope) that they’ll accept Silberman as a replacement candidate for AGAG. Silberman has been the fixer for Republican scandals going back to Watergate, with a particularly prominent role in Iran-Contra. Allowing Silberman to serve as AG would be getting rid of an incompetent hack and replacing him with a competent, more dangerous hack.

Ted Olson: Another of the candidates floated long ago, when BushCo would have been nominating a replacement from a position of strength, rather than one of desperation. Since that time, the curious circumstances around Debra Wong Yang’s hiring as Olson’s close associate at Gibson Dunn have arisen; that involves Olson in the USA Purge in a tangential enough way that you’d think it’d prevent him from being confirmable. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t put approving Olson beyond the weak-kneed Democrats.

Larry Thompson: Thompson was Deputy Attorney General when BushCo first set about shredding the Constitution, which is a major strike against him. It’s unclear whether Thompson was actually read into many of the most egregious programs. But still, one would hope that we wouldn’t approve anyone (besides Jim Comey) who has been through the Bush DOJ already. Unfortunately, early on in this process, Chuck Schumer listed Thompson as an acceptable choice for him as a replacement AG, though it has been reported that Thompson is uninterested in leaving his cushy job at Pepsi to clean up Gonzales’ mess.

Paul Clement: Clement’s stock as a replacement seems to be rising, with lots of folks hearkening back to profiles quoting people from both sides of aisle complimenting Clement for his intelligence. But note closely what these profiles hail Clement for: his ability to argue either side of an argument very effectively. That’s great when he’s defending Russ Feingold’s Campaign Finance before SCOTUS. But in the position of Attorney General, he would be arguing Bush’s side of the argument exclusively. Furthermore, Clement has already proven himself willing to rewrite the Constitution in the name of defending BushCo’s executive privilege claims. Lucky for us (because I suspect Democrats would pass his nomination), appointing Clement as AG doesn’t solve BushCo’s gaping holes in every management position at DOJ, since they’d just have to find another Solicitor General. So I suspect we will be spared this sophist as AG.

George Terwilliger: I find it curious that the name receiving most attention–after BushCo realized what a disaster appointing Chertoff would be–is one of Poppy’s guys, with close ties to Bush family consigliere James Baker. Terwilliger has been specializing in white collar defense of late, which might be considered a huge plus to those trying to get through the rest of Bush’s term with no indictments. Terwilliger’s ties to Republican scandal fixing are more remote than, say, Silberman. He was on the Bush Recount legal team. And, more ominously, Terwilliger oversaw the BCCI settlement, which saved the US some money in bailouts, but probably also increased the comfort level of the Saudis who had bankrolled the giant money-laundering scheme. I can’t imagine the Democrats opposing Terwilliger in force, which is probably why he’s a leading candidate.

Michael Mukasey: Mukasey is the former senior judge in SDNY (so I’m hoping maybe our local expert on that area might pipe in with an opinion) and he sounds like–given the options–a pretty good choice. Most notably, Mukasey took a "split the baby" position on an early Padilla decision; he ruled that Bush could designate him an enemy combatant (a decision that did not stand on appeal), but he also insisted that BushCo had to allow Padilla to see lawyers. I suspect that his name has been forwarded by the Democrats, most likely Chuck Schumer, who has supported him for a SCOTUS appointment as well. Which probably means his name is floating out there solely because Democrats are floating it, and not because BushCo is giving it serious consideration.

Remember how federal prosecutors were denied the ability to review Brent Wilkes’ affidavit showing he was indigent? Well, ChrisC sent along news of a civil magistrate case in which one of Wilkes’ creditors appears to be trying to force Wilkes to reveal where his assets are–also to no avail.

The unopposed motion to compel filed by plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc., as
assignee of Union Bank, is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff cites In re Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1151-1152, that a blanket refusal is unacceptable, and the burden is on the party invoking the privilege to show the testimony could tend to incriminate him or her. However, plaintiff answered some questions, and refused others so this is not a blanket refusal. A review of the indictment against Brent R. Wilkes shows that all the companies were allegedly used as shell corporations to conceal Wilke’s financial interest and the role in CIA contracts and to launder money from CIA contracts. (P’s Ex. 1.) The second indictment involved defendant with another defendant and references secreting funds and conspiracy. Accordingly, there is a direct link between the questions and assets involved and the refusal to answer based upon the Fifth Read more →