Orrin Hatch's Intelligence Question

Questions for Abu Gonzales

Cabinet Secretary Counsels

The Banality of the Unitary Executive

It’s weird, blogging the Libby trial. I’m putting out details at such a tremendous rate all day that I have a real hard time getting the big picture–though I do get that by the time I talk it through with others here. But I do feel like I’m missing the middle ground.

Except relating to one thing. David Addington. By far the biggest surprise to me, in terms of personal impressions, is David Addington.

As I’ve been reminding at every opportunity, David Addington is Mr. Unitary Executive, the guy who has provided legal justification for many of Cheney’s biggest power grabs: torture, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, and so on.

I truly expected his interviews to be terribly hostile. I truly expected to see Addington bristle at every question. But that didn’t happen.

Addington's Defense of Torture Continues to Crumble

Some Thoughts on Hudson v. Michigan

I saw my friend Dave Moran last night, who is the lawyer that argued Hudson v. Michigan, the recent case about knock and announce rules on searches. As you can imagine, he was pretty uphappy about losing the case. But he had a few more insights I’d like to share.

Anthony Kennedy changed his mind

Dave believes that, after he first argued the case in January, he had a 6-3 win. Now obviously, that’s his gut feel, though Dave has argued several cases before these guys (and he has a well-known Jedi-like ability to predict disc flips in ultimate frisbee). Also, the case was not included with the original batch of cases announced to be reargued–it was announced later. So if Dave’s right, then Kennedy somehow went from deciding in favor of the Fourth Amendment, to concurring against.

Put Me in Coach