Outrage, Hope and Action's Nation Archives

November 30, 2008

Hillary Clinton - Unconstitutional as Secretary of State?

Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year. Even if it is lowered back down, constitutional scholars say that may not be enough to fix the problem.

The question is whether this would be an issue at confirmation - if Clinton is nominated to the post - and who would raise it. Senators traditionally grant their colleagues some deference and it could be considered politics at its worst if Republicans try to block her nomination with this argument. But senators may be loathe to vote for something scholars tell them is unconstitutional.

Posted by doctormatt at 7:53 PM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2008

Video - Allegations about 2002 Georgia election raise doubts on current voting

As the state of Georgia prepares to conduct a runoff between incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss and his Democratic challenger, Jim Martin, old doubts about the election in which Chambliss took the Senate seat from Max Cleland six years ago are attracting fresh notice.

Black Box Voting? What is going on in Georgia?

Posted by doctormatt at 10:15 PM | Comments (0)

November 7, 2008

ACLU on the U.S. Army's domestic deployment

Last month, The Army Times reported that for "the first time an active [U.S. Army] unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The brigade, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, has spent most of the last four years fighting a war in Iraq, and will now be assigned on a permanent basis to engage in numerous domestic functions -- including, as the article put it, "to help with civil unrest and crowd control."

Glenn Greenwald's comments

Continue reading "ACLU on the U.S. Army's domestic deployment"

Posted by doctormatt at 7:29 PM | Comments (1)

November 6, 2008

Obama names transition team

Barack Obama has named his entire transition team -- formally organized as the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)(4) organization. The work of this entity will be overseen by three co-chairs: former White House chief of staff John Podesta, Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and Obama's current chief of staff Pete Rouse.

Continue reading "Obama names transition team"

Posted by doctormatt at 5:24 AM

Video - Obama on A More Perfect Union

March 2008 speech on the issue of Race in this country.

"This nation is more than the sum of its parts."

Full text of this speech, and President Elect Obama's acceptance speech here:

Continue reading "Video - Obama on A More Perfect Union "

Posted by doctormatt at 5:00 AM | Comments (0)

Video - Naomi Wolf on new book, Give Me Liberty

Do we now have a police state?
As of 10/1/08, the president has his own private army (3000 strong) within the territorial borders of the U.S.

Naomi Wolf -

Rep. Brad Sherman -

Preview of documentary film The End Of America

Posted by doctormatt at 3:49 AM | Comments (0)

November 3, 2008

U.S Gap Between Rich and Poor Widening

The gap between rich and poor has widened in most developed countries over the past two decades as economic growth has benefited the wealthy more than the poor, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Midway through this decade, Mexico and Turkey had the highest inequality in incomes, followed by Portugal and the US. Denmark and Sweden were the most equal societies in terms of income disparity in the 30-nation study.

Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind. This has happened in many countries but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States," said the OECD.

"This reflects the impact of financial globalization and a weaker ability of domestic policies to enhance the income position of the middle class and low-income groups. The present global financial crisis is bound to make matters worse unless long-term structural reforms are adopted."

Excessive income inequalities could be associated with higher crime rates, lower life-expectancy, and in the case of the poor countries malnutrition and an increased likelihood of children being taken out of school in order to work, the report warned

Posted by doctormatt at 6:13 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2008

Video - Murder, Spies and Voting Lies

About the film: Murder, Spies, and Voting Lies:

Clint Curtis was an everyday computer programmer in Florida until he was asked to create vote-rigging software for electronic voting machines. What happens to a guy at the wrong end of a smoking gun? In Murder, Spies, and Voting Lies, directed by Patty Sharaf, hear Curtis's story about being asked by Florida Republican Congressman Tom Feeney to manipulate voting machine software.

While Curtis made these charges in a sworn affidavit, and in sworn testimony to a congressional committee, mainstream media have given scant attention to his story. Join journalist/blogger Brad Friedman as he pokes at the seamy side of our democracy.

See a preview clip here - courtesy of LinkTV.org

Posted by doctormatt at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

3d party Presidential candidates comment on 3d debate

Comments from the Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader - courtesy of DemocracyNow.org

Third-Party Candidates Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney Respond to Final McCain-Obama Debate

Posted by doctormatt at 11:23 PM | Comments (0)

October 16, 2008

Video - The Money Masters

Why we need to reform our banking system:

Posted by doctormatt at 10:14 PM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2008

How progressive are the votes of your elected officials?

Here's a website that lists all members of the house and the senate alphabetically and gives them a score. Then it gives a score based upon a variety of issues:

Progressive Punch

Posted by doctormatt at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

October 9, 2008

One nation, under debt - A citizen's guide.

Sundance film festival winner:

The facts are clear and compelling--the federal government's financial condition is worse than advertised and we are on an imprudent, irresponsible and unfair path.

Posted by doctormatt at 8:15 PM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2008

E-voting Machines are a National Security Threat

Plan in place to steal this next election: by 51.2% of the popular vote, and three electoral votes.

Stephen Spoonamore on election fraud, past, present and--if we don't spread the word right now--to come.

Posted by doctormatt at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?

Posted by doctormatt at 12:57 PM | Comments (1)

September 26, 2008

Wanna-be President Palin on Middle East Foreign Policy

Palin interviewed by Katie Couric

Link to full video

Couric: What happens if the goal of democracy, Gov. Palin, doesn't produce the desired outcome? For example, in Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections - and Hamas won."

Palin: Yeah, well, especially in that region though, we have got to protect those, and support those, who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And we're seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come over on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel, and we're hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protect the friends and allies we need, especially there in the Middle East, then nothing will. If Americans are not waking up to what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some false sense of security that perhaps Americans were part of before 9/11."

In an echo of Bush's plain-talking "Bring' em on" lines, Palin boils the Middle East down into black-and-white terms.

"It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are," says Palin. "The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys."

Posted by doctormatt at 4:47 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2008

The wall street bailout - This time we are Really getting screwed.

Young Turks commentary

I am so mad about this proposed federal bailout of Wall Street, I can't see straight. Do you understand what they're going to do? They are about to steal ONE TRILLION dollars from us and just hand it over to the guys on Wall Street who screwed everything up. They are going to take all of their bad loans and dump it on us. We're going to have pay for their mistakes!

But they already made the money. They keep the profits and we keep the debts. It is absolutely, positively outrageous. The only thing more outrageous is that both of the presidential candidates are going along with it. Obama seems to be supporting it almost more enthusiastically than McCain. That is a terrible idea.

Here are two important things you must know about the impact of the financial bailout.

First, when the American people find out what's been done here, they are going to be livid. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, everyone. Why should we have to pay a trillion dollars of our own money to save the asses of bankers who already made a killing from these loans? Now, they get to unload all of their "toxic assets," as Paulson is calling it, on us. Who in their right mind would support that?

Wall Street is ecstatic. The market is through the roof right now because they can't believe they got such a good deal. Understand this is not an isolated bailout here and there. The Treasury Secretary just said he is going to take ALL of their bad loans off their hands. Why wouldn't they be elated?

The Bush administration and the Republicans (especially Phil Gramm) pushed for deregulation that allowed for, and almost encouraged, these mistakes. Now, the guys who told us they didn't believe in big government are going to send in big government to pick up the tab. Privatize the profits, socialize the debts. We have been robbed!

Even Jim Bunning (R-KY) said that when Hugo Chavez nationalized industries in his country at least the Venezuelan people get the profits as well. We only get the losses.

Posted by doctormatt at 11:23 PM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2008

Senator, Target of Anthrax Letter, Challenges F.B.I. Finding

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a target of the anthrax letters of 2001, said Wednesday that he did not believe the F.B.I.'s contention that an Army scientist conducted the attacks alone.

Mr. Leahy pressed Mr. Mueller to say what laboratories in the United States were capable of producing dry powder anthrax like that used in the attacks, specifically asking about the Dugway Proving Ground, an Army center in Utah, and the Battelle Memorial Institute, a government contractor in Ohio, both of which have made such powder in small quantities in the past.

But Mr. Mueller said he could answer the question only in a closed session because the matter involved classified information. The secrecy appeared likely to fuel rumors, circulating on the Internet and denied by the F.B.I., that the attacks had some link to a secret government bioweapons program.

Full New York Times story

Posted by doctormatt at 6:11 AM | Comments (0)

September 16, 2008

Farce - Congressional committee asks FBI about Anthrax investigation

Glen Greenwald on the Congressional anthrax hearing

Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York used his five minutes to ask Mueller about several of the most glaring holes in the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. Nadler specifically focused on the fact that scientists (including in the FBI) had long claimed that the anthrax sent to Sen. Daschele was dried anthrax that had been coated with silica and was thus far too sophisticated for Ivins to have prepared, only for the FBI suddenly to reverse itself recently and claim that the anthrax was not coated with silica but had, instead, simply naturally absorbed silicon from the air.

Nadler had various good questions about that -- including wanting to know the level of concentration of silica found in the anthrax (since, if it were higher than 1/2 of 1%, it would mean it was impossible for it to have been naturally absorbed). Mueller's response: I don't know the answers to those questions. I'll have to get back to you at some point.

Nadler than asked one of the most central questions in the anthrax case: he pointed out that the facilities that (unlike Ft. Detrick) actually have the equipment and personnel to prepare dry, silica-coated anthrax are the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground and the Battelle Corporation, the private CIA contractor that conducts substantial research into highly complex strains of anthrax. Nadler asked how the FBI had eliminated those institutions as the culprits behind the attack. After invoking generalities to assure Nadler that the FBI had traced the anthrax back to Ivins' vial (which doesn't answer the question), Mueller's response was this: I don't know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I'll have to get back to you at some point.

After those two fruitless lines of inquiry, Nadler's time was almost up, and he then pleaded: please try to get back to us with these answers quickly. Mueller said: "Oh, absolutely Congressman."

Nadler then ended by asking whether Mueller would object to an independent commission or other body to review the FBI's evidence and its accusations against Ivins and whether the FBI would cooperate with such an independent inquiry. Mueller pretended to answer by telling Nadler that the FBI intended to ask some members of the National Academy of Science to review the FBI's scientific claims, but that didn't answer the question as to whether the FBI opposed a full-scale independent review of the FBI's case and whether the FBI would cooperate with it. Nadler then noted his time was up and a Republican member then began asking about The Grave Threats Posed by The Terrorists in order to justify the FBI's imminent, new domestic surveillance powers, with not a single new fact -- literally not one -- disclosed about the anthrax investigation, despite Nadler's perfectly relevant questions.

Posted by doctormatt at 6:38 PM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2008

What's missing from the Democratic convention?

Commentary by Glenn Greenwald

As one would expect them to be, virtually all of the prime-time speeches at the Democratic Convention have been -- from a rhetorical perspective -- very well-crafted and well-delivered. Bill Clinton's speech, in particular, deserves all the plaudits it is receiving, both in terms of content and delivery. But as competent, well-executed and even dramatic as the Convention has been, at least as striking is what has been missing.

First, there is almost no mention of, let alone focus on, the sheer radicalism and extremism of the last eight years. During that time, our Government has systematically tortured people using sadistic techniques ordered by the White House; illegally and secretly spied on its own citizens; broken more laws than can be counted based on the twisted theory that the President has that power; asserted the authority to arrest and detain even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them for years without charges; abolished habeas corpus; created secret prisons in Eastern Europe and a black hole of lawlessness in Guantanamo; and explicitly abandoned and destroyed virtually every political value the U.S. has long claimed to embrace.

Other than a fleeting reference to such matters by John Kerry in a (surprisingly effective) speech which most networks did not broadcast, one would not know, listening to the Democratic Convention, that any of those things have happened. Even our unprovoked and indescribably destructive attack on Iraq, based on purely false pretenses, has received little attention. Those things simply don't exist, even as part of the itemized laundry list of Democratic grievances about the Bush administration. The overriding impression one has is that the only things really wrong during the last eight years in this country are that gas prices are high and not everyone has health insurance.

More:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/28/dnc/index.html

Posted by doctormatt at 7:16 PM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2008

Video - Bill Moyers with Colonel Andrew Bacevich

Is an imperial presidency destroying what America stands for? Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert and former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich who identifies three major problems facing our democracy: the crises of economy, government and militarism, and calls for a redefinition of the American way of life.

Video
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

Audio
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/BMJ-1218.mp3

Continue reading "Video - Bill Moyers with Colonel Andrew Bacevich"

Posted by doctormatt at 8:19 PM | Comments (0)

August 15, 2008

If I Were a Betting Man, I'd Wager that Cheney Was Behind the Anthrax Attacks

http://www.alternet.org/story/94702

Posted by doctormatt at 6:50 PM

August 14, 2008

Were anthrax attacks U.S. State sponsored terrorism?

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=7911

Posted by doctormatt at 10:58 PM

August 10, 2008

Link to latest Keith Olbermann Countdown show - Video

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=65852

Posted by doctormatt at 11:16 PM

The Forged Iraqi Letter: What Just Happened?

By Ron Suskind

What just happened? Evidence. A secret that has been judiciously kept for five years just spilled out. All of what follows is new, never reported in any way:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20456.htm

Continue reading "The Forged Iraqi Letter: What Just Happened?"

Posted by doctormatt at 11:02 PM

Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on White House stationery

In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20470.htm

Continue reading " Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on White House stationery"

Posted by doctormatt at 10:55 PM | Comments (0)

August 6, 2008

A White House Forgery Scandal?

Investigative reporter Ron Suskind's new book charges that the White House, seeking to justify its invasion of Iraq, ordered the CIA in late 2003 to forge evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Suskind, a Pulitzer-winning reporter and relentless chronicler of this administration's secrets, depicts a White House with a simpleminded bully in the Oval Office taking direction from a paranoid vice president -- and caps off his latest expose with what he acknowledges sounds a lot like an impeachable offense.

Continue reading "A White House Forgery Scandal?"

Posted by doctormatt at 6:30 PM | Comments (0)

August 4, 2008

ABC news and unresolved Anthrax questions

Doctor Matt says:

I have been following this story closely.

The gaping hole is whether Mr. Ivins had co-conspirators. The smoking gun is the second batch of anthrax spores (weapons grade) that were mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.

Apparently, those spores may have been coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. ("The Russian Recipe"). The FBI has not released evidence that Mr. Ivins had access to such equipment, nor the expertise to perform this process.

Other commentators follow:
......

Even before the latest twists in the anthrax case, ABC News was deeply tarnished by its terrible journalism in 2001 and its protection of liars who may well be criminals. Every day that passes takes ABC further into the kind of scandal territory that, at some point, it cannot overcome.

Questions for ABC:

1. Sources who are granted confidentiality give up their rights when they
lie or mislead the reporter. Were you lied to or misled by your sources
when you reported several times in 2001 that anthrax found in domestic
attacks came from Iraq or showed signs of Iraqi involvement?

2. It now appears that the attacks were of domestic origin and the anthrax
came from within U.S. government facilities. This leads us to ask you: who
were the "four well-placed and separate sources" who falsely told ABC News
that tests conducted at Fort Detrick had found the presence of bentonite in
the anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, causing ABC News to connect the
attacks to Iraq in multiple reports over a five day period in October, 2001?

3. A substantially false story that helps make the case for war by raising
fears about enemies abroad attacking the United States is released into
public debate because of faulty reporting done by ABC News. How that
happened and who was responsible is itself a major story of public
interest. What is ABC News doing to re-report these events, to figure out
what went wrong and to correct the record for the American people who were
misled?

..............................

* Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News, in which he shows that ABC News was probably duped by someone on a story of huge importance, putting Iraqi fingerprints on anthrax attacks that actually came from the U.S at a time when the case for war with Iraq was beginning to get traction. (Salon.com, Aug. 1)

* Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation in which he makes the case for revealing the sources who completely misled ABC News or lied to it, including precedents where journalists have done just that. (Salon.com, Aug. 3)

"Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid. The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it. "

Continue reading "ABC news and unresolved Anthrax questions"

Posted by doctormatt at 9:47 PM | Comments (0)

"God hates fags" church burns

No doubt the work of fags or fag sympathizers," Rev. Fred Phelps said in a recent YouTube message of the Saturday morning fire that broke out at Westboro Baptist Church.

Continue reading ""God hates fags" church burns"

Posted by doctormatt at 7:54 PM | Comments (1)

Anthrax mystery - more information unfolding

If we've learned anything in the United States during the Bush era, it's that we have to resist rushing to judgment in the face of catastrophic events. The exercise of careful, independent judgment is the best tool available - we should use it. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who often wrote on the benefits of both privacy and transparency, offered the reminder "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Continue reading "Anthrax mystery - more information unfolding"

Posted by doctormatt at 6:56 PM | Comments (1)

Bush admin attempts to cripple occupational health - again.

There's a mighty storm a brewin' in the occupational health world. It is always a marvel to us that no matter how jaded we think we are, there is always room for more indignation. It is the Bush administration's only form of renewable energy.

Continue reading "Bush admin attempts to cripple occupational health - again."

Posted by doctormatt at 12:15 AM | Comments (0)

August 2, 2008

8 million Americans tracked by secret "main core" database?

The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s.

Salon has also uncovered further indications of far-reaching and possibly illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency inside the United States under President Bush. That includes the alleged use of a top-secret, sophisticated database system for monitoring people considered to be a threat to national security. It also includes signs of the NSA's working closely with other U.S. government agencies to track financial transactions domestically as well as globally.

The proposal for a Church Committee-style investigation emerged from talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress, according to sources involved. (Pelosi's and Conyers' offices both declined to comment.) Looking forward to 2009, when both Congress and the White House may well be controlled by Democrats, the idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror to undermine the Constitution and U.S. and international laws. The goal would be to implement government reforms aimed at preventing future abuses -- and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials.

"If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping despite the administration's attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don't know," says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal and has been involved in several high-profile congressional investigations.

"You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse," says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we don't know [the extent of] what laws have been violated."

The parameters for an investigation were outlined in a seven-page memo, written after the former member of the Church Committee met for discussions with the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause and other watchdog groups. Key issues to investigate, those involved say, would include the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities; the Central Intelligence Agency's use of extraordinary rendition and torture against terrorist suspects; and the U.S. government's extensive use of military assets -- including satellites, Pentagon intelligence agencies and U2 surveillance planes -- for a vast spying apparatus that could be used against the American people.

Specifically, the ACLU and other groups want to know how the NSA's use of databases and data mining may have meshed with other domestic intelligence activities, such as the U.S. government's extensive use of no-fly lists and the Treasury Department's list of "specially designated global terrorists" to identify potential suspects. As of mid-July, says Steinhardt, the no-fly list includes more than 1 million records corresponding to more than 400,000 names. If those people really represent terrorist threats, he says, "our cities would be ablaze." A deeper investigation into intelligence abuses should focus on how these lists feed on each other, Steinhardt says, as well as the government's "inexorable trend towards treating everyone as a suspect."

"It's not just the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program,'" agrees Gregory T. Nojeim from the Center for Democracy and Technology, referring to the Bush administration's misleading name for the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. "We need a broad investigation on the way all the moving parts fit together. It seems like we're always looking at little chunks and missing the big picture."

A prime area of inquiry for a sweeping new investigation would be the Bush administration's alleged use of a top-secret database to guide its domestic surveillance. Dating back to the 1980s and known to government insiders as "Main Core," the database reportedly collects and stores -- without warrants or court orders -- the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security.

According to several former U.S. government officials with extensive knowledge of intelligence operations, Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. One former intelligence official described Main Core as "an emergency internal security database system" designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law. Its name, he says, is derived from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."

Some of the former U.S. officials interviewed, although they have no direct knowledge of the issue, said they believe that Main Core may have been used by the NSA to determine who to spy on in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Moreover, the NSA's use of the database, they say, may have triggered the now-famous March 2004 confrontation between the White House and the Justice Department that nearly led Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director William Mueller and other top Justice officials to resign en masse.

The Justice Department officials who objected to the legal basis for the surveillance program -- former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey and Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel -- testified before Congress last year about the 2004 showdown with the White House. Although they refused to discuss the highly classified details behind their concerns, the New York Times later reported that they were objecting to a program that "involved computer searches through massive electronic databases" containing "records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans."

An article in Radar magazine in May, citing three unnamed former government officials, reported that "8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect" and, in the event of a national emergency, "could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and even detention."

The alleged use of Main Core by the Bush administration for surveillance, if confirmed to be true, would indicate a much deeper level of secretive government intrusion into Americans' lives than has been previously known. With respect to civil liberties, says the ACLU's Steinhardt, it would be "pretty frightening stuff."

The Inslaw case also points to what may be an extensive role played by the NSA in financial spying inside the United States. According to reports over the years in the U.S. and foreign press, Inslaw's PROMIS software was embedded surreptitiously in systems sold to foreign and global banks as a way to give the NSA secret "backdoor" access to the electronic flow of money around the world.

Main Core may be the contemporary incarnation of a government watch list system that was part of a highly classified "Continuity of Government" program created by the Reagan administration to keep the U.S. government functioning in the event of a nuclear attack. Under a 1982 presidential directive, the outbreak of war could trigger the proclamation of martial law nationwide, giving the military the authority to use its domestic database to round up citizens and residents considered to be threats to national security. The emergency measures for domestic security were to be carried out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army.

In the late 1980s, reports about a domestic database linked to FEMA and the Continuity of Government program began to appear in the press. For example, in 1986 the Austin American-Statesman uncovered evidence of a large database that authorities were proposing to use to intern Latino dissidents and refugees during a national emergency that might follow a potential U.S. invasion of Nicaragua. During the Iran-Contra congressional hearings in 1987, questions to Reagan aide Oliver North about the database were ruled out of order by the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye, because of the "highly sensitive and classified" nature of FEMA's domestic security operations.

It is noteworthy that two key players on Bush's national security team, Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington, have been involved in the Continuity of Government program since its inception. Along with Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's first secretary of defense, both men took part in simulated drills for the program during the 1980s and early 1990s. Addington's role was disclosed in "The Dark Side," a book published this month about the Bush administration's war on terror by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer. In the book, Mayer calls Addington "the father of the [NSA] eavesdropping program," and reports that he was the key figure involved in the 2004 dispute between the White House and the Justice Department over the legality of the program. That would seem to make him a prime witness for a broader investigation.

Source:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/23/new_churchcomm/print.html

Posted by doctormatt at 10:16 PM | Comments (0)

August 1, 2008

The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present

On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:

"A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . ."

That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 to the present. For example, the White House website states:

"Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat."

A separate announcement on the White House website states:

"Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism."

July 30, 2008

Recommendation for Karl Rove Contempt of Congress charges

. A resolution and report finding Karl Rove in contempt for failure to appear pursuant to subpoena and recommending to the House of Representatives that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress

A. Overview

The Committee is scheduled to consider and vote on a report titled "Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Karl Rove in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply With a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary." A draft of the report, which includes a resolution to be recommended to the House of Representatives providing that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress and that the House pursue other legal remedies to enforce the outstanding subpoena as appropriate, has been provided to all Members. This memorandum provides additional background to assist Committee Members in considering the report and resolution.

Despite extensive efforts to secure voluntary cooperation, and despite the issuance of a compulsory subpoena, Mr. Rove has refused to appear before and provide sworn testimony necessary for the Committee's continuing investigation into the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice, including the termination of U.S. Attorneys in 2006, allegations of selective prosecution, and related issues. Mr. Rove has refused even to appear before the Committee and assert whatever privileges that he believes may apply to his testimony, relying on excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of "absolute immunity" - never recognized by any court - in declining to appear. The "accommodations" or compromises that he has offered are almost entirely illusory, and would substantially compromise the Committee's ability to investigate these matters. Today's vote is thus necessary to preserve the prerogatives of this Committee and the House and to ensure that our process remains a meaningful investigative tool in the future.

B. Factual Background Regarding Mr. Rove's Alleged Role in the Politicization of the Department of Justice

Since January 2007, the Committee has investigated allegations regarding the politicization of the Department of Justice, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys, allegations of selective prosecution, and related matters. New evidence continually surfaces in this investigation, such as a report this week from the Department's Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility that, among other things, indicates that Mr. Rove and other Administration personnel worked to have a childhood friend of Mr. Rove appointed as an immigration judge.

The harms of this alleged politicization are readily apparent. Respected former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey testified before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee last year about the fragility of the Department's reservoir of credibility, and the difficulty of earning back the trust of the American people once the Department's reputation for honesty and impartial justice has been tarnished. Just last week, Attorney General Mukasey testified before the full Committee that he was "well aware of the allegations that politics has played an inappropriate role at the Justice Department' and agreed that "[t]oo many of those allegations were borne out" in a recent Department watchdog report. Prior to that, Mr. Mukasey had acknowledged that, if true, the allegations regarding selective prosecution in the Siegelman case "would be stunning."

The U.S. Attorney firings have raised particular alarm from commentators across the political spectrum. Republican former Attorney General Thornburgh testified before a joint hearing of the Commercial and Administrative Law and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittees that, in his view, the investigation had shown that the Department 'fired U.S. Attorneys not for performance-based reasons, but for political ones." Similarly, the nonpartisan American Judicature Society wrote last year that "on the basis of the facts as we know them today, the dismissals are indefensible." And, as noted above, two recent joint Inspector General/Office of Professional Responsibility reports describe pervasive politicization of Department functions that violated federal law, civil service rules, and the Department's own policies.

As the investigation has continued, Mr. Rove has emerged as an important figure.

1. Forced Resignations of U.S. Attorneys

Last year, reports appeared in the news media that a group of U.S. Attorneys had been told to resign by the Justice Department. Ultimately it was learned that seven U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign on December 7, 2006, an eighth U.S. Attorney had been asked to resign in June 2006, and a ninth U.S. Attorney had been asked to resign in January 2006.

The plan appears to have emerged at the outset of President Bush's second term in response to questions by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers as to whether sitting U.S. Attorneys would be allowed to retain their positions. Mr. Rove himself appears to have asked if the Administration would consider replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys or "selectively replace" at least some of them. According to one report, Mr. Rove's desire to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys "was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. Attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of." This targeted list reportedly included U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who at the time was investigating Mr. Rove's role in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's covert identity. When Mr. Rove made the suggestion to fire all of the U.S. Attorneys, he had already been before the grand jury several times in the Plame case. In addition, recent reports indicate that, just weeks earlier, an Illinois Republican political operative had told an associate he was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald replaced.

Mr. Rove's request was presented to Kyle Sampson, then a deputy Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who responded that most U.S. Attorneys "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc." and that even "piecemeal" replacement of U.S. Attorneys would cause political upheaval. "That said," Mr. Sampson wrote, "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I." The idea for a wholesale replacement was thus rejected as too disruptive, and because it would have meant the replacement of some U.S. Attorneys who were good performers or who were "loyal Bushies." Instead, a narrower plan under which a subset of the U.S. Attorneys were to be replaced was put in motion. Kyle Sampson ran the plan over a period of just under two years, during which he maintained and revised various lists of U.S. Attorneys to be fired or retained, and repeatedly circulated these drafts to the White House.

While the Committee has interviewed Mr. Sampson in detail, and has spoken with most of the significant players inside the Justice Department, the reasons why most of the fired U.S. Attorneys were selected for removal, and who identified them as candidates for Mr. Sampson's list, remain unclear. However, in addition to his overall role, evidence suggests that Mr. Rove had a role in at least the following cases:

a. David Iglesias (D. N.M.)

A primary reason David Iglesias appears to have been targeted for replacement is because he had drawn the ire of New Mexico state Republicans for his vote fraud enforcement decisions and for failing to bring a particular matter that they wanted pursued. New Mexico Republican party Chief Allen Weh reportedly pressed Karl Rove through an aide to have Mr. Iglesias replaced in 2005 because he was dissatisfied by Mr. Iglesias' charging decisions in vote fraud matters. That issue was apparently important enough to Mr. Weh that he raised his complaints about Mr. Iglesias again directly with Mr. Rove in December 2006 and was told by Mr. Rove at that time, apparently just one day after the firing calls were made, that "he's gone." Two other New Mexico Republicans, Mickey Barnett and Pat Rogers, came to Washington, D.C., in the Summer of 2006 and met with an aide to Karl Rove, Scott Jennings, as well as Monica Goodling and Counselor to the Attorney General Matthew Friedrich. Mr. Friedrich testified that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Barnett were concerned about Mr. Iglesias failing to bring a particular vote fraud case against the ACORN community organization - he stated that "they were not happy with Dave Iglesias." Mr. Friedrich also testified that he met a second time with Mr. Barnett and Mr. Rogers over Thanksgiving 2006, and they informed him that they "were working towards" having Mr. Iglesias removed and that they had communicated with Karl Rove and Senator Domenici on that subject.

In failing to satisfy state Republican concerns about the need for vigorous enforcement of alleged vote fraud cases, David Iglesias appears to have run up against a powerful political force. The evidence indicates that Karl Rove monitored this issue and heard complaints about some U.S. Attorneys on the subject, again including David Iglesias. Mr. Rove's interest in this subject was so acute that, in April 2006, he spoke about the issue to the Republican National Lawyers Association and named a number of jurisdictions that supposedly posed heightened vote fraud risks, including New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Washington, as well as other politically important states such as Florida and Missouri, where U.S. Attorneys were at one point or another on the firing list.

b. Steven Biskupic (E.D. Wisc.)

No Justice Department witness has explained why Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic appeared on the March 2005 firing list. Kyle Sampson recalled only that Mr. Biskupic was not a "prominent" U.S. Attorney. On the other hand, the Administration did produce documents describing vote fraud issues in Mr. Biskupic's district during the 2004 elections that Karl Rove appears to have printed and viewed just weeks before Mr. Biskupic was placed on the firing list, and which contain the handwritten notation "Discuss w/Harriet." The record also contains a lengthy catalog of Republican complaints about Mr. Biskupic's failure to bring more vote fraud cases during this time, some of which reached Mr. Rove, and some of which Mr. Rove may have passed on to Kyle Sampson.

c. Bud Cummins (E.D. of Ark.)

Regarding Bud Cummins, the Administration has equivocated, sometimes suggesting that he was forced out for performance reasons and other times stating it was simply to make room for Karl Rove's former aide Tim Griffin to serve as U.S. Attorney. On February 23, 2007, the Justice Department sent a letter to several Senators on the Tim Griffin appointment, incorrectly stating that Karl Rove did not have any role in the decision to appoint Tim Griffin as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. That inaccurate letter, which the Department was subsequently forced to disavow, was drafted by Kyle Sampson and apparently approved by Christopher Oprison in the White House Counsel's office, despite the fact that each had extensive knowledge of the Tim Griffin situation at the time. Mr. Sampson had previously written that "getting [Mr. Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." And just a week before he signed off on this letter, Mr. Oprison had received an email from Tim Griffin discussing the appointment controversy that also was addressed to Karl Rove, suggesting Mr. Rove's awareness of the matter.

1. Alleged Selective Prosecution of Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

Concerns that politics may have played a role in the investigation and prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman have been widely aired in the press, culminating in a petition urging the Committee to open an inquiry that was signed by 44 former state Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, and received by the Committee in July 2007. Republican former Attorney General of Arizona Grant Woods recently stated that he believes Mr. Siegelman was selected for prosecution to further the political interests of the Alabama Republican party: "I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of."

a. Background

Don Siegelman was governor of Alabama from 1998 to 2002, and previously had held numerous state offices. Mr. Siegelman lost his bid for re-election in 2002 to Republican Bob Riley by just several thousand votes, and was expected to run again in 2006. He was at the time a "major political force" in Alabama and early polls indicated that he would defeat Governor Riley in a rematch.

In May 2004, Mr. Siegelman was indicted by the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Alice Martin, on charges related to alleged bid rigging in state contracts. Those charges were dismissed before trial, however, when the prosecution could not produce evidence connecting Mr. Siegelman to the alleged misconduct.

Several months later, a new indictment based on entirely different charges was brought under seal against Mr. Siegelman by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, Leura Canary. That indictment was made public in October 2005 and, after a June 2006 trial, Mr. Siegelman was acquitted of 25 of the 32 filed charges, and was convicted on 7 counts of corruption or obstruction of justice related charges. In June 2007, Mr. Siegelman was sentenced to 7 years, 4 months in prison (the prosecutors had requested 30 years).

On March 27, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted Mr. Siegelman's motion for release on bond pending appeal, finding that Mr. Siegelman had "met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact" that might ultimately lead to reversal of the conviction.

b. Allegations Regarding Political Interference and Karl Rove

In May 2007, a Republican attorney from Northern Alabama named Jill Simpson wrote an affidavit stating that, in November 2002, she heard a prominent Alabama Republican operative named Bill Canary say that Karl Rove had contacted the Justice Department about bringing a prosecution of Don Siegelman. Mr. Canary is married to the U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, Leura Canary, and Ms. Simpson states in the affidavit that Mr. Canary also said that "my girls would take care of" Mr. Siegelman. Ms. Simpson asked Mr. Canary who "his girls" were and Mr. Canary said they were his wife and Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of the state.

On September 14, 2007, Committee staff conducted a sworn, on-the-record interview of Ms. Simpson in which she reaffirmed the statements in her affidavit and offered additional information. Most significantly, Ms. Simpson described a conversation in early 2005 in which Governor Riley's son Rob, a colleague and friend of Ms. Simpson, told her that his father and Mr. Canary had again spoken to Karl Rove who had in turn communicated with the head of the Department's Public Integrity Section about bringing a second indictment against Don Siegelman since the first case in Birmingham had been dismissed. According to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Riley also told her that Mr. Rove had asked the Department to mobilize additional resources to assist in the prosecution effort. Mr. Riley also said that the case would be in the Middle District of Alabama and would be heard by Chief Judge Mark Fuller, a judge who Mr. Riley stated could be trusted to "hang Don Siegelman." And Mr. Riley claimed that the prosecution would try Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy together, in the hopes that Mr. Scrushy's unpopularity in the state would affect the proceedings against Mr. Siegelman.

Ms. Simpson's statements have been denied by Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and the other figures involved. Mr. Rove himself made a brief, and limited, comment on the matter in June 2007, stating "I know nothing about any phone call," but not addressing the underlying allegations. (It has never been alleged that Mr. Rove was on the phone call described by Jill Simpson; the question is whether Mr. Rove directly or indirectly discussed the possibility of prosecuting Don Siegelman with either the Justice Department or Alabama Republicans.) More recently, appearing on Fox News in February 2008, Mr. Rove denied knowing Jill Simpson and challenged ancillary assertions she had made, but again did not address the main charge that he had pressed the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Siegelman. More recently still, Mr. Rove has elaborated by asserting to a reporter for GQ Magazine that Ms. Simpson is a "complete lunatic" who cannot be trusted and by presenting a statement in some form to 60 Minutes (though it is not clear whether he spoke directly to 60 Minutes or used a spokesman as Mr. Rove does not appear on camera) declaring that he never "never talked to the Department of Justice" about Mr. Siegelman. Finally, in recent answers provided by his lawyer to questions posed by Ranking Member Smith, Mr. Rove reiterated his denials that he attempted to influence the Siegelman prosecution. Available evidence raises questions about these denials, however.

First, Mr. Rove's written answers to the questions posed by ranking Member Smith do not appear to resolve the questions about his possible role in the matter. For example, Mr. Rove was asked if he ever communicated with "any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual" about the investigation or prosecution of Governor Siegelman. He answered only that he had not communicated with "Justice Department or Alabama officials" about the matter. The failure to address whether he communicated with any other "individual" suggests that Mr. Rove may have communicated with political operatives such as Bill Canary, the Governor's son Rob Riley, non-Department of Justice Executive Branch officials such as his White House colleagues, or even members of the federal Judicial branch.

While other aspects of the denial appear broader on their face, such as the assertion that Mr. Rove "never attempted either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters," it is impossible to fully evaluate Mr. Rove's statement without follow up questioning that would reveal exactly what he means by terms such as "influence" and "these matters" or whether there are any other ambiguities or gaps in his denials. Without such questioning the Committee cannot know, for example, whether Mr. Rove took steps related to the prosecution of Governor Siegelman that he does not believe rise to the level of "influencing" the case or whether members of his staff may have taken actions regarding this matter that Mr. Rove did not specifically direct them to take. In addition, Mr. Rove never denies having any relevant knowledge about the Siegelman prosecution; he only denies having taken certain actions himself. The Committee's subpoena demands that he testify as to any relevant knowledge that he may possess.

As to the strong denials by Rob Riley and others that there was a phone call with Ms. Simpson on November 18, 2002, as she testified, Ms. Simpson provided cell phone records to the Committee that reflect an eleven minute call to Mr. Riley's number on that very morning. Those denials thus appear to be in at least some sense inaccurate.

Further evidence on the question whether Karl Rove or other senior figures played some role in the Siegelman prosecution was revealed at a joint hearing of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Securtiy Subcommittee and the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on October 23, 2007. At that hearing, former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, who represented Mr. Siegelman from 2003 until early 2006, described a number of troubling facts regarding the Siegelman prosecution - for example, the statement by investigators that they "hoped" their work would implicate the Governor and that prosecutors engaged in discussions that Mr. Jones believes were not in good faith because the prosecutors had already obtained a sealed indictment against the Governor but did not disclose that key fact. The heart of Mr. Jones' testimony, however, involved a series of events in late 2004 indicating that high-level Washington officials were driving the prosecution effort.

Mr. Jones testified that, by mid 2004, he and his team had been told by the federal prosecutors in Alabama that most of the issues under investigation had been "written off" and were not expected to lead to charges. While certain issues required some further investigation, including the donation to the lottery fund by Mr. Scrushy, the prosecutors acknowledged there were significant gaps in the relevant evidence. Mr. Jones testified that, based on his discussions with the prosecutors at this time, he and his colleagues "felt like [the] case was coming to a close." In late fall, however, the lead Alabama prosecutor substantially changed his message, telling Mr. Jones that "there had been a meeting in Washington and that the lawyers in Washington had asked him to go back and look at the case, review the case top to bottom."

After this word came down from Washington, Mr. Jones explained that the case transformed into a much more focused and aggressive effort to find charges on which to indict Mr. Siegelman:

"What we saw beginning in early 2005 was much more than simply a top to bottom review. Instead it was as if the investigation had new life from top to bottom and beyond. Whereas in the past it had appeared that the investigation was being driven by investigators in the [state] Attorney General's office, the FBI and the feds now seemed to be taking control and they were casting a wider net than ever before. The charges that we were told had been 'written off' were obviously now back on the table and for the first time it appeared that agents were not investigating any allegations of a crime, but were fishing around for anything they could find against an individual."

This testimony is especially troubling when considered in light of Ms. Simpson's testimony regarding her conversations with Rob Riley. Ms. Simpson testified that Rob Riley told her that, in the latter part of 2004, Karl Rove had approached the head of the Public Integrity Section of the Department about bringing another case against Mr. Siegelman and giving more resources to the prosecution. Thus, according to the sworn testimony of two different witnesses - who did not know each other and who were not aware of the other's testimony when they spoke - at the same time that Karl Rove was allegedly pressing Justice Department leadership to indict Don Siegelman, Washington officials informed the line prosecutors working the case, who had just recently expressed real doubts about bringing charges, to go back over the entire matter. And as a result of that direction from Washington, the prosecution did in fact launch an aggressive new effort to find indictable charges against Mr. Siegelman.

Lead Siegelman prosecutor Steve Feaga has made press statements denying that he ever told Doug Jones that Washington officials had directed his team to go back over the case. Similarly, the Acting U.S. Attorney for this matter Louis Franklin has said that Mr. Jones' statements are "absolutely not true." But other evidence strongly corroborates Mr. Jones' testimony on this point. For example, an Alabama attorney named Mark White, who represented several witnesses related to the Siegelman matter and is currently President-Elect of the Alabama State Bar, has stated that, like Mr. Jones, he had been advised by the prosecution in 2004 that the investigation was coming to a conclusion and that he was later told by Mr. Feaga that "'Washington' had asked that another look be taken at the entire investigation." Art Leach, a former federal prosecutor and counsel to Mr. Scrushy in this matter, has informed the Committee that, in 2004, "for a variety of reasons it was my opinion that the matter was closed." In mid-2005, however, "the case came back to life."

C. Prior Efforts to Obtain Mr. Rove's testimony

Because Mr. Rove is an important witness who could provide information that is unavailable through any other source, Chairman Conyers sought Mr. Rove's voluntary compliance with the Committee's investigation. In response, White House Counsel Fred Fielding explained that he was prepared to make Mr. Rove and other White House officials available for interviews with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a joint basis, but his offer was conditioned on unreasonably limiting preconditions and scope restrictions.

Mr. Fielding's offer required that the interviews be confined to "the subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications between the White House and members of Congress concerning those requests." Questioning on internal White House discussions of any kind and by personnel at any level would not be allowed. In addition, Mr. Fielding required that the interviews "be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas." In other words, no matter what was revealed, no other testimony or documents could be requested from the White House.

Given Mr. Fielding's unreasonably restrictive offer, on March 21, 2007, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee authorized Chairman Conyers to issue subpoenas to Karl Rove and other White House personnel with relevant knowledge or documents. Both before and after March 21, letters were exchanged between the Committee and the White House to seek to resolve voluntarily the Committee's requests for information from the White House, but those efforts were not successful. Committee letters (some of which were sent by Chairman Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy) included letters of March 9, March 22, March 28, and May 21, 2007.

On July 26, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy issued a subpoena for Mr. Rove to testify on August 2 and produce documents related to the U.S. Attorneys investigation. Mr. Fielding sent an August 1 letter to Senators Leahy and Specter informing them that the President would invoke executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify about the firings. In addition, the letter cited attached documents from the Department of Justice to assert that Mr. Rove was "immune from compelled congressional testimony" as an "immediate presidential advisor" and would not even appear in response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena. On November 29, 2007, Senator Leahy issued a ruling that the White House's claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid. On December 13, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a contempt citation for Mr. Rove on a 12 to 7 vote, rejecting the White House positions on executive privilege and immunity.

As the Committee's investigation proceeded and as additional allegations and information emerged regarding Mr. Rove, Chairman Conyers, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez, and Committee members Artur Davis and Tammy Baldwin wrote directly to Mr. Rove, requesting that he voluntarily testify regarding the politicization of the Justice Department, including the termination of U.S. Attorneys, the Siegelman matter, and related issues. On April 29, 2008, Robert Luskin, who represents Karl Rove, offered to make Mr. Rove available for an interview only regarding the Siegelman matter and that would be neither under oath nor transcribed. Committee members responded on May 1 by rejecting Mr. Luskin's offer on the grounds that such an informal procedure would not generate a useable record and would only confuse matters further, and in particular pointing out that artificially limiting the inquiry to the Siegelman matter would frustrate the Committee's ability to get needed information on the entire subject of politicization. On May 9, Mr. Luskin offered that Mr. Rove respond to written questions, but again only with respect to the Siegelman prosecution. Committee members responded in a May 14 letter rejecting that offer as obviously unacceptable both because of the subject matter limitation and because a written exchange would not allow for the give and take and follow up questioning that is crucial to getting to the truth. In an effort to avoid the need for a subpoena, Committee members did suggest further accommodations to Mr. Rove, such as offering to provide a written initial list of questions that would be posed to him at a hearing. But on May 21, Mr. Luskin responded by merely restating his prior offers and declining to accept the offers accommodations. Because of Mr. Rove's refusal to testify voluntarily, Chairman Conyers on May 22, 2008, issued a subpoena calling for Mr. Rove to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10.

Subsequently, Committee staff had several discussions with Mr. Luskin whereby Mr. Luskin offered to have Mr. Rove interviewed without a transcript or oath, but at least without prejudice to the Committee's right to pursue its subpoena for sworn testimony. However, Mr. Luskin again insisted that such an interview be limited only to questions concerning the Siegelman prosecution. Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez wrote to Mr. Luskin to express their encouragement about the offer to be interviewed without prejudice, but reiterated that Mr. Rove must answer questions about the entire subject of politicization, including the U.S. Attorney firings and the Siegelman case, and was expected to appear on July 10 to do so. On July 1, Mr. Luskin indicated that Mr. Rove would decline to appear. On July 3, Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez wrote to Mr. Luskin urging Mr. Rove to reconsider his position and to appear pursuant to his legal obligations.

On July 9, Mr. Luskin again stated that Mr. Rove would not appear and attached a July 9 letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding, and two Office of Legal Counsel letters - one regarding Mr. Rove dated August 1, 2007, and another regarding Ms. Miers dated July 10, 2007. No more recent DOJ analysis of Mr. Rove's right to ignore the Committee subpoena was offered. Mr. Fielding asserted that Mr. Rove had "constitutional immunity . . . because Mr. Rove was an immediate presidential adviser and because the Committee seeks to question him regarding matters that arose during his tenure and relate to his official duties in that capacity." Mr. Fielding did not explain what aspects of the U.S. Attorney firings or the Siegelman prosecution relate to Mr. Rove's official duties as a White House aide.

On July 10, 2008, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee met as scheduled but Mr. Rove failed to appear. Ms. Sбnchez ruled that Mr. Rove's claims of Executive Privilege-based immunity from Congressional subpoena were not valid. That ruling was upheld by a 7-1 vote of the Subcommittee. A copy of the ruling was mailed to Mr. Rove's attorney on July 10, along with a warning about the possibility of contempt and a request for a response by July 16, 2008, as to whether Mr. Rove would comply with the subpoena. No response was received until July 29, 2008, when Mr. Rove's attorney again indicated that Mr. Rove would not comply with the subpoena but urged the Committee not to recommend contempt against Mr. Rove.

D. Testimony From Mr. Rove Is Essential For the Committee to Conduct Meaningful Oversight and to Consider Possible Legislation

The Committee clearly has authority under the Constitution, as reflected in Supreme Court decisions and Rules of the House of Representatives, to investigate and expose possible violations of law and abuses of executive power. As the Supreme Court ruled in the Watkins case fifty years ago, Congress has "broad" power to investigate "the administration of existing laws" and to "expose corruption, inefficiency or waste," or similar problems in the Executive Branch. The Committee also needs more complete information on the issue of the politicization of the Department of Justice to consider whether to modify or enact federal laws and to obtain support for any such necessary legislation within the Congress, the Executive, and the public at large. This is a well-recognized basis for authorizing Congress to conduct investigations and obtain executive branch information, as the Supreme Court stated in McGrain v. Daugherty.

E. Mr. Rove's Claim of Executive Privilege Based Immunity From Subpoena Is Not Legally Valid

According to the letters received from Mr. Rove's counsel, particularly his letters of July 1 and July 9, 2008, Mr. Rove's refusal to appear and testify before the Subcommittee on July 10 as required by subpoena was based on claims that "Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity" from even appearing to testify, and that "as a [former] close advisor to the President, whose testimony is sought in connection with his official duties in that capacity, he is immune from compelled Congressional testimony."

These claim were rejected by Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez in a ruling that was upheld by a 7-1 vote of the Subcommittee on July 10, 2008. For several reasons, as explained in Chair Sбnchez' ruling and below, those claims are legally invalid.

First, the claims were not properly asserted. The Subcommittee did not receive a written statement directly from the President, let alone anyone at the White House on the President's behalf, asserting Executive Privilege, or claiming that Mr. Rove is immune in this instance from testifying before us. Nor did any member of the White House attend the July 10, 2008, hearing to raise those claims on behalf of the President. The most recent letter from Mr. Rove's lawyer simply relies on a July 9, 2008, letter to him from the current White House counsel directing that Mr. Rove should disobey the subpoena and refuse to appear at the Subcommittee hearing.

The July 9, 2008, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove "is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties." As discussed in greater detail below, no general freestanding immunity exists for former presidential advisers and thus the proper course is to recognize claims of privilege only when properly asserted in response to specific questions during a particular hearing.

The courts have stated that a personal assertion of Executive Privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid. For instance, the District Court of the District of Columbia made clear in the Shultz case that even a statement from a White House counsel that he is authorized to invoke executive privilege is "wholly insufficient to activate a formal claim of executive privilege," and that such a claim must be made by the "President, as head of the 'agency,' the White House."

It should also be noted that even a formal claim of privilege, by itself, is not enough to prevent a private party from complying with a Congressional subpoena. In cases where a Congressional committee rules that asserted claims of Executive Privilege are invalid, the Executive Branch's only recourse beyond further negotiation is to seek a court order to prevent the private party from testifying (or producing documents). This is because neither the Constitution nor any federal statute confers authority upon the President to order private citizens not to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

The Executive Branch recognized this in United States v. AT&T, where the Ford Administration sued to enjoin AT&T, a private party, from complying with a subpoena from a House committee. AT&T recognized that despite the White House's adamant requests that it not comply with its subpoena, it nevertheless was "obligated to disregard those instructions and to comply with the subpoena." The President had no freestanding authority to prevent AT&T from complying. The same is true here.

Second, there is no proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear before the Subcommittee as required by subpoena. No court has ever held that presidential advisers are immune from compulsory process - in any setting. In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that presidential advisers, and even members of the President's cabinet, do not enjoy the same protections as the President himself. Moreover, since 1974, when the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon's claim of absolute presidential privilege in United States v. Nixon, it has been clear that Executive Privilege is merely qualified, and not absolute. Neither Mr. Rove's lawyer nor Mr. Fielding nor the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department has cited a single court decision to undermine these well-settled principles. Therefore, the proper course of action for Mr. Rove is to attend the hearing pursuant to subpoena, at which time he may, if expressly authorized by the President, assert Executive Privilege in response to specific questions posed by the Subcommittee.

Assuming that Mr. Fielding's July 9, 2008 letter to Mr. Luskin - and its attached materials from the Justice Department's OLC - sets out the case for Mr. Rove's claim for immunity before this Subcommittee, the arguments presented therein are wholly without merit. Most notably, both the letter and its accompanying materials from OLC fail to cite a single court decision nor could they, in support of Mr. Rove's contention that a former White House employee or other witness under federal subpoena may simply refuse to show up to a congressional hearing.

To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official is so above the law that he or she may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee's subpoena. As the Supreme Court explained more than a century ago, "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law," and "[a]ll the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

Even beyond the case law, the reasoning utilized in the OLC materials, authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, has no application to former presidential advisers. Each of the prior OLC opinions on which Mr. Bradbury relies, including the 1999 Opinion issued by Attorney General Janet Reno, covers only current White House advisers, not former advisers like Mr. Rove. This distinction is crucial, as all of the arguments purportedly supporting absolute immunity for current presidential advisers simply do not apply to former advisers. For example, the primary OLC memorandum from which all subsequent adviser-immunity opinions have been derived, authored by Chief Justice and then-OLC head William H. Rehnquist, reaches only the "tentative and sketchy" conclusion that current advisers are "absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by congressional committee[s]" because they must be "presumptively available to the President 24 hours a day, and the necessity of [appearing before Congress or a court] could impair that ability." The same rationale on its face does not apply to former advisers, and thus there is no support for Mr. Bradbury's claim that former advisers are immune from Congressional process. And even Mr. Rehnquist himself acknowledged that when White House advisers wish to assert executive privilege, they must first appear before Congress and then assert the privilege.

The 1999 Reno Opinion also reflects doubt about the matter, expressly noting that a court might not agree with the arguments for immunity and suggesting that the matter might in fact be resolved through some sort of balancing. Those doubts are most obviously demonstrated by the fact that, in the end, the Clinton White House did not stand upon the immunity argument made in this opinion but instead, on several occasions, allowed its current and former White House Counsel to testify.

Moreover, the fact that OLC has opined that former advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by Congress, is not entitled to any deference. Such an opinion, unlike that issued by a court, is not an authoritative formulation of the law. Rather, it is only the Executive Branch's view of the law, and is entitled only to the weight that its inherent merit warrants. In this instance, it is clear that Mr. Bradbury's memorandum was ill-conceived and its conclusions were properly rejected by the Subcommittee.

The White House's argument in favor of absolute immunity for Mr. Rove on these matters is remarkable for an additional reason. According to Mr. Fielding's July 9, 2008, letter, the White House believes that the matters covered by the subpoena relate to Mr. Rove's "official duties." If that assertion is to be credited, then apparently this Administration believes that Mr. Rove's official duties included the alleged pressuring of the Justice Department to criminally prosecute a political opponent of the President's party and also included ensuring the political loyalty of the U.S. Attorney corps and forcing politically unhelpful U.S. Attorneys to resign. While it is true that Mr. Rove denies at least some of these allegations, the White House claim that these alleged actions would fall within his "official duties" is disturbing. On the other hand, if the White House does not believe that such interference in the Department of Justice's prosecution function was an official duty of Mr. Rove, then either the claim of immunity fails on the Administration's own terms (because they claim the immunity applies only where official duties are involved) or they are actually asserting a total immunity from compelled testimony for Presidential aides on any subject and regardless of any nexus to the individual's White House responsibilities. That form of immunity, of course, would be even greater than that held by the President, as the Clinton v. Jones case makes clear, and should be rejected as legally unsupportable.

Third, the claims of absolute immunity directly contradict the conduct of this and past Administrations with respect to White House officials appearing before Congress. Only recently, current Vice-Presidential chief of staff David Addington appeared and testified before the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to subpoena, and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan appeared and testified without even receiving a subpoena. In 2007, former White House officials Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings testified concerning the U.S. Attorney firings before the Senate Judiciary Committee pursuant to subpoena. Prior to this Administration, both present and former White House officials have testified before Congress numerous times; a Congressional Research Service study documents some 74 instances where White House advisers have testified before Congress since World War II, many of them pursuant to a subpoena.

This White House's asserted right to secrecy goes beyond even the claims of Richard Nixon, who initially refused to allow his White House Counsel, John Dean, to testify before Congress, on almost exactly the same grounds being asserted now, but then agreed that Mr. Dean and other White House officials could testify.

Fourth, the claims of absolute immunity and the refusal to appear pursuant to subpoena and to answer questions from the Subcommittee directly contradict the behavior of Mr. Rove and his attorney themselves. When Mr. Rove's attorney was asked earlier this year by a media representative whether Mr. Rove would testify before Congress in response to a subpoena on the Siegelman matter, he responded "sure" by e-mail. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has spoken extensively in the media on the very subject the Subcommittee seeks to question him about: allegations regarding his role in the alleged politicization of the Justice Department during this Administration, including the prosecution of prominent Democrats like former Governor Don Siegelman and the unprecedented forced resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006. In addition, if Mr. Rove and his attorney are willing to submit written answers to questions, as they have when asked by Representative Smith, Mr. Rove should also be willing to answer oral questions with a transcript. It is inappropriate for former White House personnel to speak publicly about matters and answer written questions as they choose but then to refuse to testify before Congress under oath and subject to cross-examination on the very same matters, relying on claims of alleged confidentiality.

Fifth, and finally, especially to the extent that Executive Privilege is the basis for the claim of immunity as to Mr. Rove, the White House has failed to demonstrate that the information the Committee seeks from him under the subpoena is covered by that privilege. There is no expectation that Mr. Rove would reveal any communications to or from the President himself, which is at the heart of the presidential communications privilege.

In fact, on June 28, 2007, a senior White House official at an authorized background briefing specifically stated that the President had "no personal involvement" in receiving advice about the forced resignations of the U.S. Attorneys or in approving or adjusting the list containing their names. The Committee seeks information from Mr. Rove about his own communications and his own involvement in the process of the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys and related aspects of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Mr. Rove nevertheless apparently claims that Executive Privilege applies or confers immunity upon him, asserting that the privilege also covers testimony by White House staff who advise the President, apparently based on the Espy decision.

The Espy court, however, made clear that while the presidential communications privilege may cover "communications made by presidential advisers," such communications are only within the realm of Executive Privilege when they are undertaken "in the course of preparing advice for the President." But the White House has maintained that the President never received any advice on, and was not himself involved in, the forced resignations of the U.S. Attorneys. And there has been no suggestion that the President was personally involved in the Siegelman matter. Thus, the presidential communications privilege would not seem to apply here.

Moreover, whether such communications would even fall under the presidential communications privilege in the context of a Congressional inquiry is far from certain. The Supreme Court in Nixon and the Court of Appeals in Espy both expressly noted that different balancing considerations would apply when the communications at issue were sought by Congress on behalf of the American people. It seems odd that these courts would rule that a congressional investigation, authorized under the Constitution, carries less weight than a civil or criminal trial. More appropriately, such an investigation should be entitled to the greatest deference by the courts, as Congress is tasked specifically with overseeing and legislating on matters concerning the workings of the Executive Branch, and specifically the Justice Department.

For all the foregoing reasons, Mr. Rove's claims of immunity are not legally valid and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified.

F. Conclusion

The Committee should approve the Report on the refusal of Karl Rove to comply with a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee, which includes a resolution to be recommended to the House of Representatives providing that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress and that the House pursue other legal remedies to enforce the outstanding subpoena as appropriate.

Posted by doctormatt at 7:38 PM

July 22, 2008

Bush admin to place barriers on contraception

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health -
Read More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

Posted by doctormatt at 12:52 AM

May 4, 2008

Video - How to create an angry American

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

Posted by doctormatt at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

May 2, 2008

Ohio House OK's 28% cap on payday loans

Could it happen here?
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1209630837298850.xml&coll=2

Posted by doctormatt at 4:32 AM

April 4, 2008

The 3 Trillion dollar war

When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Americans were told Iraqi oil would cover the costs of the war and rebuilding. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed at estimates of $100 billion.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes raised a stir in 2006 by estimating the real cost of the war to be $1 trillion. That estimate has been tripled and the title of their new book is "The Three Trillion Dollar War."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/qna/forum/three_trillion_dollar_war/index.html

Continue reading "The 3 Trillion dollar war"

Posted by at 12:23 AM

March 22, 2008

Why the attack on Spitzer now?

http://rense.com/general81/why.htm

Continue reading "Why the attack on Spitzer now?"

Posted by at 11:54 PM

March 15, 2008

New House FISA Bill

The US House of Representatives on Friday passed another version of a bill to expand government spying powers while excluding a provision demanded by the Bush administration granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that have collaborated in the government�s illegal surveillance operations.

Continue reading "New House FISA Bill"

Posted by at 11:48 PM

March 14, 2008

FACTS: (1) The NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (2) The NSA asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Dear Mainstream Media -
Please stop repeating the lie that domestic spying began "after the Sept. 11th attacks".

Washington Post -
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal. Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Bloomberg -
June 30 -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

Continue reading "FACTS: (1) The NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (2) The NSA asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

Posted by at 11:31 PM

March 9, 2008

Video - Bush's lies leading to Iraq war

Posted by at 11:49 PM

March 4, 2008

Dems ready to cave on telecom immunity and domestic spying

Tuesday's Washington Post reports that House Democrats are close to granting all of President Bush's demands for more domestic spying powers and telecommunications amnesty, in exchange for, well, nothing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html?view=print

Continue reading "Dems ready to cave on telecom immunity and domestic spying"

Posted by at 12:47 PM

March 1, 2008

U.S. jails more than any other country

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator.

According to the report, the average annual cost per prisoner was $23,876.

Four states � Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut � now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_re_us/prison_population

Posted by at 5:34 PM

February 28, 2008

Bush, Congress Wrangle Over Domestic Spying

Former senior intelligence officials are disputing claims by the George W. Bush administration that the failure of Congress to pass a new foreign surveillance law is jeopardising the country�s national security

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7339/

Posted by at 5:36 PM

February 24, 2008

McConnell/Mukasey: Eavesdropping Outside of FISA Is �Illegal�

The White House yesterday escalated its most brazen, Orwellian campaign of the last eight years � shrilly accusing House Democrats of jeopardizing the nation�s security by allowing the Protect America Act to expire even though it�s the President and House Republicans who blocked any extensions of that law.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7243/

Continue reading "McConnell/Mukasey: Eavesdropping Outside of FISA Is �Illegal�"

Posted by at 9:56 PM

February 19, 2008

US Supreme Court Throws Out Wire-Tapping Case

What a joke. The judiciar

Progressive News and Views