Roots!

Cancelled checks and imbalances will be the Bush legacy. The Arthur Anderson Presidency.

rootz!

Peanut !

Ned !

Billmon has a great post up on why Tom Ricks used to be such a highly regarded stenographer uhh reporter by pentagon press people.

Wonder if shrub will attach a signing statement to the no signing statement report?

Christy,

Any idea why so few - if any - of our senators have taken a public position on S.2453 ?

Is it still in commitee?

It reminds me of something my mum used to say to me when I was a small child, along the lines of “where would we all be if we just ignored the rules we didn’t like?”

I was really surprised when I read about this first thing this AM.

Back when Reagan was president US Supreme Court nominees used to screen with both the ABA and the Association of the Bar of the City of NY (which I believe is the nation’s oldest or 2nd oldest bar association)

Presidents would withdraw support from a nominee who did not get at least a “well qualified” rating from both groups (and IIRC correctlyy there was a 3rd—Trial Lawyers? I forget)

Anyway, Reagan, said he was only going to consider ABA screening results. This set off a fury b/c ABA had been a total rubber stamp for WH and CitiBAr used to actually dig and do research on a nominee.

I quit ABA on the spot. I am glad to see they have finally decided to grow a backbone. Though I find it interesting that the counsel to the ABA committee (comittee counsel is usually the one who does all the hands on work) is on loan from CitiBar. TeeHee

where did my post go? Am I in Moderation? What did I say?

The Boston Globe has done some very impressive reporting in the last few months.

Don’t they know they are owned by the New York Times Company?

Of course, the “moderate” Republican enablers are doing their best to make sure that Bush holds on to the crown he grabbed: Sir Arlen the Craven offers King George “Get Out Of Jail Free” card as token of fealty.

The serious point–and I did have one!–is that this story (from the Baltimore Sun, of course, not from Pravda on the Potomac or Izvestia on the Hudson) is the first time I’ve seen the “retroactive legalization” meme hit the mainstream in the context of Bush’s unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping. (Gosh, remember when Barrons called for Bush’s impeachment over that? Happy, happy days…)

That’s very good news. I mean, everybody knows “retroactive legalization” is a sweet, sweet deal–and also, well, 100% un-American.

Oh, the other question to ask would be: What do these guys have on Specter?

Because, given the scale of Bush’s domestic surveillance programs, the short answer to that question would be: “Everything.”

Thank you for releasing my 9 from moderation purgatory

The idea of legislation allowing Congress to sue the White House over signing statements has also been floated by the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who has accused Bush of “a very blatant encroachment” on the constitutional prerogative of Congress to write laws. - from Charlie Savage’s article

Key word there being “floated” - Specter has floated many things. They all sink under the weight of his timidity.

WRT the signing statements, it would sure be a good questrion to ask the big dog at the candy store.

Specter: Flurd Toter

susan at 6 — it’s still in the judiciary committee. That’s what the hearing on Wednesday morning is about — mark-up and a vote in or out of committee. We’re trying to get out ahead of the bill as much as possible, before they expect it, to try and shape opinion before they’ve even seen the final version. As it stands now, it is a no go with me, I can tell you that — and I thought everyone would want to let their representatives know they feel the same way (if they do). And, since it is a down day in the Senate because nothing is on the schedule, staffers would be more amenable to discussing without being rushed. And Senators will arrive back in their offices to a pile of messages about the bill — all negative.

Babs was at the candy store (which turned out not quite so sweet as expected) — The Big Dog is playing the Palace Theater

Michael Greco (ABA) on Specter’s NSA prop (Crooks & Liars):

http://tinyurl.com/jkk2o

Looks kinda pissed off, too.

Both Pryor and Lincoln are in a holding pattern on S2453 as well.

Lest we forget Spector was on the Warren Commission and the author of the “Magic Bullet” theory. What do they have on him? Take a wild guess.

OT?

From the New York Magazine article:

Meanwhile, Lieberman is busily trying to make amends, going around the state bragging about the federal largesse he’s brought home, his kosher version of pork. “Joe serves on a major committee, Armed Services, that has a lot to do with the economy of the state,” says Connecticut’s other U.S. senator, Chris Dodd. “You don’t get that kind of seniority overnight. Do we give up all that for someone who would be the 100th senator?”

Huh? What is Dodd saying about his own clout? Isn’t he the senior senator from CT, anyway?

Just becuase:

One of Specter’s floater’s is still the ‘official’ version. Six Seconds in Dallas.

That bullet has such magic properties, it still floats.

Just sayin’…

Cuz it irks me so.

Connecticut Bob has his clip of Boxer and Lieberman up.

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/

Upper Left Edge @21,

My head just exploded.

I fired off another email to Boxer about Lieberman, and gave her some serious (though polite) hell about not responding to previous emails. Included the link to the YouTube Joe Lieberman sucks video hehe. Hinted that if she didn’t pull her head out of her nether regions, that Californians could do the same to her in 2010. Will keep everyone informed about any response I might get (not holding my breath though).

Someone was asking about the Feinstein sponsored thingy in another thread. I haven’t read her version, but having liberally peppered both her and Boxer over the years with emails and calls, I am certain her version would at least start out with more teeth in it. Feinstein is soft on a number issues, and blows with the wind on many more, but the FISA kerfluffle really got her riled up…well as riled up as she ever gets. Feinstein voting against the Spectre legislation is a virtual metaphysical certitude..Feinstein holding out her own legislation and insisting on it remaining toothful is also very very likely.

Other issues though, she is likely to just hold her finger up and test the wind.

I propose asking Charlie Savage to come have a discussion with us. Here is someone in the corporate media who is actually doing their job. What makes him different?

The Boston Globe has a history of doing good investigative work, that helps.

Does it frighten you that we know more about some pieces of legislation than the Congressional staff?

“You don’t get that kind of seniority overnight. Do we give up all that for someone who would be the 100th senator?”

Well, maybe Chris Dodd doesn’t want to give it up, but it isn’t up to him. It’s up to the voters, and a lot of them are clearly willing to trade the kosher pork for some honor and honesty.

oh! that video is delicious!

Finally! It’s time to start the “games”. Voting begins early here in Oklahoma tomorrow morning. Bring it on ‘homa…!

looseheadprop at 9: Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Bush administration announced when they came into office that they weren’t going to take the ABA’s recommendations on judges either. ‘Cause, you know, they’re liberal or something, just like everyone who doesn’t agree with the idea that the law must support right-wing ideology, regardless of what it actually says.

OT - lotus had the link from below to a piece on Ricks book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....95_pf.html

Scroll down and take a look at the info on the Tigris river episode. I remember the tiny driblets that came out at the time included, even then, the fact that a commanding officer worked with his men to engage in lies and cover up and never really had anything happen. Ricks fleshes it out way more than anything you ever read here.

Sassaman remained in command for months, an outcome that shocked Poirier, his fellow battalion commander.” When you have a battalion commander who leads his staff in rehearsing a story about a murder — and he’s still in command?” Poirier said in April 2005, shortly after he retired from the Army. “That’s not right

Keep in mind that as early as the 2002 Gonzales enemy combatants memo, the WH and DOJ were being warned by both the military and State Dept that these kinds of things were around the corner if the WH and Pentagon civilians (Rumsfeld/Haynes) had their way on this. Combat always has huge issues and war is all about atrocity. But you can’t have effective military self restraint vis a vis court martials and chain of command discipline when you have a CIC and DOJ who say “everything goes.”

The fact that we now have two former Deputy AGs and two former Office of Legal Counsel who are chomping at the bit to put Haynes on the 4th Cir Ct of Appeals after what he — and they — wrought, is awful. If you’re hitting the judiciary committee on Specter’s bill, it wouldn’t hurt to mention that the Haynes nomination should never be allowed out of committee as well.

fwiw

egregious :: we often know more here about legislation than the legislators do …

What amazes me is that those of us who hang out at sites like FDL and KOS and MYDD are suppposedly the far-out lefty liberal freaks. But in fact, we spend most of our time advocating for the most traditional of American values; respect for the constitution and the law, fiscal responsibility, cautious and sensible foreign policy.

The whole equation has been turned upside down– we are the real conservatives.

*ilson46201 at 30 -

Would you mind giving me a description of what happens in the video - I can’t see it at work!!!

I’m actually dying to hear what happened with Boxer.

Anyone else who wants to help describe the video - I would really appreciate it! Thanks and PROPS TO CT BOB AND MAURA!

FBI Arrest made at Hacker convention…. oh my, do we need to worry about domestic spying when it’s all this easy?

————————-

Ramban was due to explain how he’d dug up reams of data on HOPE delegate Rick Dakan (with his permission) after just four hours trawling through private and public databases.

“All I had given him was my email and name. He knew everywhere I’d lived, every car I had driven, and even someone else in Alabama who was using my Social Security number since 1983,” Dakan told the Washington Post. “He found all my friends, pictures of friends, knew about my brother’s criminal history.”

“hundreds of new laws….”

but wait, thought this was the party of ’small government’ ?!!?

“What do they have on him?”

what if all they ‘have’ is last year’s post election threat to remove him from his Chairmanship ??? this is no different than Holy Joe and his tantrums over his perceived sense of entitlement to his seat - same damn deal - these insulated, mollycoddled buffoons would indeed sell out the Constitution and our way of governing for something like a Senate Chair - look how quickly and cavalierly Specter tossed out his rep as ‘Constitutional Adherent’ to elevate Scalito to SCOTUS, tossing aside 20 years of support from Republicans for Choice without a second thought

All they need to ‘have’ are these overpaid toddler’s vanity

Wow! That video was great! “I almost shit myself”… wow, they must be very afraid to be this angry at us.

Babs was challenged on the rape-gurney question —Babes said she’s read about it — she said that Joe said religious hospitals must get them help and walk them for treatment!!!

not even the decency of a gurney but help them walk to another place?

One of my (private jetset) millionaire clients has a daughter who is intelligent and capable. She, older than her idiot brother(who reminds me of W), started running one of dad’s businesses early on and has proven herself to be an astute (some say ruthless) businesswoman for nigh twenty years.
The son nearly flunked out of an ivy league school, save dad kept buying new buildings for the institution. Now Dad bought the son his own multi-million dollar business for the son to run. Here’s this true story’s punchline:

The father said to me (regarding the son’s new business opportunity), “It’s time for Junior to see what it’s like in the real world.”

KInda gives me an idea of what life is like for people like Dubya.

If we decided to have ourselves a King of the USA, Dubya would be counted amoung the last men on earth - but, Cheney, et al, think its a marvelous idea.

Say No to Kings and Yes to Democracy.

The CTBob video is great. The two of them really reminded me of a lawyer and her client during the “perp walk” to the courthouse. Leiberman looking on desperately as Boxer, his “lawyer” answers all the press’s questions about her “client’s” indictment.

Specter, a man who faced death only a few months ago, could only be afraid of something worse-the loss of his chairmanship, perhaps? For a man who has survived cancer to be so timid in the face of this Administration defies logic. He surely couldn’t harbor ambitions of a higher office, but he might hold ambitions of more power.

Specter’s not scared of Bush (or Cheney). He’s got ambition, and truly calling bullshit on this Administration would kill any future plans he’s got, in addition to losing his chairmanship.

Still, for the life of me, I just don’t get Specter. He’s survived the big C, fer Chrissakes!!! You’d think that, for Specter, defending the Constitution would outweigh defending Bush.

And I can’t help thinking that if Bush were a strong, moral, just, intelligent leader, the country might be able to tolerate the spying, signing statements, backrubs, and wars.

But on further reflection, if Bush WERE a strong, moral, just, intelligent leader, we wouldn’t HAVE to tolerate the spying, signing statements, backrubs, and wars.

*ilson, I just assumed we already knew more than the legislators. They are busy, busy people!

anywho — that boxer/joe kerfuffle was while surrounded by other media who will also be reporting on it … of course, the story will be stepped on by the Big Dog in Town story …

“It’s time for Junior to see what it’s like in the real world.”

If that tanks, there’s always President of the United States.

whats cool is that thanks to Al Gore and the Information Interstate he invented, tonight we can watch snippets of the CT 6pm newscasts about the Big Dog and Dubya’s Lapdog

looseheadprop @ 11:12 am (#10) - If you have Javascript enabled (IOW, if you see the Preview and Refresh Comments buttons on this page), moderated comments are hidden until the next time you reload the page (IOW, hit ‘F5′). I don’t know why, and I don’t know if it’s always worked this way.

Mary’s 11:49
LMAO.

I just think it’s endlessly ironic that the biggest dumbass ever to hold the presidency, the man who is probably the least qualified to be president of all the men who have ever held the job, is the one who holds the most power of any president in history.

In the Jurist article to which Christy links, there is mention of and a link to the text of a bill sponsored by Specter with Feinstein as the sole cosponsor. The link doesn’t give the bill number. It is:

S.3001
Title: A bill to ensure that all electronic surveillance of United States persons for foreign intelligence purposes is conducted pursuant to individualized court-issued orders, to streamline the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 5/24/2006) Cosponsor: Diane Feinstein
Latest Major Action: 5/24/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This seems a more likely candidate for the bill her staff says she has. Per the Jurist article, this bill tries to address some FISA related problems instead of selling them out as does S.2453.

Yes Mary, 11:49,

You understand my point, exactly! :)

Spaghetti @50

Well he’s not really the most powerful. Like many monarchs before the Enlightment, the real power is quietly hidden behind the throne. Cheney et al are indeed wielding way more power though than they are qualified to…and way more than they should be allowed to.

spaghetti,

It is endlessly ironic and a sick joke. And an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

(edited by CHS: Like it or not, rape “jokes” don’t fly on a blog where one of the writers is a rape survivor. You want free speech to prove your point? Start your own blog and say what you like. But don’t think you get to say something like that here without me noticing it. Just FYI.)

Like it or not, it’s free speech.

Hugh at 11:58 am - Isn’t this just like the notion that AM talk radio goes way over the line precisely to make the somewhat less radical “mainstream” position seem reasonable?

Only in this case, it’s Specter giving Bush everything he ever wanted so that ‘centrists’ like Feinstein can then come along and offer a more “mainstream” gutting of the 4th amendment.

I just wrote Feinstein to tell her we already have laws on the books covering domestic spying, laws which George Bush chose to ignore and for which he should be held accountable.

babs oreilly 55,

That is poetry.

Good job, Christy.

Sorry, Babs O’Reilly. Rape “jokes” aren’t funny.

I think I’m glad I missed the “content” of #55…

Re Specter. The truth is, we have a huge mess. Specter is not stupid and he’s not likely as bad a lawyer as some of the committee appear to be (including Dems - I think Grassley is the only one who is not a lawyer - is that right?)

So think through where we are with the NSA program(s). For the “terrorist surveillance” program that was originally acknowledged, it appears likely that it required NSA employees to wiretap phones of US citizens on US soil with:

a) no warrant;

b) no follow up to FISA court during the 3 day allowed warrantless wiretapping.

Each instance of that kind of activity subjects someone to a felony count and to a civil penalty.

The only justification for not using FISA that was given was that there was a lot of paperwork (Gonzales) or “hey, we just couldn’t, but not bc of it being a lot of paperwork” (Hayden). We’re still on terrorist surveillance here - trying to help out Hayden, someone asked if it was bc it was more datamining (that program was still being lied about at the time) and he said, nope, nope, very ‘targeted’ program our terrorist surveillance program. Of course, he also said “nope” to a probable cause and warrant requirement standard even existing in the 4th Amendment, so fwiw.

The rationale for violating FISA has been — if al-Qaeda is calling, we want to know. But, no one ever has mentioned i) why FISA would disallow warrants for surveillance of al-Qaeda phone calls and when in the WORLD such a thing has happened, especially post 9/11 or ii) why they would not proceed under the 3 day freebie and notify the FISA court towards the end of that freebie so as to insulate NSA personnel from criminal and civil charges.

The only reason is that no one really gave a d*mn about the people asked to break the law - just making a power grab for the President.

So now what do you do? If the cases go up and the program is found to be unconstitutional and illegal under FISA and American citizens are required to know, if not the reasons and methods for surveillance, the fact that they were surveilled in violation of the law and the constitution — you have people at NSA looking at lots of felony counts.

So then what? YOu then have a situation where prosecutors, working for Bush and who no longer have integrity, credibility or ideologic interest in enforcing a law that has thousands of felony violations. Hmmmm. Not a great thing for the system to deal with, is it? So then what - new prosecutors who shuffle in in 2008? Or deals cut prior to 2008 to try to keep anyone from being prosecuted post 2008? A huge mess as far as the tattered remnants left for our DOJ and our system of laws — to have blatant historic violations of laws with no federal prosecutions.

It also won’t stop the civil suits. Also, some have raised (I’m not sure I agree) that the “adequate” OLC opinions might insulate from criminal prosecution -despite the plain language of the Constitution and the Statutes. And DOJ is still waltzing with the Yoo inherent powers issue and promoting constituional sellouts to the bench. What a an absolute mess.

But — do you WANT prosecutions? In general, I’d have to say I don’t. Think about what NSA and the people who work there accomplish, the stress of the job, and the assurances they were receiving. OTOH, do I know enough to know?

Maybe there absolutely ARE people who should be prosecuted bc they have gone beyond “if al-Qaeda is calling” (I’m still talking front liners - Hayden and Gonzales et al have not only broken laws, but betrayed trusts on so many different levels from private and one on one to public and overarching, that there’s really not an appropriate response for them).

That is, after all, what oversight and warrants are supposed to prevent. But what kind of a catch 22 do you want people who are working on national security matters in sensitive times to have to address? So that is the conundrum that DOJ has left.

A nifty little trap where, to uphold the law, you have to harm a front line of people who shouldn’t be harmed. If I had to dig deep and find a little credit to give Specter, it would be that he knows, legally, the outcome. He also knows, from a standpoint of integrity of our Dept of Justice and assault upon our intel employees, how devasting that outcome can be - no matter how it goes. Prosecutions after 2008, massive deals to circumvent lawbreaking before 2008, etc.

He is possibly trying to find a way to just dodge the whole thing with “get by” legislation until the cabal is out of office, then play with an real response after that.

Which is also a wholly immoral and corrupt situation that requires Congress also sell out.

It’s why I get so d*mn pissed at the lawyers involved. There is a clear, easy, legal answer. That answer means you stick a knife in a lot of people who don’t deserve it, or you crater credibility of our Dept of Justice entirely (like that hasn’t already happened).

Bush doesn’t “get in trouble” and the lawyers who have sat safe and played “let’s get Mikey to do it” based on specious legal arguments, when they know that they don’t have to worry about any of it coming home to roost with any of THEM serving out for felonies - they don’t “get in trouble.”

The only trouble is for the institutions of this nation and the people who serve them.

There are other solutions though. Specter just doesn’t want to deal with them bc they involve using that horrific thing - the subpoena, that they gave up for Lent after the Clinton admin. And bucking Bush.

Still — it’s a huge mess that isn’t “solved” by just saying NOW let’s follow FISA.

rambling fwiw

Was Boxer supposed to have yelled at Maura? Looks like she got irritated with her for interrupting or maybe CtBob didn’t get that part of it.

new thread, “the Boxer Meltdown”
Must See TV.

The Constitution — what a document. It will survive George Bush.

upper left edge @ 21 - I’m officially clueless, ask anyone. what do they have on him?

Great, now the ABA has finally awoken and “it speaks.” Now I ask, “Where the hell have they been for the last five years?” Only after they realized in the wake of Hamdan that Article 82 of the Conventions imposes a requirement on the them to ensure the laws of war are followed, do they open their complicit “yaps.”

I want to see action, not speeches. There are a few dozen lawyers in the DoJ they could take immediate action on today and have them disbarred. Translated, someone from the ABA needs to get their ass in gear and get Yoo, Gonzales, Addington, Keisler, Bybee, and many others disbarred.

This action will severely cripple this administration’s “brains.” Most of their “better thinkers” are located in the DoJ. They are the ones that keep generating the legal mumbo jumbo that translates into talking points.

Additionally, someone in the ABA needs to file an amicus brief to strike down S 2453: the Sen Specter NSA “compromise” bill.

Until I see an Amicus brief from the legal community outlining your specific concerns with this Specter Bill — that it is unconstitutional in that it targets specific litigation — you’re sending a clear signal: You would rather blog and promote your books, than ensure the Constitution is protected.

How would a patriot act? [Hmmmm] He’d get off his rear end, into the law library and craft an Amicus to put your arguments before the last forum that can do something about this: Your Judicial Branch. [Emphasis mine]

You’re an officer of the court, and have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, not your blog, and not your personal writing career. You’ve spent too much time coming up with excuses why your IP number does not does not match your roommate. It’s time to ask whether your talents are or are not going to be put to use where they count: In court, and ensuring this Specter Bill is struck down as unconstitutional.