Login Here
The best disinfectant for government corruption and bad acts is a healthy dose of sunshine. The public has a right to know if governmental leaders are lying to them -- and why they are lying. To that end, I say to Attorney General Mukasey -- release the transcripts:
...Mukasey announced today that he's appointing Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the Attorney General's advisory committee of U.S. attorneys.
Fitzgerald was on the committee from 2001 until 2005, but his appointment to it preceded his service as special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.
Fitzgerald's probing in that case led to the perjury conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby and earned the prosecutor the lasting enmity of the White House.
Gonzales, a former White House counsel, who as attorney general was sharply criticized for lack of independence from President Bush, did not re-appoint Fitzgerald to the advisory panel, which counsels the attorney general on law enforcement issues.
Mukasey still has a sticky call to make connected to the Plame case. He has to decide whether to allow Congress to have transcripts of investigators' interviews with Bush, Cheney and former White House senior advisor Karl Rove.... (emphasis mine)
In an Administration whose signature response to oversight is to stonewall and dodge, Mukasey would do the public a great service by releasing the requested transcripts to Rep. Waxman's government oversight committee. There are significant questions about the role that Dick Cheney played in selectively leaking a number of classified bits of information, among other things that have yet to be explained.
As Judge Walton said at the conclusion of the Libby trial, "Evidence in this case overwhelmingly indicated Mr. Libby's culpability." You think Libby put his ass on the firing line, dragging his family along with him through the ringer, because it was a fun time? Me, neither. And, given that whole "cloud over the Vice President" business that still has yet to be resolved, I'd like to hear what Dick had to say for himself, along with why Karl Rove is still playing "hide the blackberry" to avoid detection and accountability. Just for starters.
As Dick Cheney and his pals are so fond of saying, if you don't have anything to hide...unless, of course, they do have something to hide after all.
PS -- Best of luck to Judge Thomas Hogan. who will move to semi-retirement in May of this year, stepping down from chief judgeship of the DC Circuit. Judge Hogan approved our media passes for the Libby trial, and by all accounts has done a fantastic job with a circuit that is full of large egos, enormously important cases, and a whole lot of political wrangling -- not the easiest of tasks, which he and Judge Walton made look effortless during the Libby circus. I hope the step down is full of as much joy as he and his family can handle.(H/T to snowbird42.)
Share This 
Spotlight
Christy!
(deleted by author)
Zed?
Fitz !
Sunlight!
There’s a court transcript that already has some of the destroyed evidence recorded on it.
Won’t the next President’s Attorney General be able to release these transcripts even if Preznit Flightsuit pardons everyone on his way out the door?
I mean, I’d like to see the transcripts now, but won’t we surely be able to see them soon?
See 88, 92, 94, and 97 in the last thread if you you haven’t already…
TeddySanfran Hows the storm treating you up in the city?
Yes, Here’s to Sunlight!
Let The Sunshine In
Gore on FISA now:
http://www.koop.org/?page=sche.....ativeradio
Will Bush replace Judge Hogan?
Hola, Christy!
(To all the Spanish language grammar police lurking here, I don’t know how to do the upside down exclamation mark at the beginning of the sentence)
Will Bush replace Judge Hogan?
Good Lord, I hope not. He barely got his MBA, fer chrissakes.
heh.
Fitz!
Heh, heh! Well I can attest that you do share! So eCHAN thinks that to be a progressive you have to give up all competitiveness and shyly raise your hand if you want something? “Please, sir, might I have some more?” Good luck with that! My record I believe was five in one day. Three consecutive. It’s a dog eat dog world out there, Baaaby! *G* (Sorry, I’m still laughing!)
Can Judge Hogan replace Bush?
OMG Gore is on fire!!! Torture, Habeas…this is live:
http://www.koop.org/?page=sche.....ativeradio
Not necessarily — the Bush WH files will be sealed on Inauguration Day* and are considered property of the outgoing President. It will be left up to the former President (or those he appoints) whether to publish or otherwise allow access to those documents. (*and moved out of the WH)
As far as the materials generated in each of the Cabinet departments, some of those documents are or may be classified “Top Secret” and if you don’t have the security clearance, you aren’t going to see them. Considering how underhanded the current Administration has been, I would not put it past them to issue orders to shred anything that could reflect poorly on them…
Just thinking about this the other day and wondered if this issue was just going to go away. I remember when the first post went up here about this i commented “This is huge!” I still think it is and wish some MSM people would agree. But there are primaries and sad, sorry singers to chase to the hospital.
h/t to judge Walton. As you should all know, i’m not one to pick nits but I think he’s the Chief Judge of the US District Court for DC, not the DC Circuit.
Christy, just a minor correction.
That may be true of the Prez’z WH files, but I think Waxman wants the files of the Special Counsel.
Would a court order trump any of that?
1,716 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Thanx for the post but I am puzzled by this whole situation of evidence or information gathered from elected officials by a prosecutor investigating what turns out to be felony crime(s) committed during the normal course of carrying out the duties of office not being automatically available to the public at the conclusion of the trial. The exposure of all information and evidence should be automatic after perfunctory review by the trial court judge. I think that what we have witnessed in the last 7 years is a continuing case study in the limitations of our legal system and the sad truth that the development of our system of justice over the last 200 years has nothing to do with equal protection or the maintenance of “a rule of law.”
KEEP THE FAITH, DON’T GIVE IT AWAY!!
I know he does, I just think it’s more likely that OSC will shred those files rather than turn them over to Waxman.
“Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error… They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only… If [free enquiry] be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged.” –Thomas Jefferson
Can the Preznit use signing statements to stop this?
Really? Knowing there’s an outstanding request for them and, reportedly, Fitz was willing to turn over at least some of the stuff, you think he’d shred them? I’m doubtful.
“Mr. Mukasey doesn’t seem to understand the oath we take: we don’t swear to support and defend the Constitution OR protect the country. We defend the Constitution TO protect the country.” Chris Dodd, Huffington Post
Tell me, how much success has Congress had with its’ subpoenas?
Now, do you really think a court order will do any good?
(I wish I did.)
The better question!
LOL (well more of a chuckle. See, its all about confidence!
Please clarify–what’s the authority for this? Any way to over-ride? Anyone?
1,716DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Brisingamen:
Bingo!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY!!
You can find a transcript of this speech at this site: Truthout
It’s not quite literal as given; I think it’s the draft he spoke from.
Chris Dodd is one helluva Senator…one helluvan American…one helluva man.
Thank you to Chris Dodd for waging the effort and campaigning in Iowa. Multi-tasking is achievable and should be a basic test for the presidency.
Point taken. Back to lurking.
See 22, 25 & 28. Maybe Bris is right. We just disagree. I hope he’s wrong. Remember, “this is huge!” (and “take Hawaii and the points.”)
I think I read somewhere that Padilla is suing the war criminal John Yoo for depriving him of his rights.
Yoo should be in a cell for a long time.
-G
Right now, I think their goal is to keep any new embarassments out of the media until after the election. After that, Bush is just going to start shredding and pardoning and there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it.
And this would not be possible without the active assistance of Nancy Pelosi. I can’t vote against her, but I sure hope those that can make sure she answers for taking impeachment off the table. And I still wonder what Bush offered her for that. I still hold that a ride on Air Force 1 and a few minutes face time with a lame duck would be sufficient turn her into the Dem version of Abu Gonzo.
Boxturtle(I accept that we’re helpless. I think we need to plan on how we’re going to fix things next year)
Christy may you and all on the lake have a great new year.
How did we ever get to the point where the person we employ on our behalf,working on our property can hide what he’s doing and gets to walk away with our property(records)?
I myself would love to read the background discussions about the decision to claim executive privilege about the death of one P A T T I L L M A N . How many other GIs deaths has this absurd claim been made?
and another thing:
“Mr. Mukasey doesn’t seem to understand the oath we take: we don’t swear to support and defend the Constitution OR protect the country. We defend the Constitution TO protect the country.” Chris Dodd, Huffington Post
Perhaps Senator Dodd could share that statement with his erstwhile CT colleague in the US Senate…JLIE [Self].
Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the former president and the current president get to review White House records before they are disclosed. Either one can veto a release.
Happy New Year Christy! By the way did you get my Dec email?
Noted…I was thinking of the bigger picture. What else will they hide under cover of this act/provision/whatever it is…..?
Again, my question…is that an absolute veto? No way to over-ride? If so, shouldn’t there be [a way to over-ride]?
I think it’s okay to ask questions, cbl.
Here it is, via TheraP.
I see… I thought this was a new speech… I remember it now… oh well..
From the WaPo piece on Hogan:
Hmmmm . . . Lamberth . . . where have we heard that name before?
Looseheadprop noted that he is the former head of the FISA court, and wrote a great preface to National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, by David Kris and Douglas Wilson — a book she says every member of Congress ought to read.
Emptywheel had some interesting thoughts on Judge Lamberth as well a couple of weeks ago, noting his “oozing skepticism” of the government’s position in ruling that the Secret Service visitor logs are public, not private documents. Her adjectives describing Lamberth’s ruling are worth revisiting. Snarky, sneering footnotes, bemused disbelief of witnesses who suddenly can’t recall . . .
Good signs, if I read LHP and EW right.
my bold
this bold is too tame, the public MUST be able to find out, it’s more then their right, a right a person can willingly abdicate, this goes further then that, the public has a obligation, it’s their province not the governments and it’s mmore then a province it is thier responsibility, all of this goes much further then a right
The usual way to get access to the records of a former President is through the procedures outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. The problem is that the Presidential Records Act of 1978 trumps FoIA.
In theory a court order or Congressional subpoena should force them to surrender the documents — in practice, well, you’ve seen how much luck Waxman et al have had.
So the next AG would have to have the permission of the current President and the former President to release things…
Excuse me at 41 I forgot the space in PAT TILLMAN’S name but when I consider the raw criminal act involved of shooting someone in the face my hands start shaking and my head explodes. Sorry Mr. Tillman sir, R.I.P.
I assume they will hide whatever they can.. everything. I’ll have to go back and read Waxman’s statement but i thought hios request was directed to Fitz, so there should be something there. Maybe you’re talking about stuff in addition to what Fitz has and I wasn’t following that. then I would go back to my initial answer…. everything. they will hide everything.
I would love to see Dodd give the Dem response to the State of the Union on the 28th. Perhaps he could tear W a new one.
On this we agree.
The transcript on Truthout that yo linked to is from January 16, 2006
Am I confused here?
I got confused too. It was his 06 speech being broadcast, and I thought it was a new speech..amazing speech though!!
I think I could groove on the idea of Lambeth as Chief Judge in DC.
I’m wondering how the Senate passage (on 12-17-07)of the “Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act (S.274)… enhances the protection for federal employee whistleblowers” will impact the Bush loyalists?
…Passage of S.274 now sets the stage for a conference between the House and Senate to agree final legislative language. On March 14, 2007 the House enacted the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985), which expanded the scope of whistleblower protections to national security related agencies, permitted employees to obtain jury trials in federal court, provided enhanced protections for federal contractors and protected employees who exposed misconduct to their managers.
http://whistleblower.labovick.com/
Thanks! Off to read the links.
U.S. President George W. Bush told Reuters on Thursday he was considering a fiscal stimulus package to shore up the struggling economy but would likely not make a decision until his State of the Union address to Congress on January 28.
Last week McShitheel was saying the economy was going great guns.
The newest talking point comes from a poll that notes large numbers of Americans are happy with their lives.
Pus Limpballs says this means everything is fine.
Please, I hope they keep repeating this.
-G
Nice, real nice — the question is how far down the Bush Admin pecking order does the Kool-Aid consumption go?
The Loyalists will not blow the whistle — my hope is that there are lots of disgusted people with access to the critical information who will use the above legislation to show just what Bush has done to gut the USA.
Here’s what happened: I started listening and it seemed familiar. So I did a search, and while I was looking the radio gave the name of the speech, and when I put the name into the search, I found that it was the same speech I’ve been talking about for nearly two years now…the Speech at Constitution Hall on MLK Day 2006. I found a copy of it on Truthout, and when I did F3 and put in some of the words from the speech, I found where he was at in the speech and was able to read along.
I doubt that the choice for OSC is give to Waxman or Shred. He could just store them, which is what he appears to be doing at the moment. I don’t think he is opposed to turning things over to Waxman, at least not from the public statements I have seen; It’s the WhiteHouse who is forbidding him to turn over the transcripts.
He is an Executive Branch employee, and it is entirely proper for him to rat out the WH to Waxman rather than being insubordinate and taking it upon himself to turn over hte transcritpts after he was ordered not to do so.
OSC? These are records of the Court. They are not the private records of the Office of Special Counsel, which was NOT what Fitz was acting as.
Bush and Cheney COULD withhold their own records from the public, but not from an incumbent President. In addition, the incumbent President could appoint a designee (perhaps an individual who was to review the records for criminal acts) to serve in this role.
And the current Executive Order is simply THAT. It actually revoked a prior Executive Order made by Clinton. Thus it is not LAW, but an interpretation of policy. A new President could utterly revise any non-Statuatory elements and tell Bush and Cheney “Sorry, your Executive Order is no longer operative”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html
BTW, in case anyone wants to know, you can still find the actual video I believe. Just look for Gore & Constitution Hall & 2006. It was impressive. I’ve watched it several times even though it’s over an hour long.
Here’s the advisory committee of US attorneys via Wiki.
Hmm — OK, I was under the impression that OSC was being as obstructional as the WH. If that’s not the case, when do you think Waxman might get the info?
I was under the impression that an Executive Order has the same weight as a law? If not, I stand corrected.
And can someone explain just how GWB’s signing statements work?
right. that’s what i was tryin’ to say. glad we got an articulate guy here. But LHP, I think some people are talking about the possibility of getting things in addition to what OSC has - whatver they may be. I don’t think that’s really something to worry about too much and Mukasey’s focus is and should be on what OSC has. I still think this could be abig deal if msm would pay attention.
Well according to Bush’s Executive Order on Presidential and Vice-Presidential Records he has signalled his intent to stall until an order reaches the Supremes.
“Sec. 6. Right of Congress and Courts to Obtain Access.
This order does not expand or limit the rights of a court, House of Congress, or authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(A) or section 2205(2)(C).”
Hahahahaha! Not limiting? Let’s just see what he then says in his order!
“With respect to such requests, the former President shall review the records in question and, within 21 days of receiving notice from the Archivist, indicate to the Archivist his decision with respect to any privilege. The incumbent President shall indicate his decision with respect to any privilege within 21 days after the former President has indicated his decision. Those periods may be extended by the former President or the incumbent President for requests that are burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President AGREE to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.“
But, that being said, I suspect a current President could simply issue a more constrained Records Policy and the former President would really have no recourse. After all, Bush revoked Clinton’s Executive Order, and I believe that his policy could be revoked.
And I don’t see how any of this would relate to interviews in an investigation by the Justice Department for a Grand Jury investigation. Those are not records subject to “advice offered to a President regarding policy”.
He is an Executive Branch employee, and it is entirely proper for him to rat out the WH to Waxman
Did you mean to say that it is proper to not rat out the WH?
oh, my heart must be still till the day
OSC? These are records of the Court. They are not the private records of the Office of Special Counsel, which was NOT what Fitz was acting as.
What was Fitz acting as?
Permanent Vice President Cheney will not have his next puppet issue any such revisions.
If Bush does issue pardons as he is walking out the door….. can he state “pardoned” for any crimes or does he have to list specifics?
OT Bush at it again! Ya just gotta hate these Mfuckers!!
“Whats best for The rich and fuck the little guy and fuck security. Boy are we getting the best protection from this asshole!!
White House OKs Mexican truck program
Pilot Program Allowing Mexican Trucks Into U.S. Goes Ahead Despite New Law to Block It
http://www.rawstory.com/news/m.....42008.html
OT - I’m getting out of the hospital today! W00t! Could the MOD on duty please email me about helping Donita with The Spin I’m In today? The timing is working out poorly at my end and I need someone to help her with her post today. I hope to join in on comments later though, and I will see you all soon!
Both EOs and signing statements are administrative interpretations of how the Executive Branch will (or will not) carry out various laws.
For example, a law might say “All Executive Branch communications shall be preserved, and handed over to the National Archives at an appropriate time.” Different executive orders might then be drafted to say “OK, these items will be delivered every six months, those items every year, and those other items at the conclusion of the president’s term of office. This executive branch employee will coordinate things, that one will make sure that classified materials are handled appropriately,” etc.
Signing statements are designed for either public consumption (that is, speeches saying how great it is that Congress passed this fine piece of legislation) or for future court battles, so that the Executive Branch can try to offset any consideration of the “legislative intent” of Congress in passing the law with its own “executive interpretation” in signing it. To my knowledge, this second use of signing statements has never been tested in court. At this point, it’s just the vision of folks like Addington, hoping to be able to persuade future courts to respect BushCo’s disrespect for the law.
like so;
suppose a law said you could not murder someone
while signing that bill into law this president thinks he can add;
“but I can do whatever I want whenever I want no matter what”
and he believes his statement anoculates him from that law he just signed
I do not believe any of his signing statements have been challenged and I am afraid if alito and roberts have their way they will let the statement rule the law
Congradulations!! Hope all is well and you don’t have to go back later!
Great news!!!!
If Bush does issue pardons as he is walking out the door….. can he state “pardoned” for any crimes or does he have to list specifics?
If for nothing other than environmental reasons, I hope he just says “for any and all acts committed at the direction of the Executive Branch.”
If each and every illegal act has to be listed separately, a lot of perfectly good trees are going to have to die.
Thank you all for your support while I was in the hospital, the FDL family is awesome in times of need like that! I wrote a post at my blog Monticello about my release today for anyone interested.
seems as if nobody knows the real answer to this, Nixon was pre pardoned for everything even before crimes were charged
the consensus is that since the country wanted to move on they allowed that pardon to carry even though it would not have held any weight in court
the problem with that though is it could very well have created a social precedence and be upheld by alito and Roberts
of course they would add “for now and just for bush” the same way the courts did when they stopped the vote in Florida
Oops. apparently he was acting under the Special Counsel law. My error.
But I have no evidence that he would be authorized to destroy records that could be subject to future litigation. Certainly he has been reticent on releasing Grand Jury testimony to the public. My understanding is that the issue of releasing the GJ testimony of Bush and Cheney to Waxman’s Committee was under discussion. Legally it is in a grey zone and may require a Court Order, at least to establish precedent.
Can you offer a prior case where Grand Jury testimony was turned over to Congress without a court order?
Nit to pick (and a nit of my own to fix)
They are not records of the courtper se, Some are records of the Grand Jury which only the court can release, some are indeed records of the Specail Prosecutor (not OSC–my bad for repeating that)and some are records of the FBI.
Bush and Cheney’s testimony was not before the GJ. It was interviews, not under oath, with Fitz and his staff is my understanding.
***finifinito!***
Bris
OSC = Ofice of Specail Counsel. They invesigate allegations of violations of proefessional ethics within DOJ.
PatFitz = Special Prosecutor. A different critter
NOPE, Nope, nope.
Signing statemetn MIGHT have he same force as “legislative histories” of a law. But no more and possibly less. Further, if it contradicts the plain meaning of the statute, under the rules of statutory construction,it has no force at all.Though courts oftetn struggle to find an interpretation that does not result in a plain meaning conflict.
Bush is just lying through his teth
Nooo! Really? Bush lying through his teeth? Now who would EVER bellieve such a thing? /s
Fini! I’m SO glad you are doing well enough to get out today. That’s fantastic news.
First, it’s not OSC. Let’s just say Fitz or PAt so nobdoy gets any more confuse than they are, OK?
Second, the transcripts ReddHedd is referring to, are of NON GRAND JURY interviews conducted with the Pres and VP. According to Waxman’s last letter, PatFitz has already turned over other non-GJ material to Waxman. When he notified the WH that he was going to turn over thses transcritps, they forbade him to do so, so (god bless him) he tattle taled on them to Waxman.
It’s waxman’s problem to enforcehis own request, so I thinkPatFitz did the right thing. He cannot turn over the tapes in violation of a direct order to the contrary. His alternative would be to resign, and that still doesn’t get Waxman his tapes. So, I think Pat handled it very well.
No. I hope there aren’t any and I’m quiote sure Fitz is very scrupulous about not doing so. he’s turned Waxman (or Leahy?) down before. But i think what people are interested in - I am anyway- are documents, transcripts, notes, whatever from Fitz’s conversations with Bush & Cheney which were not before the GJ and were not evemn under oath(I don’t know if there is a transcript. Were those conversations transcribed?) Also, investigation interviews I don’t think Waxman is looking for GJ testimony. Some people (including me) are of the position that stuff from these interviews is not protected by GJ secrecy.
I whole heartily concur. So glad you have been discharged… and I can attest to the healing power of FDL both online AND in person with my NW Pup meetups.
Thanks, I am ecstatic to be going home finally. I cant wait to get home and be bored in my own crib!
Worth repeating during this election time, when Repukes invoke fear:
From Gore’s 06 speech:
“One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march - when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.”
yay! congratulations! you’re going home! just keeep getting better and better!
Sorry, I just realized I only answered 1/2 your questions.
Executive Orders are like the internal administrative rules an agency makes, only they apply to all relavant Exec Branch agencies. They are rules not alws.
Yeah. I think people are talking past or around each other ’cause I agree w/ every word you said. We’re not comming from different plaxces on this.
No, I meant is IS proper. He cannot disregard the order fromt he president, nor can he disregard a request form Congress. What he can quite appopriately do, is hand the conflict back to Waxman, which he did