Glenn Greenwald continues his sojourn in DC:
[T]he fact that we were able to obtain access to high-level staffers in the days before these hearings is an encouraging reflection of the growing recognition that the blogosphere is something they cannot ignore or simply use for their benefit, but instead is a substantive and genuine (and growing) force that needs to be recognized, respected and taken seriously. I think we need to look at this as a mid-range project, not something that will yield immediate, overnight results. We've had lots of successes in the past several weeks, with multiple episodes, in having a real impact on the establishment media and even what happens in DC. But it's going to be an incremental process.
(snip)
Specifically as to the NSA issue, Monday is only the first day and Gonzales (who will be under oath) is only the first witness (Senate Democrats are essentially unanimous that additional witnesses -- perhaps Comey, Ashcroft, Yoo and others -- need to testify, and Gonzales will likely have to come back both because they won't be done questioning him and because additional documents will likely be released by the Justice Department which they are currently trying to withhold). We should be able to build on the access and contacts we created this time by obtaining even more influential access for the coming days of testimony (I say "we" not in the royal sense, but because the meetings I had were enabled by the work of numerous bloggers and inside-DC types who want to help the blogosphere gain more access and influence).
Regarding the hearings themselves, I have a lot of trepidation about what will happen on Monday, to be honest. Democrats are clearly scared of this issue. They believe that Republicans are going to accuse them of "wanting to give Al Qaeda our playbook" (a phrase several different people used independently) and that those tactics will work to obscure the real issues here. They seem -- at least to me -- to be more frightened than impassioned, more worried about how to avoid looking like Al Qaeda allies than how to question Gonzales in order to prove that the Administration here broke the law and that it is intolerable for the President to break the law.
People have been asking what they can do to support Glenn specifically but the NSA hearings in general. One of the things the GOP machine does really well is have a network of people all across the country who are available for booking on any local radio or TV show at the drop of a hat to push right wing talking points. Over at Kos a diarist has a tremendous link to
local media in your area (by zip code) where you can find places to write LTEs and call in to radio talk shows. Let them know directly and succinctly that the wiretapping scandal is a matter of bipartisan concern -- people like Grover Norquist and Bob Barr know that the right to privacy is a fundamental American value and the President should be held accountable for breaking the law. That it is cowardly and weak for him to dismiss his critics as "terrorists."
You can then stop by the
SenateDemocrats.net site and let them know about it, since they're keeping track of media outlets that have been contacted. It's a great, grassrootsy way to counter Karl's army.
And we've now raised
$5625 for Ciro Rodriguez here at FDL.
I am so lovin' this.
|
I've said it before and will no doubt say it again, the best writing in the blogosphere on Jack Abramoff is being done by Mary Beth Williams of
Wampum. She has another amazing story up (this time at
Kos) about how Casino Jack ran a slush fund to pay off Republicans who provided cover for Gayle Norton and her attempts to keep the government from settling a case in which the Indian lands had been ripped off to the tune of $150
billion by oil, gas, mining and forestry industries:
Colorado native Norton is of the James Watt school of pillage the environment (she entered the Reagan Administration to work for him) and her entire career has been to forward the interests of oil and gas, mining and forestry industries. And in the West, that means easy access to cheap federal land leases, hundreds of millions of acres of land rich with natural resources.
A large chunk of those federal lands are Indian Trust Fund lands, taken into trust in the late 1800s via the Dawes Act, and leased out to industries, ranchers and farmers at cut-rate prices. The money was then to be managed by Interior and paid out to native landowners. Of course, that didn't happen - hence Cobell v. Norton.
The courts have ordered a full accounting of the Trust. Problem is, many of the documents were destroyed, including a slew of them under Norton. So the plaintiffs decided a few years back that the only way to get a real accounting is to audit the industries' books. That's what makes everyone so nervous, as plaintiff experts, having done some sampling, estimate we're talking over $150 billion in underpayments and fraud, along with interest, of course. Yes, $150 BILLION. And the pressure would be huge for Congress to force a repayment by the guilty. If not, then it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, as the courts have already ordered the accounts be properly audited and brought up to date. Hence, the concern of the oil/gas, mining, ranching, forestry and agriculture interests which use/abuse the land lease process.
So Norton did what she could to subvert the case, but as the heat was turned up, and the Administration losing appeal after appeal, she started pushing for Congressional Republicans to take the case and force a settlement. A settlement for a fraction of the potential amount, but one which would prevent an audit of industry accounts. Who is the chief supporter of a Congressional settlement? None other than the puppet of the oil, gas and mining industry, Richard Pombo. Twice Pombo has written legislation ordering a settlement (both times with no settlement figures, of course), but Delay intervened. Not because he likes Indians, but because he figures that it's safer to stall than to provide even the smallest chance the industry books will be audited. (Delay and most oilmen Congressmen voted against the original Indian Trust Accountability Act back in 1994 - only 36 Reps did.) So from 2002 to 2005, Delay ordered, despite a court order, that no accounting of the trust fund occur (or at least there'd be no funding for it, which, of course, means it doesn't happen.)
This is where Abramoff comes in. He was the slush fund operator. Indians thought they were paying Pombo and others on House Resources and Senate Indian Affairs, et al., for help with gaming issues, and Abramoff was in fact padding coffers necessary to protect the industry from auditing.
Think this is all too far-fetched? Just last week, the NYTimes posted an article on three months' of research into federal land leases (including Indian trust lands) and found rampant fraud and underpayment. In addition, numerous whistleblowers were fired, including Norton and Griles trustee for the BIA, who refused to testify before Congress that the Trust was fine. Accountants and fund managers were fired for doing a good job and finding fraud.
McCain and Pombo are once again pushing for a settlement, and in the increasingly hostile environment for Indians due to success in portraying Abramoff's tribal clients as villains, not victims, they'll most likely get it, at rock-bottom prices. And the industry books will remain safely closed.
And yet the Washington Post spends no small amount of effort trying to drag Democrats into the scandal, while this goes unreported. Norton has fired whistleblowers, and thanks to the efforts of the WaPo and others to smear the Indians:
McCain and Pombo are once again pushing for a settlement, and in the increasingly hostile environment for Indians due to success in portraying Abramoff's tribal clients as villains, not victims, they'll most likely get it, at rock-bottom prices. And the industry books will remain safely closed.
I have to say that when the whole Deborah Howell mess went down, the "Abramoff gave money to Democrats too" thing was actually the lesser target of my rage. The major portion was reserved for the shoddy, condescending, dismissive and downright racist way with which Steno Sue and others at the WaPo continue to characterize the Indian tribes and their involvement in this mess, and the result is stuff like this.
Mary Beth has compiled links to her research
here.
(graphic by Graham G.)
|
Ah it's so good to be back in Plame again.
In digging through the new documents, the first thing that struck me is that they are going full-bore to paint Fitzgerald as an obstructionist (worked for Tom Daschle, why not give it a try?) as they attempt a discovery fishing expedition. And although we always appreciate the appearance on the scene of Fitz's superior snark, this is no doubt one of the reasons Team Libby chose to release his
January 26, 2006 letter as part of their motions request this week wherein he openly scoffs at their efforts to do so.
Ding-dong Norah O'Donnell (she can write?) was ever so helpful on this front
this morning:
Fitzgerald's letter was responding to a request from Libby's lawyers for additional documents, e-mails and other correspondence the Libby team says is essential to mount a defense. Lawyers for Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the defense team has sought.
But if one actually bothered to
read Libby's Motion to Compel Discovery of Information Regarding News Reporters and Organizations (and here we feel adequately justified in jumping to the conclusion that this is beyond Norah's abilities), it is abundantly clear that Libby's request for documents relies on a complete misstatement of what Libby is actually charged with:
This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to June 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it. This information is important for a number of reasons. Most significantly, it relates directly to the truth or falsity of two alleged false statements by Mr. Libby: (1) that Mr. Russert said "all the reporters knew" about Ms. Wilson's employment status; and (2) that Mr. Libby "had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."
Is this all they've got? If so Scooter is the one in the bear cage and Fitzgerald is the one with the stick. Scooter is not charged with lying to Tim Russert, he's charged with lying to the FBI and the grand jury about what was said during his conversation with Russert. Fitzgerald never took issue with the substantive truth of what Russert and Libby did or did not say to each other, only that Libby's account of the conversation was different than Russert's. And the evidence supports Russert's version.
Libby's lawyers claim:
There can be no information more material to the defense of a perjury case than information tending to show that the alleged false statements are, in fact, true or that they could be the result of mistake or confusion. The government should not be allowed to charge Mr. Libby with lying about statements concerning what reporters knew about Ms. Wilson's identity, and at the same time deny him information that may establish one of these possible defenses.
Well I'll agree with that, and how handy it is that the government
didn't. Libby is not charged with lying about statements concerning what reporters knew, he's charged with something completely different. And Fitzgerald in his letter indicates he is having none of this dancing bs; he makes it clear that they are not entitled to information relevant only to defending Libby against charges that have not been brought against him. Norah does not mention this. Color us surprised.
The release of the Fitzgerald letter by team Libby is still odd, however. While it did obviously lead Norah O'Donnell down the bunny trail she would've gone there anyway with a whole lot less prodding, and the "obstructionist" bit was quite overshadowed by the news that some White House emails had been "disappeared." Which obviously leads to speculation about the Hadley email, and of course Karl Rove. You have to wonder what kind of games within games are being played here.
|
Stephen Colbert:
"You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the 1970s...But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think that's your way of saying 'thank you.'"
Clip at
Crooks & Liars.
|
I'm still doing a read-through of the re-released opinion on the Libby case wherein a large chunk of the previously redacted pages are now revealed. I promise to do a whole post on it soon, but I want to digest everything and put it into some context before diving into the finer details, and that is just going to take me a little more time than I have had the last couple of days. So apologies to everyone, but I'm working on it.
That said, it's an interesting read, and I'm trying to piece together the narrative between what we've known, what we thought we knew, some wild-ass speculation and whatever facts may now be included in the released information. It's been a wild ride through the Traitorgate case this week, but one thing is becoming more and more clear: Scooter Libby is a big, fat liar.
And he's not very good at it, either.
David Johnston of the NYTimes has some insights this morning on the opinion, including this little tidbit:
Not all of the previously withheld material was released. Several pages, which apparently contained information about Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, remained under seal. Mr. Rove has not been charged, but remains under investigation although his lawyer has expressed confidence that Mr. Rove will be cleared.
Oh, hello, Mr. Luskin. Nice of you to surface again for a non-quote. Isn't it amusing that the still-redacted portions deal with Karl?
Carol Leonnig of the WaPo, in an article titled "More Allegations of Libby's Lies Revealed: Judge's Report Shows Cheney Aide Is Accused Of Broad Deception" (good one!), details this:
The court records show that Libby denied to a grand jury that he ever mentioned Plame or her CIA job to then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer or then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller in separate conversations he had with each of them in early July 2003. The records also suggest that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he first spoke to Miller about Plame in June 2003, and that prosecutors learned of the nature of the conversation only when Miller finally testified late in the fall of 2005.
Scooter has been a very bad boy -- and Judy was helping him for over a year with her faux-martyred silence. The issue of whether a reporter ought to protect a source who has used her to commit a crime still looms large and has yet to be answered by the journalistic community, in my book. And with this Administration and its constant machinations, it's a question that is sorely in need of some answers.
Richard Schmitt in the Baltimore Sun calls the current Libby defense strategy for what it is: "I'm too important to be required to follow the laws. Laws are for little people." Oh yeah, that's gonna play well with a jury of his peers, isn't it?
Guess Scooter decided to take a page from the Bushie playbook: when in doubt, declare yourself above the law.
(Picture from
The Princess Bride. If you have not yet seen this movie, get thee to the video rental place. One of the funniest movies in the history of moviedom.)
|
Glenn Greenwald is having a really successful trip to Washington DC. He's meeting with key staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee members as well as media people and representing well for all of us, I'm sure. He flew all the way from Brazil on his own dime for this so stop by his comments and cheer him on.
On the Ciro Rodriguez front, we're now the number three fundraiser on Act Blue with one hundred donors giving $4417 in one day. That's incredible. And as if we needed more motivation,
Kos lets us know that his opponent Cuellar "worked with Tom DeLay ally and House Redistricting Committee Chairman Phil King to redraw Texas congressional districts and eliminate five senior Democrats from Congress." Just giving that guy a little extra grief alone is worth it, and you can do so
here.
It should be an interesting week. I have to say that I'm really looking forward to the Gonzo questioning myself -- with all the thunder and lightening my dogs haven't been sleeping so well lately and a 25 minute opening statement by Sam Brownback ought to do the trick.
Update: Digby has more on Cuellar and Crooks & Liars lets us know that Tom DeLay thinks all his woes are
due to an ACLU plot.
|
Ah it's so good to have
Dan Froomkin back, isn't it? And he does not disappoint. Compare and contrast to the usual WaPo BushCo. hem kissing:
President Bush's fundamental challenge as he tries to regain his political footing is that most Americans don't trust him anymore.
In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, for instance, 53 percent of Americans said they do not consider him honest and trustworthy. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found 52 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the public in making its case for war in Iraq. Serious stuff.
(snip)
And yet, when Bush faces the press corps -- either en masse, in a news conference, or in the occasional sit-down interview -- the central issue of credibility typically goes unexplored.
(snip)
It seems to me the trick would be for the next news outlet that gets a sit-down with the president to devote an entire interview -- a la Oprah v. Frey -- to the issue of credibility. And to be prepared with quotes and clips -- a la Stewart -- to force Bush to directly address the various inconsistent, misleading, or outright false statements that have peppered his presidency.
Such an interview could still be wide ranging, of course. It could cover the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; his descriptions of the run-up to war; his views of progress in Iraq; his statements -- and then silence -- about the CIA leak investigation; his concealment of -- and then questionable assertions about -- domestic spying; his promises for New Orleans; his stonewalling on the Abramoff lobbying scandal.
I could go on.
And in fact, with the help of you readers, I'd like to put together a series of sample interview questions for the president on the subject of his credibility. E-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com. (And I apologize in advance for not responding to each e-mail.)
It wouldn't even require the talents of a bully like Oprah, all they'd really have to do is ask a few pertinent questions and insist that Bush, you know, answer them.
I realize of course that the chances of this actually happening roughly approach those of me doing some command performance tapdancing at the Royal Albert Hall in the next week or so. But it does bring to mind that there were days not so long ago when we had a president who had not delivered such a thorough screwing to the entire country that he feared facing the people under anything but the most controlled circumstances.
How they palm off that Steely Eyed Rocket Man malarky with a guy who is consumed by fear at the sight of a black t-shirt is a mystery to me.
|
The inestimable and prolific Murray Waas adds yet another piece to the Traitorgate puzzle, catching a bit that I missed buried in the Libby motions. Posting on his
WhateverAlready blog, Waas says:
The information provided to Bush occurred in the form of one of the “President’s Daily Briefs,” a typically 30-tp45-minute [sic] early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services. PDB’s are considered among the most highly classified intelligence reports in the government, and are only provided to the President, and whoever he might invite to the morning briefing.
The information about Bush having been briefed about Wilson’s mission to Niger is contained in court papers filed in federal court. Attorneys for I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, President Bush’s former chief of staff and national security advisors, were seeking information about presidential PDBs from the special prosecutor, as part of a discovery effort to defend their client.
Waas also details even more information regarding his disclosure that Libby and Cheney were briefed by the CIA in June of 2003 that the yellowcake allegations were not credible -- and that Cheney continued to defend the yellowcake story as late as September of 2003 on Meet the Press. Lying wanker. (Add this to the reminder from reader Dover Bitch that
RawStory reported last October that Condi Rice had also been briefed on Wilson in June of 2003 -- the whole PDB/Presidential briefing story for the Preznit comes into some even clearer context in terms of WHIG involvement and dissemination of information -- so many questions, so few answers.)
Waas has more about the PDB issue and the Preznit
here. I look for this to be a bone of contention -- but only if Team Libby gets beyond the point that the content of the PDBs has nothing whatsoever to do with a client charged with perjury, false statements and obstruction, other than as a convenient means of throwing up a smoke screen to hopefully obscure the fact that their client, while formerly a busy man, was also a big liar.
Froomkin is especially good again today, with some links to Libby stories and many other goodies.
Mother Jones is carrying a new article from
Elizabeth de la Vega, in which the former US Attorney speculates about the sword of Damocles hanging over Rove, and why Fitzgerald will eventually wield it to Karl's detriment. The article is a great window into the mindset of prosecutors -- you can hear her disgust with Karl's lying machinations as much as you can imagine them coming from Fitz himself. (Or from me. Prosecutors are notorious for being utterly disgusted and severely angered by lyings sacks of crap. There must be something in the job that draws that sort of mindset into the fold, but there you are.)
De la Vega draws a very important distinction in how Fitz operates and how Rove does, and it is worth noting here because this needs to get much more discussion in this country. I hope she doesn't mind, but I'm going to do a more extended excerpt than usual, because it is a great example of the dichotomy of ethics and the utter
lack of scruples.
Fitzgerald's world is far removed from the world of expediency and personal advantage in which Karl Rove operates. In his carefully crafted statements during the FBI interview on October 8, Rove indicated an obvious belief that he could get away with spreading information about government employees for political purposes as long as someone else had revealed that information first, regardless of whether or not the information was disparaging or classified. He did not appear to be concerned with where the information came from, or even whether it was true.
Although it is astounding that Rove would blatantly describe such a despicable ethos (if you can call it that), it should not have been unexpected. In the world of campaign politics that Rove has so long inhabited, smears and personal attacks are designed to seem as if they were spontaneously generated. They can then wander around, undirected, until they finally curl up in America's living rooms like so many mysterious, uninvited guests. These intruders may be rude and destructive, but no one is supposed to be able to get rid of them, in part because no one is supposed to be able to sort out or pinpoint how they got there in the first place. Thus, although Karl Rove has lurked in the background of an unprecedented number of whisper and smear campaigns -- that, for instance, John McCain had an illegitimate child (a rumor spread during the Republican primaries that preceded the 2000 election), or that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian (a persistent rumor that was spread during Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaign) -- he has never been held accountable. And that is a state of affairs to which Rove became accustomed.
Rove has escaped responsibility for his sneaky campaign tricks because the candidates for whom he has worked -- most prominently, George Bush -- have had a stunning ability to accept, unquestioningly, the miraculous appearance of information that takes down their opponents. They had no problem about endorsing brazen dishonesty or the least interest in ferreting out bad actors in their camps. At the same time, opposing candidates have had neither the resources, nor the time to fully investigate the attacks before plummeting in the polls. Afterwards, of course, it was already far too late.
If you think for a moment that a man like Patrick Fitzgerald will allow a person who he believes to be guilty to walk free if there is anything that he can do to bring about justice against that individual, then you know nothing at all about what it means to be a true prosecutor. The bile that rises up in my throat at the thought of Rove's machinations -- through the years, but especially in outing a CIA NOC purely for political payback purposes (and potentially for the broader purpose of bringing the CIA to heel) -- I can't even describe it.
For Fitz and his team, having immersed themselves in this world for the last months and having seen how these people operate, the fiduciary obligation to the citizens of this nation taking a seat far behind the needs of political expediency for this President and his corrupt band of Machiavellian cronies, their ends justifies the means no matter what the damn cost methodology -- if you think for one moment that a man like Pat Fitzgerald and his staff aren't completely disgusted...well, you are just hopeless.
Read all of the above, and tell me you can't feel the downpour, the thunder of a storm gathering in the distance -- and tell me you aren't also looking forward to the deluge that will follow, the steady stream of cleansing rain. Here's hoping.
|
In the preface to their
new book, "Crashing the Gates," Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga acknowledge that last fall they took a long look at everything they had put together for their book to date, realized they were lost, chucked it all and started over.
After reading the book I can understand what fostered this sentiment. They had taken on the extraordinary difficult task of wrestling all the flailing tentacles of the right wing machine, as well as the horrible legacy of the past four years of George Bush's imperial reign, and tried to hone it down to a simple, direct message that was focused through the lens of their formidable online experience to forge a blueprint for the future of netroots activism. That they would suddenly find themselves sitting in a pile of unwieldy information is no surprise. That they would have the courage to throw it all out, regroup and refine their narrative to a 183 page dagger that cuts to the heart of the system most certainly is.
The book is a gem, a must-read for anyone contemplating the future of online activism, a subject that is certainly consuming pages and pages of blog space these days. Their outline of the extremely deep and well-developed GOP message apparatus is fascinating, and their examination of it as it worked to shape public perceptions around many events that should have played well for the Democrats is both enlightening and daunting.
But perhaps of even greater concern is their depiction of the DC Democratic consultant/interest group nexus that could really not do a better job of keeping their party in the minority if they tried. As disheartening as these details are to read, however, the book gives a clearer picture than anything out there to date about exactly what we're up against, its architecture and its weaknesses.
Crashing the Gate is
way ahead of its time; you'll no doubt see copycat tomes just catching up to it years from now. It does presume familiarity with a lot of events, personalities and online conventions that might make it a bit challenging for people unfamiliar with the blog world to fully understand, but it is so engaging and well-written that I don't think that would be a problem for any intelligent person whose first exposure to the world of political blogging and online activism came with this book. I myself really appreciated the respect for the reader that this style of writing displays; I didn't feel like I was always trying to scan through pages and pages of exposition that I already know all too well.
Sometimes I feel like I get lost in the day-to-day aspect of blogging and never step back to take the long view of what we're engaged in. This book does this superbly and if you're on my birthday list this year you now know what you're getting.
You can buy Crashing the Gates online
here through the publisher, at
Amazon
and also at
Barnes & Noble.
|
Eriposte at the Left Coaster is the premiere braintrust on the Niger documents. And
his take on the
latest piece from Murray Waas is well worth a read and a re-read. Both Waas and eriposte have been indespensible in filling in some of the Administration gaps on this aspect of the Traitorgate case, and especially on what Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby knew and did not know about Joe Wilson and his trip to Niger for the CIA.
But these latest pieces in the puzzle truly let the sun shine in on one very clear fact: Cheney and Libby knew, in June of 2003, that the claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium ore from Africa was false.
From eriposte:
In a nutshell, multiple aspects of what I had reported last year were confirmed by Waas' story and he adds the important additional piece of information regarding the CIA having informed Libby and Cheney in June 2003 about their recall of the uranium from Africa claim.
What does this mean for the Traitorgate case? It means that Cheney and Libby were well aware that Cheney's public claims of Saddam's attempts to obtain the uranium were false, that Wilson knew they were false, and to protect the Vice President's public credibility a political hit would need to be made against Joe Wilson to silence him and his criticism before the American public caught on to the fact that Cheney's pre-war claims could not be substantiated.
And that political hit was planned, beginning in June of 2003, and executed through a series of leaks to the press about Joe Wilson's trip to Africa and through an attempt to emasculate Amb. Wilson via releasing the information (also false) that his wife was responsible for his trip.
Apologists for this Administration have tried all along to say that this was pushback, that Amb. Wilson was lying, and have bought the Administration's line on this whole hog. But the bottom line is this: Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby have known since June of 2003 that there was no credible attempt by Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake from Africa, and they went forward with their political smear of Amb. Wilson and his wife Valerie to save their own careers and public personas.
Can you say conspiracy? I thought you could. For anyone who has wondered why Fitz went forward with limited charges on obstruction against Libby -- and why he has pressed them forward with such clear, factual lines, I have your answer: Libby is, indeed the firewall between Fitz and the Vice President and others in the WHIG.
Read
eriposte and
Waas back to back, and see if you don't reach the same conclusion. And then ask yourself what a coincidence it was that
e-mails from that same period have mysteriously failed to have been archived properly in the VP and WH systems. And then ask yourself how it is that so many reporters were contacted by
so many members of the WHIG with the same message over and over about looking into who sent Amb. Wilson on his trip and why.
And then ask yourself how all of this together can be one big coincidence.
NOTE: There are newly released legal bits from the initial Tatel opinion and severl other things I'm trying to sort through at the moment. There will be more to come today.
|
Scooter Libby and Patrick Fitzgerald will meet again in court today for
a scheduling conference and hearing with Federal judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby matter.
Libby turned on the charm this morning while entering the building, doing the full-court public opinion PR campaign by joking with reporters and sharing some coffee. Looks like it worked, because it got a mention
from the AP reporter covering the case.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, stopped for coffee and made small talk with reporters as he headed to a conference room on the second floor of the courthouse.
Nothing like the faux nonchalence of a defendant facing a completely inconsequential scheduling conference where nothing of import will be decided other than calendar matters to show that he's all confidence and charm. Or that he fully understands the manipulation of public opinion by faking things and getting non-questioning coverage of it...you pick.
A scheduling conference hearing like this gives the presiding judge an opportunity to get a sense of how things are going in the case, what problems are likely to crop up with regard to discovery or other sticky matters, and to set a series of deadlines and dates for further motions, arguments hearings, and all sorts of other
housekeeping matters.
Walton was not expected to hear arguments on motions that Libby's lawyers have filed over disputes they have with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Instead, the judge was likely to set deadlines for additional motions and schedule future hearings. He may also set a trial date....
The first part of Friday's hearing was to be public, with a second segment to be held behind closed doors.
In the secret session, Walton was to begin setting deadlines for evaluating what currently classified evidence Libby will be allowed to present to a jury in open court.
This is likely to be a fairly routine conference where the judge will lay out his view of how things should move forward, set guidelines as to what he will or will not tolerate in terms of pushing the boundaries of requests and motions, and set a whole lot of dates on the timeline moving toward trial. It is highly unlikely that anything of any consequence other than scheduling will be done, but I'll be keeping an ear to the ground on this just in case and will report back if I hear anything different.
If nothing else, maybe we can get some good Fitz news later today. Here's hoping anyway.
UPDATE: CNN's John King reporting that the Libby trial date has been set for January 8, 2007, with motions hearings on the classified material and other matters set throughout the spring and summer this year. The public portion of the hearing has been completed, and they have moved into closed session.
David Shuster reporting on MSNBC that Libby's team is arguing that Fitz is not providing classified materials, and Fitz is saying that he doesn't have a number of the materials requested because the WH has not turned them over to the prosecutorial team. And, aside from that, Fitz argues that a number of the materials requested are not even relevent to the matter at hand. This will be argued in motions hearings going forward.
Shuster is also reporting that the trial date is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 8, 2007. Ted Wells (one of Libby's lead attorneys) has another trial set in the Fall 2006, and that is one of the reasons that the trial schedule has been stretched to next winter, to accommodate his schedule. (This is very common.)
One of the reasons that the motions hearings are scheduled on a delay is that Libby's penmanship in his handwritten notes is so poor, that they have had to make provisions for Libby to go through his own notes and try and type them out so that both Fitz and his own legal team can interpret what they say. The judge acknowledged that Libby may not even be able to interpret his own handwriting, and they may have to make some other provisions for some of the pages -- but they will deal with that as they get to each segment.
More information as I get it this morning.
|
This, to quote Paris Hilton,
is hot:
A well-traveled photograph of U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar being embraced by President Bush prior to Tuesday's State of the Union address triggered a rush of Internet donations to one of Cuellar's Democratic primary rivals Thursday.
Within hours of a call to arms being posted on two liberal-leaning political blogs, the Daily Kos and Eschaton, former congressman Ciro Rodriguez's campaign received 263 cyber contributions totaling nearly $12,000, according to ActBlue, a Web-based clearinghouse for Democratic candidates nationwide.
“This may be billed as a Democratic primary, but in this solidly Democratic Latino-majority district, Republicans needed a Republican in sheep's clothing like Cuellar to have a chance of winning,” the Daily Kos blog post read.
Oscar Sanchez, a spokesman for the Rodriguez campaign, said the photograph of Bush holding a smiling Cuellar's head between his hands struck a nerve among Democrats.
“It really shows that Democrats want a real Democrat in Congress,” Sanchez said.
A spokesman for Cuellar, who has been criticized as too cozy with the GOP since his support of Bush over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, characterized the controversy as a “one-day story.”
Thanks to everyone who donated, we raised $1100 for Rodriguez today on this site alone. You can contribute
here.
No more faux Dems....
|
Andrew Bacevich in the LA Times:
IN HIS STATE of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush worked himself into a lather about the dangers of "retreating within our borders." His speech bulged with ominous references to ostensibly resurgent isolationists hankering to "tie our hands" and leave "an assaulted world to fend for itself." Turning inward, the president cautioned, would provide "false comfort" because isolationism inevitably "ends in danger and decline."
But who exactly are these isolationists eager to pull up the drawbridges? What party do they control? What influential journals of opinion do they publish? Who are their leaders? Which foundations bankroll this isolationist cause?
The president provided no such details, and for good reason: They do not exist. Indeed, in present-day American politics, isolationism does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication and a smear imported from another era.
Isolationism survives in contemporary American political discourse because it retains utility as a cheap device employed to impose discipline. Think of it as akin to red-baiting  conjuring up bogus fears to enforce conformity in the realm of foreign policy. In that regard, the beleaguered Bush, his standing in public opinion polls tumbling, is by no means the first president to sound the alarm about supposed isolationists subverting American statecraft.
I guess this is the latest broadside in the GOP meme wars. We're not commies any more, we're not granola eating liberals (hard to characterize Murtha as that), we're "isolationists." I imagine they dreamed up this particular me just for Murtha and the growing faction he represents, in fact.
No doubt this is poised to go on auto-repeat by the Mighty Wurlitzer.
|
This is absurd. A letter received by
mike4273 from NARAL over Lincoln Chafee:
Thank you for contacting us. As a pro-Choice American, your values and beliefs are at the core of our mission. We want to hear from you and appreciate the support you have demonstrated over the years to help make our online advocacy program one of the most effective and admired in the progressive community.
I have read your note, and I know you are not happy with us regarding our endorsement of Senator Lincoln Chafee. We did indeed urge senators to support extended debate on the controversial Alito nomination - and naturally, it's a disappointment when any senator votes against our recommendation. In fact, if you review the vote tally, you will see that we lost many pro-choice senators on the cloture vote -- not just Chafee. You should know that we did score both Alito votes, so the record will forever document each senator's ultimate decision on each vote. In other words, it's not being ignored.
But with so many relentless attacks on choice, and an anti-choice president determined to see this right taken away from American women forever, we must prioritize our work, and we need all the friends we can get. I do understand your frustration with Senator Chafee's vote - but he is a longtime ally and he has earned our endorsement. We treat him no differently than any other pro-choice senator - Democrat or Republican. I know we disagree on this one point, but our challenge is so monumental that I hope we can continue to stand together against our real opponents: President Bush, congressional leaders, and anti-choice senators who oppose us on every single vote.
Again, I appreciate the passion of your commitment to the fundamental freedoms we cherish. You are always welcome to contact us--with agreements and disagreements. I hope we can count on your continued support as we roll up our sleeves to achieve the common goals we share.
Best,
Nancy
What decade are they living in? Do they fundamentally not understand that a vote for cloture was a vote for Alito? That Lincoln Chafee was let off his leash by the GOP to vote against Alito when it was purely window dressing, and he did not back them up on the vote that counted?
I received this last night from reader Gosprey, and I want everyone to read it because I don't think NARAL or PFAW or anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle who thought this battle was not worth fighting understands this. This comes from
STRATFOR (no link, via email), so consider the source, but it's a good insight into how much the right had banking on an Alito victory:
"Recall, if you will, our view last fall that Bush was on the verge of a failed presidency. At that point, if he dropped below the 35-37 percent approval range, his core constituency would have been deserting him -- and that is something from which no president recovers. Bush hit the level and then paused. For about a month, his presidency teetered on the brink. Then the numbers started to rise and grew steadily into the mid- to high-40s -- which isn't great, but is out of the danger zone.
"For Bush, the very first step was to consolidate his base of support. He did a number of things along those lines, but the single most important thing he did came to fruition Tuesday -- Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. The Republican core consists of three constituencies: Social, economic and national security conservatives. Last fall, Bush was in trouble with two of these groups. The national security conservatives felt that he was not providing sufficient resources to the military, was stretching it too thin. But he had to nail down the social conservatives before he could consider anything else.
"That's what Alito's nomination and confirmation were designed to do. Social conservatives believe -- hearings notwithstanding -- that Alito is with them on their key issues. Whether he is or not remains to be seen, but that Bush satisfied this key constituency has been obvious. He stabilized them as soon as he announced Alito's nomination.
As Gosprey notes, if Bush had lost control of the base and his polls continued to sink we would have stood a much better chance in the fall of 2006. That the Democrats and the interest groups did not at the very minimum use this as an opportunity to flush out the blue state "moderate" GOP Senators and make them show their allegiance to Bush over any kind of progressive causes they pretend to support is inexcusable.
In
the Post article this morning, Ben Nelson pretty much woke up to ads in his local paper supporting Alito. Where were the local ads from the other side? Where was the campaign to put pressure on the Gang of 14, whose influence carried the day? That NARAL and others did not use this opportunity to give serious blows to Senators who do not -- make no mistake about it, despite all window dressing to the contrary -- support their agenda is so misguided it's ridiculous.
Says
Digby:
If the NRA had been in NARAL's position this past week, they would have ripped their support from Lincoln Chafee so fast it would make Trent Lott's hair crack. They know when to pull the strings. Chafee chose his gang of 14 cred over his pro-choice cred. That's all you need to know about him. He has shown himself useless to the cause and should be dropped immediately. This is a seat that can be picked up by a real pro-choice Democrat who isn't running as a bowl of lukewarm water.
I honestly can't understand what in the hell they were thinking. It's one thing to back Chafee to make the Democrats not take you for granted. It's quite another to continue to back him after he failed a monumental test. Now Chafee knows they won't press him when the shit comes down and Democrats see them as a spent and useless force. What a spectacular strategy. When forced childbirth becomes the law of the land, I'm sure they'll be able to sleep nights knowing they cleverly backed a man who played them for fools.
That NARAL continues to back Lincoln Chafee over his opponent who would not have voted for cloture is just wrong, and their continued defense of him indicates that they fundamentally do not understand the long game, and they have no perception into the nature of what they are up against.
You can contact them here:
NARAL Pro-Choice America
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.org
feedback form
NARAL is asking readers on
their blog what they think they should do. I encourage you to make your thoughts known, and please be respectful, we are fighting for the same ultimate goal.
|
In light of the abject, dismal failure on the part of interest groups like NARAL and PFAW to do anything other than sit on piles of cash during the Alito confirmation (and if anyone needs to stoke their rage on that particular front, read this article
from this morning, about which I'll have more later) a lot of people have been emailing me asking for advice on the best places to put their money. I'm sorry if I've been slow getting back to people because the answer is I just didn't have an answer; the thorough and shocking inadequacy of these groups we've all been giving to came as a surprise to me as well.
Today both
Atrios and
Kos have endorsed the candidacy of Ciro Rodriguez who is running for a congressional seat in Texas. His opponent Cuellar (pictured above in full-on Lieberman mode) looks ready, as Kos notes, to jump ship over to the GOP at any moment. Rodriguez is a
solid pro-choice Democrat and his primary is coming up on March 7. I've set up a ActBlue page for candidates worthy of support and donated the first $100 to Rodriguez myself, , so anyone looking to register some financial outrage against Democrats wandering across the aisle and and abandoning progressive values can do so
here.
|
Can't......stop.....laughing.
Read here.
Enjoy.
|
Bush at the State of the Union
on Tuesday:
The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative – a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.
The reality -- Bush
cutting the budget for the Department of Energy's alternative fuels research division by 15%, and laying off scientists working in the fields of biomass fuels, wind energy and other alternative energy source projects:
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.
First, the Preznit said we'd be
reducing our addiction to foreign oil, and
backed off that promise yesterday. Now we find he'd already cut the budget for the very alternative fuel initiatives he touted as potential substitutes -- before he ever gave the State of the Union.
George Bush: open mouth, insert false promises.
ThinkProgress has a whole host of other lies from the Bush Administration. For shame, Bushie.
At least we still have that whole Manimal thing. (Don't we? I still don't know what that was about...)
(Hat tip to reader tom for the heads up on the Bumiller article. Graphics love to
The DemStoreMonthly.)
|
Oh yeah, it was Stephen Hadley.
I've been going over and over the Libby motion filings in my brain since my first pass on everything last night. And Hadley's name keeps popping into my thoughts. Just why was Mr. Hadley so worried about being indicted? Could it have anything to do with the
improperly archived e-mails from the offices of the Vice President and Executive Office of President?
Pure speculation on my part. But it does make one wonder...Hadley was, after all, involved on one end of the Rove/Hadley e-mail that was missing for so long.
And I wanted to point out a great catch from
Jeff in the comments on which officials might have been the blabbers with Dickerson on the Preznit's trip to Africa:
As for Dickerson, it's unclear where Fitzgerald is getting his information, but note that he says they understand this, which suggests they didn't get the info directly from Dickerson's testimony. But here's what Dickerson, who was on Bush's Africa trip, wrote on October 31 2005:
More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position.
And here's Howard Fineman from last summer:
on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip.
So pretty obviously the government officials are Bartlett and Fleischer, though that still raises the question of how the special prosecutor understands that plural government officials talked with Dickerson, and why they understand it rather than being aware of it, as they are with regard to knowledge of the other reporters' knowledge. Does this come from Bartlett's testimony? I've thought that Bartlett was a likely suspect as Pincus' July 12 source, who we know has identified himself to Fitzgerald.
And then there was this comment from reader hello regarding the type of system the WH was using for e-mail back-up
as late as 2000:
Ok, searching a bit of history, the White House was using Lotus Notes as late as 2000 as part of a system called ARMS (automated records management system)....
"The White House likely will have to spend 170 days and $1.8 million to $3 million to reconstruct thousands of e-mail messages that are available only as raw data on server backup tapes, White House counsel Beth Nolan said last month in a letter to the House Government Reform Committee. "
So it seems even if the e-mail does not make it to the archives, there likely is a backup...
Well, that's quite interesting, now isn't it? As Davis X. Machina pointed out
last night in the comments, "the document retention rules for the White House were changed, and e-documents were made subject to the same rules as paper documents in '98." So the National Archives may also have some copies of things. Curiouser and curiouser, no? And that doesn't even account for the activity logs, as
Paul Lukusiak points out.
Really great work -- and examples of how superb our commenters truly are. Jane and are are so lucky to have all of you.
NOTE: Hearings currently going on in the Senate Intelligence Committee on C-Span, dealing with some of the domestic spying issues from the illegal FISA/NSA end-run.
UPDATE:
Digby has more on the archiving of e-mails. Good stuff, as always.
UPDATE #2:
Mark Kleiman has more on the broad discovery requests and Fitz's use of anti-graymail provisions of CIPA. And why removing e-mail is a very, very bad thing to do.
|
Eric Lichtblau is reporting in today's NYTimes that the Bush Administration is refusing to turn over requested documents, including pertinent legal memoranda, to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding their illegal FISA/NSA end-run. Shorter Bushie: "Screw you. Now what are you going to do about it?"
Here's a thought for Arlen Specter and Republicans on the Committee: step up to the plate, find out whether you do or don't have the cojones to do your job, and subpoena the documents. If the WH refuses to comply with the subpoena, hold them in contempt of Congress and throw someone's butt in jail until you get what you have requested.
I mean, really, enough is enough. Being a rubber stamp only gets you so far in life -- if Republican members of Congress want to do more than just draw their paycheck, take bribes from lobbyists and raise campaign funds, then they should start acting like members of Congress.
Let's be honest: Republicans outnumber Democrats on the Committee, so if there is to be any meaningful oversight as the Constitution requires them to do, then Republicans are going to have to get off their kowtow-ing butts and actually do their jobs. No amount of Democrats asking for things to be done gets them any closer -- Republicans have to stop being afraid of this Administration and stand on their own feet for this to be anything other than a sham hearing.
And to be clear: there are a lot of Republicans upset about the Administration's illegal actions. Some very conservative Republicans, like Bob Barr, Grover Norquist, Bruce Fein, and many, many others have been quite vocal about this issue -- because it goes to the heart of privacy concerns and other civil liberties that the Founders of this nation fought so hard to establish when we had our first revolution against King George.
What is the Administration so afraid of, anyway? If what they are doing is so okey-dokey, why hide behind a "we're not showing you what we did" cloak of secrecy? The Preznit is afraid that Republicans, who dominate the Committee, will play politics with his actions -- come on! Or is it that the Administration has known all along that their actions were illegal and stretched the bounds of law, and are now trying to avoid any responsibility for them? (I can count the Administration's acceptance of responsibility for errors moments on a coupla fingers, if that tells you anything.)
And the
Preznit's "white paper" is simply a bunch of hot air, and the Congress knows it -- citing actions taken by the Germans during WWII as historical precedent for the Preznit's actions isn't exactly confidence-inspiring on the legality front, now is it?
It's the "say one thing, do something illegal behind your back" Administration. Nixon had nothing on these Orwellian maestroes -- and it is about time the Republican-controlled Congress showed their hand: are you for the American people or for an out-of-control, unchecked power grab? (If you choose B, can the American public get a refund on all your publicly-funded paychecks, because you don't deserve them any longer.)
This is the moment where the rubber stamp meets the road. I'll say this: if Republicans in Congress hold liberty so cheaply that they are willing to give it away to the Preznit, then they ought not ever invoke patriotic symbolism again in the name of re-election.
Democracy and freedom must be fought for every day -- Old Glory demands no less of every single citizen in this nation. Our Founders understood this and were willing to pay with their lives to establish the liberties that we enjoy today. Are Republicans saying that which these patriots paid so dearly to purchase is now so cheaply sold in the name of an illusion of temporary security? If so, then Bin Laden and all the other enemies of liberty have won.
This is your chance, Arlen Specter and company: are you patriots or are you lemmings, willing to sacrifice our ideals on the altar of temporary power? You have subpoena power, use it. You are a separate branch of government, charged with oversight and having a solemn responsibility as a balancing mechanism against illegal actions and violations of existing law on the part of the Executive Branch. History will record whether you step up to the plate -- or whether you sat back and did nothing in the face of illegality.
The Constitution is more than a piece of paper, it is a living document that must be fought for every single day by those representatives whom we elect and entrust with the solemn duty to uphold our principles of democracy and liberty. Freedom is not free for the taking.
|
This afternoon the AP had a
few cooperative words on the Sheehan arrest:
Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" . . .
Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops  Defending Our Freedom."
Glenn Greenwald (and others from the comments) were on this earlier, and Glenn emailed the article's author, Laurie Kellman. I feel like the friggin' revision police these days, but I just went back to the article for the link I found that it had been changed. It now reads:
Young's shirt had this message: "Support the Troops  Defending Our Freedom."
Nobody wants to be the next Deborah Howell. Score one for the team.
But it's amazing what a bunch of trained monkeys the press have become, so effortlessly repeating right-wing talking points that they truly seem to have internalized them and made them their own. Peter Daou and Steve Benen have begun to
chronicle the frequency with which this happens and it's quite something to behold when you see it all lumped together in one spot. The words "steaming pile" come to mind.
I have to confess I am guilty of some of the same behavior, however. I am trying to practice what
Digby preaches:
People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or progressives than they were in 1988 and one of the reasons is that people like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don't want to be associated with it. It is one thing to criticize your brothers; it's another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don't just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.
Digby's right --
do not reinforce Republican narratives, ever. It's hard when you want to point out that certain Democrats seem to be...ouch...lacking critical anatomical parts, but the much harder task is to
find another way to criticize them. The GOP does a bang-up job characterizing the Democrats as weak, they sure don't need us to do their job for them.
Hey, aren't those some manly, rugged hairplugs on Joe Biden?
|
This morning's
NYDaily News held quite a juicy tidbit at the very end of a short article on the latest discovery request filings from Team Libby.
Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
Well, that doesn't sound good, now does it? So I have spent the day hunting down documents(and having them sent to me by reader angel SD and by
Jeralyn at TalkLeft, who had sent me some previous docs), and then reading and re-reading everything to be certain I'd gotten it the way Fitz was intending it...and I must say, these motions and responses and correspondence make for a veddy, veddy interesting read. (These documents are, unfortunately, not available as yet to link -- they were pulled from the Federal filing system, but when links become available, I will post them. I'll summarize and quote below to give you a feel for them.)
And I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with both
Jeralyn and
Kevin Drum that this missing e-mail trail is going to require a lot of inquiry, if it isn't already getting just that -- can you say destruction of evidence, conspiracy, obstruction and a whole host of other problems? I thought you could.
But let's step back from that for just a moment, and look at the whole of the motions and correspondence. Because there is a LOT there above and beyond the missing e-mails from the Vice President's and President's offices for certain periods in 2003. (Man, that felt good to type. I'm ashamed to admit it, but it did. It felt good.)
As
Neil Lewis reported in today's NYTimes, the most recent Libby defense motion outlines some of the avenues that Team Libby is contemplating as potential defenses should the case go to trial. It's the "my job was hard, so I can't be held responsible for my tired mind making me do illegal things like lying to a grand jury" defense.
The lawyers for Mr. Libby said that the conversations Mr. Libby had with reporters in the summer of 2003 in which he might have discussed Ms. Wilson's association with the Central Intelligence Agency "occurred in the midst of an unending torrent of meetings, briefings and discussions of far more urgent and sensitive issues, including for example, the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States," bringing stability to Iraq and the spread of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran.
Mr. Libby was "inundated from early in the morning until late at night with the most sensitive national security issues this country faces," his lawyers said, and the relative insignificance of his conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson "compared to other matters occupying Mr. Libby's mind at the time, bears directly on whether he deliberately lied (as the government contends) or made honest misstatements."
My hard job made me lie. Well, it's certainly an original defense tactic, I'll give them that. But, as Fitzgerald made abundantly clear in his correspondance (appended to the motion as Exhibits B and C), he's neither sympathetic nor gullible.
In fact, I'd say that both letters from Fitz are politely worded lawyerese for calling bullshit on the entire tactic. For example, when John Cline, in a letter dated 12/14/05 (Exhibit A), requests pretty much any piece of paper that Scooter Libby may have taken a breath near at any time in his employment and then some, Fitz responds on 1/9/06 (Exhibit B) by stating firmly that he will not allow a random fishing expidition without some show of cause as to why the document is deemed related to Libby's charges of perjury, obstruction and false statements.
On 1/23/06 (Exhibit C), Fitz again responds to further requests for document and other evidentiary production by saying "Nice try, but no." (Okay, he doesn't actually say that, but that's what he means.) One of my favorite bits comes at a time when Fitz explains why he is not handing Team Libby a copy of everything he has in this case because it is still an ongoing investigation, and because there is not, as a matter of custom, an "open door" policy of discovery in this circuit, and especially not in matters where classified information is so pertinent to the matter at hand.
As you are aware, your client has not been charged with a substantive violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793. Accordingly, your client is not entitled to discovery of sensitive national security materials pertinent only to a prosecution of a substantive violation of that statute. (Ex. C, p.1)
If you add in the words "moron" and "yet" in a couple of places, it becomes a much more amusing read, but you get a feel for the tone Fitz is using with Team Libby in that one snippet. And I can feel that veiled "but I will accommodate you on additional charges if you'd like to push the matter further" there, can't you?
On pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit C, we discover that Fitz has a substantial collection of notes and papers on the Wilson trip obtained from CIA sources and from the VP's office, and I get the impression that
the LATimes story about Libby's meticulous notekeeping and information gathering about the Wilson's may have been even more accurate than we all thought at the time. That's going to be interesting to watch play out at trial.
At the top of page 4, Exhibit C, Fitzgerald politely points out to Libby's attorneys that they misrepresented both what he has said to them and what he did in a motion to the Court, and that he does not take kindly to such misrepresentation. In no uncertain terms. Methinks that whole "Fitz doesn't like a liar" rumor that we've all heard is true...in spades.
In the middle of the same page, there is this revelation:
We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time Magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson's wife. Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11. (emphasis mine)
Sounds like that Presidential trip to Africa just got a whole lot more interesting, now doesn't it? And which official coughed up this hairball for Fitz and his team -- which must have been discovered after the January 18, 2006, conference call referenced in the letter? Sounds to me like the investigators in this case are still going full bore. And that the grand jury may have heard some new evidence along with playing catch up from the prior grand jury's work, if so. Isn't that interesting?
Shall we play a game of guess which officials (and note the use of the plural in Fitz's correspondence) opened their yaps to Mr. Dickerson? And whether Mr. Dickerson was the one who spoke with Fitz's team -- or whether Fitz has a mole on the inside of the WH? (Is that you, Karl, trying to save your hide again by pointing fingers at your fellow employees?)
Additionally, Fitz says at the top of page 5, Exhibit C, that they are working on the CIA referral and will likely hand over a copy to Team Libby in discovery. (Ooooh, and wouldn't that make for a good read? I suppose it is too much to hope that the initial CIA referral would become public, but a girl can dream.)
Fitz also refers to what is called 404(b) evidence (evidence of "other crimes") -- there is a long legal explanation for this, which I'll detail in a separate post later, but suffice it to say Fitz dangles out an intriguing tidbit: Libby disclosed information regarding the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and was authorized to do so by his superiors, according to Libby's own testimony to the Grand Jury. Fitz goes on to say that the NIE information was a basis for his discussion with Judy Miller on July 8, and that it is "inextricably intertwined with the narrative of events of Spring 2003," as Libby's testimony makes plain. Well, isn't that juicy?
Finally, we get to the big reveal of the day. As a sort of throwaway line, Fitz tosses out a live grenade to flush the game out of the underbrush, if there is any to be found.
We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed. In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system. (Ex. C, p. 6)
I have to say, I have no idea what that means in terms of the technical ramifications because I don't know what is normally archived or how it is done in the WH computer system. But I will say this: John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez and Andy Card have a chunk of hours to answer for between when the WH was notified and when they officially locked the system down from staff. And the fact that Fitz is announcing that he knows this in a letter this bluntly says he's holding one hell of a hand that we can't see.
It's going to be a fun few days to see whether anyone gets flushed out of the underbrush. Myself, I'd like to see a big, fat skunk get his hands caught in the cookie cache.
(The lovely photograph via
Mayhem and Chaos Photoblog. Hope they don't mind me using the image, it was so lovely that it made me want to curl up with a cuppa tea and a pile of reading material.)
UPDATE: Raw Story has put up the
Exhibit C 1/23/06 letter here (Download a PDF). (Hat tip to Valley Girl.) So now you can read it in its entirety.
UPDATE #2:
Georgia10 has more at DKos.
|
Just got off a post-Alito conference call with Ted Kennedy. I told him how much everyone appreciated the fact that he was willing to step forward and provide some leadership on a cause that we were all so passionate about. He thanked everyone for the great job they did showing up, and wanted us all to know that our faxes, phone calls and emails made a mark. He said Alito himself certainly noticed, and now he knows we'll be watching.
I also asked him if he'd heard about
Glenn Greenwald's work on the illegal NSA wiretaps that has had such an impact of late, and arrangements were made to get Glenn's information to him. I'm sure we can all expect much howling from the right to the effect that all the Democrats who dare to question Gonzo are unpatriotic, so think about brewing up some inspired LTEs and phoning in to your favorite radio bloviators to spread the good word that this isn't a partisan issue -- many conservatives are also extremely alarmed about what's going on.
It's high time the Malkins of the world were shouted down, don't you think?
Update: Stephen Parrish reminds us that
Grover Norquist himself opposes Bush's wiretap program: "You need someone who is a Republican to call the president on this," he said.
|
I've always been a big NARAL supporter, and I recognize that they do their job under tremendous and constant pressure from the right. Many Democrats are abandoning pro-choice values in order to seem less "liberal" despite the fact that most Americans want abortion to remain legal, which can only be attributed to the money and organization devoted to fanatically opposing their efforts. I believe in NARAL, I think they do valiant work. I give them money, I'm a feminist and I won't vote for a candidate who is anti-choice, period.
But something went horribly wrong with the
Samuel Alito nomination:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America surpassed its fundraising goals in the hours following Justice O'Connor's announcement," said President Nancy Keenan. Donors "are deeply concerned that President Bush will choose to further divide this nation by nominating a radical right-wing conservative."
Moderation is not the tone of fundraising appeals in the nomination contest. "This is big, people. Huge," NARAL wrote to supporters. "It's true, there is no freedom without choice. Without choice, we are not free."
Despite the fact that NARAL was whipping their membership into a checkwriting frenzy over the matter and money came flooding into their coffers for the express purpose of fighting this particular battle, NARAL waged no aggressive campaign against his confirmation. Over at
MyDD, Matt Stoller gives an idea of what a true campaign
would have looked like, but we saw nothing like that. Perhaps they thought the battle was already lost and not worth fighting, but they don't appear to have been telling people this when they were pumping them for money.
The fact is that Alito's elevation to the Supreme Court tips the balance inexorably toward the right, and yet in response NARAL sat on the war chest they had collected for the purpose of opposing him and did next to nothing. I was among those who
defended NARAL's decision to support Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island over his anti-choice opponent. I thought it was a bold strategy to tell timid Democrats who were afraid to commit themselves to the pro-choice cause that they better think twice about sucking up to the fundies. I don't think NARAL owes anything to the Democratic Party if the party does not support them, and it certainly owes nothing to Democratic candidates who refuse to defend their cause. But when the cloture vote on Samuel Alito was taken and Lincoln Chafee knuckled under and sided with the forced birth brigade, it was high time for NARAL to cut Chafee loose.
NARAL's Bush v. Choice website made
no mention of the cloture vote on Monday, surely the biggest blow to the pro-choice cause in this country since Roe v. Wade was decided 33 years ago. Yesterday after the final vote there was a
weak statement by NARAL president Nancy Keenan who said:
This persistent assault on our freedoms will not go unnoticed by an American public that overwhelmingly supports a woman's right to privacy as guaranteed by Roe. We intend to mobilize these voters to elect a president and senators who will defend and protect our personal freedom and individual liberties.
They did not bring up the fact that they continue to endorse a man who just voted against the protection of those liberties over two other pro-choice candidates who would
not have done so.
Their readers, however, noticed. From Katha Pollitt, in
their comments:
NARAL can start by NOT endorsing pro-choice Republicans. As the Alito roll call shows, when their party calls, they obey. Even supposedly feminist "republican for choice' Olympia Snowe. If the pro-choice republicans had backed the filibuster, Alito would not have been confirmed today. Whatever their private beliefs about women's reproductive rights, they are soldiers in the wrong army.
(
Note: Pollitt's comment has now been scrubbed from the website but I contacted her and she confirmed that she did, in fact, leave it.)Chafee's opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse,
sent him a letter challenging him on the Alito nomination:
In 2000, you pledged that you would never support a Supreme Court nominee who would put a woman's right to choose at risk. You failed to honor that pledge by supporting John Roberts. Now, the Alito nomination presents an even greater threat -- and it's clear that keeping this nominee off the Court will demand not only a simple "No" vote, but a filibuster as well.
As I travel throughout Rhode Island, I have heard the extreme concern that people have about the direction that President Bush and your Republican leadership are taking this country. This nominee is likely to tilt a narrowly divided Supreme Court in an extremely conservative direction. I hope that you will support a filibuster in order to keep your promise to the people of Rhode Island.
Instead of holding his feet to the fire, NARAL allowed Chafee to slither out by voting in the final vote against Alito, knowing full well this was a hollow gesture. Chafee pledged his loyalty to the Gang of 14 who collectively blocked the filibuster and effectively guaranteed Alito's confirmation. When the true test of loyalty presented itself, he chose to abandon his pro-choice friends and knuckle under to the Bush junta.
There are three more years of George Bush's presidency left to go, and the chances that another of the aging Supreme Court justices could vacate a seat is not remote. One of the best hopes of putting a pro-choice Senator in office who would not bend to fundamental extremists the next time around is in the progressive state of Rhode Island, and yet NARAL will not even address the concerns of its own membership on this front.
I tried to contact them to discuss this. I was told that a cloture vote would "probably not have a significant impact on an endorsement." (Since that time their PR person who handles blogs has contacted me to say she is not able to speak for NARAL. I asked to be put in contact with someone who
could speak for them, but nobody has contacted me.)
NARAL does much good work on behalf of the pro-choice movement, but their endorsement of Lincoln Chafee only serves to guarantee that people who will vote to confirm anti-choice judges will retain their majority in the Senate. Women bloggers like
Roxanne and
Amanda have been calling for NARAL to cut bait with Chafee since he supported John Roberts, but to no avail. As long as they continue to cling to this disastrous policy they are not doing their job as stewards of the money that hard working people across the country entrust them with to carry on the battle on behalf of reproductive rights.
NARAL needs to withdraw their support of Lincoln Chaffe, an endorsement that could tip an extremely tight race, and they need to do it now. To do anything else is to betray their own cause and undermine the very woman they purport to defend.
You can contact NARAL and tell them your membership is contingent on withdrawing their support for Lincoln Chafee and other Republican candidates willing to sacrifice the pro-choice cause in their loyalty to the GOP agenda:
NARAL Pro-Choice America1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.orgfeedback formYou can also contact these major donors who give significant funding to NARAL and let them know there are serious questions about this endorsement that NARAL refuses to address:
George Soros
Open Society Institute
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019, U.S.A.
Tel (212)548-0600
Fax (212)548-4600
contact form(no longer contributing to NARAL)
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
300 Second Street
Tel (650) 948-7658
Fax (650) 917-0546
inquiries@packard.orgMichael Finley, President
Turner Foundation, Inc.
133 Luckie Street NW
2nd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-681-9900
Fax: 404-681-0172
info@turnerfoundation.orgFree fax service
here.
And for those who have emailed me expressing anger about the NARAL donation envelopes they continue to receive in the mail, I suggest you write NO MORE MONEY FOR COATHANGER CHAFEE across the back and return them.
|
In the kabuki theatre world of GWB Productions, there is good speech (that which works with the stage direction of the event) and bad speech (that which does not make for good camera shots and must, therefore, be shut down).
You will no doubt recall last year's instance of free speech theatre,
the Purple Finger Brigade. (Not to be confused with
the Blue Man Group, which is a whole 'nother level of entertainment.)
At last night's State of the Union, there were two instances of free speech being shut down. Not because either person involved was being loud, or obnoxious, or even saying anything out loud. But simply because both women wore shirts with printing on them which stated how they felt at the moment -- and both were ejected from the State of the Union because their messages -- from opposite ends of the political divide -- would not look good on television for the Preznit's night in the spotlight.
It turns out Cindy Sheehan wasn't the only woman
thrown out of the speech last night:
Sheehan, a prominent foe of the Iraq war, was ejected just minutes before the State of the Union speech for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan. She'd been there as the guest of California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.
Also removed from the gallery was Beverly Young. She's the wife of Republican Congressman Bill Young of Florida, who chairs the House defense appropriations panel. Her own shirt wasn't anti-war -- it read, "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."
She tells the St. Petersburg Times she was sitting about six rows from Laura Bush when she was asked to leave, and that she then argued with police in the hallway. She says they told her they considered her shirt a "protest," and that she responded, "Then you are an idiot." And she says they told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan.
As for Sheehan, she writes today that she plans to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, can they just throw you out of the gallery like that? Well, I mistakenly said yes last night, remembering the signs that I had seen posted around the Hill the last few times I had been to watch proceedings regarding vocal and other protests, and a family incident that occurred when I was a kid and my mother embarassed me to no end by trying to get Sen. Byrd's attention to let him know folks from WV were in the gallery -- but I was unaware of a not-too-distant ruling that Glenn Greenwald graciously reminded me of from a 1997 case on free speech (that's why he's the 1st Amendment expert!),
Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (PDF).
Glenn has
a superb post outlining why the arrest of Ms. Sheehan was not kosher, to put it mildly, and presumably why the ejection of Beverly Young was equally egregious. I recommend a read if you are interested in this. And you ought to be -- in a nation where the President works this hard to stifle dissent and to so tightly control his surroundings that a supporter wearing a shirt which contained an unapproved message was ejected, too -- well, that just smacks of a whole lot of things that this nation has long stood against, now doesn't it?
In Beverly Young's case, her crime was sitting within camera range of Laura Bush in a shirt which wasn't PR friendly for the Preznit's message. Wonder how she and her Republican pals feel about free speech in America this morning? Oh, that pesky Presidential PR machine, gets in the way of so many little things like speaking your mind or having your own opinion or...oh, exercising your rights as a citizen and having civil liberties under the First Amendment.
In George Bush's America, your speech is free only when it doesn't inconvenience the President.
NOTE: From Urban Pirate in the comments:
Only Sheehan was physically removed and arrested, however. Beverly Young was simply escorted out.
I meant to make this point clearly, and failed to do so. Didn't want this to get lost in the analysis.
|
Tom DeLay's mail bag has been containing a whole lotta this lately:
Dear Tom,
Sorry I can't give to your defense fund. But I...erm..lost my check book, yeah, that's the ticket.
Signed,
Person Who No Longer Has to Kiss Your Ass
Now That You No Longer Hold the Hammer
Poor Tom DeLay, out of the power chair, and
running out of cash in his legal defense slush fund. Where are all those
big cash cows lobbyists people who owe you favors friends when you need them?
(Hat tip to reader aarrgghh for the story link.)
|
Before your client goes to trial, there are a number of items that have to be done to protect your client's rights, to be certain that you have all of the information you need to defend him from the charges he faces...and to cover your ass you have to do them all or you worry about being sued for committing malpractice for inadequately representing your client's interests.
Today, we see that the Libby defense team
has filed a motion to require a determination that Plame was, in fact, a "classified" employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. They argue that the answer is not yet clear ---well, of course they do.
Plame's classified status would be an element of any further legal action for Libby, should charges of IIPA or Espionage Act or Conspiracy be filed down the road. No attorney worth anything is going to concede that fact unless and until they are forced to do so. And of course they are going to try and force the government to produce documentation on this fact...because in those documents might be other information that can be used to
muddy the waters.
Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff urged a court yesterday to force a prosecutor to turn over CIA records indicating whether former CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment was classified, saying the answer is not yet clear.
The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations.
Oh, look. We have the throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks defense maneuver!
Sure, whether or not Plame was classified is an important point. But, well, in my mind, that was kind of resolved when the CIA filed its initial request for the DoJ to look into her disclosure to the press -- you know, the one where they asked for action based on their employee having been classified?!? But, what do I know...I mean, you can't expect the Director of Central Intelligence to know who may have been on the NOC list or anything, now can you? (/end sarcasm)
You want more evidence that we have a spaghetti defense going on?
How about this:
The defense said it also is seeking records of daily briefings from the Office of the Vice President to show that Libby was immersed in national security matters from dawn to dusk every day.
"These documents are material to establishing that any misstatements he may have made were the result of confusion, mistake and faulty memory . . . rather than deliberate lies," according to the papers.
Awww, poor Scooter Libby. His job was hard, and he got confused and called multiple reporters to plant a deliberate story about a covert operative who just coincidentally happened to be married to Joseph Wilson who pissed off the boss, Darth Cheney, by saying
that Cheney and his fellow war-aggrandizing cronies were lying sacks of dung.
Apparently, it was an accident that Libby
compiled a notebook full of information on Wilson. It was an accident that he
expressly called Judy Miller numerous times to chat with her about Wilson's wife, let alone all those other pesky reporters, fellow Administration employees and WHIG members to whom Libby bared his soul about the pain of Wilson being married to a NOC. (Never mind that this isn't the sort of information that you just share around the water cooler, even if the water cooler is in the West Wing.) It was a complete coincidence that Scooter Libby opened his mouth and lies fell out. Just a coincidence, that's all.
But the biggest thing about pre-trial motions to keep in mind is this: attorneys file them, because they get paid by the hour to do so. It's their job to think of every potential contingency that might be a chink in the other side's armor and, even if they think it has a snowball's chance in hell, to file the motion anyway in triplicate. (Did I mention the getting paid by the hour thing? The CYA against a malpractice claim? Yeah, I thought I did.) You don't protect your client by sitting on your hands -- you file motions, you make a paper trial so that you have a record for appeal later when your client has been convicted.
Scooter hired good attorneys. They are going to protect his rights and file all the appropriate motions. Because that is what attorneys do for a living. Attorneys file motions all the time -- on every subject that might even be tangentially related to their client's interest.
But that doesn't mean they have any real chance of winning those motions. That's a scooter of a different color altogether.
NOTE: Just to clarify, I'm going to pull this up from one of my comments responses to be sure people understand what I'm trying to say here. I'm only on my second cuppa coffee this morning, so perhaps it wasn't clear enough above, so I'll take another stab:
[T]here is always a flurry of motions. That was the point I was trying to get across. I've gotten so many panicky e-mails from people lately "OMG! Libby's team filed a motion! What does it mean?" -- thought I'd try and explain that there are ALWAYS motions. It's what lawyers do -- that's their job. They have to make a record, even filing the obvious clunkers, just in case of conviction to preserve the issue for appeal.
But the fact that a motion is filed on a particular issue doesn't mean squat in terms of whether the motion is actually an issue that merits further exploration -- it simply means that the lawyer is making a paper trail.
All this to say, there are going to be a lot of motions in this case. And in every criminal case. Because that is what lawyers get paid to do when they represent their clients -- file motions, protect issues, raise questions, posture, poke holes, whatever -- but filing a motion and winning a motion are two very different things. That's all.
|
Via
TBogg, we find a headline over at
MSNBC:
The Case for Joe Biden:
A long time political consultant argues that the senior senator from Delaware is the Democrat’s best shot.
Whenever anybody asks what should be done first when the revolution comes -- take out the punditry class (like Joe Klein) or the the political consultant class (like Bob Shrum) -- I am always torn. Tonight, for obvious reasons, I lean towards the consultants. Hard to say who does more damage.
Discuss.
Update: Tom, from the comments: "Good God. Don't kill Bob Shrum. He writes the best concession speeches in the business. We need such experience on the front lines."
|
AOL wants to know what you think. So does
MSNBC.
Update: Just so everyone knows -- The Crooks & Liars servers are down. They should be up soon with all kinds of Olbermann O'Reilly ass-kicking goodness.
|
John McCain clapped like a trained monkey. Cindy Sheehan
got herself arrested:
WASHINGTON - Activist Cindy Sheehan, who was invited to
President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, has been arrested, according to CNN.
Sheehan, who was invited to attend the address by California's Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), was reportedly already seated in the House chamber when she was detained, CNN said.
A Capitol police official reportedly said Sheehan had unfurled a banner, which is a violation of House rules.
Parents of fallen soldiers have been special guests at Bush's State of the Union speeches. But Sheehan was one invited guest he couldn't have been eager to see: Sheehan, gained international fame with her anti-war protest outside Bush's Texas ranch last year.
"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech, and reported arrest. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."
Think Progress is live debunking the speech.
Update: AP is reporting a
different Sheehan story:
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.
(graphic thanks to Valley Girl)
Update: Bradblog is posting updates.
Update II: Arianna will be on with Anderson Cooper.
|
SOTU open thread (
Think Progress has the text). Pay special attention to fawning bloviators, I expect they will really outdo themselves tonight.
Someone will say something ungodly stupid before this evening is over, and my cable just went out (big storm here in Oregon, dogs are terrified) so please let me know what I'm missing.
I like to think of it as one of God's random acts of kindness.
Update: MSNBC says Cindy Sheehan has been arrested at the SOTU.
(thanks to sans-culotte for the photo)
|
So how come CNN has three conservatives and one "progressive"
commenting on the SOTU? Personally I'd rather hear Bill Bennett opine about
pickin' the ponies.
And over at Orcinus,
David Niewert writes a letter to Maria Cantwell withdrawing his support after her vote on Strip Search Sammy. Good on him. They call it "vote trading." We call it "betrayal." Hardly seems like we're speaking the same language any more.
Update: The General lays claim to Cantwell's uterus.
|
Today is the final day to vote for the Bloggies. We've been nominated for
Best Political Blog. All our fellow nominees are excellent and it's impossible to make a bad choice with
Wonkette,
Kos,
Talking Points Memo and
Crooks & Liars also in the running.
Your vote will be critical in helping to determine who wins the coveted prize, a
right-wing Christian book. I think it is fair to say they did not anticipate the popularity of lefty political blogs this year.
|
How much money does the National Review pay Rich Lowry to be
deliberately obtuse? I mean, honestly? Where do I sign up for a job where all I do is repeat talking points and don't ever fully question what I am told by my Master Karl?
Democrats want to portray the FISA regime as readily stretched to encompass the spying program in order to accommodate their NSA Straddle. It allows them to denounce the program as flagrantly illegal, while supporting the program in theory, because with a little cover from FISA, it would be perfectly legal. Would that it were so easy. If the NSA program is compatible with FISA, surely the administration would avail itself of that law. It hasn't been reticent about obtaining FISA warrants, the number of which has jumped since Sept. 11.
To obtain such a warrant requires a showing of probable cause that the person to be monitored in the U.S. is a member of a terrorist group. There are two reasons for the administration not to go this route with the NSA program. One is speed. It takes time to assemble the warrant application and get the official sign-offs. The other is that the evidence for a showing of probable cause might not exist. If a member of al Qaeda calls someone, it doesn't necessarily make him a terrorist. The administration is monitoring the call anyway, and if evidence shows up to support a finding of probable cause, presumably then it will get a FISA warrant on the call's recipient.
Let's review, shall we? FISA is legal. Congress passed it as law in 1978. Following the FISA laws means that the surveillance you are doing is legal.
Not following the FISA laws, but doing surveillance anyway, is called "committing a crime." That is where the problem comes in -- and if Rich Lowry would have actually pulled his head out of Karl's ass long enough to turn on his brain, he might have considered the third and fourth options as to why the Administration hasn't been following FISA: (3) Because the conduct fo the Administration is so far outside what FISA and Congress envisioned as legal (as in wholesale data-mining of all US conversations), that they knew they would never, ever get approval for it, but they are doing it anyway; and (4) the Preznit feels like he is above the law and can't be bothered with following it.
If Rich or anyone else would like a review of how this whole mess has unfolded with FISA and the Imperial Presidency, from the initial revelation in the NYTimes until just this week, I've put together a handy reference to every Firedoglake article on ths subject. It's always good to have facts at your fingertips -- they get in the way of those pesky spin talking points every time.
Give Me Liberty, 12/11/05
Calculated Machinations and Lies, 12/11/05
Intellectual Dishonesty, 12/18/05
Let's Keep It Simple, 12/18/05
Gonzales Hits the Talk Show Circuit, 12/19/05
Mr. Pissy Has a Presser, 12/19/05
Gonzo the Great, 12/19/05
Brutal, 12/19/05
Yes It Is Just That Simple, 12/19/05
No President Is Above the Law, 12/19/05
Gotcha, 12/20/05
Cheney to the Founding Fathers:, 12/20/05
So, Let Me Get This Straight, 12/20/05
The Forever War, 12/21/05
Quick, Call the Snopes Folks, 12/22/05
L'Etat, c'est George? Not What the Founders Had in Mind, 12/22/05
Better Start Listening to Opposing Views, 12/23/05
How Many Wrong Numbers?, 12/24/05
Sunday News Round-Up, 12/25/05
Festivus Fun: Sometimes a Cigar Is Just A Cigar, 12/25/05
Shame on Yoo, 12/26/05
Watch What We Don't Do, Not What We Don't Say, 12/26/05
Oh Yeah, Completely Logical, 12/27/05
Not His for the Taking, 12/27/05
Tidbits, 12/27/05
Meet the Fan, 12/27/05
Around the Blogoverse, 12/28/05
Gettin' Ugly in Here, 12/28/05
Circle Jerks, 12/29/05
Of Cookies and Cable and Wannabe Kings, 12/30/05
Turning the Corner, 12/31/05
Share and Share Alike, 1/1/06
Fruit of the Poison Tree, 1/2/06
Trust: You Have to Earn It, Every Day, Part II, 1/2/06
Tapped, 1/4/06
Keeping Them All Up in the Air, 1/5/06
"Stoopit Laws", 1/7/06
The Imperial Presidency, 1/8/06
Of Spying and the Supremes, 1/11/06
Can you say "Illegal?", 1/11/06
Something's Gotta Give, 1/13/06
Living Up to Our Legacy of Liberty, 1/16/06
Challenging the Status Quo, 1/16/06
Heckuva Job, Bushie, 1/17/06
Poor Reflection, 1/17/06
Journalism 101, 1/18/06
Tapped Out, 1/20/06
George Bush: Hypocrite, 1/24/06
Brick by Brick, 1/25/06
Screw You Congress, I'll Do As I Please, 1/29/06
Comey and the Rule of Law Versus the Cult of Cheney, 1/29/06
We're Wide Awake and Pissed, 1/30/06
|
The vote has concluded in the Senate -- Alito is in as Associate Justice by
a margin of 58-42. Four Democrats voted for him, one Republican voted against.
Here's the
roll call list:
REPUBLICANS:Alexander (TN)-Y
Allard (CO)-y
Allen (VA)-y
Bennett (UT)-y
Bond (MO)-y
Brownback (KS)-y
Bunning (KY)-y
Burns (MT)-y
Burr (NC)-y
Chafee (RI)-n
Chambliss (GA)-y
Coburn (OK)-y
Cochran (MS)-y
Coleman (MN)-y
Collins (ME)-y
Cornyn (TX)-y
Craig (ID)-y
Crapo (D)-y
DeMint (SC)-y
DeWine (OH)-y
Dole (NC)-y
Domenici (NM)-y
Ensign (NV)-y
Enzi (WY)-y
Frist (TN)-y
Graham (SC)-y
Grassley (IA)-y
Gregg (NH)-y
DEMOCRATS:Akaka (HI)-n
Baucus (MT)-n
Bayh (IN)-n
Biden (DE)-n
Bingaman (NM)-n
Boxer (CA)-n
Byrd (WV)-y
Cantwell (WA)-n
Carper (DE)-n
Clinton (NY)-n
Conrad (ND)-y
Dayton (MN)-n
Dodd (CT)-n
Dorgan (ND)-n
Durbin (IL)-n
Feingold (WI)-n
Feinstein (CA)-n
Harkin (IA)-n
Inouye (HI)-n
Johnson (SD)-y
Kennedy (MA)-n
Kerry (MA)-n
Kohl (WI)-n
Landrieu (LA)-n
Lautenberg (NJ)-n
Leahy (VT)-n
Levin (MI)=n
Lieberman (CT)-n
Lincoln-n
Menendez(NJ)-n
Mikulski (MD)-n
Murray (WA)-N
Nelson (NE)-Y
NELSON (FL)-N
Obama (Il)-n
Pryor(AR)-n
Reed (RI)-n
Reid (NV)-n
Rockefeller (WV)-n
Salazar (CO)-n
Sarbanes (MD)-n
Schumer (NY)-n
Stabenow (MI)-N
Wyden (OR)-n
IND:Jefforts (VT)-n
|
From reader Rayne, in the comments, I find this
brilliant yet simple idea.
I got off the phone with Senator Levin's office at 5:30 PM.
THEY CALLED ME.
Holy crap, that's twice in a month that his office CALLED ME.
Stay on this, you guys. It doesn't take much, really. You need to call both of your Senators' offices and find out when they are going to be in your area next, find out who's setting up the even they will be at, insist on attending. Shake their hands, introduce yourselves, ask a good question, follow up with a detailed letter on the topic to their office.And you will get a call back. If you make a dent in their consciousness, you can make an impact when it counts, like during important votes.RIGHT NOW: Fax, email, call your Senators offices and tell them thank you for their Yea vote. If they voted Nay, then call and find out when you can see them in the flesh. They can't weasel out easily if you've been in their face.
Excellent idea. Let's all try out Rayne's advice -- and maybe we can get some amusing "Meet My Congresscritter" stories in the next few months.
|
Coretta Scott King passed away in her sleep last night at the age of 78. She was a tireless advocate of civil rights and nonviolent protest, and a testament to the notion that a single individual can help to move a mountain.
Mrs. King had a grace and an outward serenity that masked a steel core and a deep faith in justice and individual libterties. She carried on the work of her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., after his assasination on April 4, 1968, and she fiercely guarded his legacy in the years that followed the Civil Rights movement.
She was a pioneer, and a force to be reckoned with, all the while raising her children alone after her husband's death, and yet still finding the time to push forward the work that he had begun. Her legacy will endure, but she will be missed.
"There is a spirit and a need and a man at the beginning of every great human advance. Every one of these must be right for that particular moment of history, or nothing happens."
Thank you, Mrs. King. For showing us all how to fight on in the face of adversity, and to do so with grace and dignity.
|
Continuing its tradition of journalistic excellence, the
Washington Post sends its best and brightest to bash the blogs:
Elected Democrats and their liberal base are in one of their periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism. Under pressure from blogs and liberal groups, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday attempted an obviously doomed filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito -- and Kerry got only 25 of the 60 needed votes.
Don't worry Dana, we will unleash no swarm of "hate speech" upon your tender ears explaining the difference between 41 and 60. Nobody thinks enough of this particular mistake to impute you with any partisan motives.
Is there some sort of basic literacy test you have to fail to work at the Washington Post?
(hat tip Teddy)
|
One of my favorite websites on all the internets is Vinyl Mine, where Jim H. has his trademark "Coffee and Cigarettes" MP3 mixes. He's got a
Burt Bacharach fetish going on at the moment and one one of the mixes includes "Alfie," "The Look of Love" and "Raindrops." Another has a very good
Mice Parade track that I'm fond of, but somehow the Bacharach seems quite right tonight. Burt has, of late, grown quite
political.
And Wendy Wasserstein died today. Here's a piece from
the New Yorker she wrote in 1999 on discovering her true calling as a Shiksa Goddess.
Enjoy.
|
I can't say it often enough, it was a great effort these past few days. Time to relax and revel in the fact that your labors sucked much of the joy out of wingnuttia tonight, and that the "weak liberal" meme is dissolving even as the dittoheads piddle themselves silly over our bad language and righteous indignation.
And on that note, I highly recommend:
1. Hooking up with your local chapter of
Drinking Liberally and making the acquaintance of like-minded people over a few beers. From the minute I started reading blogs I made a real effort to meet other residents of upper blogistan and I've made some of the best friends I've ever had and I think it's saved what bits of my sanity the Bush Junta had yet to shred. There are Drinking Liberally get-togethers all over the country, not only in places like New York and Los Angeles but Walla Walla Washington and Ames, Iowa. Actually I don't drink but that never seems to matter, the topic of politics with like-minded people is quite intoxicating enough.
2. Watching Keith Olbermann. Not only is he the best newscaster on television, his program is a regular beacon of hope. It would be great to give him the ratings power to wrestle free of the restraints placed on him by management (they complain if he books too many "liberals" on the show) and it's a great way to say informed. Just make sure you change the channel before Rita Cosby comes on or she could start talking about porn and your dog might barf in your shoe (true story).
3. Seeing what's going on with the Democrats in your area. You can check out the
Democracy for America website where they have community meet-ups listed by zip code, and the
DNC has links to each state's Democratic Party. Nothing will be as effective in the fall of 2006 as boots on the ground.
Above all remember that the thing Karl Rove fears even more than Patrick Fitzgerald and vigorous physical exercise is people like us getting motivated and mobilized. So throw him a sleepless night or two and get connected.
|
The Judiciary Committee hearings on Alito were a real eye opener for me and I think for many others as well. Not so much because the members of the committee were in such disarray -- that's been going on for a long time -- but because as we sat here together and watched them collectively I got a sense in reading the comments that some seismic shift was happening, that people finally realized that enough was enough. Something had to be done, someone had to start agitating for change and it wasn't going to come from within the Democratic establishment.
I want to take a moment to thank each and every person who took the time to participate in the comments section on this and other blogs to voice your frustration and your willingness to do something. It really took me by surprise, I have to say, to hear people so engaged and ready to mobilize. This amazing move to fight this battle came from the ground up. DC pundits are feeling threatened, and many have tried to dismiss this as John Kerry's cynical attempts to manipulate the grass roots, but that's a mistake. It was a groundswell that swept me and other bloggers up and called out for direction, and somehow John Kerry heard that and he stepped into a leadership position and he gave it to us. He gave our frustrations a focus, he offered us a chance to stand up and fight regardless of the likelihood of success, and that was all we asked. He validated our efforts and he let people know that their voices were being heard in spite of the timidity gripping many of his peers.
I frankly think the passion of the netroots community surprised him. For those who want to criticize him for not acting earlier or better, I do not think he had any reason to believe that this kind of support was extant or that we would have his back. He put his neck on the line over at Kos and the Huffington Post, not knowing what was going to come back. The outpouring of gratitude that came back to him for his efforts was extremely moving.
Next time he'll know. And so will we.
We shook things up. People like Joe Biden and Barak Obama were extremely irked about being put on the spot. Diane Feinstein changed her vote, and it's entirely possible others did likewise and we just didn't hear it. We forced those who voted for cloture into publicly opposing us, and now we know where things stand. And everyone across the political spectrum knows we're here now. They are starting to get a glimmer of the kind of muscle we can put behind something we believe it. It was a great moment, a grand and noble fight and I am so proud of each and every one of you for taking part in it.
The next big battle on the horizon are the NSA wiretap hearings coming up next week. On February 6 the Judiciary Committee will begin questioning Alberto Gonzales. I hope everyone will stop by
Glenn Greenwald's blog and take time to look over his post on the points he believes will be the most important to cover during this process and to contribute your ideas. Glenn has a lot of people's ears right now after his work on the topic
made headlines so it's a great way to prepare for and contribute to something that's going to be very critical for all of us.
I don't think anyone can look at the Alito battle on the part of the netroots community and say it was anything other than a huge success. We proved we could show up and we knew how to fight for what we believe in, no matter the odds, just because it's the right thing to do. Your courage, your conviction and your fearlessness are inspirational.
If anyone's been looking for the heart of the Democratic party, it's right here.
Update: I'd also like to take this opportunity to invite the "lurkers" to join in the comments, people who stop by but haven't felt that the time was right to participate in the conversation. Please feel free to introduce yourself. The natives are friendly and the water is warm.
|
Here's the
list:
Akaka, Daniel K. (D-HI) Yes
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Yes
Allard, Wayne (R-CO) Yes
Allen, George (R-VA) Yes
Baucus, Max (D-MT) Yes
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) No
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT) Yes
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE) No
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) Yes
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO) Yes
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) No
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) Yes
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) Yes
Burns, Conrad R. (R-MT) Yes
Burr, Richard (R-NC) Yes
Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV) Yes
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) Yes
Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE) Yes
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI) Yes
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) Yes
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY) No
Coburn, Tom (R-OK) Yes
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) Yes
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) Yes
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME) Yes
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) Yes
Cornyn, John (R-TX) Yes
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID) Yes
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Yes
Dayton, Mark (D-MN) No
DeMint, Jim (R-SC) Yes
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) Yes
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT) No
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) Yes
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM) Yes
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND) Yes
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) No
Ensign, John (R-NV) NV NV
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY) Yes
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI) No
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) No
Frist, William H. (R-TN) Yes
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)Yes
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) Yes
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) Yes
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) NV NV
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) NV NV
Hatch, Orrin G. (R-UT) Yes
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX) Yes
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) Yes
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI) Yes
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) Yes
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT) No
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Yes
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA) No
Kerry, John F. (D-MA) No
Kohl, Herb (D-WI) Yes
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) Yes
Landrieu, Mary L. (D-LA) Yes
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ) No
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT) No
Levin, Carl (D-MI) No
Lieberman, Joseph I. (D-CT) Yes
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR) Yes
Lott, Trent (R-MS) Yes
Lugar, Richard G. (R-IN) Yes
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) Yes
McCain, John (R-AZ) Yes
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Yes
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) No
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD) No
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) Yes
Murray, Patty (D-WA) No
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Yes
Nelson, E. Benjamin (D-NE) Yes
Obama, Barack (D-IL) No
Pryor, Mark L. (D-AR) Yes
Reed, Jack (D-RI) No
Reid, Harry (D-NV) No
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Yes
Rockefeller, John D., IV (D-WV) Yes
Salazar, Ken (D-CO) Yes
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) Yes
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD) No
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) No
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Yes
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL) Yes
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR) Yes
Snowe, Olympia J. (R-ME) Yes
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Yes
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) No
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) Yes
Sununu, John E. (R-NH)Yes
Talent, Jim (R-MO) Yes
Thomas, Craig (R-WY) Yes
Thune, John (R-SD) Yes
Vitter, David (R-LA) Yes
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH) Yes
Warner, John (R-VA) Yes
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) No
TOTAL 72 Yes 25 No
Please, please take time to call, fax and email the Senators who supported us and voted "no" on cloture. Let them know that we appreciate them, and that we will remember this.
Thanks to everyone who participated. You're amazing. We showed up. We fought hard. And this is only the beginning.
Contact information
here.
|
On Alito for cloture:
Aye 72
Nay 25
Okay, so it's obvious there is cloture today. It sucks. But it happens in the big leagues that sometimes you lose an inning. That doesn't mean you stop playing, it just means you take a deep breath and go back to the dugout for some fresh plays.
All this Faxing and phone calling and e-mailing...has scared the bejeebers out of
the Washington establishment over the last couple of weeks. You know why? It came from a true grassroots movement. From anger, from true concern, from patriotism -- from a wellspring of individual citizens who cared enough about their nation to get off their butts and do something.
That is a lot of power waiting to be harnassed, folks.
And the powers that be that have controlled Washington, D.C., aren't the ones in the driver's seat of this vehicle. The citizens of this nation are. Something out of their control entirely -- a group of angry citizens who know how to use communications tools, and who aren't going to just sit by and be silent any longer.
If they think the Alito battle is the only one we're willing to fight, they can think again. This was merely the first skirmish.
Ralph Reed can take his mis-used, duped letter writing brigade -- because I'll take a well-informed, personally invested, intelligent and motivated group of people like every single one of our readers any day of the week.
You think we're just going to slink away, tail between our legs and wallow in a little setback? Hell no. Here's the news of the day: the American public is wide awake. And we're pissed.
And we're gearing up for the next round. Oh, George? FISA/NSA hearings begin on February 6th -- and
Glenn Greenwald has some questions for you.
That's as good a place to start as any. Who's with me?
(Oh, and if you are in need of more Shakespeare, try Henry V's
"Once more unto the breach" speech. It's a good one for today as well.)
|
The cloture
vote begins.
From Shakespeare's great Henry V, 1599:
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
|
The announcement this morning that Lincoln Chaffee would vote "no" on Alito but "yes" on cloture was a hollow gesture to NARAL and the pro-choice community he pretends to cultivate. A vote for cloture is a vote for Alito. It's that simple.
I write this post with great regret because I am a long time supporter of NARAL, an unabashed feminist and pro-choice advocate who understood why they backed Chaffee in the first place. As Democrats quickly tried to shed a commitment to choice in a rush to become "Republican lite," it was a way for NARAL to say don't take us for granted -- don't assume we will be here just because the other guy is worse. I thought it was an effective way to telegraph to Democrats that if they wanted the tremendous money and resources NARAL could put behind a candidate, they were going to have to take a stand.
I just got off the phone with NARAL and I am being told that they do not consider Chaffee's vote on cloture to be significant. They are not going to pull their support for him over this.
Let's just be clear. Lincoln Chaffee is getting ready to vote for the single biggest blow to choice in this country since Roe v. Wade was passed 33 years ago. This ridiculous little kabuki about voting AGAINST Alito and FOR cloture is a sham, and if NARAL is going to look the other way they no longer deserve to be the guardians of a woman's right to choose in this country.
They had the money. They had the manpower. They did not organize effectively to oppose Alito's confirmation, and now they are rubber stamping his ascendancy to the Supreme Court.
I don't want to take people's efforts away from calling their Senators and keeping the pressure on as we come down to the wire, but watching groups like NARAL sit this one out is unacceptable. They should be calling Chafee right now and letting him know that they will cut him off if he throws his vote with the Gang of 14. Anything less is unacceptable, and a mockery of everything they purport to stand for.
NARAL Pro-Choice America1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.orgfeedback formUpdate: Georgia10 at Kos says ditto that.
Update II: Meteor Blades, from
the comments: "Some of us can multitask on the phone. I've probably contributed $5000 to NARAL over the years, and I just finished telling them that they need to speak publicly and NOW regarding Chafee."
|
Harry Reid currently speaking on C-Span2 regarding the Alito nomination and Republican corruption in Washington and the upcoming State of the Union. You might want to take a peek at this one...or listen in online via
this C-Span link.
And if you are having difficulty getting through on the phone to your Senators, check out Jane's
handy fax list post here.
|
Armando is reporting at DKos that the Gang of 14 (according to Ed Henry at CNN) will be voting as a block to prevent a filibuster due to their decision that extraordinary circumstances do not exist on this nomination. More information in
Armando's DKos diary here. Am currently trying to chase down more information on this for everyone here. The Gang of 14 includes:
REPUBLICANS * John S. McCain III, Arizona * Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina * John Warner, Virginia * Olympia Snowe, Maine * Susan M. Collins, Maine * R. Michael DeWine, Ohio * Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
DEMOCRATS * Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut * Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia * E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska * Mary Landrieu, Louisiana * Daniel Inouye, Hawaii * Mark Pryor, Arkansas * Ken Salazar, Colorado
Here are phone numbers for Senate offices for Senators who either haven't announced a position or who are still a little shaky -- or who haven't spoken about how they will vote on cloture.
PHONE NUMBERS:
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254 (Says he will abstain on cloture -- if Harkin is your Senator, tell him thank you. Carrots are as important as sticks.)
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), 202-224-3954
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND), 202-224-2551
Olympia Snowe (R- ME), 202-224-5344
Sen. Lincoln Chafee announced today that he will vote against Alito -- so this is now a bi-partisan vote against this Supreme Court nominee. Additionally, a commenter (Los Diablo) on DKos reports that Sen. Harkin will "abstain" on the cloture vote, which is good news because Frist must have 60 firm "yes" votes. Every little bit helps -- and all the calls and faxes have been moving the mountain a little bit.
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) speaking currently about the Alito nomination. She says that Alito has an extreme record and will vote against him.
Please, if you call be polite but explain your position and why it is important to you. Staffers are swamped today, and a little courtesy goes a long, long way with them. Remember, even if they don't feel they can vote "no" on cloture -- a "present" vote or an "abstain" vote will do the job just as well. Please mention this when you call.
Let me know if there are numbers or Senators you think should be added to the list. A big thank you to Georgia10 at DKos for compiling the original list. Until we get firm confirmation on the Gang of 14 issue, the work is not finished. I'll let you know when I hear something solid.
UPDATE: Gang, I am getting very conflicting information on the Gang of 14 story from Ed Henry. What I'm hearing is that they aren't meeting until 3:30 pm today and that the Dems in the group are split on how they will vote -- which means that cloture is still very much up in the air. I'm beginning to smell a GOP story plant with Ed Henry at CNN (Oh, shocker! I know...). So, to the phones and the fax machines -- if they are resorting to story planting, they are nervous. And that makes me smile. Nothing like a little grassroots action to scare the bejeesus out of the folks who thought they could pop the champagne a little early, eh? Here's hoping...
|
Alito discussion going on right now on the floor of the Senate, with coverage on C-Span2.
While you are watching, take a read through the front page
NYTimes article by David D. Kirkpatrick.
Once you get past the gloating tone of the headline and the quotes within the article itself, I want you to contemplate the structure and planning that the Federalist Society folks have put into play over the last twenty plus years to get to the point that Chief Justice Roberts is seated on the Supreme Court and Judge Alito is poised on the brink -- maybe with only your phone call standing in his way for the cloture vote today. (Oh, and by the way, the "pop the champagne, we pulled one over on the Democrats" tone of the article has pissed off Teddy Kennedy this morning. He's giving the Senate an earful on it as I'm typing this article.)
What I want us to think about this morning is this question: if the Democratic party and its surrogate groups are not thinking in these long-term ways, what do I need to do to step up to the plate and get the job done? And if they are thinking in long-term strategy, what can we do to help them get there faster?
Ed Meese, Robert Bork, and their coterie of ideological legal fellows pulled the Federalist Society together out of thin air and a lot of anger -- pulled it together to combat ideological shifts in this nation that they found reprehensible to their own personal philosophies. The past few weeks, I've felt that same, simmering level of anger and frustration in readers over the Alito nomination and a lot of other issues -- and I say it is high time we tapped into our own outrage and put it to some serious pro-active use.
I know there are a number of Democratic, liberal and progressive groups working against the Alito nomination. I know there are similarly positioned legal groups, let alone other interest groups in this country who have been working on these issues on our side of the ideological line. But it is time we started contemplating how to better organize ourselves.
First, for the 2006 elections. How do we maximize our potential to re-take the House and Senate? Where can we all pitch in to best get things done?
Second, we need to start doing better in long-term planning.
By all means, hit the phones, the faxes, the e-mails today. Early and often. But let's put some considerable thought toward the future of the Democratic party and our own values in this nation -- and what we can do to best move our own agenda forward. For my part, I'm going to re-read my
"A Question of Doing What's Right" post, to remind myself why I gird up for the fight every day. And then I'm going to get to work.
|
Per
Gilliard:
9am Monday morning shut down the Senate switchboard.
You can use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
Tanya has more info and individual contact numbers if the toll free numbers get jammed.
|
We scratch, they bleed.
The best sign that the status quo is in flux up is the sudden, loud chorus of establishment types wanting to dicipline liberal bloggers back into their caves.
John has a few choice words for
Katarina Vanden Heuvel, who seems to be channeling the GOP via
Jim VandeHei over the Kaine/Murtha SOTU blogospheric non-controversy:
Your post focuses on an issue that was barely discussed in the blogosphere at all, except for a few comments back on Jan 18 -- yet your headline frames the issue as if it was a hotly contested debate. Most of us just nodded our heads and said OK. Did you suddenly turn on your computer two weeks after the fact and find that your monitor was frozen on this post? Arianna objected to Kaine being the speaker primarily because she felt he was much weaker on national defense than John Murtha is and that is a big issue for the Democratic Party. Your whole post is a straw man argument because the main premise is wrong. It only pushes the meme that liberal bloggers are irrational and unwieldy when that is simply not the case. Please do us a favor and if you are going to be a critic of the blogosphere (we welcome you with open arms) then do us the courtesy of actually reading what we write.
Katarina notes that Ezra Klein is "no Brad Pitt." I know Ezra and I'm with
David E. and Mrs. TBogg on that one -- is she blind?
|
From
the comments:
My theory is that a lot of the creepy freepers who post on lefty sites are just low-level right-out-of-college cubicle jockeys at right wing think-tanks. They're getting paid to skulk around and regurgitate winger talking points. Just a theory of course.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of them tend to post a lot during business hours and then disappear on the weekends? I guess that's when their busy date-raping one another ...
I've noticed this a lot over at the HuffPo. There seem to be a couple of people whose job it is to just jump in and leave right-wing talking points at the top of every thread. It doesn't happen if you post at night, and then they won't show up until business hours the next day.
No point, really, just nice to know the tactics of the enemy.
Update: William N. provides
this link for the skeptics.
|
For anyone who has doubted that there is, indeed, still some integrity left in the world, look no further.
Newsweek has a story out today on James Comey and a band of conservative appointees in the DoJ and elsewhere throughout the intelligence legal community in the Bush Administration who stood up to what I'm going to call the "Cult of Cheney" -- the VP, David Addington, John Yoo and others, who continuously pushed the envelope and the rule of law to get what they wanted in terms of overreach of Presidential power.
Comey is a boyscout, in the best of ways: straight shooter, dedicated to justice and truth, pal of Fitz, the whole package. And he respects the rule of law.
Jane talked about Comey's mindset in taking a job with lousy hours and lousy pay at the DoJ, compared to what his peers were making in their cushy big firm corner offices -- and that Comey stayed on at the DoJ as long as he could to fight the good fight.
When Comey took the job of number two at the Justice Department, he no doubt thought he was opting for a life where he would have a great deal of discretion in choosing to pursue cases he felt passionately about, and was willing to make the financial sacrifice on behalf of himself and his family to do so. That most certainly did not happen as part of the Bush Junta and it is to his credit that he stuck around and fought them as agressively as he did.
This Cult of Cheney believed in one main thing -- presidential power was the guiding force, and the Nixon Administration's level of power and secrecy was their polestar.
What stood in their way? A group of folks at all levels of government who took their oath to serve the Constitution more seriously than their need to kiss Cheney's butt to climb the political power ladder.
If the Senate Judiciary Committee wants an all-star witness list of patriots who were there at the time that all of these end-run around the Constitution and the law decisions were being made at the DoJ, at the White House and in the VP's offices, look no further than James Comey. And add to that list Jack Goldsmith, now a professor at Harvard Law, but former head of the OLC. And apparently a long list of Republican appointees who were willing to risk the wrath of Cheney to defend the Constitution -- the majority of whom have been cashiered out of the Administration. (Big freaking surprise, eh? Heaven forbid criticism be allowed in the hallowed halls of Bushworld.)
If Democrats are smart, they'll be adding all these folks to the witness list for the Committee. In triplicate. And the Pool Boy and his pals in the steno pool can take their "this criticism is a political ploy" schtick and shove it. Here's a clue: Republicans who respect the rule of law aren't happy either. A lot of them. Just ask Bruce Fein. Or James Comey. Or any true conservatives whose lips aren't glued to Karl Rove's pasty ass.
The Newsweek story begins by highlighting the words in Comey's exit speech from
his Number 2 position at the DoJ.
James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right—and to doing the right thing—whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."
All of this makes so much sense in the context of everything we know today: the torture memos, the FISA end-run, the devotion to the Imperial Presidency that the Cult of Cheney seems to have.
The fact that there were evidently a number of lawyers within the Administration who were willing to stand up and say "enough!" is admirable -- and it is a shameful statement that this Administration was consistently unwilling to listen to the voices of reason. (And the Administration picked their battleground on this carefully -- matters of nation security and intelligence are kept very close to the vest by people who take them seriously, and as such, this has not been fertile ground for leaks in terms of the public finding out about the Preznit's illegal power grab until recently.)
These are the voices that the Judiciary Committee needs to call before them -- the lawyers with the integrity to risk their jobs, their livelihoods, their futures, to do the right thing. Jane highlighted
that aspect of Comey's personality at New Year's -- and as I re-read her article today, it rings all the more true.
I have no idea whether or not 2006 will be the year the power of the despots in this country will be checked, but if it happens it will be due to people like James Comey who after only three weeks on the job as the number two man in the Justice Department went to John Ashcroft in December of 2003 and told him he had to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation.
It was also James Comey who appointed his good friend, the godfather to his son, Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel and gave him the power to do the job without interference.
According to the New York Times, it now appears that when John Ashcroft was hospitalized for a gall bladder operation in March of 2004, Andy Card and Abu Gonzales had to go his hospital bed and ask for approval of key parts of the warrantless wiretapping program because his acting deputy refused to certify it.
The deputy's name? James Comey.
Additionally,
Newsweek highlights an aspect of the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel -- a department within the DoJ) which needs much further discussion before things continue tomorrow with the Alito vote. It also brings to light what an asshole David Addington is -- that seems to be the personality of personnel that Dick Cheney chooses to hire for his Chief of Staff. I'm recalling all those descriptions of Scooter Libby's scathing wit and his penchant for gathering every piece of information he could to hamstring an opponant of his boss, and it looks like Addington is Scooter's clone in that regard, having carried a list of items to call out Goldsmith on in his suit pocket, so they were handy at all times. Not exactly the sort of guy you have over to liven up your Friday mixer, eh?
In any case,
Newsweek describes Addington and his relationship with Yoo in the OLC thusly:
Addington was just getting started. Minimizing dissent by going behind the backs of bureaucratic rivals was how he played the game. A potentially formidable obstacle, however, was the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC is the most important government office you've never heard of. Among its bosses—before they went on the Supreme Court—were William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. Within the executive branch, including the Pentagon and CIA, the OLC acts as a kind of mini Supreme Court. Its carefully worded opinions are regarded as binding precedent—final say on what the president and all his agencies can and cannot legally do.
Addington found an ally in an OLC lawyer whose name—John Yoo—would later become synonymous with the notion that power is for the president to use as he sees fit in a time of war. Shortly after 9/11, Yoo wrote, in a formal OLC opinion, that Congress may not "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response."
It's instructive about Cheney and Addington, but I found this to be even more on point regarding Judge Alito. As I recall, all of those controversial opinions regarding there being no legal support for Roe or there being ample legal support for the unitary executive -- weren't those all written by a younger version of Alito working for the OLC? Any doubts as to whether a lifetime appointment for Alito would mean a substantial shift in things for America -- for the next 30+ years? Nope, none for me either.
It's quite a read. One that I recommend.
And a short note to Dems on the Judiciary: please, read the article and put together a witness list. There are quite a few people who would likely give you some meaty answers -- and a few folks, like Dick Cheney and David Addington who owe you a hell of a lot of explanations. (Not that I think they'll give you any, but subpoena their asses anyway. They work for the American public. It's time to remind them of that fact.)
(Hat tip to reader lilnubber for the link on this story.)
PS -- I've just noticed that they've added some prizes to the list for
the Bloggies, including a George W. Bush puppet. And I have just the dachshund to whom it shall be introduced if Firedoglake wins (unless, of course, Kobe wants first dibs -- he's earned it!). It's never been my practice to whore for votes, but if you'd like to vote for us, I won't turn it down. We're in the
Best Political Blog category. (And a note from my junior high self: OMG! That blows my mind! That so totally rocks! Now back to our regularly scheduled attempt at intellectual banter. Sometimes you can't help but regress when met with overwhelming surprise news.)
|
The filibuster turnout has been insane. I'm hearing from Sean-Paul Kelley that eFax service is out, that's how many faxes are being sent. The Dems -- and no doubt the GOP -- have to be shocked that we could show up like this.
I'm not surprised in the least.
But Ken Salazar is still more afraid of Mullah Dobson than he is the members of his own party, apparently. Read what one organizer, a teacher from Colorado who was one of the people who pounded the pavement to put Salazar in office in the first place, is now saying
over at Kos:
This was the same populist wave that propelled you to high office, sir, and now I'm calling in whatever chit my role in your election earned me. I'm afraid I'll only be able to view the choice you make in the coming days in one of two ways: If you choose to be a union man and join your fellows in solidarity by supporting the filibuster of Judge Alito, you will earn my admiration and support. If you choose to sit on the fence and leave Democrat men and women of principle to fall on their swords alone, you will earn my political enmity for all eternity. For me, at least, primary season 2010 will begin the day after you vote in favor of cloture.
Trust in the folks who put you in office, Senator Salazar; people like me won't leave you hanging later if you support us now. Ask Mark Cloer, the Republican State Rep from District 17, who faced a primary challenge from his right because he crossed party lines to vote against a moronic school voucher program. I, a flaming liberal from Boulder, walked and dropped literature for Cloer, a Republican in Colorado Springs, at the behest of a grateful CEA. Representative Cloer won, by the way - better to have a Republican who stands on principle than a Democrat who could win in the Springs, right, Senator?
If indeed Salazar is on his knees blowing Mullah Dobson and is willing to throw the country into the shitter for the next thirty years just so some foaming fascist won't say mean things about him, well we know where he stands. Especially if Holy Joe splits off from the gang of 14 and supports the filibuster, you can count me in for making Salazar's life miserable every day we can on the road to 2010.
Salazar contact info once again:
Denver Metro Region
2300 15th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Fax: (303) 455-8851
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5852 main
(202) 228-5036 fax
Pikes Peak Region
(719) 328-1100
High Plains Region
(970) 542-9446
Arkansas River Region
(719) 542-7550
Four Corners Region
(970) 259-1710
Western Slope/I 70 West Region
(970) 241-6631
North Central Region
(970) 224-2200
Alamosa
(719) 587-0096
Alamosa 719-587-0098 (fax)
Fort Morgan 970-542-3088 (fax)
Colorado Springs 719-328-1129 (fax)
Fort Collins 970-224-2205 (fax)
Pueblo 719-542-7555 (fax)
Durango 970-259-9789 (fax)
Grand Junction 970-241-8313 (fax)
Denver 303-455-8851 (fax)
You can also send a telegram here.
Oh well, look on the bright side. If Alito gets confirmed thanks to Kenny Boy, I'm sure the photoshoppers will have a field day whipping up entertaining images of him his new best buddy the Mullah for the next six years.
Update: Colorado bloggers are saying that Salazar is now running from his own constituents as he tries to avoid being answerable for this one.
|
The NSA Domestic Spying issue is heating up to a full boil -- with
Glenn Greenwald leading the charge and a
number of reporters and Senators picking up the ball and running with it.
Bottom line: it's another case of Bushie trying to get Congress and the media to look at what he's saying now, not what he's been doing all along. Unfortunately for the Preznit, this time he left a hefty paper trail -- in the form of proposed legislation by both his Administration and by a number of Congressman, all of which raised big red legality flags for folks at the DoJ.
Thought it would be useful to walk through the discussion and activity from the last couple of days up until today on this issue. Hearings are coming up soon in the Senate Judiciary Committee on these issues, and in my opinion, the Administration's attempts at obfuscation and muddying the waters ought to be called for what they are: a big finger at Congress and the American public and the Constitution.
For more on the Administration's latest hollow attempt to justify their illegal power grab for King George,
Jeralyn has a copy of the latest DoJ press release on the subject. One of the big excuses is that 72 hours doesn't allow enough time to prepare a FISA application on an emergency warrant for surveillance -- but there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the Administration just started breaking the law instead of asking Congress for an amendment to give them extended time. (Nor any explanation as to why every other Administration since 1978 hasn't had that same problem...but I digress.)
What I would like to see is a lot more
reporting like this from the NYDaily News -- where the Preznit's statements are actually fact-checked with people who would have reason to know whether or not he is exaggerating his claims.
In speech after speech, President Bush claims that if the National Security Agency could have wiretapped two Al Qaeda operatives living in San Diego, the 9/11 attacks might have been thwarted.
That's a whopper, critics say.
"We didn't realize they were here plotting the attack until it was too late," Bush said Wednesday at NSA headquarters.
"It's not true," ex-9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey, president of the New School in Manhattan, told the Daily News. "We knew about those two guys - the CIA lost them."
The two guys were Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon.
They were identified in late 1999 by the NSA as Al Qaeda agents and tracked by the CIA to Malaysia and Thailand, where they were lost, according to the 9/11 Commission's report. The CIA learned in March 2000 that Al-Hazmi flew to Los Angeles in January, but kept it secret.
Isn't that refreshing? Actual facts and stuff.
Or
this piece from the Boston Globe, which calls into question the Administration's assertions about their FISA-end run and the support of the Patriot Act, due to AG Alberto Gonzalez' arguing that the Preznit would do what he thought was appropriate in a terrorism investigation context, with or without the legal authority under the Patriot Act. Where I come from, that's called disrespect for the law -- and it sounds to me a whole helluva lot like a Preznit who would be King.
Also, in case you've missed it, Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen have done a tremendous amount of work on these issues in the last few days -- really some top notch reporting and digging, and they ought to be commended for it.
Eggen's latest article digs into some 2003 legislation which sought to legalize the Preznit's actions by amending FISA -- legislation which was proposed by the Administration, and which
Glenn thinks (and I agree) amounts to a tacit acknowledgment by the Administration that the laws needed to be amended in order for the actions to actually be legal. (Glenn also reports that Dianne Feinstein has requested information about the Administration's DoJ objections to the legality of the 2002 DeWine amendment be included in the upcoming hearings. That should be interesting.)
Eggen's article was a follow-up on some issues he first
touched on Thursday, and which he and Walter Pincus explored
a bit more on Friday in an article that looked at the shifting rationales that the Administration has been using to justify breaking the law. I'll say it again, great digging and great follow-up on this.
In case you missed one of the rationale arguments,
Soj at DKos had a great diary going through Gen. Hayden's speech point by point. Well worth a read if you missed the speech and subsequent analysis earlier in the week. Additionally,
Georgia10 has been doing fantastic work at DKos on this issue, with the article from yesterday hitting the issue of lack of oversight with a sledge hammer -- great read and well done.
If you are wondering about the next step in rationale for the Administration on this, look no further than Rove's speech to the RNC.
Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald nailed this question: it's fear, plain and simple. President broke the law? Well, he was just trying to save us all from the evil terrorists. President overstepped his authority and gave the finger to Congress? Well, thank goodness he's tough on protecting all of us.
Well, here's a thought: since when does the President of the United States not have to obey the law like everyone else? And since when is he such a chicken shit that he can't go to a Republican-controlled Congress over a five year period of time and ask them to amend to law so that his actions are legal? Oh, and while we're asking, since when did we decide we had a King?
Liberty is not free -- it takes work and fighting for individual rights every single day. A President who does not respect our Constitution, our Congress nor the rule of law is no President. And I don't know about you, but I'm sure as hell not comfortable with a dicatator. Congress needs to step up to the plate on this one -- or they might as well stop drawing their paychecks.
And if you think that Judge Alito isn't going to have an impact on this, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Presidential power and separation of powers and the unitary executive were a centerpiece of the Judiciary Committee's questions for a reason.
(Photo via
Idaho Observer.)
UPDATE: It seems Chuck Hagel agreed with my on this morning's This Week.
Think Progress has the transcript -- where Hagel says things like "he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law." Sometimes being an American patriot is more important that being one of Karl's good soldiers.
UPDATE #2: Hat tip to reader DrBB, who spotlight's this editorial
from the NYTimes in the comments. It appropriately gives props to Glenn's DeWine find (without, unfortunately, giving any actual credit to Glenn). And they use the term Imperial Presidency for extra points.
UPDATE #3: The indespensible Crooks and Liars has
the video of Chuck Hagel from this morning. He talks about the illegality of the Preznit's actions, and also manages to blast Karl Rove. Talk about yer must see teevee.
|
I'm hearing that most of the Senate email and phone message boxes are full, so below are the fax numbers for key senators. If you don't have a fax machine you can send one from your computer (the free fax services seem to be overloaded, so there must be a lot of people participating, a very good sign). These links will give you instructions for
Windows XP,
Windows 2000,
OS X-Panther and
OS X-Tiger. If you have any tech trouble ask someone in the comments for help (and any techies who can chime in will be greatly appreciated).
You can also sign up for a
30 day free trial at eFax.
Senator Ted Stevens [AK] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2354 (fax)
Fairbanks 907-451-7290 (fax)
Juneau 907-586-8922 (fax)
Anchorage 907-258-9305 (fax)
Kenai 907-283-4363 (fax)
Wasilla 907-376-8526 (fax)
Bethel 907-543-1637 (fax)
Ketchikan 907-225-0390 (fax)
Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-1371 (fax)
Dumas 870-382-1026 (fax)
Texarkana 870-774-7627 (fax)
Little Rock 501-375-7064 (fax)
Fayetteville 479-251-1410 (fax)
Jonesboro 870-910-6898 (fax)
Senator Mark Pryor [AR] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-228-0908 (fax)
Little Rock 501-324-5320 (fax)
Senator Dianne Feinstein [CA] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-3954 (fax)
Fresno 559-485-9689 (fax)
San Francisco 415-393-0710 (fax)
Los Angeles 310-914-7318 (fax)
San Diego 619-231-1108 (fax)
Senator Barbara Boxer [CA](thank for supporting)
Washington 415-956-6701 (fax)
Los Angeles 213-894-5042 (fax)
San Francisco 415-956-6701 (fax)
San Bernadino 909-888-8613 (fax)
San Diego 619-239-5719 (fax)
Sacramento 916-448-2563 (fax)
Fresno 559-497-5111 (fax)
Senator Ken Salazar [CO] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Alamosa 719-587-0098 (fax)
Fort Morgan 970-542-3088 (fax)
Colorado Springs 719-328-1129 (fax)
Fort Collins 970-224-2205 (fax)
Pueblo 719-542-7555 (fax)
Durango 970-259-9789 (fax)
Grand Junction 970-241-8313 (fax)
Denver 303-455-8851 (fax)
Senator Christopher J Dodd [CT](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-1083 (fax)
Wethersfield 860-258-6958 (fax)
Senator Joseph I Lieberman [CT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9750 (fax)
Hartford 860-549-8478 (fax)
Senator Joseph R Biden Jr [DE] (thank for supporting)
Washington, 202-224-0139 (fax)
Wilmington, 302-573-6351 (fax)
Milford 302-424-8098 (fax)
Senator Thomas R Carper [DE] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington, 202-228-2190 (fax)
Senator Bill Nelson [FL] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-228-2183 (fax)
Tallahassee 850-942-8450 (fax)
West Palm Beach 561-514-4078 (fax)
Tampa 813-225-7050 (fax)
Jacksonville 904-346-4506 (fax)
Coral Gables 305-536-5991 (fax)
Ft. Myers 239-334-7710 (fax)
Davie 954-693-4862 (fax)
Orlando 407-872-7165 (fax)
Senator Daniel K Inouye [HI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-6747 (fax)
Wailuku Maui 808-242-7233 (fax)
Lihue Kauai 808-246-9515 (fax)
Kaunakakai 808-560-3385 (fax)
Honolulu 808-541-2549 (fax)
Hilo 808-961-5163 (fax)
Kealakekua 808-961-5163 (fax)
Senator Daniel K Akaka [HI] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-224-2126 (fax)
Honolulu 808-545-4683 (fax)
Hilo 808-935-9064 (fax)
Senator Tom Harkin [IA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9369 (fax)
Des Moines 515-284-4937 (fax)
Cedar Rapids 319-365-4683 (fax)
Davenport 563-322-0417 (fax)
Dubuque 563-582-2342 (fax)
Sioux City 712-252-1638 (fax)
Senator Richard J Durbin [IL](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0400 (fax)
Marion 618-997-0176 (fax)
Springfield 217-492-4382 (fax)
Chicago 312-353-0150 (fax)
Senator Barack Obama [IL] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-4260 (fax)
Springfield 217-492-5099 (fax)
Chicago 312-886-3514 (fax)
Marion 618-997-2850 (fax)
Senator Evan Bayh [IN] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-1377 (fax)
Indianapolis 317-554-0760 (fax)
Senator Mary Landrieu [LA] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-224-9735 (fax)
Lake Charles 337-439-3762 (fax)
New Orleans 504-589-4023 (fax)
Shreveport 318-676-3100 (fax)
Baton Rouge, 225-389-0660 (fax)
Senator Edward M Kennedy [MA](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-2417 (fax)
Senator John F Kerry [MA](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-8525 (fax)
Worcester, 508-831-7381 (fax)
Springfield, 413-736-1049 (fax)
Boston 617-248-3870 (fax)
Fall River 508-677-0275 (fax)
Senator Barbara A Mikulski [MD] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-8858 (fax)
Salisbury 410-546-9324 (fax)
Greenbelt 301-345-7573 (fax)
Annapolis 410-263-5949 (fax)
Hagerstown 301-797-2241 (fax)
Baltimore 410-962-4760 (fax)
Senator Paul S Sarbanes [MD] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1651 (fax)
Salisbury 410-860-2134 (fax)
Cumberland 301-724-4660 (fax)
Silver Spring 301-589-0598 (fax)
Baltimore 410-962-4156 (fax)
Bryans Road 301-375-8914 (fax)
Senator Olympia Snowe [ME] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1946 (fax)
Bangor 207-941-9525 (fax)
Presque Isle 207-764-6420 (fax)
Biddeford 207-284-2358 (fax)
Auburn 207-782-1438 (fax)
Augusta 207-622-7295 (fax)
Portland 207-874-7631 (fax)
Senator Susan Collins [ME] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2693 (fax)
Biddeford 207-283-4054 (fax)
Portland 207-828-0380 (fax)
Caribou 207-493-7810 (fax)
Bangor 207-990-4604 (fax)
Augusta 207-622-5884 (fax)
Lewiston 207-782-6475 (fax)
Senator Carl Levin [MI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1388 (fax)
Grand Rapids 616-456-5147 (fax)
Saginaw 989-754-2920 (fax)
Escanaba 906-789-0015 (fax)
Traverse City 231-947-9518 (fax)
Lansing, 517-377-1506 (fax)
Warren, 586-573-8260 (fax)
Detroit 313-226-6948 (fax)
Senator Debbie A Stabenow [MI](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0325 (fax)
Senator Mark Dayton [MN] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2186 (fax)
Fort Snelling 612-727-5223 (fax)
Biwabik 218-865-4667 (fax)
East Grand Forks 218-773-1993 (fax)
Senator Max Baucus [MT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-0515 (fax)
Senator Kent Conrad [ND] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER
Washington 202-224-7776 (fax)
Minot 701-838-8196 (fax)
Grand Forks 701-746-1990 (fax)
Fargo 701-232-6449 (fax)
Bismarck 701-258-1254 (fax)
Senator Byron L Dorgan [ND] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER
Washington 202-224-1193 (fax)
Grand Forks 701-746-9122 (fax)
Bismarck 701-250-4484 (fax)
Minot 701-838-8196 (fax)
Fargo 701-239-5112 (fax)
Senator Ben Nelson [NE] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO
Washington 202-228-0012 (fax)
Lincoln, 402-476-8753 (fax)
Omaha 402-391-4725 (fax)
Senator Robert Menendez [NJ] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2197 (fax)
Senator Frank Lautenberg [NJ] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-4054 (fax)
Camden 856-338-8936 (fax)
Newark 973-639-8723 (fax)
Senator Jeff Bingaman [NM] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2852 (fax)
Senator Harry Reid [NV] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-7327 (fax)
Reno 775-686-5757 (fax)
Carson City 775-883-1980 (fax)
Las Vegas 702-388-5030 (fax)
Senator Charles Schumer [NY](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-3027 (fax)
Binghamton 607-772-8124 (fax)
Rochester 585-263-3173 (fax)
Buffalo 716-846-4113 (fax)
Red Hook 845-758-1043 (fax)
Melville, 631-753-0997 (fax)
New York 212-486-7693 (fax)
Albany 518-431-4076 (fax)
Syracuse, 315-423-5185 (fax)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0282 (fax)
Buffalo 716-854-9731 (fax)
Albany 518-431-0128 (fax)
New York 212-688-7444 (fax)
Hartsdale 914-472-5073 (fax)
Lowville 315-376-6118 (fax)
Melville 631-249-2847 (fax)
Syracuse 315-448-0476 (fax)
Rochester 585-263-6247 (fax)
Senator Ron Wyden [OR](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-2717 (fax)
Senator Jack Reed [RI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-4680 (fax)
Cranston 401-464-6837 (fax)
Providence 401-528-5242 (fax)
Senator Lincoln D Chafee [RI] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2853 (fax)
Senator Tim Johnson [SD] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO DESPITE SAYING HE'S "TROUBLED"
Washington 202-228-5765 (fax)
Aberdeen 605-226-2439 (fax)
Sioux Falls 605-332-2824 (fax)
Rapid City 605-341-2207 (fax)
Senator Patrick J Leahy [VT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-3479 (fax)
Senator James M Jeffords [VT] INDEPENDENT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-0776 (fax)
Senator Patty Murray [WA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-0238 (fax)
Everett 425-259-7152 (fax)
Seattle 206-553-0891 (fax)
Spokane 509-624-9561 (fax)
Vancouver 360-696-7798 (fax)
Yakima 509-453-7731 (fax)
Senator Maria Cantwell [WA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-0514 (fax)
Everett 425-303-8351 (fax)
Spokane 509-353-2547 (fax)
Vancouver 360-696-7844 (fax)
Tacoma 253-572-5859 (fax)
Seattle 206-220-6404 (fax)
Richland 509-946-6937 (fax)
Senator Herb Kohl [WI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9787 (fax)
Senator Russell D Feingold [WI](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-2725 (fax)
Milwaukee 414-276-7284 (fax)
Middleton 608-828-1203 (fax)
Senator Robert C Byrd [WV] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO DESPITE THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS
Washington 202-228-0002 (fax)
Charleston 304-343-7144 (fax)
Senator John D Rockefeller IV [WV] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-7665 (fax)
Fairmont 304-367-0822 (fax)
Martinsburg 304-262-9288 (fax)
Charleston 304-347-5371 (fax)
Beckley 304-253-2578 (fax)
Urban Pirate also has a good
cut & paste list of fax numbers.
The Young Turks are still broadcasting
live with their on-air filibuster.
Just a personal note to the three Democratic men -- Salazar, Pryor and Conrad -- who have told all us women to go fuck ourselves: we are going to have long memories of this one.
To the keyboards!
Update: From
Democrats.com:
Good news and bad news: Sen. Obama told George Staphylococcus he will (reluctantly) support the filibuster (#14), but also that it would fail - without identifying which Democrats would cause it to fail, which would help us turn them around. Obama said he opposed "procedural maneuvers" and wished Democrats had framed the substantive issues better.
Update: Biden has said he will vote against cloture -- but just once. We'll put him on the thank-you list -- for now.
Update II: I'm being told eFax services are down because of overuse. Somebody's been busy. We're getting it done.
|
