Steny’s Discharge

Steny Hoyer wants you to believe he’s having a discharge problem.

But he’s not.

Which is kind of weird, don’t you think? That Steny would try to excuse his own cowardly actions because of someone’s–or someone’s lack of?–discharge, when, as sympathetic as you might be to Steny about his discharge problem, you know it’s just an embarrassed excuse. 

And frankly, you realize that the Constitution trumps Steny’s discharge problem anyway? 

Honestly, now, if Steny’s having a bunch of so-called Democrats coming to HIM with their own problems with civil liberties, just five months short of the election, we Democratic voters ought to know about that. With names attached.

But right now, Steny’s got nothing. But his own claimed discharge problems. 

34 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    House has finalized their war supplemental bill, and it appears to be a go for a vote tomorrow (Thursday). There was talk at one time that they might try to link FISA to the war supplemental; however, that now, at least it appears, is not the case. However, the FISA vote is expected to be sequenced right after the war supp. vote, so that means that we must expect them to put FISA up for a vote on Friday, and maybe even tomorrow night if they get real aggressive. The “discharge” of the Constitution is at hand.

    • selise says:

      bmaz – i just posted this over at fdl but it’s on topic here.

      from glenn earlier today:

      …our campaign will be unveiled in two phases, with Phase I to entail an immediate ad campaign aimed at three key Democratic enablers of this bill — Hoyer, Chris Carney, and Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow of Georgia. The reasons for targeting Hoyer are self-evident and were set forth yesterday, and the campaign against Carney — who has long been one of the Blue Dogs spearheading the effort behind this bill — is already underway and will continue.
      Rep. John Barrow was, like Carney, one of the 21 Blue Dogs who signed the letter to Nancy Pelosi back in March demanding that they be allowed to vote on the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill. In July, Barrow faces a very credible primary challenger — Georgia State House Rep. Regina Thomas — who is much more in step with the district’s Democratic base.

      via sysprog in the comments at glenn greenwald’s:

      Obama cuts an ad to help John Barrow in his primary fight
      Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 07:02 PM
      The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

      Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has taped a radio commercial on behalf of U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who faces a July 15 primary challenge.

      -snip-

      “Senator Obama believes that Congressman Barrow has worked hard to bring change that families in his district deserve, and we’ll work hard to help John Barrow win in November,” Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

      In the ad, Obama asks voters to join him in supporting Barrow. “We’re going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track,” Obama says in the 60-second ad.

      and finally, barrow’s primary challenger is regina thomas. here’s what howie had to say when she visited fdl:

      Blue America Welcomes Regina Thomas (GA-12)
      By: Howie Klein Saturday May 24, 2008 11:00 am

      Blue Dog (and virulent Bush Dog) John Barrow (GA-12) always thought he would be vulnerable from the right. So he moved so far right that he’s usually the Democrat most likely to vote with the GOP in the entire Democratic caucus. CQ Politics reports that his political demise looks like it will come from the Georgia Democratic Party mainstream, not the far right.

      my bolds.

  2. Mary says:

    Hoyer et al are beyond the pale. They make you dislike the Democratic party so that the only thing that excites you is something like what Glenzilla et al cooked up, of contributing to their political demise instead of contributing to a corrupted party. No wonder the convention isn’t getting $$ to meet budget. Why would anyone want to pay for Hoyer to have schmooze time?

    OT, but I want to leave this in case I don’t get back tomorrow. I didn’t get to watch the hearings but Laura Rozen has something up that pretty much stunned me.

    http://www.warandpiece.com/blo……html#more

    Apparently Levin, as he was testifying, took the step of adding to his prepared statement on the record. And here’s what he said:

    I’d be happy to try to answer any questions you would have, but if I could just add one point. As a witness sitting here in a hearing, I feel like I have some obligation to say something about this. And I’m very limited, I think, in what I can say.

    But if the subcommittee has been informed that there was a total of three minutes of waterboarding, I would suggest the subcommittee should go back and get that clarified, because that I don’t believe is an accurate statement.

    (her emph)

    The content of what he said didn’t stagger me. I’ve never believed any of the stories sold by the loyal Bushies on waterboarding. What stunned me is that, for the first time in the last almost seven years of nonstop lies from this administration and its lackeys (including, incredibly, the whole of its Dept of Justice), I was looking at evidence of a lawyer with direct knowledge of misrepresentations being made to the tribunal doing his job. For the first time, there was someone with Bush ties who had heard or watched lies being proffered to the tribunal and who responded ethically to correct the record.

    The first time. After all the lies and lies and lies and all the knowledge by all the many lawyers of those lies, finally, one man actually correct the record on one item.

    I’m sad to be so stunned, but glad I saw it before I pass over.

    • bmaz says:

      I saw that too, but got kind of freaked out on the fact that they are clearly moving the war supp. fast, and the implications for FISA, that I kind of forgot to say something about Levin. Strange bird Levin, he kind of kept vacillating from marginally decent to marginally evil in his testimony. Not sure what to make of him.

      Selise @7 – That is disheartening. Big time. Also the problem I see is that the Glen et. al effort is commendable, but may not get off the ground in time if this plays out as fast as it looks like it might.

      • selise says:

        Also the problem I see is that the Glen et. al effort is commendable, but may not get off the ground in time if this plays out as fast as it looks like it might.

        it creates the infrastructure and networks to respond faster next time and it means there will be a price to be paid – that might change the calculus for next time.

        • bmaz says:

          I understand, but this is the one it was designed for, and this one is absolutely huge in so many ways; some tangible and some not. But it is symbolic of our opposition effort, and is maybe what we have, along with Libby, put the most capital in on. Having it just slip away in the night after all this is a pretty staggering loss, or so it strikes me anyway.

          Professor Foland @14 – That is actually very believable; trust me. I will have something more on that in a few minutes.

        • selise says:

          But it is symbolic of our opposition effort, and is maybe what we have, along with Libby, put the most capital in on.

          yes. i’ve been on this one for over two years – as the good professor foland can confirm. i believe it was the last week in march, 2006 when we make our first trek to kerry and kennedy’s office to ask them to support feingold’s censure resolution.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          This new coalition is very promising in part because it shows the breadth of the spectrum supporting civil liberties.

          I’d hoped that Hoyer had become a convert to the importance of civil liberties. But I got punk’d by Steny Hoyer, and I won’t forget it.

          The key question of 2008 for millions of us will be: ‘To vote, or not to vote? There’s no way I’m voting for any R’s in 2008, but are the Dems too complicit to bother supporting?.’ Enough with the kabuki already!

          I rather suspect Hoyer’s a bit surprised to wake up and discover that the political ‘noose’ around his neck is entirely of his own making. He’s made himself a Cautionary Tale.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      For the first time, there was someone with Bush ties who had heard or watched lies being proffered to the tribunal and who responded ethically to correct the record.

      I followed that link all the way on over to the Gavel, which has clips of Levin, Wilkerson, and Nadler (reading a statement that Feith announced only this morning that he wouldn’t show up to testify, after all).

      Isn’t it interesting how riveting it is, after seven years, to watch something as seemingly simple to hear a conscientious person speak to the consequences of his actions?

      • bmaz says:

        Heh, the funny part is that it was a pretty thin mea culpa or whatever; damn thin actually, and yet, I like you am thrilled. Sad. come over to the new FISA funhouse post when you are caught up here.

      • Leen says:

        So how did Feith get away with not showing up? Are these witnesses volunteering? Will Chertoff ever testify?

      • Leen says:

        thanks for bringing attention to this. But somehow it seems pathetic that we get excited by one person out of many being willing to touch the truth just a bit.

        These are the folks who are supposed to be upholding the law. Pathetic

  3. strider7 says:

    What the hell gives with all this crap? Does the entire gov,IE,congress,exec,defense, intell etc.have a secret emcryption code to keep from being monitored?How about corporate secrets and prorietary stuff?
    How can one group of corps have the ability to to influence the rest of the corporate world unless they all have some sort of protection or policy against surviellance?I would think the corporate world would be against this as much as anyone except of course the telcos

  4. Mary says:

    On FISA, there have been 4 judges who have spoken to the program and all have bascially said it was unconstitutional and violated FISA. How does anyone claim good faith after that that?

    Lamberth told DOJ the program was illegal and barred from his court. At that point, any minute claim the telecoms had to good faith was gone. THen Kollar Kotelly did the same. Then Diggs-Taylor ruled it illegal on the merits (which was not set aside by the 6th Cir, which dodged the issue by finding no standing). Then Walker opined that no idiot could think it was legal. From the first judicial input, the good faith argument was gone. Certainly, after the second. Then the third on the merits. Then the fourth, on the assumed merits.

    Other than Digg-Taylor, those aren’t hard and fast rulings, but they absolutley crater any claim to good faith.

    They don’t need any “new” District court to review the program – one has already done that and found it to be unconstitutional. Now they are saying they want a new court to review because they don’t like what the court of record ruled. And they don’t want any court to reach the merits. As they did with the appellate review of the military commissions in the MCA, they are unconstitutionally attempting to send a matter to the courts, but usurp the judiciary of its ability to actually review the merits and rule and instead replace it with a requirement that the court “approve” unconstitutional Executive action and collusion with agents to violate the law, provided there is a piece of paper from one of the co-conspirators to the violation of the Constitution saying that “it’s ok.”

    What a foul thing for Congress to even begin to think about foisting on the judicial branch.

    • bmaz says:

      Review?? Excuse my language, but fuck that shit. Congress might as well just be honest and say they are giving immunity, because that is what they are doing. This is no review. If the telcos have anything signed giving them the OK, and by my reading, even the freaking illegal cert that Gonzo signed will qualify, then they are dismissed. End of story. That is not review, it is a sham.

      When you say going over, you mean the river or something right? Is it bad there? How long you likely to be away?

      • strider7 says:

        Isn’t this the main point of kennedys’ statement that you might as well not have a judiciary at all if all their going to do is rule on whether the laws that congress passes have been followed, NOT whether or not the law itself was constitutional?All you need is someone to enforce the laws.

    • JThomason says:

      Whatever you meant Mary, thanks for your profound mastery of the facts crucial to these ongoing public inquiries. Your grasp of details is quite remarkable.

  5. Ron1 says:

    ew,

    Steny’s bush-league-caliber kabuki theater is part and parcel from what we’ve come to accept from this ear — the anti-accountability era for all intents and purposes. The whole act is designed so that everyone can raise their hands and moan, “But I voted against it!”, and meanwhile the legislation or policy that the majority of the majority professes to oppose magically gets passed anyway.

    At least they should realize that they’re being watched very carefully. Unfortunately, it looks like that that realization won’t be enough to provoke better behavior. Yet.

  6. Professor Foland says:

    I spoke to MA-08 Capuano’s office today (my Congressman). He’s been a lead on holding the line in the House against immunity (i.e. a good guy.)

    This office’s story: they don’t know any more than any of us, they’ve seen no bill, not heard of any details, and we should judge the leadership by the record, which is that no bill with immunity has ever come to the floor. That lots of Democrats had to “vote with their constituents” and that was why Republicans lost in ‘06 and that was why even with 90%+ of House Dems against immunity, there was still consideration of immunity because “of our narrow majority”.

    I asked how many mythical constituents had called in these Dems who were voting for immunity. She couldn’t say. I pointed out I’d lived and worked in IL-14, knew just how red that district was, and that Bill Foster had just won running specifically against immunity. Response: mumble, mumble, “we didn’t ask the other offices”.

    I reminded her the number of times I’d been told 2 years ago of how they were powerless because of the Republican’s actually slimmer majority. Response? See above: “well, that’s why they lost in ‘06.”

    It went on for a long time. They were clearly defending Hoyer, Pelosi, the leadership, and I have to say, just sounded defeated. I’d never heard anything like this from their office. I could find no hope whatsoever in the call. If Capuano has given up without even having seen the bill, then Word Has Come From On High.

    • selise says:

      If Capuano has given up without even having seen the bill, then Word Has Come From On High.

      if word has come from on high, then this is not hoyer’s doing – at least without the blessing of the rest of the leadership.

      • strider7 says:

        you’re a million percent right.
        Somebodys got these people by the throat.
        It’s the fascist four or the constitution.
        Maybe they’ll amend the constitution over this

  7. JThomason says:

    The torture picture and widespread complicity has become much clearer in the last couple of days with Haynes poor performance and Levin’s comment. Perhaps the beast is feeling cornered. And I observe this with no relish.

  8. ThadBeier says:

    My mom used to be active in Maryland Democratic politics, back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. She was a delegate to the by-year “mini-convention” in 1970. What finally turned her off from politics was Steny Hoyer.

    She was in his camp at some Maryland Democratic Party convention, and she was given the task of distracting some other delegate, so that he would miss a vote — which she did. Then, the next day (she says) Hoyer locked her in a hotel room to prevent her from casting a vote on something she was very keen on.

    Anyway — that’s just the kind of guy he is, always has been, always will be. Maryland seems to have more than its share of shysters (most notably Spiro Agnew, but Gov. Mandell of that same era was cut from the same moth-eaten cloth.)

  9. Leen says:

    “Democratic voters ought to know” All voters ought to know.

    Why would they give these telecoms immunity if as Bmaz and others in the know here say the “telecoms all ready have plenty of protection”

    Does appear that they may behiding their own “complicity and collusion”

    Hoyer, Pelosi, Reid not looking so good

Comments are closed.