Hey Andy? What About Dick’s Breach of Etiquette?

/29 Comments/in , /by

Andy Card is deeply offended that Barack Obama works in shirt sleeves, and not a coat and tie.

"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."

[snip]

"The Oval Office symbolizes…the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I’m going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it’s appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."

I agree with dakine that it is preferable to have a President, in shirt sleeves, working to protect the Constitution, rather than thugs in suit and tie, shredding it.

For myself, if I have a choice of an administration where everyone wears suits and ties and are all buttoned up while they destroy the country and the Constitution (but they look professional while doing so!) or an administration that takes off their coats and gets to work and actually does something to benefit most of the country, I will choose the latter hands down every time.

But I’m also wondering about Card’s misplaced focus on etiquette. Here he is, beating up Obama for his dress code, and ignoring a gross breach of etiquette–one that probably puts our country at some risk, in that it fosters gross insuburdination. As Lawrence O’Donnell explains to David Shuster, former Administration officials simply do not criticize the capabilities of their successors. It is not done.

No former Vice President has ever questioned the ability of the current Administration to protect the United States. This is something for which unprecedented is a mild word.

Yet somehow, Andy Card is able to overlook Cheney’s gross breach of etiquette even while bitching about Obama’s shirt sleeves.

The Only Picture on Dick’s Wall

/75 Comments/in , /by

picture-81.thumbnail.png

I hate to keep harping on Politico’s blowjob for Cheney. But I’ve been obsessing all morning by this picture accompanying the story, showing the sole picture hanging on the wall of Cheney’s office (click to enlarge; the other Politico pictures show a lot of family pictures on furniture, but this appears to be the only one on the wall).

How odd, first of all, that an article trying to redeem the Bush-Cheney failed presidency gives pride of place to an earlier historically unpopular President, Gerald Ford. And how odd that this picture accompanies this statement–highlighted by Peterr. 

Not content to wait for a historical verdict, Cheney said he is set to plunge into his own memoirs, feeling liberated to describe behind-the-scenes roles over several decades in government now that the “statute of limitations has expired” on many of the most sensitive episodes. [my empahsis]

See, I’m interested in Cheney’s focus on statute of limitations and on that picture for several different reasons.

Cheney talks about statutes of limitations going back decades. But of course, the ones that would be expiring now would be those for crimes he committed (he seems to be admitting) during the Bush Administration–those crimes committed about five years ago, in many cases.

A number of smart lawyers have been reminding me via email of late that, while the statute of limitations on things like FISA violations may be expiring in the coming weeks, the statute of limitations on any conspiracy to cover up those crimes would not expire until the conspiracy to cover-up those crimes was over. 

Except.

Except that that is only true for as long as Bush and Cheney tried to hide their crimes from law enforcement. You know–from people over at DOJ like Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. If, for example, Cheney ordered the future AG to go to then-current AG John Ashcroft and tell him they were going to violate FISA even though Jim Comey told them not to, then they couldn’t very well be accused of covering up the crime from DOJ, could they? Keeping DOJ in the loop at each stage of the process seems to innoculate the White House–to some degree–from this kind of cover-up charge.

Maybe the smart lawyers can explain in comments how this works. Read more →

Colin Powell Tees Off A Parting Shot At Bush & Cheney

/in , , /by

Inauguration Day was not kind to the Bush/Cheney cabal (nor should it have been for that matter). The sheer enormity of the crowds on the Capitol Mall and in the streets of Washington DC was a powerful message on the joy of the new and the disdain of the old.

From the subtle pricks of President Obama’s words proclaiming an "end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics", to the massive crowd on the mall chanting and singing "Na-na-na-nah, hey, hey, goodbye" as Bush fled tail between his legs on Marine Executive One, it was really a fairly overt slap in the face to the banished cabal.

But, as Steve Benen points out, it’s pretty devastating when even you own men are blistering your backsides like former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell did with Bush/Cheney today. From an Interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric:

…Barack Obama’s election to the nation’s highest office a "reaffirmation of American principles values that will help us overcome some of the difficulties of recent years with respect to the attitude of the world toward us."

Speaking with CBS News Managing Editor Katie Couric, Powell said America’s prestige abroad has improved since Mr. Obama won a decisive victory over Senator John McCain.

"I think it has really, really been an remarkable event in terms of getting everybody to stand back and say, look at what we have seen here in America," Powell said. "The America we remember is back again."

Ouch. That’s a cold shot baby.

And, guess what, the cold shots were fired across the bow of Republicans in general today. From McClatchy:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and fellow Republicans received a reception Tuesday that rivaled the frigid winter weather, as hundreds of attendees greeted GOP lawmakers with boos, chants, hisses and — in some cases — stony silence.

The chilly display toward McConnell, who was flanked by other high-ranking Republicans as he took the stage at President Barack Obama’s swearing-in ceremony, was a momentary break in the otherwise jubilant spirit of the day.

Well, what do you know, the people have it all figured out as to the degraded state of America and who is to blame; I wonder when the big media sources, their blathering heads and pin head pundits will catch on?

Turley Speaks Out On The Bush "Policy Of Crime"

/in , , /by

Barack Obama and his new administration need to prosecute the malefactors in the outgoing Bush Administration for the crimes and crimes against humanity they perpetrated while in office. The law is not just to punish, although it is for that; more importantly, it is to set an example for society to see and know, to exhibit what is wrong and not to be tolerated.

Tonight on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC, Professor Jonathan Turley made a passionate plea to Mr. Obama, his Attorney General to be Eric Holder and the incoming administration to do just that: prosecute the malefactors for the egregious conduct and set an example.

There is a difference between criminalizing policy and a policy of crimes, and that is what we have here. We just had three Attorney Generals that couldn’t tell the difference, and the question is whether he will prosecute confirmed crimes.

Indeed, that is the question. Watch the clip, it is must see teevee.

Paul Krugman said much the same in today’s New York Times:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

These two luminaries are speaking the gospel. Spread the word.

The US Torture Regime – Where Is The Swift Justice?

/in , , , , /by

Earlier, Marcy and Spencer wrote about the somewhat startling admission today by Susan Crawford that the United States tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani. From Woodward and the Washington Post:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

The entire article is worth a read just so that the bare facts of what the United States does in your name can set in. But the real thing that strikes me about Crawford’s admission is the unequivocal starkness of it. "We tortured". "Met the legal definition of torture".

Well okay then. What more could we ask for? Maybe that the statement was made by a Bush Administration official, in a position of authority, someone that actually speaks for and might could bind the government to the admission. Well, as convening authority for the military commissions, Susan Crawford darn well ought to suffice for that.

Sounds like what we have here is what the legal profession, and specifically the criminal justice portion thereof, calls an "admission against interest".

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement’s reliability.

In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.

Tonight, on MSNBC’s Countdown, former Navy JAG attorney Charles Swift laid out the background and implications of what our country has done and become (Attached are both the portion with Charlie Swift as well as a followup portion). What we have done is not good. It is not right. And it is not justified. It is a war crime under 18 USC § 2441.

For her next trick, perhaps Susan Crawford can tell us when the war crime prosecutions will be starting.

Another $25 Billion Pissed Away by George Bush

/in /by

Remember that $9 billion that seems to have simply disappeared into thin air in Iraq? Add another $25 billion to the money the Bush Administration has just pissed away through incompetence, in this case by failing to implement recommendations made by Inspectors General.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and Rep. Ed Towns issued a new report that finds that the Bush Administration has failed to implement over 13,000 recommendations made by Inspectors General (IGs) since 2001. Federal agencies could save taxpayers over $25 billion by implementing these open recommendations.

“Under the Bush Administration, thousands of proposals to make government more efficient languished,” said Rep. Waxman. “The result has been billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress will work with the new Administration to restore accountability and increase the effectiveness of our government.”

[snip]

The House Oversight Committee asked the nation’s IGs to identify all recommendations made between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2008, that had not been implemented by federal agencies. The information provided shows that the Bush Administration failed to implement 13,847 recommendations since 2001, which could have saved taxpayers $25.9 billion. Almost half of these recommendations were made over a year ago, and more than a quarter were made over two years ago.

Just two more weeks of suffering under the epic incompetence of the "MBA President."

Bush DOJ Is Now Filene's Basement for Corporate Crooks

/in , /by

The fire sale by the Bush Administration in a last gasp to coddle corporate polluters, crooks and malefactors (i.e. friends and family) is on at the Department of Justice. From Carrie Johnson at the Washington Post:

The Justice Department has reached more than a dozen business-related settlements since the presidential election, with more in the pipeline for January, prompting lawyers and interest groups to assert that companies are seeking more favorable terms before the new administration arrives.
…
A review of 15 agreements involving corporations since early November suggests that much of the alleged misconduct dates back five years or more, provoking questions about why the cases took so long to mature and why resolutions are coming with only weeks left in President Bush’s term.

Johnson’s article discusses, among several, the case of United States v. Siemens. This case sticks out like a sore thumb. There are actually four different cases consolidated against Siemens – against their home company in Germany, and against each of their subsidiaries in Bangladesh, Venezuela and Argentina. How deep, pervasive and criminal was the conduct of Siemens in their worldwide bid to defraud the US Government and others? Glad you asked; it was so bad that:

The company hired a law firm and accounting experts to probe its problems, ultimately paying more than $776 million to advisers who reviewed millions of documents and interviewed 1,750 employees…

So what basement bargain settlement did Siemens get?

"Under the terms of the plea agreement announced today, first, Siemens AG will plead guilty and has pled guilty to one count of failure to maintain internal controls and a one-count books and records violation. In addition, three Siemens subsidiaries, those located in Bangladesh, Venezuela and Argentina, have pled guilty to conspiring to violate provisions of the FCPA.

"Second, Siemens will pay a criminal fine to the United States in the amount of $450 million.

Here is the kicker: Siemens retains full rights to keep on contracting with the US Government and its agencies; no debarment, which should be a given for fraud of this scale. The Bushies are always ready willing and able to let big corporate criminal right back in the door to rape, pillage and plunder again.

The Bush Basement Sale is on for another eighteen days, step right up and get yer bargains!

Turnabout Would Be Fair Play: US Seeks 147 Year Torture Sentence

/15 Comments/in , , , /by

This report from MSNBC is almost sublimely ironic:

U.S. prosecutors want a Miami judge to sentence the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to 147 years in prison for torturing people when he was chief of a brutal paramilitary unit during his father’s reign.
…
A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture — which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror — as a "flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority" that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.

"It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week’s filing. "The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute."
…
Elise Keppler, senior counsel at Human Rights Watch, said Monday that the organization has long pressed for investigations and prosecution of those responsible for torture around the world. The Emmanuel conviction is a big step forward, she said.

"This whole process has sent a message that when it comes to the most serious crimes, there cannot be impunity," Keppler said. "Without a penalty that fits the gravity of the crime, it risks sending a message that these crimes will be tolerated."

Huh. Go figure. I wonder who will prosecute the the denizens of the Bush Administration for the same acts?

The Holder Delay, the OLC Delay, the SJC Delay

/37 Comments/in , , /by

I suggested last week that the Republicans have suddenly decided to challenge Eric Holder’s nomination in an attempt to postpone the time when AG Holder (if he is approved) would review the OLC opinions supporting warrantless wiretapping and torture.

It turns out that Patrick Leahy is also worried that BushCo are sitting on OLC opinions it has promised to the Senate Judiciary Committee (h/t Secrecy News).

Even in the final days of the Bush administration, the Department of Justice continues to stonewall congressional subpoenas for documents from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), according to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Friday underscored the Department’s continued obstruction and hit the Department on going back on its word to provide the Committee with copies of six documents related to a subpoena issued in October for OLC documents.

In a letter dated November 14, Justice Department officials said the Department was "prepared to make available for Committee staff review at the Department" two national security-related OLC opinions subpoenaed on October 21. The Department also wrote that it was "prepared to provide the Committee with copies of additional OLC memoranda on November 17, 2008." Upon receipt of the letter, followed by a verbal assurance on November 17 that the documents were being delivered to the Committee, Leahy postponed the return date of the subpoena, which was scheduled for November 18. To date, the Department has provided the Committee with copies of just two documents, one of which was not listed in the October 21 subpoena and was already widely available in the public domain. The remaining six documents have been made available at the Department only for staff review.

Here’s a list of the OLC opinions the Administration has been playing games with:

A. Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re "Protected Persons" in Occupied Iraq (March 18,2004).

B. Any final OLC memorandum or written legal advice concerning applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Iraq, including but not limited to Article 49, including any March 19, 2004 memorandum, Re: Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Iraq, including but not limited to Article 49.

Read more →

Pisco Sours: As Easy as Falling Off a Bike the Wagon

/15 Comments/in /by

bush-pisco-sour.jpg

(Photo by AFP/Martin Bernetti)

Earlier in the week, the blogosphere buzzed over this photo of Bush drinking Peru’s national drink, a Pisco Sour. There was a lot of discussion about whether Bush had fallen off the wagon or not–but the discussions of what a pisco sour is fell short, I felt, of what my good friend Jeff had taught me in grad school (Jeff, who is Peruvian, whined for a year straight that he couldn’t get proper Peruvian, as opposed to Chilean, pisco in Ann Arbor).

So I asked him to do a post on pisco sours. And, since he says they go well with Thanksgiving (if you happen to have pisco lying around your liquor cabinet), I thought I’d better link to his post today.

Here’s his description of what a pisco sour is:

In an effort to explain the significance of the pisco sour, I provide below a recipe for the drink that I had published in the International Cookbook for AU’s International Student and Scholar Services office. (Please feel free to order the cookbook, which has been created to raise funds for an emergency fund for international students on campus, something greatly needed. Not only does the book make a great stocking stuffer, but you’ll find a whole menu that I’ve come up with with Peruvian food.)

Pisco sours also make a great drink for Thanksgiving, as would making the stuffing infused with some pisco, as I did a few years ago. If I only knew the president would have partaken with us, I would have invited him over for dinner!

Pisco Sour
Submitted by Jeffrey Middents, Assistant Professor of Literature
Serves 4

History tells us that the War of the Pacific ended in 1883, but disputes linger on over 100 years later. The northern territory claimed by Chileans in the middle of the Atacama desert turned out to be very rich in nitrates, copper and saltpeter – and happened to be a wonderful growing area for grapes. Today, Chile is internationally recognized for alcoholic beverages made from grapes, including a lucrative wine industry and, recently, pisco. Peruvians would claim otherwise: a very potent type of brandy distilled from grapes, pisco has historical connections to many areas of southern Peru, including Chicha, Ica, Arequipa, Lima, Tacna and – not so surprisingly – Pisco. Although both countries now make pisco, there are subtle differences, primarily involving how long the fermented drink is aged. Read more →