Christie Living Large on Our Dime

/47 Comments/in /by

To be honest, there’s something I’m even more interested about than the news that Chris Christie and Michele Brown were signing off on each other’s above-government rate travel.

Chris Christie occasionally billed taxpayers more than $400 a night for stays in luxury hotels and exceeded the government’s hotel allowance on 14 of 16 business trips he took in 2008.

[snip]

On trips in 2007 and 2008, his top deputy, Michele Brown, also exceeded the guidelines after Christie approved her requests for rooms in the same five-star hotels where he was booked.

The vouchers show Christie and Brown stayed at the NineZero Hotel in Boston on Oct. 16, 2007 and each billed taxpayers $449 plus taxes and fees for their rooms, more than double the government allowance for a Boston hotel room at the time, according to a General Services Administration travel reimbursement table.

[snip]

Records turned over so far show Christie exceeded the government lodging allowance on 23 of 30 business trips taken between 2004 and 2008. In some cases, his travel vouchers were approved first by Brown, then certified by a third person. Christie, who was Brown’s supervisor, signed off on her travel, either in advance or when she submitted vouchers, the records show. The vouchers were all certified by a third party.

It’s the timing of the long-awaited release of these records. As the AP reports, these documents came from Corzine’s campaign; they had asked for these records months and months ago. But Christie’s buddies, including Brown and acting USA Ralph Marra, were stalling on releasing the documents.

Well, surprise surprise, Christie’s replacement, Paul Fishman, finally got confirmed last week after some serious stalling in the Senate. And, voila! FOIA documents, suddenly released.

Sort of makes you wonder whether this is just the tip of the iceberg on embarrassing documents for Christie?

Share this entry

Wexler Set To Extinguish Congressional Fire

/29 Comments/in /by

Robert Wexler, the “Fire Breathing Liberal” may be on the cusp of resigning his seat in Congress. From Post On Politics:

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Boca Raton, will resign from Congress to take a “public policy position,” several Democratic sources said today.
“He called. He is going to resign….He told me that he is moving on. Beyond that, I don’t have any any answers,” said state Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Coral Springs. Ring said he is considering running in the special election to replace Wexler.

Another Wexler confidant, Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson, said he talked to Wexler this afternoon and Wexler “said he had to do what he had to do for his family.” Wexler didn’t specifically say he would resign, Aaronson said, but by “putting two and two together” he concluded Wexler is leaving office.

Another Democratic insider said Wexler is considering a position related to Middle East policy. It wasn’t immediately clear if the post was inside or outside government.

The signs seem fairly strident Wexler is leaving the House; the question is why? There rumor is stated to be a “Mid East policy position”. That sure beats the standard “spending more time with the family” (which is usually cover for scandal). Several sources are reporting it is a public policy position outside of the Obama Administration; however Foreign Policy’s The Cable is say it IS a position in the Administration and the Obama White House is very tight lipped on the subject.

Wexler was an early supporter of Obama and contributed a lot in Obama’s effort to gain early traction in the critical state of Florida, so a substantial diplomatic position with the Administration should not be ruled out. There are several Ambassadorships yet to be filled including one very substantial post.

If Wexler leaves, there is little chance of the Democrats losing the seat, because the Boca Raton district Wexler fills is overwhelmingly Democratic. In addition to Jerry Ring, potential candidates for the special election include state Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel and former Broward County Commissioner Ben Graber.

UPDATE: From Laura Rozen:

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) will announce he is resigning his seat tomorrow to become head of a Middle East group, the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, founded by Slimfast tycoon S. Daniel Abraham, Hill sources say tonight.

Also, per David Dayen in comments, “What I read is that he wouldn’t resign until the end of the year. So he’s still a vote on health care.”

Share this entry

Harry Reid’s Price Of Failed Leadership

/14 Comments/in , , , /by

Harry Reid is in trouble in his reelection effort in Nevada. From the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s report on a new poll by Mason Dixon:

Nevadans say they’re ready to replace longtime Democratic incumbent Sen. Harry Reid with an untested Republican.

Which Republican? Undecided.

But of their top two picks — former GOP party official Sue Lowden and real estate developer Danny Tarkanian — either one would unseat Reid if the election were held today, according to a poll commissioned by the Review-Journal.

Lowden and Tarkanian are in a statistical tie atop a list of nine primary candidates, according to the survey of Nevada registered voters.
…
In one general election scenario, 49 percent of respondents picked Lowden and 39 percent chose Reid. In another, 48 percent picked Tarkanian to 43 percent for Reid. That poll, which surveyed 500 voters Tuesday through Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

In Clark County, where Reid needs to dominate to win another term, he is in a statistical tie with either Lowden or Tarkanian.

“That is the bad news,” UNLV political science professor David Damore said of Reid’s Clark County numbers. “That tells you there is a disaffected base there.”

For months the perception of Reid among voters has been fixed, with near 100 percent name recognition and a high number of voters viewing him unfavorably. In the latest poll, 38 percent of voters viewed Reid favorably compared to 50 percent with an unfavorable view.

Chris Cillizza, the David Broder wannabe and heir apparent, draws the knee jerk Villager conclusion that Reid’s troubles result from Nevada voters viewing him as too liberal and carrying too much water for Barack Obama.

But Cillizza typically ignores that Barack Obama won Nevada over McCain by a huge margin, 55% to 43% ten short months ago. And Cillizza ignores that Nevada is populated by a huge community of service employees in the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas, and generally a poor to middle class populous in the remaining areas, all of whom are dying for healthcare reform and relief. It is not that Democratic votes are not there for Reid; it is that Nevadans are fed up with his inability to get the things done that they want, and healthcare with a strong public option that will actually help them, is undoubtedly the leader in their clubhouse of reasoning.

The depth of Reid’s problem should not be underestimated. Nor should the challenge of Republican businessman Danny Tarkanian. Tarkanian grew up in Las Vegas, was a top student and Rhodes Scholar candidate, and was point guard on the first of the famous UNLV Runnin Rebel basketball teams that held forth for the better part of two decades at or near the top of the NCAA standings. Oh, by the way, those famous UNLV teams were coached by Danny’s father Jerry “Tark the Shark” Tarkanian, probably the most beloved name in Nevada sports history. Tarkanian’s mother was a Las Vegas City Councilwoman and active philanthropist. The guy has some serious juice from his name and background and will get major support from the GOP assuming he continues to climb in relation to GOP official Sue Lowden, which he is expected to do.

The conclusion here is that Reid has serious problems and they are of his own making. Unless Reid gets with the program, exercises some party discipline from his Majority Leader position and starts working earnestly for the causes, first and foremost the strong public option, of Democratic voters, he will not get any support from the activist base. As Jane Hamsher says: Read more →

Share this entry

Order In The Court: Gnarly Orly Sanctions

/41 Comments/in /by

Oh, this is beautiful. I know I have been on a discipline roll today, but this is too good to pass up. There has been a bit of discipline meted out down south in Georgia. From the Columbus (Georgia) Ledger Enquirer:

In an order today, California attorney Orly Taitz has been sanctioned $20,000 by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land — double the amount he said he was considering.

“While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so,” Land states. “A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.”

Land gave Taitz two weeks from Sept. 18 to show cause why he should not sanction her for filing a motion for emergency stay in a lawsuit he called “frivolous.” On the deadline, Taitz filed a motion for an extension of time.

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.

Regrettablly, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct.

Read more →

Share this entry

A Lack Of Party Discipline

/22 Comments/in /by

Several commenters over the last few weeks have opined that Democratic leadership should flex its muscle and exercise party discipline by punishing recalcitrant moderates who break ranks and vote with the Republicans to filibuster (deny cloture) on healthcare bill on the floor of the Senate. You are not alone, more than 79,000 people have signed a Progressive Change Campaign Committee petition urging Democratic Senate leadership to strip the chairmanship of any Democratic who votes to filibuster health care reform.

Personally, I have been saying for quite some time that Nancy Pelosi needed to make good on her promise made when first elected Speaker to clean up the ethics in the House and put teeth in ethics enforcement. A disciplined party should possess the courage and fortitude to investigate and discipline ethically dubious members, even of their own party. Especially of their own party in order to set a standard; it looks fraudulent to go after the other party’s violators when you will not do the same with your own.

Alas, neither form of party discipline is in the offing by our Democrats. From The Politico:

Some of the progressives who helped put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in power are demanding that they come down hard on House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and any Senate committee chairmen who stray from the flock on health care reform.

Don’t hold your breath.

While three Democratic insiders say leaders have privately discussed the possibility of ousting Rangel or asking him to step aside, there has been no move to approach the New York Democrat — and aides to Pelosi have made it clear that she won’t do anything about him until the House Ethics Committee finishes its probe.

Pelosi’s lack of real determination to crack down on ethics should have been evident from her immediate support of Murtha for Majority Leader, not to mention her history of kowtowing to the Democratic Black Caucus on withholding action against William Jefferson (and Rangel).

And as to discipline of the recalcitrant caucus members who would vote with the republicans on a filibuster of healthcare:
Read more →

Share this entry

Two Data Points on Section 215 and Bush’s Illegal Program

/7 Comments/in /by

I’ve been working on adding some of the dates from this FOIA to my warrantless wiretap FOIA, and I wanted to elaborate on two coincidences of timing I pointed out in this post. Mind you, I think we have to assume they’re just coincidences at this point, not causally related. But they do show that they show how Section 215 authority paralleled the events following the hospital confrontation.

First, as I had suggested earlier, the first Section 215 was granted just as the legal issues surrounding Bush’s illegal program came to a resolution following the hospital confrontation. In fact, the first 215 Order was granted the day after a big CYA document from Ashcroft, and 15 days after the new OLC memo for the program.

May 6, 2004, OLC memo from Jack Goldsmith for John Ashcroft: OLC 54 which consists of six copies, some with handwritten comments and marginalia, of a 108-page memorandum, dated May 6, 2004, from the Assistant Attorney General for OLC to the Attorney General, as well as four electronic files, one with highlighting, prepared in response to a request from the Attorney General that OLC perform a legal review of classified foreign intelligence activities. According to the IG Report, much of this was replicated in the January 6, 2006 White Paper.

May 20, 2004: Ashcroft writes memo stating it was not until Philbin and later Goldsmith explained to him that aspects of the NSA’s Other Intelligence Activities were not accurately described in the prior Authorizations that he realized that he had been certifying the Authorizations prior to March 2004 based on a misimpression of those activities.

May 21, 2004: FBI gets its first business record in response to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

The other coincidence is earlier–and while almost certainly a coincidence, much more intriguing. Read more →

Share this entry

Torture Memos

/31 Comments/in /by

Today at 5 pm EST and 2 pm PST/FDL time, I will be hosting Professor David Cole at FDL for a Book Salon discussion of his new compilation of the Bush Administration torture memos. Here is the quick blurb on the book:

On April 16, 2009, the Justice Department released never-before-seen secret memos describing, in graphic detail, the brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA under the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Now, for the first time, the key documents are compiled in one remarkable volume, showing that the United States government’s top attorneys were instrumental in rationalizing acts of torture and cruelty, employing chillingly twisted logic and Orwellian reasoning to authorize what the law absolutely forbids.

This collection gives readers an unfiltered look at the tactics approved for use in the CIA’s secret overseas prisons–including forcing detainees to stay awake for eleven days straight, slamming them against walls, stripping them naked, locking them in a small box with insects to manipulate their fears, and, of course, waterboarding–and at the incredible arguments advanced to give them a green light.

Originally issued in secret by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005, the documents collected here have been edited only to eliminate repetition. They reflect, in their own words, the analysis that guided the legal architects of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.

Renowned legal scholar David Cole’s introductory essay tells the story behind the memos, and presents a compelling case that instead of demanding that the CIA conform its conduct to the law, the nation’s top lawyers contorted the law to conform to the CIA’s abusive and patently illegal conduct. He argues eloquently that official accountability for these legal wrongs is essential if the United States is to restore fidelity to the rule of law.

David Cole is a professor of law at Georgetown University, legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books, and author of the American Book Award-winning Enemy Aliens. He lives in Washington, D.C. (Amazon.com)

I hope all of you will join me, there will be a full two hours we have with Professor Cole and it will be a fantastic forum for discussion. So be thinking of your questions and discussion points. If you cannot attend, use this thread to leave questions and I and/or another regular here will try to get them portaged over to book salon and asked.

Share this entry

Obama’s Other Sessions Amendments

/16 Comments/in , /by

In my last post, I described how the Obama Administration had gotten Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to introduce an amendment to the PATRIOT Act essentially gutting minimization in the case of pen registers and trap and trace devices. This means they can bulk collect your communication information, find out who you communicate with and for how long, keep that information, and distribute that information, unless a judge “in extraordinary circumstances” tells the government they can’t do so. If you haven’t read that post go do so.

Since that was such a stinker, I figured I ought to figure out what else the Obama Administration had snuck in under cover of the loathsome Sessions’ skirts.

There are basically two other amendments. As I explained, DiFi’s substitute for the PATRIOT renewal made Section 215 worse by requiring an applicant to show only some cockamamie theory on how the records are relevant to international intelligence; the judge doesn’t get to determine whether that theory makes sense or not. But DiFi (with the help of Pat Leahy) put in an exception for librarians, because librarians have a way of getting pissy when the government starts conducting fishing expeditions. One of Sessions’ amendments limits that exception to circulation records and patron data, presumably making it clear that the government can do the same kind of data mining on library computers as they do on every other computer.

The other amendment–which apparently was submitted in two amendments that are virtually identical (one, two)–plays a nice trick with NSL gag orders. As a reminder, NSLs are subpoenas that require no judicial review. The Special Agent in Charge of an FBI office can approve them, based on a statement that shows an agent’s cockamamie theory relating the desired records to an international intelligence investigation. With that subpoena, the agent can get certain kinds of financial records under a gag order.

Now, you may recall that courts around the country have found that gag order to be unconstitutional. So, presumably to fix a Constitutional deficiency, DiFi added language that would have required the FBI to tell financial institutions when the gag order was no longer necessary. For each class of financial provider in question, the bill included language like this:

(4) TERMINATION.—If the facts supporting a nondisclosure requirement cease to exist, an appropriate official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall promptly notify the wire or electronic service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, subject to the nondisclosure requirement that the nondisclosure requirement is no longer in effect.

That is, DiFi’s version of the bill basically said, “when you no longer need a gag order (either because you’ve indicted the person in question or you’ve determined the person is totally innocent, you’ve got to tell the service provider that the gag order is no longer in place, and if the service provider feels like it, they can tell their customer.” Sessions’ Obama’s amendment effectively changes that to say:

(4) TERMINATION.—In the case of any request for which a recipient has submitted a notification under paragraph (3)(B), if the facts supporting a nondisclosure requirement cease to exist, an appropriate official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall promptly notify the wire or electronic service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, subject to the nondisclosure requirement that the nondisclosure requirement is no longer in effect.

That “submit a notification” refers to the process by which providers legally challenge gag orders. That means that the FBI only has to tell a service provider that a gag order is no longer in effect if the service provider, when they first got the request from the FBI, said, “I’d like to spend some money paying my lawyer to challenge this gag order in court.” Now, this amendment was billed as an attempt to save the FBI from some unnecessary paperwork. And I can imagine when you’re issuing NSLs at the rate that the FBI is doingl, it would be a pain in the ass to chase down every gag order once it expires.

But the real effect of this is to make it highly unlikely that these gag orders will be lifted, in practice. Frankly, it was already unlikely that a bunch of banks and ISPs would willingly offer up to their customers that they had cooperated with the FBI in spying on them. Now, it’s saying that only those banks and ISPs that are willing to fight this legally will ever even know when those gag orders expire, meaning just a teeny fraction of businesses getting NSLs will be telling their customers they helped the FBI to spy on them.

Which has the net effect–I’m sure the Obama Administration hopes–of fixing the Constitutional problems with gag orders while, effectively, keeping those gag orders in place. And, at the same time, preventing a bunch of innocent Americans from learning that in the age of Obama, the government can spy on a wide range of innocent people.

Update: From my liveblog I now see what the duplicate amendments (or one of them) is supposed to do. It’s supposed to make sure that Article III Judges have absolutely no discretion at all to overrule the FBI’s self-certification that something merits a gag order.

I’m sure that won’t be abused.

Here’s all five of the Amendments Sessions introduced with what they do.

091008 Sessions Library HEN09A06: Limits the exception for libraries on Section 215 orders

091008 Sessions NSL Notice HEN09A04, 091008 Sessions NSL Notice HEN09A13: Limit the circumstances in which the FBI has to tell businesses it has issued a National Security Letter to that a gag order is no longer necessary.

091008 Sessions Pen Register HEN09A10, 091008 Sessions known to concern HEN09999: Gut minimization with pen registers.

Share this entry

Yes, They Are Tracking Hydrogen Peroxide and Acetone

/39 Comments/in /by

Remember how last week I used the hypothetical example of using Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to get records on people who had bought hydrogen peroxide and acetone?

I’m going to make a wildarsed guess and suggest that the Federal Government is doing a nationwide search to find out everyone who is buying large amounts of certain kinds of beauty products. And those people are likely now under investigation as potential terrorism suspects. 

Well, two different Senators used, essentially, the same hypothetical today (albeit in context of National Security Letters).

Cardin: Review tools. Someone buys cleaning products that could be used to make explosive device.

Hey!! That was my suggestion.

Cardin: You don’t want to use NSLs on everyone who buys cleaning supplies in the country. Relevant to investigation. Feinstein pointed out specific and articulable facts. Not going to be second guessed on getting information. Gives us oppty in oversight to make sure not using it for everyone buying cleaning supplies in country.

DiFi: listening to debate. These are given out by many thousand. Specific facts prior to certification. Kyl is right about art-kyoo-la-bull (problem saying that). Would you be amenable to dropping that? Specific is the issue.

Kyl: Good question.

Kyl: If we say that we want to know about Joe Blow buying hydogen peroxide.

I’m not certain, but I think they’d have to use Section 215 rather than NSLs for this purpose.

So while Kyl assures us that they’re not searching everyone in the country buying hydrogen peroxide, it appears very very very likely they are searching some subset of the country for their beauty, home improvement, and cleaning supplies. 

Share this entry

Rahm’s Placeholder, Forrest Claypool?

/36 Comments/in /by

Remember how, in December and January, there were hints that Rahm Emanuel had been trying (in November) to get Rod Blagojevich to help set up a placeholder in his seat, so he could serve as Chief of Staff for two years and then return to the House and run for Speaker?

Well, Blago has repeated and elaborated on that story in a book and the Sun-Times has investigated Blago’s claims in a fascinating article. The Sun-Times reports that Blago claims Rahm asked Blago to appoint Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool to his seat; Blago further claims that Rahm told Claypool he could have a Cabinet appointment when he stepped aside to reopen Rahm’s seat for him after two or four years.

I’m interested in this story partly for the way it would fill out the timeline of Rahm’s and Blago’s contacts. Here’s the chronology the Sun-Times describes.

According to Blagojevich’s recently released book, The Governor, Blagojevich and Emanuel spoke Nov. 7 and 8. They discussed Blagojevich appointing a "placeholder," for the congressional seat, according to the book.

[snip]

Claypool’s announcement that he would not seek Emanuel’s seat came Nov. 12, just days after the discussion between Emanuel and Blagojevich.

On the same day as Claypool’s announcement, Jarrett publicly pulled herself out of contention for the Senate seat. She is now a top adviser to the president.

And here’s how that makes the timeline look (I’ve underlined the new information):

November 6: Rahm Emanuel accepts Chief of Staff position; Blago gives a leak to Michael Sneed designed "to send a message to the [Obama] people" that Madigan might get the Senate seat over Jarrett

November 6-8: Louanner Peters called Eric Whitaker to ask who spoke for Obama regarding his preferences for his replacement; Obama told Whitaker no one had that authority, which Whitaker "relayed" this to Peters

November 6-8: Rahm has "one or two" conversations with Blago, about his own seat, as well as Senate seat [note, Blago says one happened on November 7 and one happened on November 8]; Rahm has four conversations with John Harris about the Senate seat

November 7: Rahm and Blago talk about the Senate seat and about appointing a placeholder; Blago tells Advisor A he’s willing to "trade" the Senate seat for Secretary of HHS; Blago discusses HHS with Harris and Advisor B and talks about 3-way deal with SEIU; Read more →

Share this entry