Mary Beth Buchanan’s Going Away Present: Jack Murtha?

/20 Comments/in /by

In December, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan wrote a letter declaring that she would not resign at the end of the Bush Administration.

Last month, Buchanan released a letter stating that she had no intention of submitting her resignation. An ideologically committed Federalist Society member, Buchanan is close to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who actively promoted her as U.S. attorney. Following her appointment in 2001, Buchanan quickly gained the favor and approval of the White House. In the key period of 2004-05, while groundwork was laid for what later became the U.S. attorney’s scandal, Buchanan served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the key position at Justice that oversaw all the 94 U.S. attorneys. A later internal Justice Department probe, in which Buchanan figures prominently, highlights the role played by that office in Karl Rove’s plan to sack U.S. attorneys.

She said she had to stick around, at least partly, so she could see her trumped up prosecution of Cyril Wecht through.

The second case is a corruption prosecution of one of the country’s most prominent medical examiners, Dr. Cyril Wecht, also not coincidentally a leading figure in Pittsburgh Democratic politics. The charges brought against Wecht involve a long list of petty accusations, including that he used his office telephone and fax machine for personal matters. These charges happen to bear remarkable similarity to accusations of petty improprieties that flew around Buchanan’s mentor Santorum in the two years before Pennsylvania voters retired him from public life in 2006. Buchanan, however, opted not to pursue any of the accusations surrounding Santorum. Wecht’s defense counsel, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who served under George H.W. Bush and was governor of Pennsylvania, testified before a House Judiciary inquiry that Buchanan’s prosecution was improper and politically motivated. "It is not the type of case normally constituting a federal ‘corruption’ case brought against a local official," said Thornburgh. "There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht ever solicited or received a bribe or kickback. There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht traded on a conflict of interest in conducting the affairs of his selected office." The case was originally tried before a judge appointed by George W. Bush who, though close to Buchanan, refused to recuse himself and forbade defense counsel in any way from referencing Buchanan’s political motivation. The trial ended in a hung jury, which divided sharply in favor of Wecht’s acquittal. Read more →

Share this entry

USAMRIID Can’t Keep Track of Its Microbes

/in /by

Now, what do you make of the fact that USAMRIID, the lab at which Bruce Ivins was alleged to have made the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks, is having problems cataloging and tracking their high-risk microbes and biomaterials (h/t Danger Room)?

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has suspended research activities involving biological select agents and toxins. Army officials took the step on Friday after discovering apparent problems with the system of accounting for high-risk microbes and biomaterials at the Fort Detrick, Maryland, facility.

The lab has been under intense scrutiny since August, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) named former USAMRIID researcher Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. Although the case never went to trial because of Ivins’s suicide on 29 July 2008, FBI officials have claimed that the evidence against him is indisputable and that he carried out the mailings using anthrax stolen from a flask at USAMRIID.

Officials have begun a complete inventory of all select agents and toxins at the facility. All experiments using select agents will remain suspended until the accounting is finished, which could take several weeks. Several USAMRIID researchers have been grumbling about the decision, which seems to have caught them by surprise, according to a government official not connected to the lab.

The decision was announced by institute commander Col. John Skvorak in a 4 February memo to employees. The memo, which ScienceInsider has obtained, says the standard of accountability that USAMRIID had been applying to its select agents and toxins was not in line with the standard required by the Army and the Department of Defense. [my empahsis]

One key to the FBI case against Ivins, after all, is that he had complete control over the sole flask that contained the strain of anthrax used in the attack. But now we come to find out that, more than six months after his death, they still don’t have a sound inventory of what they have where?

I’d say that FBI case is looking weaker and weaker.

Share this entry

BREAKING: Obama Continues Bush Policy On State Secrets

/161 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Earlier this morning, Looseheadprop wrote about the case of Binyam Mohamed, the British subject tortured at the hands of the United States at Gitmo, including having his genitals carved selectively with a scalpel. The Mohamed case is of critical significance for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there was an oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco this morning that was to provide a crucial test of the new Obama Administration’s willingness to continue the Bush policy of concealing torture, wiretapping and other crimes by the assertion of the state secrets privilege.

From an excellent article by Daphne Eviatar at the Washington Independent at the end of January:

President Obama’s sweeping reversals of torture and state secret policies are about to face an early test.
…
The test of those commitments will come soon in key court cases involving CIA “black sites” and torture that the Bush administration had quashed by claiming they would reveal state secrets and endanger national security. Legal experts say that the Bush Department of Justice used whatʼs known as the “state secrets privilege” – created originally as a narrow evidentiary privilege for sensitive national security information — as a broad shield to protect the government from exposure of its own misconduct.

One such case, dealing with the gruesome realities of the CIAʼs so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, is scheduled for oral argument before a federal appeals court in early February. The position the Obama administration takes in this case may be the first major test of its new policies on transparency in government.

Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. involves five victims of CIA rendition, or “torture by proxy,” as itʼs also known. Abducted abroad, the men were flown by the CIA to cooperating countries whose agents interrogated them under torture. Because federal officials are usually immune from lawsuits, the men later sued the private aviation data company, Jeppesen — a subsidiary of Boeing, one of the largest federal defense contractors — that
knowingly provided the flight plans and other assistance necessary for the CIA to carry out its clandestine operations.

Well, the news being reported out of Courtroom One in San Francisco is not good and indicates that the Obama Administration has continued the walk of the oppressive shoes of the Bush/Cheney regime and has formally continued the assertion of state secrets.

The best hope for transparency on Read more →

Share this entry

Toyota Sings The Mercury Blues

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

As the Republicans in Congress, most notably the Senate, fixate on emasculating the stimulus package, stripping it and the country of hope for success in heading off the economic death spiral we are witnessing, I want to return to another recent example of the un-American activities and bent of the Republican Caucus of legislative geniuses. I refer to this same group’s actions and illogic in relation to the American Auto manufacturer bridge loan issue that roiled little more than a month ago and still percolates near the surface of our economic woes.

Remember how Richard Shelby, Bob Corker and a pack of GOP loons made their bones by preening against the American auto industry and trying to cram American autoworker and union wages down to, and below, the level of foreign transplant wages? Of course you do because you remember the big Republican "Lizard Lie" on the myth of the $73/hr wage rate. It was all predicated on the supposed superiority of the foreign automakers. The Republicans literally were willing to make the American auto industry grovel and beg, and even talk about killing them outright, based on their claims of the superiority of the foreign automakers.

So how are those vaunted foreign automakers, that are so much more brilliant and perfect than GM and the other American manufacturers, doing these days? Well let’s check in on Toyota, which along with Honda is the supposed gold standard to the lizard brained GOP. From the New York Times:

Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, said Friday that it expected to suffer a loss this year, thanks to rapidly declining sales around the world, especially in the United States. The company is expecting its first full-year operating loss since 1937 — 350 billion yen ($3.9 billion) — more than double its previous forecast.

The company’s 2008 fiscal year ends on March 31.

It widened its forecast for an operating loss on its main automotive business to 450 billion yen, or $5 billion, attributing the larger loss to both steep declines in global auto sales and strong gains by the Japanese currency, the yen, which lowers the yen-denominated value of overseas earnings.

Ouch; not so good.

So, times are bad for even the precious to the GOP Toyota, just like GM. So what kind of implications does this news portend for Toyota’s short and long term future? Ah, glad you asked:

“Toyota is going to Read more →

Share this entry

Sign the Petition: Howard Dean for HHS Secretary

/49 Comments/in /by

ewpic2.JPG

So far, there’s a lot of support in these parts for Howard Dean to be HHS Secretary. And since then, some great progressives have come out in support of Dean to be HHS Secretary: Tom Harkin:

"I think that would be a very good move," Harkin told the Huffington Post. "He brings all the background and experience. He’s very strong on prevention and wellness, which I’m very strong on. I think he’d make an outstanding secretary of HHS."

Raul Grijalva:

Six years ago Howard famously addressed a meeting of the DNC where he chastised our fellow Democrats by saying, "What I want to know is why we’re fighting in Congress about the Patient’s Bill of Rights when the Democratic Party ought to be standing up for health care for every single American man, woman, and child in this country."

Fixing health care is central to the recovery of the American economy and the security of the American family. Howard Dean is my candidate for the job. I hope he will be yours.

And Alan Grayson (via email):

"He’s progressive, he’s experienced, he’s effective, and he’s vetted."

With support for Dean growing, we’ve put together a petition to collect signatures in support of Dean. We’ll deliver these to Max Baucus next week.

Please sign the petition to support Howard Dean for HHS Secretary.

Share this entry

Dan’s Rather Exciting Brief

/22 Comments/in /by

As you may recall, Dan Rather is in litigation against CBS, Viacom and executives Les Moonves and Andrew Heyward over his treatment after the Bush Texas Air National Guard story on 60 Minutes II. The complaint stakes out a number of claims alleging that not only was Rather improperly treated over the TANG story but but also over the abu Ghraib story on the infamous torture pictures.

The holy grail of the Rather litigation, however, has always been Dan, and thus us the public, getting substantive discovery on his case – depositions, requests for production and requests for admissions. Over a year ago the New York State trial court ordered initial limited discovery. Since then, however, the case has been hamstrung by a series of motions to dismiss and, after the core of Rather’s complaint survived, appeals (initiated by the defendants).

A critical point was reached Monday afternoon with the filing of Rather’s appellate brief (pdf file) by his attorneys. The brief is long, but provides a superb background, factual description, statement of procedural posture and detail of legal arguments being made on Dan Rather’s behalf. It is well worth a read if you are interested and so inclined.

First the good news. The positioning and quality of Dan Rather’s response to the points appealed by the trial court defendants appear strong and, at first blush anyway, would appear sufficient to fend off the attack. Bottom line, it looks very likely that Rather’s case will continue to survive and head back to the trial court for that all important and fun filled discovery.

Now the better news. It would appear that Rather has some very decent arguments for reinstating counts and defendants that the trial court has preliminarily dismissed. You see, that is one of the things about filing an appeal – sometimes the other party cross-appeals, and that is exactly what Rather has done here. So, while CBS et. al have gotten greedy wanting to have the whole case dismissed, Dan Rather has answered back "No, and I want the gains you had obtained returned to me". Of the five questions Rather has cross-appealed on, these two appear to hold the most promise to be decided by the appellate court in Rather’s favor:

4. Are fraud damages adequately pleaded if an employee alleges the fraud led to lesser compensation than the market would have provided? Supreme Court held that fraud damages were insufficiently pleaded solely because the Read more →

Share this entry

Eric Holder Confirmed, 75-21

/in /by

picture-72.thumbnail.png

We finally have a new Attorney General.

The no votes include (roll call here):

Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Kaybee Hutchison
Inhofe
Johanns
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

Share this entry

Kit Bond Sings a Different Song on Holder

/in /by

Here’s a liveblog of what Kit Bond had to say about any "promises" Holder made him about prosecution. You’ll note several areas of difference from the Moonie Times article:

Most notably I’ve been concerned about some of the comments related to intelligence activities that Holder made in hearings. I wanted to make sure the intelligence community has the tools it needs to protect the country. I wanted to make sure we had an AG who would keep the country safe. Discussed TSP, FISA Amendments, interrogation program, Gitmo, interrogation legislative proposals, media leak investigations. A second meeting. 

Carrier liability provisions, and propriety of investigating intelligence officials.

Confusing press reports and statements from Senators who were not in attendance. 

Neither Holder nor I made promises with respect to prosecutions. Holder provided additional insight that assures me he will keep the country safe. Assurance given to Kyl concerning investigation of intelligence officials on interrogation. 

Holder expanded on these remarks and explained how he reached this conclusion. His public emphasis on those who followed DOJ guidance, I told him and I believe he understood that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm. 

Carrier liability. He believed he would unless circumstances changed. I asked if he could explain changed circumstances. It would be difficult for circumstances to change since all this happened in the past.  Didn’t give me specific idea of changed circumstances. Given that those certifications are based on simple legal facts, I’m confident he’ll reach the same conclusion as Mukasey. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of the carrier liability.

Mr. Holder is not read in, or given access, to the TSP or the other programs, it would not be advisable to make statements about either program without the facts. I enjoyed his willingness to withhold judgement until he had the fact. I believe he will take good ideas from whereever they come.[my emphasis]

Here’s the relevant passage from the Moonie Times:

President Obama’s choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won’t prosecute intelligence officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration’s policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Read more →

Share this entry

Holder on State Secrets

/in /by

The Senate debate on Eric Holder’s nomination is on CSPAN2 right now. Tom Coburn is on the floor now pretending that Holder is going to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and take away your guns.

But Holder’s nomination is bound to pass, with large margins, when they vote this evening. So it’ll be interesting to see how Holder implements these highly parsed views, written in response to questions from Russ Feingold, courtesy of Secrecy News.

3. I’m concerned that the outgoing administration may have used the "state secrets privilege" to avoid accountability for potentially unlawful activities, including warrantless wiretapping and rendition. Courts tend to be very deferential to these privilege claims, so there’s certainly room for abuse. Will you commit to reviewing all pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege to make sure the privilege was properly invoked, and withdraw any claims of privilege that are not necessary to preserve national security?

I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations.

4. One reason that the state secrets privilege is so vulnerable to abuse is that courts don’t always use the tools that are at their disposal to review privilege claims, such as in camera review of the privileged evidence. I cosponsored the State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533 in the 110th Congress), with Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Specter, to require courts to engage in meaningful review of these claims. Would you support enactment of this bill?

I appreciate the Committee’s concern about potential abuses of the state secrets privilege and will work to ensure that assertions of the privilege are made only when legally and factually appropriate. I will consult with appropriate career personnel at the Department of Justice and perhaps in other agencies, before making a final judgment on whether to support this or other particular legislation.

"I will review significant pending cases." That would, presumably, include the al-Haramain case. Of course, that says only that he would review the cases.

Share this entry

Rahm’s Not So Secret Plans

/23 Comments/in /by

Say, have you heard that Rahm wants to return to Congress in two years so he can eventually run for Speaker? Sure you have, because we’ve covered it here. But it’s sure interesting the way folks in Chicago treat it as a widely known fact, yet one you can’t speak about.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is interested in potentially returning to Chicago someday to reclaim the congressional seat he held until a month ago, a candidate running to replace him said Sunday.

When 11 Democrats at the first 5th Congressional District forum were asked whether they have had direct or indirect conversations with Emanuel about being a "place holder" for the seat, only state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) said he had.

"I spoke with Rahm maybe a week or two after he had accepted the job of chief of staff," Fritchey said. "At that time, he had commented to me that he may be interested in running one day again for the seat. I told him that should I be fortunate enough to run, and should I be fortunate enough to win the seat, I would look forward to campaigning against him."

The state lawmaker then appeared to sense he might have been a bit too open about the conversation he had with Emanuel, who represented the district from 2003 through 2009, before leaving to work for President Barack Obama.

"If I’m going to put words in anybody’s mouth, it’s not going to be Rahm’s," he said. "So, let me phrase it as exactly as I can for a conversation that took place three months ago. But that was a statement that he may be interested in running for the seat at some point down the road." [my emphasis]

Oops. I guess you’re not allowed to speak the truth about Rahm in Chicago, huh?

Add in the little difficulty that "a week or two after he had accepted" the COS job would put it in the November 13 to 20 timeframe–or precisely the time frame when Blago seemed to be preparing to send John Wyma out to talk to Rahm about just these plans and when Michael Sneed was reporting on it. But that was all before it was revealed that whatever conversations Rahm had with Blago were helpfully taped by the FBI, after which point it became important to cover up any of those conversations. 

No wonder Fritchey thought better of admitting Read more →

Share this entry