Conason’s Lost Truth About Reconciliation

/98 Comments/in /by
h/t Zapirpo @ sahistory

h/t Zapiro @ sahistory

Joe Conason has a new piece out in Salon that is enough to cause sane heads to explode. Noting that, like math, bringing accountability is hard, Conason biliously opines:

Here we have no such consensus and no revolutionary government with the power to mete out retribution to vanquished foes. What we have instead are the unrepentant officials of the Bush era, who continue to justify their misconduct as critical to the nation’s survival. We have a new administration, immured in a world economic crisis, that recognizes conflicting imperatives of accountability and cooperation. And we have a responsibility to explore how the nation embarked on "a dangerous and disastrous diversion from American values," as Leahy put it.

Is there a way for President Obama to pursue that responsibility without inflicting vengeance or humiliation? Perhaps he ought to consider the creation of a presidential commission whose aims would be purely investigative — and encourage the participation of those implicated in the abuses of the past by promising a complete pardon to anyone who testifies fully, honestly and publicly.

With that gesture, he would acknowledge the importance of uncovering the facts, no matter how ugly, while magnanimously binding up the nation’s wounds. He could leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint. And he could seek truth without vengeance.

Conason waxes romantic about Sen. Pat Leahy’s much ballyhooed truth and reconciliation plan. Here is the money quote from Leahy:

We could develop and authorize a person or group of people universally recognized as fair-minded, and without axes to grind. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts.

That’s right, another blue ribbon commission that is going to solve our difficult problems of governance. Yeah, that is going to work out well because, you know, such things always do. Paging Lee Hamilton to the blue ribbon phone. The problem with Leahy and Conason’s commission is that there exists a body of law, both statutory and common, for a reason; for it to be the rule and for the rule to be enforced. Conason wants to be "magnanimous" and "pardon" and "leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint". What Read more →

Share this entry

President’s Day Down South

/100 Comments/in , , /by

Here it is, another glorious President’s day, and wouldn’t you know it world leaders are exchanging presents. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has sent one President Obama’s way:

President Hugo Chávez handily won a referendum on Sunday that will end presidential term limits, allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely and injecting fresh vibrancy into his socialist-inspired revolution.

The results, coming after voters had rejected a similar effort by Mr. Chávez just 15 months ago, pointed to his resilience after a decade in power, as well as to the fragmentation of his opposition, which as recently as November had won key mayoralties and governorships.

The vote opens the way not only for Mr. Chávez to run for a new six-year term when his current one expires in 2013, but could also bolster his ambitious agenda as an icon of the left and a counterweight to American policies in Latin America.

It also creates a new foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration, strengthening a leader who has made a career of taunting and deriding the United States, even though Mr. Chávez just this weekend seemed to open the door for a different relationship.

Chavez is not going away anytime soon, and with the petro status of Venezuela remaining significant, both as to the US and as a vehicle for Chavez to spread influence in Latin America, Barack Obama needs to fashion a coherent policy for Latin America as a whole and Venezuela in particular. President Obama has shown a refreshing tendency in foreign policy to address glaring problems head on and, unlike the previous Bush Administration, actually use intelligence instead of muscle.

A heavy fist and a thumbed nose was about all the subtlety George Bush showed in his Latin American foreign policy; it is time for that to change. With the decline and fall of Fidel Castro in Cuba, and brother Raul being both slightly more progressive and not long for office himself, coupled with Chavez’s newfound extended lease on power and inability to know what to do the Obama agency of change, it is time for a new direction on both. We don’t need to all be best friends, but we need to quit being intransigent enemies for the sake of nothing more than needing to make each other a villain to play off of. President Obama can stop the stupid; he should.

Share this entry

Burris’ Campaign for the Senate Seat

/39 Comments/in /by

In this post, I’m going to make a wildarsed guess at what actually went down with Burris’ campaign to be Senator. See the timeline of known interactions below.

The key to understanding what really happened in Burris’ campaign to be Senator is a discrepancy between what RobBlago is saying and what Burris is saying. In a statement to the Sun-Times, RobBlago’s lawyer  Michael Ettinger claimed that RobBlago didn’t know about Burris’ interest in the Senate seat when he made three fund-raising calls to Burris.

"He didn’t know he was in the running for the U.S. Senate seat," Michael Ettinger said.

But Burris had already expressed his interest in running to at least three people (John Wyma and Doug Scofield at a June fundraiser, and Lon Monk in July and/or September) by the time RobBlago first called. And Burris said that the Senate seat came up during at least two of their calls. In fact, Burris says that when RobBlago first called in October, RobBlago clearly stated that he knew Burris was in consideration for the seat.

I asked Rob Blagojevich what was going on with the selection of a successor if  then-Senator Obama were elected President, and he said he had heard by name mentioned in the discussions.

So here’s what I think happened (and this is all a wildarsed guess).

Burris told all the Blago people he had ties with of his interest in the seat. By early October, RobBlago was already trying to fund-raise off candidates for the seat. He called Burris and specifically in the context of the Senate seat asked him to do a fund-raiser for Blago (note, this would almost certainly have taken place before Fitz bugged Blago’s office, so there’s almost certainly no tape of this conversation). Burris deferred until after the election, perhaps because he wanted to make sure of two things: that Obama got elected and that he was under serious consideration before he went to the trouble of having a fundraiser. It is fairly clear that Burris was playing Blago’s game at this point, because he was already a known candidate for Obama’s seat–doing a fundraiser in October would be perceived as just as much an "attempt to curry favor" from Blago as would a fundraiser after the election!! But rather than saying no, Burris said, talk to me after the election.

Read more →

Share this entry

Any Bets Burris Did Bundle Donations?

/8 Comments/in /by

Here’s a prediction of where the new Burris controversy is going: I suspect we’ll find out, in coming days, that while Burris did not donate directly to Blago, he never refused to bundle donations for Blago. I don’t know whether Burris actually did bundle donations, but I suspect we’ll learn that Burris has never refused to do so.

As Sun-Times reports, there is some debate over whether, as part of his discussions with Rob Blagojevich after the election, of fund-raising from others for Blago.

In October and again in November, Burris spoke with Robert Blagojevich, who initially asked him to host a fund-raiser. Burris said he’d get back to him after the election, sources with knowledge of the conversations said. The two later talked again, and Burris again was asked for campaign cash.

Burris said he refused to contribute and "made it unequivocally clear … that it would be inappropriate and pose a major conflict because I was interested in the Senate vacancy."

A source with knowledge of the exchange said there was some discussion about Burris possibly getting others to give or raise money on his behalf. Not so, according to Burris: "I did not donate or help raise a single dollar for the governor from those conversations and would never consider making a donation through a third party."

Note the form of Burris’ denial. In response to an assertion that there was "some discussion about Burris possibly getting others to give or raise money on his behalf," Burris (in what appears to be an unsworn statement to the newspaper) responds, "I did not … help raise a single dollar for the governor … and would never consider making a donation through a third party." I’m not sure what the "did not … help raise a single dollar" would include (would it include telling his partner–who was on the board of the charity at which Blago’s wife worked–to go raise money, but then not getting involved in the actual fundraising?), but Burris then says he would not make a donation through a third party, which is slightly different than having others give on your behalf.

Read more →

Share this entry

Burris Did Not Want to Reveal His Conversations–and He Didn’t

/15 Comments/in /by

Check out this video of Roland Burris’ testimony before the IL Legislative Committee. Here’s the transcript, on the interactions between Burris and his lawyer.

Rep. Jim Durkin: Prior to his arrest, did you have any conversations with the governor about your desire to be appointed to the seat?

Roland Burris: No.

Durkin: OK. Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including with family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including oh, let me throw out some names: John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenlee, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody who was associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?

Burris (confers with his attorney off-mic and says): I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.

Durkin: I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor’s staff prior to the governor’s arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?

Burris (again confers with attorney and says): I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September-maybe it was in July of ’08 and you know, ‘If your close to the governor, well let him know that I will feel certainly interested in the seat.’"

Durkin: OK.

Durkin lists off a list that includes all five people whom Burris has now admitted speaking to about the seat and other issues. Burris’ lawyer seems to know immediately that Burris is going to need help with the question and asks for a moment to confer. Burris gives his attorney a short explanation, the attorney responds with one word (seemingly telling him he has to reveal it), and the elaborates that advice. Burris then gives his weasely answer, "I talked to some friends." Durkin tries again and asks what was in effect a simple yes or no question about whether Burris had talked to anyone on the Governor’s staff or "was closely related" to the Governor.

Rather than saying yes, or starting with those closest to the Governor (his brother), Burris launches into a vague answer about Lon Monk.

And he never gets around to revealing that conversation in which Rob Blagojevich discussed fundraising in the context of the Senate appointment. And here–from later in the transcript–is Burris trying to avoid answering whether or not he would have turned the Blagos in if they asked for a clear quid pro quo.

Durkin: At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?

Burris: No sir.

Read more →

Share this entry

Burris Did Not Reveal Contacts with Blagojevich

/54 Comments/in /by

The Sun-Times reports today that Roland Burris was not very forthcoming when he told the State House what contacts he had had with Rod Blagojevich’s camp.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

[snip]

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

Burris — who did not give money to the Blagojevich campaign fund in response to the previously undisclosed solicitation — provided a copy of the sworn statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Friday in response to questions about his contacts with the Blagojevich camp about fund-raising.

Burris acknowledged having three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund — and one of those was likely recorded by the FBI.

[snip]

In his new affidavit, Burris confirms he also spoke of his interest in the Senate appointment with Blagojevich insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma.

The discussions with Robert Blagojevich about money came after Burris spoke with those people. 

So best as I can reconstruct, here are the contacts Burris had with Blago’s folks:

July or September: Discussions with Lon Monk about picking up lobbying business to the Governor

Unknown: Conversations with John Harris, Doug Scofield, and John Wyma about seat

October: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

November: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

December 26: Conversation with Sam Adam Jr., Blago’s maybe Defense Attorney, about appointment

December 28: Conversation with Adam, then Blago, accepting seat

January 5: Roland signs affidavit that does not address contacts with Blago’s people, beyond the appointment discussions on December 26 and 28

January 8: In State Legislative hearing, Burris admits to contacts with Lon Monk, but does not mention contacts with four other Blago representatives

January 15: Burris sworn in as Senator

February 5: Burris writes a new affidavit, revealing additional conversations

One of the key details is the genesis of the new affidavit. Burris says he sent it after realizing he wasn’t forthcoming to the hearing.

Burris acknowledges being Read more →

Share this entry

House Judiciary Cuffs Joe Arpaio, The Most Abusive Sheriff In America

/66 Comments/in , , /by
AMERICAS MOST ABUSIVE SHERIFF

AMERICAS MOST ABUSIVE SHERIFF

You have probably heard of the shamelessly self professed "Toughest Sheriff in America", Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. For years he has been making a PR spectacle of himself, all the while running an unconstitutionally deplorable jail system, letting inmates die under tortuous conditions, and violating the civil rights and liberties of everybody in sight, especially minorities. Today, the House Judiciary Committee made public a critical and public step to rein in the Most Abusive Sheriff In America.

From the HJC press release:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) called on Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to investigate allegations of misconduct by Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the rights of Hispanics in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Under the guise of immigration enforcement, his staff has conducted raids in residential neighborhoods in a manner condemned by the community as racial profiling. On February 4, 2009, Arpaio invited the media to view the transfer of immigrant detainees to a segregated area of his "tent city" jail, subjecting the detainees to public display and "ritual humiliation." Persistent actions such as these have resulted in numerous lawsuits; while Arpaio spends time and energy on publicity and his reality television show, "Smile… You’re Under Arrest!", Maricopa County has paid millions of dollars in settlements involving dead or injured inmates.
…
It is time for the federal government to step in and uphold the rule of law in this country, even in Maricopa County."

"Law enforcement is not a game or a reality show, it is a public trust," said Scott. "There is no excuse for callous indifference to the rights of the residents of Arizona, whether in their neighborhoods or as pretrial detainees."

The full official text of the letter to Napolitano and Holder is here.

It is high time that somebody on the national scene notice, and the Federal government take action on, the egregious and violative conduct of Joe Arpaio.

Joe Arpaio is a two bit carnival barker and huckster, not a dedicated law enforcement official. The opportunistic man came into office running against a fellow Republican and incumbent Maricopa County Sheriff, Tom Agnos, by bad mouthing Agnos and arguing that the entire Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department needed Read more →

Share this entry

Anyone Wondering Whether Gregg Just Didn’t Want Scrutiny of His Office’s Favors for Abramoff?

/158 Comments/in /by

Darn. We’ll have one less Republican in Obama’s cabinet, at least until Obama nominates Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich to the post. I’m heartbroken.

But, really, does anyone actually believe this claptrap?

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Shorter Gregg: "I just completely stopped listening after the moment Obama said, ‘interested in a cabinet spot?’ and missed all his discussion of retaining the census in Democratic hands." 

Yeah, I don’t find that too plausible either.

I wonder whether Gregg simply got to the point in the vetting process where he realized that he didn’t want his life to be investigated in detail by his colleagues and the press? I mean, it was just hours after Gregg was nominated that it became clear that Gregg’s Legislative Director from 2002 to 2004, Kevin Koonce, had been trading sports and music tickets and booze for legislative favors. As the latest details on the Abramoff make clear, Abramoff and his cronies were asking for $3.5 million earmarks and the defeat of a defense appropriations bill that would have hurt Abramoff’s Native American gaming clients. Koonce’s language, "[Gregg’s office] had the proposed amendment ‘flagged,’" "I got something for you too," "Let me know if I can return the favor," and Abramoff’s language (describing a request from a potential Abramoff client), "Koonce practically lives in our various suites. We are shady," suggest Abramoff’s $10,000 investment in sports tickets did not go to waste. Koonce was delivering on Abramoff’s requests. 

Which sort of means–whether or not Gregg is a subject or a target of the investigation at the moment–his office was trading legislative favors for gifts. And those trades, whether they were made with or without Gregg’s knowledge, certainly don’t say much for Gregg’s ability to shepherd the nation’s commercial interests.

Sure, Gregg tells a nice story about how his lifetime dream was to run a census. But I suspect he’s just hoping to get out of the Senate in 2010 with his honor and his clear criminal record intact.

Share this entry

Judge Walker Busts A Move: The Legal Foundation For It

/55 Comments/in , , /by

Immediately below, Marcy described Judge Vaughn Walker’s new homework assignment to the parties in the consolidated litigation in the Northern District of California (effectively all cases except al-Haramain and a few others to which "section 802 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008" are not germane). If you have not read Marcy’s post, and wish to proceed into the legal weeds of this one, I heartily suggest you go back there first.

Okay, as I suggested in comments in Marcy’s post, Judge Walker is looking at the Attorney General option to certify a matter for dismissal pursuant to section 802 of the FISA Amendments Act, and as to said provision:

It is the hyper-equivalent of vagueness. The provisions that are supposed to provide the guidelines, provide … none.

Mary went to the same point but, as usual, with a lot more flesh on the bone in her comment:

… the drafting is bad. It doesn’t say that if x,y and z are met, the AG SHALL give a certification and with that certification, the telcoms walk. It says that the AG MAY give a certification that x,y and z existed and if the AG gives that certification, it’s an out. So it makes the certification discretionary to the AG, but then gives no standards on the exercise of the discretion. So the AG could, under the statute give the certifications to some and withhold it from others under the same factual settings.

So how is a court to know of the AG is complying with Congressional will vis a vis the certifications – if there are no standards specified for the exercise of discretion.

Precisely. So, let’s look at what Walker is legally up to here. It is my contention that he has pretty much determined that he is not down with the government’s program in the least, is going to take the bold move of declaring it unconstitutional and, from all appearances, do so on multiple grounds. The one at issue here is the unfettered and infinite nature and scope of the AG certification process under section 802.

First off Judge Walker posits this: Read more →

Share this entry

The Senate State Secrets Bill

/22 Comments/in /by

I linked earlier to the House version of the State Secrets Bill. Here’s Leahy’s announcement about the Senate version.

Leading members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined together to introduce the State Secrets Protection Act, a bill that provides guidance to federal courts considering cases in which the government has asserted the state secrets privilege. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Committee Member Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) joined with former Committee Chairman and Member Edward Kennedy (D-Ma.) to introduce the bill Wednesday.

The legislation was initially proposed in the 110th Congress in response to the government’s assertions of the state secrets privilege in cases challenging the constitutionally of several of the Bush administration’s national security programs, including the warrantless wiretapping, rendition and interrogation programs.

Leahy said, "The State Secrets Protection Act will help guide the courts to balance the government’s interests in secrecy with accountability and the rights of citizens to seek judicial redress. The bill does not restrict the Government’s ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases. In light of the pending cases where this privilege has been invoked, involving issues including torture, rendition and warrantless wiretapping, we can ill-afford to delay consideration of this important legislation. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this bill."

Specter said, "While national security must be protected, there must also be meaningful oversight by the courts and Congress to ensure the Executive branch does not misuse the privilege," Senator Specter said. "This bipartisan legislation provides guidance to the federal courts in handling assertions of the privilege. It is designed to protect state secrets from disclosure, while preventing misuse of the privilege and enabling litigants to achieve justice in court, regardless of which party occupies the White House."

Feingold said, "A country where the government need not answer to allegations of wrongdoing is a country that has strayed dangerously far from the rule of law. We must ensure that the state secrets privilege does not become a license for the government to evade the laws that we pass. This bill accomplishes that goal, while simultaneously providing the strongest of protections to those items of evidence that truly qualify as state secrets."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) are also cosponsors of the legislation. The Leahy-Specter-Feingold-Kennedy legislation would:

Share this entry