Does Ray Hunt Do This Kind of Fund-Raising, Too?

/in /by

Via TP, the Sunday Times (of London) has an explosive video, showing Bush crony Stephen Payne effectively selling State Department endorsements for former Central Asian Presidents in exchange for six figure donations to the Bush Library.

A lobbyist with close ties to the White House is offering access to key figures in George W Bush’s administration in return for six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.

Stephen Payne, who claims to have raised more than $1m for the president’s Republican party in recent years, said he would arrange meetings with Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and other senior officials in return for a payment of $250,000 (£126,000) towards the library in Texas.

[snip]

Asked by an undercover reporter who the politician would be able to meet for that price, Payne said: “Cheney’s possible, definitely the national security adviser [Stephen Hadley], definitely either Dr Rice or . . . I think a meeting with Dr Rice or the deputy secretary [John Negroponte] is possible . . .

“The main thing is that he [the Asian politician] comes, and he’s well received, that he meets with high-level people . . . and we send positive statements made back from the administration about ‘This guy wasn’t such a bad guy, many people have done worse’.”

As Kagro X notes, there’s a name for this: it’s called B-R-I-B-E-R-Y.

Now perhaps this is not common practice for those raising funds for Bush’s Library. And perhaps it’s not common practice for those appointed to national security advisory committees like the Homeland Security Advisory Committee (on which Payne serves) or the Presidential Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. But I can’t help but note the similar profile between Payne–who is apparently selling influence–and Ray Hunt. Of course, Hunt isn’t dealing lobbying contracts with dubious foreign figures. Rather, he’s making oil deals. And for some reason, the State Department not only overlooked the fact that Hunt’s premature deal with Kurdistan might destabilize Iraq, but they pointed Hunt Oil to new business elsewhere in Iraq.

Gosh. The State Department sure does like Bush’s cronies who come up with big chunks of cash for Bush’s library, doesn’t it?

Share this entry

The Significance of the “Official Duties” Claim

/in /by

Here’s how Dana Jill Simpson describes Karl Rove’s involvement in the Siegelman prosecution.

What I understood, or what I believed Mr. Canary to be saying, was that he had had this ongoing conversation with Karl Rove about Don Siegelman, and that Don Siegelman was a thorn to them and basically he was going to — he had been talking with Rove. Rove had been talking with the Justice Department, and they were pursuing Don Siegelman as a result of Rove talking to the Justice Department at the request of Bill Canary.

[snip]

[After the prosecution launched by Alice Martin was dismissed in 2004] Bill Canary and Bob Riley had had a conversation with Karl Rove again and that they had this time gone over and seen whoever was the head of the department of — he called it PIS, which I don’t think that is the correct acronym, but that’s what he called it. And I had to say what is that and he said that is the Public Integrity Section.

[snip]

Q About what?

A About Don Siegelman and the mess that Alice Martin had made and it was my understanding in that conversation after that conversation that there was a decision made that they would bring a new case against Don Siegelman and they would bring it in the Middle District,

[snip]

Q Okay. And did Rob give you the name of the person at — I’m just going to call it Public Integrity — that he thought he understood Karl Rove had spoken to?

A No, he said it was the head guy there and he said that that guy had agreed to allocate whatever resources, so evidently the guy had the power to allocate resources, you know.

Q To the Siegelman prosecution?

A Yes. And that he’d allocate all resources necessary.

So, in sworn testimony, Simpson claims that, sometime before November 2002, Karl Rove had spoken to DOJ and–"as a result of Rove talking to" DOJ, they were pursuing an investigation of Don Siegelman. And then, after the first case against Siegelman had been dismissed in 2004, Rove again spoke with DOJ–with the Public Integrity Division specifically, probably Noel Hillman from the description–and got reassurances that PIN would "allocate all resources necessary" to a second Siegelman prosecution. Read more →

Share this entry

The Post FISA Amendment Act Action Begins: ACLU Fires The First Salvo – A Working Thread

/in /by

As all know by now, July 9, 2008 was a day that will live in infamy. It seems stark to use that historic phrase, but to a lot of us, it really feels that way. The video attached to this post has been so attached to several now, and is of Professor Jonathan Turley on Countdown with Rachel Maddow explaining the gut shot to the Fourth Amendment the FISA Amendment Act constitutes. Turley is exactly right, and as most here know, that is precisely what I have been saying is the real danger of this act for a long, long time.

The foregoing you all know. What many have been asking, and rightfully so, is where do we go from here. You have all dedicated so much passion, time, and effort to the cause of fighting this damnable act of Congress. Cold turkey leaves a void. Well, the next phase is just beginning. There is the Strange Bedfellows fund that can always use your love; and as Jane and Howie have advised, there has been some positive love given to some of the Democrats that actually stood tall for us. And on August 8, there will be a MoneyBombing.

But, by far, the biggest news you need to know about is the activity today by the ACLU. The ACLU has made two filings in response to the passage and signing of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). The first is a new complaint(attn: large pdf) filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The action is captioned Amnesty International USA et al. v. John M. McConnell et al.; there are several plaintiffs you will recognize, and DNI Mike McConnell, NSA Director Keith Alexander and Mukasey as defendants. The action is for declaratory judgment/injunctive relief which, I will be honest, is not the favorite form of action that Federal courts consider. This is similar to the tact taken in ACLU v. NSA, the 6th Circuit case that Judge Anna Taylor Diggs bounced just to give you an idea of what i mean. In fairness, the ACLU is already saying that the new case is distinguishable because the existence of surveillance, and potential for surveillance, is much more established here, and there is some truth to that. Whether there is enough in that regard or not will only be told Read more →

Share this entry

White House Confirms: Rove’s “Official Duties” Included Witchhunts of Democrats

/in /by

Surprise surprise. Rove was too chicken to give testimony under oath to show up before HJC today. That’s not surprising. What I find surprising (well, not really) are the thin excuses that Republicans are coming up with to excuse Turdblossom from obeying a subpoena.

First, according to the statement Sanchez put out, Fred Fielding did intervene to give a last minute reprieve to Karl–though still without invoking executive privilege.

First, the claims have not been properly asserted here. The Subcommittee has not received a written statement directly from the President, let alone anyone at the White House on the President’s behalf, asserting Executive Privilege, or claiming that Mr. Rove is immune in this instance from testifying before us. Nor is any member of the White House here today to raise those claims on behalf of the President. The most recent letter from Mr. Rove’s lawyer simply relies on a July 9, 2008 letter to him from the current White House counsel directing that Mr. Rove should disobey the subpoena and refuse to appear at this hearing.

The July 9, 2008 letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove “is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties.”2

I’ll take that as confirmation from Nixon’s former lawyer that Karl Rove’s official duties included intervening in criminal investigations and trials to make sure popular Democrats’ careers were ruined.

Frankly, I think that letter, dated July 9, may have arrived very late on yesterday. Sanchez did not mention it in her spoken statement today, nor did Ranking Subcommittee Member Chris Cannon.

Instead of referring to Fielding’s invocation of absolute immunity (but not, apparently, executive privilege itself), Cannon invoked Rove’s busy summer travel schedule. He asked Sanchez whether she knew that Rove had a long-scheduled overseas trip scheduled for today, and complained that Congress had scheduled the hearing to be convenient to the Subcommittee, not to Rove.

So apparently, it’s going to be absolute immunity and the summer vacation privilege that saves poor cowardly Karl from having to testify, under oath, about things he’s all-too-happy to talk about on TV.

No word, thus far, on how this all jibes with the Attorney General’s assertion yesterday that one avenue to find out about Karl’s involvement in the Siegelman prosecution would be to hold a hearing.

Read more →

Share this entry

Maybe He Was Helping Banana Republicans Fund Terrorists? Or Back at Gitmo, Overseeing Torture?

/in /by

Via CREW, here’s little Where’s Waldo Chertoff game for you to play. You see, CREW decided to find out where Michael Chertoff was when New Orleans was drowning under the Katrina deluge. The first time they asked, DHS gave them Chertoff’s calendars for every day but the day Chertoff oversaw NOLA’s flood.

To answer that question CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Homeland Security seeking, among other documents, calendar entries for Secretary Chertoff.

In response, the agency produced pages and pages of calendar entries with one curious omission: August 30, 2005.

So they asked again. And–in spite of the fact they got all these calendars for other dates–they apparently still can’t find one for August 30, 2005.

When pressed by CREW, the agency purportedly redoubled its search, but still came up empty handed. The best it could do was a record of a meeting that it claimed Secretary Chertoff had in Atlanta with the Center for Disease Control and an event with FEMA employees; the document, however, does not even mention the Secretary by name or title.

So here’s a little game, to get you back into the swing of things after the July 4 holiday.

What would be so embarrassing, that DHS has conveniently lost Chertoff’s calendar for that day? 

Share this entry

Donate to Darcy Burner

/25 Comments/in /by

I’m in the middle of some serious weeds on the Ghorbanifar meetings and then I’ve got to empty out a fridge again because Sears can’t deliver on what it says it can deliver on. So I’ll be a while this morning before I say anything interesting.

But in the meantime, please do me a favor and donate to Darcy Burner.

  • Do it because AIPAC is beating Darcy up for sponsoring responsible policies in the Middle East rather than more war-mongering.
  • Do it because Darcy has spoken out early and often against telecom immunity.
  • Do it because her opponent is a sexist prick.
  • Do it because her race is very tight, and winning this race will send almost as strong a message to the capitulation Dems in DC as Donna Edwards beating Al Wynn.

Today’s the last day of the funding quarter, so you should donate to as many better Democrats as you can. But please include Darcy among those you donate to today.

Share this entry

The Obama & Olbermann Master Plan For Criminal FISA Prosecutions

/66 Comments/in , , , /by

Okay, the words "Master Plan" in the title are a joke. So is the idea of criminal prosecutions, by a future Obama Administration, for Bush era FISA violations that has been hawked, to the point of near belligerence, by Keith Olbermann both on his show and in a running flame war with Glen Greenwald. The instant article will attempt to relate some of the glaring reasons, from a practical criminal justice perspective, that the Obama/Olbermann master plan is naive, almost to the point of being comical. Comical that is if we were not literally discussing the life and spirit of the Fourth Amendment and the health and well being of the Constitutional rule of law in this country.

This is the exchange between Olbermann and Dean from which Olbermann appears to have ginned up his Obama genius master plan narrative:

DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”

OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know – we just didn‘t think about this issue.”

Notwithstanding Olbermann’s fiery preacher in a pulpit exhortations, it should be noted that John Dean himself has walked his statement back from Olbermann’s claims since his original offhand quote:

But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, Read more →

Share this entry

$5.8 Million for Hatfill. $0 for Valerie Wilson.

/79 Comments/in /by

Steven Hatfill will no longer have to complain that he can’t get a job anymore because he was once the leading suspect to be the anthrax terrorist. The government just signed a $5.8 million settlement with him, which includes a cash payment now and then $150,000 annual payments for the next 20 years.

The Justice Department has agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit with former Army scientist Steven Hatfill, who was named as a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Hatfill claimed the Justice Department violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case.

Settlement documents were filed in federal court Friday. Both sides have agreed to the deal, according to the documents, and as soon as they are signed, the case will be dismissed.

Jeebus, between this and his federal monitoring contracts, former AG Ashcroft, who really really wanted you to believe the DOJ was closing in on a suspect in the still-unsolved anthrax case, is sure proving expensive for the US taxpayer, huh?

Meanwhile, Valerie Wilson, who had her career ruined by the Vice President and his lackey Scooter Libby, gets nothing in compensation.

Just to put some persepective on things, you know… 

Share this entry

HJC Testimony: Mr. Unitary Executive and Mr. Yoo, Two

/365 Comments/in /by

picture-30.png

Coverage of the hearing is on CSPAN3, the Committee stream, and good coverage (featuring Scott Horton and Jane Mayer) on KPFA.

Scott; Yoo, any discussion of SERE techniques?

Yoo: Can’t discuss.

Nadler: We need to know why.

Yoo: According to DOJ, privilege both attorney-client privilege and classified.

Nadler: Attorney-client not valid here. Classified is valid if it applies.

Yoo: I have to follow it.

Nadler: It’s difficult to assert your assertion of privilege on this issue bc Bradbury testified earlier this year and said it was adapted from SERE. How can this be privileged?

Yoo: Recognize that a-c does not apply. It is their privilege to raise. If you and DOJ have disagreement.

Nadler: Bradbury is the one making the decision on these privileges, but he answered the question.

Scott; Addington, SERE?

ADD: no, I don’t think I did, but no reason to dispute what Bradbury said.

Scott: Is torture illegal?

ADD: as defined by statute, it would be illegal.

Scott: international agreement of when it’s torture and when it isn’t?

ADD: Is a treaty in effect …

Scott: Don’t people know when it’s torture and when it’s not.

ADD: Senate put in reservation.

Scott: 9/11 did not change definition of torture.

Schroeder: it’d be hard to prosecute on opinion.

Scott: Does Administration have ability to write up such an opinion and torture people based on ridiculous memo.

Schroeder: No.

Scott: is it an excuse to torture if you got good information.

Schroeder: Treaty admits no exceptions.

Scott: If you’re going to go around torturing based on your memo, how do you know beforehand whether you’re going to get good information.

Yoo: Disagree with the premise of question.

Scott: If you can’t get information via other techniques, can you use harsher techniques?

Yoo: Nothing in statute that says anything about that.

Watt: Schroeder. Comment on your testimony, policy and law. In 22 years I practiced law, I had a client, who when he didn’t like my advice, he would say the lord told him to do otherwise. Are there things that go beyond Yoo’s memo?

Schroeder: Hope I’m not joining ADD and Yoo, not able to answer your question. We’ve read reports that water-boarding used on some subjects.

Watt: Would that go beyond Yoo’s memo?

Schroeder: I’d need to know more on water-boarding.

Watt: Recourse that public and Congress would have would be impeachment?

Schroeder: [Pondering] It would be difficult under legal theory in August 2002, to think of what remedy would be available other than impeachment.

Watt: What recourse does the public have against an Read more →

Share this entry

HJC Testimony: Mr. Unitary Executive and Mr. Yoo

/278 Comments/in /by

picture-30.png

Here’s a post I did on David Addington’s testimony at the Libby trial.

Here is John Yoo’s prepared testimony.

Note this hearing is a Subcommittee Hearing–so it’s Jerrold Nadler’s baby, not Conyers’. That means a subset of HJC’s better questioners will appear today: Nadler, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Conyers, Scott, Watt, and Cohen, with Franks, Pence, Issa, King, and Jordan for the bad guys.

Nadler: Subject of utmost importance to integrity of nation. Will not be permitted to be disrupted–anyone will be expelled immediately. Legal memos defining torture out of existence. I speak for many of my colleagues when I say the more we hear the more appalled we become. One testifying voluntarily, one testifying under subpoena. We will not be deterred by unchecked delcaration of privilege.

Franks: Almost 60 hearings on detainee treatment. Torture banned by various laws. Severe interrogations do not involve torture and they are legal. Results of waterboarding KSM, Abu Zubaydah, and al-Nashiri valuable. Alan Dershowitz says we can torture, so everything’s okay.

Franks just asked to submit evidence into the record. Nadler went, whuh? Nadler complains about Addington stiffing the committee for written testimony, but then submitting his own exhibits.

Nadler: I want to defend Dershowitz against allegations he’s an ultra-liberal. He just wrote a book advocating torture through warrants.

Conyers: More concerned about what we’re going to do, not any individual citizen. I don’t know why giving someone a lawyer is shocking to anyone. We have reports stating that our witnesses played a central role in drafting legal opinions on torture.

[Note: both sides look unusually prepared today, with Franks and Conyers both showing video from earlier hearings.]

Addington: 3 points. Iran-Contra said I was working for Cheney, in fact designee for Broomfield of MI. An author of prep for minority views, I had left before the report was written. More important, Conyers mentioned, wanted to give benefit of doubt. There’s one subject in which there’s no doubt, I believe everyone on this committee want to defend this country, protect it from terrorism, differences on how that’s accomplished. Thank you.

Nadler: Sorry I gave you too much credit. Is that the entirety of your statement?

[Nadler seems befuddled by ADD]

Yoo: Thank you, appreciate Conyers open mind. Waive rest of my time.

Nadler: You don’t want to summarize it?

Yoo: I don’t need to. Read more →

Share this entry