Archive for category: emptywheel

Marty Lederman points to this excerpt from Jack Goldsmith’s book at Slate. Goldsmith explains he only saw Alberto Gonzales disagree with David Addington once–and that Bush ended up siding with Addington.

Addington’s hard-line nonaccommodation stance always prevailed when thelawyers met to discuss legal policy issues in Alberto Gonzales’ office.During these meetings, Gonzales himself would sit quietly in his wingchair, occasionally asking questions but mostly listening as thequerulous Addington did battle with whomever was seeking to "go soft."It was Gonzales’ responsibility to determine what to advise thepresident after the lawyers had kicked the legal policy matters around.But I only knew him to disagree with Addington once, on an issue Icannot discuss, and on that issue the president overruled Gonzales andsided with the Addington position.

Logically, Goldsmith suggests that Addington literally always prevailed in these discussions. In the nine months or so Goldsmith attended these meetings, Gonzales only advised a position Addington didn’t support once. And Addington still won that battle.

This suggests Addington–or more likely Cheney–was able to present his view to Bush directly. Which suggests that, in this case, at least, Gonzales’ purported role as a filter on these legal decisions was illusory.

And boy would I like to know what the subject Read more →

I’m thrilled with the news that George Bush just gave Barry Jackson a promotion.

Yesterday, President Bush named Barry Jackson to be Peter Wehnher’s replacement to run the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Jackson was the major White House strategist behind Bush’s failedSocial Security privatization ploy, and was one of the White Houseemployees discovered to be using RNC email accounts to e-mail an associate of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

That’s because just about all the people involved in politicizing our government–Sara Taylor, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and, of course, Rove–have already left the Administration. So even if Scott Bloch’s Office of Special Counsel investigation into Hatch Act violations finds that the political briefings held throughout the government finds that those were, in fact, violations, there’s no real punishment, since the normal punishment is simply firing the person responsible.

So I’m glad for Jackson’s promotion. It’ll give us the satisfaction of firing somebody for treating our government like the Soviet state.

As I suspected, Judge Burns was none too impressed that Tommy K’s daughter bought Phillip Halpern’s long-lost uncle’s house with the ensuing benefit to Halpern of precisely nada.

Halpern, who had last seen his uncle in 1999, said in court papers hehad no knowledge of the deal and did not benefit in any way from it,and removing him or the office was not warranted.

On that matter, Burns agreed. He said the claim of a conflictwas tenuous and could not serve as a basis for removing Halpern or theoffice.

So John Michael’s stated purpose for the motion to throw out his indictment has failed–Burns refused to throw out the indictment or even throw Halpern off the case. As to his probable intended purpose–to expose as much information about the shady crook that is Tommy K as possible to suggest there’s something fishy about his plea deal? That seems to be having more success.

Moreover, Granger said that Kontogiannis has been on vacation in Greecethis summer. Since pleading guilty, Kontogiannis has been free on abond, but surrendered his passport to federal authorities and wasallowed to travel out of the country only if accompanied by federalagents, or with their permission.

Burns seemed intrigued by that revelation, Read more →

First, a correction. I suggested the other day that Dick was one of the three people who voted not to keep Rummy when Bush took a show of hands on Rummy’s fate. But Cheney may not have been among those polled. The WaPo has a review of the book and the incident today, and Cheney is not among those named (though Abramowitz does not identify all of the votes).

For Canning Rummy
Josh Bolten
Andrew Card
Condi Rice
Ed Gillespie
Three more people

Against Canning Rummy
Bush
Rove
Stephen Hadley
One other, probably Cheney

But here’s what I’m really struck by. Ed Gillespie, right there among the paid Presidential advisors, casting a "can Rummy" vote.

I’ve been harping for some time on the problem with a big-time lobbyist entering the White House to take on the Counselor role. After all, when a guy had been lobbying for the telecom industry, a number of front organizations for corporate interests, and those student loan companies that are bankrupting our families, it suggests he might have divided loyalties when he enters the White House.

This anecdote shows that Gillespie had entered the White House in a substantive advisory role long before he stopped being paid by those corporate interests. Ed Gillespie was taking votes on personnel decisions Read more →

I’m trying to pull together as many of the details in the new transcripts about how Tommy Kontogiannis has cooperated (I was going to spell it "kooperate") with the government. The information is actually conflicting–Tommy K wants to portray himself as a good American who was just seeking out powerful Congressman to give intelligence to. But the descriptions of the AUSAs and FBI agents of his cooperation in this matter make it sound like it’s a limited thing.

Here’s K’s description of his reasons for bribing Cunningham.

The Court: The only thing I have a question about is itsays that you believe Mr. Cunningham was in a position to do you somegood. Is that why you were involved in this? You hoped through hisofficial position as a U.S. Congressman that he could advance somepersonal interest of yours?

The Defendant: It was never personal interest, your Honor. Myinterest is United States, basically, and he was in a position that Icould reach and tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world.

The Court: What were you going to get out of this, Mr. Kontogiannis?

Mr. O’Connell: Can I have a moment, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. My question is, what did you hope to get out of all this?

The Defendant: From the first case to bring as much information as Icould to assist us, especially after the 2001 situation. Second, it isgood to have a powerful Congressman that if you ever need anything, youcan ask him to help you or assist you in something you might need.

The Court: That’s really what I am getting at. Did you believe thatyou were buying influence with someone who was in a position to helpyou by involving yourself in these things that have been recited today?

The Defendant: Definitely.

I’m going to come back to this passage–it really makes me wonder how many of the rest of the Congressmen on the House Intelligence Committee are getting bribes from people who want to "tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world." Porter Goss, of course, had to step down as DCI because of his ties to Cunningham’s corrupt buddies. And Rick Renzi has some legal problems of his own.

Now, Judge Burns describes K as either an informer or someone tied into an intelligence network (or likely, both). Exposure of his cooperation would endanger him and others.