Archive for category: emptywheel

It has been over 50 days since Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, sent Bush a letter advising that Lurita Doan be disciplined severely for her violations of the Hatch Act. Yet there she is, still in charge of the government’s credit cards as the Administrator of the GSA.

If Doan weren’t a Bush appointee, her fate would be clear–she would have been fired fifty days ago. But in this case, Bush has to fire her himself. And it appears that he has no intention of doing so.

I know that this will surprise no one. After all, Bush effectively pardoned the guy who was covering up Bush’s own involvement in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity. So why wouldn’t he effectively pardon the gal who decided to brainstorm ways to use government resources to get Republicans elected? And also, ensured that a company, Sun Microsystems, under active investigation for ripping off the federal government by charging it more than it charges private companies, would continue to be able to rip off the government.

There’s one more implication of this. If Bush isn’t going to fire Doan, then he’s surely not going to fire anyone else who might Read more →

I’m thrilled by the news that Democrats intend to call Jack Goldsmith to testify on the domestic wiretap program.

Congressional Democrats plan to step up the heat in coming weeks,pressing for Justice memos and other documents. They also plan to calla potentially crucial witness: Jack L. Goldsmith, the former chief ofJustice’s Office of Legal Counsel. It was Goldsmith who wrote a keyopinion concluding the eavesdropping program was illegal.

But do you suppose that Mikey Isikoff might have bothered to follow those "who, what, why, when, where" rules of journalism and told us precisely who "they" are?

After all, "they" (SSCI) also had plans to call an equally critical witness, John Ashcroft, a while back. And that seems to have fizzled into extended negotiations with DOJ over his testimony. And "they" (HPSCI) actually did interview Ashcroft, to little fanfare, though the cryptic comments from Reyes and Holt don’t enlighten us at all on the program [update hat tip Staar]. Meanwhile, "they" (HJC) called the critical witness James Comey and plum forgot to ask him about the dispute over the domestic wiretap program. If "they" (SJC, preferably without giving the White House and DOJ an opportunity to say no, as seems to have happened Read more →

This is going to be a two part post. In this post, I’m going to show a key discrepancy between Libby’s testimony about the questions he asked Addington on July 8, and Addington’s. Addington’s testimony suggests that (contrary to Libby’s claims), Libby was looking for general details about the paperwork behind Wilson’s trip, which would have exposed Valerie’s role at the CIA, potentially her status, as well as prior trips Joe Wilson had made for the CIA. In a following post, I’ll show that this question was probably asked in response to a conversation with Cheney based on Cheney’s scribblings on Wilson’s op-ed.

The Discrepancies between Libby’s and Addington’s Testimony

There are three pieces of testimony regarding the conversation that Scooter Libby and David Addington had on July 8, 2003, about insta-declassification and paperwork on a CIA spouse’s travel to the CIA:

• Libby’s notes recording both what he wanted to ask Addington and what Addington responded
• Libby’s grand jury testimony
• Addington’s trial testimony

However, there are significant discrepancies between Addington’s testimony and Libby’s–and Libby’s own notes only confuse the issue.

Well, that was quick work. Yesterday I suggested that the Gang of Eight who purportedly attended the March 10, 2004 meeting at which Alberto Gonzales claims to have developed consensus that they should ignore James Comey’s concerns and continue to tap American citizens anyway might have some enlightenment to offer about what went on at the meeting. So far, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, and Tom Daschle argue that Gonzales is full of shit. Jane Harman, however, engages in a little shiny-objecting.

Representative Jane Harman of California, who in 2004 was the topDemocrat on the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that there wasonly one N.S.A. program, making Mr. Gonzales’s assertions inaccurate.

“Theprogram had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms.Harman said, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifyinginformation to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper.

Before I go on, let’s lay out the math. Speaker Pelosi reveals that a majority did agree the country should ignore little issues like legality and continue the program.

Speaker Nancy Pelosiof California, who attended the 2004 White House meeting as HouseDemocratic minority leader, said through a spokesman that she did notdispute that the majority of those present supported continuing theintelligence activity. But Ms. Pelosi said Read more →

I’m with David Kurtz. In addition to offering good reason to begin impeachment procedures, Bush’s dangerous claims to executive and deliberative privilege really ought to invite us to reconsider the notion that Presidents need to hide their deliberations.

As long as we’re going to be discussing the parameters of executiveprivilege in the weeks and months ahead, can we start by revisiting thenow commonly accepted notion that the President can only get free andunfettered advice if those giving the advice know it will remainconfidential?

Every talking head starts the discussion of executive privilege witha solemn nod to this totem. Heck, even Kevin Drum conceded this pointin a post back in March: 

The president and his immediate staff really do have astrong interest in their ability to receive candid, provocative advice,and that interest is threatened if advisors are worried that the ideasthey toss around in private are likely to become public. This is animportant principle regardless of who occupies the White House.

Is that really true though? Literally, Kevin is right. Presidents dohave a strong interest in this principle. But the President’s interest,in this instance, is not in line with the public interest. In fact,executive privilege offers the President and his advisers a perversedisincentive to Read more →