The big news of the morning may be the latest maneuvers of the Murdoch scandal.

But we’ve also got real sports news.

It looks like the assholes running American football will beat the assholes running America to crafting a deal. The key breakthrough came Friday with the settlement on a new rookie payment scheme that would basically limit how much teams have to pay their first round picks in their first five years.

The rookie wage system had been a key part of that complex work in recent weeks. Exact language of the rookie wage system is being worked out by both sides’ lawyers, sources told Mortensen, but a management negotiator agreed that the rookie system was “done.”

According to sources, the terms agreed to on the rookie wage system are, in part, as follows:

• Five-year contracts, with a team option for the fifth year.

• If the team option is exercised, in the fifth year the top 10 picks would receive a salary equal to the average of the top 10 player salaries at their respective positions. That money would be guaranteed if the option is exercised after the third year of the contract.

• If the team option is exercised, in the fifth year picks 11-32 would receive a salary equal to the average of the Nos. 3-25 salaries at their respective positions. That money would be guaranteed if the option is exercised after the third year of the contract.

It sort of feels a lot like concessions the UAW made in recent years to make sure older workers keep getting wages negotiated years ago, while screwing newer workers.

There are still a number of issues to be worked out: how to account for wages lost in the negotiating period, how to end the various legal challenges, what to do in the anticipated free-for-all free agency period immediately following a settlement, and some safety and workman’s compensation issues. But these will probably be resolved by Wednesday, in time for the NFLPA to vote on it and then–football!!

This is all proof, I guess, that Eric Cantor is a bigger dick than even Jerry Jones.

Which brings us to the other football, the beautiful game. At 2ET, the US takes on Japan in the Women’s World Cup championship game.

I, frankly, am unprepared to bet on who will win this. The Americans have been finding a way to win the key matches, most spectacularly with their victory on PKs last weekend. And Japan has never beaten the Americans. But Japan beat tournament favorite Germany and the exciting Swedish team by simply refusing to let them have the ball; it’s hard to beat that kind of ball control.The Japanese passing game is wonderful to watch.

Frankly, I will be thrilled with either team winning this game, so long as it is as exciting as the matches that got these teams here. The US believe they are destined. But Japan has been playing as inspiration to their country in the aftermath of this year’s earthquake and tsunami. A win for either one makes a great story.

The press is making this out to be a duel between US forward Abby Wambach–who has scored key goals in the last three games–and Japanese midfielder Homare Sawa–who is playing in her fifth world cup and, like Wambach, is the emotional leader of the team.

Just as much, it’ll be a duel between US keeper Hope Solo–whose stop in PKs last weekend made the difference in the win over Brazil, and Japan’s keeper, Ayumi Kaihori. On paper, Solo is the much better keeper. But Kaihori has not made any mistakes in the elimination games and her confidence appears to be growing.

Me, I think it’s going to come down to how well Lauren Cheney, Wambach, and Megan Rapinoe (who will probably come off the bench). Cheney’s been key throughout this tournament; Rapinoe has had a key role off the bench in the last few games, including the assist on Wambach’s header to tie the game against Brazil and put it into PKs. And of course Wambach seems to manage to find a way to win every time. If these women take enough clean shots on goal, they will win. But if Japan manages to dominate ball control as they have and limit those shots, they may well surprise the US.

The Guardian is reporting that Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch’s henchwoman in the UK, has been arrested in the phone hacking scandal.

The Metropolitan police said a 43-year-old woman was arrested at noon Sunday, by appointment at a London police station. Brooks, 43, resigned on Friday as News International’s chief executive. She is a former News of the World editor.

Brooks is due to give evidence before MPs on the home affairs select committee on Tuesday. An arrest by appointment on a Sunday by police is unusual. In a statement the Met said:

“The MPS has this afternoon, Sunday 17 July, arrested a female in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking.”

“At approximately 12.00 hrs a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station by officers from Operation Weeting [phone hacking investigation] together with officers from Operation Elveden [bribing of police officers investigation]. She is currently in custody.”

“She was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.” [my emphasis]

A couple of comments on this.

Note this was “by appointment,” but done on a Sunday–an unusual move. When Andy Coulson was arrested back on July 8, also by appointment, the Guardian reported that the Met had sped up the arrest because of leaks.

The arrests had been planned to take place before 8 August, when Operation Weeting had agreed to pass all the relevant material in their possession to lawyers acting in the civil cases against News International for victims of phone hacking – thereby giving suspects the opportunity to discover what evidence the police hold against them.

The Guardian understands News International had promised police they would not make public the existence of evidence identifying Coulson and the other journalist, but that detectives began to fear the information would be leaked, after reports appeared suggesting that Coulson approved payments to police officers.

A similar worry–that investigative details were leaking out–might explain the timing here. Or, there may be a reason to have Brooks all good and arrested before her appearance at Parliament on Tuesday.

And speaking of leaks, remember what I pointed out on Friday. At a time when Murdoch seemed intent on protecting Brooks, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal–the biggest News Corp stockholder after Murdoch–called for her ouster. I guess he’s looking pretty prescient about now, huh? Of course, the Saudis have their own means of figuring out what’s going on in the world.

Rupert gave Brooks $5.6 million on her way out the door. I wonder whether that will dissuade her from getting chatty with the police?

Update: Brooks; spokesperson now suggests this arrest will make it harder for her to be very forthcoming with Parliament on Tuesday.

Mrs Brooks is due to appear in front of the Commons media select committee on Tuesday to answer MPs questions on the hacking scandal.

Mrs Brooks’ spokesman said her arrest would make her appearance at the committee “pretty tricky”.

The spokesperson also claims that Brooks was informed (formally, I’m guessing) she would be arrested after he resignation on Friday.

A spokesman for Mrs Brooks says the Met police notified her on Friday, after her resignation had been agreed, that she would be arrested.

Update: Meanwhile, David Cameron’s chumminess with the Murdoch crew is coming under scrutiny.

Mr Cameron has held more than twice the number of meetings with Murdoch executives as he has with any other media organisation. There were two “social” meetings between Mr Cameron and Ms Brooks, one of which was also attended by James Murdoch, and in return they invited the Prime Minister to a succession of parties.

Mr Cameron and Ms Brooks, who are neighbours in West Oxfordshire, met over Christmas – including a get-together on Boxing Day – just days after Vince Cable was relieved of responsibility for deciding the fate of News Corp’s BSkyB bid. Downing Street has always refused to discuss what they talked about, but officials insist that the subject of the BSkyB takeover was never raised.

While James Murdoch met Mr Cameron twice over the period, on both occasions he avoided the spotlight of Downing Street. That was not a qualm shared by his father, who was invited to visit Mr Cameron at Downing Street days after the general election.

The nice thing about these meetings coming out is that they’ll allow MPs to focus on the underlying scandal here–the quid pro quo between Murdoch and government, particularly as it relates to regulatory approvals.

Problem is, I’m not sure Labour is ready to go there fully yet, given that Tony Blair had the same coziness w/Rupert as Cameron has.

Update: And here’s another reason not to get your hopes up about Tuesday’s Parliamentary appearance.

The MP who will lead the attack on Rebekah Brooks and Rupert and James Murdoch this week over their roles in the phone-hacking scandal has close links with the media empire, it is revealed today.

John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, admitted he was an old friend of Mr Murdoch’s close aide, Les Hinton, and had been for dinner with Ms Brooks.

The Independent on Sunday has also learnt that Mr Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth, seen as the future saviour of the company, has also met Mr Whittingdale a number of times. Among her 386 “friends” on Facebook, the only MP she lists is Mr Whittingdale. He is also the only MP among 93 Facebook “friends” of Mr Hinton.

This also provides further reason to believe that Brooks was arrested to give her cover for Tuesday.

It is understood that the committee has legal advice that as Ms Brooks, and the Murdochs, have not been arrested by officers investigating hacking, they must reveal, under oath, what they knew.

Update: Ut oh. The Murdoch men seem to have developed a scheduling conflict with their Tuesday testimony. Nevermind–it looks like they’re still scheduled.

Update: London’s police chief Paul Stephenson just resigned.

The NYT has a long article exploring why Scotland Yard allowed bags and bags of evidence showing News of the World’s widespread hacking to sit unopened for four years. One reason, it explains, is because Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism unit led the investigation, rather than the special crimes unit. Since the counterterrorism unit was so busy investigated alleged terrorism, it had no time to investigate Murdoch.

The police have continually asserted that the original investigation was limited because the counterterrorism unit, which was in charge of the case, was preoccupied with more pressing demands. At the parliamentary committee hearing last week, the three officials said they were working on 70 terrorist investigations.

Yet the Metropolitan Police unit that deals with special crimes, which had more resources and time available, could have taken over the case, said four former senior investigators. One called the argument that the department did not have enough resources “utter nonsense.”

Another senior investigator said officials saw the inquiry as being in “safe hands” at the counterterrorism unit.

The NYT further explains how often key police figures and NotW figures socialized together.

Executives and others at the company also enjoyed close social ties to Scotland Yard’s top officials. Since the hacking scandal began in 2006, Mr. Yates and others regularly dined with editors from News International papers, records show. Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, met for lunch or dinner 18 times with company executives and editors during the investigation, including eight occasions with Mr. Wallis while he was still working at The News of the World.

[snip]

Andy Hayman, who as head of the counterterrorism unit was running the investigation, also attended four dinners, lunches and receptions with News of the World editors, including a dinner on April 25, 2006, while his officers were gathering evidence in the case, records show. He told Parliament he never discussed the investigation with editors.

And it shows how much money exchanged hands between the police and Murdoch’s empire.

But that still doesn’t explain how the counterterrorism unit would ever have been the appropriate entity to investigate illegal wiretapping by a newspaper.

Meanwhile, I can’t help but think, in addition to all the ways Murdoch’s empire has corrupted journalism and politics in the US and UK, its other great sin: making torture (and Dick Cheney’s absolutist approach to counterterrorism) popular. It did so with its news programs. But even more so, it did it with 24.

For all its fictional liberties, “24” depicts the fight against Islamist extremism much as the Bush Administration has defined it: as an all-consuming struggle for America’s survival that demands the toughest of tactics. Not long after September 11th, Vice-President Dick Cheney alluded vaguely to the fact that America must begin working through the “dark side” in countering terrorism. On “24,” the dark side is on full view. Surnow, who has jokingly called himself a “right-wing nut job,” shares his show’s hard-line perspective. Speaking of torture, he said, “Isn’t it obvious that if there was a nuke in New York City that was about to blow—or any other city in this country—that, even if you were going to go to jail, it would be the right thing to do?”

Since September 11th, depictions of torture have become much more common on American television. Before the attacks, fewer than four acts of torture appeared on prime-time television each year, according to Human Rights First, a nonprofit organization. Now there are more than a hundred, and, as David Danzig, a project director at Human Rights First, noted, “the torturers have changed. It used to be almost exclusively the villains who tortured. Today, torture is often perpetrated by the heroes.” The Parents’ Television Council, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has counted what it says are sixty-seven torture scenes during the first five seasons of “24”—more than one every other show. Melissa Caldwell, the council’s senior director of programs, said, “ ‘24’ is the worst offender on television: the most frequent, most graphic, and the leader in the trend of showing the protagonists using torture.”

The show’s villains usually inflict the more gruesome tortures: their victims are hung on hooks, like carcasses in a butcher shop; poked with smoking-hot scalpels; or abraded with sanding machines. In many episodes, however, heroic American officials act as tormentors, even though torture is illegal under U.S. law.

Fox created the war on terror in the popular imagination. And 24’s views on torture played a key role in the development of our own torture protocols, most notably at Gitmo.

In fact, just before Scotland Yard buried the Murdoch scandal in its counterterrorism unit, Ginni Thomas set up a love-fest for 24 at the Heritage Foundation, “moderated” by Rush Limbaugh.

Now all of that is not to suggest that the US intervened with Scotland Yard to make sure Murdoch’s tabloids could get away with wiretapping Brits (though it did also happen to coincide with the Bush Administration’s successful efforts at covering up its own wiretapping scandal). All of that is not to say that there was any connection at all between this British cover-up and Murdoch’s American teevee shows.

But I do think its possible that counterterrorism officials might have felt a certain affinity for the world view Murdoch popularized.

Charlie Savage has a report describing how Rand Paul’s hold the reconfirmation of Robert Mueller threatens to push the process beyond the time when Mueller’s ten year appointment date.

[A] necessary first step — enacting legislation that would create a one-time shortened term and make an exception to a 10-year limit on the amount of time any person may serve as director — has been delayed by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian-leaning Republican who was elected last year. He is invoking a Senate rule that allows any member to block a swift vote on a bill.

There may be significantly less time to complete the steps necessary to avoid a disruption at the F.B.I. than had been generally understood.

The widespread understanding has been that Mr. Mueller’s term will expire on Sept. 3, because he started work as F.B.I. director on Sept. 4, 2001.

But the administration legal team has decided that Mr. Mueller’s last day is likely to be Aug. 2, because President George W. Bush signed his appointment on Aug. 3, 2001. Coincidentally, Aug. 2 is also the day the government will hit a debt ceiling if Congress does not raise it.

I’ll be curious, though, whether the questions Paul has submitted to be answered before the vote might also lead to a delay, too In addition to questions about:

Circumstances implicating the Iraqis indicted in Bowling Green, KY
Investigative lapses of Zacarias Moussaoui that happened under Mueller’s predecessor
A Resource Guide: Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers calling boycotts “intimidation” (that might be more easily answered if the government would get over its squeamishness about calling Scott Roeder a terrorist)
A Missouri fusion center report suggesting support for Ron Paul (and Bob Barr!) might be a political risk factor for domestic terrorism

Paul also asks for the FBI to describe how many time it used each of the following tools, whether against citizens or non-citizens, and how many convictions resulted:

John Doe roving wiretaps
Section 215 orders (including its use for library records)
National Security Letters
Suspicious Activity Reports

He also asked, with respect to SARs, whether they got minimized after being investigated.

Now, Paul did not ask for this data in the most savvy fashion. For example, he did not specify on his Section 215 request that he wanted details on the secret program that uses cell phone data to collect geolocation. Nor did he ask generalized questions about minimization. Nor did he specify he wanted this data in a form which he could release publicly.

But these questions are, to a significant extent, the kind of disclosures that Democrats and Paul had been pushing to add to the PATRIOT Act.

In the past, DOJ has not exactly been forthcoming with some of this information. Even assuming they’ll answer Paul in classified form (particularly his question about SARs minimization), it’s not clear how quickly they’ll be able to produce some of this information.

All of which adds to the possibility that Paul’s request might hold up Mueller’s re-confirmation past August 2. If that happens–Tom Coburn has suggested–there are a range of surveillance authorizations that might be open to challenge because no confirmed FBI Director had approved them.

Nice to see someone wring some transparency out of this silly reconfirmation process.

In an effort to keep track of breaking stories without necessarily doing a post on all of them, I’m going to start doing a post of links every day. I’ll explain more on what I’m trying to achieve with this next week. And I expect most days the post will be longer than this. But in case you were looking for reading material over the weekend…

Thomas Drake: Drake was sentenced to a year of probation today for exceeding the authorized use of a computer. I guess the only revenge Michael Hayden gets on Drake for whistleblowing about SAIC’s waste is the knowledge that he’s ruined Drake’s career. That, and that this case further institutionalizes the government’s efforts to treat leaks as espionage.

Debt Limit Distractions: The geniuses in DC are still squabbling over how much worse to make the recession by cutting government spending while money is practically free. Obama’s solution for jobs continues to be sending them overseas. Meanwhile, at a house party near, you, real people will be talking about jobs. And remember how David Plouffe claimed that Americans were feeling better about their own economic situations? They’re not.

More Bank Bailouts and Austerity in Europe: Meanwhile, country after country in Europe faces big lending costs because the banksters haven’t taken their share of losses from the crash, with Ireland leading the way. And Italy pushed through its own austerity measures today, continuing the push among most developed nations to alter the social contract to help the banks.

Murdoch Scandal: Several big developments today: Both Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton resigned today. Of note, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi who owns a big chunk of News Corp, had called for Brooks’ resignation. Meanwhile, in the US, DOJ has announced it is investigating News Corp, though the investigation may be limited to whether or not the company hacked into the phones of 9/11 victims. And News Corp has hired Brendan Sullivan Jr (lawyer to both Ted Stevens and Ollie North, from Williams & Connolly.

Libya: The US and a slew of other nations have recognized Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. While the WaPo explains the US’ earlier hesitation stemmed from concerns about governance, Harold Koh had also said–in response to a question from Senator Webb–that the US was sustaining its recognition of Qaddafi because it made it easier to hold him responsible for his actions. I guess now we can assassinate him without violating our bans on such things? It will also give the US and other nations the ability to unfreeze assets.

The War on Terrorism our Constitution: Yesterday, DOJ indicted someone for linking to bomb-making instructions. Marty Lederman assesses the indictment in light of historical precedent and suggests there may be problems with both charges. Today, the DC Circuit Court ruled that TSA could continue to use naked scanners.

Corporate Torture: There have been two circuit decisions in the last week finding that corporations can held liable for torture. bmaz or I will have more comment on these in the near future. But the short version is–this question is definitely headed for SCOTUS.

You’ve found our new digs!

Thanks to Chris, Dan, Rayne, Brian, and Jason for helping with this transition–particularly Chris and Dan who helped with a lot of last minute surprises.

The site is not yet fully functional–most notably, we’re working on comments. Right now, we don’t have a registration system like we did at FDL: you need to enter your username and email address and it will need approved. Also, comments from yesterday afternoon and today at the FDL site are not yet in these posts.

Also, we don’t yet have the RSS feeds working. We have the RSS feed for the posts set up–working on comments.

We should be fully up and running early next week.

As Josh Gerstein reported, back in June, Jeffrey Sterling asked the government for details about which parts of James Risen’s account of Merlin are true and which are false. His lawyers argue that Sterling cannot be guilty of disseminating national defense information if what he disseminated–as the government claims–was actually not true.

Now, at first glimpse, this seems to be a graymail attempt: an attempt to demand information from the government it will ultimately refuse to turn over.

In addition to details of the alleged operation, the defense is entitled to know if, as a result of the publication of State of War, the identity of Human Asset No. 1 was learned by any foreign power at all. It is entitled to know if because of the publication of State of War, the Iranians shelved plans to use the blue prints that they allegedly learned, due to the publication of State of War, were allegedly flawed. The defense is entitled to know if this “Rogue Operation,” as described by Mr. Risen, did help the Iranian nuclear program in any way.

Some of this information, after all, would be the information Risen’s sources would have been trying to get out in the first place; this is precisely the kind of information the government is trying to suppress by prosecuting this case. And the emphasis on whether Iran (or another country) learned this information from Risen’s book–or from the operation itself–would make for an interesting question (though I suspect the government would retreat to a claim they’ve made before: that part of the damage comes in letting other countries know about this op).

But I’m also interested in Sterling’s focus on expert witnesses: as of June 22, when this was filed, the government had not yet revealed to the defense what expert they would call to verify that this information was actually national defense information. I suspect part of what the defense is trying to do is force that issue–and in particular, learn whether that expert will be someone who was actually involved in the operation (and therefore could refute Sterling’s version of what happened) or someone else, who would rely on second-hand information.

At a minimum, it must allow the defense to challenge the accuracy of that testimony by confronting the witness called by the government with the truth of what actually occurred.

I hope to come back to this issue in the coming days.

just as interesting as this attempt to get more information on what the government claims happened with the Merlin program is the timing. At one level, it seems very late in the process, almost a second swipe at a Bill of Particulars (the government responded to the first one by giving Sterling the chapter of Risen’s book).

But remember that this filing also came before most of the filings on whether or not Risen will have to testify. I noted that in addition to everything else the government has said to support its subpoena of Risen, they also said he cannot protect a source who passed false information. Of course, they haven’t proven that, they’ve simply gotten a grand jury to buy off on that.

It seems the stakes on whether information Sterling allegedly provided Risen was true or not have gone up. But that seems to be precisely the kind of information the government will want to keep out of court.

.

Well well well. who couldda knowd?? Acute prosecutorial foul play has ended the big Roger Clemens perjury trial at it’s gestation. From ESPN:

The judge presiding over Roger Clemens’ perjury trial declared a mistrial over inadmissible evidence shown to jurors.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Clemens could not be assured a fair trial after prosecutors showed jurors evidence against his orders in the second day of testimony.

He will hear a motion on whether a new trial would be considered double jeopardy.

Whooo boy, Judge Walton must have been a little upset. Why yes, yes, he was:

.

“I don’t see how I un-ring the bell,” he said

Walton interrupted the prosecution’s playing of a video from Clemens’ 2008 testimony before Congress and had the jury removed from the courtroom. Clemens is accused of lying during that testimony when he said he never used performance-enhancing drugs during his 24-season career in the major leagues.

One of the chief pieces of evidence against Clemens is testimony from his former teammate and close friend, Andy Pettitte, who says Clemens told him in 1999 or 2000 that he used human growth hormone. Clemens has said that Pettitte misheard him. Pettitte also says he told his wife, Laura, about the conversation the same day it happened.

Prosecutors had wanted to call Laura Pettitte as a witness to back up her husband’s account, but Walton had said he wasn’t inclined to have her testify since she didn’t speak directly to Clemens.

Walton was angered that in the video prosecutors showed the jury, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., referred to Pettitte’s conversation with his wife.

“I think that a first-year law student would know that you can’t bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible evidence,” Walton said.

Well, yes, Reggie Walton is exactly right. It was not only an inappropriate attempt at backdoor admission of what was, at the time, hearsay but, much, much, more importantly flew directly in the face of a direct and specific previous order of the court on this EXACT issue. You just do not do that, and if you do you cannot whine when the court spanks your ass. You got said ass whuppin the old fashioned way, you earned it.

So, now the germane question is where do we go from here; i.e. what about a new trial. Well, that depends on a fair amount of pretty complicated things that are not going to be self evident to those not more than intimately experienced in the nuances of technical trial law are going to understand. I will get into that in detail, and discuss the legal implications and situation, when the pleadings are filed. Judge Walton has scheduled a Sept. 2 hearing on whether to hold a new trial, or dismiss the case permanently due to double jeopardy. clemens’ defense team will have until July 29 to file the motion to dismiss with prejudice and the prosecution has until Aug. 2 to respond.

A lot of judges would have tried to paper over this bogosity by the prosecution. Reggie Walton is PISSED. He may well say they are done based on double jeopardy. Those are gonna be fun briefs, and a very interesting oral argument.

One further thing, despite the incredibly short tenure of this jury trial – literally really in the first day of evidentiary presentation – today’s antics were NOT the first instance of prosecutorial misconduct. Oh no, the government was acting maliciously and unethically from the get go in the opening statements.

[Judge Walton] said it was the second time that prosecutors had gone against his orders — the other being an incident that happened during opening arguments Wednesday when assistant U.S. attorney Steven Durham said that Pettite and two other of Clemens’ New York teammates, Chuck Knoblauch and Mike Stanton, had used human growth hormone.

Walton said in pre-trial hearings that such testimony could lead jurors to consider Clemens guilty by association. Clemens’ defense attorney objected when Durham made the statement and Walton told jurors to disregard Durham’s comments about other players.

Yes, boy howdy, that is precisely right.

I think that the Laura Pettite bit, coupled with the improper attempt at prohibited guilt by association in the openings makes a fast pattern to malicious prosecution. If Reggie wants, he can dismiss and ground it upon both mistrial and sanction for malicious.

I’ve been telling people for years that it was NOT just former IRS goon come FDA stoolie agent Jeff Novitsky (although it all starts with him) that was malfeasant in the BALCO cases, including the Mitchell report kerfuffle, it was the AUSAs too.

This mendaciousness is just bogus and deplorable. Congratulations to Judge Reggie Walton for fingering it for what it is. Now dismiss this bunk forever please.

Republicans are big fans of projection. When they’re neck-deep in conflicts of interest, they like to hide it by accusing Democrats of such conflicts. When they leak stuff, they accuse Democrats. When they mismanage stuff, they accuse Democrats.

And yesterday, Darrell Issa got caught doing just that.

A year ago, on July 27, 2010, Issa accused the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of partisanship, largely because Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill before the FCIC reported its conclusions. Of particular note, Issa claimed Democrats on the FCIC were letting partisan ties direct their work.

Yet, as a report released by Elijah Cummings yesterday makes clear, the Republicans were the ones being directed by outside influences–both by their own partisan considerations, as well as two possible lobbyists. The report found that:

• Immediately after Republicans took the House last November, some Republicans on the Committee started tailoring their contributions to make sure they would serve the goal of setting up a repeal of Dodd-Frank. Of particular note, Commissioner Peter Wallison started sending emails warning, “It’s very important, I think, that what we say in our separate statements not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank.”
• Wallison (who is a fellow of AEI) also tailored his contributions–including his separate statement–largely to parrot the discredited theories of AEI fellow (and former Fannie Mae official) Edward Pinto. Pinto argued that the entire crash was caused by HUD’s affordable housing policy. Wallison’s mindless insistence on advancing Pinto’s theory got so bad that the special assistant to Republican FCIC Vice Chairman, Bill Thomas, suggested, “I can’t tell re: who is the leader and who is the follower. If Peter is really a parrot for Pinto, he’s putting a lot of faith in the guy.” Not only did Wallison serve Parrot’s propaganda, though: he also shared confidential documents made available to the FCIC, violating its ethics standards.
• Thomas himself consulted with–and shared confidential information with–someone outside the Commission: the CEO of a political consulting firm, Alex Brill (he’s also a fellow at AEI). At one level, Brill seems to have been offering Thomas political advice. But it also appears Brill may have been trying to cushion the damage done by the FCIC to Citibank’s reputation.

Now, Cummings released this report partly because Issa refused to call Thomas and Wallison as witnesses in his inquiry into problems with the FCIC. And the release of the report seems to have convinced Issa to indefinitely postpone the investigation into the FCIC.

Good–this is precisely the kind of thing I was thinking of when I suggested we needed someone like Cummings to babysit Issa.

But it also seems like a good time to turn this into a much bigger attack.

As Cummings’ FCIC report makes clear, what Wallison and Thomas appear to have done is unethically misuse funds appropriated by Congress. While it’s not entirely clear who the ultimate beneficiaries of their ethical lapses are–aside from, vaguely, the banksters, both men were collaborating improperly with AEI fellows. More clearly, both men appear to have violated their ethical obligations–a set of rules–to try to make sure banksters didn’t have to follow any rules passed under Dodd-Frank.

Issa is teeing off today, again, against Elizabeth Warren. I do hope Cummings finds ample opportunity to remind Issa that it’s clear he’s doing the bidding not of transparency or oversight or the American people, but rather a number of corrupt banksters trying to avoid playing by the rules.

The ACLU has just FOIAed the CIA and Director of National Intelligence for any information on Juan Cole. It asks for,

e-mails, letters, faxes, or other correspondence, memoranda, contemporaneous notes of meetings or phone calls, reports or any other material relating to the gathering, collecting, copying, collating, generating or other use of information and material regarding Professor Cole,

The FOIA is addressed to CIA, Director of National Intelligence, and DOJ.

Now, far be it for me to tell ACLU how to FOIA–after all, they’re the best in the business at wringing embarrassing documents out of the government.

But they might want to FOIA DOD, too.

You see, there’s something that has been haunting me about this description from James Risen’s story on this.

According to Mr. Carle, Mr. Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled his boss saying, “The White House wants to get him.”“ ‘What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?’ ” Mr. Low continued, according to Mr. Carle.

Mr. Carle said that he warned that it would be illegal to spy on Americans and refused to get involved, but that Mr. Low seemed to ignore him.

That first request elicited, Carle told Amy Goodman, four paragraphs of information, one of which included derogatory information.

GLENN CARLE: Yes, that’s correct. I was—the following day, I came to work and was asked to represent my office at the senior staff meeting, which is routine. And I did. And it was also routine that I take a memorandum of some sort up to the front office, I believe, for the White House. And I thought that I should know what I was doing for the morning, and I read the memo, and it was a memo on Professor Cole with four paragraphs, as I recall, only one of which was about inappropriate personal information. The other three struck me as innocuous. I don’t remember specifically what they said, but one of the four.

Now maybe it’s Carle’s reference, also in the Democracy Now interview, to the Plame outing. But I can’t help but think of how the White House got people across the national security community to reveal that Plame worked for the CIA: They kept asking for information on Wilson’s trip, long after they had already gotten the information they purportedly needed. So, for example, the day after John Hannah briefed Cheney on the trip, Cheney asked someone at CIA for more information on the trip, using incorrect information that would need corrected (I suspect this request was made at a Deputies Committee meeting at the White House, and I think Libby is the one who formally made the request). Then, two days later and almost certainly after Cheney had been briefed personally by (he says) George Tenet as well as (records show) John McLaughlin, and almost certainly after Libby had gotten information from Marc Grossman on Plame’s work at the CIA, Cheney and Libby called the CIA from a meeting with Cathie Martin, to ask for information they already knew. That call was ultimately how Martin learned, from Bill Harlow, that Plame worked for the CIA.

You see, the White House kept asking for the same information they already knew so they could try to get the CIA to share that information in a way they could use it. Of course, along the way, they increased the circle of people who knew that information, which is one of the things that led to the leak of Plame’s identity.

Now, this may not be what is happening here: an attempt to get CIA to take note of information about Cole the White House believed was derogatory.

But it would be worth checking to see whether likely co-participants in a meeting with National Intelligence Council’s David Low or CIA’s Deputy Director for intelligence, John A. Kringen also got similar requests–not least because DOD, with its CIPA program, would likely have been less squeamish about digging up dirt on Cole.

In any case, given the way the government responds to FOIAs, we’ll probably learn more about this in 5 years or so.