Those activist conservative judges
by kos
Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:00:39 PM PDT
So what are activist judges? Wouldn't the obvious definition be judges who strike down congressional laws? I mean, telling Congress they can't do something is a pretty balsy move.
So which judges are the most activist?
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
To those who aren't well versed in the personalities of the Supreme Court -- the first five on the list are conservative judges, Souter is a Republican-nominated moderate judge, and the bottom three are liberal judges. Funny how it's worked out that way. As Atrios says:
I understand that political spinners are going to do what they do, but when the supposedly responsible members of our press are reducing everything to buzzwords and catchphrases they should at least define what they mean. With Alito it's just ridiculous to claim he's a practitioner of "judicial restraint."
Judicial Activism usually means nothing more than "Judgifying I don't like." In other words, it means nothing.
Monday, October 31, 2005
But I Hear We're Making "Good Progress"
The New York Times
October 31, 2005
October Is 4th Deadliest Month for U.S. Forces in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 31 - The United States military announced the deaths of seven Americans near Baghdad today, making October the bloodiest month for troops here since January.
Six soldiers and one marine were killed in three separate roadside bomb attacks in two days, the military said in a statement. Four soldiers were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in Yusifiya, south of Baghdad, and two more died in a similar blast near Balad, north of the capital. A marine died in a roadside bomb attack on Sunday near Amiriyah, southwest of Baghdad.
The attacks brought the number of Americans killed in October to 92, the highest monthly toll since January, when 106 American troops were killed in violence ahead of national elections here.
That death toll has been surpassed only two other times since the war began: in November 2004, when 137 Americans died, and in April 2004, when 135 died. Those months featured major conflicts with, respectively, Sunni Arab rebels in Falluja, west of Baghdad, and Shiites loyal to a religious leader in Najaf, in the south.
Military officials provided few details about the deaths, saying only that all had been killed in roadside bomb attacks. Insurgents have grown increasingly expert at building bombs, commanders here say, and such devices are now the leading cause of death among American troops.
Insurgents, for example, tie together multiple artillery rounds and add highly flammable fuel for bigger fires. Blasts now penetrate large troop carriers - 14 marines were killed in Haditha, in western Iraq, in August by an explosive device made from a bomb weighing 500 pounds, a size of ordnance more commonly dropped by airplane.
Insurgents also time blasts to hit rescue workers arriving to collect the wounded after an initial explosion. Gunnery Sgt. Jose C. Soto, head of a bomb disposal team with the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines in Ramadi, the war-torn capital of Anbar, said that insurgent skills for making what the military calls improvised explosive devices had improved tremendously in recent months.
"This is a better-trained group of insurgents," he said last month in Ramadi. "They're using more complex I.E.D.'s. They're going for the catastrophic kills."
The attacks came as American forces struck at insurgents in western Iraq, near the border with Syria, a common entry point into Iraq for foreign militants. Before dawn today, Marines backed by jets attacked insurgent positions near the Syrian border, destroying two safe houses believed use by Al Qaeda figures, The Associated Press reported.
The military made no mention of casualties, but The A.P., citing Associated Press Television News, said video from the scene showed residents crying over the bodies of about six people.
In a separate operation on Saturday, the military said it had killed a senior Al Qaeda leader, a Saudi citizen, known as Abu Saud. Marines shot and killed the militant and three other men with him in a car in Ubeidi, close to the border. Abu Saud had been bringing foreign fighters and suicide bombers into Iraq and had arrived most recently to shore up the Qaeda leadership, the military said.
The military has conducted at least 10 military operations in western Anbar Province this year, and commanders here argue that the fighting has kept up pressure on militants and helped reduce the number of suicide bombings in Baghdad since spring.
As of last week, suicide attacks had dropped to about 22 a month, down from 58 in June, according to figures provided by the American military.
In other violence, a suicide car bomber detonated his payload near an American convoy in Falluja, an eyewitness said. The military did not report any casualties. In Baghdad, a mortar fell near a police academy close to the Ministry of Interior, killing one civilian and wounding four, a Ministry of Interior official said.
In southern Baghdad, American and Iraqi forces carried out raids on Friday and Saturday, detaining 49 suspected insurgents and seizing a large cache of weapons from a crawl space underneath a bathtub, the military said today.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
October 31, 2005
October Is 4th Deadliest Month for U.S. Forces in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 31 - The United States military announced the deaths of seven Americans near Baghdad today, making October the bloodiest month for troops here since January.
Six soldiers and one marine were killed in three separate roadside bomb attacks in two days, the military said in a statement. Four soldiers were killed when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in Yusifiya, south of Baghdad, and two more died in a similar blast near Balad, north of the capital. A marine died in a roadside bomb attack on Sunday near Amiriyah, southwest of Baghdad.
The attacks brought the number of Americans killed in October to 92, the highest monthly toll since January, when 106 American troops were killed in violence ahead of national elections here.
That death toll has been surpassed only two other times since the war began: in November 2004, when 137 Americans died, and in April 2004, when 135 died. Those months featured major conflicts with, respectively, Sunni Arab rebels in Falluja, west of Baghdad, and Shiites loyal to a religious leader in Najaf, in the south.
Military officials provided few details about the deaths, saying only that all had been killed in roadside bomb attacks. Insurgents have grown increasingly expert at building bombs, commanders here say, and such devices are now the leading cause of death among American troops.
Insurgents, for example, tie together multiple artillery rounds and add highly flammable fuel for bigger fires. Blasts now penetrate large troop carriers - 14 marines were killed in Haditha, in western Iraq, in August by an explosive device made from a bomb weighing 500 pounds, a size of ordnance more commonly dropped by airplane.
Insurgents also time blasts to hit rescue workers arriving to collect the wounded after an initial explosion. Gunnery Sgt. Jose C. Soto, head of a bomb disposal team with the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines in Ramadi, the war-torn capital of Anbar, said that insurgent skills for making what the military calls improvised explosive devices had improved tremendously in recent months.
"This is a better-trained group of insurgents," he said last month in Ramadi. "They're using more complex I.E.D.'s. They're going for the catastrophic kills."
The attacks came as American forces struck at insurgents in western Iraq, near the border with Syria, a common entry point into Iraq for foreign militants. Before dawn today, Marines backed by jets attacked insurgent positions near the Syrian border, destroying two safe houses believed use by Al Qaeda figures, The Associated Press reported.
The military made no mention of casualties, but The A.P., citing Associated Press Television News, said video from the scene showed residents crying over the bodies of about six people.
In a separate operation on Saturday, the military said it had killed a senior Al Qaeda leader, a Saudi citizen, known as Abu Saud. Marines shot and killed the militant and three other men with him in a car in Ubeidi, close to the border. Abu Saud had been bringing foreign fighters and suicide bombers into Iraq and had arrived most recently to shore up the Qaeda leadership, the military said.
The military has conducted at least 10 military operations in western Anbar Province this year, and commanders here argue that the fighting has kept up pressure on militants and helped reduce the number of suicide bombings in Baghdad since spring.
As of last week, suicide attacks had dropped to about 22 a month, down from 58 in June, according to figures provided by the American military.
In other violence, a suicide car bomber detonated his payload near an American convoy in Falluja, an eyewitness said. The military did not report any casualties. In Baghdad, a mortar fell near a police academy close to the Ministry of Interior, killing one civilian and wounding four, a Ministry of Interior official said.
In southern Baghdad, American and Iraqi forces carried out raids on Friday and Saturday, detaining 49 suspected insurgents and seizing a large cache of weapons from a crawl space underneath a bathtub, the military said today.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
AM Feed - October 31, 2005
Hot Topics
List of 4 items
President Bush wasted little time in trying to wipe away the painful memory
of Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination: Today he tapped appeals court
Judge
Samuel Alito to fill the position that Miers could not. This selection is a
clear case of President Bush bending to the demands of his most conservative
faction of supporters. Alito served in the Reagan administration, and was
one of the names suggested by conservatives to Bush as a replacement to
Miers.
Unlike Miers, Alito has a judicial history, and it is undoubtedly
conservative. He ruled in the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion
case to uphold
many provisions of the Pennsylvania law that restricted a women's right to
an abortion - he even dissented from the majority in one instance when they
struck down one restriction imposed by the PA law. Alito also dissented in a
1996 sex discrimination case in which he contended that it was too easy for
discrimination cases to reach a jury trial. In addition, Alito has also been
willing to blur the line on the issue of separation of church and state.
[link]
The Bush administration is clearly hoping that the news of Alito's selection
will take some of the focus off Scooter Libby's indictment and resignation.
It shouldn't. After all, Libby's involvement with the leak once again raises
serious questions about the Bush team's pre-war intelligence and evidence
of WMD. Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called on Karl
Rove to step down, and even Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) said that Bush needs "new
blood, new energy, qualified staff."
[link]
Almost lost in the shuffle of news about Libby, Plame and Miers is the fact
that oil companies posted record profits last quarter. That's right - while
you're paying more at the pump, Exxon enjoyed gains of $9.92 billion, it's
highest-ever quarterly profit. And Exxon wasn't alone. Other oil companies
also
shared in the spoils during a time when the Gulf Coast was ravaged by
Hurricane Katrina and gas prices soared to nearly $3 per gallon. Some
Democrats in
the Senate have called for a tax on windfall profits by oil companies that
would target money not spent on new exploration and production, but it has
languished
in the Republican-controlled Senate.
[link]
Meanwhile, a Republican-controlled committee in the House has voted to slash
$844 million in food stamps - even as a new report from the Agriculture
Department
found that 38.2 million Americans were "food insecure," an increase of two
million from last year. Nearly 12 percent of US households had problems
providing
enough food at some time last year. The party-line vote in the House pushed
cuts that would eliminate food stamps for 300,000 Americans.
[link]
list end
Morning Snark
List of 2 items
You know things are out of whack when Exxon's profit margins make
Halliburton look like a non-profit charity.
How long before Bush lobbies for Harriet Miers to slide into Cheney's chief
of staff position?
list end
Posted by Miriam V.
Bob Woodward, Lost in Cronyism?
By Larry Johnson
How is it that one of the most revered investigative reporters of our generation is such a dunce when it comes to outing a CIA officer? If you had a chance to watch Woodward's "dazzling" performance on Larry King Live this past Thursday, you would have been treated to the spectacle of incurious Bob dismissing the leaking of a CIA officer's identity as gossip run amuck. Nothing more, nothing less. Yep, nothing to report here, move along.
Yet, for those more in touch with the inner workings of Washington, Woodward's vain attempt to downplay this matter sure smacks of someone trying to protect his sources. In a recent Washington Post puff piece on Lewis "Scooter" Libby we are told that Scooter:
attends the weekly gathering of Bush's top economic advisers and -- according to Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," about the Bush administration's run-up to the Iraq war -- was one of two non-principals who attended National Security Council meetings with the president after Sept. 11, 2001 (the other was Condoleezza Rice's then-deputy, Stephen Hadley).
Isn't that special? Is it possible that Scooter has been a source that helped Bob Woodward get his inside scoops?
Nah, I am sure it is a coincidence. A few years back our intrepid investigative reporter Bob Woodward was on the cutting edge of information about the Clinton Administration and China. In the spring of 1998 Bob broke the story that China was trying to influence the U.S. election through carefully placed campaign contributions. Don Lambro of the Washington Times said:
The disclosure is a big breakthrough in the 18-month-old investigation, because for the first time someone has shown a paper trail of illegal campaign money from China to the United States that was intended to influence our elections. This was the story that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward first broke and that Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson dug into before he was forced to end his hearings in December because of a one-year deadline that recalcitrant Democrats had demanded.
So, which now infamous chief of staff to a Vice President was working as a counsel to a Hill committee that happened to be investigating this story? Gee, does Scooter Libby sound familiar?
With that background let us consider some of Bob's "investigatory" insight into the outing of a clandestine CIA officer. Here's a doozy:
WOODWARD: . . .Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.
And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the "Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.
Let's see. Curious Bob is no longer curious. Nope. Nothing to report here. In fact, his remarks parrot Republican talking points. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Of course, maybe Bob just is not paying attention to what is going on at the Washington Post or has abidicated his duty to break news in the paper. While on the Larry King show this week Woodward announced:
"They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment. "
Great news Bob, except there was this other little headline in Saturday's Washington Post:
CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure
So, either you had real news and didn't share it with your reporters or you are just making this up? I personally suspect the latter. I have spoken to some people who are in a position to know. There has been damage. My source, however, declined to share classified information.
Let's face it. It is a sickening sight when a man who got his start in Washington as a take no prisoners investigative journalist has decided to join the prisoners and excuse their conduct as they destroy national security assets and lie, bald face lie, to the American people. Heck of a job, Bobby!
How is it that one of the most revered investigative reporters of our generation is such a dunce when it comes to outing a CIA officer? If you had a chance to watch Woodward's "dazzling" performance on Larry King Live this past Thursday, you would have been treated to the spectacle of incurious Bob dismissing the leaking of a CIA officer's identity as gossip run amuck. Nothing more, nothing less. Yep, nothing to report here, move along.
Yet, for those more in touch with the inner workings of Washington, Woodward's vain attempt to downplay this matter sure smacks of someone trying to protect his sources. In a recent Washington Post puff piece on Lewis "Scooter" Libby we are told that Scooter:
attends the weekly gathering of Bush's top economic advisers and -- according to Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," about the Bush administration's run-up to the Iraq war -- was one of two non-principals who attended National Security Council meetings with the president after Sept. 11, 2001 (the other was Condoleezza Rice's then-deputy, Stephen Hadley).
Isn't that special? Is it possible that Scooter has been a source that helped Bob Woodward get his inside scoops?
Nah, I am sure it is a coincidence. A few years back our intrepid investigative reporter Bob Woodward was on the cutting edge of information about the Clinton Administration and China. In the spring of 1998 Bob broke the story that China was trying to influence the U.S. election through carefully placed campaign contributions. Don Lambro of the Washington Times said:
The disclosure is a big breakthrough in the 18-month-old investigation, because for the first time someone has shown a paper trail of illegal campaign money from China to the United States that was intended to influence our elections. This was the story that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward first broke and that Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson dug into before he was forced to end his hearings in December because of a one-year deadline that recalcitrant Democrats had demanded.
So, which now infamous chief of staff to a Vice President was working as a counsel to a Hill committee that happened to be investigating this story? Gee, does Scooter Libby sound familiar?
With that background let us consider some of Bob's "investigatory" insight into the outing of a clandestine CIA officer. Here's a doozy:
WOODWARD: . . .Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.
And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the "Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.
Let's see. Curious Bob is no longer curious. Nope. Nothing to report here. In fact, his remarks parrot Republican talking points. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Of course, maybe Bob just is not paying attention to what is going on at the Washington Post or has abidicated his duty to break news in the paper. While on the Larry King show this week Woodward announced:
"They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment. "
Great news Bob, except there was this other little headline in Saturday's Washington Post:
CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure
So, either you had real news and didn't share it with your reporters or you are just making this up? I personally suspect the latter. I have spoken to some people who are in a position to know. There has been damage. My source, however, declined to share classified information.
Let's face it. It is a sickening sight when a man who got his start in Washington as a take no prisoners investigative journalist has decided to join the prisoners and excuse their conduct as they destroy national security assets and lie, bald face lie, to the American people. Heck of a job, Bobby!
Samuel Alito: The reaction from the right
When George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace John G. Roberts as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, the right reacted first with concern, then with outrage. Bush had promised to deliver a judge in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Instead, he'd given them -- well, what?
There's no question about what Bush has given the right in Samuel Alito, just as there's no question about why he has done so. The president is flailing. That wishful-thinking Google bomb has finally become a public-opinion reality: A new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows that 55 percent of the American people believe Bush's presidency has been a "failure." Bush's approval rating stands at 41 percent -- lower, USA Today says, than both Bill Clinton's approval ratings during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Ronald Reagan's approval ratings during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Bush is no stranger to low poll numbers -- his approval ratings have hovered in the 40s for quite some time now -- and he might have weathered the storm over the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, the indictment of Scooter Libby and the war in Iraq, where six more Americans were killed Monday. But the uproar over the Harriet Miers nomination struck Bush right were it hurt most: The Miers nomination cost him support from the GOP base, which in turn allowed -- even forced -- Republicans from Congress to California to begin to distance themselves from the president. The hardcore religious right could overlook ineptitude, dishonesty and even a disastrous war so long as the president would stop abortionists from killing babies and homosexuals from getting married. But when Bush nominated a justice who seemed a little squishy on abortion rights and gay rights -- and not particularly smart about either -- that base began to bolt.
No more. With Alito, Bush has moved hard back to the right, and his base is responding now with the sort of loyalty and gratitude the president seemed to think he could take for granted.
A sampling of the reaction from the right:
Sen. Orrin Hatch: "President Bush has hit a home run by selecting Sam Alito. Anyone would be hard-pressed to name another nominee with such a sterling and distinguished record."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. And on the bench, he has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
Sen. Sam Brownback: "I commend the president and congratulate Judge Alito on this nomination, and I look forward to the upcoming confirmation hearing, during which members of the Judiciary Committee will have a robust and, I hope, civil dialogue with the nominee about the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts in American life."
Gary Bauer: "Today, President Bush made an exceptional selection for the United States Supreme Court with the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito. Judge Alito's integrity, experience and qualifications are beyond question. . . . He is a mainstream conservative who will uphold the best traditions of our nation's highest court."
Concerned Women for America Chief Counsel Jan LaRue: "We are utterly delighted. . . . We could hardly have gotten a better pick. I can't imagine that there is any possible way that [Democrats] could mount opposition sufficient to keep Judge Alito from being confirmed. They're making their usual noises, and some of them lack so much credibility that I stand amazed that anyone would listen to them. This man is exactly what President Bush promised he would do: To nominate people who are like Scalia and Thomas. This is a judge who is his own man, but he is clearly in the mold of either Scalia or Thomas."
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman: "We believe that this nomination may fulfill Bush's promise to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."
There's no question about what Bush has given the right in Samuel Alito, just as there's no question about why he has done so. The president is flailing. That wishful-thinking Google bomb has finally become a public-opinion reality: A new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows that 55 percent of the American people believe Bush's presidency has been a "failure." Bush's approval rating stands at 41 percent -- lower, USA Today says, than both Bill Clinton's approval ratings during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Ronald Reagan's approval ratings during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Bush is no stranger to low poll numbers -- his approval ratings have hovered in the 40s for quite some time now -- and he might have weathered the storm over the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, the indictment of Scooter Libby and the war in Iraq, where six more Americans were killed Monday. But the uproar over the Harriet Miers nomination struck Bush right were it hurt most: The Miers nomination cost him support from the GOP base, which in turn allowed -- even forced -- Republicans from Congress to California to begin to distance themselves from the president. The hardcore religious right could overlook ineptitude, dishonesty and even a disastrous war so long as the president would stop abortionists from killing babies and homosexuals from getting married. But when Bush nominated a justice who seemed a little squishy on abortion rights and gay rights -- and not particularly smart about either -- that base began to bolt.
No more. With Alito, Bush has moved hard back to the right, and his base is responding now with the sort of loyalty and gratitude the president seemed to think he could take for granted.
A sampling of the reaction from the right:
Sen. Orrin Hatch: "President Bush has hit a home run by selecting Sam Alito. Anyone would be hard-pressed to name another nominee with such a sterling and distinguished record."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. And on the bench, he has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
Sen. Sam Brownback: "I commend the president and congratulate Judge Alito on this nomination, and I look forward to the upcoming confirmation hearing, during which members of the Judiciary Committee will have a robust and, I hope, civil dialogue with the nominee about the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts in American life."
Gary Bauer: "Today, President Bush made an exceptional selection for the United States Supreme Court with the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito. Judge Alito's integrity, experience and qualifications are beyond question. . . . He is a mainstream conservative who will uphold the best traditions of our nation's highest court."
Concerned Women for America Chief Counsel Jan LaRue: "We are utterly delighted. . . . We could hardly have gotten a better pick. I can't imagine that there is any possible way that [Democrats] could mount opposition sufficient to keep Judge Alito from being confirmed. They're making their usual noises, and some of them lack so much credibility that I stand amazed that anyone would listen to them. This man is exactly what President Bush promised he would do: To nominate people who are like Scalia and Thomas. This is a judge who is his own man, but he is clearly in the mold of either Scalia or Thomas."
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman: "We believe that this nomination may fulfill Bush's promise to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."
Bush Tosses Meat To Righties, Distracts Lefties
Samuel Alito’s America
CNN reports that “President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
CNN reports that “President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Congress Weighs Big Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare - New York Times
The New York Times
October 30, 2005
Congress Weighs Big Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare
By
ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Congressional committees have proposed substantial
cutbacks in Medicaid and Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance
programs,
which together cover more than one-fourth of all Americans.
The two houses of Congress are expected to approve the changes in the next
two weeks as part of competing bills to slow the growth of federal spending.
Negotiators from the two chambers would then try to work out the
differences.
The House bill would take all of its savings from Medicaid, the program for
low-income people, while leaving Medicare, the program for those 65 and
older
and the disabled, untouched, as the Bush administration wants. By contrast,
the Senate bill would squeeze savings from both programs.
Under the House bill, states would gain sweeping authority to charge
premiums, increase co-payments and trim benefits for Medicaid recipients, so
benefit
packages would look more like the private insurance provided by employers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these changes would save the
federal government more than $4 billion in the next five years, with savings
of more than $3 billion for the states.
Governors of both parties, troubled by the soaring cost of Medicaid, have
been pleading with Congress to let them make such changes. They said their
record
on welfare showed they could be trusted with the new authority.
Under the current Medicaid law and rules, co-payments for most adults cannot
exceed $3 for goods and services like prescription drugs and visits to
doctors.
The House bill, drafted by Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of
Texas,
would gradually increase the maximum co-payment, to $5 in 2008. In later
years, the ceiling would rise automatically, to match increases in the
consumer
price index for medical care.
States could end coverage for Medicaid recipients who refused to pay
premiums, and health care providers could deny services to those who failed
to pay
the new charges. Poor children under 18 years old would be exempt from
cost-sharing requirements.
"I trust the states," said Mr. Barton, the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of
Georgia,
said, "If people have a personal stake in the cost of their health care,
they will use it more responsibly."
But Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of
Wisconsin,
said, "Higher co-payments will lead people to forgo needed medical care."
"To listen to some of the personal responsibility arguments," Ms. Baldwin
said, "one might think that people line up to see their doctors the way they
line
up to see a rock concert or sporting event, and the only way to control this
irrational hunger or thirst for medical care is to make it more expensive.
I just don't buy that."
Federal auditors and investigators have repeatedly found that Medicaid
overpays pharmacies. The Senate and House bills would reduce those payments.
The
Senate bill would also require drug manufacturers to give larger discounts
to Medicaid, a provision not included in the House bill.
Craig L. Fuller, president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores,
a trade group, said he did not understand how House Republicans could cut
payments
to pharmacies and increase co-payments for poor people without requiring
drug manufacturers to make any contribution to the savings.
But Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
of America, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies, said the
price concessions required by the Senate bill could hurt Medicaid recipients
and other patients by forcing drug makers to "reduce research and
development
of life-saving medicines."
The White House has told lawmakers that they should not tamper with
Medicare. President Bush does not want Congress to alter the prescription
drug benefit,
scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, or other provisions of the 2003 Medicare
law.
House Republican leaders followed that advice, but the Senate did not. The
Senate Finance Committee voted to eliminate a $10 billion fund that can be
used
to increase payments to private insurers, as an incentive for them to enter
and stay in the Medicare program.
The committee chairman, Senator
Charles E. Grassley,
Republican of
Iowa,
said the money was not immediately needed because private plans were rushing
into Medicare.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has
urged Congress to eliminate the $10 billion fund, saying it gives an unfair
advantage to plans known as regional preferred provider organizations, or
P.P.O.'s.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry
trade group, said, "This fund has been described as a slush fund by critics,
but the reality is that beneficiaries, not health plans, will be helped by
this funding."
With the extra payments, Ms. Ignagni said, more insurers would offer
low-cost, high-quality benefits to people in rural areas and other markets
where such
options were unavailable.
The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association warned Congress that if it
eliminated the $10 billion fund, it would show that "the government is an
unreliable
business partner." Blue Cross lobbyists said this would cause some insurers
to reconsider their participation in Medicare.
POsted by Miriam V.
For a Retainer, Lavish Care by 'Boutique Doctors' - New York Times
The New York Times
October 30, 2005
Being a Patient
For a Retainer, Lavish Care by 'Boutique Doctors'
By ABIGAIL ZUGER
BOCA RATON, Fla. - It was on the plane from Shanghai to Beijing last year
that Dorothy Lipson of Delray Beach, Fla., suddenly began to cough up blood:
first
in streaks, then in frightening, tissue-soaking spoonfuls.
But Mrs. Lipson, who was in
China
visiting an expatriate daughter, was lucky on two counts. First, her
daughter happens to run a corporation that builds gleaming Western-style
hospitals
in China; Ms. Lipson was rushed to the Beijing hospital on landing. And
second, Mrs. Lipson's internist back home in
Florida
is Dr. Bernard Kaminetsky, one of a new breed of "concierge" or "boutique"
doctors who, in exchange for a yearly cash retainer, lavish time, phone
calls
and attention on patients, using the latest in electronic communications to
streamline their care.
Since its debut in 1996, concierge medicine has evoked criticism from many
corners. Some ethicists say it is exacerbating the inequities in American
health
care. Insurance regulators have raised concerns about fraud. Government
watchdogs, worried that it threatens the tenuous equilibrium of the health
care
system, are keeping an eye on trends.
"Concierge care is like a new country club for the rich," Representative
Pete Stark, Democrat of
California,
said at a joint economic committee hearing in Congress last year. "The
danger is that if a large number of doctors choose to open up these types of
practices,
the health care system will become even more inequitable than it is today."
But for Mrs. Lipson, who pays $1,650 a year, the niceties enabled by
concierge medicine can make all the difference.
Dr. Kaminetsky was in daily touch with her doctors in Beijing. E-mail
messages, X-ray reports and digitalized images flew back and forth. When the
bleeding
was stabilized and Mrs. Lipson returned home, Dr. Kaminetsky immediately
connected her with a local specialist for a biopsy of her diseased lungs,
and
then with infectious disease experts for treatment of the unusual infection
that was found.
Mrs. Lipson's long convalescence was seamless, with none of the snags that
can magnify the misery of serious illness: no long hours in strange waiting
rooms,
no lost X-ray or culture reports, no contradictory pronouncements by
specialists confused by missing information. Dr. Kaminetsky's office
coordinated all
her appointments, tests and treatments. He personally telephoned her with
all results and saw her as often as necessary to make sure everything went
smoothly.
Now, still on medication over 18 months later, Mrs. Lipson applauds her
foresight in signing up for this deluxe model of medical care. The yearly
expense,
she points out, is far smaller than more traditional luxuries like cruises
or late-model cars. "I highly recommend it," she said. "It's well worth the
money."
More Money, More Attention
Anyone searching the country for a group of patients who are perfectly happy
with their medical care, neither brutalized by the system nor fearful that
the onset of a serious illness will plunge them into a morass of confusion
and neglect, need look no farther than Dr. Kaminetsky's waiting room here in
Boca Raton.
Not that the waiting room usually has anyone in it. One promise made to
patients paying for concierge service is that waiting will not be a part of
their
health care experience. Patients are guaranteed that phone calls will be
returned promptly, appointments will be scheduled on a same-day basis if
necessary,
and appointment times will be honored. A bowl of fruit salad and platters of
bagels and sponge cake set out for patients in the waiting room can go
barely
touched over the course of a day, and the television often plays to an empty
couch.
A relatively simple tradeoff is responsible: the extra fees collected from
patients let concierge doctors, who leave regular practice for concierge
medicine,
slash their caseloads. Before Dr. Kaminetsky became a concierge doctor five
years ago he had 2,500 patients in his practice - a standard number for most
primary care internists. His list now numbers 600.
Sick and well alike, patients are delighted with the results.
Joan Holzman, 69, takes no medicines and has no health problems; she comes
to the office once a year for a physical exam, an X-ray, an
electrocardiogram
and blood tests. "I adore it," Ms. Holzman said. "Before, wherever you went
you felt like cattle. But everyone here is top-notch - the doctors, the
secretaries,
the nurses. They're warm, like family. It's a wonderful feeling of
security."
Phoebe Kupps, 81, made a same-day appointment with Dr. Kaminetsky recently
to discuss a scribbled list of minor problems, including her
insomnia,
her sinus congestion and an unpleasant sour taste in her mouth. For a
half-hour (uninterrupted by ringing phones or any other distractions) she
and Dr.
Kaminetsky methodically reviewed her medications and considered ways to get
rid of the bad taste and improve her sleep, including avoiding afternoon
naps
and alcoholic nightcaps, and turning the bedroom clock to the wall.
"It's like having insurance and not using it," Mrs. Kupps said. "I've been a
well person. These little things are ridiculous. But here I can get them
dealt
with right away, they don't build up. I've heard stories from my friends,
when they get ill, they can't get in to see their doctor for weeks."
Herbert Glickman, 75, has seen more than a dozen specialists since both of
his knees were replaced in 2003, trying to find the cause of his persistent
knee
pain. He periodically drops off wads of consultation and test reports to add
to his bulging file at Dr. Kaminetsky's office, and during long phone calls
and appointments the two sort through the results.
When a month went by recently without a word from Mr. Glickman, Dr.
Kaminetsky called him at home. "He was calling to find out how I was," Mr.
Glickman
said in the tone of one discussing a miracle. "I never heard that from any
doctor!"
Dr. Kaminetsky's practice is affiliated with a corporation called MDVIP,
which he helped found. It processes the retainer fees, oversees the office's
electronic
capabilities and runs quality control to make sure the clerical staff
members are courteous and make appointments with the promised alacrity.
Nationwide
about 250 medical practices and 100,000 patients have signed up with MDVIP
and similar corporations, according to the professional society of concierge
physicians, the Society for Innovative Medical Practice Design, founded in
2003.
These doctors charge fees as high as $10,000 a year, depending on the
services promised. The majority charge $1,500 to $2,000. Basic services
consist of
same-day or next-day appointments and 24-hour telephone access to the
doctor. The most expensive may also promise the doctor will make home
visits, deliver
medications and accompany patients on visits to other doctors.
In Dr. Kaminetsky's practice of three doctors all the patients are concierge
patients. Retired patients are sometimes enrolled by their children, who may
also cover the retainer fees. About 10 percent of the patients are seen free
of charge, "scholarship patients" who the doctors have decided are in real
need of the extra services and whose yearly retainer fees are waived.
Because the practice has a 96 percent annual retention rate, its waiting
list of
several hundred names moves up slowly.
"We turn people away every day," Dr. Kaminetsky said.
All About Numbers
Despite the drastic decrease in patient load after he changed the way he ran
his practice, Dr. Kaminetsky's personal compensation and the salaries of his
office staff members increased by about 60 percent.
The arithmetic behind this seeming contradiction results from the low
per-visit reimbursement rates set by Medicare for primary care office
practices. Medicare
now pays an internist like Dr. Kaminetsky slightly over $50 for an average
office visit. Thus, a regular internist might earn about $200 a year from
Medicare
for caring for the average older patient with high
blood pressure
or elevated
cholesterol
but no other major health problems.
Other medical insurers follow Medicare fees closely, which is why
office-based primary care doctors who accept insurance say they must see
dozens of patients
a day just to break even.
A concierge doctor charging the $1,650 MDVIP fee, though, makes at least
$1,150 a year per patient (MDVIP retains $500 for its services). This huge
increase
in per-patient reimbursement allows the patient loads to be kept low.
Primary care doctors also occasionally lower their patient loads by
participating in only a few insurance plans, or, sometimes, in none at all.
No one knows
how many of these partly or completely "fee-for-service" practices operate
in this country, or whether their number is increasing.
For office visits, these doctors set their own cash fees, which can be
hundreds of dollars a visit, rivaling concierge medicine in out-of-pocket
expense
for the patient. Unlike concierge doctors, though, fee-for-service doctors
do not enter into a formal legal contract with patients that enumerates the
services patients will receive for the money.
Some concierge practices operate exclusively on a cash basis. Others -
generally those with lower annual fees, like Dr. Kaminetsky's - still
participate
in Medicare or other insurance plans.
These practices have reached an uneasy truce with insurers. Insurers forbid
double billing for visits they cover, so the yearly concierge fees are
specifically
allocated for services that insurers do not cover, like annual physical
exams and health reviews, preventive services like nutritional counseling
and frills
like a wallet-size CD containing an up-to-date medical history and test
results for patients to carry with them.
Even so, critics maintain that concierge services violate the spirit, if not
the letter, of federal Medicare law, which aspires to regulate doctors' fees
to a uniform standard and streamline access to medical care for the old and
infirm.
After five senators wrote a letter of complaint to the Department of Health
and Human Services in 2002, a formal examination was begun.
Tommy G. Thompson,
who headed the department at that time, concluded that as long as the
retainer fee was clearly for services not covered by Medicare, collecting
the fees
did not violate the law.
Subsequently, the Government Accountability Office examined trends in
concierge medicine and concluded, in a report in August 2005, that the
number of concierge
physicians nationwide was still too small for the practice to limit Medicare
patients' access to health care, but that the government would continue to
monitor trends.
Some argue that concierge services actually save health care dollars. In
Florida, for instance, internal MDVIP statistics indicate that concierge
patients
receive screening exams like
mammograms
and Pap smears more regularly than those with commercial insurance, and they
require fewer hospital admissions, said Darin Engelhardt, the company's
chief
financial officer.
"As far as I'm concerned, we're saving Medicare money," Dr. Kaminetsky said.
He pointed to cases like that of Philip Novack, 94. For Mr. Novack, who is
in fragile health, Dr. Kaminetsky's office often becomes a low-stress
alternative
to the emergency room. One morning last summer, Mr. Novack woke up at 5 a.m.
feeling unwell and asked his wife, Edythe Shane-Novack, to call an
ambulance.
A veteran of many similar emergencies, she waited till 9:02 a.m. and called
Dr. Kaminetsky's office instead.
Less than three hours later Mr. Novack was perched on an examining table,
smiling at the familiar faces in the office and receiving the same
evaluation
he would have had in the emergency room, including blood tests, an X-ray and
a cardiogram.
The diagnosis, a slight imbalance in his blood sodium level, was made
promptly, and Mr. Novack was better by the next morning. Instead of paying
expensive
emergency fees, Medicare would pay only for an office visit. "This is the
best thing that ever happened to us," Mrs. Shane-Novack said.
Perceptions
Charges that concierge practices violate not financial ethics, but
professional ethics, also abound.
"Philosophically, I think it's appalling," said David Barton Smith,
professor of health services administration at Temple University in
Philadelphia. "It's
creating a two-class system of medicine."
Critics have accused doctors who make the transition to a concierge practice
from a regular one of abandoning patients who cannot afford to join up.
Concierge
doctors counter that when they convert their practices they do so over a
transition period of several months, and always provide referrals to
alternate
sources of care, as mandated by the American Medical Association's code of
ethics.
Other critics feel that concierge medicine hurts the profession's image.
"The public is already mistrustful of doctors' self interests," Dr. Jay
Jacobson,
a medical ethicist in Salt Lake City, wrote in 2002. "Boutique practices
exacerbate the distrust."
Others feel that concierge medicine is deeply at odds with the philosophy of
primary care medicine, whose mandate is to care for all comers. Still others
say it violates an unwritten code in which doctors must share the medical
profession's duties equitably. In other words, if some doctors care for only
a few rich patients, everyone else has that much more poorly reimbursed work
to do.
Dr. Kaminetsky counters with his own story. Had he not found this way of
practicing medicine, he said, he would no longer be seeing patients at all:
he
would be in a desk job with a pharmaceutical company. A detail-oriented
perfectionist who routinely works through lunch and still does his own
filing,
he was tormented in his previous practice by the impossibility of meeting
his own standards.
"I hated it," Dr. Kaminetsky said. "It was awful. Patients always had a
litany of complaints. Driving home, I would think, 'Oh my God, I never saw
this
test, I never called that patient back.' Some people are not as easily
distressed by loose ends. I don't like leaving things undone."
Now on his busiest days he sees perhaps half the number of patients he used
to, spends twice as long with each one and has the time to make every last
phone
call.
"I'm really helping a lot of people," he said. "I feel good about what I do.
Does everybody deserve this kind of care? Yes, they do. And I don't purport
to know the solution."
List of 11 items
. Copyright 2005
The New York Times Company
Posted by Miriam V.
George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are flying on Air Force One.
The President looks at the Vice President, chuckles and says, "You know, I
could
throw a $1,000. bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."
The Vice President shrugs and says, "Well, I could throw ten $100.00
bills out the window and make 10 people very happy."
Not to be out done, the Secretary of Defense says, "Of course, I could
throw one-hundred $10.00 bills out the window and make a hundred people very
happy."
The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such big shots
back there... hell, I could throw all of them out the window and make 56
million
people happy"!
Saturday, October 29, 2005
It looks like extra innings....
Fitz’s Knuckle Ball
by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)
The indictment of “Scooter” Libby, ONLY Scooter Libby, and ONLY on investigation- related charges (perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators), is bound to be misinterpreted (read: spun), by ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Lefties (in addition to being disappointed that their favorite bête noire, Karl Rove, has seemingly evaded the prosecutor's net) will feel like some of the wind has been knocked out of their sails because no crime was charged in connection with the underlying revelation of Valerie Plame's identity (a key element in their assertion that such revelation was motivated by the need to discredit a vocal critic of administration's casus belli for the war--Iraq's possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons capability). And righties will revel in that same fact (i.e., since no crime was committed by the Plame outing, the outing was nothing more than a legitimate defense against the attack on the motivation for the war--in other words, politics as usual).
But, to continue Patrick Fitzgerald's somewhat tortured baseball analogy, there is no reason either for joy or sorrow in Mudville. Mighty Casey (a/k/a Fitzgerald) has, in essence, taken a base on balls, four (or, in Libby's case, five) lousy pitches, none of which he could really swing at, much less hit out of the park. And, just like a base on balls does't count as an at-bat, in some ways Fitz still hasn't stepped up to the plate. But, I suggest that what he may have done is to cork a bat for his next up.
Yesterday's indictment was dictated by time more than anything else. With the grand jury's term expiring today, if any indictment was going to be returned, this was the day, and I, for one, don't question Fitzgerald's statement that Libby's obstruction of the investigation prevented him from getting to the truth about the so-called “underlying” charges (e.g., those associated with outing a CIA operative). Indeed, the obstruction charged against Libby prevented the prosecutor from furnishing the one element of the underlying crimes that may be the most difficult to prove: mens rea, as it's known in the criminal law (i.e., a culpable state of mind). But, be assured: the last out in this game is still to come, and the indictment is a shot across the bow for a whole host of characters in this unfolding drama that should indicate to them sighs of relief would be premature.
First, we know that Fitz intends to continue the investigation, albeit with a new grand jury. That's no big deal, since the evidence that was presented to the first grand jury will be available, word-for-word and page-for-page, to the next one for their examination and, if necessary, for further elaboration or elucidation either by the prosecutor or by additional witnesses. In other words, the new grand jury won't be starting from scratch---not by a long shot.
Second, even the fact that Libby wasn't indicted for any of the possible classified-information-related offenses does't mean he still can't be, since the special prosecutor has the prerogative of getting a superseding indictment from the grand jury which is to follow (not unlike what the prosecutor in Texas did in Tom Delay's case). Thus, Libby is still, technically under the gun, and the indictment itself is rife with indications that there is another shoe yet to drop, something Fitz also strongly foreshadowed in his responses to reporters' questions during his press conference. And, of course, neither Rove nor any of a variety of other characters whose participation was described in shadowy terms are, as yet, off the hook.
Continued below:
Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.
The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security.
Paragraph 13 of the indictment takes the guilty knowledge of Plame's status one step farther:
Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby was authorized to have access to classified information (Paragraph 1), but also takes pains to point out not only that he was obligated not to disclose that information, but that he had signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” the primary purpose of which was to let its signatories know, in no uncertain terms, that disclosure of classified information would be a big no-no.
Voila! All of the elements, at least of the Espionage Act (if not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), have been made out in the indictment. So, why go to all the trouble of setting up the factual predicates for violations of the classified information statutes in the indictment (especially when he didn't have to) and then stop short of charging them? The explanation he gave during his press conference (i.e., that he was balancing the interests of the First Amendment with the wisdom of charging the crime) does't fly. Subpoenaing reporters, sending one to jail and threatening to do the same to another one demonstrate, I suggest, his less-than-overarching concern about the First Amendment. And, his expressed concern that the U.S. statute governing classified information not become subject to the loose application which has characterized its British analog (i.e., the “Official Secrets Act”) also rings hollow, especially given the fact that he trumpeted, loud and long, during his press conference the serious violations of national security the conduct in this case appears to have constituted.
No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow.
by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)
The indictment of “Scooter” Libby, ONLY Scooter Libby, and ONLY on investigation- related charges (perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators), is bound to be misinterpreted (read: spun), by ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Lefties (in addition to being disappointed that their favorite bête noire, Karl Rove, has seemingly evaded the prosecutor's net) will feel like some of the wind has been knocked out of their sails because no crime was charged in connection with the underlying revelation of Valerie Plame's identity (a key element in their assertion that such revelation was motivated by the need to discredit a vocal critic of administration's casus belli for the war--Iraq's possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons capability). And righties will revel in that same fact (i.e., since no crime was committed by the Plame outing, the outing was nothing more than a legitimate defense against the attack on the motivation for the war--in other words, politics as usual).
But, to continue Patrick Fitzgerald's somewhat tortured baseball analogy, there is no reason either for joy or sorrow in Mudville. Mighty Casey (a/k/a Fitzgerald) has, in essence, taken a base on balls, four (or, in Libby's case, five) lousy pitches, none of which he could really swing at, much less hit out of the park. And, just like a base on balls does't count as an at-bat, in some ways Fitz still hasn't stepped up to the plate. But, I suggest that what he may have done is to cork a bat for his next up.
Yesterday's indictment was dictated by time more than anything else. With the grand jury's term expiring today, if any indictment was going to be returned, this was the day, and I, for one, don't question Fitzgerald's statement that Libby's obstruction of the investigation prevented him from getting to the truth about the so-called “underlying” charges (e.g., those associated with outing a CIA operative). Indeed, the obstruction charged against Libby prevented the prosecutor from furnishing the one element of the underlying crimes that may be the most difficult to prove: mens rea, as it's known in the criminal law (i.e., a culpable state of mind). But, be assured: the last out in this game is still to come, and the indictment is a shot across the bow for a whole host of characters in this unfolding drama that should indicate to them sighs of relief would be premature.
First, we know that Fitz intends to continue the investigation, albeit with a new grand jury. That's no big deal, since the evidence that was presented to the first grand jury will be available, word-for-word and page-for-page, to the next one for their examination and, if necessary, for further elaboration or elucidation either by the prosecutor or by additional witnesses. In other words, the new grand jury won't be starting from scratch---not by a long shot.
Second, even the fact that Libby wasn't indicted for any of the possible classified-information-related offenses does't mean he still can't be, since the special prosecutor has the prerogative of getting a superseding indictment from the grand jury which is to follow (not unlike what the prosecutor in Texas did in Tom Delay's case). Thus, Libby is still, technically under the gun, and the indictment itself is rife with indications that there is another shoe yet to drop, something Fitz also strongly foreshadowed in his responses to reporters' questions during his press conference. And, of course, neither Rove nor any of a variety of other characters whose participation was described in shadowy terms are, as yet, off the hook.
Continued below:
Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.
The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security.
Paragraph 13 of the indictment takes the guilty knowledge of Plame's status one step farther:
Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby was authorized to have access to classified information (Paragraph 1), but also takes pains to point out not only that he was obligated not to disclose that information, but that he had signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” the primary purpose of which was to let its signatories know, in no uncertain terms, that disclosure of classified information would be a big no-no.
Voila! All of the elements, at least of the Espionage Act (if not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), have been made out in the indictment. So, why go to all the trouble of setting up the factual predicates for violations of the classified information statutes in the indictment (especially when he didn't have to) and then stop short of charging them? The explanation he gave during his press conference (i.e., that he was balancing the interests of the First Amendment with the wisdom of charging the crime) does't fly. Subpoenaing reporters, sending one to jail and threatening to do the same to another one demonstrate, I suggest, his less-than-overarching concern about the First Amendment. And, his expressed concern that the U.S. statute governing classified information not become subject to the loose application which has characterized its British analog (i.e., the “Official Secrets Act”) also rings hollow, especially given the fact that he trumpeted, loud and long, during his press conference the serious violations of national security the conduct in this case appears to have constituted.
No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow.
It looks like extra innings....
Fitz’s Knuckle Ball
by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)
The indictment of “Scooter” Libby, ONLY Scooter Libby, and ONLY on investigation- related charges (perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators), is bound to be misinterpreted (read: spun), by ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Lefties (in addition to being disappointed that their favorite bête noire, Karl Rove, has seemingly evaded the prosecutor's net) will feel like some of the wind has been knocked out of their sails because no crime was charged in connection with the underlying revelation of Valerie Plame's identity (a key element in their assertion that such revelation was motivated by the need to discredit a vocal critic of administration's casus belli for the war--Iraq's possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons capability). And righties will revel in that same fact (i.e., since no crime was committed by the Plame outing, the outing was nothing more than a legitimate defense against the attack on the motivation for the war--in other words, politics as usual).
But, to continue Patrick Fitzgerald's somewhat tortured baseball analogy, there is no reason either for joy or sorrow in Mudville. Mighty Casey (a/k/a Fitzgerald) has, in essence, taken a base on balls, four (or, in Libby's case, five) lousy pitches, none of which he could really swing at, much less hit out of the park. And, just like a base on balls does't count as an at-bat, in some ways Fitz still hasn't stepped up to the plate. But, I suggest that what he may have done is to cork a bat for his next up.
Yesterday's indictment was dictated by time more than anything else. With the grand jury's term expiring today, if any indictment was going to be returned, this was the day, and I, for one, don't question Fitzgerald's statement that Libby's obstruction of the investigation prevented him from getting to the truth about the so-called “underlying” charges (e.g., those associated with outing a CIA operative). Indeed, the obstruction charged against Libby prevented the prosecutor from furnishing the one element of the underlying crimes that may be the most difficult to prove: mens rea, as it's known in the criminal law (i.e., a culpable state of mind). But, be assured: the last out in this game is still to come, and the indictment is a shot across the bow for a whole host of characters in this unfolding drama that should indicate to them sighs of relief would be premature.
First, we know that Fitz intends to continue the investigation, albeit with a new grand jury. That's no big deal, since the evidence that was presented to the first grand jury will be available, word-for-word and page-for-page, to the next one for their examination and, if necessary, for further elaboration or elucidation either by the prosecutor or by additional witnesses. In other words, the new grand jury won't be starting from scratch---not by a long shot.
Second, even the fact that Libby wasn't indicted for any of the possible classified-information-related offenses does't mean he still can't be, since the special prosecutor has the prerogative of getting a superseding indictment from the grand jury which is to follow (not unlike what the prosecutor in Texas did in Tom Delay's case). Thus, Libby is still, technically under the gun, and the indictment itself is rife with indications that there is another shoe yet to drop, something Fitz also strongly foreshadowed in his responses to reporters' questions during his press conference. And, of course, neither Rove nor any of a variety of other characters whose participation was described in shadowy terms are, as yet, off the hook.
Continued below:
Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.
The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security.
Paragraph 13 of the indictment takes the guilty knowledge of Plame's status one step farther:
Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby was authorized to have access to classified information (Paragraph 1), but also takes pains to point out not only that he was obligated not to disclose that information, but that he had signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” the primary purpose of which was to let its signatories know, in no uncertain terms, that disclosure of classified information would be a big no-no.
Voila! All of the elements, at least of the Espionage Act (if not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), have been made out in the indictment. So, why go to all the trouble of setting up the factual predicates for violations of the classified information statutes in the indictment (especially when he didn't have to) and then stop short of charging them? The explanation he gave during his press conference (i.e., that he was balancing the interests of the First Amendment with the wisdom of charging the crime) does't fly. Subpoenaing reporters, sending one to jail and threatening to do the same to another one demonstrate, I suggest, his less-than-overarching concern about the First Amendment. And, his expressed concern that the U.S. statute governing classified information not become subject to the loose application which has characterized its British analog (i.e., the “Official Secrets Act”) also rings hollow, especially given the fact that he trumpeted, loud and long, during his press conference the serious violations of national security the conduct in this case appears to have constituted.
No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow.
by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)
The indictment of “Scooter” Libby, ONLY Scooter Libby, and ONLY on investigation- related charges (perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators), is bound to be misinterpreted (read: spun), by ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Lefties (in addition to being disappointed that their favorite bête noire, Karl Rove, has seemingly evaded the prosecutor's net) will feel like some of the wind has been knocked out of their sails because no crime was charged in connection with the underlying revelation of Valerie Plame's identity (a key element in their assertion that such revelation was motivated by the need to discredit a vocal critic of administration's casus belli for the war--Iraq's possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons capability). And righties will revel in that same fact (i.e., since no crime was committed by the Plame outing, the outing was nothing more than a legitimate defense against the attack on the motivation for the war--in other words, politics as usual).
But, to continue Patrick Fitzgerald's somewhat tortured baseball analogy, there is no reason either for joy or sorrow in Mudville. Mighty Casey (a/k/a Fitzgerald) has, in essence, taken a base on balls, four (or, in Libby's case, five) lousy pitches, none of which he could really swing at, much less hit out of the park. And, just like a base on balls does't count as an at-bat, in some ways Fitz still hasn't stepped up to the plate. But, I suggest that what he may have done is to cork a bat for his next up.
Yesterday's indictment was dictated by time more than anything else. With the grand jury's term expiring today, if any indictment was going to be returned, this was the day, and I, for one, don't question Fitzgerald's statement that Libby's obstruction of the investigation prevented him from getting to the truth about the so-called “underlying” charges (e.g., those associated with outing a CIA operative). Indeed, the obstruction charged against Libby prevented the prosecutor from furnishing the one element of the underlying crimes that may be the most difficult to prove: mens rea, as it's known in the criminal law (i.e., a culpable state of mind). But, be assured: the last out in this game is still to come, and the indictment is a shot across the bow for a whole host of characters in this unfolding drama that should indicate to them sighs of relief would be premature.
First, we know that Fitz intends to continue the investigation, albeit with a new grand jury. That's no big deal, since the evidence that was presented to the first grand jury will be available, word-for-word and page-for-page, to the next one for their examination and, if necessary, for further elaboration or elucidation either by the prosecutor or by additional witnesses. In other words, the new grand jury won't be starting from scratch---not by a long shot.
Second, even the fact that Libby wasn't indicted for any of the possible classified-information-related offenses does't mean he still can't be, since the special prosecutor has the prerogative of getting a superseding indictment from the grand jury which is to follow (not unlike what the prosecutor in Texas did in Tom Delay's case). Thus, Libby is still, technically under the gun, and the indictment itself is rife with indications that there is another shoe yet to drop, something Fitz also strongly foreshadowed in his responses to reporters' questions during his press conference. And, of course, neither Rove nor any of a variety of other characters whose participation was described in shadowy terms are, as yet, off the hook.
Continued below:
Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.
The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security.
Paragraph 13 of the indictment takes the guilty knowledge of Plame's status one step farther:
Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby was authorized to have access to classified information (Paragraph 1), but also takes pains to point out not only that he was obligated not to disclose that information, but that he had signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” the primary purpose of which was to let its signatories know, in no uncertain terms, that disclosure of classified information would be a big no-no.
Voila! All of the elements, at least of the Espionage Act (if not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), have been made out in the indictment. So, why go to all the trouble of setting up the factual predicates for violations of the classified information statutes in the indictment (especially when he didn't have to) and then stop short of charging them? The explanation he gave during his press conference (i.e., that he was balancing the interests of the First Amendment with the wisdom of charging the crime) does't fly. Subpoenaing reporters, sending one to jail and threatening to do the same to another one demonstrate, I suggest, his less-than-overarching concern about the First Amendment. And, his expressed concern that the U.S. statute governing classified information not become subject to the loose application which has characterized its British analog (i.e., the “Official Secrets Act”) also rings hollow, especially given the fact that he trumpeted, loud and long, during his press conference the serious violations of national security the conduct in this case appears to have constituted.
No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow.
Crooked, Corrupt and Contemptible
As a former Clinton aide, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and the announcement that Karl Rove remains in the prosecutorial hot-seat gives me no schadenfreude. First because many of my fellow Texans in the Bush White House are friends of mine; others are acquaintances I've known for years. I feel their pain.
Second, because no one who loves the White House and reveres the presidency can take joy in seeing it besmirched. And third, because the ultimate result of the alleged criminal conduct was to march 2,000 young heroes off to die in an unjust, unwise, unprovoked and unwarranted war.
The plain fact is that after a seven year non-stop investigato-rama, no senior Clinton White House official was ever even charged with wrongdoing. Much less indicted. Much less convicted. In fact, the highest-ranking Clinton official to be convicted of wrongdoing in connection with his public duties was the chief of staff to the Agriculture Secretary. Betcha five bucks you can't even name the Clinton Agriculture Secretary in question, much less his chief of staff. Unlike Nixon (whose Watergate crimes were manifest), unlike Reagan (whose White House was corrupted by the Iran-Contra crimes), unlike Bush 41 (who pardoned White House aides and Cabinet officers before they could testify against him), Bill Clinton presided over the most ethical White House staff in decades.
And yet George W. Bush campaigned on a pledge to "restore honor and decency to the Oval Office." He spoke of moms and dads on the campaign trail who showed him photos of their children and asked him to give them a president their kids could be proud of.
We all knew what he meant. With a wink and a nod he told us he wouldn't cheat on Laura. And after he took office Mr. Bush and his henchmen smeared the Clintonistas, falsely accusing them of vandalism and theft. They told the press that in this Oval Office the gentlemen would wear suits, the ladies, skirts. And no more paper coffee cups. Nothing but the finest bone china. The Bushies even claimed moral superiority because of their punctuality. Everything was designed and marketed to stress the virtue of the Bushies and the vice of the Clintonians. And it worked. In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world -- and a non-Muslim world, for that matter -- that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
But thank God there were no blow jobs. They really are Better People.
That is why this prosecution is important. No one is criminalizing policy differences. Rather, the Bush White House stands accused of hijacking the public policy process in service of a criminal conspiracy to smear, lie and obstruct justice.
The Fitzgerald probe, it should be noted, is the first independent investigation into alleged wrongdoing in the Bush White House. And it has hit paydirt. Contrast that with the dry holes of Whitewater, Filegate, the billing records, Vince Foster's suicide, the cattle futures, the Buddhist temple, and all the rest. Good Lord, Congress even spent two years investigating Clinton's Christmas card list. Just to list the trumped-up Clinton "scandals" is to recall how trivial -- and yet how destructive -- they were. Innocent people were impoverished, reputations were damaged, careers derailed. But at least history can give the Clinton team a clean bill of ethical health. No White House was more thoroughly investigated -- and more thoroughly exonerated. But it's telling that the first time anyone had the courage to scratch the surface of Bush, Inc., he found corruption.
It is not boilerplate to state that those accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. But that is a legal matter. As a matter of morality, the Bushies are already guilty. Guilty of smearing the Wilson family. Guilty of twisting intelligence. Guilty of lying about the role of White House aides in outing Mrs. Wilson. Guilty of sanctimony and hypocrisy and hubris. Most of all, they are guilty of misleading us into this God-awful war.
So, yes, I feel sorry for those indicted and those under investigation, and especially for their families. They are going through hell. But it's nothing compared to the pain of 2,000 families who've lost a loved one in Iraq, or 15,000 families whose loved one has shed blood or lost limbs in the war Mr. Bush and his "better people" have started.
Second, because no one who loves the White House and reveres the presidency can take joy in seeing it besmirched. And third, because the ultimate result of the alleged criminal conduct was to march 2,000 young heroes off to die in an unjust, unwise, unprovoked and unwarranted war.
The plain fact is that after a seven year non-stop investigato-rama, no senior Clinton White House official was ever even charged with wrongdoing. Much less indicted. Much less convicted. In fact, the highest-ranking Clinton official to be convicted of wrongdoing in connection with his public duties was the chief of staff to the Agriculture Secretary. Betcha five bucks you can't even name the Clinton Agriculture Secretary in question, much less his chief of staff. Unlike Nixon (whose Watergate crimes were manifest), unlike Reagan (whose White House was corrupted by the Iran-Contra crimes), unlike Bush 41 (who pardoned White House aides and Cabinet officers before they could testify against him), Bill Clinton presided over the most ethical White House staff in decades.
And yet George W. Bush campaigned on a pledge to "restore honor and decency to the Oval Office." He spoke of moms and dads on the campaign trail who showed him photos of their children and asked him to give them a president their kids could be proud of.
We all knew what he meant. With a wink and a nod he told us he wouldn't cheat on Laura. And after he took office Mr. Bush and his henchmen smeared the Clintonistas, falsely accusing them of vandalism and theft. They told the press that in this Oval Office the gentlemen would wear suits, the ladies, skirts. And no more paper coffee cups. Nothing but the finest bone china. The Bushies even claimed moral superiority because of their punctuality. Everything was designed and marketed to stress the virtue of the Bushies and the vice of the Clintonians. And it worked. In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world -- and a non-Muslim world, for that matter -- that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
But thank God there were no blow jobs. They really are Better People.
That is why this prosecution is important. No one is criminalizing policy differences. Rather, the Bush White House stands accused of hijacking the public policy process in service of a criminal conspiracy to smear, lie and obstruct justice.
The Fitzgerald probe, it should be noted, is the first independent investigation into alleged wrongdoing in the Bush White House. And it has hit paydirt. Contrast that with the dry holes of Whitewater, Filegate, the billing records, Vince Foster's suicide, the cattle futures, the Buddhist temple, and all the rest. Good Lord, Congress even spent two years investigating Clinton's Christmas card list. Just to list the trumped-up Clinton "scandals" is to recall how trivial -- and yet how destructive -- they were. Innocent people were impoverished, reputations were damaged, careers derailed. But at least history can give the Clinton team a clean bill of ethical health. No White House was more thoroughly investigated -- and more thoroughly exonerated. But it's telling that the first time anyone had the courage to scratch the surface of Bush, Inc., he found corruption.
It is not boilerplate to state that those accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. But that is a legal matter. As a matter of morality, the Bushies are already guilty. Guilty of smearing the Wilson family. Guilty of twisting intelligence. Guilty of lying about the role of White House aides in outing Mrs. Wilson. Guilty of sanctimony and hypocrisy and hubris. Most of all, they are guilty of misleading us into this God-awful war.
So, yes, I feel sorry for those indicted and those under investigation, and especially for their families. They are going through hell. But it's nothing compared to the pain of 2,000 families who've lost a loved one in Iraq, or 15,000 families whose loved one has shed blood or lost limbs in the war Mr. Bush and his "better people" have started.
The era of restoring honor and decency is over
- The Carpetbagger Report - http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com -
Posted By Carpetbagger On 29th October 2005 @ 11:44 In General | 7 Comments
Paul Begala did a terrific job highlighting one of the emotional responses Dems are feeling as a result of the Plame scandal and the charges against Libby. It's not exactly schadenfreude, and it's not quite disgust, but rather the satisfaction that comes with knowing that these smug, self-superior hypocrites have fallen from their undeserved high-horse.
…George W. Bush campaigned on a pledge to "restore honor and decency to the Oval Office." He spoke of moms and dads on the campaign trail who showed him photos of their children and asked him to give them a president their kids could be proud of.
We all knew what he meant. With a wink and a nod he told us he wouldn't cheat on Laura. And after he took office Mr. Bush and his henchmen smeared the Clintonistas, falsely accusing them of vandalism and theft. They told the press that in this Oval Office the gentlemen would wear suits, the ladies, skirts. And no more paper coffee cups. Nothing but the finest bone china. The Bushies even claimed moral superiority because of their punctuality. Everything was designed and marketed to stress the virtue of the Bushies and the vice of the Clintonians. And it worked. In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world — and a non-Muslim world, for that matter — that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
But thank God there were no blow jobs. They really are Better People.
Anyone who's watched this gang closely since the 2000 election knew that the masquerade about moral superiority was always a sham. For crying out loud, the Bush-Cheney ticket was the first ticket in American history to feature two candidates with criminal records.
But yesterday rips off the mask. Oliver's bottom-line summary is as good as any: "The White House leaked classified information to the media, while a member of the White House staff lied under oath and obstructed justice."
All the spin in the world won't change the fact that there is neither honor nor decency in that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com
URL to article: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5685.html
Posted By Carpetbagger On 29th October 2005 @ 11:44 In General | 7 Comments
Paul Begala did a terrific job highlighting one of the emotional responses Dems are feeling as a result of the Plame scandal and the charges against Libby. It's not exactly schadenfreude, and it's not quite disgust, but rather the satisfaction that comes with knowing that these smug, self-superior hypocrites have fallen from their undeserved high-horse.
…George W. Bush campaigned on a pledge to "restore honor and decency to the Oval Office." He spoke of moms and dads on the campaign trail who showed him photos of their children and asked him to give them a president their kids could be proud of.
We all knew what he meant. With a wink and a nod he told us he wouldn't cheat on Laura. And after he took office Mr. Bush and his henchmen smeared the Clintonistas, falsely accusing them of vandalism and theft. They told the press that in this Oval Office the gentlemen would wear suits, the ladies, skirts. And no more paper coffee cups. Nothing but the finest bone china. The Bushies even claimed moral superiority because of their punctuality. Everything was designed and marketed to stress the virtue of the Bushies and the vice of the Clintonians. And it worked. In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world — and a non-Muslim world, for that matter — that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
But thank God there were no blow jobs. They really are Better People.
Anyone who's watched this gang closely since the 2000 election knew that the masquerade about moral superiority was always a sham. For crying out loud, the Bush-Cheney ticket was the first ticket in American history to feature two candidates with criminal records.
But yesterday rips off the mask. Oliver's bottom-line summary is as good as any: "The White House leaked classified information to the media, while a member of the White House staff lied under oath and obstructed justice."
All the spin in the world won't change the fact that there is neither honor nor decency in that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com
URL to article: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5685.html
Yankees, White Sox To Meet in November Classic
HOUSTON, TX—In a historic development in the 2005 Major League Baseball postseason, Fox executives announced that the Chicago White Sox, who defeated the Houston Astros in four games after a 1-0 victory Wednesday, must now play the New York Yankees in the best-of-seven "Real World Series" beginning Saturday night at 8 p.m., in order to determine the actual world champion. "The White Sox must complete one final challenge before they may be crowned true champions," Fox president Peter Liguori announced over Minute Maid Park's PA system, interrupting the White Sox's celebration. "The Yankees are the keepers of the Real World Series trophy, and in order to win it, the White Sox must travel to New York and beat Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, and the other formidable, marketable stars who await their arrival." Liguori added that, in the event that the White Sox decline the challenge, the Red Sox have been scheduled to stand in for them.
Eh, I can't remember; Um, Not Sure......( Or Here Comes Another Phony Crisis Meant To Take Our Minds Off the Subject(s)
Libby's Lawyer Outlines Possible Defense
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago
The lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide is outlining a possible criminal defense that is a time-honored tradition in Washington scandals: A busy official immersed in important duties cannot reasonably be expected to remember details of long-ago conversations.
Friday's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby involves allegations that as Cheney's chief of staff he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury.
Libby, who resigned immediately, was operating amid "the hectic rush of issues and events at a busy time for our government," according to a statement released by his attorney, Joseph Tate.
"We are quite distressed the special counsel (Patrick Fitzgerald) has not sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate continued.
"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred."
The lack-of-memory defense has worked with varying degrees of success in controversies from Iran-Contra to Whitewater.
Only one person went to prison in the Iran-Contra affair, although several people pleaded guilty to making false statements. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, were cleared in the Whitewater investigation of fraudulent land deals in Arkansas, a subject well-suited to a lack-of-memory defense. The land deals took place a decade before they came under criminal investigation.
Tate referred to another possible line of defense, saying that "for five years, through difficult times, Mr. Libby has done his best to serve our country." That argument worked in the administration of President George H.W. Bush in 1992, though not in court.
Bush pardoned those in government who had been implicated in the Iran-Contra criminal investigation. Among others, the pardons went to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, whose trial was scuttled.
The case against Libby: He testified that he learned from NBC correspondent Tim Russert the identity of a covert CIA officer who is the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert says they never discussed it.
The facts, prosecutor Fitzgerald said, are that the month before the conversation with Russert, Libby learned about the CIA status of Valerie Plame from Cheney, from a senior CIA officer and from an undersecretary of state.
But Libby told the FBI and the grand jury that he informed reporters Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times information about Wilson's wife that he had gotten from other reporters — information that Libby said he did not know to be true. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Wilson had a wife.
But Fitzgerald said that rather than being at the end of a chain of phone calls from reporters, Libby "was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards."
The indictment points to interesting behavior by Libby that changed once Wilson went public with his criticism of the current Bush administration. The former ambassador accused the administration of twisting pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Early on, the indictment said, Libby became concerned about an article in The New Republic magazine that referred to Wilson, though not by name, as having gone to Africa for the CIA to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The unnamed ambassador was quoted as saying the "Niger story was a flat-out lie."
The indictment said Libby told his deputy there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing information about the trip and that Libby could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."
After Wilson criticized the Bush administration on NBC's "Meet the Press," Libby had lunch with then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and advised him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known, the indictment said.
It said Libby proceeded to spread it more aggressively than he had previously.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc.
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago
The lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide is outlining a possible criminal defense that is a time-honored tradition in Washington scandals: A busy official immersed in important duties cannot reasonably be expected to remember details of long-ago conversations.
Friday's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby involves allegations that as Cheney's chief of staff he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury.
Libby, who resigned immediately, was operating amid "the hectic rush of issues and events at a busy time for our government," according to a statement released by his attorney, Joseph Tate.
"We are quite distressed the special counsel (Patrick Fitzgerald) has not sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate continued.
"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred."
The lack-of-memory defense has worked with varying degrees of success in controversies from Iran-Contra to Whitewater.
Only one person went to prison in the Iran-Contra affair, although several people pleaded guilty to making false statements. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, were cleared in the Whitewater investigation of fraudulent land deals in Arkansas, a subject well-suited to a lack-of-memory defense. The land deals took place a decade before they came under criminal investigation.
Tate referred to another possible line of defense, saying that "for five years, through difficult times, Mr. Libby has done his best to serve our country." That argument worked in the administration of President George H.W. Bush in 1992, though not in court.
Bush pardoned those in government who had been implicated in the Iran-Contra criminal investigation. Among others, the pardons went to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, whose trial was scuttled.
The case against Libby: He testified that he learned from NBC correspondent Tim Russert the identity of a covert CIA officer who is the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert says they never discussed it.
The facts, prosecutor Fitzgerald said, are that the month before the conversation with Russert, Libby learned about the CIA status of Valerie Plame from Cheney, from a senior CIA officer and from an undersecretary of state.
But Libby told the FBI and the grand jury that he informed reporters Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times information about Wilson's wife that he had gotten from other reporters — information that Libby said he did not know to be true. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Wilson had a wife.
But Fitzgerald said that rather than being at the end of a chain of phone calls from reporters, Libby "was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards."
The indictment points to interesting behavior by Libby that changed once Wilson went public with his criticism of the current Bush administration. The former ambassador accused the administration of twisting pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Early on, the indictment said, Libby became concerned about an article in The New Republic magazine that referred to Wilson, though not by name, as having gone to Africa for the CIA to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The unnamed ambassador was quoted as saying the "Niger story was a flat-out lie."
The indictment said Libby told his deputy there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing information about the trip and that Libby could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."
After Wilson criticized the Bush administration on NBC's "Meet the Press," Libby had lunch with then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and advised him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known, the indictment said.
It said Libby proceeded to spread it more aggressively than he had previously.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Conservative Principles in the "Real World" as Malleable as their Christian Principles
washingtonpost.com
A Departure's Lasting Damage
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 28, 2005; A23
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
In picking such a vulnerable nominee, Bush single-handedly undercut the conservatives' long-standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president's choice for the court. Conservatives displayed absolutely no deference to Bush when he picked someone they didn't like. The actual conservative "principle" was that the Senate should defer to the president's choice -- as long as that choice was acceptable to conservatives. Some principle.
Republicans had railed against Democratic efforts to press court nominees (including Chief Justice John Roberts) for their views on legal issues. Back in July The Post disclosed a planning document circulated among Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The document said nominees for the Supreme Court should avoid disclosing "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue." Liberals were terribly gauche and inappropriate for wanting to know someone's opinions before awarding that person life tenure on the nation's most powerful court.
But it was neither gauche nor inappropriate for conservatives to de mand that Miers clarify her views on a slew of issues, notably Roe v. Wade . When liberals asked for clarity, they were committing a sin. When conservatives asked for clarity, they were engaged in a virtuous act. Thus are conservatives permitted to alter their principles to suit their own political situation.
There was also that small matter of a nominee's religious views. Conservatives condemned liberals who suggested it was worth knowing how Roberts's religious convictions might affect his judging. But when Miers started running into trouble with conservatives, the Bush administration encouraged its allies to talk up Miers's deep religious convictions to curry favor among social conservatives. I guess it's okay for conservatives to bring up religion whenever they want, but never appropriate for liberals to speak of spiritual things.
Even the manner of Miers's exit was disingenuous, not to mention derivative. In announcing her withdrawal, the White House said that "it is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel." Miers's decision, the statement said, "demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers."
The White House was following, almost to the letter, the exit strategy outlined last week by my conservative colleague Charles Krauthammer. But Krauthammer was honest enough to admit what the White House could not: that all this verbiage was about saving face. The president had to know when he named Miers that her lack of a judicial paper trail would make her advice as White House counsel all the more important for the Senate to know. Bush figured that conservatives would do what they have so often done before: roll over, back him up, resist requests for documents and help him force Miers through. Bad call.
Bush and the conservatives would now like to pretend that none of this happened. The idea on the right is that Bush should nominate a staunch conservative with an ample judicial record and pick a big fight with Democrats that would unite the conservative movement. It's hard to escape the idea that with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald breathing down the administration's neck, the president decided he could not afford any further fractures in his own political coalition. So he threw Miers over the side.
This has been a powerfully instructive moment. The willingness of conservatives to abandon what they had once held up as high and unbending principles reveals that this battle over the Supreme Court is, for them, a simple struggle for power. It is thus an unfortunate reminder of the highly unprincipled Supreme Court decision in 2000 that helped put Bush in the White House. Conservatives who had long insisted on deference to states' rights put those commitments aside when doing so would advance the political fortunes of one of their own.
Miers will recover from all this in a way Bush and the conservatives will not. She has suffered collateral damage caused by a president who did not understand the degree to which his power has eroded and did not grasp the nature of the movement that elected him. And conservatives will come to regret making their willingness to contradict their own principles plain for all to see.
postchat@aol.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
m
A Departure's Lasting Damage
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 28, 2005; A23
The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted on their drive to pack the Supreme Court with allies will not be undone by Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination.
In picking such a vulnerable nominee, Bush single-handedly undercut the conservatives' long-standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president's choice for the court. Conservatives displayed absolutely no deference to Bush when he picked someone they didn't like. The actual conservative "principle" was that the Senate should defer to the president's choice -- as long as that choice was acceptable to conservatives. Some principle.
Republicans had railed against Democratic efforts to press court nominees (including Chief Justice John Roberts) for their views on legal issues. Back in July The Post disclosed a planning document circulated among Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The document said nominees for the Supreme Court should avoid disclosing "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue." Liberals were terribly gauche and inappropriate for wanting to know someone's opinions before awarding that person life tenure on the nation's most powerful court.
But it was neither gauche nor inappropriate for conservatives to de mand that Miers clarify her views on a slew of issues, notably Roe v. Wade . When liberals asked for clarity, they were committing a sin. When conservatives asked for clarity, they were engaged in a virtuous act. Thus are conservatives permitted to alter their principles to suit their own political situation.
There was also that small matter of a nominee's religious views. Conservatives condemned liberals who suggested it was worth knowing how Roberts's religious convictions might affect his judging. But when Miers started running into trouble with conservatives, the Bush administration encouraged its allies to talk up Miers's deep religious convictions to curry favor among social conservatives. I guess it's okay for conservatives to bring up religion whenever they want, but never appropriate for liberals to speak of spiritual things.
Even the manner of Miers's exit was disingenuous, not to mention derivative. In announcing her withdrawal, the White House said that "it is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel." Miers's decision, the statement said, "demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers."
The White House was following, almost to the letter, the exit strategy outlined last week by my conservative colleague Charles Krauthammer. But Krauthammer was honest enough to admit what the White House could not: that all this verbiage was about saving face. The president had to know when he named Miers that her lack of a judicial paper trail would make her advice as White House counsel all the more important for the Senate to know. Bush figured that conservatives would do what they have so often done before: roll over, back him up, resist requests for documents and help him force Miers through. Bad call.
Bush and the conservatives would now like to pretend that none of this happened. The idea on the right is that Bush should nominate a staunch conservative with an ample judicial record and pick a big fight with Democrats that would unite the conservative movement. It's hard to escape the idea that with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald breathing down the administration's neck, the president decided he could not afford any further fractures in his own political coalition. So he threw Miers over the side.
This has been a powerfully instructive moment. The willingness of conservatives to abandon what they had once held up as high and unbending principles reveals that this battle over the Supreme Court is, for them, a simple struggle for power. It is thus an unfortunate reminder of the highly unprincipled Supreme Court decision in 2000 that helped put Bush in the White House. Conservatives who had long insisted on deference to states' rights put those commitments aside when doing so would advance the political fortunes of one of their own.
Miers will recover from all this in a way Bush and the conservatives will not. She has suffered collateral damage caused by a president who did not understand the degree to which his power has eroded and did not grasp the nature of the movement that elected him. And conservatives will come to regret making their willingness to contradict their own principles plain for all to see.
postchat@aol.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
m
Exxon Mobil Posts New Record for Profit
by Steve Quinn
Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books. The world's largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion in quarterly sales.
Net income ballooned to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 per share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year ago.
Excluding certain items, earnings were $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, versus $6.23 billion, or 96 cents per share, in the 2004 quarter.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, predicted earnings excluding items of $1.38 per share.
Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
Howard Silverblatt, equity analyst at Standard & Poor's, said both the net income and sales figures are all-time records for publicly traded U.S. companies.
The hurricanes slashed Exxon Mobil's U.S. production volumes by 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, down nearly 5 percent year-over-year, costing the company $45 million before taxes. The company said total daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.
"Following the hurricanes, Exxon Mobil maximized gasoline production from all of our refineries which were operating in the U.S., and increased imports from overseas affiliates to meet U.S. demand," said Chairman Lee R. Raymond.
Earnings from U.S. upstream operations increased by $498 million to $1.67 billion, while U.S. downstream earnings jumped $548 million to $1.11 billion. In the U.S. and abroad, income from the company's chemicals segment declined by $537 million to $472 million, as raw materials costs squeezed margins.
The company cautioned that reduced volumes and higher costs will also hurt the fourth quarter.
Shares of Irving-based Exxon Mobil rose 56 cents, or 1 percent, to $56.76 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded in a 52-week range between $48.25 and $65.96.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press
###
Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books. The world's largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion in quarterly sales.
Net income ballooned to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 per share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year ago.
Excluding certain items, earnings were $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, versus $6.23 billion, or 96 cents per share, in the 2004 quarter.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, predicted earnings excluding items of $1.38 per share.
Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
Howard Silverblatt, equity analyst at Standard & Poor's, said both the net income and sales figures are all-time records for publicly traded U.S. companies.
The hurricanes slashed Exxon Mobil's U.S. production volumes by 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, down nearly 5 percent year-over-year, costing the company $45 million before taxes. The company said total daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.
"Following the hurricanes, Exxon Mobil maximized gasoline production from all of our refineries which were operating in the U.S., and increased imports from overseas affiliates to meet U.S. demand," said Chairman Lee R. Raymond.
Earnings from U.S. upstream operations increased by $498 million to $1.67 billion, while U.S. downstream earnings jumped $548 million to $1.11 billion. In the U.S. and abroad, income from the company's chemicals segment declined by $537 million to $472 million, as raw materials costs squeezed margins.
The company cautioned that reduced volumes and higher costs will also hurt the fourth quarter.
Shares of Irving-based Exxon Mobil rose 56 cents, or 1 percent, to $56.76 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded in a 52-week range between $48.25 and $65.96.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press
###
The Criminalization of Criminals
by James Moore
Leaking the names of CIA agents is not politics; it is a crime. Lying to congress about evidence for a war is not politics; it is a crime. Failing to tell a grand jury that you met with a reporter and talked about the CIA agent is not forgetfullness; it is a crime. Deceiving your entire nation and frightening children and adults with images of nuclear explosions in order to get them to support a bloody invasion of another country is not politics; it is a crime. Anyone other than Karl Rove and Lewis Libby and Tom Delay who does not get this, please raise your hand. The three of you will need to stay after class for further instruction in civics.
Fortunately, as the leaves of the Aspens continue to turn in Colorado (where she vacations) the suspects are also turning in Washington. Targets will be pleading and dealing and soon will be singing. We are, hopefully, seeing the beginning of an investigation that will broaden until it disabuses the final few million Bush supporters of their naievete'. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald must surely just be at the beginning of rendering justice. An indictment or two will hardly serve to answer the critical questions. The leak and any lies to the grand jury were most likely motivated by a deep and abiding fear that a much greater crime was at risk of being uncovered. Karl Rove is vindictive, yes. But he is not stupid. Rove would never risk treason unless he thought it served a political purpose. And this was the most important political purpose of all: protecting his most precious asset, George W. Bush. Ethics have never been a consideration of Rove's and he sees the law as only marginally instructive. Karl might have been more concerned about the leak and talking to reporters if somewhere along the line he had been held accountable for any of his other political tricks. But he has not.
We the people expect Fitzgerald to do more than indict a few leakers. There was a grand scheme behind what happened and it was put together by the big brains in the administration. Unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rove will have a hard time making an argument that this leak just spontaneously occurred to harm Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife in a timely political fashion. What is hiding back there behind the curtains? The mainstream media is now beginning to report on the forged Niger documents in Italy and the names of Bush administration operatives who met in Rome with Italian intelligence and defense officials before the phony yellowcake papers began to circulate. Is that what Fitzgerald is beginning to pursue? If Joe Wilson was threatening to uncover the fact that our government had deployed agents to act as covert operatives against the very citizens they are sworn to serve, well, that's more than a crime; that's a John le Carre' novel. Small wonder Democrats suspect Rove of a smackdown of Wilson.
We have no real shot at the truth without Patrick Fitzgerald. And he will soon be demonized. He will discover that being 42 and unmarried makes him the practitioner of an alternative lifestyle and that he may have once had a beer at an airport in Milwaukee with a Democrat. First they called him accomplished and capable when he was appointed. What will they call him now? Perjury was a high crime when Bill Clinton fibbed about the blue dress girl but it is being spun into a technicality when you stand accused of historic deceptions that have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents. And that's not politics. That's a crime.
Because we have no shortage of pithy sayings down here in Texas, I will leave you with another one that is pertinent. And I wish that I could whisper it into the ear of the prosecutor. It comes from General Sam Houston, who pointed out in one of his infrequent moments of sobriety, that, "There's nothin' more powerful than a man who is in the right and keeps on a comin'."
Carry on, Mr. Prosecutor. Carry on.
Leaking the names of CIA agents is not politics; it is a crime. Lying to congress about evidence for a war is not politics; it is a crime. Failing to tell a grand jury that you met with a reporter and talked about the CIA agent is not forgetfullness; it is a crime. Deceiving your entire nation and frightening children and adults with images of nuclear explosions in order to get them to support a bloody invasion of another country is not politics; it is a crime. Anyone other than Karl Rove and Lewis Libby and Tom Delay who does not get this, please raise your hand. The three of you will need to stay after class for further instruction in civics.
Fortunately, as the leaves of the Aspens continue to turn in Colorado (where she vacations) the suspects are also turning in Washington. Targets will be pleading and dealing and soon will be singing. We are, hopefully, seeing the beginning of an investigation that will broaden until it disabuses the final few million Bush supporters of their naievete'. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald must surely just be at the beginning of rendering justice. An indictment or two will hardly serve to answer the critical questions. The leak and any lies to the grand jury were most likely motivated by a deep and abiding fear that a much greater crime was at risk of being uncovered. Karl Rove is vindictive, yes. But he is not stupid. Rove would never risk treason unless he thought it served a political purpose. And this was the most important political purpose of all: protecting his most precious asset, George W. Bush. Ethics have never been a consideration of Rove's and he sees the law as only marginally instructive. Karl might have been more concerned about the leak and talking to reporters if somewhere along the line he had been held accountable for any of his other political tricks. But he has not.
We the people expect Fitzgerald to do more than indict a few leakers. There was a grand scheme behind what happened and it was put together by the big brains in the administration. Unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rove will have a hard time making an argument that this leak just spontaneously occurred to harm Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife in a timely political fashion. What is hiding back there behind the curtains? The mainstream media is now beginning to report on the forged Niger documents in Italy and the names of Bush administration operatives who met in Rome with Italian intelligence and defense officials before the phony yellowcake papers began to circulate. Is that what Fitzgerald is beginning to pursue? If Joe Wilson was threatening to uncover the fact that our government had deployed agents to act as covert operatives against the very citizens they are sworn to serve, well, that's more than a crime; that's a John le Carre' novel. Small wonder Democrats suspect Rove of a smackdown of Wilson.
We have no real shot at the truth without Patrick Fitzgerald. And he will soon be demonized. He will discover that being 42 and unmarried makes him the practitioner of an alternative lifestyle and that he may have once had a beer at an airport in Milwaukee with a Democrat. First they called him accomplished and capable when he was appointed. What will they call him now? Perjury was a high crime when Bill Clinton fibbed about the blue dress girl but it is being spun into a technicality when you stand accused of historic deceptions that have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents. And that's not politics. That's a crime.
Because we have no shortage of pithy sayings down here in Texas, I will leave you with another one that is pertinent. And I wish that I could whisper it into the ear of the prosecutor. It comes from General Sam Houston, who pointed out in one of his infrequent moments of sobriety, that, "There's nothin' more powerful than a man who is in the right and keeps on a comin'."
Carry on, Mr. Prosecutor. Carry on.
Bush To Nominate Next Person Who Walks Through Door
October 27, 2005 | Issue 41•43
WASHINGTON, DC—After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court Thursday, President Bush announced that he will nominate the next person who walks through his door. "I assure the American people that the next person who enters my field of vision will be a highly qualified candidate of unimpeachable character, with a solid record, and--what's more--a good heart," Bush said. As of press time, 17 people were waiting outside the door, including the president's daughter Jenna, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
© Copyright 2005, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.
WASHINGTON, DC—After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court Thursday, President Bush announced that he will nominate the next person who walks through his door. "I assure the American people that the next person who enters my field of vision will be a highly qualified candidate of unimpeachable character, with a solid record, and--what's more--a good heart," Bush said. As of press time, 17 people were waiting outside the door, including the president's daughter Jenna, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
© Copyright 2005, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Fw: Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Has Been Busted! - FCNL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Guthrie" <kathyguthrie@fcnl.org>
To: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:00 AM
Subject: Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Has Been Busted! - FCNL
Your lobbying played a key role in persuading Congress this week to
agree to eliminate all funding for the nuclear "bunker buster,'
effectively rejecting for the second year in a row the president's
request to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
The thousands lobby visits, letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls
that you helped organized helped persuade members of Congress to
eliminate this dangerous nuclear bomb that could have killed over one
million people. FCNL learned last evening that Congress has agreed to
eliminate funding for the nuclear "bunker buster" in the
energy and water appropriations bill conference committee.
Defeating the bunker buster two years in a row shows how little support
new nuclear weapons have in Congress. Please email your members of
Congress at http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/HSZXFDTABR/ or
call them at one of their offices to thank them for not funding the
bunker buster.
For more information on the nuclear "bunker buster" and
nuclear weapons issues, please see:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/JTERFDTABS/
----
Coming soon: A new look for FCNL's web site. The site will be
unavailable intermittently throughout the day on Friday 10/28. Find out
more: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/IQOMFDTABT/
Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/FPVZFDTABU/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/ALXOFDTABV/
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GAYRFDTABW/
Contribute to FCNL:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GSKWFDTABX/
Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/IJYBFDTABY/ To unsubscribe
from this list, please see the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/HJDUFDSUXB/GEPKFDTABZ/
________________________________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=61108295.
Re: Torture Permission to be Slipped into Law? - FCNL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Guthrie" <kathyguthrie@fcnl.org>
To: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: Torture Permission to be Slipped into Law? - FCNL
The vice-president of the United States is publically advocating giving
a U.S. government agency statutory authority to use torture. Supporters
of the McCain anti-torture amendment to the military spending bill have
no time to enjoy the amendment's overwhelming 90-9 bi-partisan passage
in the Senate. The amendment may be rendered meaningless by loopholes
under consideration in conference committee. We must act now, telling
Congress that no matter which government agency, no matter where, and
no matter how the president characterizes the circumstances, United
States forces do not ever have permission to torture or use cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
TAKE ACTION:
Please contact your congressional delegation, including both of your
senators and your representative. Tell them that the McCain amendment
must not be altered during conference committee to lessen its
provisions. Tell them that every member of Congress has the
responsibility to make sure that U.S. moral values and sound military
principles are upheld by preserving the McCain amendment to the 2006
military appropriations bill, intact for the president's signature.
See FCNL's web site to find a sample letter and contact your members of
Congress directly:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=8170141&type=CO.
You will need to enter your zip code to see the sample letter.
BACKGROUND:
President Bush has threatened to veto the 2006 military appropriations
bill (H.R. 2863) because the Senate amended its version of the bill to
require that: (1) treatment of all Department of Defense (DoD)
detainees or detainees held in DoD facilities must follow the Army
Field Manual for Intelligence Interrogation; and (2) the U.N.
Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
(to which the U.S. is a signatory) governs all U.S. detainees. Here's a
link to the text of the amendment:
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1567&issue_id=70.
The president's congressional allies were initially rumored to have
plans to strip the amendment from the bill. However, the lopsided,
bi-partisan vote in the Senate signaled a powerful political incentive
for the conference committee to retain the amendment in the bill.
Instead of working to strip the amendment, the administration and its
supporters have suggested revisions to the amendment that would water
it down to the point of meaninglessness. Vice-President Cheney proposed
his own "compromise" plan to Sen. McCain last week (week of
Oct. 10). The Cheney Plan would exempt the CIA from the provisions of
the anti-torture amendment. This plan is so shocking, it bears
repeating: the vice-president of the United States is publically
advocating giving a U.S. government agency statutory authority to use
torture. This proposal is especially dangerous in light of the
administration's support for moving all intelligence functions out of
the Pentagon and the FBI and into the CIA's portfolio.
Other proponents of allowing brutal treatment under some circumstances
have suggested other loopholes to the amendment, e.g., presidential
waiver (the president could, using his own judgment, waive the
prohibition in the interest of national security); geographic
limitation (torture would be prohibited only in certain locations, such
as on U.S. soil); or non-applicability of the amendment during
"classified" interrogations.
The president argues that the McCain amendment ties the president's
hands in his efforts to preserve national security in the
post-September 11 world. He also claims that as commander-in-chief, he
has the authority to determine the rules by which detainees in the
"war against terror" are handled. Human rights supporters
disagree, pointing to the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8: "The
Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque
and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water." (emphasis added)
Human rights advocates reiterate that torture -
is inhumane;
doesn't reflect our country's moral values;
undermines human rights standards worldwide;
creates legions of enemies of the U.S.;
brings danger of retaliation on U.S. troops and travelers abroad; and
does not work - it does not produce reliable intelligence information.
Here's a link to the FCNL website for further background information
about the use of torture:
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=70.
_______________________________________
Coming Soon: Preview the look for FCNL's new web site at
http://www.fcnl.org/new_site.htm. On Friday October 28 the site will be
unavailable intermittently throughout the day. Thank you for your
patience!
Stop New Nuclear Weapons! Find out how, http://www.fcnl.org/nuclear
The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq
Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm
Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/support.htm
Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see
the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.
________________________________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=61116968.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)