The Blue State

Bush would veto legislation giving D.C. a vote in Congress

Another example of the Executive Branch trying to act like the Judicial Branch.  CQ:

In a statement of administration policy, the White House noted thatArticle I, Section 2 of the Constitution holds that members of theHouse shall be elected by “people of the several states” — and that thefederal capital does not qualify.

“The District of Columbia is not a state,” the statement read.“Accordingly, congressional representation for the District of Columbiawould require a constitutional amendment.”

Advocatesof the measure say that another part of the Constitution grantsCongress wide-ranging power over the District of Columbia — andtherefore it is legal to treat the District population as residents ofa state for the purposes of congressional representation.

Amendment XXIII, Section I of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the District of Columbia has voting rights in the electoral college during the presidential election, although no more rights than the least populous state.  It does not specify that the District of Columbia has voting rights in Congress.

In the end, this will go to the courts and ultimately fail.  A new constitutional amendment will be needed in order for the District of Columbia to get voting rights in the House.  That is not out of the realm of possibility.

No more Patriot Act loophole

Months ago, Alberto Gonzales lied under oath on January 18th when he assured Congress that all U.S. Attorney replacements would be sent to the Senate for approval.  But thanks to a loophole in the Patriot Act, Gonzales can fire the attorneys, hand select new ones, and have them bypass the Senate confirmation process.  Now, Congress is about to do away with that loophole:

The move to overturn an obscure provision of the USA Patriot Act thatallowed the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors for anindefinite period without Senate confirmation came amid growingspeculation that the controversy over the prosecutors would costAttorney General Alberto R. Gonzales  his job.

On Capitol Hill, members of both parties expressed support forrepealing the Patriot Act provision, expected to be approved Tuesday.Lawmakers said the provision amounted to an end run around senators,who have long had influence in the appointment of home-stateprosecutors. Some senators said the provision was used to clear the wayfor firing prosecutors and replacing them with candidates consideredmore in line with the administration.

Don't the Congressional staffers that insert dirty loopholes like this into bills realize that one day their party will be out of the White House?  The roles will eventually be reversed.  Take the filibuster complaint for example.  Back in 2003 and 2004, Republicans cried foul when Senate Democrats used the filibuster.  Now, the Republicans are using the filibuster to their benefit to help Bush stay the course in Iraq.

Emails show Executive power grab

The White House and Justice Department were working together to oust eight federal prosecutors and replace them with Bush-friendly appointees.  And no, this is not far-fetched.  Emails have turned up that show WH and JD officials collaborating on how to get a former Karl Rove political operative appointed without Senate approval:

Using the authority it quietly inserted into the USA Patriot Act that passed in March 2006, the officials discussed the prospects for a former operative for political adviser Karl Rove, who was appointed to the U.S. attorney's job in Arkansas replacing one of eight suddenly fired by the administration.

 

"Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us . . . note that he is qualified whenever asked, pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney and otherwise hunker down," Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote in an e-mail in Dec. 19, 2006.

 

At the same time, Sampson wondered whether Rove aide Tim Griffin was "the guy on which to test drive this authority, but I know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.," Sampson wrote, referring to Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel and Karl Rove.

In other words, this loophole in the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to fire prosecutors and then appoint new ones without having them go through the Senate confirmation process.  They could appoint Hulk Hogan if they wanted, and get away with it!

Had it not been for 9/11 and Karl Rove's Machiavellian ability to morph our memories of that horrible day into a wedge issue, this loophole in the Patriot Act would not exist today.  It's just more proof that the Administration is using the fear behind terrorism as a means to further its unrelated domestic agenda.

Rove involved in the prosecutor firing scandal

Many of us had the suspicion that this saga would eventually work its way up the ladder of power.  Karl Rove is now in the middle of it:

The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviserKarl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Departmentabout federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics chargewere partisan political reasons.

House investigators on Sunday declared their intention to question Rove about any role he may have played in the firings.

Full Story

Political translation: so not only do you have the Legislative Branch interfering with federal prosecutors, but you have a White House adviser, whose expertise is political strategy not policy, personally micromanaging the affairs of the Justice Department.  This yet another example of big government conservatism at its most extreme.

Again, this should not surprise us one bit.  Last month, a former aide to Karl Rove was named as a replacement to one of the eight federal prosecutors that were fired.  Just weeks later, once the firestorm over this issue began, that individual decided not to accept the appointment after all. 

Remember, all these newly appointed prosecutors will not need Senate confirmation because of a secret loophole in the Patriot Act.

If the Democrats have any credibility, they will subpoena Karl Rove and force him to testify.

Senator Domenici should be censured and investigated

It seems like every single day there is something new in the saga over the eight federal prosecutors that were suddenly fired by Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department.  Now there is a new twist.  One of the prosecutors that was canned back in December can thank Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) for recommending that idea to the Justice Department.

So what was Domenici motive?  The Senator wanted the prosecutor's investigation of a Democratic kick-back scandal to coincide with the 2006 elections, in order to make it a campaign issue.  But after it did not turn out the way Domenici wanted, Domenici recommended to the Justice Department one month later that the federal prosecutor be fired:

New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici acknowledged Sunday that he called afederal prosecutor to ask about a criminal investigation several monthsafter calling for his replacement, but insisted he never pressured northreatened his state's U.S. attorney.

The prosecutor, David Iglesias, was fired by the Justice Departmentin December. Iglesias says he believes he was dismissed for resistingpressure from two members of Congress before last year's election torush indictments in a Democratic kickback investigation.

Ethics experts said Domenici's conduct may have violated Senaterules, which generally bar communications between members of Congressand federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations.

According to Monday morning's New York Times, Domenici admits that he did indeed contact the prosecutor on an ongoing criminal matter:

“I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in thatinvestigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were lookingat,” Mr. Domenici said.

Since when is the Legislative Branch supposed to tell the Justice Department who to fire?  Since when is the Legislative Branch supposed to ask specific prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations?

At least there is this good news: the Democrats won majority in November.  They have the power to issue subpoenas, hold hearings and expose corruption.  We should hope that John Conyers and Patrick Leahy -- the Judiciary Committee chairmen in both chambers of Congress -- will have the courage to get to the bottom of this Pete Domenici scandal, as opposed to being intimidated into giving their GOP Congressional colleague a pass.

Two Cents From the Editor: Cameras in the Supreme Court

In the seventh year of this very secretive presidency, the public tends to favor full disclosure on just about everything relating to our political process.  The full disclosure of how members of Congress spend their vacation time.  The full disclosure of CIA documents such as the National Intelligence Estimate.  The full disclosure on how taxpayer money is being spent in Iraq -- although, that part has not happened just yet.  Most of this call for greater transparency is done with the hopeful intent of preserving our democratic representative system that has made us a credible world leader until recent years.

This week, the effort to make our government more honest and transparent has taken a new turn.  Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and a bipartisan group of Senators want to pass legislation that would allow cameras in the high court so that cases could be broadcast on television.  The Supreme Court already allows audio tapes.  But the proponents of this legislation want both audio and visual access.

Now you can call me a conservative or whatever -- but I really worry about what Specter has proposed.  In this age of new media where entertaining sound-bites always outweigh the value of substantive information, opening our court up to visual technology might encourage justices to become more political, and egg them on to outdo one another in front of a national audience hungry for hard-hitting one-liners.  Justice Kennedy said it best yesterday during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  "Please don't introduce into the dynamics I have with my colleagues the insidious temptation that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the cameras," Kennedy told lawmakers.

Still don't agree?  If cameras are allowed in the high court, future presidents will change the criteria that influences which kinds of justices they nominate.  Choosing a nominee that is best able to verbally promote that president's political ideology to a wide audience would trump all else.  Would that really be healthy for our democracy?  Justices are supposed to speak in legal language and give legal rulings, not compete with one another to get their content on Youtube.

(Video) Chris Dodd's new legislation to restore habeas corpus

Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) submitted legislation that if passed would restore habeas corpus and outlaw torture in hope of at least doing something to revitalize American image abroad and live up to our belief in the rule of law.  Dodd, who is also a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, went on CNN's The Situation Room and promoted his legislation:

Under the Military Commissions Act, passed just last year, the government is allowed to hold any U.S. citizen indefinitely if they are even suspected of being a threat to national security.  Dodd wants to change that, and make sure that anyone being held has a right to a trial.  Most importantly, a vote on this bill will force Republican lawmakers to take a stand: either you support habeas corpus, or you reject it.  Either way, take a stand.

Prosecutors fired by Justice Dept had positive performance ratings

This is just the latest twist to the Bush Administration's most-recent Executive Branch power grab.  As we recall, six federal prosecutors that had once investigated public officials were recently asked by the Justice Department to resign, and replaced with new Bush-friendly appointees.  In one case, a federal prosecutor in Tennessee that was forced out was replaced by a former aide to Karl Rove.  A loophole in the Patriot Act allows Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint new prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

The Justice Department claims they had good reason to force the six prosecutors out.  But McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that five of the ousted prosecutors had received positive job evaluations:

Performance reviews of U.S. attorneys are conducted every three tofour years by a team of experienced Justice Department officials, whointerview judges, staff members, community leaders and federal agents.In some of the five cases, the reviewers made recommendations forimprovements, but overall their assessments were positive, JusticeDepartment officials said.

For instance, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, wasdescribed in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a"capable" leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary andinvestigators.

"He didn't get any dings," said a Justice Department officialwith knowledge of the review. "The overall evaluation was verypositive."

David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, also receiveda positive evaluation last year, according to another JusticeDepartment official.

Both officials asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized by the Justice Department to release the information.

The other U.S. attorneys who received good reviews were JohnMcKay, the former U.S. attorney in Seattle; Paul Charlton, the formerU.S. attorney in Arizona; and Carol Lam, the current U.S. attorney inSan Diego.

These anonymous Justice Department officials gave McClatchy this information likely because they knew that Gonzales had no valid reason to give five of the six prosecutors the ax.  Where is Congress on this?

New Senate bill would restore habeas corpus and end torture

In a major press conference that will take place on Tuesday, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) will unveil legislation that restores habeas corpus and outlaws torture -- an obvious attempt to take the first step in renewing our global credibility in the post-9/11 era:

Tuesday, February 12, 2007, U.S. Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and RobertMenendez (D-NJ) will hold a press conference to discuss the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Actwhich will restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold theGeneva Conventions. The senators, both members of the Foreign RelationsCommittee, will discuss the need for these protections in the fightagainst terrorism.

Here are the facts:

• As of 2006, only 8% of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay have been labeled "al Qaeda fighters."
• 12 detainee deaths have led to the punishment of US personnel. 
• As of two months ago, there have been 775 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.  After five years, no detainee has been convicted of a criminal offense.

The bill being unveiled by Dodd and Menendez says that you either charge the terrorists and keep them locked up, or you don't charge them.  You cannot hold them indefinitely without charges.  It is difficult to be a world leader without at least respecting the overwhelming global consensus on a number of issues -- including the consensus that torture is a crime.

Fired prosecutor says he was forced out by Gonzales for no reason

Over the last few months, a number of federal prosecutors were suddenly fired, and then new Bush-friendly prosecutors were appointed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  A loophole in the Patriot Act allows the Attorney General to hand-nominate new prosecutors and have them appointed without Senate approval.  Until now, this controversy had been somewhat of a mystery.  Now a former prosecutor is speaking out:

"I was ordered to resign as U.S. attorney on Dec. 7 by the JusticeDepartment," McKay, who had led the department's Western Washingtonoffice, said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C. "I wasgiven no explanation. I certainly was told of no performance issues."

McKaypreviously had said only that he was resigning because it was time forhim to move on. His comments came one day after Deputy Attorney GeneralPaul McNulty acknowledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee that theJustice Department has fired seven U.S. attorneys in the West in thepast year, most of them for "performance-related" reasons he would notdivulge.

In related news, a former Karl Rove aide was appointed by Gonzales this week following the firing of a federal prosecutor in Arkansas.

Thankfully, the Senate Judiciary Committee is paving the way for legislation that would prevent Gonzales from making anymore appointments without Senate approval, as it has always been.

If the Democratic Congress had some spine, they would have censured Gonzales by now.