Sorry for the pessimism. It's only reality though -- at least until we get a new president.
Scooter Libby was convicted on four of the five counts, meaning he could get up to 20 years in prison. But don't count on it. Instead, Cheney's former Chief of Staff will likely get a reduced sentence -- which could work out to between one and a half and three years of jail time. But again, don't count on it.
Even though Libby is a guilty man, a few things are about to happen. Libby's lawyer, Theodore Wells, is . Although he may not ultimately get his wish, according to the , Libby's legal team is expected to delay the sentencing process as long as possible -- even past November of 2008. And remember, before this President leaves office, one final round of executive pardons will be handed out. Even if Libby is sentenced in the waining hours of the Bush presidency, expect this commander-in-chief to get one last laugh at the expense of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and our rule of law.
What the title says is true: Scooter Libby will not see a day of federal prison. This President is above the law. He has been above the law ever since his daddy's friends won him a White House vacation in court. It is only fitting that this President would ride off into the sunset in 2009 in that same fashion.
Patrick Fitzgerald stared a giant in the face and, with the public by his side, refused to back down. But if the Administration can get away with with the snap of the hand, then they can sure ignore one as well.
According to , Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington will file a complaint against Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM).
Earlier this morning, I called on Congress to censure and investigate Domenici (R-NM) for trying to tamper with a federal criminal investigation into a Democratic kick-back scandal. The Senator wanted the investigation to coincide with the 2006 elections. According to Senate rules, no lawmaker can about ongoing criminal investigations. One month later, in December, Domenici recommended to the Justice Department that they fire the prosecutor that had investigated the scandal.
Still, the Justice Department listened to Domenici and fired the prosecutor. David Iglesias was one of eight prosecutors fired in just a matter of months.
It seems like every single day there is something new in the saga over the eight federal prosecutors that were 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 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 , 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.
The further you dig, the more twisted this story gets. Over the last few months, by the Justice Department -- something they are allowed to do. However, six of the eight prosecutors had . A allows the U.S. Attorney General to appoint new prosecutors without having them be subjected to the Senate confirmation process. For some time, critics have been suggesting that the Administration wants to award some of its supporters before the end of Bush's second term -- a patronage system if you will. But until this morning, there was no proof that the White House had a hand in it.
Now, according to sources that spoke to the , it turns out that the White House played a role in seven of the eight firings:
The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late lastyear after senior Justice Department officials identified theprosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out PresidentBush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White Houseand Justice Department officials said yesterday.
Bottom line: we have a few things going on here:
The White House is micromanaging the Justice Department.
Federal prosecutors are being fired because they do not subscribe to President Bush's conservative ideology.
If the White House has control over who can be fired, they certainly can impact which attorneys are be nominated.
If President Bush wanted anyone -- let's say Ted Nugent -- to be nominated, it could happen because under the Patriot Act loophole the Senate now has no say in the confirmation process of replaced federal prosecutors.
Earlier in the week, the House Judiciary Committee in preparation for an investigation into this matter.
By now, it has circulated like a wildfire throughout the progressive blogosphere that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers is planning to issue a boat-load of subpoenas -- all of which pertain to the sudden firing of eight federal prosecutors. We know for sure that at least six of those eight prosecutors had positive performance ratings. A allows Attorney General Gonzales to hand-nominate new federal prosecutors and have them confirmed without Senate approval.
his decision to issue subpoenas:
"This is the most egregious allegation so far that the Administrationhas allowed partisan politics to corrupt the selection and retention ofU.S. Attorneys. Worse, it appears to be part of a pattern of ofpartisan activity in this area and should be unacceptable to anyoneconcerned about a fair and efficient criminal justice system. TheJudiciary Committee is committed to getting to the bottom of this andbringing checks and balances back to the federal justice system."
Four U.S. Attorneys that were part of the massive wave of firings were among those subpoenaed. They will appear before the House Judiciary Committee on March 6th, which is next week.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is a bit behind, as usual. However, they are also .
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," .
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.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voiced outrage on the Senate floor over the Justice Department's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys, even though there were no allegations against them.
This is outrageous! Fired for investigating public corruption cases? That is corruption in itself. Plus, as Feinstein elaborated, the Patriot Act has a hidden provision that allows the Attorney General to nominate any U.S. Attorney WITHOUT Senate approval, and keep that U.S. Attorney in office for the remainder of the President's term in office. What an amazing law that is.
The Democrats' victory in November, coupled with the courage of some Republicans to break ranks with the President, may mark the beginning of the end of the Iraq war. Pretty soon, the House and Senate will begin debating a non-binding resolution that condemns the Administration's Iraq policy. If it survives a Senate filibuster, it will mark the first successful effort to slowly chip away at Bush's wartime power. Little by little, lawmakers will start submitting other bills that go even further to restrict the Administration's ability to continue enacting an open-ended war policy.
Eventually, likely before the end of the year, this will turn into a constitutional show-down over whether the Legislative Branch has the right to block funds for this war. Assuming Bush and Cheney continue to fight it, the matter would end up in the Supreme Court. Although the high court would not be voting precisely on whether to end the war, their decision could end up doing just that. If the Supreme Court rules that the Legislative Branch does indeed control the power of the purse, even during wartime, then Bush would lose control over how long the war could continue.
Therefore, while 2007 may become a battle between the Legislative and Executive branches over wartime authority, the Judicial Branch will have the ultimate say. Even more fascinating, all of this would unfold as each presidential contender campaigns for their party's nomination.
Senator Specter voted for the Military Commissions Act, and then opposes it now that it is cool to do so.
Of the many issues that Democrats say they want to address, the Military Commissions Act is definitely one of them. Last month, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 2008 presidential candidate, announced his plan to unveil legislation that would repeal the entire , which was passed earlier this year. Senator Leahy has , which is very similar. The dispute is over a certain section of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus for anyone, including U.S. citizens, that the government declares an .
With the momentum swinging in the favor of the opposition, former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA), a Republican, and admitted yesterday that the part of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus is unconstitutional:
"I think the courts are going to declare that part of the legislationunconstitutional," Specter said in an interview this month.
What makes this quote jaw-dropping was the fact that Specter the Military Commissions Act just a few months ago. With the pressure gone after he lost he chairman position, as a result of the Democrats' victory in November, Specter has the luxury of flip-flopping changing his mind without worrying about being threatened by his own party.
The way I see it, it is convenient for spineless people when situations arise that don't require them to have one. I can never remember Arlen Specter taking a strong position on anything. He claims to be pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-minority rights -- yet he prevented the opposition in his committee from critically questioning two right-wing Supreme Court justices. Sorry, but although he is a proud moderate Republican, that Senator needs to develop his own positions and stop going whichever way the political wind blows.
Why cameras should not be allowed in the Supreme Court.
During my experience as a political science student, I spent a great deal of time studying the effect that media has on political culture, and even visa versa. I came away from that experience very disturbed about how some complex political topics get dumbed down to fit our fast-paced culture. One of my concerns centers around our Judicial Branch of government -- even more specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court.
There has been a plethora of discussion over the last two years over whether U.S. Supreme Court cases should be televised for the American people to see, just as any presidential news conference. Certainly, there are a few legitimate reasons for doing so:
Many state Supreme Court cases are televised anyway.
Young Americans could learn more about the U.S. Supreme Court, and so could adults. Judging from the fact that a whopping cannot even name one Supreme Court justice, putting the cases on television might help more Americans better understand that branch of government.
The Judicial Branch will get more coverage from the news networks. The 24/7 political news always reports on the battles in the Legislative and Executive Branches. The kind that happen in a judicial setting are about issues, precedent and the constitution -- not petty attacks on character. These intellectually controlled discussions might raise the bar for lawmakers and the White House.
Even when considering what television could do in terms of raising interest about the Judicial Branch, there is a whole other side to this that worries me.
Everyone wants to look appealing on television -- both visually and rhetorically. In 2000, we watched how Al Gore's intellect and nuanced grasp of the issues was portrayed by the media as nerdy. It does not look "cool" to obsess about things that most people don't understand -- as was the case in 2000 with Social Security (i.e. "locked box", which when you look back on it was not such a bad idea after all). Gore was the nerdy basket case and Bush was one of those funny friends of the family that you meet at a barbecue. So, in today's media age, who do you think won?
To get right to the point, the worry is that judges might feel pressured to start acting differently in the court room. The style of debate would change to the kind we see nightly on infotainment shows like the O'Reilly Factor, which is plagued with after . Remember, the justices are all humans. None of them wants to be made fun of by the media -- even if it is a tabloid joking about how they dress. Why not leave one branch of government as a completely intellectual setting, so that justices can focus on the specificity of each case rather than worrying about trying to sound appealing in a 24/7 news cycle?
Already, the Roberts era court has been very , and has moved in the direction of opening the court to a national audience. But is this the kind of Judicial Branch that our founders intended? Do we want justices Scalia and Breyer to debate as intellectuals, or like guests on Hannity and Colmes? That is what is at stake.
Recent Comments