The Next Hurrah

Could President Bush Become a U.S. Citizen?

by emptypockets

As Republican politicians continue to focus on immigration, with DHS Secretary Chertoff imposing new requirements for border crossing (although about 5 million of the country's 12 million illegal immigrants crossed the border legally and then simply overstayed their visas), and Governor Mike Huckabee reversing positions to appeal to extremist nativist groups, I began to wonder: if he weren't born here, could President Bush have become a U.S. citizen?

Just imagine his visa form:

Question 1: Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance (drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes?

Let's see. Arrested twice in college, for stealing a Christmas wreath and for conduct at a football game.

Arrested for drunk driving.

Possibly arrested for cocaine.

We don't know if he was directly involved in hiring male prostitute Jeff Gannon/James Guckert to pose as a reporter and issuing him a White House press credential -- so let's skip that one.

Question 3: Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

Hm. Another tough one. Does unlawful purpose include ordering illegal wiretaps?

Does it count as a subversive activity if you intend to bypass anti-torture laws? Is it subversive to overthrow the Constitution and ignore Congress -- and to say so in dozens of signing statements like this one (chosen at random)?

Well, let's not get bogged down in details. Just one more question though: are 80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths a genocide?

Question 6: Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ever been a drug abuser or addict?

I'll take the last part first. Cocaine again.

As to "a dangerous... mental disorder" -- do you really have to ask?

While a YES answer does not automatically signify ineligibility for a visa, if you answered YES you may be required to personally appear before a consular officer.

If only Congress held him to the same standards!

Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?

by Kagro X

The story so far: CIA tortures terror suspects, videotapes it, tells 9/11 Commission tapes don't exist, tells courts tapes don't exist, tapes do exist, court orders government not to destroy tapes, government destroys tapes. And now?

Judge Won't Inquire Into CIA Tapes Case
AP NewsBreak: Judge Refuses to Investigate the Destruction of CIA Interrogation Videos
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

The CIA has acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. Lawyers for other terrorism suspects quickly asked Kennedy to hold hearings, saying the executive branch had proved itself unreliable and could not be trusted to investigate its own potential wrongdoing.

Kennedy disagreed, ruling that attorneys hadn't "presented anything to cause this court to question whether the Department of Justice will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

Oh yeah! Of course! The DOJ is a fantastic self-policer! Absolutely!

Bush Won't Hand Over His Interview Transcript to Waxman

by emptywheel

For those of you looking for my post on the news that Fitzgerald has been handing over files to Waxman, but Bush won't let him have the White House files?

That post is over at my new digs. Come check it out!

Jeb Bush, Worse than Neil?

by emptywheel

Via Atrios, people are beginning to wonder whether Jeb Bush was responsible for approving Florida's purchase of a hefty chunk of the shitpile when he was Governor.

A government money market debacle unfolding in Florida is raising questions about former governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush's possible involvement in the mess.

Florida froze withdrawals from a state investment fund earlier this week when local governments withdrew billions of dollars out of concern for the fund's financial stability.

In the past few days, municipalities have withdrawn roughly $9 billion, nearly a third of the $28 billion fund (which is similar to a money market fund) controlled by the Florida's State Board of Administration (SBA). The run on the fund was triggered by worries that a percentage of the portfolio contained debt that had defaulted.

A majority of this paper was sold to SBA by Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH - news - people). Bush, as the state's top elected official, served on a three-member board that oversaw the SBA until he retired as governor in January. In August, Bush was hired as a consultant to the bank. Lehman spokesperson Kerrie Cohen, speaking on behalf of Bush, said they had no comment and would not say when the bank had sold Florida the paper. SBA did not return calls.

Which made me wonder what happened to investigations into Jeb's role in the last piece of shitpile Florida bought: Over $300 million in Enron stock, also approved while Bush was in charge of Florida's State Board of Administration.

According to a report by AFSCME Florida Council 79, Inside the Florida State Board of Administration: Mismanagement Made the Enron Loss Inevitable, the State Board of Administration (SBA) repeatedly engaged in poor investment practices under the watch of its Board of Trustees, chaired by Gov. Jeb Bush. Despite warnings from inside and outside the SBA, the trustees failed to correct these problems, leading to a stunning loss on Enron stock nearly three times greater than that of any other state retirement fund. The trustees failed to act as Alliance Capital Management, one of the pension fund's money managers, continued to invest in Enron even as its financial instability became public and the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating the corporation.

Michael Froomkin has a detailed description of what this means for FL here.

The possibility that Jeb presided over not one but two massive transfers of money from Florida's government coffers into the pockets of his friends raises the possibility he'll be remembered as more corrupt than his brother, Neil. I know it's a tough contest, trying to figure out which Bush brother is the most corrupt. But Neil Bush only indirectly stole from taxpayers with his Silverado Savings & Loan. And while it's pretty clear Neil's company was shafting taxpayers to put money in Ignite's bank accounts, I'm not sure if that matches the scale of Jeb's apparent wholesale emptying of Florida's coffers into corrupt and losing business deals.

Wolfie's Back?

by emptywheel

Bmaz sent me Isikoff's latest, which thankfully does more than report on events from his past as if they were news. It reports the frightening news that Condi's about to appoint Paul Wolfowitz to an advisory position at State.

Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank—amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend—he's in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

They don't yet have Wolfie listed on the website, so maybe there's some time to embarrass Condi out of putting Wolfie in an advisory position again. I suggest we start an embarrassment campaign by focusing on two issues.

Condi, someone committed a security indiscretion to give Wolfie's girlfriend a job at State. Are you sure you should repeat the mistake by giving Wolfie more access to classified information?

Remember that when people started complaining that Wolfie was giving Shaha Reza preferential treatment at the World Bank, his "solution" was to set her up at State? Remember Sidney Blumenthal's description of how unusual Reza's security clearance process was?

Riza was unhappy about leaving the sinecure at the World Bank. But in 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised by $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be "outstanding." Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done.

[snip]

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

So, after turning State Department into a scam to allow Wolfowitz to break ethical rules and expose US secrets to a foreign national with no apparent clearance, Condi now wants to use a State advisory board to give Wolfie clearance himself.

Condi, aren't you a little ashamed at the way Wolfie used your agency the last time?

The FISA Document Dump, An Inventory

by emptywheel

I've put together an excel file listing the documents included in Friday's document dump on the communications DNI McConnell had regarding the FISA amendment. I've still got a turkey hangover, so let me know if you spot any errors.

Here's what I've noticed:

• There's a weird chronology behind the response to the FOIA request
• The DNI's definition of duplicative is different than my definition of duplicative
• The DNI must consider Republican correspondence classified
• The DNI seems to lose Democratic correspondence

Weird Chronology

First, the chronology. EFF originally FOIAed documents on August 31, asking for records on both meetings with telecoms and discussions with Congress (there were actually two separate FOIA requests--see exhibits K and L here). On both FOIA requests, EFF asked for materials dating from April 2007 to "the present." On September 10, DNI responded to EFF saying it would expedite the EFF request.

Now look at the dates on the documents included. They start with one document from before the time frame--a March 23 letter from the SSCI leadership asking for a FISA bill. It's a pretty important document because it shows Congress taking the lead on this, which may be why they included it. But then the documents go through September 26--long after the August 31 request, and more than two weeks after DNI said it was expediting the EFF request. But then, it stops short of what are likely to be some interesting events leading up the October 18 SSCI bill.

There is probably a very reasonable explanation: that DNI took "present" to mean that time when it started working on the request. Though if that's true, it suggests DNI sat on the request for almost two weeks, before it started expediting anything.

"Duplicative"

Now, when DNI explained why the review process took so long (and presumably, why they couldn't give us document through the "present" of late November), one of the things they claimed they would do is remove duplicate documents.

As the records are located and forwarded to the IMO, the FOIA analyst handling this case conducts a continual analysis and review of the documents located. During the review process the analyst handling this case first removes any non-responsive and duplicative material from the records that are received. She then creates working copies of the documents and document indexes and assesses whether there would be  any necessary consultations and/or referrals with those entities maintaining equity in the documents. She also reviews the records for the application of any FOIA exemptions. [my emphasis]

Which is why I find it curious that there are two copies of McConnell's May 1 testimony before SSCI and two copies of his September 18 testimony before HJC. I'll need to go back and look closely to see if these are just two revisions. But if not, it appears that this analyst, who spent at least two months reviewing these documents, still couldn't find all the duplicative documents.

Also, what's with the date on McConnell's September testimony to SSCI? It took place on September 25, but is dated September 20.

What Did the Blue Dogs Promise to DNI McConnell?

by emptywheel

My house guests are gone, I'm recovering from the turkey (on the heritage turkey? It is better, but I'm not sure it's enough better to justify the price tag), and now I'm wading through Friday's document dump. These are the documents the EFF forced DNI to release after he had been stalling on their release; he was supposed to provide all correspondence between Congress and DNI and between the telecoms and DNI. More on how far short he fell of compliance in another post.

A lot of the attention so far has focused on this letter from Jello Jay to Mike McConnell, rebuking him for his bait and switch during the debates over the Protect America Act.

For the moment, though, I'm just as interested in this letter, from the Blue Dogs to McConnell. It memorializes a meeting the Blue Dogs had with McConnell that same day, August 1. I find it interesting for two reasons. First, it shows that McConnell was working the faction of the Democratic Party that would most likely split from the rest to give the Administration proposal a majority without widespread support among Democrats (which, of course, is precisely what happened just two days later).

The other interesting detail is how reasonable the Blue Dog proposal was. In particular, they note that they supported a revision that required individual warrants for Americans, and one that sunsets in six months. Though--of serious concern for the upcoming FISA debate--they state,

We also agree that it is important to address the issue of retroactive liability for private sector partners.

While their stance is not terrible, their understanding only addressed one of the real issues (the sunset provision) that remained up for debate that week--the ones that McConnell baited and switched over. So we don't know whether McConnell made his agreements with Democratic leadership already having undercut them in an agreement with the Blue Dogs. So I wonder--what was said in that Blue Dog meeting on August 1?

I also wonder, is this the kind of back channel negotiation that Jane Harman has been so excitable about?

Update: provided more explanation about the document dump.

Lackey and Katrina Kash

by emptywheel

I know, I know. The indictment against Dickie Scruggs looks bad for Dickie (though not, I keep emphasizing, Zach Scruggs, whose indictment given the evidence mystifies me). But I can't help but notice a few details from the short form of Judge Lackey's tell all (I'll look up the long form after I meet my damn deadline today). First, Judge Lackey's first thoughts after Balducci broached the subject of a bribe were for Balducci's future.

“I worried what would become of this young man, his wife, his children,” said Judge Lackey. “He was one of the brightest legal stars on the horizon that I’d come across, and I worried a great deal about the consequences.”

Balducci, by all appearances, also cooperated in the investigation, though the indictment doesn't care to tell us that detail. And note, by Lackey's own admission, it took some time after he recovered from his concern for Balducci before he started cooperating with the USA office.

Also note the emphasis that Scruggs' defense attorney puts on matters, when commenting on how odd it is that a key witness would do (one whose day job is supposed to be ensuring that the accused get fair trials) is run to the press for an interview.

Scruggs’s attorney, John Keker, said: “I find it remarkable that this high-minded government witness is talking to the national media, and it makes me wonder if he is interested in notoriety rather than seeing that justice is done. I’ll say this — he sure as hell didn’t get bribed by Dick Scruggs or anyone else in his law firm.”

Well, yeah, he got bribed--at least first-hand--by Balducci, the guy that Lackey was so concerned for. Balducci isn't a member of Scruggs' firm.

One more point. I find it interesting to note that within a day of the indictment, the other firms involved in the State Farm Katrina suits tried to oust the Scruggs firm from the team. It sure raises questions about who might benefit from Scruggs' indictment. After all, the alleged bribe pertains directly to how lawyers get paid from past insurance settlements.

I guess those Mississippians weren't kidding when they were talking about knowing where the bodies are buried. They're a cut throat bunch, these southern gentlemen.

You Don't Introduce New Products in August

by emptywheel

How nice of Andy Card to call Karl Rove on his bullshit claim that the Democrats pushed the Iraq war before the 2002 elections.

Karl Rove asserted on the Charlie Rose show recently that it was Congress that pushed the Bush administration into war with Iraq. “The administration was opposed” to voting for a war resolution in the fall of 2002, Rove claimed. “It seemed it make things move too fast,” he argued.

[snip]

This morning, former White House chief of staff at the time, Andrew Card, appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and completely discredited Rove’s argument:

SCARBOROUGH: We have to start with something that we all are talking about a couple of days ago where Karl Rove went on Charlie Rose and he blamed the Democrats for pushing him and the president into war. Is that how it worked?

CARD: No, that’s not the way it worked.

It's a good thing Card is willing to do so--because lord knows Joe Klein wouldn't call Karl on his blatant lies.

But I doubt that Andy Card did so out of generosity or a dedication to the truth. No, I think Card just wanted credit where credit is due. You see, Card has spent much of his career in the auto industry. It's hard to have a successful product launch if you're working with the Big Three. So I rather suspect that Andy Card's roll-out of Iraq warmongering in September 2002--with the help of WHIG and Judy Miller, of course--ranks near the top of Card's lifetime successes with such things.

Far be it for Karl Rove to deprive Andy Card of his due for that particular market launch.

Wilkes Gets His Subpoenas

by emptywheel

Whooboy. It must be Dukestir day. Seth Hettena reports that Judge Burns just signed off on Wilkes' subpoenas.

No wonder Judge Burns is pissed. Carolyn Delaney, the federal prosecutor in Sacramento who was given the task of investigating the pre-trial leak in the Brent Wilkes case, has filed a declaration indicating what steps she failed to take to find out the nothing she didn’t bother to learn.

Here’s what Delaney says:

After reviewing the foregoing materials, I concluded that an investigation in the circumstances of this case was unlikely to succeed in identifying the source of any improper disclosure. Leak investigations are among the most difficult investigations to conduct. The disclosures reported here both in press accounts and by defense counsel lacked any signature information. In addition, several dozen individuals were involved in the indictment review process, and months had passed prior to my appointment, making it exceedingly unlikely that I could determine when each person first learned of particular information and who else knew. Experience has taught me that leak investigations in such circumstances are rarely successful.

Hettena suggests Delaney may have judged DOJ to be really uninterested in discovering who the leakers are. Given that Hettena himself is one of the people who should expect to get his subpoena shortly, I wonder what he means by that.