whatever already!

2011-09-25T00:36:00.000-07:00

Not time to worry, but rather time to panic.

2011-09-10T00:36:00.000-07:00

Doc Halladay wins his 17th against Milwaukee, lowering his ERA to 2.44. Prior to Halladay and Hamels winning the last two straight games against Milwaukee in Milwaukee, the Brewers had been 50-19 at home.

2011-09-09T01:22:00.000-07:00

Cole Hamels wins his 14th game against the Milwaukee Brewers tonight and lowers his ERA to 2.60.

They also won the game without Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, and Jimmy Rollins in the lineup-- all three out with minor injuries.

Add to that: The Phillies played the Brewers at home. Prior to the game, Milwaukee was 50-19 at home.

Lee, Halladay, and Hamels are now third, fourth, and fifth in ERA in the NL:

NL Earned Run Average
Rank Player ERA
1 J. Cueto, Cin 2.36
2 C. Kershaw, LAD 2.45
3 C. Lee, Phi 2.47
4 R. Halladay, Phi 2.49
5 C. Hamels, Phi 2.60

And this from the Elias Sports Bureau: "It was the Phillies' 17th complete game of the season, the most by any team since the Orioles recorded 17 CGs in 1999."

The Best Starting Pitching Staff Ever?

2011-09-06T22:49:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the Phillies' fifth starter, a rookie, tonight won his eleventh game.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Vance Worley's record is now 11-1.

It was Worley's ninth straight win. The Phillies have now won Worley's 14 last consecutive starts. That is the most consecutive wins by a Phillies pitcher dating back to when the Phillies won 15 consecutive starts in 1972 when Steve Carlton was pitching. One also has go back almost four decades when a team won consistently with a rookie pitcher throwing. (Wayne Simpson won 14 straight starts for the Cincinnati Reds in the 1970s.)

The rookie showed some poise too: "The 23-year-old Worley was teetering on a high wire in the sixth inning, when the Braves loaded the bases with no outs. But after a sacrifice fly by Alex Gonzalez tied the game, 2-2, Worley prevented further damage."

The Best Starting Pitching Staff Ever?

2011-09-06T01:05:00.000-07:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

"Cliff Lee threw his sixth shutout of the season on Monday, tying the highest total by any pitcher over the last 22 seasons; Randy Johnson had six in 1998 (two for Seattle, four for Houston). Lee has allowed two runs in 48 2/3 innings over his last six starts, a 0.37 ERA. Only two other Phillies pitchers, both cream-of-the-crop Hall of Famers, have had an ERA under 0.40 in a six-start span in one season: Steve Carlton in 1972 and Grover Alexander in 1915."

Also from Elias after tonight's game: "Cliff Lee is now 16-7 with a 2.47 ERA; Roy Halladay is 16-5 with a 2.49 ERA. The only other pair of teammates over the past 40 seasons to have at least 16 wins and an ERA under 2.50 on-or-before Labor Day was Pedro Martinez (17-4, 2.22 ERA) and Derek Lowe (18-6, 2.33 ERA) for Boston in 2002."

2011-04-23T01:04:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the Phillies: As things stand tonight, the Phillies are 13-6. They are tied with the Colorado Rockies and Cleveland Indians for the best record in baseball.

They have one of the best rotations in the history of the game. A rotation that includes Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, and Roy Oswalt seems more like a child's dream or one of a fantasy team rather than reality.

And so why do I have so much unease about my team? Let's start with the corner outfielders.

The loss of Jason Werth is immeasurable. Two years ago, he hit .268, 39 HR, and 99 RBI. Last year, he hit .296, 27 HR, and 85 RBI-- while also leading the league with 47 2B. Besides his numbers, Werth ran the bases well, played superb defense, but most important of all, hit behind Ryan Howard the last few seasons-- making sure that Howard got some pitches to hit. This season, Howard has so such protection.

Werth is now gone, leaving via free agency to the Washington Nationals.

In the meantime, left fielder Raul Ibanez is a player in decline. In 2009, he hit .272, 34 HR, and 93 RBI. Last year he declined to .275 BA, 16 HR, and 83 RBI, although he also hit 37 doubles. Now at age 39, Ibanez is battling to hit .200, albeit although we are only 17 games into the season. His defense, never stellar, is suffering as well. But still, the team has made no contingency to replace him.

If the team's management is not looking at who can be potentially fill at least one of the team's corner outfielder positions, some fans and sportswriters are. This column on Bleacher Reports discusses who is available. Unfortunately, there is not a lot there.

There are a couple of interesting names bandied around there and elsewhere: Carlos Quentin and Ryan Ludwick. One of them could be a regular outfielder for the Phillies, and bat behind Howard-- giving Howard some protection although not as much as he had when Werth batting behind him. With Quentin or Ludwick filling one outfield position, Dominic Brown (when he comes back from injury), John Mayberry, or Ben Franciso-- we hope-- might fill the other.

The problem is that the team right now is not concerned. Halladay, Lee, Hamels, and Oswalt might yet prove to be the best pitching rotation in the history of the game. But the four aces are making the team complacent.

Ask the Phillies management why they are not more concerned that their two corner outfielder positions are not producing much offense, and their response is that it is less of an issue for them than for other teams because of the four aces. Similarly, ask the Phillies if they are concerned about the prospects of their relief pitching as the season progresses, and they say not to worry because of their aces.

The complacency of having perhaps one of baseball history's best rotation might just turn out to be the team's downfall.

2011-02-21T21:08:00.000-08:00

Even Kevin Millwood won't consider signing with the Yankees.

The Life That Christina Taylor Green Would Have Lived

2011-01-10T00:16:00.002-08:00

Christina Taylor Green was nine years old when she was killed. The gunman who murdered her and stole her from her family and friends and everyone else who loved her has foreclosed us from knowing what her future would have been otherwise. To contemplate who she should would have become only makes the crime that much more unspeakable, but it seems necessary to do so.

It is important now to consider what the life of Christina Taylor Green may have been, impossible as that may seem, because it is way to honor the life she already lived. It is important because her family has already begun to do so as part of their mourning process as has the community in which she was raised. But perhaps most importantly of all, to consider what her future might have been, and what she and we have lost, might provide some necessary motivation so that we do not let this happen to another child.

In defiance of her murderer, in defiance of those who tolerated the atmosphere that allowed her murder to occur, the murders of five others, and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords, we ask: What would Christina have become? Who would she have turned out to be? Would she have had children and grandchildren? Whose lives among us would she have impacted?

Christina was already serving and helping others. She already held elected office at age nine, serving on the student council of her elementary school. She worked for a charity that helped other children, Kids Helping Kids.

The last place her parents thought she would be harmed would be meeting her Congresswoman.

“I allowed her to go, thinking it would be an innocent thing,” Christina’s mother, Roxanna Green, told the New York Times.

At the age of 32, Gabby Giffords had once been the youngest woman elected to the Arizona State Senate, and now she was a Congresswoman. In a state that allowed for and even celebrated the fierce independence and strength of its women, it still was not too long ago that there were few women in elected politics. Gabby was to be a possible role model for Christina, one of the reasons that her parents were hoping that their daughter would be able to spend a few minutes with the Congresswoman.

Christina’s dad, John, told the Times, “I could have easily have seen her as a politician.”

Who is to say that if there has been no gunman in the strip mall, and had Christina had lived, that the events that day might have changed the direction of Christina’s life? Maybe it would have a seminal moment in the life of a child, laying the seeds for her to become involved in public service or public life.

Or perhaps it would have been just another and interesting and playful day in the life of a child that she would have enjoyed and meant little more. The answers are another thing stolen, irreplaceable, by the gunman.

I remember as young child listening to Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King on the radio and then watching them on television. I would listen on phonograph records to speeches made by John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I was mesmerized. Words to a child (although hardly that much different to a grown up) were as commonplace and necessary as the air we breathe, but here these men were turning them into something else, the most powerful thing in the world. But it was as a child actually going to and watching Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey that changed a life’s course.

Perhaps Christina meeting Gabby Giffords would have changed her life—and who and what she would have become. Or perhaps that is my personal projection.

Her dad has said in various interviews that envisioned her in public life.

But Christina’s father is probably like most dads of young children that I know. On other days, or alternatively even on the same day, they imagine their children has been all grown up doing any number of things.

I have an acquaintance who adopted their three year old from Kazakhstan. His son has his own YouTube video doing a perfect rendition of a song from the Little Mermaid. His dad is convinced, in part because of that performance, that his son will be a politician. Or course the same YouTube performance leads his dad on other occasion to think that his son will be other days be a great actor. And that is only on days when he is not daydreaming his son will be a Olympic snowboard champion, representing, of course, his native Kazakhstan.

Christina was an athlete too. She was already an accomplished gymnast, a swimmer, and dancer. But most remarkably she played second base for the Canyon del Oro Pirates. She was the only girl on the little league team. This last fact makes more sense when learns that her grandfather is Dallas Green, who was the manager of the Philadelphia Phillies in 1980 when they won a World Series title, and later also managed the New York Yankees and New York Mets. Her father, John Green, is a scout for the Los Angeles Dodgers. Her other brother, eleven years old, is also named Dallas, and apparently named after their grandfather.

Would Christina have gone on to be a student athlete? Of course she would. But would sports have also become her career as it had for her dad and granddad?

Christina loved animals. At home, she had as pets her very own Geckos, and she also cared for the dogs and cats of her neighbors. She had ambitions, she told her parents, to be a veterinarian. At nine, she even had some of the specifics worked out. She would study at New York University. She had been born back east, in a small Pennsylvania town, so she wanted to go back East. She was born on Sept. 11th 2001, even featured in a book of children born on that day. Even at nine, this was part of her identity, something she took pride in, a reason why sometimes she dressed in red, white, and blue. Would she have studies veterinary medicine at NYU? Is that what would have in part become of her life?

We will know nothing of what would have become of Christina Green had she been able to live her life to a natural expectancy. It is a void not dissimilar to the one now in her family’s heart.

But we know a couple of things for sure: “From the very beginning, she was an amazing child,” her mother told the New York Times. “She was very bright, very mature, off the charts. She was the brightest thing that happened that day.” In short, whatever she would have done with her life would have been amazing.

And whatever that was, her life would have been in some way a life of service.

We can never know for sure but this was a little girl who was going to give and do for others, whether that was her own family or in his community, or even something larger.

While posting about her the last couple of days on my Facebook page, comments like these were not uncommon:

Dawn Frantangelo, the NBC News correspondent, wrote: “Oh my lord in heaven. This is beyond sad and her life and death so emblematic of what the madness has come to. My heart goes out to her family and friends and all the glorious potential she had and symbolized.”

Mary Lou Butler, an administrative assistant to a fire chief in South Kingstown, Rhode Ilsand, wrote:
“I can't help but think that maybe she would have been a future politician to help heal the world. Born on 9/11, just elected to student council...”

We should have done more to protect Christina Taylor Green than we should. Not just because we as a society to be a moral people should do everything we can to protect the lives of our children, but also because we don’t know what she would have contributed to us.

Some people reading this post will argue that nothing could be done, that her murder was a unpreventable act of senseless violence, a tragedy beyond our control. Without arguing that point, but not conceding that assertion, every day we leave at risk the lives of our country’s children.

Take for example Christina’s state of Arizona.

As just one example, in Arizona today, there are more children at this moment of time than ever before who are homeless, many of whom simply thrown out by parents who no longer want to care for them in hard economic times, or did not care in the first place anyway. According to a recent story in the Arizona Republic, more than 24,500 Arizona students were homeless during the past school year. That number is double what it was in 2003, and also some 18% higher than what it was last year.

We know virtually nothing of a single one of these children, who remain largely nameless and invisible to us. If anyone is really outraged about the murder of Christina Taylor Green, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from helping these children. If they want to honor her or her memory, they should. And one way to do it is simply go down to one of the shelters where these kids hang out, say some kind words, ask what they might do for do them, and become involved in their lives in some small way that may even save their lives. Those with means should even consider taking one of them into their own homes.

As a writer, I have seen first hand how this country has allowed too many of its children and young people to be forgotten, unknown, unsafe, and left to die. A couple of years ago I wrote a story about a young Iraqi war veteran who came safely home from war only to be killed violently for wearing a Red Sox jersey in a Texas bar. When I went to watch a stick ball tournament held in a park named in his honor, I learned that several of his friends who he had played with in that same park as a child had died as a result of violence. Those kids died in part because they were marginalized by our society.

One of the first stories I ever covered as a reporter was about the deaths of dozens of mentally retarded children because of abuse and neglect while they were wards of the District of Columbia government. Dozens and dozens of these children died over two decades as the local government, the local news media, law enforcement agencies, medical agencies which were supposed to oversee their care, failed in their responsibilities and did nothing.

Those particular children died because they were marginalized. They were African-African, they were mostly from impoverished and poor families, and they were mentally retarded. They died because we value some human life, including that of some children, over others.

Christina Taylor Green came from a loving, devoted, well to do family; she had a famous grandfather; and she had advantages most children do not have and may never have in their lifetimes.

What do I take away from her killing? Every American child is now at the margins.

2010-10-22T22:59:00.000-07:00

James Neal, 1929 to 2010.

From his NYT obit tonight:

In May 1973, Mr. Neal was in private practice in Nashville when he was asked by the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to join his staff. He worked with Mr. Cox until October 1973, when John W. Dean III, President Richard M. Nixon’s former legal counsel, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and agreed to be a prosecution witness in the cover-up trial of five Watergate figures.
Mr. Cox was subsequently ordered dismissed by Nixon, and his successor, Leon Jaworski, asked Mr. Neal to return for the cover-up case.
Mr. Neal led the prosecution, handling the questioning of the government’s key witness, Mr. Dean, and on Jan. 1, 1975, a jury convicted four men — John N. Mitchell, the former attorney general; H. R. Haldeman, Nixon’s former chief of staff; John D. Ehrlichman, Nixon’s former chief domestic adviser; and Robert C. Mardian, a former assistant attorney general — of covering up the illegal activities of the committee to re-elect Nixon, which had come to light when a White House team of burglars was caught breaking into Democratic offices at the Watergate complex.

2010-10-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

Oy Vey.

2010-10-05T01:49:00.001-07:00

Sweet.

2010-10-05T01:21:00.000-07:00

From the L.A. Times this morning:

The insurance industry is pouring money into Republican campaign coffers in hopes of scaling back wide-ranging regulations in the new healthcare law but preserving the mandate that Americans buy coverage.

Since January, the nation's five largest insurers and the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm have given three times more money to Republican lawmakers and political action committees than to Democratic politicians and organizations.

That is a marked change from 2009, when the industry largely split its political donations between the parties, according to federal election filings.

The largest insurers are also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobbyists with close ties to Republican lawmakers who could shape health policy in January, records show.

Read the entire story here.

2010-09-26T22:52:00.000-07:00

I have a new story up at Reuters this morning, with Nick Carey, about veterans of the Iraqi and Afghan wars with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries:

More than one in four U.S. veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars in the state of Virginia say they have suffered a service-related head injury and two thirds reported depression, according to a report by Virginia Tech to be released on Tuesday.

The real numbers may be much higher, according to Mary Beth Dunkenberger, senior program director at the Institute for Policy and Governance at Virginia Tech and author of the report.

In focus groups many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan said they were afraid to admit to suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during demobilization because it would keep them from their families and hurt their careers, she told Reuters.

"During demobilization troops are kind of on a high and just want to see their families," she said. "If they admit to having PTSD, they know it could be weeks until they see their families so there is a tendency to minimize their symptoms."

"Also career soldiers are reluctant to speak up because they're afraid it could hurt their future prospects in the military," she added, "while those returning to civilian life are afraid that no one will employ them if they're known to suffer from PTSD."

The report was compiled for the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program, which is operated by the Virginia Department of Veterans Services, and was provided in advance to Reuters. It found that 66 percent of veterans of these two wars reported suffering from some form of depression, second only to Vietnam veterans. Ten percent cited a high level of depression. Thirteen percent said they had suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and 26 percent said they had sustained a service-related head injury...

Read the whole story here.

2010-08-19T08:19:00.000-07:00

McClatchy's Washington bureau has this must-read this morning:

WASHINGTON — In June, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a Canadian man who contends that U.S. authorities mistook him for an al Qaida operative in 2002 and shipped him to a secret prison in Syria, where he was beaten with electrical cables and held in a grave-like cell for 10 months.

Four years earlier, however, the Canadian government had concluded an exhaustive inquiry and found that the former prisoner, Maher Arar, was telling the truth. Canada cleared Arar of all ties to terrorism and paid him $10 million in damages, and his lawyers say he's cooperating with an investigation into the role of U.S. and Syrian officials in his imprisonment and reported torture.
Arar's case illustrates what lawyers and human rights groups call a shameful trend: While U.S. courts and the Obama administration have been reluctant or unwilling to pursue the cases, countries that once backed former President George W. Bush's war on terrorism are carrying out their own investigations of the alleged U.S. torture program and the role that their governments played in it.

Judges in Great Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland and Lithuania are preparing to hear allegations that their governments helped the CIA run secret prisons on their soil or cooperated in illegal U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects. Spanish prosecutors also have filed criminal charges against six senior Bush administration officials who approved the harsh interrogation methods that detainees say were employed at U.S. military prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and other sites.

Read the entire story here.

2010-05-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

The Center for Investigative Reporting and California Watch has a nice story out this weekend:

The water supply of more than two million Californians has been exposed to harmful levels of nitrates over the past 15 years – a time marked by lax regulatory efforts to contain the colorless and odorless contaminant, a California Watch investigation has found.

Nitrates are now the most common groundwater contaminant in California and across the country. A byproduct of nitrogen-based farm fertilizer, animal manure, wastewater treatment plants and leaky septic tanks, nitrates leach into the ground and can be expensive to extract.

The problem affects both rural Californians and wealthier big-city water systems. State law requires public water systems to remove nitrates. Many rural communities, however, don’t have access to the type of treatment systems available in metropolitan areas.

Nitrates have been linked to “blue baby syndrome,” which cuts off an infant’s oxygen supply. Some studies have found connections to certain cancers in lab animals.

The State Water Resources Control Board acknowledges that nitrates are a problem affecting vast regions of California. And the situation is worsening, especially in the Central Valley, Central Coast, and the Los Angeles and Imperial Valley regions. High nitrate levels have already impacted public water system wells in many areas, and the contaminants continue to migrate toward groundwater supplies that could ultimately impact the water supply for millions of additional Californians.

Statewide, the number of wells that exceeded the health limit for nitrates jumped from nine in 1980 to 648 in 2007. Scientists anticipate a growing wave of nitrate problems in some parts of the state if remedial steps aren’t taken.

Read more here. Also, interesting piece on new investigative reporting non-profits at CJR.

2010-05-10T17:08:00.000-07:00

Tim Noah in Slate:

No corporation can claim a more vital role in passing and starting to implement the health care reform law than WellPoint, which has a larger customer base (34 million) than any other health insurer in the United States. This is not to say that WellPoint supported health reform; quite the opposite. But as President Obama's May 8 radio address demonstrated not for the first time (text, audio), WellPoint is a uniquely maladroit corporate heavy. If it didn't exist, Obama might have had to invent it.

"[W]hen we found out that an insurance company was systematically dropping the coverage of women diagnosed with breast cancer," Obama said in the address, "my administration called on them to end this practice immediately." The company went unnamed, but it was WellPoint, and news of the practice was broken by Reuters in an April 22 news story by Murray Waas, an investigative reporter who also happens to be a cancer survivor. Waas reported that WellPoint

was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted … every … policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

This prompted Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to write WellPoint chief executive Angela Braly and pronounce herself "surprised and disappointed." This practice, Sebelius wrote, was "deplorable." Braly replied that it was she who was "disappointed" that both Sebelius and Waas would "grossly misrepresent" the policies of a corporate citizen in whose Indianapolis headquarters hung "a three-story pink ribbon." Braly referred Sebelius to a fact sheet stating that the computer software in question "is used to look at a series of diagnostic codes meant to capture conditions that applicants would likely have known about at the time they applied for coverage. We do not single out breast cancer or pregnancy."

In other words, WellPoint had a computer program able to identify multiple diseases it found especially conducive to rescission (the routine and disgraceful practice by which health insurers comb through the paperwork of seriously ill policyholders in search of some chicken-shit reason to nullify the policy). Why Braly thought this assertion might improve her company's image is hard to guess. When the smoke cleared, WellPoint had been maneuvered into volunteering to end such rescissions as of May 1, nearly five months ahead of the deadline imposed by the new health law (which prohibits rescissions except when the patient commits fraud or "makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact"). United Healthcare quickly followed suit.

Read his entire column here.

Iceland to be haven for out-of-work investigative reporters and whistleblowers?

2010-02-11T20:53:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure what to make of this. From Neiman Labs, Iceland's parliament is attempting to make their country for investigative reporting and publishing. Sounds great in theory, and hard to argue with their grandeur of their goal, but am skeptical-- and not sure what "libel-tourism prevention laws" are.

In any case, below is a good portion of the article.

On Tuesday, the Icelandic parliament is expected to introduce a measure aimed at making the country an international center for investigative journalism publishing, by passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world.

Supporters of the proposal say the move would make Iceland an “offshore publishing center” for free speech, analogous to the offshore financial havens that allow corporations to hide capital from authorities. Could global news organizations with a home office in Reykjavík soon be as common as Delaware corporations or Cayman Islands assets?

“This is a legislative package to create a haven for freedom of expression,” Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir confirmed to me, saying that a proposal for comprehensive media law reform will be filed in parliament on Tuesday, and that whistle-blowing specialists Wikileaks has been involved in drafting it. There have been persistent hints of an Icelandic media move in recent weeks, including tweets from Wikileaks and a cryptic message from the newly created @icelandmedia Twitter account.

The text of the proposal, called the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, is not yet public, but the most detailed evidence comes from a video of a talk by Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt of Wikileaks, given at the Chaos Communications Congress hacker conference in Berlin on Dec. 27:

We could just say we’re taking the source protection laws from Sweden, for example…we could take the First Amendment from the United States, we could take Belgian protection laws for journalists, and we could all pack these together in one bundle, and make it fit for the first jurisdiction that offers the necessities of an information society.

Schmitt termed the idea “a Switzerland of bits.” He also mentions that “lawyers in Iceland are working on a bill that will be introduced on the 26th of January,” although it appears the date of introduction has been pushed back to next week. And he cites Iceland as a path to eventually spreading similar laws throughout the EU

A safe haven for leakers and investigators

Jónsdóttir explained that the proposal does not contain final legislation, but would instruct the government to create a package of laws that enhance journalistic freedoms in specific ways. According to an email from Assange (which was then leaked, ironically enough) the amendments would cover source protection, whistleblower protection, immunity for ISPs and other carriers, freedom of information requests, and strong limits on prior restraint. They would also provide protection against libel judgements from other jurisdictions, much as the United States may soon do with the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009.

This package was designed by a working group including representatives from government, civil society, and Wikileaks, which has considerable experience in international media law and censorship issues. The site accepts anonymous submissions of material of public interest, and publishes them without question. Since its its inception in Jan. 2007, Wikileaks has released thousands of sensitive documents, including an investigation of extra-judicial killings in Kenya and more than 500,000 intercepted pager messages from New York on the morning of September 11, 2001. When The Guardian obtained documents alleging the dumping of 400 tons of toxic waste on behalf of global commodities trader Trafigura, they were slapped with a “super-injunction” which prevented them from disclosing not only the contents of the documents, but the existence of the gag order. Wikileaks published the material three days later. Wikileaks is currently down for a fundraising drive but says it will resume operation shortly.

Read the rest of the article here.

2010-01-18T11:32:00.000-08:00

Latest poll: Dead heat for now in Coakley/Mass. race.

Coakley: Is Part of the Problem the Candidate?

2010-01-18T02:52:00.000-08:00

From the NYT: "Democratic leaders in Congress and at the White House were bracing for what they said was a real possibility that Ms. Coakley could lose the race. The most alarming fact in polls and internal research, several party advisers said, was that Ms. Coakley was still falling behind Mr. Brown among voters who had a favorable view of the president. [emphasis added.]"

Of course the dynamics of the Mass. Senate race are mostly related to national trends. But all politics to some degree, is, local. And Coakley is not the strongest candidate. And in a close race, that can make all the difference in the world.

And this from a TPM reader in Somerville, Mass:

Voters increasingly seem to know how consequential the race is, which is certainly a good thing from Coakley's perspective. That would have been enough to ensure her victory a week ago holding everything else constant. Unfortunately, though, she's made some horribly off-message comments---like suggesting that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms and that Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan. I'm not certain those things matter in and of themselves, but they're part of a developing narrative that she's out-of-touch.

Barney Frank: Coakley Defeat Means Death of Health Care Reform

2010-01-18T02:48:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior Massachusetts lawmaker says if Republicans win a special Senate election there next week, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is dead.

Democrat Barney Frank told reporters Friday: "If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill."

The Massachusetts congressman said Democratic candidate Martha Coakley should have campaigned harder for the seat held for decades by Edward Kennedy. Nonetheless, Frank said he thinks Coakley will win Tuesday's contest. Latest polls show a close race between Brown and Coakley. Kennedy died last summer of brain cancer and Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the seat on an interim basis. Brown has said he would be the 41st vote against the health bill.

Health Care: Prospects Better for a Public Option

2009-08-03T00:16:00.000-07:00

Prospects for a public option are brightening. (Maybe everyone has been watching what's been going on in the Senate Finance Committee too closely, and ignoring what's been going on elsewhere on Capitol Hill) From Politico:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) runs the health care negotiations like the patriarch of a sprawling clan, urging his members to keep their feuds within the family.

But internal clashes about the government insurance option have begun to spill into the open — as Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has gone public with his case against consumer-owned health care cooperatives, which are viewed as a compromise between progressives who want a public competitor to private insurers and Republicans who don’t want a new government plan.

“I will be darned if I support or allow to move forward — to the extent that I can make a noise about it — something which sounds user-friendly,” Rockefeller said in an interview. “What I have to worry about is, are co-ops going to be effective taking on these gigantic insurance companies? And from everything I know from people who represent them, the answer is a flat ‘no.’”

With four of five congressional committees having endorsed health care bills with a public plan, the focus now turns to the Finance Committee, where debate on the issue has been heated and mostly private up until now.

It’s the only committee proposing a private-sector insurance cooperative, rather than a government-run plan, as a mechanism to hold private insurers accountable. But the passage Friday of a House Energy and Commerce Committee bill with a strong public plan puts another squeeze on the odd man out, the Finance Committee.

“They may be right,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who proposed the co-op model because he believes the public plan cannot clear the Senate. “I have seen no evidence that changes the vote count in the Senate.”

As Congress attempts to overhaul health care, the public plan debate has been among the most volatile, noisy and expensive.

Early last week, progressives thought their top priority looked dim. President Barack Obama told Time magazine that a co-op could meet his definition of a public plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said his main responsibility was getting legislation that could pick up 60 votes and thwart a filibuster, which the public plan is unlikely to do. And liberal House Democrats revolted over a deal with conservative Democrats to weaken the new government insurance plan.

By Friday, though, public plan advocates were suddenly feeling pretty good. They didn’t get exactly what they wanted in the Energy and Commerce Committee bill — their first preference was a government-run plan tied to Medicare rates rather than negotiated rates — but they had strengthened their hand against the Finance Committee.

“There will be a backstop,” said a Democratic Senate official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “It ensured that whatever happens in the Senate Finance Committee, there will be something of a firewall in the conference. The House will be an equal partner in the conference, and they will be united in presenting a pretty viable, strong public option and one of the two committees marking up in the Senate will have done the same.”

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) called the inclusion of the public plan “a line in the sand.”

“We’re trying to provide health care to 47 million uninsured people,” Engel said. “I believe the way to help them is to have a robust public option with plans tied to Medicare.”

The Finance Committee leans moderate to conservative. There are only a handful of Democrats who might go to the mat for the public option, including Rockefeller, Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

It’s too early to tell whether the liberal committee members would vote against a bill with a co-op option. They will look at the whole package for affordability measures and make a judgment, aides said. But since Baucus is negotiating with three Republicans, he could lose a few Democrats and still push a bill through his committee.

Health Care Reform: No Public Option?

2009-07-27T19:37:00.000-07:00

After all that has gone on, there might not be a public option?

Extraordinary that this is not a bigger deal. The loss of a public option is a radical overhaul of, well, what was supposed to be the radical overhaul...

Tonight's Associated Press story:

WASHINGTON — After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits two key Democratic priorities but incorporates provisions to slow the explosive rise in medical costs, officials said.

These officials said participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite President Barack Obama's support for such a plan.

The three Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee were considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs. Also likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare through recommendations that would take effect automatically unless overturned by Congress.

"We're going to get agreement here," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, said Monday. "The group of six really wants to get to 'yes.'"

Obama has outlined two broad goals for legislation he is struggling to win from Congress: expansion of health insurance coverage to millions who lack it, and reining in increases in costs.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by the six Finance Committee members would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.

The effort received a boost during the day from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally a close ally of Republicans. In a letter to committee leaders, the business group called for the panel to "act promptly, preferably before" the Senate's scheduled vacation at the end of next week. In doing so, the business organization dealt a blow to the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other GOP lawmakers who have called repeatedly for Democrats to slow down.

In yet another boost for the drive to enact legislation, PhRMA, which represents drug companies, has purchased more than $500,000 worth of television ads to air during the week in nine states.

Obama's top domestic priority has suffered numerous setbacks in recent weeks, and Republicans have stepped up their criticism. A Senate vote has been postponed until September. Administration and Democratic leaders hope to show significant progress before lawmakers begin their monthlong recess in hopes of regaining momentum.

In the House, the leadership sought to allay concerns among the rank and file. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "We're on schedule to do it now or do it whenever," when asked whether the House would complete its bill before lawmakers leave at the end of the week for their summer break.

In the Senate, officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.

They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a nonprofit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace.

Obama and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said during the day, "I don't believe that the president has come down (on) one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option."

One of the senators involved in the talks, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, confirmed that co-ops are the preferred approach. "It's safe to say that'll probably remain in the final document," she said.

Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. Instead, these businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.

"We don't want to undermine (employer coverage) or create a perverse incentive where employers potentially drop coverage because their employees can get subsidies," Snowe said.

Democratic-drafted legislation in the House includes both a penalty and a requirement for companies to share in the cost of covering employees.

The senators involved in the negotiations are all members of the Senate Finance Committee, and include Baucus and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican. Others participating are Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Republicans Snowe and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

They have met for hours in recent weeks in Baucus' office, joined by aides and outside advisers such as actuaries summoned to explain arcane details of insurance. Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, has also attended.

Baucus has been under intense pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats in recent weeks to convene the committee to vote out legislation. He has so far declined to do so, opting to give the bipartisan negotiations as much time as needed to succeed.

Several Democratic officials have said he recently pledged to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the committee would meet next week to vote on legislation, a timetable that implies time is growing short for the bipartisan group to wrap up its work.

Much of the cost of the proposal would come from curbing the growth in fees to insurance companies and other providers under Medicare.

But congressional aides in both parties as well as lobbyists said a proposal limiting Flexible Savings Accounts to $2,000 annually is also a strong possibility. FSAs permit the use of pretax income to pay for items such as health care and child care.

Negotiators also are considering fees on the manufacturers of medical devices and on the makers of both brand name and generic drugs coming onto the market.

To cut down on the cost of the bill, the bipartisan group may include only one year of a long-term plan to adjust reimbursement fees under Medicare.

Officials said the legislation under discussion in a series of private meetings would likely cost under $1 trillion, include an expansion of Medicaid, and provide federal subsidies for individuals and families up to 300 percent of poverty to spread health care more broadly.

Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance.

_____

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

2009-01-02T00:09:00.000-08:00

For those reading this, or those who do not know me, but come to my blog here for the first time, thanks for visiting. But I have a new blog where I now post on fairly regularly, here.

The last major story I broke on my new blog can be found here-- which is about what soon to be ex-Vice President Dick Cheney told the special prosecutor and FBI, in part, during the CIA leak probe.

My last two stories in The Atlantic can be found here and here, my last story for ABC News here, and my last two investigatives pieces for the Huffington Post here and here.

And this is my favorite column which I wrote l ast year:

Somerville, Mass, June 28, 2008–

The rules are simple enough for the kids playing in the stickball tournament this morning in Kelly Park: There are to be three people to a team. There are four innings per game. Two outs per inning. You walk on three balls. You strike out on two strikes. The second strike can be a foul ball.

Any ground ball not stopped or caught is a single. If you hit the ball over the double court line without it being caught or stopped, you have hit a double. If you smack the ball hard off the fence, you have a triple. And if you hit the ball entirely over the fence, of course, you have hit a home run. If you hit a deep foul ball over the fence, it is unclear whether it is to be counted as a foul ball or home run. In that case, the final decision is left to the whim of a grown up or the good will of the opposing team.

If you are eleven years old, and get a chance to bat, there are traditions to maintain: You must wear an oversized Red Sox jersey with the name Papelbom on the back. (That is the Sox’s closer for those not literate in such things. In an earlier time your jersey would have had the name Garciappara on it.) You dramatically roll your head from side to side to get the hair out of the eyes. Then you check the stick to make sure you are hitting at the ball from the right end. (This is very important; however, you hope that nobody sees you doing this.) Then you dig hard into the pavement with your converse high tops, lean way way back on your heels, and then smack at the ball—eyes closed allowed—with all of your eleven year old might. Whether you hit the ball or not, all is right with the world.

You hope you hit the ball of course. But if you don’t, you still get to have your face painted, hang with the older kids, have a hot dog with anything you want it on it– and then if you are really, really lucky you get to sit on your big brother’s shoulder to watch the dedication of the square to an older boy in the neighborhood.

The corner of Cragie and Summer is to be renamed in dedication for another little boy who once played stick ball in this park. There are two honor guards, one of which will fire off live rounds, interrupting the morning quiet and send singing birds scattering. A representative of the mayor will say a few words.

This is the unveiling of the new street sign dedicating Spc. Nicholas Peters Square.

Nick served a tour of duty in Iraq and came home in one piece. He survived the war but not the peace. Stationed at Ft. Hood, in Texas, someone in a bar did not like the fact that he was wearing a Red Sox jersey, and killed him...

My second favorite column/post is this profile I wrote about Todd Graves, one of the nine U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration:

The first sign that crimes may have been committed was when the victims no longer felt nauseous and their hair stopped falling out. Also, it wasn't cold going deep into the vein the way it was before. They needed that hurt. And when it was too long in coming, they grew anxious. Their discomfort after all was their comfort. That was the only way that they knew that the chemotherapy was working.
When the FBI believed that they had enough to make a case, they brought the file to Todd Graves, the then-U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Missouri. Ultimately, Robert Courtney, a local pharmacist would be sentenced to thirty years in prison without parole for watering down chemotherapy prescriptions for thousands of cancer patients.

When the Bush administration ordered Graves to resign as U.S. attorney in Jan. 2006, the prosecutor wondered if it might have something to do with the Courtney case. Graves was the first of nine U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration for reasons that still are not entirely clear...
This can't be over the Courtney case, Graves thought.
Diluting drugs for at-risk patients had proved to be lucrative business for pharmacist Robert Courtney. At the time of his arrest, Courtney was worth $18.7 million. He owned two manses in the small exurban enclave of Kansas City known as Tremont Manor and was considering the purchase of a condominium in St. Croix...
When Todd Graves was twenty one, he discovered a lump in his groin. It turned out he had a rare form of lymphoma. And the prognosis was not very good: He was told to put his affairs in order, because it was unlikely that he would survive very long.

For a full eighteen years afterwards, he could not bring himself to touch-- even for a single moment-- the same place in his groin where the original lump was discovered out of fear that he might discover a new one.

In the end what likely saved his life was the chemotherapy.

A year of chemotherapy.

A cycle every three weeks.

At regular twenty-minute intervals for twenty six hours straight, like clockwork, the nausea and the retching and the severe pain became overwhelming. Short reprieves, then more pain.

"I would lay up in my room for twenty six hours straight."

At the time, he was attending the University of Missouri, and throughout it all, lived in a fraternity house.

"I had an open wound for a while that wouldn't heal," he recalled, "The chemotherapy didn't allow it to heal... I think some of the people in the house worried that I might just expire right there"

He met his wife during this time. He was bald and on the chemo and because he was on steroids, he was also thirty pounds overweight.

"She was a far better person then me to see past all that," Graves told me. The doctors also told him that the radical chemotherapy necessary would almost certainly make him infertile. Today he and his wife have four children, ranging in ages from four to ten.

When the street agents first came to Graves with a file on Courtney, Graves dreaded the possibility that if his personal story became known, for fear that would drown out what had been stolen by Courtney from his victims.

"I had a woman who missed the birth of a grandchild by three weeks," Ketchmark told me, "She didn't want a cure. She wanted those three weeks."

As best that can be determined, at least 4,200 cancer patients received diluted drugs. All together, those 4,200 patients in turn received at least 98,000 watered down prescriptions...

The column continues:

Somewhere today, there is another kid with cancer, like Todd Graves once was, lying flat on their back in a dorm room or a hospital room. And it will be cold going into the vein. The nausea will be followed by vomiting and when there is nothing left in their stomach the dry retching will start. If it's nitrogen mustard or methorexate, it will leave a metallic taste in their mouth. The open surgical wound will not heal because of the chemo, and even if they somehow survive, the physical and psychological wounds may never entirely heal.
They will be all alone attempting to make sense out of the senseless.

And they will wonder whether they should just give in, to succumb. What with the odds so stacked against them, is it worth that one more worth toxic violation of their person with nothing assumed and far less guaranteed?

But if you are Todd Graves, perhaps the senseless has long ago come to make perfect sense: When he looks at the four children he was never supposed to have; that he would someday stand up in court for Delia Chelston.

I hope you check out my new blog, if you are coming here for the first time! For those wanting to know more about me personally, here is my Facebook page, an interview I gave to U.S. News & World Report back in the day over a lunch where I probably drank a little too much wine, a professional biography here and a second one here, a personal essay of sorts about myself, and a collection of my articles. Two profiles of me, one by professor Jay Rosen of New York University of me, can be found here, and the other by Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, which can be found here. In the meantime, thanks for visiting with me here!

New Huffington Post story on Executive Privilege

2008-08-21T02:46:00.000-07:00

The Justice Department has weighed on behalf of the White House to prevent testimony by White House officials before Congress about the firings of U.S. Attorneys. Excerpts from my story:

"The Justice Department filed papers in court late Monday asking a federal judge to temporarily set aside his own order directing White House officials to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

"The filing was in response to a July 31 opinion by U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates that the Bush administration's claims of executive privilege in refusing to allow White House officials to testify about the firings was "unprecedented" and "entirely unsupported by existing case law."

"The Bush administration action indicates that despite recent correspondence to Congress suggesting otherwise, it is still strongly resisting subpoenas of White House officials to testify about the politically sensitive issue of the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

In his decision, Bates said he doubted that if the White House or administration appealed his decision, they would have an even remote possibility of prevailing:

"The aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that [former White House Counsel Harriett] Miers [one of those subpoenaed] is absolutely immune from compelled testimony."

"In the past, the Supreme Court had reserved claims by presidents of absolute immunity only for "very narrow circumstances" such as for issues of national security or foreign affairs, Bates wrote in his opinion. Testimony about the firings of U.S. attorneys was not in that class and therefore there was little likelihood that a higher court would reverse his decision, he noted...

"In February, the House of Representatives voted 223-32 to hold Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and provide documents about the U.S. attorneys to the House Judiciary Committee. Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have similarly approved contempt citations for former White House chief political aide Karl Rove...

"The appeal by the Justice Department suggests, however, that the Bush administration at a minimum is attempting to obtain a stronger negotiating position with Congress, if not entirely delay compliance with congressional subpoenas until next year. (The Justice Department filing states that a stay of Judge Bates's order is "the best hope of promoting an accommodation between the two branches.")

"The request for a stay also comes not long after a report in the Huffington Post that former Bush administration officials in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have refused to voluntarily talk to investigators with the Department's Inspector General about the politicization of the Civil Rights Division. Because of their refusal to voluntarily talk to investigators, the Department has taken the extraordinary step of subpoenaing senior attorneys once from within its own ranks to testify before a federal grand jury as a means to compel their cooperation.

"If Bates' previous opinion is any guide, it appears unlikely that he would agree to the Justice Department's requests. In his 93-page opinion, Bates, a conservative jurist appointed by President Bush in 2001, wrote:

"Presidential autonomy, such as it is, cannot mean that the executive's actions are totally insulated from scrutiny by Congress. That would eviscerate Congress' historical oversight function."

To read the entire story click here.

Executive Privilege Wars

2008-08-10T02:53:00.000-07:00

Late last week, a Federal District Court Judge had scathing words for the Bush administration for claiming executive privilege for refusing to allow former senior White House aides to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Judge John Bates rebuked the Bush administration for what he said was their “unprecedented” claim of executive privilege.

The scathing opinion said: “The executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple yet crticial fact bears repeating: The asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law.”

Bates went on to say that he doubted very much that if the White House appealed his decision, they had even a remote possibility of prevailing:

“The aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that [former White House Counsel Harriett Miers [one of those subpoenaed] is absolutely immune from compelled testimony.”

In the past, the Supreme Court had reserved claims by Presidents of absolute immunity only for “very narrow circumstances” such as for issues of national security or foreign affairs. Testimony about the firings of U.S. attorneys was not in that class. And therefore there was little likelihood that a higher court would reverse his decision, Bates said.

Bates suggested that Congress and the White House settle their dispute and allow testimony about the U.S. Attorney firings, even scheduling a settlement conference for Aug. 27, as if his the parties to the case were not the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress– but parties to a small claims court.

In that Bates was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001, once worked for Whitewater Special Prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr, and has impeccable conservative credentials.

So did the White House take the judge’s suggestion and agree to negotiate with the House of Representative, agreeing to use him as a mediator of sorts?

Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee hoped that some agreement could be reached with the White House and his committee could hear testimony when Congress returns from its summer recess in September, saying he hopes the White House will “accept this decision” and finally allow Miers and others to testify.

But as Johanna Neuman of the Los Angeles Times first reported, the White House has decided there is no room for compromise.

The White House had told Judge Bates that they wish to appeal his ruling. Here is what they said in a court filing:

Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers.

The end result, as Neuman reports, is that the White House will appeal means that it is unlikely that that Karl Rove, Harriett Miers, or any other senior Bush administration will testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys– or much anything else– until sometime next year.

By then, of course, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be president of the United States.

The motto of this blog: We blog, you decide. (Uh oh, I hope I am not served with legal papers by Fox News in the morning! Thank God this blog is not widely read.)

And so for that high minded editorial reason, I am not going to offer an opinion as to whether the White House has delayed testimony on the U.S. attorney firings until after the election because of high minded principles (what the White House says) or to conceal their own wrongdoing (what Democrats say) and to help the McCain campaign by assuring that there are politically embarrassing hearing only a couple of months or so before the Presidential election. Besides McCain’s candidacy, hearing would surely even do more harm to Republican congressional candidates who do not have network newscasts and advertising budgets to distance themselves from President Bush as many would like to do as their re-election prospects stand in the blance.

But if there was a political calculation in withholding testimony by Rove, Miers, and White House officials, is that going to actually lhelp the Republicans in the fall elections?

The answer is almost certainly not:

At some point long before the election, the Justice Department will release its long-awaited investigative report on the firings of the U.S. attorneys. And as I reported tonight at Huffington Post, a good portion of that report is going to be about the role of senior White House officials in shaping misleading testimony and correspondence about the firings to Congress.

Besides the report on the U.S. attorney firings, the Justice Department’s Inspector General is also readying a release for public release sometime probably long before election day about the politicization of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under the Bush administration.

Not only is that report virtually certain to be scathing, but relations between investigators and former Bush appointees in the Civil Rights Division have become so contentious that prosecutors have had to resort to using a grand jury to compel testimony, because many of the former Justice Department attorneys have refused to voluntarily be interviewed by the Inspector General.

Also what might not be a good omen for what might be in that report is that a federal grand jury is reportedly considering criminal charges against one former senior Bush administration appointee in the Civil Rights Division, Bradley Schlozman.

If the reporting of Evan Perez of the Wall Street Journal is correct (and I have great faith in his reporting) the Justice Department will likely make public report its scathing reports on the U.S. attorney firings and the politicization of the Civil Rights Division sometime in September or even earlier. (I don’t have any personal knowledge of when the reports will be released.)

So at a minimum, the Justice Department is likely to release two devastating reports on the Bush administration this fall or even earlier. Worse, we might also learn that Justice’s Inspector General has sought either a criminal probe of some officials or even a special prosecutor. (The Inspector General does not have prosecutorial powers.)

Add to that that a potential prosecution of Bradley Schlozman, or more disclosures about what the federal grand jury probing Schlozman has been uncovering, and the political damage could reach a crescendo.

At that point, even if the motives of the Bush administration in being unyielding in its executive privilege claims are indeed only because of what they view to be a high minded defense of constitutional principles (Judge Bates’ opinion aside), the politics of continuing to do so might prove not only to be harmful to John McCain’s presidency, but devastating to the Republican House and Senate candidates in the fall.

The continuous claims of executive privilege– whatever the motive for them being invoked– are going to appear more and more to the pubic part and parcel of a cover up. That is inevitable as the U.S. attorney report becomes public, and the report on the politicization of the Civil Rights Division is made public, as well as whatever else the public learns about these issues through leaks from the federal grand jury, the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing probe, and sleuthing by folks like Josh Marshall.

When Dan Bartlett was White House counselor, he was an influential advocate– too often overruled because of advice proferred the President from Dick Cheney and other hardliners– of pre-emption and full pubic disclosure. Playing that role today is Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto. But Fratto and similar minded White House advisers lack the clout too often to have their sensible advice listened to.

Even though the President might think otherwise, and he is being advised to stay his course, his best hope in assisting Republican congressional candidates in the fall would be to have Karl Rove and Harriett Miers testify before Congress– and the sooner the better. As for the public welfare, the testimony would help resolve many unknowns about the firings of the U.S. attorneys and other allegations of White House misuse of the Justice Department.

For now, the executive privilege debate has been relegated to the back pages of newspapers and it might appear to be smart politics to stand tough in the face of congressional subpoenas. The dog days of summer, a Summer Olympics, a presidential election– and even other administration scandals have largely drowned out the issue of the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys.

But either this fall, or even before, all of that is almost certain to dramatically change.

And claims of executive privilege by the President of the United States to disallow his top aides to testify on Capitol Hill could prove devastating to his own political party. Republican House and Senate candidates are no doubt going to be damaged by the executive privilege claims becoming a front and center issue just prior to the election.

In the end, the President’s continuing claim of executive privilege– whether made for high minded reasons of constitutional law, obstinacy, or for political calculation– could prove to be a last unwanted legacy that George Bush leaves behind for his own political party.

2008-07-04T01:57:00.000-07:00

New column on Huffington Post and also my personal blog:

The rules are simple enough for the kids playing in the stickball tournament this morning in Kelly Park: There are to be three people to a team. There are four innings per game. Two outs per inning. You walk on three balls. You strike out on two strikes. The second strike can be a foul ball.

Any ground ball not stopped or caught is a single. If you hit the ball over the double court line without it being caught or stopped, you have hit a double. If you smack the ball hard off the fence, you have a triple. And if you hit it the ball entirely over the fence, of course, you have hit a home run. If you hit a deep foul ball over the fence, it is unclear whether it is to be counted as a foul ball or home run. In that case, the final decision is left to the whim of a grown up or the good will of the opposing team.

If you are eleven years old, and get a chance to bat, there are apparently traditions to uphold: You must wear an oversized Red Sox jersey with the name Papelbom on the back. (That is the Sox's closer for those not literate in such things. In an earlier time, one would have had the name Garciaparra on their jersey.) You dramatically roll your head from side to side to get the hair out of the eyes. Then you check the stick to make sure you are hitting at the ball from the ride end. (This is very important; however you hope that nobody sees you doing this.) Then you dig hard into the pavement with your converse high tops, lean way way back on your heels, and then smack at the ball--eyes closed allowed--with all of your eleven year old might. Whether you hit the ball or not, all is right with the world.

You hope you hit the ball of course. But if you don't, you still get to have your face painted, hang with the older kids, have a hot dog with anything you want it on it-- and then if you are really, really lucky you get to sit on your big brother's shoulder to watch the dedication of the square to an older boy in the neighborhood.

The corner of Cragie and Summer is to be renamed in dedication for another little boy who once played stick ball in this park. There are two honor guards, one of which will fire off live rounds, interrupting the morning quiet and send singing birds scattering. A representative of the mayor will say a few words.

This is the unveiling for a new street sign dedicating Spc. Nicholas Peters Square.

Nick served of duty in Iraq and came home in one piece while so many of his friends were not so fortunate. He survived the war but not the peace. Stationed at Ft. Hood, in Texas, someone in a bar did not like the fact that he was wearing a Red Sox jersey and killed him.

Days after his killing, his baseball coach would say: "I can still see a 6 year old Nick skating at the rink and at 8 years old hitting a baseball." Nick's little niece, her mother, Shanna, told me the morning of the stickball tournament, still sees Nick all the time. She declares to her mom: "Uncle is laughing at you!" One day while coloring, she nonchalantly orders: "Uncle! Color within the lines!"

Who is to tell her that she is wrong to believe that her uncle is still with her?

The stickball tournament in not just in honor of Nick, but also his friend, David Martini, who played stickball and baseball and hockey with Nick, and who too has died too young. All together, four other boys who played stickball with Nicholas Peters in Kelly Park have died too young deaths--victims of senseless violence, suicide, or drug overdoses.

When I return home from Somerville to Washington D.C., I find out that my friend Brian has been shot on the street because apparently the two kids robbing him did not think he was willing to hand over his cell phone fast enough. Even though he is shot three times, he is alright--albeit with one less spleen.

Unable to sleep, I go online and watch over and over again Bobby Kennedy's speech on the menace of violence in America which he gave on April 5, 1968: "The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old famous and unknown. They are most important of all human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one can be certain who suffer next from senseless act of violence. And yet it goes on and on and on...

"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily... Whenever we tear a the fabric of he lives which some other man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children--whenever we do this--the nation is degraded."

The next morning I have to go visit Brian in the hospital to see with my own eyes that he is all right. He smiles, banters with friends, nods off, and we are all reassured.

But what amazes everyone is that despite being shot three times, Brian either walked or ran quite a long way to put some distance between him and the shooter before the police were to arrive. It makes no sense and perfect sense. He wanted to get to a safe place.

My thoughts return to that eleven year old kid playing in the stickball tournament. You want him to be safe. You think maybe you should have a heart to heart and tell him that when he gets older all that he has to do is not wear that Red Sox jersey certain places. If only it were that simple.

2008-05-27T01:16:00.000-07:00

A new blog the management of this one recommends.

As readers of this blog are well aware, I have been-- and still am-- on a learning curve as far as blogging goes. I'm going to cross post here for a while what I write on the new blog-- out of a sense of loyalty to my seven readers-- if that many have stayed with me!

Michigan Primary Results

2008-01-16T00:51:00.000-08:00

Why the Michigan primary results do not bode well for Hillary Clinton: Tom Edsall's post explains what all the bloviating cable commentators have missed. Extraordinary that everyone else has missed this trend...

The Michigan Democratic primary was on the surface a non-event. The national party has ruled the state's delegation will not be seated. Of the major candidates, only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, pitted against "uncommitted" in a seemingly meaningless race (she won by 15 percent).
Yet the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator.

Among men, for example, the battle was neck and neck. Clinton got 47 percent and the anonymous/non-existent opposition got 43 percent. (Clinton did substantially better among women, winning 58-37.)

The opposition was not, however, altogether ethereal. For the most part, voting "uncommitted" was a substitute for casting a ballot for Barack Obama, or for some voters, John Edwards.

Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary and in the states with large black populations going to the polls on February 5 -- so-called Tsunami Tuesday. Clinton carried whites in Michigan by a 61-30.

Clinton ran poorly among young voters of all races, losing those under the age of 30 by 39-48 percent; splitting voters from 30 to 44 by 46-48 percent; solidly carrying the 45 to 56 age group by 54-34 percent; and winning voters 60 and older by a landslide 67-31 percent.

Josh Marshall has this interesting fact: Kucinich got almost as many votes as Guliani in Michigan tonight.

The pundits never seem to learn: Watching Andrea Mitchell talking about John McCain's candidacy on MSNBC she says his candidacy was over because of the Michigan results tonight. Of course, his candidacy was over even before the first primary. And Clinton was toast after Iowa... you get the idea..

2007-12-25T02:28:00.000-08:00

The environmental Pope? We can only hope so, and he follows through...

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to all six or seven visitors to this blog.

2007-12-08T14:58:00.000-08:00

Powerline defends my Huckabee story.

Also on Huckabee: John Amato.

And an interesting new story by Sam Stein.

2007-11-25T00:23:00.000-08:00

Lance Armstrong running for political office?

2007-11-19T06:04:00.000-08:00

Apparently sold some books in the Czech Republic. The store there even has this website.

Now that we know this, the publisher should sent us to Prague, I think, to keep the momentum going. Alas, probably not, though.

2007-11-19T05:16:00.000-08:00

WSJ content to soon be free online...

2007-11-14T03:18:00.001-08:00

I have a new story out tonight at the Huffington Post: Justice Department Reopens Probe into Warantless Wiretapping Program. A Dan Froomkin column on this issue from a while back.

2007-11-06T16:48:00.000-08:00

Pakistan has apparently hired everyone in Washington D.C. for their payroll after declaring martial law. An army of their lobbyists is already descending on Capitol Hall, as this blog post is being written.

2007-11-06T16:41:00.000-08:00

This just in: Brent Wilkes found guilty on thirteen counts.

2007-11-06T16:37:00.000-08:00

Charlie Kaiser has been off to a really strong start as Radar's new media critic....

2007-11-06T16:11:00.000-08:00

The American League Golden Glove awards are just out. Some surprises: Adrian Beltre beat out both .Alex Rodriguez and Eric Chavez at 3B. And Orlando Cabrera of the Anaheim Angels or California Angels or whatever they are beat out Derek Jeter at SS.

(In an exclusive interview with this blog, baseball authority John A'mato explains that Jeter got off to a "rough start... because of the intense cold that blanketed the East Coast" at the start of the season and that Cabrera was "consistent throughout.")

I know I don't ordinarily write about baseball, but we are trying a new business model at this blog, to increase readers. We are grateful to the eleven unique visitors we now have, but we would like to try for more. On the other hand, we don't want to alienate our base... by getting into an entirely unexpected area. Aargh.

2007-11-06T15:20:00.001-08:00

The New York Daily News reports that Bernard Kerik is going to be indicted.

Greg Sargent fact checks Guliani's recent comments to the AP about Kerik. Why didn't anyone else do this-- especially the AP-- after Guliani gave a preemptory interview to the AP about his former police chief just as Kerik stands to be indicted by federal authorities?

2007-11-06T01:10:00.000-08:00

Watch this video. Mind boggling. Abusing small children on Medicaid-- for profit, or course. Why else?

Is the Huckabee Surge for Real? (Part 1)

2007-11-04T01:04:00.000-07:00

Is the Huckabee surge for real?

This analysis is not bad: "Huckabee's populist economic message could also help give the GOP ticket a boost among once Republican-leaning but now disaffected voters in Ohio. Of course, there would be concern that his socially conservative positions could turn off moderate suburbanites."

One reason that Huckabee's campaign has been so successful so far, I think, is because he is in fact a masterful politician. He can appear on Bill Maher one day and bash Bush's foreign policy and even sound like a progressive when he talks about education or economic policy. Then, not long after, he will appear before a group of Christain evangelicals and speak to the right of everyone else on the stage on issues like school prayer and abortion-- without either of his two constituencies being that cognizant of what he said to the others.

But as he climbs in the polls, and receives greater press and blog scrutiny, his various constituencies are more likely to see what he says when he is not speaking directly to each of them. A case in point: Maher, a fan, and who has had Huckabee on his show more than once, appeared taken aback recently when a guest talked about Huckabee's recent comments suggesting that illegal immigration was related to legalized abortion. The downside to an ascending candidacy is that CNN and Youtube are paying attention.

Meanwhile, one thing is all but certain: This will almost certainly become an issue again for Huckabee-- another example as to how climbing in the polls leads to more intense scrutiny-- by the media, bloggers, and one's fellow candidates. One of the reasons that Fred Thompson did so well-- before he declared his candidacy on Leno- was that as long as he didn't enter the arena editors didn't want to send their reporters out to scrutinize his past until he was indeed a candidate.

Other than say, Sam Brownback, was any other Republican candidate doing opposition research on Huckabee. I think it is safe to assume that someone working for Rudy Guliani has done a Google search, and if they have, and found anything, call John Solomon at the Washington Post with the details.

(The scuttlebutt from the campaign trail is that Solomon is the go-to-guy for candidates with the goods on their competitors. Complaints from reporters at other newspapers are that editors at their own papers are less likely to print negative stuff on candidates without saying where it has come from, while Solomon can remain mum where the goods came from; and through Solomon, an ambitious operative has in the Washington Post one of the most powerful platforms an operative leak an allegation about a rival or amplify one already made.

(I think there is a good discussion that journalists and bloggers should have about the motives of their leakers should be more transparent to their readers. As far as I know, only Josh Marshall has even addressed this issue, while taking a shot at deconstructing Solomon.)

In any case, after discursing, this story has in recent days been read by more people than when it was originally posted and published in Nov. 2002.

Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias weighs in about this and other things.

And Susan Milligan in the Boston Globe gave many readers in neighboring New Hampshire their first exposure to the Dumond issue in this story.

First update: Oops. I forgot that I written a post-- at this very blog!-- (that was a self-deprecating reference to the fact that I have all of about eleven readers currently to this blog) about Huckabee and Dumond when the former governor was interviewed on Meet the Press and Tim Russert actually asked him some questions from my Arkansas Times story. (I pledge to my eleven readers that I will probably not link again to my own blog soon. That I did not remember my own blog posting probably indicates that anyone should consider it memorable-- except for the fact that former Governor Huckabee may have given misleading answers to some of Russert's questions.)

Second update: I should have remembered this as well. John Amato has the video of that appearance by Huckabee on Meet the Press. Personal thanks to Tim Russrt for asking the right and tough questions as well as to John for posting the video and advancing the story as well.

Third update: Columnist Scott Leigh of the Boston Globe believes that the Huckabee surge is for real: "A recent Rausmassen survey has [Huckabee] tied for second with Fred Thompson in Iow, with neither far behind."

2007-10-17T23:57:00.000-07:00

A new story out tonight. Since nobody else seems to be linking to it....

(I wanted to make a joke here about: what is blogging for except for self promotion? But since beginning this modest blog, I have come to respect the people who do them-- and the worst offenders of bloggers using their blogs for self promotion are professional MSM journalists who blog. I should name names.... )

Update: Actually, there have since been a few links to that story here and there.

Second update: Another story. Been working hard lately.

Book Party

2007-06-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

Book Party....

Tomorrow evening, Thursday, Jeff Lomanoco and myself-- and our publisher-- are hosting a party to celebrate the publication of our book, the U.S. v. I. Lewis Libby.

It is Thursday evening, from 6 P.M. to 9 P.M., at the Knew Gallery in Georgetown, which is located at 1639 Wisconsin Ave., N.W. The phone number of the gallery is 202-338-4558.

Jeff and myself, as well as our publisher, are better at editing and publishing books than hosting parties. With none of us being very tech-savy at all, we sent out invitations as PDF attachments and via Evite, not understanding spam filters sent our invitations directly to your spam boxes. For most of those who think you were not invited, you indeed, were. (At least in most cases-- some of you actually weren't-- but those are few in number.)

There is also an after-party of sorts, for friends who could not come until late, and because so many people are finding out about our party at such late notice. (By after-party we mean drinking beer or going out to a late dinner, not going to some club and hanging out with some sports celebrities or something. Gawd, the proprietor of this particular blog is so damn boring. (*sadness*)

To all our friends, family, colleagues, and acquaintances, we look forward to seeing you there.

2007-06-13T10:06:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Lake Braddock High School Class of 2007!

More specifically, this blog congratulates David and Jennifer, my nephew and niece respectively. (If I misspelled anything, my other nephew Daniel says "Good enough"-- we have cake to eat.)

This blogger is taking the rest of the day off to celebrate.

(Not that I blog that often anyways. *apologies*)

2007-04-04T23:55:00.000-07:00

A lengthy post late tonight about how Paul Wolfowitz's girl friend somehow-- on loan by the World Bank to the State Department-- has now become the highest paid Department employee. I am definitely going to be writing more about this.

Here is the lede to the post:

Employees of the World Bank have been "expressing concern, dismay, and outrage" regarding favoritism shown by the bank and the Bush administration towards the one-time girlfriend of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, according to an internal memo circulated within the bank by the World Bank Group Association, which represents the rights of the bank's 13,000 employees.

Among other things, the April 3 memo alleges that Shaha Riza, Wolfowitz's romantic interest was given a "promotion [that] clearly does not conform" to bank procedures. Moreover, the memo alleges, she was then given a raise "more than double the amount allowed" by the bank's rules.

A copy of the memorandum was leaked to myself and other journalists Wednesday evening as World Bank employees have become more outspoken in their criticism of Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the bank.

Wolfowitz, who as Deputy Secretary of Defense was considered an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq, disclosed to bank board members that he had a romantic relationship with a senior bank communications officer, Shaha Riza, shortly after he was nominated to head the World Bank. Bank regulations disallow bank employees from supervising spouses or romantic partners, but Wolfowitz reportedly attempted to circumvent the rules so he would be able to continue to work with Riza. Informed by the bank's ethics officers that that would not be allowable, the problem appeared solved when Riza was detailed to work at the State Department's public diplomacy office in September 2005--even though her salary was still to be paid by the World Bank.

To read the post in its entirtey, click here.

And John Cassidy has this profile of Wolfowitz out this week in the New Yorker.

2007-03-06T20:04:00.000-08:00

A book.

Philip, my editor, has some background on the subject. He previously edited Joe Wilson's book. After that, he edited Tyler Drumheller's book. So he really knows this terrain. I'll be doing the book with Jeff Lomonaco, a friend who is a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

Wonkette has the full story. But what's with the photograph accompanying the post? One of the people in the picture is celebrity Hollywood/celebrity lawyer Mark Garagos. I don't know who the other person is... Scott Petersen? If anyone knows, email me at murraywaas@gmail.com.

I know that by promoting my own book in my own blog makes this a vanity blog of sorts. But aren't most blogs vanity blogs?

In terms of full disclosure, I should admit it is not really an "instant" book. Jeff and myself did, however, begin the book at 11:34 A.M this morning and finish it at 11:42 A.M., before we watched the verdict on CNN, and then leisurely retired for a lunch of mixed greens, venison, and red wine. Other than the venison, the luncheon was entirely vegan and politically correct in every other aspect.

2007-03-02T20:15:00.000-08:00

Jeralyn has the text of the jury notes to the judge regarding the jury's "reasonable doubt" issues, and her own observations as to what she thinks it all means. Additionally, here is what Christy has to say.

Meanwhile, here is the NYT story on the jury notes.

And finally, Stan Brand on what he thinks is going to happen after a verdict.

2007-03-02T12:33:00.000-08:00

Libby trial development: This just in from the court:

"The Libby jury delivered two notes containing questions when they were excused today. Both twill be available on the public docket later today. Court will convene at 9 a.m. on Monday March 5 to address the notes."

There will almost certainly be news reports-- and more importantly at Firedoglake-- about the notes. At that time, I'll update and link to the stories and post. (On the other hand, I have to go out and get a hair cut, so those who want it sooner should just click on Firedoglake later, or check out the NYT website.)

2007-02-27T19:33:00.000-08:00

This may be nepotism or favoritism of sorts (although it's not like I recommended anyone for a junket to Niger or anything-- have to have a Plame reference in every post so as not to alienate my readers who only want to read about the Libby trial), but I recommend that everyone who reads this blog-- all six of you, and on some days as many as seven or eight-- vote for this particular blog for the Travvies award, an award for the best travel blogs. The blog has already been named as a finalist. (It is always an honor to just be nominated by the Academy!) Even if she doesn't win, maybe some more of you will come by her blog.

Meanwhile, congratulations to this blog for winning an award as Best D.C. blog. (I first came upon this blog... well never mind for now.) He/she should also win for best acceptance speech/blog post:

"We won this together. The journey of a thousand miles began with your single click. I thank my grandmother, my mother, my brothers back home, my brothers who are here with me now, and my aunt who's back at the hotel. And Jennifer Holliday and Velvet -- thank you, Jennifer Holliday and Velvet.

"I never gave up the dream of becoming Best DC Blog. When told I couldn't do it, I just pushed harder. But without all of you, I couldn't have have achieved any of this."

I personally voted for Thong Speed. The name of that particular blog alone had me at hello.

2007-02-26T15:59:00.000-08:00

The jurors have gone home for another night without reaching a verdict.

2007-02-26T10:42:00.000-08:00

Libby trial: Apparently, Fitzgerald wanted to add an alternate juror to the jury and start all over, while the defense argued that the deliberations should continue with the eleven jurors left. Judge Walton sided with the defense.

According to this report:

"Walton agreed with the defense's request that the jury will continue deliberating with 11 members, rejecting Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's request that the judge call back one of two alternates and start deliberations over. The jury had been deliberating since Wednesday afternoon.

"`I just don't think it would be appropriate to throw away those 2 ½ days of deliberations," he said. "I don't have anything to suggest that this jury is anything but conscientious and can continue.'"

2007-02-26T08:57:00.000-08:00

Libby: A juror has been excused because she apparently was accidentally exposed to a news report about the trial. Details here.

As best that I can determine, the judge has decided to allow the eleven remaining jurors to decide the case, instead of starting all over, with an alternative juror joining them. That's significant because the jury's deliberations are not going to continue interrupted-- rather than having to begin "anew"-- to borrowl a phrase from Scooter Libby.

Why did Fitzgerald and Wells agree to go with eleven? Speculation from Jane. NRO has these ideas.

Update: NYT story just posted.

2007-02-25T23:54:00.001-08:00

The jury is to resume deliberations in the morning.

2007-02-22T14:48:00.000-08:00

ABC News: "Is Cheney Next?"

2007-02-22T14:34:00.000-08:00

Libby trial: The jury has been dismissed for the day without reaching a verdict, according to the presiding judge's clerk.

2007-02-22T00:53:00.000-08:00

No verdict after first full day of deliberations.

2007-02-21T12:37:00.000-08:00

The best post-closing argument/trial analysis this morning: Dan Froomkin, "The Cloud Over Cheney".

2007-02-21T10:32:00.001-08:00

Deliberations begin.

2007-02-21T02:07:00.000-08:00

Among other things, Fitzgerald disclosed in his closing yesterday that Libby spoke to Vice President Cheney about his testimony despite being asked not to by prosecutors. In my National Journal story Monday I wrote the first detailed account of Libby's conversations with Cheney about what Libby was going to tell investigators. Almost angry, Fitzgerald told the jury: "He's not supposed to be talking to other people... the only person he told is the Vice Pesident."

The only reporter covering the case today to notice this, as best that I can determine, was Josh Gerstein, whose daily reporting on the case for the New York Sun rivals and often times better than the larger papers which have two or three reporters covering the trial. Here's his story today.

Also from Josh's story:

"Broadening his attack on the White House, Mr. Fitzgerald took a shot at President Bush, indirectly criticizing him for not firing officials implicated in the leaks about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The prosecutor noted that in 2003 the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush would immediately dismiss anyone involved in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.

"'Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that any person involved in this would be fired," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

"The prosecutor's clear implication was that Mr. Bush failed to keep his word. Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, is still working at the White House despite having served as a source for two press accounts about Ms. Plame. A State Department official who leaked Ms. Plame's identity at least twice, Richard Armitage, resigned at the end of 2004. Mr. Libby, who quit after being indicted, has conceded discussing the CIA staffer with a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper."

2007-02-21T01:44:00.000-08:00

It's with the jury now.

2007-02-19T21:11:00.000-08:00

The NYT's take on the Libby trial, on the eve of closing arguments.

This sums up the essence of the story:

"[A] close reading of the testimony and evidence in the case is more revelatory, bringing into bolder relief a portrait of a vice president with free rein to operate inside the White House as he saw fit in order to debunk the charges of a critic of the war in Iraq.

"The evidence in the trial shows Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Libby, his former chief of staff, countermanding and even occasionally misleading colleagues at the highest levels of Mr. Bush’s inner circle as the two pursued their own goal of clearing the vice president’s name in connection with flawed intelligence used in the case for war."

2007-02-19T19:39:00.000-08:00

Still no sense of irony or self-knowledge (part 2 of probably many)-- Nancy Grace on CNN with exclusive details of Anna Nicole Smith's embalming. Including how the remains are refrigerated. And then a rant as to how everyone is exploiting the poor woman for their own ends. In this parallel media universe or just parallel universe, there is no war in Iraq, no global warming, no Scooter Libby trial: the eyes of the world and Nancy Grace are focused on a Florida courtroom where various people are going to fight over custody of Anna Nicole Smith's child and Anna Nicole Smith's remains... and Nancy Grace will have the full story... and we will know everything.. and as we watch we will know less and less until we will know nothing.

Update: Thanks to my friend Jeff. The spell check on my computer doesn't work. So I called him to ask whether "parallel" has one "l" or two. And he told me three. That really clears things up.

2007-02-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

Do any of these people have any sense of irony or self-knowledge?....On CNN, some unidentified talking head just said of Britney Spears that "We tend to consume these celebrities until there is nothing left of them," as he was consuming Britney Spears until there was nothing left of her. Then the correspondent reporting the story questioned whether the news media was giving the story too much attention, as she was... giving the story more attention. Oops, I guess I was just giving the story more attention, too. Well, at least I have some self-knowledge about it!

2007-02-19T16:15:00.000-08:00

I know I should be covering the Britney Spears head shaving story. A psychologist on CNN just said that Spears was suffering from post-partum depression and dissociation-- and all without apparently ever clinically seeing the clebrity client!

For those interested in the Libby trial, I have a new story online this afernoon at the National Journal.

Here is the top of the story:

In the fall of 2003, as a federal criminal probe was just getting underway to determine who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the-then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, sought out Cheney to explain to his boss his side of the story.

The explanation that Libby offered Cheney that day was virtually identical to one that Libby later told the FBI and testified to before a federal grand jury: Libby said he had only passed along to reporters unsubstantiated gossip about Plame that he had heard from NBC bureau chief Tim Russert.

The grand jury concluded that the account was a cover story to conceal the role of Libby and other White House officials in leaking information about Plame to the press, and indicted him on five felony counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice.

At the time that Libby offered his explanation to Cheney, the vice president already had reason to know that Libby's account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony and evidence in the CIA leak probe, as well as testimony made public during Libby's trial over the past three weeks in federal court.

Yet, according to Libby's own grand jury testimony, which was made public during his trial in federal court, Cheney did nothing to discourage Libby from telling that story to the FBI and the federal grand jury. Moreover, Cheney encouraged then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan to publicly defend Libby, according to other testimony and evidence made public during Libby's trial.

To read the entire story, click here. It's free to read.

Update: For those who don't want to read the whole story, John A'mato boils it all down to one long paragraph, and explains to people what the story really is about.

2007-02-19T01:22:00.000-08:00

Already, talk of a pardon.

Bush's response: "I am not going to talk about it."

2007-02-18T19:06:00.000-08:00

Libby trial: This single paragraph in Neil Lewis' NYT story sums it all up:

Prosecutors have built a detailed case to support their charges, presenting several plausible witnesses whose testimony conflicts with Mr. Libby’s sworn statements. Still, the prosecution has the burden of convincing the jurors of Mr. Libby’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, an imprecise concept that makes the outcome of most complicated criminal trials unpredictable.

2007-02-14T20:47:00.000-08:00

Libby trial: The defense rests... but not before the presiding judge becomes quite angry at defense counsel.

Early tomorrow afternoon: I have a new story in the National Journal. It is long, more than 5,000 words long, and some, although not very much about the trial. Thanks to my editor, Bob Gettlin,and his patience. If this post is so short, it is because I don't have hardly any energy left to write another word.

In the meantime, the Times profiles Jane (Hamsher).

It wasn't the NY Post or Daily News that had the best headline from the trial, but Jane...

The jurors speak.

2007-02-12T10:57:00.000-08:00

Novak on the stand.

I wish someone would ask him about his Sept. 29, 2003 conversation with Rove.

2007-02-12T07:55:00.001-08:00

Libby trial: Finally... Walter Pincus discloses who his source was who told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, has allegedly sent him on his mission to Niger, and also suggested that he was sent because of nepotism: Ari Fleischer.

That explains more why Fleischer only agreed to testify with a grant of prosecutorial immunity, both before the federal grand jury and trial. It is surprising that this information did not come up during Fleischer's own lengthy testimony.

It's interesting as to why neither the defense or prosecution brought this out when Fleischer testified. It would seem to help the prosecution's case, one would presume, because Fleischer learned the information from Libby, thus seeming to corroborate Fleischer's testimony that he learned about Plame from Libby.

Update: The Washington Post now has a long story posted online regarding Pincus' testimony.

2007-02-08T14:08:00.000-08:00

The prosecution rests.

2007-02-07T06:02:00.000-08:00

Today at trial: They're probably going to flash up on the big screens in the court room Tim Russert's own words and try and trip him up. Libby's lawyers, that is.

2007-02-07T05:42:00.000-08:00

Cheney might not be called as a witness after all?

2007-02-05T23:43:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow morning at the Libby trial: The jury gets to hear audio tapes of Scooter Libby testifying before the grand jury, before the tapes are then released to the public.

For those who want an advance preview, I recommend this story, aptly titled: "The CIA Leak Probe: Inside the Grand Jury." (I know, I know that is my own story, but it is the only story around that extensively examines what Libby has previously told the grand jury.)

Jane Hamsher's first day at the trial and her first post! Check out the video of Jane and Swopa by PoliticsTV as well.

Also, for anyone who wants to catch up on what happened today at the trial, here is David Corn's account that appeared in the Nation. Here also is Neil Lewis' account in the Times.

2007-02-03T04:11:00.000-08:00

Libby trial, weekend edition:

Patrick Fitzgerald, that most secretive and discrete of federal prosecutors, did something very un-Patrick Fitzgerald-esque late last week, that went largely unnoticed except by an AP reporter and the Huffington Post:

Fitzgerald sought permission from the federal judge hearing the Libby case, Reggie Walton, to release audio tapes of LIbby's grand jury testimony to the media: to be broadcast, posted on the Internet, YouTube, or wherever else. That would surely change the dynamic of public attention to the case. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox would probably endlessly play portions of the tapes, and the public would be able to hear Libby's testimony first-hand.

Small portions of Libby being questioned before the grand jury by prosecutors have already been played inside the courtroom for jurors, the press, and public. And having heard them-- in the courtroom setting-- I would say that they are fairly dramatic. (Here is perhaps the most detailed report to date about what went on inside the grand jury room.)

Libby's attorneys have for the obvious reasons opposed this idea, and Judge Walton will probably rule on their motion probably sometime Monday morning.

I don't like to predict, even while blogging, but most legal experts doub that the grand jury tapes will be made public, and Walton's comments from the bench indicated that he has not been exactly enthralled with the idea of the tapes being played 24/7 on the cable networks and Internet. But Walton is an unpredictable jurist, and a careful stickler to case law, so perhaps it is best to just await his decision to find out what it might be.

In the meantime, below is the entire text of the Associated Press story about all of this:

WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is fighting to keep his grand jury testimony about the leak of a CIA operative's name from being released and broadcast in the media.

Libby's grand jury testimony _ the sworn statements he gave to investigators about his conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney and journalists _ is at the heart of his perjury trial. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald plans to play hours of recordings of that testimony in court next week to bolster his case that Libby lied and obstructed the investigation.

Trial evidence is normally public and all exhibits in Libby's case have been made public so far. Even though Fitzgerald successfully fought to get Libby's full grand jury testimony admitted into evidence, Libby's attorneys say the audiotapes should not be released outside the courtroom.

Libby defense attorney William Jeffress, who successfully argued a Supreme Court case that kept the Watergate tapes from being released, said in court Thursday that grand jury tapes are never meant to be made public.

He said he knew of no case when such recordings have been released.

In the tapes, Libby discusses conversations he had regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent Iraq war critic. Plame's identity was leaked to reporters in 2003.

Nobody was charged with the leak. Fitzgerald said Libby learned Plame's identity from Cheney and discussed it with journalists. Libby says he forgot about his conversation with Cheney and, when he heard about Plame from a reporter weeks later, it struck him as new information.

Fitzgerald says Libby concocted that story to protect himself from prosecution because repeating rumors from reporters is less serious than repeating sensitive information from Cheney.

If the tapes are released, they could be broadcast on television news programs, radio stations and the Internet. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he worried that would sensationalize an already public trial.

Attorneys for The Associated Press and a dozen other news organizations said they would challenge any effort to seal the tapes. Court papers were to be filed Friday afternoon. Walton said he would consider the matter over the weekend.

2007-01-31T21:28:00.000-08:00

Today at the trial:

The most significant new information at the Libby trial today was Matthew Cooper's testimony regarding his July 11, 2003 conversation, with Karl Rove, during which Rove disclosed that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. Cooper's testimony of that conversation sharply diverged from his account in Time two years ago. In his testimony today, Cooper described Rove as being more pro-active in disclosing details about Plame than previously.

According to his testimony today, when Cooper told Rove during their July 11, 2003 telephone call that he was writing about the Niger controversy, Rove tod him: "A number of things were going to be coming out about Mr. Wilson that would cast him in a different light." That included, Rove supposedly said, who had actually been responsible for sending Wilson on his mission to Niger in the first place.

Cooper then asked "who?", and Rove responded "like, his wife." Rove then said that Wilson's wife worked at the "agency" and more specifically, her work regarded "weapons of mass destruction." Then Rove told Cooper: "I've already said too much. I've got to go."

That was a much fuller-- and different account-- than the one that Cooper wrote in Time magazine shortly after he testified before the grand jury two years ago.

Here is what he wrote back then:

"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which.

"Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

Why did Coooper leave out some of the most interesting details from his Time story? Only he knows, and I'll try and post anything he might have to say. One person who was at Time says it was a matter of just "bad reporting" and/or editing.

For the best account of what went on at the trial today, here is a video presentation by Marcy and Jeralyn-- with a far better and more complete account of today's proceedings that any "professional" reporter. No slight meant to anyone else covering the trial. One advantage they have over newspaper reporters or cable television folks is that they don't have to compress their stories into fourteen or nineteen or twenty-six inches. Second, they don't have to limit their video presenations to a minute or a minute and a half. But they also know the case better than most reporters who have covered the story (except for maybe one or two...)

2007-01-31T02:53:00.000-08:00

Later today at the Libby trial: Matthew Cooper is the next witness up if the defense and prosecutors are done with Judith Miller. Expect Cooper to face an even tougher time on the stand than Miller.

It's likely, although not entirely certain, that the prosecutor will call Tim Russert when he is done with Cooper.

Regarding Miller's testimony: NYT. Washington Post. Jeralyn. Pierre Thomas for ABC. Kurtz.

Anb TRex with this hilarious post on media narcissim. With so many of the nation's leading journalists and the leading bloggers sharing close quarters, I was happy to see this particular post. Reporters and bloggers are friendly and on a first-name basis with one another. This post shows that no-one is being co-opted; everyone (happily) still has an edge!

2007-01-28T21:28:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow morning at the Libby trial: Ari Fleischer will be testifying with a grant of immunity. He is likely to turn out to be the most important witness to date-- not in terms of whether the legal case against Libby is strong or not-- but rather in providing us with new information as to what went on inside the Whte House during the crucial time that Bush administration officials leaked to the press that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer.

Up until now, most of the trial testimony has centered around what went on within the OVP, or the Office of the Vice President, during that crucial period. Fleischer's testimony will illuminate us as to what went on in the rest of the West Wing, sometimes in concert, and sometimes indepedent of, whatever else was being done in the OVP to discredit Joe Wilson and deflect other allegations surfacing at the time that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.

2007-01-28T21:26:00.000-08:00

Another defection from the Washington Post... This time, it is Michael Powell moving on to the New York Times.

Meanwhile, in tomorrow's Washington Post, Howie Kurtz pans the new enterprise of his former colleagues, Jim Van Den Hei, and John Harris. Kurtz says of The Politico: "It strikes me as solid and subbstantiative, but not knocking anyone's socks off." Ouch.

As to my own critics:

All right, all right I heard you: I apologize to any reader-- especially to this particular blogger and his friend-- for the use of the word "irregardless"-- in my Huckabee post earlier this day. Who would have thought anyone was even reading in the first place? The post has since been updated and changed, with the word "irrespective" used in the place of "irregardless." If that isn't correct, aargh.... If the blogger's friend who was so upset about my misuse of the word "irregardless"-- if it is even a word at all-- I urge him to do something constructive. He can be the proof reader/copy editor of this very blog.

Speaking of the accuracy and integrity of this blog, we received an inquiry/complaint some seven months ago regarding an old, old post regarding a leak investigation conducted by a federal prosecutor named Frank Tamen. After a thorough inquiry, we stand by the post, as to both its accuracy and fairness.

2007-01-28T14:22:00.000-08:00

On Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert asked former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee about my story in the Arkansas Times disclosing how Huckabee had pressured his state's parole board to parole a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, who not long after leaving prison, raped and murdered two women.

Among other things, Huckabee said my story was a "tabloid report."

He also defended his actions by saying that the members of the parole board that paroled Dumond had been appointed by his two Democratic predecessors, Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker.

What Huckabee didn't say was that irrespective as to who appointed the parole board, it was Huckabee, not Clinton or Tucker, who advocated, lobbied, and pressured the board to parole Dumond. (For the record, Clinton actually recused himself from any involvment in the matter, because of allegations that the rape victim, Ashley Stevens, was a distrant relative of Clinton's. And Tucker had reduced Dummond's sentence from life imprisonment to 39 1/2 years.)

Further, although indeed originally appointed by Clinton and Tucker, two of the parole board members who voted the way that Huckabee wanted them to-- including the chairman of the parole board-- were reappointed by Huckabee.

Huckabee also claimed this morning that when he spoke to the parole board in an executive session regarding Dumond,, he was only seeking that Dumond's case "be given a fair hearing," and that the board, not him, raised the issue with him.

The parole board members, as my story detailed, claim otherwise: they told me that it was Huckabee and not them who raised the issue with the board, and that he was a strong advocate of releasing Dumond from prison. More than one told me that they thought it inappropriate for a governor to advocate on behalf of a prisoner.

This morning, when asked who brought up Dumond when Huckabee met with the parole board, Huckabee claimed: "They brought it up with me." He then added: "The only thing I said was this: [They said to me[ `Did you think he ought to be paroled or something like this. And I simply said his case ought to get a serious look."

Contrary to such claims by the governor, during interviews for my Arkansas Times story, four parole board members disputed Huckabee's account as to what transpired between Huckabee and the board, saying that Huckabee was the one to bring up the subject, and he cleraly advocated for Dumond's parole. Three of those board members spoke for the record and at length for the story.

Board member Charles Chastain told me Huckabee told the board: "There is this one case I want to talk to you about." Huckabee then "commented that Wayne Dumond had received, from his perspective, a raw deal, that he was someone from the wrong side of the tracks ... and that he had received what he thought was too long a sentence for that type of crime."

Chastain said he then replied, "Governor, well that happens. When you rape a cheerleader in a small town like that, that’s what is going to happen."

The board's chairman, Leroy Brownlee, who was reappointed by Huckabee, and who worked closely with Huckabee's office to parole Dumond, has repeatedly declined to talk about the matter at all. But while refusing to say anything bad about Huckabee, Brownlee has also never backed Huckabee's version of events or said anything to contradict his fellow board members.

Many thanks to Tim Russert for asking the right questions. And John A'mato has the video up of Russert grilling Huckabee about Dumond.

2007-01-23T14:03:00.000-08:00

The most significant disclosure from the Libby trial today (in my mind) was that Vice President Cheney and others in the OVP thought that LIbby was being hung out to dry as a scapegoat for Karl Rove and others in the White House.

Cheney himself wrote a note in the fall of 2003-- quoted by Ted Wells, Libby's defense attorney-- in which Cheney dsif the following about Libby: "Not going to portect one staffer [Rove} & sacrifice the guy [Libby] who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the imcompetence of others."

While this is going to be a major theme of the defense in the case, and might seem contrived at first glance, Cheney's note was written contemporaneous to the events and apparrently reflected an inherent division-- which I have written about in various National Journal stories-- between the OVP and the White House staff.

For what it is worth, for me, this was the most important disclosure from today's opening arguments.

To read what the NYT has to say about the trial today, click here.

2007-01-23T13:55:00.000-08:00

Federal Courthouse, Washington D.C., at the Libby trial:

Despite the saturation media coverage of the trial today, one disclosure overlooked so far has been that former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer took the Fifth Amendment when originally called before the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case.

Fleischer ultimately testified under a grant of immunity.

Fleischer, in turn, if statements by special prosecutor Fitzgerald and Wells are accurate, will be a major government witness against Libby.

Wells indicated today that he plans to sharply question Fleischer's testimony against his client. Among other things, Wells suggested that Fleischer's immunity deal suggested that Fleischer's testimony was suspect because he was given the deal in exchange for incriminating testimony against Libby. Libby and Fleischer might have been not too long ago at the pinacle of power. But now they are just two men squaring off each other in a a fedeal criminal court, each claiming that the other one is lying to save their own skins.

2007-01-22T23:16:00.000-08:00

Local blogger makes good. Who would have thought? Our congrats to this blog's friend, Justin.

In other news, opening arguments in the Libby trial in the morning. Wow.

2007-01-21T03:31:00.000-08:00

Overdue library book returned after 42 years and eight months. To say anything more would be an injustice to the reporter who wrote the story, Amit Paley.

John A'mato with an update as to how Jane is doing.

Monday morning: Another day of jury selection in the Libby trial. At the very best, opening arguments will commence on Tuesday morning.

2007-01-20T00:50:00.000-08:00

From the NYT, what Sen. Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has to say about the Bush administration's Iran policy:

“To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again. This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre.”

2007-01-20T00:46:00.000-08:00

Report from the ICU. An update on how Jane is doing.

2007-01-19T14:47:00.000-08:00

Ney sentenced to thirty months.

2007-01-19T03:41:00.000-08:00

This extraordinary story in the LAT: the gist of which is that not only hasn't Barak Obama tied up support in the African-American community, he very likely never will. The story itsself is another example as to why Peter Wallsten is one of our great political reporters.

Here is his lede and a some key passages:

"As pastor of the Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter, S.C., the Rev. James Blassingame feels pride at the thought of electing the country's first black president. But Blassingame, one of his state's most prominent black ministers, will not support Sen. Barack Obama's bid to achieve that historic goal.Instead, the minister will campaign for one of Obama's white rivals for the Democratic nomination, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

"Obama, he said, is a `stranger" with a faraway home and little-known biography, whereas Edwards — `he's a homeboy.' Other black leaders are wary that the relatively untested senator from Illinois might prove weak in the general election.

"`Obama's ambition could bring all of black America down," said state Sen. Robert Ford of South Carolina. "If the Democrats lose control of Congress, we're going to go back and struggle and struggle and struggle'...

'Obama is the only top-tier African American seeking the nomination, but he will have to fight for black votes along with other candidates, some of whom have far stronger ties to black leaders than he does.

"Edwards, for example, is expected to have an advantage in his native state of South Carolina, and his pledges to fight poverty and bring troops home from Iraq are popular with black leaders.
"Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner, has decades-old ties with scores of black preachers and civil rights leaders who remain close to her husband, former President Clinton.

"A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey in December found that all three were popular among black voters, but that Clinton received the highest marks. Blassingame speaks fondly of Edwards, who, like the pastor, was born in Seneca, S.C. "I know where he came from, because I came from there," Blassingame said. "I can identify with him, and he can identify with us."

To read the whole thing, click here.

2007-01-18T16:29:00.000-08:00

"When Louis Farrahkan walked into the hearing, as this member told me, he asked Mr. Farraakhan to speak."-- journalist Ellen Rattner, asking federal Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle for leniency for disgraced former Congressman Bob Ney.

Paul Kiel has the text of the letter.

2007-01-18T16:19:00.000-08:00

Still thinking of Jane and how she is doing. From John.

2007-01-18T16:07:00.000-08:00

They still can't pick a jury.

Update: Here is the NYT account of today's attempt at jury selection. Marty Kaplan's take on this all.

2007-01-18T14:57:00.000-08:00

Time, Inc. is turning Time, Sports Illustrated, and all of its other media properties into... blogs, and in the process laying off lots and lots of people off.

Who even knew that People had a Washington bureau in the first place?

It does seem tremendously unfair that somehow Joe Klein is the guy to keep his job, too.

Since this is a personal blog, after all, I should assess how this affects me personally.

I don't work for Time, Inc. Yay!

2007-01-17T23:14:00.000-08:00

This person is probably not going to serve on the jury...

"I'm not sure I'd want to go duck hunting with him."-- a potential juror-- a former school teacher from North Carolina, when asked if they had any pre-conceived opinions about Vice President Dick Cheney.

Admirably, Libby who is known for having a fine sense of humor, and considering the circumstances of his day, was said to laugh as hard as anyone else present in the courtroom.

And the dude also once shared a cab with George Stephanoupolous. Did he tell you that too? No?!

2007-01-17T21:56:00.000-08:00

Parental Discretion advised for this post.... Sorry for the bad language, but if I don't use the bad language, everyone will know what I meant to say anyway.

As things are turning out, it has been difficult to seat a jury in the Scooter Libby trial, not only because of the political bias of potential jurors, but rather because, as one observer of today's proceedings told me, "there are just one too many star fuckers in Washington D.C."

Check this out from a Washington Post story about jury selection posted earlier today:

"Another [potential juror], the former Post journalist, seemed to have a link to nearly every key player in the case. He had worked in the newspaper's Metro section, he said, where his editor was Woodward, a key defense witness. Until recently, he lived across an alley from Russert, a star witness for the prosecution. And he had gone to parties with The Post's Walter Pincus, another defense witness."

"He said he would understand if the lawyers believed he couldn't be impartial, but he promised he would use his reporter training to sort through the facts fairly.

"`If I were in your seats, I'd be skeptical,' he said.

"Then he noted that one of his best friends plays in an over-40 football league with Libby. And he has heard that Libby "has a great arm."

"Did he mention that he went to grade school with Maureen Dowd, he asked the judge? That would be the New York Times columnist who publicly savaged colleague Judith Miller after some of Miller's reporting on the Iraq war came to light around the time of the Plame investigation. Miller is a witness for the prosecution."

A friend who was present at the proceedings say that the charges of self-absorption and star fucking suggested in the Post story about their former colleague might be unfair because the potential juror was trying to be as responsive as possible to his questioners.

But someone should advise this guy that an evening with Walter Pincus is not exactly the wildest night out on the town. No offense meant to Walter Pincus (I think he is good natured enough to laugh at this post): To make my point, I point out that very few people, even at a Washington party, are going to actually have on their person the latest General Accounting Office report that they wrote about earlier that day.

2007-01-17T21:43:00.000-08:00

Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with my friend Jane Hamsher. Her journalism is driven by a fierce determination for the truth. Her commentary takes no prisoners. And whether you want to consider her an editor over at Firedoglake or as someone who has created a blogging community, she is part of a group of people who create not only one of the most compelling blogs that is a must read to everybody on the left and right but also has become a gathering point for a group of people who care greatly for one another and have each others' backs. (How often does something like that exist in the traditional media?)

She is will be in Washington soon enough to cover the Libby trial and I am told that my duties are to walk her three dogs for her while she is working.

2007-01-17T21:13:00.000-08:00

Here is a new column/post up at Huffington Post, following up on my latest National Journal story regarding the Libby trial. (That's the third time that I have linked to that story. Read it already!)

The last couple paragraphs of the post serve as a book end of sorts to the lede of the NJ piece:

"When Libby stood atop a pier in Norfolk, watching the commissioning of the U.S.S. Reagan on July 12, he almost certainly couldn't have the slightest clue that events later that exultant day would lead him to repeated trips to the dreary and windowless confines of a room in the federal courthouse where a federal grand jury would demand answers from about who said what to him about a woman named Valerie Plame and what he then said about her to others."

"There, Libby, on the instruction of his high priced legal counsel, told his side of the story as impassively as possible to twenty-three similarly expressionless grand jurors. In the end, they did not believe him, and charged him with five felonies."

Jeralyn boils it down and makes sense of it all.

2007-01-17T20:44:00.000-08:00

If any of my friends have missed it, National Journal posted a long story of mine last Friday (so unbloggerlike of me to mention a story of mine that is now six days old!) about the Libby trial, entitled "Inside the Grand Jury Room". Here is the lede:

"Late in the morning of July 12, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney stood atop a pier at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia awaiting the commissioning of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, a ship 20 stories high that took eight years to construct. More than 15,000 people stood under clear skies to watch the pomp and ceremony. As she christened the carrier by breaking a bottle of champagne over its bow, Nancy Reagan told the crowd: "I only have one line. Man the ship and bring her alive."

'A Washington Post reporter recounted what happened next: "With those time-hallowed words, hundreds of crew members wearing dress whites ran aboard the 20-story Reagan and lined the flight deck while four fighter jets flew overhead and every crane, radar, whistle, and alarm aboard was turned on simultaneously."

"Cheney himself later took the podium, and as he spoke, the spirit of the crowd turned somber: `The Ronald Reagan sets sail in a world with new dangers,' he said, `The outcome is certain. There will be victory for the United States.'

"The moment of triumph would prove to be illusory. Americans had no idea that the war in Iraq, then not even four months old, would take a turn for the worse, that more than 3,000 American servicemen would die in the line of duty; that "liberated" Iraq would spiral down into sectarian violence; and that the war would not only divide the Iraqi nation but the American one as well.
On the flight back to Washington, Cheney huddled with two of his top aides -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his then-chief of staff, and Catherine Martin, then assistant to the vice president for pubic affairs. According to federal court records, the three discussed how to counter and discredit the allegations made by a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the Bush administration had manipulated and distorted intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq."

To read the whole thing, if you already haven't (how could you have not already?), click here.

2006-10-28T22:13:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove's 11th hour plan: LAT front-page story for tomorrow morning by my friends Tom Hamburger and Peter Walesten.

A brand new story that appears to have been missed-- by even bloggers?!-- about Curt Weldon, by Laura Rozen. (I know it seems like I am promoting the work of my friends tonight, but I am proud of their work, and moreover these are important stories.)

2006-08-10T06:16:00.000-07:00

Justin Rood this morning with perhaps the most detailed account anywhere regarding Joe Lieberman's website crashing.

Josh has a dissection of the White House/GOP talking points, and a dissection of Mike Allen's recitation of them over at Time. And Jacob Weisberg spouts the converntional wisdom-- it's only two two days after the election and yet somehow Weisberg's column seems sooo old.

The Washington Post reports this morning: "Democratic leaders are willing to prod, but not quite yet push, or worse, shove, Lieberman out of the race as`Democratic officials gently signaled their desire that Lieberman abandon his independent candidacy but appeared reluctant to press him publicly. A senior Democratic official in Washington said leaders had met and decided to put off confronting Lieberman at least for a few days, to allow the senator time to absorb the implications of his loss and his new isolation from longtime colleagues and supporters. `There's a feeling that the dust needs to settle,' the official said."

The persuasion and prodding will go on for sometime, and then the pushing and shoving will commence. And, waiting in the wings, is a certain former President who will will make a phone call if necessary, as I have written about here before. (A couple of posts ago: I am not one of those bloggers to link to their own blog!)

I have my day job to go to now, so I recommend that everyone tune into Dan Froomkin for better stuff (content and analysis) than I have to offer.

2006-08-09T23:41:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow morning's WSJ has this story by political reporter Jeanne Cummings asserting that the defeat of three incumbents in recent primaries-- Sen. Joe Lieberman (Dem.? Ind.? Rep.?) and Reps. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and Joe Schwartz (R-Mich.) are "the latest evidence of a broader anti-incumbent sentiment."

She also writes:

The dissatisfaction affects both parties, but voter unrest is more dangerous to Republicans since they are the party in power and have more seats at risk. According to Wall Street Journal polls, the anti-incumbent mood in the 2006 cycle mirrors that of the 1994 midterm election in which Democrats lost control of both chambers of Congress. In the latest Journal/NBC News survey, 38% of voters said their representative "deserves re-election," while 48% said it is "time to give a new person a chance." Such numbers have in the past been a good indicator of a coming congressional shake-up.

The public is in "a very, very sour mood," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey with his Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. "Only a quarter of the people say the country is headed in the right direction. The public is going to view any incumbent with a jaundiced eye," said Mr. Hart.

My own thoughts: McKinney and Lieberman , the two Democrats went down to defeat, were not typical instances of anti-incubentism. Lieberman's problems with Conn. voters were longstanding, and were also, as well known, in part because of the perception that he was too close with Republicans and supported the war with Iraq. McKinney had assaulted a Capitol police officer, and had been an ineffective legislator and embarasment for her constituents for some time.

The critical question will be whether voters are going to the polls in anti-incumbent mood or anti Bush mood, or in part both.

On the other hand, the 2006 congressional midterms may turn out very different from the 1994 insurgent Republican upheaval. More on that later....

2006-08-09T19:51:00.000-07:00

Geroge Stephanopoulos has quite a scoop, one that I haven't seen elsehwere: On his ABC News blog, he reports:

"Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: `The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do it."

"But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all the coverage of "the kiss" at last year's State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn't looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.

"The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidates, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate."

The post was later updated to say that "Dan Gerstein called from the Lieberman campaign to say the above account from another Lieberman adviser is not accurate. While confirming that Rove called Lieberman, he added: `Rove made a personal call, no help was offered, and we are not interested regardless.'"

I for one trust Stephanoupolous' reporting. Even though I have had concerns about the increasing numbers going through the political operative/journalist revolving door, Stephanoupolous has become one of our better political reporters-- and I find him to be meticulous and careful in his reporting.

Regardless of what was said between Lieberman and Rove, one would thing that the phone call itself would be bigger news.

Update: The Stephanoupolous report is the top headline at Huffingtonpost, along with this analysis. I am not so prescient after all! Meanwhile, the story has still not been given any attention by any major newspaper.