Reversing course, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning energy legislation that may allow oil and gas drilling in new areas off the U. S. coast, according to a House Democratic leadership aide.
If any doubt remained that the debate over energy has shifted in Republicans’ favor, Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) ended it this week.
Udall, one of the House’s preeminent environmentalists and the Democratic nominee in a closely contested Colorado Senate race, came out in favor of a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that would permit additional offshore drilling — a striking departure from his past opposition to such measures.
And it's probably not just Udall. To tell you the truth, I didn't even look to see who else might be doing the same thing. Because even if it is just Udall for the moment, it won't be just Udall for long.
Why not? What's behind the opening of the floodgates?
Republicans have an ace up their sleeve. The ban on additional off-shore leases must be renewed each year by September 30. The extension is attached as a rider to the annual appropriations bill. Senator DeMint says 36 of the 49 Republican senators have signed a letter to Senate leaders opposing a renewal of the ban. Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling is said to have gotten 136 House Republicans to sign a similar letter.
"Many people aren't aware that these bans on drilling must be renewed every year, and that all we have to do is to allow these prohibitions to expire on Oct. 1," DeMint said in a statement released Tuesday.
"In just 50 days, Americans will have the freedom to pursue their own energy resources here at home," he added. DeMint argued that it was "irrational to say 'no' to American energy" because it was needed to reduce independence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices.
That's the game, right there. The floodgates will open because they have to open. There's no way on God's green earth to find veto-proof majorities to re-up that ban, and no bill George W. Bush won't veto to stop it. Not a defense bill. Not a continuing resolution to keep the government running. Not a National Motherhood and Apple Pie Day bill. Nothing.
So it's either flip now and do what you can to save face, or stick it out to the bitter end and lose.
The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.
The proposed changes would revise the federal government's rules for police intelligence-gathering for the first time since 1993 and would apply to any of the nation's 18,000 state and local police agencies that receive roughly $1.6 billion each year in federal grants.
Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. They include a recent executive order that guides the reorganization of federal spy agencies and a pending Justice Department overhaul of FBI procedures for gathering intelligence and investigating terrorism cases within U.S. borders.
Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.
Hmm. Where have I seen this dynamic before?
A spying technique that's currently illegal or otherwise prohibited, but which we're actually engaged in anyway, which the "administration" now proposes we legalize before somebody who takes the rule of law seriously gets elected to the White House.
But don't worry! The FOX Nutwork will have no problem finding Democrats to go on the air and endorse the plan, along with the usual useless caveats:
Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.
Oh, OK. All we need is some close oversight. Gotcha. No prob.
Seriously, is now any time to really be so glib about needing close oversight of, well, anything? Saying something requires close oversight to be done right is, these days, tantamount to saying it can't be done.
To borrow a phrase often heard in these parts not so long ago, "Shut up about FISAwarrantless surveillance domestic spying already! It's over!"
What do you know? There might have been something fundamentally wrong there, after all.
This ad ran against George Allen, Rick Santorum and Conrad Burns. All were defeated for reelection.
The same vote against giving our troops the body armor they needed that the ad criticizes was also cast by 17 Republican Senators seeking reelection this year:
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Cornyn (TX)
Elizabeth Dole (NC)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Jim Inhofe (OK)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Gordon Smith (OR)
Ted Stevens (AK)
John Sununu (NH)
And not only that, but these Senators had all been elected or reelected just months before. That is, the Senate class of 2002, elected in November of that year, cast these votes in April of 2003, at the very beginning of their terms, and nearly six years away from having to face the voters for it.
They thought you'd forget. They needed you to forget.
But one thing they weren't counting on was the troops still being deployed and still fighting six years later.
But they are. And though some of these clowns have since tried to make amends, the fact remains that at the critical time, they put party politics over the lives of our troops, and voted against giving them the armor they needed.
They should all go down for it, and American voters should make a special point of sinking them for their cowardly votes that they hoped we'd forget.
These ads are just the way to do it, too. But they're not on the air.
They've been produced, as you can see. All they need are new tags to identify the 17 Republican Senators up for reelection this year who voted against giving our troops adequate body armor, and they're ready to go. They've been proven in the field, and you can see the impact they'd have right here before your very eyes.
But they're not on the air. And as far as I can tell, there are no plans to put them there.
Seventeen Republican Senators, some of them very, very vulnerable this year. What could we do with those seats in our hands?
Why aren't these ads on the air?
Big time Democrats, donors, and other convention goers: think on this, please. Use the time we spend together in Denver to remedy this.
Why aren't these ads on the air, and what can we do to change that?
Basic Message about how you would change America, combined with willingness to listen and refine
The outline of major policy directions
National and local press strategies
Plan for 1st visits to key states
Web operation ready to go
Response war room for attacks/research operation
fwp (first woman president plan)
Yes, I definitely think you should have a Basic Message about how you would change America. That'll be $1,000,000, please!
Next up, our vaunted Department of Homeland Security with its equally brilliant memo warning employees about types of behavior that could be espionage:
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a memo to employees obtained by The Associated Press, said employees should suspect espionage if:
— Someone asks an employee for classified and sensitive information or access to systems.
— Someone asks an employee traveling overseas to bring back an envelope or package.
— An employee has regular contact with a person suspected of being part of a foreign intelligence service, terrorist group or foreign criminal enterprise.
— Someone makes a request that makes a department employee uncomfortable or compromised.
— A department employee has a personal relationship with a foreigner that seems suspicious.
— There is suspicious behavior with a foreigner inside or outside of the department.
Hmm, really? "Someone asks an employee for classified and sensitive information or access to systems." You think that's bad?
That's the current state of business communications in this country. First the Penn strategy memos that say "Our strategy is to strategize," and now a DHS memo saying to detect espionage, be on the lookout for espionage.
Checking his watch during the Opening Ceremonies. What a dick.
"Whur's 'murka? These other countries are bull, man."
Big smiles from Laura and applause for the Iraqi team.
"That's basically us."
He later appeared to make no acknowledgment whatsoever of the Puerto Rican team, by the way. And shortly after the Americans entered, he gets bored again. Legs spread wide, bouncing his knees, casting his eyes around, slapping his miniature American flag against his knee.
I have a feeling George, Jr. was the "Are we there yet?" kid.
...in which case you can just start packing right now.
Watch this ad. It's no great shakes, but the guy who ran it just beat Rep. David Davis (R-TN) and won his election with it last night.
Thing is, this is a Republican ad. In a Republican primary.
And it unseated an incumbent Republican Congressman. But not just any incumbent Republican Congressman. An incumbent Republican Congressman who was one of the jokers assing it up on the House floor for the past week, rather comically grasping at the mantle of "revolutionaries" while they were at it.
Just something to think about, in case you know of anybody trying to beat a Republican for Congress this year or anything.
Surprising precisely no one, the "administration" today moved to appeal the recent federal court ruling ordering Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in response to their subpoenas.
Planning appeals, two senior White House advisers asked a judge Thursday to delay enforcement of his ruling that they have to testify before Congress.
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers petitioned U.S. District Judge John Bates to place a hold on his ruling allowing White House aides to be subpoenaed by Congress.
Bates on July 31 rejected White House arguments that presidential confidants are protected from congressional subpoenas by executive privilege, giving free rein to Democrats who have been trying to get President Bush's aides to testify on the dismissal of nine federal prosecutors.
Obviously there's a good chance that this move runs out the clock on the issue, if the stay is granted. There's some indication from Bates' July 31st opinion that he's sensitive to the fact that the short time window a Congress has to enforce its subpoena power (House subpoenas expire with the adjournment of Congress at the end of its two-year term) has to be factored into the equation, but there's clearly no guarantee that Bates would deny the White House motion.
Without a stay in place, the Judiciary Committee would be looking to resume hearings with Miers and Bolten as witnesses in September, when the Congress returns from its August recess. Still unclear is exactly what happens if Miers and Bolten continue to refuse to appear even in the absence of a stay, or what recourse (if any) the House would have should they agree to appear, but decline to answer any questions on the grounds they originally claimed exempted them from having to show up -- that is, executive privilege.
Also still floating around out there somewhere: inherent contempt. Judge Bates did his best to discourage its use, preferring the use of the courts to settle these issues, if necessary. But a stay, should it be granted, would create incredible pressure on the Congress to resort to the very limited additional options open to it to enforce their rights before the issues were mooted by the end of its term.
Meanwhile, it's back to the waiting game for the House, now eyeing the close of the 110th Congress, the most important thing about winning the majority in which was supposed to be... "subpoena power."
So did you hear the one about how the House Republicans are using the latest online tools to spread the word about their hippie sit-in?
Yeah, Twitter, Qik streaming video, YouTube, all that crap.
And a whole bunch of Republican Members left their mom's basements and their Cheetos behind, put on their suits, and came out to play Model Congress again this week. Because, well, they don't actually have any other jobs.
So there they were, busting their humps for their Sugar Daddies in the oil biz, but noticeably absent from the barricades was Republican Leader, Melanin Johnny Boehner.
Where was Boehner while his troops were Tweeting, streaming, blogging, IMing, and uploading?
Boehner was around for the start of the fake House session Friday but then left town and hasn't been back since. Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) showed up today to rally with his GOP comrades, but the current party leader was nowhere to be seen.
What's Boehner been up to? His office says he's been in Ohio raising money for his political action committee, the Freedom Project, and that he should be back in D.C. later this week. He's also doing 18 events in August for GOP candidates across the country.
But Boehner also has found time to squeeze in a couple rounds of golf. Scores reported by Boehner himself to a United States Golf Association site show that he posted an 85 sometime this week at his home course, Wetherington Golf & Country Club in West Chester, Ohio.
Ah, the marvels of the modern online life! (Good thing he has nothing to hide, eh?)
Citing Stability in Iraq, Bush Sees Troop Cuts By STEVEN LEE MYERS and SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: August 1, 2008
President George W. Bush on Thursday suggested the possibility of further troop reductions in Iraq as the security situation continues to show marked improvement.
Mr Bush said July had been a "month of encouraging news", with violence declining to its lowest level since early 2004. He added that General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had said that while progress was still "reversible" there was now a "degree of durability" to the security gains.
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 22, 6:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The U.S. may be able to reduce combat forces in Iraq by next spring if Iraq's own security forces continue to grow and improve, a senior American commander said Friday. He denied reports the U.S. is arming Sunni insurgent groups to help in the fight against al-Qaida.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, did not predict any reductions in U.S. forces but said such redeployments may be feasible by spring. There are currently 156,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
U.S. general in Iraq outlines troop cuts Michael R. Gordon The New York Times
Published: June 25, 2006
WASHINGTON The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
[...]
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
U.S. Signals Spring Start for Pullout General Restates Position, Noting Contingencies, During Rumsfeld Visit to Baghdad
By Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Page A18
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The top U.S. military leader in Iraq said Wednesday there could be substantial withdrawals of some of the 135,000 U.S. troops in the country as early as next spring.
[...]
"If the political process continues to go positively, and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe we'll still be able to take some fairly substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer," Casey said before meeting with Jafari.
Building Iraqi Security Forces Must Continue, Sanchez Says By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2004 – The commander of coalition forces in Iraq said today that continuing to build Iraqi security forces is key to a successful transfer of sovereignty.
[...]
Handing over security to the Iraqi people will depend upon the coalition's ability to quickly stand up Iraqi security forces, especially the police, the army and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
[...]
This involves building the security forces in small units and police stations to provide the law and order in the cities, he said, and also giving Iraq the external security capacity it will need over the next couple of years. "I think it's going to take us awhile," he said, "but we're committed to it, and we'll be here until that's done."
Sanchez said the 129,000 U.S. service members currently in Iraq are an adequate number, "and we'll manage their redeployment as the operational and tactical situation dictates."
Remember way back when -- about a year ago, in fact -- when a fresh-faced kid called "America" was looking forward to Magical September? That time when, if all was not yet right with Iraq, Congressional Republicans would finally part ways with Pretzeldent George W. Bush, and bring our troops home?
After weeks of late-night negotiations and under intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi lawmakers failed to pass a much-debated provincial elections law Wednesday before adjourning for the month.
The failure to pass the law, which would govern elections in provinces across the country, may push the elections into next year. If elections don't happen by the end of this year, it could be July before the balloting could be carried out, U.N. spokesman Said Arikat said.
Elections originally were scheduled for October of this year.
The latest move by parliament underscores the great divide between security and political progress in Iraq. While violence is at a record low, progress on the political front is lagging as sectarian blocs wrangle over each divisive issue to come before the parliament.
Parliament also has yet to pass a law to share oil revenue or to amend the constitution on such issues as the role of Islam and the nature of federalism in the government. With deep religious and ethnic divisions, members have opted to deal with such issues by putting them off.
Also not accomplished before parliament's adjournment: the Status of Forces Agreement.
So, how's that "surge" workin' out, in terms of, you know, getting us the #@*% out of there, already?
No elections.
No oil law.
No SOFA.
What'd they call those things, way back when? Benchmarks?
Incredibly, the Republicans not only never left the Pretzeldent's side, they went and nominated another of these nuts that continues to insist, in the face of these three stinging failures, that "the surge worked."
And that all we need is a hundred more years of such success.
The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will ask Congress to consider taking disciplinary action against one of its members for a statement he made equating ICE agents with the Gestapo, a senior agency official said Wednesday.
Luis V. Gutierrez , vice chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that handles immigration, has called for a moratorium on ICE enforcement actions until Congress passes a comprehensive overhaul, something it has failed to do in each of the past two years.
In a column written for Politico, Gutierrez, D-Ill., commenting on recent ICE arrests of illegal immigrants in Iowa, said: "You know who is in charge now? The Gestapo agents at Homeland Security. They are in charge."
A senior ICE official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was "absolutely appalled and deeply angered" by the statement. The official said Myers would send a letter to senior members of Congress asking that disciplinary action be taken against Gutierrez’ for his remarks.
Oh noes!!! Julie Myers is "appalled and deeply angered."
Democratic lawmakers yesterday accused Julie L. Myers, an assistant secretary of homeland security, of misleading Congress after photographs emerged of Myers at an office Halloween party honoring a white employee dressed as an escaped prisoner with dreadlocks and makeup that made him look African American or Hispanic.
Myers, whose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency runs the nation's 32,000-bed immigration detention system, was on a three-judge panel that gave a "most original costume" award to the worker at an ICE charity event Oct. 31. Myers subsequently apologized, saying the costume could leave "a negative impression" of ICE's respect for people whom it detains and explained that she learned only the next day that the man was wearing makeup.
My advice? Stick to disciplining your own branch. You've got no business looking outside your own agency -- and some would say none outside your own behavior, quite frankly -- much less outside your own branch. The executive has done quite enough meddling in the legislature, thank you very much. The last thing we need is petty bureaucrats with their own ethical rap sheets whining to Congress about which legislators do and don't need disciplining for huwting your widdle feewings. I can appreciate a boss's desire to stand up for the integrity of her team, but seriously, were you really thinking this was a task you were cut out for?
Do your own lifting, Myers. I know that as an Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, you have no authority to punish a Member of Congress yourself for his remarks, so you need to call on Congress to do it for you.
But then again... as an Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, you have no authority to punish a Member of Congress for his remarks.
That's actually a feature, not a bug.
Keep your nose in your own branch, please. You don't have oversight authority here. And maybe keep your thoughts about who needs to be disciplined for appalling behavior a little closer to home.
On the heels of faulting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for misinterpreting a congressional mandate to scan 100 percent of passenger air cargo, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has decried the department's resistance to scanning 100 percent of US-bound maritime cargo for terrorist threats as well.
Congress established both requirements in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (PL 110-053), signed by President Bush on August 3, 2007. In a letter dated August 5, Thompson accused Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff of actively resisting compliance with the maritime cargo screening mandate in the past year.
Subscription only Congressional Quarterly has an excerpt of the latest SWLTM:
"Your actions to hinder progress on this vital homeland security initiative are very troubling and may have put at risk our nation’s security," Thompson wrote Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "The unilateral decision to ignore the 100-percent scanning runs afoul of the act and puts our ports at risk. By what authority did you determine that you could ignore the congressionally mandated 100-percent cargo screening requirement in favor of a ‘high risk trade corridor?’"
Answer: None. But they're doing it anyway. What are you going to do about it? Cut Homeland Security funding? Write a new law demanding that they follow the old one, like the FISA bill?
Congress is an advisory board to these guys. They'll get their "muscle" back under an Obama administration, but not because it's really there. Rather, because he'll permit them to have it.
But let's remember during our next round of sighs and cries of "spineless Dems!" that Congressional complicity with this sort of lawlessness is chiefly facilitated by Republicans, who simply refuse to lift a finger to defend the power and prerogatives of the offices they hold. Any effort this Congress might make to rein this "administration" in is a non-starter precisely because Republicans would rather cash paychecks in a shadow Congress than actually stand up for the power they appear to fight so hard to retain every two years. For all the frustration we feel at subpoenas that go unenforced and SWLsTM that evaporate into the ether, the fact is that Republicans didn't issue any when they were in charge, and will almost never join in issuing them now.
Once again, though, it has to be noted how the same principles are at work across the entire spectrum of "governance" under this "administration." It's not just another policy disagreement in some remote corner of government, even though that's how it'll be treated. And it's not even that it should be more important because it deals with "homeland security." It's a single, unified principle at work.
As sick to death as many of you were of FISA, it was never about a single surveillance law. It was about the fallout that comes from being too politically flexible about what "the law" is and what it means to live by it. Want privacy? Well, what if the "government" doesn't? Want homeland security? Well, what if the "government" doesn't? Want environmental stability? Well, what if the "government" doesn't?
Seriously. What if they just... don't?
Today, in this story, it's homeland security laws being flouted. Elsewhere, in other stories, it's the defiance of subpoenas by the Justice Department. The Defense Department. The Environmental Protection Agency. The Education Department. The General Services Administration. Or more recently, even the allegation that the White House ordered the forgery of a document designed to justify having dragged us into this never-ending war, and the laws such an operation would violate.
It's all the same issue. And truthfully, I haven't got a whole lot of hope that we're going to be able to "heal" our way out of it with "sensible compromise."
What's the "sensible compromise" between the rule of law and its defiance, anyway?
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has suspended its "Clear" registered airline traveler program after a laptop containing personal data on 33,000 pre-enrolled members of the program was stolen from San Francisco International Airport.
The laptop was discovered missing from a locked office at the airport on July 26. The computer, which was password-protected but not encrypted, contained data such as names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and other information.
Verified Identity Pass, Inc (VIP)., the company running the "Clear" program, minimized the risk of identity theft from the stolen data. "There is no reason to believe this is anything other than the simple burglary of a laptop, which the local police are investigating," said (VIP) founder CEO Steven Brill. "For it to be more than that, the thief would have to hack into two different passwords—and even then would not get what identity thieves want most—a Social Security number and/or credit card information."
The hollowed-out Bush contractor "government" has just lost control of the detailed personal information of what amounts to this country's top business travelers. And although the laptop was later found, nobody knows who might have the data, or what they're doing with it. The company says it thought it was just a "simple burglary of a laptop," of course. But this sounds a little suspicious, don't you think?
But just hours after that TSA announcement, the company found the laptop, which normally fits in an enrollment kiosk, in a filing cabinet in the same room it was thought to have been stolen from, according to spokeswoman Allison Beer. The TSA, the airport police and the San Mateo county police are still investigating, according to Beer.
From fitting in an enrollment kiosk to a filing cabinet in the same room?
Really.
Many questions remain, to be sure. But one issue has been rather clearly defined. Remember all those cocksure conservatives who declared they had no worries about the program (or any other program, for that matter), because they "had nothing to hide"?
In the middle of John McCain's dopey Britney & Paris attack ad, the announcer gravely asks of Barack Obama: "Is He Ready to Lead?" An equally good question is whether McCain is ready to lead. For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician—erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure from the last knucklehead who offers him advice. The youthful insouciance that for many years has helped McCain charm reporters like me is now channeled into an ad that one GOP strategist labeled "juvenile," another termed "childish" and McCain's own mother called "stupid."
A few months ago, I wrote that John McCain was an honorable man and he would run an honorable campaign. I was wrong. I used to think, as David Ignatius does, that McCain's true voice was humble and moderate, but now I'm beginning to think his Senate colleagues may be right about his temperament. From what I can gather, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, a Republican, reflected the views of many of his colleagues earlier this year when he said:
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine...He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
The erratic nature of McCain's campaign seems to be confirming that judgment.
Mr. McCain repeatedly said Mr. Obama "would rather lose a war to win a political campaign" and that he "does not understand" what is at stake in Iraq. He also accused Mr. Obama of canceling a visit to wounded American troops in a German military hospital because news cameras were not allowed. That’s a false account of what occurred — and Mr. McCain ignored Mr. Obama’s unheralded visit to a combat hospital in Baghdad.
For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.
The McCain campaign has begun airing a new TV hit, dubbed "Celeb," that ridicules Obama's appearance before 200,000 people in Berlin, and likens the Democrats' nominee in waiting to empty-headed celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
The hit comes on top of a patently untrue charge – repeated by McCain on "Larry King Live" – that Obama snubbed wounded soldiers in Germany by canceling a visit to a military hospital.
In the wake of the favorable decision in the case of Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Harriet Miers, et al., the Congress has its eye back on the "subpoena power" ball. The court's decision has done more than simply reaffirm that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten must obey Congressional subpoenas (under penalty of exactly what, we still have not figured out). It may also have emboldened Congressional investigators and shaken loose some other exercises of the subpoena power that were waiting in the wings.
U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today demanded that Charles E.F. Millard, director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, immediately comply with a subpoena served July 16 by turning over documents regarding a report into the agency’s management and governance practices. The U.S. District Court today reaffirmed that the executive branch must comply with congressional subpoenas.
And this, via The Gavel, in the Government Oversight National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee:
Subcommittee Chairman Tierney and Full Committee Chairman Waxman threaten Michael Dominguez, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, with contempt after he reveals that he has ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley of the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to defy a subpoena to appear
And of course, there's the Judiciary committee's recent vote to hold Karl Rove in contempt for his refusal to comply with their subpoena, but that came before the court's ruling.
But if the action in the committees this week is any indication of a wider reawakening of interest in the subpoena power, things could really break open, sending the full extent of the Bush "administration's" stonewalling of all outside oversight spilling into view at long last.
The chairman of a House committee has warned Attorney General Michael Mukasey he could be held in contempt of Congress if he doesn’t turn over documents from an FBI interview with Vice President Dick Cheney.
Back on June 20th, subscription only Congressional Quarterly reported that:
Panel Chairman Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., is investigating the White House’s role in an EPA decision to bar California from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Separately, the panel is investigating the EPA’s decision to set a new smog pollution standard less stringent than what scientific advisers recommended.
Waxman had scheduled a Friday hearing to hold two Bush administration officials in contempt for failing to produce documents he had requested in subpoenas. But he said he would hold off on the contempt vote after learning the White House had invoked executive privilege.
The two officials are Susan Dudley, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget; and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
There's even growing realization among Bush's Republican shock troops on the Hill that this "administration's" games are endangering their own powers and prerogatives.
Over in the Intelligence Committee, as noted in yesterday's Midday Open Thread, there was this:
In an interview, Hoekstra, the committee's senior Republican, said he told McConnell that he was disgusted with what he described as the Bush administration's continuing effort to undercut any kind of outside oversight.
"This is part of a systemic problem of the administration, and I said I'm not going to take it anymore," Hoekstra said.
This isn't news to Hoekstra's fellow Republican, Dana Rohrabacher (though you won't find either of them doing anything about it):
"The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has shown toward Congress... is so egregious that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress’ rightful and constitutional duties."
The fact is that this "administration" has stonewalled dozens of investigations into nearly every department and agency within the executive branch. There are more than a dozen investigative committees and subcommittees in the House alone, and almost all of them could tell you stories about being stonewalled across multiple investigations by the Bush gang. In the Senate, the situation may be even worse, committee and floor rules make it even more difficult to issue and enforce subpoenas. Witness what happened to Senator Barbara Boxer's efforts to chase down EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:
A vote on the issuance of a subpoena for the draft endangerment finding on global warming emissions rejected at the highest levels in the White House was stymied when Republican members boycotted the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works business meeting, preventing a quorum
And many of you will remember that the Senate Judiciary Committee also has a very old outstanding (and unenforced) subpoena out for Karl Rove, for the defiance of which the committee voted to hold him in contempt. But the Senate has never bothered to have a floor vote to make the contempt official. And how could they? Where would they get the 60 votes to shut down a filibuster of such a resolution?
So, does the Miers ruling mean the dam finally breaks, and a new flood of subpoenas previously bottled up by the uncertainty of the situation are now unleashed?
Unlikely, although such a deluge would constitute the first and only real demonstration of just how obstructionist the "administration" has been, across the board and on every issue. There's been no comprehensive accounting of just how many avenues of inquiry into just how many areas of critical importance to the American people have been thwarted by White House intransigence -- an intransigence that the federal courts have now joined in declaring to be without support in law or precedent. But it's still unlikely.
That's because the Congressional leadership has retained fairly tight control over how many subpoenas are issued, and how far investigators should go in pursuit of their inquiries. It's been part of the overall political strategy that had its origins in not giving rise to any kind of panic or fear of political vindictiveness -- which Republicans promised Americans would be the case if Democrats were returned to the majority -- stemming from the elections of 2006, and which has morphed into the overall political strategy of not giving rise to any kind of panic or fear of political vindictiveness that might stem from the upcoming elections of 2008.
Well, that and the fact that there are probably no more than a few weeks left of active session in the 110th Congress, with both houses in recess for the month of August, and the House still aiming at a September 26th adjournment for the year... so that they can come back home and ask for your votes. No doubt so that they may bring some accountability back to Washington.
That's life. And that's politics. The best we can hope for is that our votes buy us a respite from such overwhelming and dire need for oversight into such basic issues of governance such as, "does the executive branch have to obey the law?" Or, "what if they have to, but they just don't?"
We won't likely be getting any actual answers to those questions before we're all asked to forget about them "for the good of the country." Perhaps we'll enjoy it more than we now think just to have relief from having to ask for a few years.
I'm informed via InterTube e-mail that House Republicans are playing Model Congress (yes, like in middle school) on the House floor, having the "energy debate" they feel they were denied in the actual House.
Naturally, in their version of "debate," there are no opponents. The House is adjourned, and everyone has gone home except the protestors, who, though they're dressed in suits and ties, are staging a full-on hippie freak-out sit-in. Power to the people who can charge the fees for changing their airline departures to the federal government, man!
Anyhow, none of this represents an actual House proceeding, so there's no television coverage. The DFHs occupying the building are, like, totally Twittering their funky-fresh and hip pro-drilling pronouncements to the world! Essentially, they're blogging from their mom's basement. It's good to see them taking a turn at it, really. Perhaps we should send them some Cheetos and pizza and let them make a night of it? Pooties for Petroleum! Delete my F*$#ing Drilling Moratorium, Kos!
Fun. Good times.
The only question in my mind: Will the traditional media cover this as a Brave Act of DefianceTM, or mock them as Dana Milbank did when House Judiciary Dems met in the basement to discuss the Downing Street Memos. (Full disclosure: I wasn't too keen on the basement gig, either.)
UPDATE: Commenter sweeperhearsthe American Petroleum Institute is taking our advice and sending in pizza. So that's where all those record-breaking oil company profits are going! Being invested (and ingested) in pepperoni! They'll fuel your petro-love-in in 30 minutes or less, or it's free!
But... is it a qualifying "gift?" Help! Help! Convene a Congressional blogger ethics panel!
H.Res. 1316 - Honoring the service of the Navy and Coast Guard veterans who served on the Landing Ship Tank (LST) amphibious landing craft during World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Operation Desert Storm, and global operations through 2002 and recognizing the essential role played by LST amphibious craft during these conflicts (Rep. McGovern – Armed Services)
H.Res. 1008 - Condemning the persecution of Baha'is in Iran (Rep. Kirk – Foreign Affairs)
Resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.3001, Defense Authorization bill, with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
There will be no roll call votes today. The next vote is expected to occur Monday, September 8.
This is it. The Congress heads out of town today for its August recess, and you won't see them in action again until September.
But before you shake your fist and curse their laziness, remember that they're not necessarily going on vacation, per se. They're coming home to listen to you grouse about how much they suck at town hall meetings, attend your Rotary Club barbeques, kiss your babies, etc. as they wind down the less intense period of their reelection campaigns, head off to the national party conventions, and generally gear up for the last push of politicking that traditionally kicks off after Labor Day.
The House -- poor bastards -- were up and in session past 1 a.m. last night, and are back in and voting in the 9 o'clock hour this morning as they race to finish up with postponed votes (postponed under... clause 8 of Rule XX -- last time I remind you between now and Labor Day) and get out of town. Today's work finishes up the first (and possibly last) of the regular annual appropriations bills brought to the floor. What with the president being insane and all, it's generally thought that there's little sense in bringing him appropriations bills for him to scribble on with his veto crayon, when everybody knows he's getting kicked out of the house in January anyway. The likely plan is to run the government (to the extent the president's insanity makes it possible to call it a government) on continuing resolutions until we get a new guy. The thinking behind bringing this one to the floor is that it's about the military and veterans, and so it might actually stand a chance with the Pretzelnit. But apparently he wants to veto this one, too.
The Senate departs at a perhaps more leisurely pace, with no votes expected today, and the schedule filled with more debate on the Department of Defense authorization bill that the Republicans blocked in a cloture vote yesterday, setting up the charge from Democrats that the GOP voted against a pay raise for the troops rather than give up for even a moment on their crusade for a vote on letting Exxon-Mobil conduct cavity searches of the citizenry in case you're hiding any oil in there.
As noted by the AP, and more importantly, by diarist hcc in VA, the court hearing the case filed by the House Judiciary Committee seeking enforcement of its subpoenas against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten has ruled in favor of the committee. Miers and Bolten must appear, and must produce the documents sought and/or privilege logs describing the documents and any claims of privilege for them if they continue to withhold them.
Coming from a very conservative judge who has amassed a rather remarkable track record of deciding in favor of executive power and government secrecy, this is something of a pleasant surprise, although this is certainly the way we ought to have expected the law to be interpreted in less contentious times.
What's next?
Well, the option to appeal is still open. And that would certainly help run out the clock, which might be what the "administration" is after. And of course, their prior actions have given us cause to ask very basic questions about the enforcement of judicial decisions that used to be taken for granted. That is, although Judge Bates agrees that Miers and Bolten have no valid claims of privilege that would make them immune from subpoena, there's still the question of how to physically force them to appear if they simply continue to insist that they will not. Under ordinary circumstances (and this ruling, should it hold up, certainly gives us reason to believe we're moving closer to our old understanding of what ordinary circumstances are), enforcement could be had through a court order enforcing its decision, meaning that federal officers could compel appearance in compliance with the subpoenas. Those federal officers, of course, are actually part of the "unitary executive," and depending on just how crazy the upper echelons of this "administration" are, you could possibly see some... let's say... difference of opinion... about whose instructions ought to be followed in any enforcement action -- the court's, or the boss's.
Back here on Earth, though, the ruling(which I haven't had the chance to read through yet) will surely put the House, the Judiciary Committee and all other committees with pending subpoenas (or subpoenas awaiting action) on firmer ground if they encounter continued resistance. With Article III now on record as agreeing with Article I that Article II is in the wrong here, public opinion about more aggressive enforcement of Congressional subpoenas might take on a very different color. If a federal judge orders White House compliance and the "administration" continues to resist, the threat of inherent contempt might possibly seem a little less out of left field, and begin to look a little more like the Congress putting its foot down at long last to stop a White House that's running wild.
One final note from page one of the opinion:
The heart of the controversy is whether senior presidential aides are absolutely immune from compelled congressional process.
I note simply (again, before reading the opinion) that it has been Karl Rove's contention in connection with the subpoenas he's defied that he has "absolute immunity" from Congressional process. While Miers and Bolten have mostly framed their defiance in terms of "executive privilege" of varying stripes, Rove has made his case (such as it is) on the basis of some new invention he styles "absolute immunity." I'm hopeful that this decision will short-circuit his claims as thorough as it appears to have short-circuited those of Miers and Bolten.
Oh, and one more thing: Congress goes into recess at the end of this week, not to return until September, and after which the House aims to adjourn their session on September 26th. That effectively leaves three weeks of active session to actually do something with this ruling.
