THURSDAY FUN AHEAD

OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:

July 26, 2007

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARINGThe Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? – Part VII” for Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

By order of the Chairman

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? – Part VII”
Thursday, August 2, 2007Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 22610:00 a.m.

Karl Rove
The White House

J. Scott Jennings
The White House

DATE: August 2, 2007
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen-226
»
Fernando's blog

Countdown: More Political Problems for the Pentagon?

Wes Clark speaking with Keith Olbermann of Countdown about Tillman's death.

DuPage's States Attorney Assaults Free Speech Part 1

DuPage Fight 4 Freedom

Impeachment!

As I have been saying, here, for awhile, Impeachment for this administration is needed for the sake of the Constitution and the Nation. If we do not do something to control this government, who's to say what will happen in the future. This government has stomped on the Constitution long enough. Others have said and I do believe that if we do not do something now, this nation will live under fascism.

From Seattlepi.com:

Talk of impeachment gets louder
By HUBERT G. LOCKEP-I COLUMNIST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quick to quash any such idea after the Democratic sweep of Congress in last November's election. And the full-page ads from such groups as Why We Can't Wait, calling for the impeachment of the president, were dismissed as just more national noise from the Looney Left -- hardly to be taken seriously in the raging maelstrom of last fall's election politics.

But that was six months ago. Now, in midsummer and on the eve of a congressionally mandated assessment of the unending madness in Iraq, strange and ominous signs are beginning to appear in all sorts of odd and curious quarters, suggesting that this nation should not have to endure another 18 months of the George W. Bush administration and that, if we do, it well might be at the nation's peril.

Much of the current dismay swirls around Vice President Dick Cheney, who is busily ignoring rules of government he doesn't like and declaring his office to be beyond the purview of anyone's scrutiny, while actively setting about to demolish any government agency that has the impertinence to suggest otherwise. Cheney's advocacy of interrogation techniques for "enemy combatants" that many think tantamount to torture, of monitoring phone calls and e-mails without bothering about warrants, and of ignoring the niceties of the Geneva Conventions when dealing with terrorists has put him out of favor even with a growing number of conservatives. Some want to jettison him as a hopeless drag on the Republican Party's electoral prospects next year; others are beginning to join the throng that is convinced Cheney is out of control and needs to be dispatched for the heath and safety of the republic itself.

According to a senior U.S. diplomat, Cheney "kind of runs by his own rules"; he should, therefore, be a prime target for indictment for having cynically broken a whole bucket of U.S. laws. He has become an arrogant symbol for all that is despicable about the current administration and a contemptible example of the danger of letting such a high office fall into the hands of an ideologue.

The media are also speaking these days of a looming constitutional crisis as committee chairs in the House and the Senate confront a White House refusal to provide requested documents regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department. The chairs of the two judiciary committees are seasoned, tough-minded Democrats who are not likely to take kindly to a flouting of their authority to look over the shoulder of the executive and his minions as they go about managing and manipulating the affairs of government. It's hard to imagine either of them blinking if the White House tries to stare them down.

The last time the nation heard talk of constitutional crises was in the tumultuous second term of the Nixon administration, when first a vice president and then the president himself bit the dust. That's why an op-ed piece in The New York Times last month takes on heightened significance as yet another warning rumble about the Bush White House and its future.

The op-ed was written by Egil Krogh, a Seattle attorney whose name figured prominently in the Nixon years when he was deputy assistant to the president. Krogh, by his own account, wrote the memo that recommended, in the name of "national security," the burglary in 1971 that ultimately led to the Watergate scandal. Krogh incurred a two- to six-year sentence and spent almost five months in prison for his efforts.

In the closing paragraph of his column, Krogh describes sending a memo to the White House staff, shortly after the inauguration of George W. Bush, reminding those who would serve the current president of the importance of personal integrity and of relying on "well-established legal precedents and not some hazy, loose notion of what such phrases as 'national security' and 'commander in chief' could be tortured into meaning." In his last sentence, he wonders "if they received my message."

Six months ago, the mayor of Salt Lake City -- a Democrat no less -- appeared before a committee of our state Senate to speak on behalf of a resolution asking Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush for "heinous human rights violations, breaches of trust, abuses of power injurious to the nation, war crimes and misleading Congress and the American people." Six months ago, hardly anyone took such talk seriously.

What a difference six months can make!

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.

If we don't insist that congress starts impeachment proceedings soon, we will lose the country we know and love. Take a hard look at what has happened because the future of this nation is now in our hands!

A History Lesson which relates to Today

Presenter, Mike Thomson inside US National Archives, Washington DC


Facsim! Corporate Military Complex! Government Coup!

1933 America!

Thanks to one of my favorite bloggers Kevin from Free Democracy blog, here is the story and the well documented BBC Radio transmission:

Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen.

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.

About Mike Thomson:

Mike Thomson worked in national radio, television and newspapers. He presented the Breakfast show on the former Radio 5, worked as a reporter for Sky News and World Service Television and wrote regularly for The Daily Mail, The Independent and The Observer. Mike joined Today in the mid 1990's as a reporter and covered stories across the globe.

Mike has won a number of prestigious awards throughout his career. These include: The Texaco Award for 'Industrial Journalist of the Year' in the early 1990's; A Gold Sony Award in 2002 for Best News Programme: Document; The Day They Made it Rain ; (Which he wrote and presented for Radio 4) Shared a Sony Silver Award in the same year for his contribution to Today's coverage of the race riots in northern England; and won another Sony Gold Award in 2003 for Best News Coverage following his reports for Today on the latest famine to hit Ethiopia.


Go here for the audio of this surprising documentary.

Does this country never learn from history? There should be a great discussion on this!

Paul Craig Roberts calls for Bush impeachment

Do you remember Paul Craig Roberts? He is the father of Reaganomics and a Consrvative. Read what he writes:

From Counterpunch:

Impeach Now
Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008. Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.
The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Some Breaking News - Miers, Bolton Face Contempt Charges

From the Gavel

Judiciary Committee to Consider Contempt Proceedings for Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton
July 23rd, 2007 by Jesse Lee
From the Judiciary Committee:

House Judiciary Committee to Consider Contempt Proceedings for Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) announced that the Committee will meet Wednesday, July 25, at 10:15 am in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to vote on contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton, following their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued in the U.S. Attorney investigation.

“This investigation, including the reluctant but necessary decision to move forward with contempt, has been a very deliberative process, taking care at each step to respect the Executive Branch’s legitimate prerogatives,” Conyers said. “I’ve allowed the White House and Ms. Miers every opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, either voluntarily or under subpoena. It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position, and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter.”

The contempt of Congress citations are being considered in response to Miers and Bolton’s failure to comply with subpoenas issued by the Committee for documents and testimony, including Miers’ refusal to even appear at her scheduled hearing on July 12. White House Counsel Fred Fielding alerted the Committee on June 28 that the White House would not provide the documents as required by the subpoena, asserting the President’s executive privilege.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled her support over the weekend:

Pelosi promises congressional contempt charge for Harriet Miers
Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle - July 22, 2007

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

“They have disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice. We can document that. Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth,” said Pelosi, who spoke with reporters at a San Francisco workshop for people who want to become U.S. citizens.

This is good news and necessary. The idea of executive privilege has been used wrongly in this instance. Pelosi is bending. Let's see if she will take impeachment off the table now. Just keep sending letters and emails and call her office.

Opinion from the New York Times - Founding Fathers feared Imperial Presidency

Since Bush took office (and I mean "Took") he and his admin have been doing everything in their power to give the president more powers and take away powers from congress. This is an opinion piece, however, our Founding Fathers did fear this would happen. And having just come out of a war fighting for the freedom from a king, another George, they made sure they addressed this issue by placing the checks and balances from the congress into the Constitution.

By taking away the congress' checks and balances for the Executive Office this administration is, in essence, making the Executive Office a dictatorship. This has become a Constitutional Chrisis and must be dealt with now!

Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War

By ADAM COHEN
Published: July 23, 2007

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical.

“In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers.

The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle.

Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

There's more at the link.

The powers that Bush Admin amassed for the executive office are bad enough now but think of future presidents from either party and what they can do to harm this country with these powers.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin on the planned Dem Fillibuster

He gives it to Mitch McConnell about his 60 vote straw-man arguement on the Iraq War vote and he calls down CNN for their report that this fillibuster was a theatrical event.

Watch it:



Keep writing your Senators, or call, or email or all three, and let them know how you feel about the war. The Dems need our input and support and the Repubs need to know how the "people" really feel. Let them know that following strictly to party won't make it any more! Get Active for change!

My greatest fear, Bush will attack Iran

Two news stories have me really concerned. These articles plus all the intel, recently, about a possible attack by Al Qaeda or other terrorists here in the United States.

Lets start with this from Think Progress:

On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran “for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran’s role in Iraq.

While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the “political cover for launching a war.”

Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. Host Sean Hannity asked Brownback, “There’s probably going to come a point for the next president that they’re going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you’re ready and would be ready to do that?”

“Yes, I am, and I think we have to be,” Brownback answered. “Sean, if we’re going to be serious about this fight, and we’re in this fight, and probably for a generation. We’re probably in this fight for a generation.” Watch it:

The Senate voted 97 to 0 to pass a resolution by Sen. Lieberman to censure Iran! And on top of this story comes one from the UK's Guardian:

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

There is no way this country can take on another war. We don't have enough military for three wars and it would be a mistake to attack Iran without giving diplomacy a chance. And I worry about Russian and China if Bush does this. It's time to impeach.

UPDATE: From Digby's blog:

If that isn't enough of a reason to have voted this amendment to oblivion, consider what Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February:


If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Our Local fight for Freedom of Speech

Here's an update from our local fight for Freedom of Speech. This little drama is happening in Illinois' DuPage County which has been a staunch Republican county from the beginning.

Read on:

People’s Weekly World

July 14, 2007

Rumblings in suburbia for peace, free speech

By Cristobal Cavazos

DUPAGE COUNTY, Ill. — For peace activists, being in west suburban Chicago often feels like being behind enemy lines. But fissures are developing in this land of right-wing heavies like Republican Reps.

Dennis Hastert and Peter Roskam and former Rep. Henry "nothing to" Hyde
— corporate and bellicose all. Behind the big box stores, fast food places and luxury townhouse construction sites, poverty and homelessness have risen. Meanwhile, gentrification in the city has led to urban flight into the suburbs … and then there’s the war.

"We are active in what is seen as one of the most conservative areas in the country," said local antiwar activist Kevin Lindemann, "but our Honk for Peace rallies receive an overwhelmingly positive response."

Such local events have educated suburban residents about the war and motivated new people out onto the front lines.

Jeff Zurawski is one such person. "I remember a day, several months ago, when I realized some disturbing truths, the first few on what’s become quite a long list of disturbing truths," he said. "The people of Iraq, who posed no threat to us, are being slaughtered and their country destroyed."

The power of such revelations would lead Zurawski and friend Sarah Hartfield into action May 6 on a local tollway overpass, armed with a banner reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney — liars" and an upside-down American flag, both expressions securely within their First Amendment rights.

"What propelled me was the need to express myself," said Zurawski. "The more I’ve learned, the more outraged I’ve become, and that motivates me to do something to help stop the injustice."

Local entrenched forces are motivated by other demons, however. Weeks after the event, on May 25, a sheriff showed up at Zurawski’s door to arrest him on the allegation that he had tossed unknown objects onto the tollway from the overpass. Sarah later turned herself in after a warrant for her arrest was issued.

Prosecuting the case is DuPage County States Attorney Joe Birkett, apparently in a desperate attempt to rally his right-wing base after his failed bids for attorney general in 2002 and lieutenant governor in 2006. Birkett was a lead prosecutor in the racist prosecution of Rolando Cruz in 1994 for a murder that DNA evidence revealed he didn’t commit.

Local antiwar groups have mobilized behind Zurawski and Hartfield in this battle for free speech in what is obviously a political case against the pair. Local press coverage has been sympathetic.

"I have a feeling the sheriff truly didn’t anticipate all the attention this is getting," Zurawski said.

With around two dozen supporters seated behind him, Zurawski appeared in court on June 27 to challenge his arrest. Prosecutors may try to amend the complaint against the pair, upgrading the charges from disorderly to reckless conduct. If convicted, the two could face up to a year in prison and $2,500 in fines. Zurawski ‘s next court date is July 16.

To help get the charges against Zurawski and Hartfield dropped, supporters are urging the public to contact States Attorney Joe Birkett’s office by phone at (630) 407-8000, by e-mail at stsattn@dupageco. org, or by mail at 503 N. County Farm Rd., Wheaton IL 60187 and demand all charges against Jeff Zurawski and Sarah Hartfield
be dropped.

Activists say they want to let Birkett know that attacks on free speech will not be tolerated, and the antiwar movement — both suburban and urban — will not let up until the war is ended.

Now, to put things in perspective, lets look at States Attorney Birkett's past. Did you know he ran for Governor of Illinois? And then Lt. Governor? A little digging reveals some interesting information:

Birkett plea sets off firestorm
Women’s advocates and politicians on Wednesday traded barbs on the significance of a controversial DuPage County domestic abuse case and what it may say about whether DuPage State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett ought to be elected Illinois attorney general this fall.

From the Daily Herald:

How Birkett loan could alter system
By Joseph Ryan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted March 20, 2003

SPRINGFIELD - Reacting to a controversial loan DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett's campaign for attorney general received, the Illinois Senate Wednesday approved a proposal to ban that and similar types of campaign financing.

The measure prohibits loans from criminal defense attorneys to candidates for both county state's attorney and attorney general. Supporters said such loans taint the judicial system.

Birkett came under fire for accepting more than $100,000 in loans last year from criminal defense attorneys who handle cases in DuPage County.

"It is a relationship where the prosecutor has a tremendous amount of control," said state Sen. John J. Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat and the plan's sponsor. "It's really not appropriate in my opinion to have loans outstanding. It can be an ongoing sword over a prosecutor's head."

However, Birkett said he did nothing improper in accepting the loans and has since repaid them. Democrat Lisa Madigan, a former state senator, won the state attorney general's race last year.

"This is politics, and you expect this kind of thing," Birkett said. "I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense. It should apply to everyone."

Several suburban Republicans argued against the measure by making similar points. State Sen. Peter Roskam, a Wheaton Republican, questioned why lawmakers should focus solely on defense attorneys and prosecutors. He said loans and contributions should be outlawed from any profession to a candidate in a supervisory role.

The legislation, which also would cover sitting attorneys general and state's attorneys, applies only to criminal defense attorneys who have practiced in those jurisdictions within the previous two years.

A violation could carry a $5,000 fine.

The proposal now goes to the Illinois House.

Here's an article where Birkett agrees with Judy Barr Topinka, candidate at that time for Illinois Governor with Birkett her choice for Lt. Gov., where they both agree to bring back the Death Penalty to Illinois.

Will the Death Penalty Return to Illinois?
By Eric Ferkenhoff/Chicago
This week's sweeping guilty verdict in the federal corruption case against former Illinois Governor George Ryan seemed sure to seal the gruff Republican's legacy as yet another in a long line of crooked Illinois politicians. But Ryan�s other major legacy — the moratorium he placed on executions in 2000, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize nomination — is also under attack, and the reverberations could be felt across the entire country's criminal justice system.

Six years after Ryan's unilateral move set off a wave of capital punishment reforms nationwide, conservative prosecutors throughout the state are hoping a change at the Governor's Mansion this fall can usher back the death penalty. While Democratic incumbent Rod Blagojevich has said Ryan's moratorium should remain in place, at least for the foreseeable future, his Republican challenger and state treasurer Judy Baar Topinka has hinted that enough safeguards have now been put into place for the death penalty to be reinstated.

"It's time to have a Governor who exercises authority in the way it was intended," said Topinka's running mate Joseph Birkett, the state's attorney in Republican DuPage County, who helped author some of the reforms in Illinois. "People felt betrayed by what Ryan did."

I'm looking for more, but if you have anything to add, with links please, please leave it in comments and I will move it to the main blog.

Here's a video on Global Warming...

From 1958!! Yep! 1958. YouTube is a goldmine of information. So the idea of the damage to our planet by global warming has been around for a long time. Al Gore didn't invent or dream up the idea as some uninlightened people, right of center, might want you to believe.

Here's the information and the video from YouTube:

For FIFTY YEARS scientists have known about global warming. This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary "Unchained Goddess" produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program "The Bell Telephone Hour." It was so well made, that it went on to live a continued life in middle school science classrooms across the nation for decades.

Nearly half a century before Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," this film was made. But what does it reveal? That our scientists have known for over two generations about this danger, but our politicians and citizenry have chosen to ignore the dangerous implications of this fact until it really is too late to avoid the preventable consequences.

Moyers Journal

Tonight I watched Moyers Journal, with Bill Moyers, on PBS. The show was on impeachment. Moyers had two great guests, John Nichols of the Nation and Bruce Stein who is a constitutional lawyer and a conservative. Here's some information about the show from the PBS Web Site and also some information on the two guests:

Tough Talk on Impeachment

July 13, 2007

A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege." In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.

Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT.

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein


"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols

Bruce Fein
Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.
His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.

Fein has also penned a number of volumes on United States Constitution, Supreme Court, and international law, as well as assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique.

Fein currently writes weekly columns for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and CAPITOL LEADER, and a bi-weekly column for the LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER devoted to legal and international affairs.

Recently, Fein has been in the national spotlight after his editorial in the online newsmagazine SLATE called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he outlines the various cases against the Vice President. Fein also testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007 about President Bush's use of "signing statement."

According to Fein, Cheney has:
* Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.

* Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.

* Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

* Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.

*Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

* Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.

* Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.

* Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. (Read Fein's SLATE article)

John Nichols
John Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for THE NATION magazine since 1999. Nichols also serves as Washington correspondent for THE NATION, as well as the associate editor of the CAPITAL TIMES, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for THE PROGRESSIVE and IN THESE TIMES.

Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including JEWS FOR BUCHANAN, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and DICK: THE MAN WHO IS PRESIDENT, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Nichols most recent book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system. Nichols' argument also bases the power of impeachment in the hands of the people, rather than the congress. In his recent article, "In Praise of Impeachment," Nichols argues "While the Constitution handed Congress the power to officially check such despotism, Jefferson and his colleagues fully expected the American people to be the champions of the application of the rule of law to an errant executive."

The show should be up soon as a video podcast. If you have a chance, please watch it.

UPDATE: Here's the link to Watch Bill Moyers Journal.



Impeachment is now, I think, a necessity. The powers this admin has taken for the President and the Vice-President is, as Barbara Boxer said "This is as close as we’ve ever come to a dictatorship".

Here's more of what she said to Ed Schultz on his radio show:

BOXER: Yeah. I mean, you left out a bunch of things — spying on citizens without a warrant, going around FISA, on and on. Look, I have always said it should be on the table. Ed, I’ve always said it. I was on a book tour and I ran into John Dean of Watergate fame. He was on the book tour that I was on, for his book. And it was right after we discovered that the administration was spying on our people without a warrant. And he just said, he looked at me and basically just said, as far as he could see, unless there was some explanation for this, this was impeachable.

I’ve always said that you need to keep it on the table, and you need to look at these things, because now people are dying because of this administration. That’s the truth. And they won’t change course. They are ignoring the Congress. They keep signing these signing statements which mean that he’s decided not to enforce the law. This is as close as we’ve ever come to a dictatorship. When you have a situation where Congress is stepped on, that means the American people are stepped on. So I don’t think you can take anything off the table. Because in fact the Constitution doesn’t permit us to take these things off the table.

To give this much power to future presidents is like giving our country away. This administration swore to protect our constitution but instead they tore it up!

Bush Invokes Executive Privilege

Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor were covered by the president invoking executive privilege and won't be testifying at either Senate or House committees.

From the AP:

Bush denies Congress access to aides
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 57 minutes ago

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," the letter said.

Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.

The exchange Monday was the latest step in a slow-motion legal waltz between the White House and lawmakers toward eventual contempt-of-Congress citations. If neither side yields, the matter could land in federal court.

In his letter regarding subpoenas the Judiciary panels issued, Fielding said, "The president feels compelled to assert executive privilege with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers."

To become familiar with executive privilege there are three excellent blogs to visit:

Fire Dog Lake

Talk Left

The Next Hurrah

And all those blogs have much more legal info on the Libby case, the US Attorneys, and the Supremes

Tammy Duckworth not running for House seat again

From the Chicago Tribune:


Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran now serving as director of the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs, said that "she has decided not to run again next year against U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) in the 6th Congressional District," according to the Chicago Tribune.

"As a Democrat and political newcomer a year ago, Duckworth fell just a few percentage points shy of Roskam as they vied for an open seat in a west-suburban district that has long been a Republican stronghold. The race to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde became one of the most hotly contested in the nation."

"In the end, Roskam bested Duckworth with 51.4 percent of the vote to her 48.6 percent, providing one of the few disappointments for Democrats in a year when they swept into power in Congress -- but the slim margin of defeat left Democrats believing the seat is within their reach."

Live Earth has started

It is already 07/07/07 in Australia, China and Japan.

If you want to watch, go here

Let Freedom Ring

HAPPY 4th OF JULY!

John Dean on Countdown re Libby Commutation

Joe Wilson on Keith Olbermann's Countdown

New order by Bush give obscure WH Office regulations

Dems call it a power grab. Bush is going to push the envelope to get everything he can before he's out of office.

From the Washington Post:

President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment.

Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

The House voted last week to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422, signed by Bush last January and due to take effect July 24.

The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written.

The House measure "stops this president or any president from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws that protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy and on and on," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., its sponsor.

"OIRA has quietly grown into the most powerful regulatory agency in Washington," the House Science investigations subcommittee, chaired by Miller, said in a report in April.

The administration contends Bush's order merely strengthens a similar directive issued by President Clinton in 1993 giving the White House budget office oversight of federal agency rulemaking.

Andrea Wuebker, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the White House regulatory affairs office, said the order, along with an OMB good guidance bulletin, "will help increase the quality, accountability and transparency of agency guidance documents."

Bush's executive order:

_Requires agencies to identify "market failures," where the private sector fell short in dealing with a problem, as a factor in proposing a rule. The White House regulatory affairs office is given authority to assess those conclusions.

_States that no rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office, to be headed by a presidential appointee.

_Directs each agency to provide an estimate of costs and benefits of regulations.

_Requires agencies to inform the White House regulatory affairs office of proposed significant guidance documents on complying with rules. Critics say this will create a new bottleneck delaying the issuance of guidelines needed to comply with federal regulations.

"This can only further delay implementing health, safety and environmental protections," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a private watchdog group that joined numerous labor and good-government groups, including the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in opposing Bush's order.

Miller tried unsuccessfully at a hearing in April to persuade the White House regulatory affairs office's former acting administrator, Steven Aitken, to reveal what private groups might have been involved in rewriting the Clinton-era order.

Aitken stressed that the Clinton order also used market failure as a criteria in advancing new rules and directing agencies to appoint regulatory policy officers, many of whom were political appointees. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., backed Aitken up at the hearing.

"The pattern is that we are challenging the president's authority, hoping to find a mistake and then making a lot of political hay about it," Rohrabacher said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted in an analysis last February that President Reagan made the White House regulatory affairs office the central clearinghouse for substantive rulemaking, reviewing 2,000 to 3,000 proposed regulations per year. With Clinton's 1993 order, White House reviews of proposed regulations dropped to between 500 and 700 a year, the researchers said.

Bill Kovacs, vice president for regulatory affairs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the White House's regulatory affairs office now has about 35 people to keep track of the 4,000 rules federal agencies issue every year. more at link.

The republicans love to say "well Clinton did it". Lets hope that Bush follows Clinton right down the impeachment road!

Bush's Signing Statements being probed by House

It's about time. It's time to change alot of things that the president can do without oversight. And I would go so far as to make it a federal offense if the president tries to over-ride these laws. And if the president, vice-president or any of his cabinet breaks or abuses the laws, they should be suspended pending investigation.

From Daily Kos:

by Kagro X
Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 04:36:55 PM PDT
The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Here's the article from Boston.com about the signing statements:

House panel probing Bush's record on signing statements
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said yesterday that he is launching an aggressive investigation into whether the Bush administration has violated any of the laws it claimed a right to ignore in presidential "signing statements."

Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office. But administration officials insist that Bush's signing statements merely question the laws' constitutionality, and do not necessarily mean that the president also authorized his subordinates to violate them.

Conyers said the president has no power " to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed." And he vowed to find out whether the administration has followed each law it challenged -- including laws touching on classified national security matters, such as the tactics used to interrogate suspected terrorists and the FBI's use of the Patriot Act.

"This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate," Conyers said, and he added that the committee was determined to "get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer."

The Michigan Democrat made his remarks at the committee's first oversight hearing since Democrats took control of Congress, which Conyers devoted to signing statements. He called the hearing a kickoff to his plans to use the coming session to probe the administration's "growing abuse of power."

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are beefing up their staff by hiring a special "oversight and investigative unit" of about six attorneys to lead the panel's probes of the administration. The group is headed by Elliot Minc- berg , formerly the general counsel of the liberal activist group People for the American Way.

Republicans on the committee complained about the hearing, saying that the controversy over the Bush administration's signing statements is overblown.

But Democrats said they wanted to know whether Bush has followed through on his claims that the Constitution gives him the power to exempt executive branch officials from laws that Congress has passed to regulate the government, including affirmative action hiring requirements, a ban on all forms of torture, and oversight provisions in the Patriot Act.

And more from the Senate from Carpetbagger Report:

Specter is making a ’statement’

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has caved to White House demands on a wide variety of issues, but when it comes to presidential signing statements, the Pennsylvania senator has actually been pretty good. A year ago, he even tried to introduce legislation that would allow Congress to sue the president over his use of these legally dubious documents. He asked at the time, “What’s the point of having a statute if … the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn’t like? … If he doesn’t like the bill, let him veto it.”

Not surprisingly, Specter’s Republican colleagues quickly would put the kibosh on the proposal. John McCain helped kill the bill, arguing, “I think the president will enforce the law.” (Yes, McCain’s child-like naivete is rather amusing in retrospect.)

Specter, however, is quite right. We have a bizarre dynamic at play: Congress passes bills, Bush signs the bills into law, and then, in several instances, after the president issues signing statements, the Bush administration decides not to do when the law mandated. Bush has actually used signing statements to challenge more than 1,100 sections of legislation he’s signed into law — more than every other president in U.S. history combined

Thanks to a more reasonable Senate majority, Specter is giving his bill another shot.

Frustrated by the Bush administration’s continued use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of Congressionally approved legislation, Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.

Specter, who has long been a critic of Bush’s use of signing statements, quietly introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday.

“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Specter said in a floor statement.

Specter added, “If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers.” (To which the White House apparently responded, “Duh.”)

Illinois Business-4th of July, March in Wheaton

Operation Turn DuPage Blue is asking people to march with them in the Wheaton, Il (DuPage County) Parade.

Here are the details:

Even though Operation Turn DuPage Blue is a fairly new group, we are marching in 7 parades on the 4th of July! OTDB T-shirts will likely still be available but to order ahead of time please send an email to otdb@ameritech.net with number and sizes of shirts (M, L, XL, XXL).



WHEATON Parade Step off is 10:00. The surrounding streets close to cars at 9:00 AM, so plan to park (in surrounding neighborhoods) and walk. You may come at 9 AM if you like. There is some pre-parade work to do if you are there early.

COME BY 9:30 IN ANY CASE.



Assembly is in the DuPage Medical Group parking lot, 1800 N. Main, Wheaton, at the south WEST corner of Main and Cole, at the first traffic signal south of Geneva Rd. The parade will proceed south on Main to Wesley, then west to Wheaton, south to Front and east to Cross.



We will provide signs and items to pass out.



OTDB is marching along with the Milton Township Democrats. Alexi Giannoulias, Illinois State Treasurer, will be marching with us! Lisa Madigan will be marching in the parade as well, in her own entry. There will also be DuPage for Edwards marchers and staffers/supporters from the Obama campaign.

Email otdb@ameritech.net for more info:

Here's Amb. Wilson's comments on Libby's commutation

From TPM Muckraker:

Wilson:

"From my viewpoint, the president has stepped in to short circuit the rule of law and the system of justice in our country. In so doing, he has acknowledged Mr. Libby's guilt for, among other things, obstruction of justice, which by definition is covering up for somebody in a crime. By commuting his sentence, he has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."

Asked if he expected Bush to pardon or commute Libby's sentence, Wilson replied, "I have never known what to expect. The administration is now trying call this compromise. At end of day, it's allowing a neoconservative cult to engage in special pleading. … This from the president who refused to listen to the Pope's clemency appeals over the execution of first female prisoner in Texas since the Civil War," referring to the 1998 execution of Karla Faye Tucker while Bush was governor.

Wilson noted the commutation will have no impact on his lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney. Today's presidential decision, he said, "should demonstrate to the American people beyond a reasonable doubt how unbelievably corrupt this administration is from top to bottom."

BREAKING: Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

Blog Reactions:


Think Progress:
Bush Commutes Libby Sentence

President Bush has spared Scooter Libby from a 2½-year prison term, issuing an order that commutes his sentence, the AP reports. Libby will never have to go to jail, but his felony conviction will stand, and he will still serve two years probation and owe $250,000 in fines.

The Politico reported on June 17:

White House loyalists have begun arguing that clemency for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby — either a pardon or a commuted sentence — would be a way for an embattled President Bush to reassert himself, particularly among conservatives.

The White House has not ruled out a pardon for Libby, sources say. But several Republicans, who sense a movement in Libby’s favor, said a more likely possibility might be a presidential commutation — a reduction or elimination of Libby’s 2½-year federal prison sentence. Such a move, they said, would be less divisive for the country.

Talking Points Memo:

As you've no doubt already heard shouted from near every rooftop, President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Specifically, the conviction stands -- the fine and probation stand. Libby just doesn't have to spend a day in prison.

Now, here's the key to this.

There is a conceivable argument --- a very poor one but a conceivable one --- for pardoning Scooter Libby, presumably on the argument that the entire prosecution was political and thus illegitimate. But what conceivable argument does the president have for micromanaging the sentence? To decide that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate --- just no prison sentence.

This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don't cut it.

The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president's friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.

-- Josh Marshall

Americablog:

BREAKING: Bush commutes Scooter Libby's prison sentence
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 7/02/2007 05:48:00 PM ET

CNN just reported -- via AP -- that Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. Scooter won't go to jail. Apparently, the conviction, probation and fine still stand. So, basically, Bush just said that Libby is guilty but he doesn't have to pay the price because he's a friend of Cheney. Nice. Compare that to the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton for committing the same crime, and Republicans have always said that Clinton got off easy. Well, Libby just got off easier.

The second thing that Bush just did, he showed that all this talk about letting justice run its course was all a crock. Bush had no intention of letting justice run its course - he was only going to let the courts make the decision IF the courts let Libby go. But once the courts found, unanimously, that this guy isn't just guilty as sin, but that he also doesn't deserve to be set free, Bush set him free anyway.

UPDATE: CNN's Ed Henry read a statement from Bush who thinks the 30-month prison sentence for Libby is "excessive." Really? Then what prison sentence does Bush think is appropriate for Libby? Probation isn't any punishment at all. And paying a fine, that's nice, except we all know that he's going to raise the money to pay the fine. So, what punishment is Libby facing for lying to a federal investigator trying to find out who leaked the identity of a CIA agent for political gain, endangering our national security?

Firedoglake:

Christie Hardin Smith...

President Bush, once again throwing the rule of law out in the trash to cater to his rabid base, has commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. Both MSNBC and CNN are reporting this.

As Jeff Toobin just said on CNN: A pardon is if the conviction had never happened — a pardon is an absolute reversal of fortune. A commutation leaves the conviction, the fine and the two years of probation on the books, but it does remove the prison time from the mix.

The President has an absolute right to do this. But by commuting the sentence of his former Presidential advisor and the former Number 2 to Dick Cheney — the President has put protecting Dick Cheney and his actions above respect for America’s system of justice.

This is a shameful, self-dealing action which will have long-term political ramifications for the Bush Administration. And it should.

The entire case — from betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson by members of her own government to the inception of the investigation into that betrayal from a referral from the CIA…all the way through to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby of multiple felony counts by a federal jury and the stiff sentence for a convicted felon meted out by a conservative federal judge — all of it has served to highlight the lies on which the invasion of Iraq rested. And how far the members of the Bush Administration were willing to go to keep those lies buried and away from the public’s knowledge.

That George Bush commuted Libby’s sentence just as he returned from a trip to his father’s family compound in Maine, ran into the White House away from the press and refused to answer any questions about his own involvement in the case, his own interview with Patrick Fitzgerald and federal investigators, and any remaining questions that still hang out there about the cloud over Dick Cheney underscores the craven and disrespectful conduct of the Bush Administration from start to finish. There is nothing that these people will not do to protect their own, whatever the cost may be for the long term to the public confidence in the rule of law. This is a slap in the face to the members of the jury and all of the federal judges who have ruled on the substantial amount of evidence of Libby’s guilt and the weakness of his attempts to appeal.

Olberman will definately have something to say and may even have Amb. Wilson on. I will report what he says when it's up.

This was a foolish move that Bush made. This will anger many people. Only 19% thought that Bush should pardon Libby so I think they will feel the same about a commutation. Plus it opens up more possibilities for the Wilson suit. More to come on this!

Leahy: "They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation,"

Looks like Leahy will follow up on the subpoenas. The white House is claiming Executive Privilege, but there's a catch to that.

From the AP:

Patrick Leahy ready to fight White House
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 1, 3:57 PM ET

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resiPsted congressional subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes I'd go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked in a broadcast interview whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.

"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line on this U.S. attorneys' investigation is that we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."

At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the Justice Department's firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.

The White House accused the committee of overreaching.

"After thousands of pages of documents, interviews and testimony by Justice Department officials, it's clear that there's simply no merit for this overreach," presidential spokesman Tony Fratto said.

He said Leahy "is seeking access to candid and confidential deliberations from the president's advisers — an intrusion he would never subject his own staff to. We have gone to great lengths to accommodate the committee in their oversight responsibilities."

Separately, the Senate has subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office for documents related to the administration's legal basis for conducting warrant-free eavesdropping on people in the United States.

Leahy and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who heads the House Judiciary Committee, have demanded a White House explanation by July 9 as to its grounds for claiming executive privilege in refusing to turn over additional documents.

The two lawmakers say that regardless of whether the White House meets the deadline, they would begin acting to enforce the subpoenas as appropriate under the law.

Legal experts have been somewhat divided over the scope of a president's power to shield information and ensure candid advice from top aides. The dispute, if it does head to court, could take months and ultimately outlast the remaining term of Bush's presidency, which ends in January 2009.

Last week, White House counsel Fred Fielding said Bush was claiming executive privilege. Bush also was invoking the privilege to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, the former political director, from testifying publicly under oath. More Here.

But here's the issue..."The president and the vice president are not above the law any more than you and I are," Leahy said.

And that is the crux of the matter with this administration. They think they are above the law and try to rig the rules to keep it that way. No other President and his admin have ever pushed this far into becoming close to a dictatorship!

And you think this wasn't political?

A candidate to replace David Iglesias, Fired US Attorney, worked to get him fired. Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico lawyer, was General Consul for the Republican Party.

From the Miami Herald:

U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS
GOP links to vote-fraud push
Two nonprofits had a major role in Republican electoral strategy that included lobbying U.S. attorneys over alleged fraud in voter rolls.
By GREG GORDON
ggordon@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON -- A New Mexico lawyer who pushed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.

Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed.

Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.

He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as ``obsessed . . . convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it.''

Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the nonprofit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund -- an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.

Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party and a candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connected GOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister group played a significant role in the party's effort to retain control of Congress in the 2006 election.

That strategy, which presidential advisor Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic.

THREE FRONTS

McClatchy has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:

• Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and the Lawyers Association were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.

• The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.

• The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.

Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.

And there's more...

ALLEGED `HOT SPOTS'

Public records show that the two nonprofits were active in at least nine states. They hired high-priced lawyers to write court briefs, issued news releases declaring key cities ''hot spots'' for voter fraud and hired lobbyists in Missouri and Pennsylvania to win support for photo ID laws. In each of those states, the center released polls that it claimed found that minorities prefer tougher ID laws.

With $1.5 million in combined funding, the two nonprofits attracted some powerful volunteers and a cadre of GOP-allied attorneys.

Of the 15 individuals affiliated with the two groups, at least seven are members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, and half a dozen have worked for either one Bush election campaign or for the Republican National Committee.

Alex Vogel, a former RNC lawyer whose consulting firm was paid $75,000 for several months' service as the center's executive director, said the funding came from private donors, not from the Republican Party.

One target of the American Center was the liberal-leaning voter registration group called Project Vote, which registered 1.5 million voters in 2004 and 2006.

The center trumpeted allegations that Project Vote's main contractor, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), submitted phony registration forms to boost Democratic voting.

In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such actions close to an election.

Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.

''Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem,'' said Michael Slater, the deputy director of Project Vote. ``And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients.'' Read the rest here.

Here's the strategy, and they tried to carry it out!

"That strategy, which presidential advisor Karl Rove alluded to in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougher ID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely to vote Democratic."

Damage Done by the Supremes - Big Business Benefits

The Supreme Court Justices are now a Conservative Body and their rulings show it. They've overturned some long standing rulings and the new rulings are definately for Big Business, against women and for segregation. Lets hope our next President is a Democrat and can change the direction of this court.

Here from the New York Times are the rulings so far:

Equal Protection

By a vote of 5 to 4, the court invalidated voluntary integration plans in the school districts of Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., ruling that using a student’s race to govern the availability of a place at a desired school, even for the purpose of preventing resegregation, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, No. 05-908. But Justice Kennedy, a member of the majority, refused to sign the more far-reaching parts of the chief justice’s opinion that would have barred even more general considerations of race. His position in the middle of the court gave small comfort to the four dissenters, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg.

Business

A pair of decisions made it more difficult for investors to sue companies, executives and underwriters when they suspect securities fraud or unlawful manipulation. In Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., No. 06-484, the court ruled 8 to 1 that shareholders must show “cogent and compelling evidence” of intent to defraud in order to withstand dismissal of their lawsuit. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion, and Justice Stevens dissented.

In the second case, the court voted 7 to 1 to dismiss a shareholders’ antitrust suit that accused 10 leading investment banks of conspiring to fix the prices and terms for initial public offerings. The court held that the challenged behavior fell within the regulatory domain of the Securities and Exchange Commission, making the banks generally immune from antitrust liability. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion in the case, Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing, No. 05-1157, and Justice Thomas dissented. Justice Kennedy did not participate.

In its most important patent ruling in years, the court tilted away from patent owners and made it easier to find that a patent had been improperly issued for an invention that was “obvious” and therefore undeserving of patent protection. Justice Kennedy wrote the unanimous opinion in the case, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04-1350.

In an important antitrust ruling, the court voted 5 to 4 to overturn a 96-year-old precedent under which it was always illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on minimum resale prices. The legality of price maintenance will now be judged case by case for its impact on competition. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc., No. 06-480. The dissenters were Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

The justices continued to curb punitive damages in a 5-to-4 decision that overturned a $79.5 million award against Philip Morris. Justice Breyer’s majority opinion in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, No. 05-1256, held that the Oregon jury that gave the award to the widow of a lifelong smoker might have improperly calculated the figure to punish the cigarette maker for harm to other smokers as well.

The dissenters were Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Stevens.

Criminal Law

In Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, the court held by a vote of 8 to 1 that even though the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, a sentence within the guidelines range can be presumed on appeal to be “reasonable.” In federal circuits that adopt such a presumption, it will be more difficult for defendants to challenge sentences that follow the guidelines. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Souter dissented.

The court continued to interpret and apply the law Congress passed in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to rule on habeas corpus petitions from state prison inmates. The justices ruled, 9 to 0, that the federal appeals court in California had overstepped those limits when it granted a new trial to a convicted murderer on the ground that the jury had been prejudiced against him by seeing the victim’s relatives in the courtroom wearing buttons with the victim’s picture on them.

Without deciding whether the buttons had, in fact, caused prejudice, Justice Thomas wrote for the court that under the 1996 law, a federal court could not base a grant of habeas corpus on a legal principle that the Supreme Court itself had not adopted. The case was Carey v. Musladin, No. 05-785.

The court ruled, 8 to 1, that the police did not violate a speeding driver’s rights by ramming his car and causing a devastating accident. The police officers’ decision to force the driver off the road after a high-speech chase was reasonable, Justice Scalia said in the majority opinion. Justice Stevens dissented, noting that the 19-year-old driver was suspected of nothing more serious than speeding. The case was Scott v. Harris, No. 05-1631.

A unanimous ruling extended to automobile passengers the same right that drivers have to challenge the validity of a decision by the police to stop the car. Passengers in a car stopped by the police do not feel free to walk away, the court held in an opinion by Justice Souter, and thus are “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizure. The case was Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120.

The court made it easier for prosecutors in death penalty cases to remove potential jurors who express ambivalence about the death penalty. Writing for the 5-to-4 majority, Justice Kennedy said appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome qualms about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence. The dissenters, in an opinion by Justice Stevens that Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer also joined, said this set the disqualification bar too low and would skew juries toward those most likely to vote for death. The case was Uttecht v. Brown, No. 06-413.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that a mentally ill convicted murderer who was delusional and lacked a “rational understanding” of why the state had sentenced him to death could not be executed. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407. The dissenters were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Abortion

The court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in a 5-to-4 decision that was a reversal of course and a reframing of the abortion issue. The decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380, was the first time the court had upheld a prohibition on a specific method of abortion. The law, enacted in 2003, subjects doctors to fines and prison terms.

In 2000, with Justice O’Connor in the majority, the court had voted 5 to 4 to strike down a nearly identical state ban, from Nebraska. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion emphasized abortion’s “ethical and moral concerns” and said the law protected women who might otherwise have an abortion by the prohibited method from “regret,” “grief” and “sorrow.”

Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.

Access to Court

A deadline for filing a federal appeal could not be excused by the fact that a federal judge had given an inmate’s lawyer the wrong date, the court held in a 5 to 4 opinion by Justice Thomas. The decision, Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306, overturned two precedents from the 1960s that had endorsed a “unique circumstances” excuse for missed deadlines. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented.

The court rejected a longstanding position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which the Bush administration had repudiated months earlier, on the deadline for filing a pay discrimination case. The federal statute against employment discrimination requires an employee, as a condition of being able to proceed with a lawsuit, to file a formal complaint within 180 days of the discriminatory act.

Under the commission’s doctrine of “paycheck accrual,” that 180-day clock resets every time the employee receives a paycheck with pay lower than it would have been in the absence of discrimination. But the court’s 5-to-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074, requires the employee to have filed within 180 days of the act of discrimination, an interpretation that will keep many such cases out of court. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that taxpayers did not have standing to challenge the Bush administration’s expenditure of federal money to support its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The dissenters in the decision, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, No. 06-157, were Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer.

In an important disability case, the court ruled that parents of children with disabilities could go to court without a lawyer to challenge a public school district’s plan for their child’s education. Justice Kennedy’s 7-to-2 opinion said that a federal statute, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees a “free, appropriate public education” to all children, gives rights to parents as well. Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the decision, Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 05-983.

Speech

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the restriction on corporate- and union-sponsored television advertising, contained in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, threatened to curb core political speech. The provision could be constitutional, Chief Justice Roberts said, only if interpreted narrowly to apply only to advertisements that are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

The dissenters, Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, said the ruling would open the door to a flood of corporate and union money in the guise of the “sham” issue advertisements that the law was designed to stop. They said the opinion, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, No. 06-969, effectively overruled a major part of the law as well as the 2003 Supreme Court decision that had upheld it, a view with which many election law experts agreed.

School officials can censor and punish student speech that can be interpreted as advocating or celebrating the use of illegal drugs, the court held in ruling that a principal did not violate a student’s First Amendment rights by suspending him for his display of a banner proclaiming “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Five justices, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, found no constitutional violation; a sixth, Justice Breyer, said the principal was entitled to immunity from damages no matter how the First Amendment question should be answered. Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented on First Amendment grounds. The case was Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278.

Federal Authority

In its first encounter with global climate change, the court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The agency had maintained that it had no such authority and that it would not use it if it did. But the court said the agency could refuse to act only if it provided a scientific basis for its refusal.

To reach that conclusion, the court first had to find that Massachusetts, which along with other states had brought the lawsuit against the E.P.A., was suffering the type of injury from the agency’s antiregulatory stance that gave the state standing to sue. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens said states were due special deference in their claims to standing. The case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, marked a rare expansion by the court of the doctrine of standing. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, along with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

OP-ED by AL Gore

Al Gore wrote an op-ed for the NY Times, today, about his favorite subject, Global Warming.

Lets take a look:

Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville

WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is nprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours. More here>>

And yet people still don't believe this earth is warming here in the good ole U.S. Listening to the people that called in, this morning, on C-SPAN'S Washington Journal, this unfortunately runs along party lines. What the Radio Talk Show hosts and Fox News tells these people to say, they say! Taking this a gospel and not even doing any research of their own. Sad that we have that many people who can't think for themselves.