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!

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

No Confidence Vote say the Senate Dems

Gonzales says he won't resign. Bush thinks Gonzales did a great job and stands by him. So what's left to do? The Senate Democrats are considering bringing to the floor a No Confidence Vote against Gonzales and will discuss this during the Senate Democratic Lunceon today.

More at Roll Call:

The vote would be nonbinding and have no substantive impact, but it would force all Republican Senators into the politically uncomfortable position of saying publicly whether they continue to support Gonzales in the wake of the scandal surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Democratic leaders have not yet set an exact time frame for when they would bring such a resolution to the floor.

The continuing saga.....contiues!

Sampson's Testimony released to News Media today

I don't have it all yet but here are a few things Smapson said:

From the AP

Sampson, in remarks obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, spoke dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he said. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

He goes on to say:

In his prepared testimony, he maintained that adherence to the president's and attorney general's priorities was a legitimate standard. He strongly denied Democrats' allegations that some of the prosecutors were dismissed for pursuing Republicans too much and Democrats not enough in corruption cases.

"To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," he said.

In his written testimony to the Senate committee, Sampson also refers to the White House role in the firings, beginning with the quickly rejected idea of replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys after the 2004 election. He said he periodically provided to the White House over two years updated lists of U.S. attorneys whose dismissals were under consideration.

Sampson said in his testimony that any inconsistencies were innocent mistakes.

"This is a benign rather than sinister story," he said.

This is what Smapson is saying before being questioned. Let's see what tomorrow brings when he's in the hot seat in front of the Senate committee.

Congress looks at Credit Card charges - finally!!

For years now the small print and credit card charges have risen enough to keep people in debt forever. Today the Senate brought the major Banks into a hearing to discuss what is confusing billing practices.

From the AP:

Panel slams banks over credit practices
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer

An Ohio man whose $3,200 credit card debt mushroomed to $10,700 with interest and fees told his story Wednesday to senators who denounced the industry for confusing billing practices and shifting interest rates.

Executives of three major banks defended their credit card practices as responsible and responsive to consumers' needs in testimony at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' investigative subcommittee. Those from Citigroup Inc. and Chase Bank USA said their companies were eliminating some practices — including the one that hit Wesley Wannemacher of Lima, Ohio, with over-limit fees on his Chase card account 47 times although he went over his credit limit only three times.

The interest charges and fees on Wannemacher's account more than tripled his debt despite his having made payments averaging $1,000 a year over six years, noted Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the subcommittee's chairman.

"Unfair? Clearly, I think," Levin said. He said an investigation by the panel found that "sky-high interest charges and fees are not uncommon in the credit card industry. While the Wannemacher account happened to be at Chase, penalty interest rates and fees are also employed by Bank of America, Citigroup and other major credit card issuers."

Richard Srednicki, the chief executive officer of Chase Card Services, apologized to Wannemacher in his testimony. "In this case, we simply blew it," he said.

Srednicki said the company has decided it no longer will charge over-the-credit-limit fees to customers who have been in a chronic over-limit position for 90 days.

Wannemacher used a new Chase card in 2001 and 2002 to pay for expenses mostly related to his wedding. He had $3,200 in purchases, interest charges of $4,900, 47 over-limit charges totaling $1,500, late fees of $1,100, for total charges of $10,700 as of February. He paid $6,300, leaving a $4,400 balance — which Chase agreed to waive after he contacted the subcommittee staff.

"Debt seems to invoke a feeling of hopelessness unlike any other problem I've encountered," Wannemacher testified at the hearing. "When a debtor calls you on the phone and you make a minimum payment, you know that you've made no real progress and that in a month, they will be calling again."

It's about time.

When I was growing up I'd hear about people borrowing money from the "Mob" and what they paid back included "Juice". The "juice" was the interest on the loan and if you didn't pay, you ended up with a broken body part. Of course they didn't kill you cause they wanted their money back. These Bank Credit Cards are as bad as the "Mob". The only difference is they don't break arms or legs. But, they do ruin your credit and it is hard to correct this. Plus the secret charges on the card could double what you owe. What the "Mob" did was illegal. What these Banks are doing has been to this point. They have been flying under the radar for years with their charges, finding new ways to make money and fleece the borrower.

It's time we have some laws on the books that protect the borrower. Lately the corporate greed has touched everyone in some way. And they wonder why people aren't saving money!

On a personal note: I have a Chase Savings Account that pays interest. Not much interest, maybe .05% a year. Believe it or not, I am charged $4.00 a month to save my money. That's the bank service charge for savings account under $2,000. They are charging me to hold and use my money and what they pay me to use my money doesn't cover the service charge. Now someone would say "move your money!" If I do that and maybe, someday, overdraw, the charges for that are even more. So the average person is screwed!

If you have any nightmare bank stories, leave them in the comments. I'll post the best ones.

Republicans blocked the vote in the Senate again.

I hope they get a ton of mail and phone calls and emails from their constituents and the rest of the American people that want this war to end! This will come back to bite them.

"The Senate Should Not Fiddle While Iraq Burns"
New York Times | February 17, 2007 06:49 PM

Other Republicans who had helped thwart the earlier debate also said it was time to end the procedural impasse.

"In my view, it is most important that the Senate speak out on Iraq," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. "If we continue to debate whether there should be a debate while the House of Representatives acts, the Senate will become irrelevant. To paraphrase the Roman adage, 'The Senate should not fiddle while Iraq burns.' "

LINK

Reid: Senate cloture vote on Iraq resolution this Saturday

From Think Progress:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he will delay the Senate’s recess and hold a cloture vote on the Iraq resolution on Saturday. “Time is of the essence,” Reid said, and we are “determined to end the silence and find a new direction.”


Link

Senate Dems To Force Up Or Down Vote On Bush's War Plan
Washington Post | Shailagh Murray | February 15, 2007 01:41 PM

Senate Democratic leaders abruptly switched course in the Iraq war debate today, shelving a complicated non-binding resolution that has run into procedural hurdles, in favor of a House version that simply states Congress's objections to President Bush's troop escalation plan.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to proceed to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support.

Read the entire article here.

Congress opened debate on the measure on Tuesday and is expected to vote by Friday. Read the Resolution Here.