Will Bush Pardon Libby?

The majority of American people say he should not. Conservative Talk Show hosts and a minority of conservatives are pressing him to pardon.

From Bloomberg:

Bush Faces `No-Win' Pressures to Pardon Convicted Cheney Aide
By Edwin Chen

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush is likely to pay a political price if he decides to pardon convicted vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby -- or if he decides not to pardon him.

With the start of Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term looming, Republican stalwarts who are the president's last source of political support may revolt unless he quickly pardons the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. If Bush does act, he would violate Justice Department guidelines, alienate much of the public and run the risk of cover-up charges.

``This is a no-win situation for Bush,'' said David Gergen, who advised Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Libby, 56, was convicted in March of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements to investigators probing the 2003 leak of Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame's identity. Unless a federal appeals court delays his sentence, he will be required to report to jail by late July or mid-August.

A Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's conviction found that 69 percent of respondents opposed a pardon while 18 percent favored it. At the same time, a pro-Libby firestorm is being fanned by self-described conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts, and many conservative leaders are asking the president to step in.

`Railroaded'

Libby was ``railroaded,'' said Paul Weyrich, head of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, a small-government educational group. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, based in Alexandria, Virginia, said Libby got a ``raw deal'' and has been left to ``twist in the wind.''

Keene calls on Bush to display the same loyalty to Libby that he's shown to his friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose handling of the dismissal of eight U.S. prosecutors has prompted lawmakers to call for his resignation.

``It tells you what a deep, dark, dank un-spinnable hole Bush is in when he has to pardon a guy to appease 30 percent of the country,'' said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a former aide to Vice President Al Gore.

A pardon might also raise fresh questions about whether Libby had been acting at the request of his superiors. ``I think he sort of took one for the team,'' said Weyrich.

Going Against Guidelines

A quick pardon for Libby would go against Justice Department guidelines, which recommend that a supplicant wait five years after conviction or release from confinement before seeking a pardon. On the other hand, there's no requirement that a president wait; President Gerald Ford pardoned his disgraced predecessor, Richard Nixon, shortly after taking office in 1974, and before Nixon was convicted of anything.

The focus on a Libby pardon is obscuring other options available to Bush, including conditional pardons, commutations, remissions of fines and amnesties, Ruckman said.

One possibility would be to issue a respite directive, which simply delays carrying out a sentence and lets passions cool, he said. George Washington first granted respites in June, 1795, delaying the executions of two men involved in the Whiskey Rebellion; they were later pardoned, Ruckman said.

``Bush can keep Libby out of jail without exercising a pardon,'' Ruckman said.

So will Bush Favor his base and his VP, or will he honor the wishes of 69% of the nation.

News Tidbits

Mr. Bush Gets Another Look Into Mr. Putin’s Eyes
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS
The Russian president arrives Sunday at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport — the only foreign leader to get such an invitation from this President Bush.


Needlenose on Powell:
One gem which the audience enjoyed was the retelling of Powell and President Bush’s first encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Powell recalled it after the meeting he and Bush were reviewing events and comparing notes and seemingly they disagreed. At one point Bush looked at his Secretary of State and said (with a suitable Texas twang) “Powell, I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul” to which Powell replied: “Mr. President, I looked into President Putin’s eyes and I saw the KGB”.

The Break-In That History Forgot
By EGIL KROGH
I finally realized that what had gone wrong in the Nixon White House was a meltdown in personal integrity.

Smuggling Tunnel Is Found on Arizona-Mexico Border
By GREG CLARK
A smuggling tunnel freshly excavated under the border with Mexico was sealed Friday after a joint raid by United States and Mexican authorities.

U.S. tightens security at some airports 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - U.S. airports and mass transit systems will tighten security in response to apparent terrorist incidents in Britain, the Bush administration said Saturday.

Two civilians among seven killed in Israeli Gaza air strikes 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
GAZA CITY (AFP) - Two civilians were among seven Palestinians killed in two Israeli air strikes in Gaza on Saturday, as Hamas vowed to resist any international peacekeeping force in the embattled territory.

Just a thought!

9/11 happened shortly after a new president took office in the US. The UK is being attacked shortly after a new Prime Minister took office.

Odd!

Ken Silverstein - Under Cover, Under Fire

If you missed the interview of Ken Silverstein by Bill Moyers, you must go to Moyers site and view it. Silverstein did a great job of under cover investigative reporting on Lobbyists. Now he is being attacked, not by just the lobbyists, but by a journalist.

Here's the Ken Silverstein article in the LA Times:

Undercover, under fire
The Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.
By Ken Silverstein, KEN SILVERSTEIN, a former Times staff writer, is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine.
June 30, 2007


EARLIER THIS YEAR, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city's most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country's image.

I didn't mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn't care. As I explained in this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).

All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little information in their public disclosure forms.

Now, in a fabulous bit of irony, my article about the unethical behavior of lobbying firms has become, for some in the media, a story about my ethics in reporting the story. The lobbyists have attacked the story and me personally, saying that it was unethical of me to misrepresent myself when I went to speak to them.

That kind of reaction is to be expected from the lobbyists exposed in my article. But what I found more disappointing is that their concerns were then mirrored by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism.

"No matter how good the story," he wrote, "lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects."

I can't say I was utterly surprised by Kurtz's criticism. Some major media organizations allow, in principle, undercover journalism — assuming the story in question is deemed vital to the public interest and could not have been obtained through more conventional means — but very few practice it anymore. And that's unfortunate, because there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.

In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.

Today, however, it's almost impossible to imagine a mainstream media outlet undertaking a major undercover investigation. That's partly a result of the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.

The decline of undercover reporting — and of investigative reporting in general — also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Chuck Lewis, a former "60 Minutes" producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."

So it isn't just the corporate owners of the media but the egos of the so called journalists! Maybe we should just stop reading them and buying the newspapers and watching the Cable News. We have the internet and we need a real News station on TV.

Fact Sheet on Executive Privilege

From Nancy Pelosi's the Gavel Blog:

Today, House and Senate Judiciary Chairmen John Conyers and Patrick Leahy sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, responding to the President’s executive privilege assertion over documents relating to the US Attorney investigation. The two reiterated their concern that the president’s assertion was unprecedented and over-reaching. They also demanded the White House “immediately provide us with the specific bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log…and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege.”


See Chairman Conyers’ statement yesterday

See the initial announcement of the subpoeanas



The Committees also released the following fact sheet on Executive Privilege:

The White House’s Broad Claims of Executive Privilege Are Not Supported by Law
Background: President Bush has asserted executive privilege in response to two document subpoenas from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The subpoenas requested categories of documents highly relevant to the unprecedented and improper firing of nine United States Attorneys and the politicization of the Department of Justice. The executive privilege is not a broad and sweeping authority the President can hide behind because he does not want to cooperate with congressional oversight — it should not prevent Congress from examining White House documents vitally important to its investigation. While courts have recognized a privilege based in the Constitution, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with other constitutional interests, including Congress’s oversight powers.

Courts And Legal Experts Agree Executive Privilege Is Limited:

· The Supreme Court held that the executive privilege is not absolute in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974), writing that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege … .” The DC Circuit elaborated that “the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

· The District of Columbia Circuit found that even in the area of national security, there was no absolute executive privilege against congressional demands for information: “The executive would have it that the Constitution confers on the executive absolute discretion in the area of national security. This does not stand up. While the Constitution assigns to the President a number of powers relating to national security, … it confers upon Congress other powers equally inseparable from the national security… .” United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [The documents requested by the House and Senate Committees do not implicate any national security concerns.]

· The Congressional Research Service emphasizes the limited nature of the executive privilege. “Executive privilege is not an absolute. It is a qualified privilege and is balanced against the constitutional needs and obligations of other branches.” Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2005.

The Documents Requested By Committees Do Not Fit Into Narrow Executive Privilege:

· The privilege covers communications related to presidential decision-making, which is not at issue here. The DC Circuit has found that the presidential communications privilege applies to communications “intimately connected to his presidential decision-making.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 753. However, numerous witnesses before both House and Senate Committees have testified that the President did not decide which U.S. Attorneys should be fired.

· The privilege, even if it does apply, is overcome by real public need — as exists here. Executive privilege is overcome where the subpoenaed materials likely contain important evidence and where that evidence is not available elsewhere. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 755. Again and again, the evidence the Committee has obtained in this investigation shows significant involvement by Sara Taylor, Harriet Miers, and others in the White House, but the White House has shut down all avenues of obtaining information about that extremely important involvement.

The broader deliberative process privilege does not apply. That privilege does not apply when there is reason to believe government misconduct occurred, as has been clearly established in this matter, and does not apply to full documents – only to specific and relevant passages. Several of the high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice have resigned since this investigation began. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 745.

The White House’s Claims Of Privilege Are Sweeping And Overly Broad:

· The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has been critical of this White House’s sweeping characterizations of executive privilege. “The current Bush Administration … has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential constitutional prerogatives that, if applied to information and documents often sought by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.” CRS further notes that the Department of Justice’s “assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.” CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, January 3, 2007, at 45.

· The White House has not sought in good faith to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. The White House Counsel asserted privilege and declared that “therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents.” June 28, 2007 Letter from Fred Fielding to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers. A serious assertion of privilege would include a serious effort to determine which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply; White House officials have provided no such comprehensive review.

The White House Has Not Sought Accommodation:

· Most disputes between Congress and the Executive about access to documents and information are resolved through compromise. CRS Congressional Oversight Manual at 39.

· The White House in this case has made one unacceptable “take it or leave it” offer of extremely limited access to witnesses, off-the-record interviews, without transcripts, and a small number of documents. The White House has refused to negotiate further. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have sought the kind of compromise solutions which generally accompany this type of investigation, but have been consistently rebuffed by the White House. Even the Department of Justice has made attempts to respond to congressional inquiries.

CBS posts it's latest Polls

This poll from CBS posts the lowest job approval rating ever on a CBS poll for President Bush.

Let's take a look here:

Poll: Calls To Get Out Of Iraq Escalate
77% In CBS News Poll Say War's Going Badly, 40% Urge Withdrawal Of All U.S. Troops

CBS) A CBS News poll shows Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war, President Bush and the Congress, as well as the overall direction of the country.

More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.

While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed. That's a 7-point increase since April.



Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.

The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll — 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.

Presidents usually have popularity problems in their last two years in office," said Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys. "But the combination of shrinking support for the war in Iraq and opposition to domestic initiatives like the immigration bill has made assessment of this administration especially negative.

"Americans don't only disapprove of the president; they overwhelmingly see the country as on the wrong track," Frankovic said

But Congress also fared poorly in the poll. Its approval rating was also at 27 percent — a 9-point drop from last month. Nearly six in 10 among those surveyed said the 110th Congress has accomplished less during the last six months than Congress usually does.

Vice President Dick Cheney received a similarly low rating, with 28 percent approval and 59 percent disapproval.

The poll found a record number of Americans, 75 percent, believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Only 19 percent think the U.S. is on the right track, the lowest number since CBS News first asked the question in 1983.

I still don't understand how Cheney polled even that high! Evidently Bush is taking the heat for what the VP did.

As far as the congress is concerned, I think people are disappointed that the Dems could not get the bill passed that would bring the troops home. Unfortunately, until they get more of the Republicans to vote with them, their hands were tied. Of course they should have kept bringing the same bill up over and over and let Bush veto it until more of the Republicans relented.

"Fast Track" Ends Today

What is "Fast Track" you say? These are Trade Agreements that the president can put through without interventions from congress. And this little gem that has expired today is a cause for the jobs we've lost. Read up!

From the AP:

Bush losing 'fast track' trade powers
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 29, 8:35 PM ET

President Bush loses his power Saturday to seal "fast track" trade agreements without intervention from Congress, where Democrats blame recent deals for sending U.S. jobs abroad.

Since 1975, only one other president, Bill Clinton, has been stripped of that trade promotion authority, designed to speed the reduction of trade barriers and open new markets with other countries. Bush won't get it back again, and the next president might not either.

House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, whose Ways and Means Committee handles trade policy, said in a written statement Friday that their legislative priorities "do not include the renewal of fast track authority."

"Before that debate can even begin, we must expand the benefits of globalization to all Americans," they said.

In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he had other pressing trade issues, such as extending relief to trade-hit American workers. "I have always said that it is more important to get trade promotion authority done right than to get it done fast."

Rather than promoting new free trade accords, the government should concentrate on rewriting old deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, going after countries such as China that manipulate their currencies, strengthening product safety and pushing anti-sweatshop legislation, said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Nonetheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Congress on Friday to renew Bush's trade promotion authority. Without it, she said, "America will lose an important diplomatic tool that has proven essential to bringing foreign leaders to the negotiating table and advancing our nation's broader foreign policy interests."

Rangel got a similar pitch in a letter from U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.

"More than 100 bilateral trade negotiations are currently under way among our trading partners," she wrote. "It is important that the United States not sit on the sidelines as other countries lock in new preferential trading arrangements with our competitors."

Democrats say they support expanded trade as long as it's fair to American workers and doesn't exploit developing countries. They complain that Bush pushed too many trade deals at the expense of worker rights and environmental protections.

Fast track authority, which dates back to the Ford administration in 1975, gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but cannot amend. Every president since then has enjoyed it, although the law lapsed between 1994 and 2002, when Democrats suspicious of trade agreements joined with Republicans hostile to the Clinton administration in opposing its renewal.

The revival of the law in 2002 came only after Republicans agreed to Democratic demands to expand a program assisting U.S. workers hurt by foreign trade.

The expiration of fast track won't affect four outstanding bilateral trade pacts that Congress must consider before they take effect. Negotiations with Peru and Colombia are finished, the United States and Panama signed a deal Thursday, and the free trade accord with South Korea is to be signed in Washington on Saturday, just before Bush's authority expires.

U.S. and South Korean negotiators cleared their final hurdle Friday when the Koreans acceded to new U.S. guidelines demanded by Democratic lawmakers calling for stricter labor and environmental standards.

Democrats reached a broad agreement with the Bush administration last month that worker rights and the environment will be core parts of future free trade agreements. That improved prospects for congressional action on several of the accords, although there are still sticking points, such as violence against labor leaders in Colombia and South Korea's restrictions on U.S. auto imports.

The top Republican on the Ways and Means panel, Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, noted that since Bush took office in 2001, the United States has implemented 10 free trade agreements with countries such as Australia, Bahrain, and Chile, and that the U.S. trade deficit with those countries has fallen by $7.3 billion.

He and other Republicans warned that without fast track, countries leery of congressional tinkering won't come to the negotiating table. "We risk losing market share around the world," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.

But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., argued that "trade agreements have given us the largest trade deficits in human history." Last year the U.S. trade deficit reached $836 billion.

China changes Labor Laws

From the NY Times:

June 30, 2007
China Passes a Sweeping Labor Law
By JOSEPH KAHN and DAVID BARBOZA
BEIJING, June 29 — China’s legislature passed a sweeping new labor law today that strengthens protections for workers across its booming economy, rejecting pleas from foreign investors who argued that the measure would reduce China’s appeal as a low-wage, business-friendly industrial base.

The new labor contract law, enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, requires employers to provide written contracts to their workers, restricts the use of temporary laborers and makes it harder to lay off employees.

The law, which is to take effect in 2008, also enhances the role of the Communist Party’s monopoly union and allows collective bargaining for wages and benefits. It softens some provisions that foreign companies said would hurt China’s competitiveness, but retained others that American multinationals had lobbied vigorously to exclude.

The law is the latest step by President Hu Jintao to increase worker protections in a society that, despite its nominal socialist ideology, has emphasized rapid, capitalist-style economic growth over enforcing labor laws or ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth.

But it may fall short of improving working conditions for the tens of millions of low-wage workers who need the most help unless it is enforced more rigorously than existing laws, which already offer protections that on paper are similar to those in developed economies.

Passage of the measure came shortly after officials and state media unearthed the widespread use of slave labor in as many as 8,000 brick kilns and small coal mines in Shanxi and Henan provinces, one of the most glaring labor scandals since China began adopting market-style economic policies a quarter century ago.

Police have freed nearly 600 workers, many of them children, held against their will in factories owned or operated by well-connected businessmen and local officials.

Abuses of migrant laborers have been endemic in boom-time China, where millions of temporary workers have faced unsafe working conditions, collusion between factory owners and local officials and unpaid wages. Party-run courts often fail to enforce their legal rights.

Senior leaders in Beijing have grown increasingly concerned about the issue because migrant workers have contributed to a surge in social unrest and violent crime.

While the new law will do little to eliminate violations of existing laws, it does require that employers treat migrant workers as they do other employees. All employees will have to have written employment contracts that comply with minimum wage and safety regulations.

It also moves China closer to European-style labor regulations that emphasize fixed- and open-term employment contracts enforceable by law. It requires that employees with short-term contracts become full-time employees with lifetime benefits after a short-term contract is renewed twice.

Perhaps most significantly, it gives the state-run union and other employee representative groups the power to bargain with employers.

Lets hope China enforces this.

This one paragraph from this article stood out for me:

"While the new law will do little to eliminate violations of existing laws, it does require that employers treat migrant workers as they do other employees. All employees will have to have written employment contracts that comply with minimum wage and safety regulations."

Might be a good idea for our migrant workers and may control the problem of aliens crossing our southern border.

11. The number of Dems that have signed onto the Impeach Cheney Resolution

The newest signer of Dennis Kucinich's resolution is Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

From Raw Story:

Washington Democrat adds voice to Cheney impeachment drive
Michael Roston
Published: Friday June 29, 2007

A Democratic Congressman from Washington state became the latest Member of Congress to add his voice to the calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The move came the same night that House Democrats failed to unite their party around a measure to cut the funding for the Office of the Vice President in response to Cheney's declaration that his office was not a part of the executive branch.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) declared in an address on the House floor Thursday night that he was in favor of impeaching the vice president.

"It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes the Vice President of the United States from office, voluntarily, if he chooses, but by impeachment if he stonewalls," said the Seattle Democrat and Progressive Caucus member. "I have struggled mightily with this matter for a long time...Since the President permits the flagrant disregard of the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to act and defend the American people. With each new revelation, America has seen only glints of what has been done totally in secret."

McDermott said that he was adding his name to H.Res. 333, the Articles of Impeachment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and already supported by nine additional Congress members. But he also made it clear that he was concerned with crimes beyond those called out in the Ohio Democrat's legislation.

"The Vice President holds himself accountable to no one," Rep. McDermott argued. "He ordered the Secret Service to destroy visitors logs, and we have learned in the Washington Post recently, that the Vice President circumvented every check and balance inside the White House to force through his own agenda, to spy on Americans through illegal wire traps, creating the gulag at Guantanamo, and subverting civil liberties and free speech at every turn."

Note: Text and video of McDermott's speech are available at the Congressman's website.

How Nancy pelosi responded to this:

In a conference call on Thursday afternoon, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the decisions of Democrats like McDermott were not enough to change her mind on impeachment, which she continued to insist was off the table.

"It's a choice that has to be made," she said. "I made a decision...one year ago that impeachment was something we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their shortcomings. The president isn't worth impeaching. If it were the beginning of his term, people might think of it differently, but he's at the end of his term...the last two years of his term, we just want to be rid of him."

I think it is time to write Rep. Pelosi and explain to her the reason we need to impeach him. She has her web site, the Gavel or you can address it in an email or letter by going to her personal site here.

Al Gore asks for your help

On 7.7.07 more than two billion people will come together during Live Earth. That number is unfathomable - more than one-fourth of the world�s population will participate in a single event and demand a solution to the climate crisis. This unique moment presents us with a unique choice.

Do we use this unprecedented opportunity to organize a global movement that will last beyond 7.7.07? Or do we let the moment pass?

I know my answer - and I think I know yours. That�s why I am issuing this challenge: Let�s use this moment to pledge our support to solving the climate crisis. Just as important let's ask everyone we know to join us as part of this movement.

Sign the 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:

Live Earth Pledge

The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:

I PLEDGE:

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:

Live Earth Pledge

Together we were able to make March's Congressional hearings a huge moment by collecting more than 500,000 messages and demonstrating the significant public support for solving the climate crisis to our elected leaders and the media. Our next opportunity to demonstrate this growing movement will come on 7.7.07

Live Earth will not just be a 24-hour concert, but the launch of a massive campaign to demonstrate that the political will exists to solve the climate crisis.

Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:

Live Earth Pledge

As our movement grows larger we will shake loose the paralysis currently gripping our political system. Working together we can get it done.

Thank you,


Al Gore

The 4th of July ad from the DCCC

Here's something that flew under the radar!!

The Conservative 5-4 Supreme Court saw fit to eliminate our price protection. Retailers can set prices, now, without violating the anti-trust law. This means that we will be paying more for our things.

From Findlaw:

High Court Eases Ban on Minimum Prices
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Business Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-Manufacturers will have greater leeway to set minimum prices at the retail level without violating antitrust laws under a Thursday Supreme Court ruling that could hurt consumers and small merchants.

By allowing minimum price agreements, the court's 5-4 decision could lead to higher prices, dissenting justices said, as it becomes more difficult for smaller stores and Internet retailers to offer lower-priced goods.

The court said agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition, meaning accusations of antitrust violations will be evaluated case by case.

In a 1991 decision, the Supreme Court had declared that minimum pricing agreements always violate federal antitrust law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the principle that past decisions should be left alone "does not compel our continued adherence" in this instance.

Minimum price agreements can benefit consumers, Kennedy wrote, by enabling retailers to invest in greater customer service without fear of being undercut by discount rivals. The agreements also could make it easier for new products to compete, he added, because a retailer could recoup the costs of marketing a new good by charging a higher price.

Dissenting from that view, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: "The only safe predictions to make about today's decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail."

The Consumer Federation of America said in court filings that the ban on minimum price agreements allowed "innovative retailers to continually enter the market, offering new and lower priced alternatives to consumers."

But Roy Englert, an antitrust attorney at Robbins Russell, said the court's decision does have boundaries that will protect entrepreneurs. The ruling only allows minimum price agreements between manufacturers of a single brand of a product and retailers, Englert said, while other brands of the same product can still compete on price.

Moreover, if only one brand is available, retailers and consumers can still sue manufacturers for anticompetitive conduct, Englert said. The courts will now evaluate such suits on the merits, rather than automatically finding them illegal.

Englert helped prepare a brief in support of Leegin.

Some antitrust experts say consumers shopping on the Internet will be hurt by abandoning the 96-year-old rule.

This Supreme Court seems to be overturning all the past rulings. They have to be stopped. And they, just as Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, can be impeached.

Again, I am pleading, Wake up America!!!

John Dean's new post on Cheney

I've been waiting for this because I knew John Dean would have to comment on Cheney. After he appeared on the Countdown with Kieth Olbermann, it was only a matter of time.

From Dean's post at Findlaw:

The Misunderestimated Mr. Cheney:
The Vice President's Record of Willfully Violating the Law, And Wrongly Claiming Authority to Do So
By JOHN W. DEAN

Vice President Dick Cheney has regularly claimed that he is above the law, but until recently he has not offered any explanation of why.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a law that Cheney believes does apply to him, whether that law be major and minor. For example, he has claimed that most of the laws passed in the aftermath of Watergate were unconstitutional, and thus implicitly inapplicable. His office oversees signing statements claiming countless new laws will not be honored except insofar as the President's extremely narrow interpretation allows. He does not believe the War Powers Act should be honored by the President. Nor, in his view, should the President be bothered with laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In fact, it appears Cheney has actively encouraged defiance of such laws by the Bush Administration.

For Cheney, the Geneva Conventions - considered among the nation's most important treaties -- are but quaint relics that can be ignored. Thus, he publicly embraced their violation when, on an Idaho talk radio program, he said he was not troubled in the slightest by our forces using "waterboarding" -- the simulated drowning of detainees to force them to talk. There are serious questions as to whether Cheney himself has also conspired to violate the War Crimes Act, which can be a capital crime.

A man who can so easily disregard the War Powers Act, FISA, the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act is merely flicking fleas when it comes to complying with laws like the Presidential Records Act, which requires him to keep records. Yet as CNN and other news organizations have reported, Cheney ordered the destruction of the visitor logs to his residence. These, of course, are presidential records the law requires him to preserve and protect. (Indeed, neighbors of the Vice President were surprised when, in the past, a truck for a document shredding service would regularly visit the Vice President's residence at the Naval Observatory.)

Most recently, the Vice President has refused to comply with Executive Order 12958,> as amended by his boss, George W. Bush. These orders were issued to implement the law adopted by Congress in 1995 to clarify the classification and protection of national security information.

Most interesting in Cheney's defiance is his absolutely absurd explanation of why the law is not applicable to him or his staff.

snip

When Cheney was widely ridiculed by humorists, cartoonists, pundits, commentators and several members of Congress for his claim of not being an "entity within the executive branch," the Vice President's chief of staff and counsel >David Addington responded by asserting that the Vice President is not subject to the order because he is not an "agency" as defined by the order. (Addington thus effectively dropped the claim that the Vice President is not an "entity.")

However, Addington does not cite any authority or language for his new claim that the Vice President is not an "agency." In fact, there is none. To the contrary, the order controlling national security classification states exactly the opposite of what Addington claims.

Executive Order 12958 states that the term "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in the statutory language found at 5 U.S.C. 105, and it includes "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." An entity is any "body" or "unit" or "thing" within the executive branch, and to claim the Vice President's office is none of these is an insult to common sense. So is Addington's claim that the Office of Vice President is not an agency under the law.

Section 105 of Title 5 of the United States Code states that an "'Executive agency' means an … independent establishment" within the executive branch. Independent establishments are defined by Section 104 as "an establishment in the executive branch … which is not an Executive department [which are listed in Section 101, and include the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, etc.], military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment."

The Justice Department issued an >opinion in 1994 that the Vice President was not an "agency" under the Freedom of Information Act. That opinion was largely based on the Supreme Court ruling, in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, that "agency" does not cover "the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President."

However, the agency definition in E.O. 12985 is very different from that in the Freedom of Information Act. If, as Addington claims, E.O. 12985 was intended to exempt the Vice President's office, why did it not so state? Or, why did Bush not exempt the Vice President when he >amended that order in July 2005?

Cheney's claim his office is neither an entity nor agency defies logic, but it is not surprising since he continues also to claim, with absolutely no evidence to support his claim, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi set up an al Qaeda operation in Iraq.

There's much more here. And this is a must read.

Murdoch. Bill Moyers analysis

Bill Moyers on Rupert Murdoch: “He’ll eat anything in his path.” Moyers adds, “Rupert Murdoch is no saint, he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power, he is carnivorous, all appetite, no taste.” Watch it:

In Cheney's own words show he counts self part of executive branch

Make up your mind Cheney!!!

From Government Executive .com

Cheney's words show he counts self part of executive branchBy Keith Koffler CongressDaily June 29, 2007 Vice President Dick Cheney has viewed himself as part of the executive branch of government, according to transcripts of public statements, calling into question a statement by an aide that has been widely seen as a suggestion he is not.

Cheney has been ridiculed and criticized in recent days because of what has been interpreted as a claim that he does not have to comply with an executive order on classified information because he is not in the executive branch. The White House has asserted that the issue is moot, saying the way the order is written makes clear that the president did not intend it to apply to the vice president.

White House officials this week have repeatedly declined to declare Cheney a member of the executive branch, instead characterizing debate over his role as an intriguing constitutional question.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino noted that Cheney receives his paycheck from the Senate, over which he officially presides. But she refused to offer an opinion on which branch of government holds the vice president, saying instead that he has "legislative and executive functions."

But the vice president himself has not always been so fuzzy on the matter.
Cheney did once note he is "a product of the United States Senate" and that he has no "official duties" in the executive branch. But the statement was made as an amusing entree to a political speech. He has on more serious occasions clearly indicated that he considers himself a part of the executive branch.

Speaking on April 9, 2003, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Cheney placed himself squarely in the executive branch as he lauded a judicial ruling against efforts to obtain information about the energy task force he headed.

"I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the executive branch, the president and the vice president, to be able to conduct their business," Cheney said.
Speaking to students in China on April 14, 2004, he explained that it was President Dwight Eisenhower who first gave the vice president an office "in the executive branch," adding "since then the responsibilities have gradually increased."

Before a meeting with congressional leaders just days after assuming the presidency, President Bush suggested the matter was, as many others believe, Civics 101.
"We're going to have a frank dialogue about a lot of issues, and I'm going to start by reminding that we know the difference between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, but I do believe the President and the Vice President can play a part, a strong part, in helping advance an American agenda," he said.

Well there it is folks! He said it himself. Can he now go back on his words? And if he does, will he then have to disclose what happened and who attended that Energy meeting? After all, if he is not a part of the Executive Branch then that meeting he held is open to congressional investigation.

News Tidbits

Powell Tells Of Dysfunctional White House, ‘We Weren’t Aware Of The Advice Cheney Was Giving’

In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors

Search for WMD in Iraq finally over.

145 lawmakers write to Bush: close Guantanamo. Today, a bipartisan group of 145 members of the House sent a letter to President Bush urging him to close Guantanamo Bay and move the detainees to military prisons in the United States. From their letter:

Special ops no longer a ‘giant killing machine.’ Under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. special operations became a “giant killing machine,” according to former Army colonel Douglas Macgregor, who anticipates a change when Navy Vice Adm. Eric Olson takes the helm of the operations. “The emphasis will be on, ‘If you have to kill someone, then for God’s sakes, kill the right people,’” Macgregor said. “That’s been lost over the last several years.”

Fired US Attorney, McKay, "My job wasn't to serve the Republican Party,"

And he speaks out about Gonzales as well.

From Oregon Live:

If anybody knows why U.S. Attorney John McKay was fired, he'd like to know.

In a speech Thursday night at Portland State University celebrating the launch of the Sidney Lezak Fellowships Program, McKay theorized why he was dismissed from his post in western Washington last year, along with eight other U.S. attorneys.

Some members of Congress have called for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign in the wake of the firings, which some suspect were politically motivated.

Snip

McKay addressed a crowd of about 200 lawyers, judges and others, including the current U.S. attorney for Oregon, Karin Immergut. He stressed keeping the criminal justice system independent from political influence.

McKay, who was appointed by the Bush administration in 2001, said he was added to a list in March 2005 of U.S. attorneys to be fired. The action followed a close governor's election in Washington in 2004, won by Democrat Chris Gregoire, which Republicans had wanted him to investigate. He did not.

"My job wasn't to serve the Republican Party," he said.

While McKay denounced what he called a failure of leadership in the Justice Department and White House, he bemoaned questioning the ethics of all the department's staffers, especially when they investigate corruption by public officials.

"It is a reservoir of trust," McKay said of the Justice Department. "And so to do damage to that is a travesty."

McKay said he and the other fired U.S. attorneys decided to speak up about their dismissals after Gonzales testified to Congress that he would not use a provision in the U.S. Patriot Act to appoint replacements without congressional confirmation -- something the attorneys viewed as a lie under oath.

"I would have taken personal disappointment and even personal attack," McKay said. "But I couldn't be part of a lie."

He said he was personally hurt by Gonzales' actions because he had worked closely with him in the past and told lawyer friends it was good news when Gonzales was confirmed as attorney general.

"I said, 'You're gonna like this guy -- he's humble, he's honest, he's hard-working, and he's smart," McKay said. "And he's proved me wrong."

Telling...

~~McKay said he and the other fired U.S. attorneys decided to speak up about their dismissals after Gonzales testified to Congress that he would not use a provision in the U.S. Patriot Act to appoint replacements without congressional confirmation -- something the attorneys viewed as a lie under oath.~~

The only way to stop this administration's corruption, lies, secrecy, is to start impeachment investigations. Although many think this would stop the business of the congress, much now is not being accomplished because there is still an imbalance there. And if we, as a nation, do not address these problems now, what will stop future administrations from trying to do the same thing. This already has happened twice in my lifetime. First the Nixon Admin and now the Bush admin. Wake up America!

Supreme Court to Review Guantanamo Cases

A step in the right direction and a set back for Bushco!

From the AP:

Jun 29, 10:12 AM (ET)

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, reversing course, agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may go to federal court to challenge their indefinite confinement.

The action, announced without comment along with other end-of-term orders, is a setback for the Bush administration. It had argued that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases.

In April, the court turned down an identical request, although several justices indicated they could be persuaded otherwise.

The move is highly unusual.

The court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue. But last week, lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military lawyer in which he desribed the inadequacy of the process the administration has put forward as an alternative to a full-blown review by civilian courts.

In February, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a key provision of a law the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year stripping federal courts of their ability to hear the detainees' challenges to their confinement.

On April 2, the Supreme denied the detainees' request to review the February appeals court ruling.

The detainees then petitioned the court to reconsider its denial.

Dismissing the petitions would be "a profound deprivation" of the prisoners' right to speedy court review, lawyers for the detainees said.

The administration asked that the detainees' Supreme Court petitions be thrown out.

Terrorist Attack in London 2 Days after Blair leaves office

Cable News stations are reporting about this non-stop this morning. The timing of this is close to the second anniversary of the July 7th attack in London. To me it is curious that this has happened 2 days after Blair has left office as Prime Minister.

From the BBC:

Police avert car bomb 'carnage'

A car bomb planted in central London would have caused "carnage" if it had exploded, police sources have said.
A controlled explosion was carried out on the car, packed with 60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails, in Haymarket, near Piccadilly Circus.

An ambulance crew saw smoke coming from the green metallic Mercedes, near the Tiger Tiger nightclub at 0130 BST.

"International elements" are believed to be involved, Whitehall sources told the BBC.

Earlier Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command, said: "It is obvious that if the device had detonated there could have been serious injury or loss of life."

The ambulance had been called to the nightclub to treat a sick man when they spotted smoke, now believed to be vapour, inside the car.

Bomb experts manually disabled the "potentially viable explosive device".

DAC Clarke said it was too early to say who was responsible but the incident "resonated" with previous terrorist plots.

He was asked at a press conference if this attempt had any links to a plot foiled by police three years ago which involved plans to create car bombs using gas canisters. But he refused to draw any firm links.

"The threat from terrorism is real. It is here, enduring. Life must go on but we must all stay alert," he said.

Mr Clarke also specifically mentioned nightclubs as a potential target.

Following the discovery, police patrols in central London were stepped up "to provide a visible reassurance", rather than in response to a specific threat.

Net Neutrality - Shot down by FTC

This is not good news. What the FTC is doing is issuing guidlines for the big telcoms. These are not laws or rules, just guidlines. Like the guidelines that were set for anti-pollution, no one paid attention to the guidlines. Not until they became rules!

From the Art of Technology site via Raw Story:

FTC shoots down Net Neutrality, says it is not needed
By Ken Fisher | Published: June 27, 2007 - 06:07PM CT

The Federal Trade Commission today dealt a serious blow to "Net Neutrality" proponents as it issued a report dismissive of claims that the government needs to get involved in preserving the fairness of networks in the United States.

The report, entitled "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy," was drafted in response to growing concerns about broadband competitiveness and network neutrality. The FTC intends the report to be consulted as a guideline by policy makers and legislators, but it has no binding force. Nevertheless, the report's findings are yet another sign that US government agencies are not particularly interested in the network neutrality problem right now. In fact, the FTC is essentially saying that they can find no evidence of a problem to begin with.

In a statement, Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said, "This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition. In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

The "hands-off" approach is the approach preferred by the telecoms, who will also be delighted that Chairman Majoras cleared them of any wrong-doing in their network management so far. Nevertheless, the FTC says that it will continue to monitor the situation, as will the FCC and DOJ. Perhaps more encouraging for proponents of such legislation, the FTC says that increased awareness of the debate will help them with monitoring the need for government regulation.

"As a byproduct of the ongoing debate over network neutrality regulation, the agencies have a heightened awareness of the potential consumer harms from certain conduct by, and business arrangements involving, broadband providers," the report states. "Perhaps equally important, many consumers are now aware of such issues. Consumers—particularly online consumers—have a powerful collective voice. In the area of broadband Internet access, they have revealed a strong preference for the current open access to Internet content and applications."

Indeed, while this appears to be another victory for the opponents of net neutrality, the language of the report suggests that should something more fishy arise, the FTC will be watching. In particular, the report says that the FTC will be watching a set of particular questions closely:

How much demand will there be from content and applications providers for data prioritization?

Will effective data prioritization, throughout the many networks comprising the Internet, be feasible?

Would allowing broadband providers to practice data prioritization necessarily result in the degradation of non-prioritized data delivery?

When will the capacity limitations of the networks comprising the Internet result in unmanageable or unacceptable levels of congestion?

If that point is reached, what will be the most efficient response thereto: data prioritization, capacity increases, a combination of these, or some as yet unknown technological innovation?

As you can see, these are all very fundamental questions, and indeed the answer to all of them involves a giant helping of "wait and see."

Let's hope that things won't change dramatically before we can change our government and it's office and agency personnel.