Here are some more details on the record of the FISA Court (the Court established in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
According to this table compiled from DOJ statistics at the EPIC website, the FISA Court did not reject a single warrant application from its beginning in 1979 through 2002. In 2003 it rejected four applications. In 2004, the number was again zero.
So, in a quarter century, the FISA Court has rejected four government applications for warrants.
Only, it's not quite that simple. Take the four rejected applications from 2003.
About one of those rejections the offficial DOJ report says ...
In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.
About another of the four the same report says ...
In another case, the Court initially denied the application without prejudice. The Government presented amended orders to the Court later the same day, which the Court approved. Because the Court eventually approved this application, it is included in the 1724 referenced above.
The report also notes that during 2003, the Court "made substantive modifications to the government's proposed orders" in 79 applications out of 1727 applications made and 1724 approved.
The previous year, in 2002 ...
Two applications were "approved as modified," and the United States appealed these applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, as applications having been denied in part. On November 18, 2002, the Court of Review issued a judgment that "ordered and adjudged that the motions for review be granted, the challenged portions of the orders on review be reversed, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's Rule 11 be vacated, and the cases be remanded with instructions to grant the United States' applications as submitted..."
In 2004, the number of approved warrants with "substantive modifications" was 94 out of a total of 1758.
Before the year 2000 modifications were seldom if ever made. In 2000, there was one; in 2001, two; and in 2002, there were two applications modified but those modifications were later reversed..
2003 is where the change comes.
--Josh Marshall
Setting aside all the particulars noted below about the NSA wiretapping story, the most dangerous aspect of this case is the legal theory on which the president was reportedly acting.
According to the original Times article and subsequent reports, the president's authority to override statute law comes from the 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the force to destroy al Qaida.
By that reasoning the president must also be empowered to override the new law banning the use of torture, thus making the McCain Amendment truly a meaningless piece of paper.
--Josh Marshall
Another specious argument.
In his radio address today, discussing the NSA domestic wiretapping, the president said ...
The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.
How can this be true?
If I'm understanding this correctly, this program allowed the president to conduct warrantless wiretaps in cases where he could have conducted the same wiretaps with warrants by seeking a warrant from the FISA Court. If the wiretaps were against the "international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" then the FISA Court certainly would have issued the warrants.
So it's the same difference.
--Josh Marshall
Here's another piece of the puzzle on the FISA Court and the NSA domestic wiretapping story.
As I noted below, one of the alleged rationales for sidestepping the law and the FISA Court with these NSA wiretaps is the need for timeliness.
The problem with this argument is that the FISA Court is specifically designed to get warrants okayed really quickly and it almost never rejects a government application (I'm still trying to get confirmation on the exact stats).
Apparently, though, this rationale is even weaker than I thought.
It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." (see specific citation, here).
Unless I'm missing something, that really puts the dagger in the heart of any rationale based on timeliness or exigent circumstances.
--Josh Marshall
Here's one thing I'm a bit unclear on in this NSA domestic spying story. From reading the original article in the Times, the prime rationale for this program appears to have been to avoid the time and bureaucratic hurdles involved in getting warrants.
In the abstract, there sounds like there might be some merit in that argument, especially considering the importance of speed in counter-terrorism work.
The problem is that the FISA Court -- the secret court set up to handle just such warrant requests -- is designed for speed. And it is known for being extremely indulgent of government applications for warrants. I thought I remembered that at one point at least the FISA Court had never rejected a government request for a warrant, but I may remember that wrong or, if once right, it may no longer be the case.
All of this, of course, is separate from the issue of the president overruling a federal statute by executive order -- something that by definition a president cannot do. But something seems fishy about the rationale itself.
--Josh Marshall
Key passage from today's NSA article in the Post (emphasis added) ...
The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture. That opinion, which was signed by another Justice official, was formally disavowed after it was disclosed by the Washington Post.
Another John Yoo special.
--Josh Marshall
Back from the Senate floor, Sen. Feingold just posted an update on the defeat of the cloture vote today on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
--Josh Marshall
Could today's revelation about non-court-approved NSA spying on US citizens connect up with John Bolton? Larry Johnson thinks it could.
--Josh Marshall
After decades in captivity at CNN, Robert Novak will now be allowed to return to his natural habitat.
Novak starts at Fox News next month, reports the Journal (sub.req.)
--Josh Marshall
Patriot Act renewal supporters failed to get 60 votes to end debate today in the Senate. Ergo, for now, Sen. Feingold and the rest of those who want to force revisions to the Patriot Act have won.
Remember, Sen. Feingold is blogging on the senate battle over the Patriot Act exclusively this week at TPMCafe's Table for One.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, what a fun way to start the day, with the coming together of two of my favorite beats -- OpEd payola and the Abramoff scandal.
In Business Week this morning, Eamon Javers reports that two noted conservative columnists -- Doug Bandow of Cato and noted Social Security privatization advocate Peter Ferrara -- both accepted cash payments from Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to his clients.
The revelation has caused Bandow to resign from Cato. But Ferrara, who is now at the Institute for Policy Innovation, says "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."
Now, I used to follow the OpEd payola story pretty closely. (Here are a few examples of posts on the topic from previous years.) And I have to say that when Ferrara implies that this is a common practice, boy is he right, particularly on the right. There are even shops in DC that specialize in ginning up bogus 'man on the street' opeds which they then get placed on major oped pages. Another area where my reporting showed this to be very common was among foreign lobbyists, a number of whom had ex-foreign service officers and various other foreign policy bigwigs on retainer to write opeds advocating on behalf of their clients. Actually, 'write' overstates the matter. The lobbying firm writes the OpEd and the expert signs it.
It hadn't occurred to me that Abramoff dabbled in this racket. But now that I think about it, I can't imagine why it hadn't. If he had these two on the payroll, there must be many, many more.
Now, before I end this post, let me make one important distinction. Everybody knows that most major politicians have speechwriters. And we don't see anything untoward about that. When a major pol writes an OpEd most people understand that either a speechwriter or policy staffer either helped craft the words or got the ideas from the pol and wrote the piece which the pol then signed. Again, I don't think that shocks anyone. When I said there are shops in DC which specialize in this sort of thing, this 'speech writing' sort of OpEding is not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is when, say, the American Federation of Hot Dog Manufacturers wants to beat some new regulation. So they hire a shop in DC which then goes out and finds some sidewalk hot dog vendor and offers to pay him a couple grand if he'll pretend to be the author of an OpEd saying how the new regs will drive his hot dog stand out of business. They then shop it to one of the conservative OpEd pages which are known to be an easy mark for this sort of scam.
Like I said, there are shops in DC who specialize in that sort of thing.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush says Congress saw the same intelligence he did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. So Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to look into the matter and report back whether or not what the president said is true.
They reported back today. The verdict: not true.
--Josh Marshall
Yes, TPM Muckraking Fund fundraiser goes down into its final hours.
Now, with James Tobin's conviction in the New Hampshire phone-jamming case late this afternoon, DOJ lawyers plan to lean on him to flip on folks higher up the ladder in the GOP. So there's even more muck coming down the pike.
--Josh Marshall
The Patriot Act renewal battle comes down to the wire. Sen. Feingold has an update.
--Josh Marshall
New Hampshire phone-jammer Tobin guilty on two counts, say our sources.
Late Update: We've got this triple sourced. So I think this one's a done deal.
--Josh Marshall
US News' Julian Barnes has been blogging from on the ground in Iraq recently. And today he has a report on voting in Mosul.
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday I got an email from a reader from New Orleans who said, in so many words, Don't forget about us.
In recent weeks I've gotten several notes like this from Louisiana readers telling me that for all the big talk back in September the Bush administration has all but forgotten about any commitment to rebuild New Orleans and the rest of the affected area.
In truth, though, in our own little way, we have too -- we being this website. Some of that is a simple shortage of hours in the day. We're gearing up to hire two blogger-reporters, as we've told you. But not having more than one person doing the writing doesn't entirely excuse it. It's just too easy for everyone to let stories like ths fall to the background once the big headlines are gone. So we'll try to do better.
Having criticized the president, let me note prominently that just today the White House has announced its support for a $3.1 billion plan to rebuild the city's levee system. $1.5 billion is new and that is on top of $1.6 billion already committed.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Double-Alert!
It's the final day our TPM Muckraking Fund fundraiser. It's your last chance to contribute to a 2006 full of 24-7 muckraking from the folks who bring you TPM and TPMCafe. Actually, if you really want to, we'll still accept your contributions after today. But I guarantee you that this is your last chance to contribute in direct response to a hectoring post on TPM asking for contributions.
So just be warned! The end is near!
We're coming up on our 2400th contribution. Help us past the finish line.
--Josh Marshall
Ronnie Earle looking at campaign finance records of Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt?
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Feingold gives us a morning update on the state of play in the Patriot Act Renewal battle.
--Josh Marshall
Another piece of the Abramoff puzzle. This from the Austin American-Statesman ...
Capital Athletic Foundation, a charity run by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff now at the center of an influence-peddling investigation on Capitol Hill, told the IRS it gave away more than $330,000 in grants in 2002 to four other charities that say they never received the money.The largest grant the foundation listed in its 2002 tax filing was for $300,000 to P'TACH of New York, a nonprofit that helps Jewish children with learning disabilities.
"We've never received a $300,000 gift, not in our 28 years," a surprised Rabbi Burton Jaffa, P'TACH's national director, told the Austin American-States- man. "It would have been gone by now. I guess I would have been able to pay some teachers on time."
So where'd that money go exactly? Hint: Don't assume this money was going into Jack Abramoff's pocket.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on the antics of our embarrassing Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, TPM Reader AR reminds us that Ambassador Wilkins came in at an impressive #5 on TNR's recent list of top 15 Bush administration hacks.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader ST comments from down under ...
Hi Josh,Just wanted to comment on that recent story above [Email Subject Line: About the recent story on US ambassador's interference in Canadian Politics].
I'm wondering if this sort of US meddling in local politics isn't a standard policy for the Bush administration. You speak about the standard way that ambassadors behave, but in Australia, we've already seen exactly this sort of thing happen. The previous US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer (naturally an old Bush friend and business partner), made notable public comment on Australian politics, especially during our federal election last year. He was openly friendly with the conservative government (still in power and highly supportive of the US - sending troops to Iraq etc.), and was happy to publicly condemn anti-war or anti-US policy sentiment from the Labor party opposition leader (who lost the election and is now out of politics altogether).
This Wikipedia piece gives a good outline of what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Schieffer
Just thought I'd mention this to illustrate that this is an action that might not be so out of the ordinary.
Any other recent historical perspective about how out of the ordinary any of this is?
--Josh Marshall
Possible new names for Dan Froomkin's column.
"What Some Liberal Dick Thinks"
"Just One Liberal's Opinion"
"Pat Ruffini Made John Harris His Bitch and All I Got Was This Lousy Column"
"NotUpToWoodwardStandards.com"
"Briefing on the White House From My Desk Over Here in Virginia"
--Josh Marshall
This is an odd little story. 'Little' in the amount of coverage it's received in the US, but not north of our border.
Yesterday in a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, US Ambassador David Wilkins warned Canadians to tone down their criticism of the United States in their current national political campaigns. Canadian elections are scheduled for January 23rd.
"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship," said Ambassador Wilkins. "It shouldn't be lost on any of us that some of your politicians use my country to score political points."
(Here are some excerpts of the speech from the Embassy website. Wilkins is a "a longtime [Bush]family friend and top Republican fundraiser", according to the CBC, as well as being a former Republican House Speaker in South Carolina.)
It was hardly the most caustic speech you've ever heard. But it's the essence of diplomatic etiquette that foreign ambassadors simply don't poke their noses into their host country's election campaigns, especially not to tell them not to criticize his country, except in cases where the host country amounts to a dependency or de facto protectorate.
So what was this guy thinking?
As you'd expect, center-left Prime Minister Paul Martin has responded to Wilkins remarks by wrapping himself in the flag and playing to Canadian disgruntlement over American big-footing: "When it comes to defending Canadian values, when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests, I'm going to call it like I see it," said Martin. "I am not going to be dictated to as to the subjects I should raise."
The whole thing vaguely reminds me of Gerhard Schroeder's 2002 reelection campaign. In the world of Bushdom, every center-left leader gets to win once on his own steam and then a second time by running on domestic disdain for George W. Bush.
It's good politics.
Everywhere.
--Josh Marshall
Heckuva Job Watch (Reuters): "President George W. Bush offered strong endorsements on Wednesday to two architects of the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and said he was as close as ever to top political adviser Karl Rove despite his role in the CIA leak case."
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Feingold just posted another update on what's happening this afternoon on the senate floor in the debate over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Actually, Sen. Feingold is trying to make sure there is a debate. Check out his latest.
--Josh Marshall
We've got a report from on the scene at yesterday's Ueland-Katz smackdown in the senate.
This is from a reporter who was present when the events unfolded ...
Frist took questions for about 10 minutes on the Senate floor before the start of the day's session. Katz had one of the first questions, asking Frist about comments he made on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea what was in his trust. Frist looked irritated but answered generally, saying that even though Senate rules require him to provide the Ethics Committee letters about his trust, he "doesn't read them." There were a couple of attempts at followup questions but Frist then said he wouldn't take any more questions about his stock. He then went on to other issues. As we left the floor, Eric Ueland started berating Katz in a loud voice while still in the Senate chamber. It continued just outside the chamber, as Roll Call reported. At one point Washington Post reporter Chuck Babington asked Ueland if he wouldn't agree that "the issue was confusing." Even before Babington could finish his question, Ueland turned to him and in the same loud voice accused him of not understanding what was a very simple issue. Frist's Communications Director, Bob Stevenson, standing with Ueland, tried to calm things down a bit, saying he would be willing to sit down with any reporters interested to explain the issue again. Ueland went back to yelling at Katz, who stood his ground but remained respectful of Ueland. The confrontation lasted longer than did Frist's briefing---and didn't serve Frist well since it obviously drew more media attention to the HCA matter.
More muck to rake.
--Josh Marshall
Deliberations suspended in the Tobin phone-jamming trial after juror is taken to the hospital complaining of chest pain.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Alert! Yes, this is the second to last day of our TPM Muckraking Fund fundraiser. So far we've received contributions from 2200 TPM Readers. And today and tomorrow we're making one more big push to get past the finish line. So if you're looking forward to reading TPMmuckraker.com and you haven't contributed yet, consider tossing in a few dollars. Think of it as an advance subscription for the material you'll be reading. For everyone who's already contributed, a very big thank you. And for everyone who's been a reader of this site, a very big thank you too.
--Josh Marshall
The War against Froomkin started with Pat Ruffini, webmaster for Bush-Cheney 2004 and official BC04 blogger? You've got to read this one to believe it.
--Josh Marshall
The Hill is buzzing today over a weird incident yesterday in which Sen. Bill Frist's (R-TN) Chief of Staff Eric Ueland flipped out at a young AP reporter, Jonathan Katz, who had the temerity to ask Frist whether it was true that he had no idea how much stock he owned before he sold it off just ahead of the stock's precipitous decline.
Roll Call (sub.req.) fills us in on what happened next ...
After the off-camera dugout ended, Ueland “berated” and “bullied” the AP reporter, according to other reporters, for initiating the line of questioning. Ueland accused Katz of not understanding the issue after having been repeatedly briefed on the HCA matter.One reporter said Ueland was “demeaning and rude” to the young AP journalist. Another veteran reporter said Ueland “went over the line” in “dressing the guy down” — in front of about 25 other reporters, no less. Yet another Senate reporter said, “It was outrageous. [Ueland] was yelling at the kid. And Eric is usually a very calm and cool guy.”
Reporters who attended the dugout said Frist looked rattled over questions about the HCA deal, which remains the subject of dual federal investigations, and speculated that perhaps Ueland snapped because Frist doesn’t have a good defense. They also noted that Frist has largely avoided cameras since the controversy broke and has moved his dugouts — when he holds them — into the Senate chamber, where cameras and tape recorders are prohibited.
“Now everyone’s talking about it. ... Now I’m wondering if he’s gotten another subpoena. It makes me think there’s something going on,” one veteran journalist said.
Were you a reporter there for this off-camera presser? Drop me a line and let me know what you saw.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RP shares his thoughts on the Froomkin trial ...
Hi Josh,I am a regular reader of Dan Froomkin's column. Since the begining of this debate, I had two things come to my mind:
1. If this whole thing is only about having differences over the name of the column, why is then this not being talked over internally? WHy do they have to discuss this so public? I have a feeling that it is partly to show the white house that they are trying, responding to their possible hand- twisting. THis way, even if the name does not change, they have shown that they at least tried very hard and labelled Dan a liberal + appeal to conservatives along the way.
2. The website editor has done the appropriate thing already. Dan's column is listed on the Wash Po main website, under the subheading "blogs" within the pull down titled "today's editorial, opinions, columns". So any person who understands English and is sensible, would know that Dan is not a reporter writing a newstory.
The first point is a good one. And it's one that hadn't occurred to me. Transparency is a good thing. That's one reason for having an ombudsman. But assuming there's been no vast public outcry, why exactly hasn't this just been dealt with internally? For that matter, as silly as it is, why is it being dealt with at all?
As near as I can tell, at least three people from the print edition -- Downie, Harris, and Howell -- have publicly pressed the head of the online edition to change the name of Froomkin's column. I guess we have to assume that in one fashion or another the online editor has told them all to go jump in a lake.
I'd say, send Froomkin back to his holding cell while we get an answer to this latest question.
Late Update: Actually, keep Froomkin in the holding cell for a bit longer. Who's the Executive Editor of the Post Online edition? If the title isn't executive editor, who's the top editorial decision maker over there? This must be the person to whom Froomkin has to make an appeal for clemency. And no, this isn't just a question for effect. If you know, drop me a note and let me know who the person is.
Even Later Update: Alas, my cup runneth over with information. At Jay Rosen's PressThink website, Jay has a lengthy discussion of the subject along with interviews of Harris and Jim Brady, who's the executive editor of the Post online.
--Josh Marshall
A lot of us have been saying this from the beginning. Now Bob Novak is saying it too. From the News-Observer ...
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush."I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."
"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "
This isn't just some sidelight to the story or new detail. It's always been the essence of it, though commentary has never brought it fully into focus. Setting aside legalities, someone who works for the president did something reckless and wrong. The president either knows who it is or could have found out easily at any point along the way. He could have solved the matter at the outset by firing or reprimanding the person. He preferred to do nothing.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader JA has his own theory on L'Affaire Froomkin ...
A reader in the comments section to Harris's response points to this clause:Froomkin's column “has itself become an obstacle to our work.”
What can that possibly mean, other than the white house is yelling at him for what Froomkin is writing, and they're not accepting his "Don't blame me, he doesn't work for me or the Post" defense?
In that little clause, it’s clear what happened. The Post to some degree had access reduced or cut off, and the reason given was Froomkin. Harris’s defense that the guy didn’t work for him or the Post didn’t suffice to restore access. So now he wants that made clearer—not for any substantive reason, as you say, but to support this argument.
My reaction to this is: 1) Isn’t that newsworthy in itself? The response to a (web-based, buried on the Post’s site, mind you) column the White House doesn’t like is to threaten to cut off access to anonymous sources? They can’t claim any violation of any of their vaunted confidentiality agreements to report this. 2) Don’t they realize, in the least, that access goes both ways? Why isn’t the response to Rove cutting off access, “fine Karl, all conversations henceforth are on the record.” At this point, they don’t need the White House for their stories. They only need the White House for “balance.” They’re perfectly within the source/journalist relationship sphere that they purport to follow to NOT grant anonymous sourcing. If the White House complains, publicly, about an absence of balance, they just can call for comment. And when the White House chooses not to comment on the record, they can report that. This is what happens to EVERYBODY ELSE reporters write negative stories about. The response they permit is “No Comment” not “anonymous sources close to the story say…..”
Certainly there will be more on this.
--Josh Marshall
Froomkin in the balance?
Post political editor John Harris responds to the Froomkin-Howell smackdown and confirms that he too is unhappy with Froomkin's column. While he doesn't think Froomkin's column should be abolished; he does think it's name should be changed.
"We do not want to spike his column--or at least I don't," says Harris. But he does believe it's name should be changed and that it should be clearly labeled as opinion.
His reasoning is that Froomkin is consistently critical of the White House and is thus either 'liberal' and liable to being perceived as 'liberal'. That would not be acceptable for a Post White House reporter. And in as much as people might be confused that Froomkin is one of the Post's White House reporters, that is a problem because it threatens the journalistic crebility of the Post's White House reporters.
As I said yesterday, I think this argument is mistaken on several points. So I won't repeat myself on those grounds. And I think that the focus on this question with all the rest of what is amiss with journalism today is revealing in itself.
But I was struck by this article in Editor & Publisher today in which Len Downie, the Post's Executive Editor says that he too believes that Froomkin should be forced to change the name of his column and have it more clearly labeled as opinion.
But look at just what he told E&P ...
"We want to make sure people in the [Bush] administration know that our news coverage by White House reporters is separate from what appears in Froomkin's column because it contains opinion," Downie told E&P. "And that readers of the Web site understand that, too."
Here I think Downie has revealed more than he intended.
His primary concern appears to be what the White House thinks; what the paper's readers think is secondary.
I really don't think that's a strained reading of his words, is it?
Now consider this. Every White House is the finest of connoisseurs of political news coverage. They know the run-down on every reporter, their biases, their particular topics of interest, their track records, how to flatter them, everything. That's just what a White House press operation does. They're in the business of managing the media and they get all the information they can. (And here I'm not talking about 'enemies' list' sort of information; just who the different reporters are, what their beat is, etc.)
Is the White House really confused by Froomkin's column? I assume they know he's not a White House reporter, right? What's the confusion exactly? As I wrote yesterday, I really don't think that many people who've read Froomkin's column could seriously think he's a beat reporter at the White House or that he's not writing an opinion column. But certainly the folks at the White House know this.
So what's Downie's concern exactly? Is this just a case of the Post being overly sensitive to White House mau-mauing? I'm not sure the argument against Froomkin's column has been quite worked out. I think another sort of concern, a less attractive one, remains unstated.
--Josh Marshall
Culture of corruption harmonic convergence?
Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle subpoenas Cunningham coconspirator #1 Brent Wilkes in his on-going investigation of Tom DeLay.
TPM Blast from the Past: Duke and Tom fly the friendly skies of Air Wilkes. Interim Leader Blunt too!
--Josh Marshall
Here's is an AP article just out over the wire with the headline "Europeans outraged at Schwarzenegger". The point of course is that they are outraged at Schwarzenegger for not intervening to stop the execution last night of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
Let me preface this by saying that I am what I would call a reluctant or ambivalent opponent of capital punishment.
Having said that, I think the thrust of the article linked above contains a signficant misapprehension about the different views of capital punishment in the US and Europe. The conventional wisdom, as the AP article shows, is that Americans are hold-outs in favor of capital punishment while Europeans have turned against the practice as barbaric.
But in an article I wrote in 2000 in The New Republic I was able to make a pretty good case that this just isn't so. I collected public opinion data from various European countries over the previous decade or so. And what the data showed was that the difference in public support for capital punishment really wasn't that great on either side of the Atlantic.
Capital punishment continued to enjoy majority support in France, for instance, long after it was abolished in 1981. Only in the late 1990s did a poll finally show that fewer than 50% of the population wanted it restored. As of the time I wrote, between 60% and 70% of Canadians said they wanted the death penalty reinstated.
So what does it all mean? I think it means that the end of capital punishment in Europe has much less to do with public opinion than we think. And it has more to do with the structure of European politics, particularly -- I would speculate -- the stronger role of parties, and thus elites, in the European form of parliamentary democracy.
Layered over that is the effect of EU expansion, in which the continent's central powers have made abolishing the death penalty a condition of membership. One more factor, I suspect, is that over time, opposition to capital punishment has become a form of European self-identification. And that has had a further depressing effect on support for capital punishment.
That final point is highly speculative, of course.
But the underlying point is well-grounded: Europeans aren't much less attached to capital punishment than Americans. The difference is that their governments don't as readily provide it.
From my point of view, the good news is that since the time I wrote the article support for capital punishment in the United States has fallen appreciably. But that's another matter. If you'd like to share your views on this topic, we've set up a discussion thread on the topic here at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Feingold just came back from debating Sen. Specter (R-PA) about the Patriot Act renewal on the senate floor.
He gives us an update here. He wants to hear your questions and comments.
--Josh Marshall
Getting layed back in style?
Former Enron Chairman Ken Lay addressed a sold-out luncheon audience today at the Houston Forum.
According to the Houston Chronicle ...
Lay blamed former Enron executives Andrew Fastow and Michael Kopper for despicable and criminal deeds that brought down the company. "We did trust Andy Fastow and sadly, tragically, that trust turned out to be fatally misplaced," he said.Flanked on the podium by Texas and U.S. flags, and a gold and red-themed Christmas tree, Lay read from a prepared text in which he attacked the Enron Task Force and Justice Department for prosecuting the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, destroying the company and then dropping the case. He said the task force has been attempting to criminalize normal business practices.
Lay said most of what has been reported about the company has been false or distorted, and attributed its collapse to the financial community. The company's trading partners lost confidence in Enron, Lay said, clearly signaIing a ``run on the bank'' defense.
Thanks to TPM Reader AG for the tip.
--Josh Marshall
I just saw this quoted by Atrios. And whatever you think of the merits of the comment or the two players involved it's a stunning remark, coming as it does from within the highest echelon of the beltway journalistic establishment.
From the Daily Record ...
Howard Fineman, Newsweek's chief political correspondent, said Monday night in the first program of a Drew University lecture series, that Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward had become a "court stenographer" for the Bush administration.Standing before a crowd of nearly 300, Fineman, said Woodward went from being an outsider "burning the beltway"with his investigative work in the 1970s Watergate scandal under President Nixon to being, " an official court stenographer of the Bush administration."
"He's a great reporter,"Fineman said of Woodward, "but he's become a great reporter of official history."
They must have changed something in the water down there.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Feingold has an update on what you can do today to help make changes in the Patriot Act.
--Josh Marshall
Earlier today we linked to the Washington Post's graphic detailing who got money from Jack Abramoff, his lobbying associates and his clients.
There's quite a lot to say about their run-down. Let me try to hit on a few points -- ones we plan on delving into in much more depth in the coming weeks and months.
First, ask yourself, if there was so much money spread around in both parties, why is it that of all the staffers and members of Congress either under indictment or under investigation, every single one seems to be a Republican?
Liberal bias in the Gonzales Justice Department? Probably not.
Let me suggest two very general answers which should put us back on some surer understanding of what this scandal is about -- both in the sense of big-picture substance and the legal direction it is likely to take.
First, lobbyists and their clients give money all over the place. That may be a problem in itself. But that's not the reason Jack Abramoff and his various cronies are in trouble. They're in trouble because they broke a lot of laws -- some to do with fraud and kickbacks, others to do with bribery, others to do with giving de facto inducements to congressional staffers, etc.
If a restaurant is run as a cover for a money-laundering operation, a list of everyone who ate there in the last five years doesn't tell you much about how the scheme went down. It may provide some clues, but not much more. You want to know how the money was laundered. A similar logic applies here.
Second, most of what happened in this scandal didn't happen with 'hard money', i.e., regulated contributions to federal campaigns and campaign committees.
Consider one example. The Post's graphic charts political giving from Abramoff, his associates and clients from 1999 through 2004. The total sum was roughly $5.3 million. During little more than half that period of time (1999-2002) Abramoff funnelled some $4.2 million to just one guy -- his old buddy Ralph Reed.
Certainly there's more to this scandal than these two numbers juxtaposed. But it gives you a sense of how much of the pie the Post discussion covers.
As I've written before, Jack Abramoff wasn't just a crooked lobbyist, he was running a slush fund. It can't be understood outside of the political machine he was part of. Stay tuned.
--Josh Marshall
Feds stop by for an interview with Sen. Conrad Burns' former Chief of Staff Will Brooke in the on-going Abramoff probe.
--Josh Marshall
This is an interesting scuffle.
The Post's new ombudsman Deborah Howell believes Dan Froomkin's daily online quasi-blog 'White House Briefing' is "highly opinionated and liberal".
Because of that she believes that the column should not be allowed to retain the name 'White House Briefing' because some readers may think Froomkin is one of the Post's White House reporters. And that, in the words of the Post's political editor John Harris, "dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective reporters.
Says Howell ...
Harris is right; some readers do think Froomkin is a White House reporter. But Froomkin works only for the Web site and is very popular -- and Brady is not going to fool with that, though he is considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.
The first point, it seems to me, is that reading one or two of Froomkin's columns would disabuse all but the most foolish readers of any notion that he's a White House reporter. Even if he were, he's clearly not writing news copy. It's an anthology of items appearing around the web. And it uses humor and opinion. I think that's clear to anyone who's familiar with the various genres of writing that have grown up on the web over the last few years.
As for balancing Froomkin with a conservative blogger, can't we just match him with Jim Hoagland and it call it a draw? That would be pretty generous, I think. Has there ever been any accounting for all the misinformation Hoagland (presumably) unintentionally spread through his column? And what about all the stuff he's made up since then to cover for the earlier baloney? Who balances him? Who balances Howie Kurtz's sometimes myopic focus on 'liberal bias'? How about the fact that an editor at the Wapo.com recently intentionally tilted a scandal story to include more Democrats than the facts would bear so as to make the story appear more 'balanced'?
More to the point, with all that has happened to journalism and this country in the last three years -- or perhaps just the Post in the last few weeks -- is this really all the Post's ombudsman can think to concern herself with?
--Josh Marshall
The Post has up a detailed graphic of political donations tied to Jack Abramoff going back to the year 1999. The toplines are roughly these. 1) Money tied to Abramoff overwhelmingly came from his Indian tribe clients. In comparison, the money from Abramoff himself and his lobbyists associates were close to negligible. 2) About 2/3 of the money went to Republicans; about 1/3 to Democrats. 3) The max-out year was 2002 when there was $1.85 million in giving.
--Josh Marshall
The Count down for the count?
Those of you who were around for our Social Security coverage earlier this year will remember our many posts on Rep. Chris "The Count" Chocola (R-IN) and his serial Social Security bamboozlement.
Now this from the Cook Political Report ...
What's going on in Indiana? Two new Democratic polls show incumbent Reps. John Hostettler (IN-08) and Chris Chocola (IN-02) in tight races. IN-02A newly released poll taken for Democratic candidate Joe Donnelly by Cooper and Secrest (November 28-29, 504 likely voters), has Democrats crowing about their chances to defeat two-term GOP Rep. Chris Chocola. The poll showed Republican Rep. Chris Chocola ahead of Donnelly by six-points - 46 percent to 40 percent - but taking less than 50 percent of the vote. This will be the second meeting for Chocola and Donnelly. Last year, Chocola beat the Democratic businessman by 9 points - 54 percent to 45 percent.
It's clear that Chocola hasn't gotten a solid hold on this Republican-leaning, but marginal district. In the 2002 contest to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Tim Roemer, Chocola won with just 50 percent of the vote. And in 2004, despite outspending Donnelly by a 2-1 margin ($1.4 million to $700,000), Chocola took just 54 percent of the vote. President Bush, meanwhile, won this district in 2004 with 56 percent of the vote. Democratic insiders argue that Chocola has benefited in his last two races from a political environment that was tilted in favor of Republicans. This year, they note, the wind is in Chocola's face.
Note that the poll is commissioned by Donnelly, Chocola's Democratic opponent. But as Cook notes, Chocola has never solidified his position in his district. And in both of his races he's had a GOP tide on his side.
So this is a race to watch, both as a possible Democratic pick-up and for high comedic value.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is joining us this week at TPMCafe's Table for One to discuss the renewal of the USA Patriot Act and take your questions. He just did his first post on the status of the bill and what we can expect from him on the senate floor this week. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Lillo Brancato, who played Matt Bevilacqua on The Sopranos, was booked this morning on suspicion of murder in the death of off-duty New York City police officer Daniel Enchautegui, 28.
Early this morning, Enchautegui, who had been on the force for three years, went to investigate an apparent robbery of a neighbor's home. When Brancato and accomplice Steven Armento, 48, emerged
 |
| Daniel Enchautegui |
Armento fired once, mortally wounding Enchautegui.
Before collapsing, however, the wounded officer fired six shots, hitting Brancato twice in the chest and Armento in the abdomen, chest, right leg and groin.
Brancato and Armento hobbled off, only to be caught a short time later by police officers responding to Enchautegui's call for back up.
Enchautegui was pronounced dead at 6:09 AM at Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx. According to the New York Times, police are investigating the possibility that Brancato and Armento were trying to rob a drug dealer but went to the wrong house.
--Josh Marshall
