Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Senate. Show all posts

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Obama pick for Justice post withdraws.

Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, has withdrawn her nomination after several Republicans objected to her criticisms of the Bush regime torture policy.

Dawn Johnsen's withdrawal - a setback for the Obama administration - was announced late Friday by the White House on a day the capital's legal and political elites were absorbed in the news that Justice John Paul Stevens would retire from the Supreme Court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had recommended Johnsen's confirmation on party-line votes. But several Republicans objected to her sharp criticisms of terrorist interrogation policies under President George W. Bush, and the full Senate never voted on her nomination.
The decision about who should lead the little-known office became a political flashpoint because of the controversies surrounding Bush-era interrogations of terror suspects.
The Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to give "impartial legal advice and constitutional analysis to the executive branch." In other words, to tell the president what is legal and what is not, rather than what he wants to hear.

The Republicans have objected because Johnsen has pointed out that the advice given by Yoo, Bybee and others was factually wrong.

I'd go further, in fact, and say that the advice they gave was criminal and that they should have been disbarred. The Obama administration would only concede that their advice was the result of poor judgement, not professional misconduct. That finding was generous in the extreme.

But the world is now totally upside down when the person who said they were wrong is considered too controversial to occupy that position. Would it be such a bad thing to have the Office of Legal Counsel led by someone who had read the law properly at a time when Yoo, Bybee and others were getting it so dreadfully wrong?

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Nate Silver on Health Care Industry's influence on Senators.



Nate Silver explains how many US senators have been bought out by the Health Care industry and the extraordinary influence even a relatively small amount of money can have on a Senator's vote.

Nate explains it all in detail here.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Leahy: Attacks on Sotomayer are "baloney"!


I am with Leahy when he states that the charges against Sotomayer are "baloney". And, I think it's really going to hurt the Republicans if they continue down the route which they are presently on.

However, there are some Republicans who appear to have recognised this and are calling for the party to step back from this particular precipice.

"Unless there's something that comes out that's very much out of the ordinary, this is likely to be a smooth confirmation if Republicans are smart politically," said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist who served seven years as a senior Senate staffer.

President Barack Obama's Republican critics have -- so far -- shown only a meager appetite for a fight. Indeed the outcome may already be written because Democrats have the 60 votes needed to push the nomination through.

And Republicans worry that overly hostile questioning could further hurt the party with Hispanic voters, who went 67 percent to Obama and 31 percent to his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, in the 2008 White House race.

"Politically, it's better to conserve our powder and live to fight another day and not pick a fight that a) we know we can't win, because we don't have the votes and b) could really hurt us politically," Ullyot told AFP.

They don't have the votes, they are going to alienate themselves from women and Hispanics, and the entire thing is manufactured outrage.

It would be insane for them to push on with this, but they've shown their insanity many times before now. If they've half a brain they will back off. If for no other reason than they simply can't win. So why alienate so many people by throwing around this ridiculous racism charge?

I note that even people like Jeff Sessions are now saying that he would prefer if people stopped calling her a racist. They threw the shit at the wall and some of them appear wise enough to realise that it's not sticking.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Down Goes Gov. Blagojevich! Does This Help Obama?



After watching the way Republicans fell over themselves to defend blatant acts of criminality like "Scooter" Libby's perjury, it is refreshing to watch the way the Democrats reacted to the criminality of Blagojevich.

Here Cenk Uygur talks of how "profoundly stupid" Blagojevich is. And he also argues that this situation actually reflects very well on Obama as Blagojevich ended up cursing Obama because he refused to give him anything.

As Cenk says: "So, tested and proven. Obama? Clean. Clean as a whistle".

UPDATE:

Here Cenk argues his case in an article in The Huffington Post.

Monday, September 29, 2008

HOUSE FAILS TO PASS BAILOUT... 228 NAY, 205 YEA... DOW PLUNGES MORE THAN 600...


I'll say more about this in the morning. For now, I'll just pass it on.

The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.
I didn't see that coming.

Hat tip to Huffington Post.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

McCain and Palin: Both Approved Charging Rape Victims For Medical Exams.



I spoke about this the other day. Here Young Turks have a go at this insane and inhumane practice in Wasilla where rape victims are charged for the forensic tests which the police carry out on them. It costs between $300 and $1200. I can think of no other crime where the victim is asked to pay for the investigation into that crime but, in Wasilla, and in a few other places in the US, this practice still happens.

Joe Biden tried to pass a law in the Senate outlawing this barbaric practice... Guess who voted against it? John McCain.

So Palin did nothing to remove this law whilst Mayor of Wasilla and McCain voted against this practice being outlawed. Unbelievable.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Waxman Threatens to Kick Issa Out of Hearing Room



The evasiveness of this guy is unbelievable. Waxman eventually totally loses it with Issa, who continually interrupts as Waxman tries to get to the truth.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

His Last State of the Union.

The only thing Bush said in his entire State of the Union address which made me sit up and blink was his astonishing claim that the people of Palestine elected Abbas to look after their interests. I was under the illusion that they had elected Hamas for that function, but I suppose that claim was actually no more false than many of the other themes he was expounding.

It really was a tick list of the usual baloney. The surge is working, Iran must be confronted, and the US must pass immunity for telecoms companies who broke the law by assisting the US government to spy on it's own citizens. What one super patriot in the Republican party referred to as "a terrorist loophole".

Russ Feingold saw that for what it was:

"He once again attempted to bully Congress into giving broad powers to the executive branch far beyond what is necessary to protect the country from terrorists."
Oh, and the economy is slowing and tax cuts must, therefore, be made permanent. That, and many other of Bush's vacuous claims, had the right wing of the chamber on its feet. And as always, Bush phrased this wish to continue to give tax cuts to America's richest citizens in the most deceitful way possible.

"Members of Congress should know: if any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it."

In other words, a refusal to make tax cuts permanent is actually a tax increase, rather than simply the ending of a short term tax break.

Oh, and he wants an end to "earmarks" and will also veto any bill which contains them. An argument which might carry more force and credibility had he not himself requested more than $15bn in "earmarks" last year.

But, more than anything, there was something of the wake about the whole affair. He referred at one point to "seven years ago" and it was impossible not to think that he was simply supplying a list of all the areas in which he has been found to be lacking.

His last minute attempt to push for peace in the Middle East only made me more aware than ever that this was the man who encouraged Israel to use force rather than to negotiate with the Palestinians; indeed, that this was the man who refused to call for a ceasefire during the Israeli Lebanon war, a refusal that led to Israel to all intents and purposes losing that war, the consequences of which are still to be determined.

I also remember the promises he made prior to the Iraq war, the same promises that Blair used to try and drum up support for that conflict, that the road to a Palestinian state was through Baghdad, and that once Saddam was out of the way Bush would push his "road map for peace" in the region. More empty words and promises that were simply left to wither on the vine.

And, with words that seemed to echo those hazy days before he invaded Iraq, he turned to Iran:

"Our message to the people of Iran is clear: we have no quarrel with you, we respect your traditions and your history, and we look forward to the day when you have your freedom.

Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home and cease your support for terror abroad.

But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."

He made a similar claim about having no quarrel with the people of Iraq before he invaded their country and turned their lives into a living Hell, but the only comfort the people of Iran can take from this message to them is that the man delivering it is heading out the front door and is, hopefully, too weak to come to their aid.

I strongly suspect the people of Iran do not want rescued in the same fashion that Bush supposedly "rescued" the people of Iraq.

So the Iranians, like many people around the globe, can take comfort from the fact that this is the last time this pompous little failure will get to make a State of the Union address. It's the last time we will have to listen to this tick list of Republican talking points which hardly changes even when NIE reports say the opposite of what the President has been claiming.

The defining moment of his Presidency will be when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, resplendent in his flight suit, and then made a speech in front of a banner reading, "Mission Accomplished". It was the ultimate example of Bush's desire for reality to be what he wished it to be rather than what it actually was.

He will leave office with two unfinished wars still raging on, with hatred for the US around the globe at unprecedented levels, and having taken a $200 billion surplus and turned it into a $167 billion deficit.

Way to go, George. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out!

Friday, October 26, 2007

Mukasey's Nomination Runs Into Trouble

Mukasey's nomination has run into trouble over his refusal to say on the record whether or not he considers waterboarding to constitute torture.

Two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.

"It's fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters Thursday.

"This to me is the seminal issue," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, another member of Leahy's panel. Asked if his vote depends on whether Mukasey equates waterboarding with torture, Durbin answered: "It does."

Leahy has refused to set a date for a vote on Mukasey's nomination until he clarifies his answer to that question.

Here's hoping that the Democrats grow a spine and refuse confirmation until Mukasey complies.

Or perhaps Mukasey can rely on the Giuliani definition of torture and simply claim it can't be torture because it's us doing it.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Cheney's Law



This is just the thirty second trailer. You can watch the entire thing here. It's an hour long, but well worth the time.

For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Rep. Pete Stark Blasts GOP on SCHIP, Iraq



“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal War in Iraq.

“”President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects.

On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

If the Democrats are serious when they say that they oppose torture, then these comments alone should be enough for them to oppose Mukasey's nomination.

The fact that the Bush administration are torturing suspects is accepted by all but it's most fervent supporters, it is for this reason that US has sought to implement it's own reading of the Geneva Conventions, which as Dana Perino memorably stated when she was reminded that any clarification of Geneva must be done through an international court, "Which we won't be doing."

It is clear that the Bush administration are engaging in actions which every country in the world - and every US administration before this one - would regard as torture.

The questioning by the Democrats was tougher still regarding Mr. Mukasey’s views on presidential authority to order harsh interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects, including waterboarding, which was used by the C.I.A. on some of those who were captured and held in the agency’s secret prisons after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

“Is waterboarding constitutional?” Mr. Mukasey was asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, in one of the sharpest exchanges.

“I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” Mr. Mukasey replied. “If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

Mr. Whitehouse described Mr. Mukasey’s response as a “massive hedge” since the nominee refused to be drawn into a conversation about whether waterboarding amounted to torture; many lawmakers from both parties, as well as civil liberties and human rights groups, have said it is clearly a form of torture. The administration has suggested that it ended the practice after protests from Capitol Hill and elsewhere, although it has never said so explicitly.

“I mean, either it is or it isn’t,” Mr. Whitehouse continued.

Waterboarding, he said, “is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning. Is that constitutional?”

Mr. Mukasey again demurred, saying, “If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.”

Mr. Whitehouse said he was “very disappointed in that answer; I think it is purely semantic.”

“I’m sorry,” Mr. Mukasey replied.
Here he argues that the President can disobey "some" laws:



Here he refuses to state whether or not waterboarding is torture:


Among the Democrats, Mr. Leahy was especially critical of Mr. Mukasey, wondering aloud whether he had been pressured overnight by the White House to defend the administration’s view of its expanded powers in dealing with terrorist threats.
“In your answers yesterday, there was a very bright line on questions of torture and the ability of an executive, or inability of an executive, to ignore the law,” Mr. Leahy said. “That seems nowhere near as bright a line today, and maybe I just don’t understand.”
“I don’t know whether you received some criticism from anybody in the administration last night after your testimony,” he said, “but I sensed a difference, and a number of people here, Republican and Democratic alike, have sensed a difference.”

Mr. Mukasey insisted there had been no pressure from the White House on Wednesday, saying, “I received no criticism.”
But just watch, a man who refuses to state whether or not something as abhorrent as waterboarding constitutes torture will sail into his position. And the joke is that his position is that of chief law officer for the United States.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

FISA debate Jackson Lee

She says it all.



House Passes Changes in Eavesdropping Program

It will come as no great surprise to anyone that the House has passed Bush's amendments to FISA. Bush has not only refused to follow the law regarding FISA, but he has consistently insisted that the FISA law did not need updating, which made his recent insistence that it must be updated as a matter of urgency all the more bizarre.

The legislation makes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

There was no indication that lawmakers were responding to new intelligence warnings. Rather, Democrats were responding to administration pleas that a recent secret court ruling had created a legal obstacle in monitoring foreign communications relayed over the Internet.

They also appeared worried about the political repercussions of being perceived as interfering with intelligence gathering. But the disputes were significant enough that they are likely to resurface before the end of the year.

Democrats have expressed concerns that the administration is reaching for powers that go well beyond solving what officials have depicted as narrow technical issues in the current law.

In a statement issued late Saturday, Mr. Bush said he would “sign this legislation as soon as it gets to my desk.” The Senate approved its version of the bill on Friday.
The new laws will be effective for the next six months, although senior Democratic leaders say that they are not going to wait that long before they propose changes.

Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Friday that the bill the administration wanted would allow wiretapping without warrants as long as it was “concerning a person abroad.” As a result, Mr. Reyes said, the law could be construed as allowing any search inside the United States as long as the government claimed it “concerned” Al Qaeda.

Democrats said their suspicions had been fueled in part by the White House’s repeated reluctance to ask Congress for technical changes addressing issues that should have been apparent long ago.

In a recent letter to a Republican on the committee, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Reyes noted that Congress had updated the FISA law eight times since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“You repeatedly claim that FISA is woefully outdated,” Mr. Reyes wrote. “Neither you nor the administration raised concerns during consideration of those bills that the statutory changes proposed were inadequate.”

It is fairly astonishing that there has been such a breakdown on matters of national security between the Republicans and the Democrats since 9-11. Here in Britain, the need to confront the terrorist threat is about the one thing that the main parties can agree on.

However, the Bush administration's cavalier attitude to the law - Guantanamo Bay, suspension of Habeas Corpus, wiretapping without warrants from FISA etc, - have led to an unavoidable chasm of mistrust. Blair was said to have consulted Cameron and Menzies whenever he proposed any course of action that might have been controversial, knowing that it was important that he kept the other political parties on board. In the United States this has not been possible because Dick Cheney and others have set out, from the first day of the Bush administration, to reclaim powers that they think the executive has given up since the Nixon administration. The Bush administration has been cloaked in secrecy which means, whenever they make this kind of request, no-one is ever taken inside the loop and told exactly why the changes they are demanding are so important. The administration simply make the demand and impugn the patriotism of anyone who asks why they need such vague powers.

This has never been truer than in the past eighteen months when it was leaked that the President has authorised warrantless wiretapping, outside of the rules of FISA, and that he refuses to stop doing so.

Then there is the other matter of any time this administration is asked to account for itself at Congressional committee hearings, it either refuses to send people who have been subpoenaed, or it sends Alberto Gonzales along to lie or to claim a memory loss which is so profound that, in anyone else, would signal the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure “does violence to the Constitution of the United States.”
And that, more than anything else, explains the chasm of mistrust between the Democrats and the Republican party. The current President refers to the Constitution as “just a goddamned piece of paper!” The fact that he has so little respect for this "piece of paper" that he has worn a solemn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" was always going to lead to a rift between the two main parties.

Giving someone with so little respect for the Constitution the amount of unchecked power that has now been handed to Bush is a grave mistake. And, based on past behaviour, it is a power that he will almost certainly abuse.

Click title for full article.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Gonzales, Senators Spar on Credibility

Dear, dear, dear. Alberto Gonzales is up to his old tricks again, simply making things up as he goes along. That's certainly what Democrats claimed yesterday when Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gonzales stated that congressional leaders from both parties agreed in March 2004 to continue a classified surveillance activity that Justice Department officials had deemed illegal.

This brought an instant denial from Pelosi and Rockefeller and others.

"He once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller said of the embattled attorney general.

The dispute came as Gonzales weathered one of the most contentious and hostile congressional hearings seen during the Bush administration. Democrats and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee accused him of repeatedly misleading them and warned that he could face perjury charges if he lied to the panel.

"I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who became visibly angry at several points during his exchanges with Gonzales. "The committee's going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) told Gonzales bluntly: "I don't trust you."

Specter is quite clearly stating that he thinks the embattled Attorney General is sitting before them and repeatedly perjuring himself.

This is all about the visit Gonzales and Card made to the sick bed of John Ashcroft in an attempt to get Ashcroft to overrule Comey's refusal to continue to sanction the classified surveillance activity.

Gonzales's testimony differed from an account Comey provided to the same committee in May. Comey said that he had rushed to the hospital after learning that Gonzales was headed there, and that he believed Gonzales and Card sought "to take advantage of a very sick man." Comey did not mention any discussion in the room about the congressional leadership's views.

Pelosi, Rockefeller and former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who were members of the Gang of Eight at the time, also sharply disputed Gonzales's description of the White House meeting. Daschle said in a statement that he could not recall the meeting and is "quite certain that at no time did we encourage the AG or anyone else to take such actions." He added: "This appears to be another attempt to rewrite history."

Rockefeller said that lawmakers were never asked to give the program their approval and that administration officials' infrequent briefings about it were short and involved "virtually no questions."

Here's an example of Gonzales' smug testimony and Specter's reaction to it.



Bush continues to have faith in this man. Here, when the subject moves to the firing of US Attorneys, we have him stating that "there were some instances where peeople were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause."

You couldn't make this stuff up.



He's becoming a perfect metaphor for the incompetence that defines this administration.

Click title for full article.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Out of Steam.



Bush has lost his battle over immigration and can't hide his anger as he spits out this statement. His fight on this subject was always likely to pit him against the grassroots of his party, who have been wound up whenever it suited the Republican cause to rant against "waves of immigrants".

Of course, Bush's problem is that big business - who fund his party - were very keen on cheap Mexican workers. He could never please both camps. And there's an irony that the grassroots, who he is usually able to fob off with the odd religious remark or by letting it be known that he would like to overturn Roe vs Wade, has actually been victorious over big business' interests. Big business invests in the Republicans to avoid defeats like this. They won't be best pleased.

"Sand is flowing out of the hourglass," said Fred I. Greenstein, a Princeton University scholar on the presidency, who was struck by the gloomy tone of Bush's televised statement. "He looked much less like the kid on the cover of Mad magazine without a care. . . . He looked very angry and almost having difficulty getting the sentences out. That seems to me to contrast with some of the early stages" of his presidency.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Follow-Up Hearing on GSA Misconduct: Waxman's Opening

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee holds a hearing, "Continuing Allegations of Misconduct at General Services Administration." The hearing will examine statements made by GSA Administrator Lurita Doan that impugn the reputation of federal officials who cooperated with a Committee investigation into Ms. Doan's conduct at the General Services Administration. Chairman Waxman gives opening remarks.