Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Senators Ask SG Clement to Appoint a Special Prosecutor

Four Senators have written a stong letter (.pdf, also available in plain text) to Solicitor General Paul Clement asking him to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales has committed perjury or obstruction of justice.

This puts Clement — often mentioned as a straight-arrow choice if the GOP ever gets another Supreme Court nomination — in the hot seat.

(I hear Patrick Fitzgerald just finished a couple of big trials, so I imagine he's available.)

I'm not entirely clear why Clement who, as Solicitor General is, I thought, only #4 in the DoJ pecking order, is acting AG for matters for which Gonzales is recused. Is it because there is currently no confirmed #2 or #3, or has the pecking order changed?

Update: Transcript of the press conference announcing the letter, in which Senator Russ Feingold says, “Based on what we know and the evidence about what happened in terms of the gang of eight and what he said in that sworn testimony in the committee, I believe it's perjury.”

Posted in Law: Ethics | 1 Comment

A Brief Survey of Briefings

Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler) has done a fabulous bit of sleuthing, and posts the results at The Next Hurrah: The Briefing Dates.

The key point is that Congressional leaders were briefed about secret (and IMHO illegal) wiretap programs so long as the administration thought they were legal — but the briefings stopped when they started to have doubts:

For the first two years of the program, the Intelligence Committee leaders were briefed fairly regularly, at least every 6 months. (It was just the Intell leaders at that point, and not the party leaders, because BushCo went on a snit after Richard Shelby leaked the news that the NSA had had an intercept from Al Qaeda before 9/11, and cut back who it briefed even more than normal; finally, though, the leaders rebelled and they began to get briefed on the big secrets too.) And they seemed to be very diligent to make sure that everyone got equal briefing. For example, when Bob Graham missed the March 5, 2002 briefing, he got his own briefing not long thereafter.

The March 10 Meeting

But then, there was an unusually long gap between briefings, from July 17, 2003 to March 10, 2004, a gap of eight months rather than six. If they had followed the previous pattern, they would have done a briefing in January, 2004.

Note, this was right during the period when Jim Comey, Jack Goldsmith, and others, were recognizing that the program was illegal. So they didn't brief Congress on the program when they discovered it was illegal, but rather let it go for two more months, until the day Comey refused to certify its legality, before they bothered to convene. Effectively, rather than warning Congress, they created a crisis, presumably creating more pressure on Congress to approve it.

Effectively, the March 10 meeting was Tom Dashcle's only briefing on the program. Perhaps that's why he forgets the meeting? Wouldn't you think he'd remember it all the more?

Also note, Tom DeLay got his very own personal briefing on March 11, the day the program operated with no legal sanction. Oh to be a fly on the wall at that meeting…

Irregular Briefing

Things get a little sketchy after that. Congress did not receive a briefing after the crisis, so they presumably didn't learn that the program operated illegally (well, maybe DeLay did, but he's kind of fond of illegal activities). Just Pete Hoekstra got a briefing on September 24, 2004, and he presumably got that solely because he had just taken over as Chair of HPSCI after Porter Goss became DCI the day before. Harry Reid had to wait much longer—two months—before he was briefed on the program after becoming Minority Leader in the Senate in 2006. Effectively, though, the program went almost a full year (March 10, 2004 until February 3, 2005) before Congress was briefed on the program that had been found to be operating illegally.

All this has increased salience this week, because basket case Attorney General Gonzales testified that back when he was White House Counsel, he got an OK to proceed with a/the program from the Congressional leaders which led Gonzales and Card to ambush Ashcroft in intensive care.

There's lots more in the original post. Sen. Rockefeller again emerges looking spineless on an intelligence issue. There is evidence for the proposition that Speaker Pelosi is smart as hell.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | Comments Off on A Brief Survey of Briefings

Lies, Lies, Lies

Firedoglake : Omerta

Here’s a tip for Bush Administration cronies:  if you are going to lie under oath, on the record, with a video camera in your face, don’t lie about something for which there is documentary evidence directly contradicting your statements.  It makes you look unprepared, panicked and sloppy.

Posted in Politics: Impeachments, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 2 Comments

Impeach Gonzales

It's unanimous.

See also Andrew Cohen's Rough Justice – The Case Against Alberto Gonzales: Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV, plus Gonzo on the Hill: A Comedic Tragedy

Posted in Politics: Impeachments, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 2 Comments

Today’s Lesson: Don’t Get Near Dick Cheney

Don't go near Dick Cheney.

If you say something he doesn't like, however calmly and respectfully, he may have you arrested by the Secret Service and charged with “assault” — and threaten to have your child taken away by Child Services.

If you're a public official, it's harder to have you arrested, so he'll just swear at you and a couple of years later make up a claim that you got within kissing range of him:

In a “chance meeting” on the Senate floor with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in June 2004, Vice President Cheney told Leahy to “f*ck yourself.” According to Leahy’s spokesman, the “exchange began when Leahy crossed the aisle at the photo session and joked to Cheney about being on the Republican side.” Cheney then “‘lashed into’ Leahy for remarks he…made criticizing Iraq contracts won without competitive bidding by Halliburton.”

In the new biography of the Vice President by Stephen Hayes, Cheney claims that the reason he shouted the expletive was because Leahy had been too “close” to him:

Leahy came over and put his arm around me. And he didn’t kiss me but it was close to it. So I flashed and I told him — I dropped the F-bomb on him. … It was heartfelt.

Leahy was not “close” to kissing Cheney; all he did was try to shake his hand.

(There's more where that came from, and plenty of witnesses.)

Moral of the story: Don't go near Dick Cheney. He's dangerous, and might be contagious.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | Comments Off on Today’s Lesson: Don’t Get Near Dick Cheney

Bedtime Reading

Secrecy News points us to this important document:

A major new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service examines the congressional contempt power.

“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance (inherent contempt), punish the contemnor (criminal contempt), and/or to remove the obstruction (civil contempt).”

“Although arguably any action that directly obstructs the effort of Congress to exercise its constitutional powers may constitute a contempt, in the last seventy years the contempt power (primarily through the criminal contempt process) has generally been employed only in instances of refusals of witnesses to appear before committees, to respond to questions, or to produce documents.”

“This report examines the source of the contempt power, reviews the historical development of the early case law, outlines the statutory and common law basis for Congress’s contempt power, and analyzes the procedures associated with each of the three different types of contempt proceedings. In addition, the report discusses limitations both nonconstitutional and constitutionally based on the power.”

See “Congress’s Contempt Power: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure,” July 24, 2007.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | Comments Off on Bedtime Reading