The End of Week "Culture of Corruption" Round-up

The last couple of weeks has been pretty bad for the party that pledge to return honesty and integrity to the US government.

New about Tom DeLay's meeting with a co-indicted PAC leader the day that the questioned funds were laundered through the Republican National Committee raises more questions for the Hammer to answer.

DeLay Meeting, RNC Actions Coincided

Also posted are some of the e-mails and memos regarding the case. They may not seem like much, but trust me, they are much more damaging than meets the eye.

In a story that didn't get much play last week about a government lawyer who was demoted and reassigned when he started investigating Tom DeLay's buddy, Jack Abramoff. Investigators are looking in to the report.

The Justice Department's inspector general and the F.B.I. are looking into the demotion of a veteran federal prosecutor whose reassignment nearly three years ago shut down a criminal investigation of the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, current and former department officials report. They said investigators had questioned whether the demotion proper...

And, finally, Karl Rove is expected to testify again in front of the federal grand jury soon to explain why his testimony given to the FBI differs so much from the testimony given to the grand jury earlier. Fitzgerald is no longer giving any guarantees that Rove is not a target of the investigation. Additionally, Fitzgerald plans on calling Judy Miller to testify again about Scooter Libby's involvement in outing Valerie Plame.

Legal Experts: Rove's New Testimony Risky


What?!?! I never said her "name" 

Senate Gives a Big F-You to the Pres

Yesterday, the Senate voted 90-9 to set guidelines for interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere. This overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote sent a big ol' "F-You" to the president, who said he would veto any bill that set a limit on what kind of torture that the military can use. Apparently, Bush listens to the Rush Limbaugh show and agrees with Rush that what goes on at Abu Ghraib is actually "fun." Hopefully this might give Bush a kick in the ass to wake him up. His liaise fare attitude on torture is being rejected by even his own parties ardent war supporters.

Some people like Rush, worry about the reaction of the world to the release of additional pictures of the abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib. I am more concerned what the world will think about us when we have a president who refuses to commit to not using torture again.

Senate Supports Interrogation Limits
90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees Is a Bipartisan Rebuff of the White House

By Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 6, 2005; Page A01

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure.

Senate GOP leaders had managed to fend off the detainee language this summer, saying Congress should not constrain the executive branch's options. But last night, 89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions. McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines, adding that he mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . . . that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies."

The vote came hours after Senate Democratic leaders blasted Republicans for canceling a classified briefing on anti-terrorism matters by the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte. Senate Democrats also sent Bush a letter demanding more information about how he intends to succeed in Iraq.

The president, who defended his Iraq policies at a news conference Tuesday, plans to deliver "a significant speech on the war on terrorism" today, spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. He said Bush will "talk in unprecedented detail about the nature of the enemy we face" and "about our comprehensive strategy for defeating" that enemy.

The Senate's 90 to 9 vote suggested a new boldness among Republicans to challenge the White House on war policy. The amendment by McCain, one of Bush's most significant backers at the outset of the Iraq war, would establish uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by U.S. military personnel, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment while they are in U.S. custody.

McCain's allies included Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, and Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.). They said new detainee standards are needed to clear up confusion among U.S. troops that may have led to the mistreatment alleged at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and to the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

(Full Story)

A Rose by Any Other Name...

... Is still a Rose. And Tom DeLay by any other name is still a skunk. This little scheme of his and Blunt's probably isn't illegal, but it is definitely dirty and very un-ethical.

So, the skunk who had to step down as the Republican leader was just replaced by his co-skunk.

AP: DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess funds to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.


same skunk, different name 

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

"All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo," Noble said.

Go read the full story. There is such a tangled web, it makes your head spin.(Full Story)

Rush Limbaugh - The Nut

Rush Limbaugh attacked the Judge that ordered the release of 87 photographs of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib under the freedom of information act. He claims the judge is siding with Al Qaeda.

He has no problem with the fact that there is or was any abuse of the detainees. He has called the use of torture "brilliant" and likened the events to being no worse than a fraternity prank - "sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun."

From the Rush Limbaugh Show Sept. 30, 2005:

LIMBAUGH: Another American judge, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda. Pictures of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison must be released, despite government claims they could damage America's image. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they do not need pretexts for their barbarism. The American Civil Liberties Union sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes as part of an October 2003 lawsuit.

Anything you can to harm and destroy the country, anything you can to be critical of this country, would be permissible on the wacko American Left.

Now, I have a couple of questions for Rush. First, if the torture is "fun" and no worse than "fraternity hazing," why would it matter if the pictures were released? After all, according to Rush, this is fun. Arabs should be lining up to take a ride through Abu Ghraib so they can have a little male bonding time. In fact, the pictures could be used as a recruitment tool to get the insurgents off the streets and behind bars. We could make big posters of the pictures and post them all over town to show the insurgents what "fun" times they are missing out on. This way, we don't have to round them up and put American soldiers lives at risk.

Second, if the torture was so "brilliant," why would you not want the pictures to be seen? If torture is such an effective tool, wouldn't this be a great way of dissuading anyone from challenging American authority? If worked for Saddam for almost 30 years. If Saddam was able to pacify his country for decades with torture, and Rush thinks torture tactics are so great, again, we should be advertising these pictures, not hiding them.

I don't think Rush realizes that it is the torture itself that sullies the American reputation, not the pictures. I wish he would get that through his big fat head.

H/T - MMFA

Litmus Test

It used to be that a litmus test on abortion was the domain of the Democrats when it came to judicial nominees. The last two Supreme court nominations have shown that the right is as pushy, if not more, than the Democrats are about this now. Many social conservatives, including several prominent Republican Senators now consider the abortion issue and being pro-life the preeminent qualification on whether a nominee should be qualified.

At least now, when I hear conservatives scream at liberals for the abortion issue "litmus test," I can tell them to shut it.

GOP Senator Concerned About Miers' Abortion Views

Oct. 5, 2005 — A powerful conservative on the Senate Judiciary Committee says if Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers considers Roe v. Wade "settled law" there is a "good chance" that he will vote against her.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, told "Good Morning America" today he believes the landmark case that legalized abortion, needs to be reconsidered "because of the effects that Roe v. Wade has had on this society and the unborn."

Brownback acknowledged that Miers cannot explicitly say how she would rule on abortion because that would be considered "pre-judging" an issue that is likely to come before her, should she be concerned.

Brownback said there is "precious little to go on" to determine where Miers stands on many divisive issues. He is set to meet with her on Thursday.

(Full Story)

Harriet Miers - Chosen Because of the War on Terror?

For the past couple of days, I have sat back and pondered the Harriet Miers nomination. Why did Bush nominate her in particular? Was it because the president was not up for a fight? I doubted that was the cause. Bush has never kow-towed to the Democrats on anything and at last count, the Senate was still controlled by Republicans. I know that he did not fear a filibuster. His base has been spoiling for that fight for a long time, and nominating a hard line conservative would been exactly what he needed to re-energize his dwindling base. Instead, the right seems to be eating its young over the nomination.

I also know that no decision would be made without Karl Rove's steely hand involved. I'll be the first to admit that he is brilliant, far smarter than I am.

So, the question still remained. Why Harriet Miers?

Then I read a piece today in Roll Call that reported on a conference call that Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, held yesterday with conservative leaders to address their concerns about Miers. That's where I think I may have found the answer to the quandry.

He stressed Bush’s close relationship with Miers and the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism, according to a person who attended the teleconference.

We all know that Bush likes absolute loyalty. We also know that Bush sees his role on the War on Terror is his legacy. We also know that there has been a lot of questionable calls by the Bush administration when it comes to the detainment and treatment of terrorists and enemy combatants and what role the civilian courts should play in their final adjudication. Whether you agree or disagree with the administrations actions, the courts have decided both for and against the administration on the matters. The only way for Bush to maintain the staus quo is with friendly court rulings. Many court cases in regards to the detainees have already been brought, and many are still pending. Many will make their way to the Supreme Court. Bush sees his ability to keep these detainees out of the civil legal system as crucial to fighting the War on Terror. A hostile court could be disastrous to his vision of how the war should be fought.

He knows how Miers feels on this. She is his personal attorney who has advised the president on these specific issues. Bush, Rove and Cheney are not going to roll the dice on an unknown candidate such as Owen or Brown. Their legal philosophy is definitely conservative, but there is still an unknown factor in how they would rule on such cases.

I think the War on Terror is the reason that Bush sold out the religious right on the nomination (assuming she would not overrule Roe). Nothing happens without reason in Washington, especially with this administration. If this is Bush's intentions, then he has chosen superbly on the matter. She is unlikely to be filibustered, and should get easily confirmed. He gets what he wants without a fight. Stealthy nominee, indeed.

Bishop to Queen 4

There are a lot of questions regarding the new money laundering charge brought against Tom DeLay yesterday. While I am a lawyer, I don't do criminal work for individuals (only corporations), so I didn't have a lot of my own answers, so I asked someone who would have more knowledge on the chess game gong on.

My friends theory is that DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, outsmarted himself (and note, this is just an educated guess). What most people don't know is that there is a lot of behind closed door negotiations that go on in criminal matters. It is a lot of back and forth between one of DeLay's attorneys and one of the ADAs in Austin while DeLay and Earle duke it out in front of the TV screens.

The theory goes that DeGuerin and Earle agreed that DeLay would waive his rights on the Statute of Limitations and plead no contest to the conspiracy charges. No contest means that the accused does not admit guilt, but does not contest the charges either. The conspiracy charge was one that is a lesser offence than money laundering, and carries a much lesser penalty. That is why DeLay was only going to be charged with a lesser offense when Earle could have gone for the full 9 yards in the first place.

Pleading no contest would allow DeLay to continue to claim he was innocent while averting a full on trial where, even if he is acquitted, a whole lot of skeletons are going to come tumbling from the closet. Even innocent people come out of a trial smelling pretty bad. Like I said, even if DeLay was acquitted, a trial would most likely be political and career suicide. He might even have problems getting a job on K Street afterwards.

Dick DeGuerin agreed to the plea, secretly knowing that he was going to get the charges thrown out because the offense DeLay is charged with did not become illegal until 2003, and DeLay had acted in 2002.

Earle, being bested by DeGuerin in the past, probably knew he had something up his sleeve and would not go through with the agreed upon plea deal. So, Earle kept the new charges in his back pocket until DeLay reneged on his plea. Since the Statute of Limitations for the specific actions had already been waived, Earle was able to go back in and get the new charges which carry up to life in prison.

This is just a theory, but if anyone doesn't think that there has been a lot going on behind closed doors, you are dead wrong. I can 100% guarantee you that Dick DeGuerin has been in constant contact with Ronnie Earle since day one when Earle made the first move - Pawn to Rook 3.

DeLay Indicted on New Charge

I am not sure if this vacates the old charge or just adds to the charges.

Grand Jury Indicts DeLay on New Charge

By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

The new indictment came hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a request to dismiss the case. That request argued that the conspiracy charge was based on a law that was not effective until 2003, the year after the alleged money transfers.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case was out of the country on vacation and could not rule on the request. Other state district judges declined to rule on the request in his place, said Colleen Davis, a law clerk to Austin attorney Bill White, also represents DeLay.

10 Assertions against Gay Marriage

I found this on Farietales and decided to repost it.

10 Assertions against Gay Marriage. With bonus sarcasm!

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets! Because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

So Help Me God

"So Help Me God" is the title of the book former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore, wrote. Those are the words that Alabamians will be uttering if Roy Moore gets his way.

Moore declared today that he is running for the governor of Alabama. Moore's was expelled from his last job, a State Supreme Court Justice, because he has no respect for the law. Just in case you did not follow the controversy that unfolded in 2003 and 2004, Judge Moore dropped a 5,300-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the Supreme Court House. A federal court ruled the monument in the rotunda to be an unconstitutional cross between church and state. Moore appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, loosing at every level.

Even after loosing in the Supreme Court, Moore defied the court orders to remove the monument, and instead, rallied a protest outside the building. I find it disconcerting when elected officials feel that biblical law is more important than the constitution. I have no problem with them following it in their personal lives, but when it comes to the courtroom, the constitution IS the highest law of the land.

If elected, I am sure he would also ignore federal court orders saying that replacing biology class with bible study is also unconstitutional. But, I can hope that the people of Alabama are smart enough to never allow him into the Governor's mansion.

Ousted Ala. Justice to Run for Governor

By PHILLIP RAWLS

GADSDEN, Ala. - Roy Moore, who became a hero to the Christian right after being ousted as Alabama's chief justice for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, announced Monday that he is running for governor in 2006.

Moore's candidacy could set up a showdown with Gov. Bob Riley, a fellow Republican, and turn the Ten Commandments dispute into a central campaign issue in this Bible Belt state.

Two Democrats, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and former Gov. Don Siegelman, are already running. The Republican and Democratic primaries are June 6.

In 2000, Alabama voters elected Moore as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, and the next summer he had a 5,300-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building. A federal judge ordered Moore to remove the monument, but Moore refused.

His fellow justices had the monument moved to a storage site out of public view. And in November 2003, a state judicial court kicked Moore out of office for defying the federal court.

Moore took appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost at every level.

(Full Story)

Breach of Contract

Anyone want to sue? I will provide the legal representation because the Republican Contact with America was breached a long time ago and the American people are still paying the premiums.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

The Republican Revolution definitely changed the way congress worked. Since the Republicans took over, the number of lobbyists in DC has tripled. Government has grown by leaps and bounds since 2000 and so has the budget. The deficit has ballooned to near historic heights. The income gap between rich and poor has increased every year since 2000, and poverty levels have also increased every year. Republican congressmen push Bush to nominate judges who do not believe that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Wave after wave of corruption and ethics violations have been uncovered.

The contract called for a smaller, leaner, less intrusive government that reduced spending. The GOP has delivered on none of it. The revolution was all hype and the Grand Old Party is leaving us with a tremendous hangover.

Harriet Miers Nominated to the Supreme Court

Just in case you have not yet seen this (I think you would have to be living in a cave to not have), Bush has nominated his White House Counsel to take over the seat that O'Connor is vacating. There is little paper trail on her, so I will withhold my approval/disapproval of the pick, but looking over her qualifications, she appears to well qualified for the position.

Special interest groups on both the right and left have already started lining up against her. The conservative "Public Advocate" group has come out against her since she is not verifiably anti-choice. Of course, the same group pulled its support for Roberts because he doesn't hate gays. So much for the name "Public Advocate." Irony is not just a river in Egypt.

Bush Names Harriet Miers to Supreme Court

White House Counsel Would Replace Retiring Sandra Day O'Connor

By Fred Barbash, Peter Baker and Michael Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 3, 2005; 10:18 AM

President Bush named White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Miers, who was Bush's personal attorney in Texas, was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association and was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp before coming to Washington to work in the Bush administration.

If confirmed, she would be a rare appointee with no experience as a judge at any level. Among the non-judges appointed in modern history are the late William H. Rehnquist, who was a top Justice Department official in the Nixon administration, and Abe Fortas, an influential Washington attorney and close adviser to Lyndon B. Johnson, who nominated him to the high court in 1965.

Bush portrayed her as a "pioneer" in the legal profession who broke down gender barriers in the law. She would succeed Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, who is retiring.

"Harriet's greatest inspiration was her mother, who taught her the difference between right and wrong and instilled in Harriet the conviction that she could do anything she set her mind to," said Bush.

"Inspired by the confidence, Harriet became a pioneer in the field of law, breaking down barriers to women that remain even after a generation -- remain a generation after President Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor to the Supreme Court."

Miers was active in a 1992 battle in the American Bar Association, arguing vehemently but unsuccessfully against a resolution supportive of abortion rights. New reports at the time did not quote her on the merits of Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, but rather on what she considered the inappropriateness of the ABA taking a position.

Miers does have some political experience. In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for reelection when her term expired.

Miers served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect Bush in 1994, according to a White House biography of Miers released this morning.

"She is single and very close to her family: Two brothers and her mother live in Dallas and a third brother lives in Houston," said the White House biography.

Her low-key but high-precision style has been particularly valued in a White House where discipline in publicly articulating policy and loyalty to the president are highly valued.

(Full Story)