It's really sad when you think about it. During the Bush years, Patrick Leahy was a man that stood on the side of privacy. Now that a Democrat is in the White House, he stands on the side of spying:
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Legislation like this is the very reason I argue for two parties willing to work together. It's the best form of checks and balances we have, just like a warrant is a form of checks and balances over law enforcement. Hopefully that will happen here. If not, then you need to really watch what you EMail and sit back as our Constitution dies a little more.
In the waning days of the lame duck session, the Senate had the opportunity to pass theDomestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act. Aimed at creating “a comprehensive, victim-centered approach to addressing the sex trafficking of minors,” the bill is “the first of its kind to deal with young trafficking victims domestically” by providing $12 million in off-set funding for state and local law enforcement to shelter, rehabilitate, prevent, and protect child victims of the sex trade.
Originally introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and John Cornyn (R-TX) in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted, amended, and passed the House version of this bill last summer which then passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 9, 2010. The bill returned to the House, underwent further revision, and finally passed by voice vote on December 21, 2010. But when the Senate attempted to pass the bill again by unanimous consent, Sen. Jeff Sessions put a hold on the bill. The sole objector, Sessions effectively defeated its passage in the 111th Congress.
Along with filibuster reform, we also need to get rid of this crap where a single senator can defeat a measure by doing these holds. This has to be the most un-democratic thing ever.
There is a ton of outrage going on over the Justice Department’s brief filed in a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, and that outrage is rightfully so. But there is something lacking in the discussion that has emerged – the fact that there are still a lot of unfilled positions in the DOJ.
One example is Tony Perez. He was appointed in April to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights division, yet there hasn’t even been a hearing yet to confirm him. Tony West, who heads the civil division and signed off on the brief was just confirmed on April 20th. With all these vacancies still at the DOJ that means the people who have managed to get through the confirmation are picking up the extra slack.
That’s the reason there are still so many Bush hold appointees at DOJ. Its not the Obama wants them – its that Obama is stuck with them.
Until the Senate Judiciary Committee gets going, and Republicans stop blocking, we can expect to see poor decisions by the DOJ. My guess is that neither President Obama nor AG Holder had any idea that brief was being filed, let alone that the case may have even existed.
Its not making excuses for the piss-poor brief, but rather a statement of the facts. I don’t think we can even fully call it Obama’s DOJ and may not be able to until 2010.
TPM has dug up a CBS report from 1986 when Jeff Sessions, the now ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was rejected by the Senate for a court appointment over his racial views.
How’s that for the Republicans trying to “reach out”.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) will take over the ranking member position on the Senate Judiciary Committee after striking a deal with his more senior colleagues over the weekend, sources confirm to The Hill.
Sessions and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reached the deal that will allow the Alabama Republican to take over for Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose departure from the GOP last week left the committee without a ranking member.
This will make the conservatives very happy. But lets not let them forget that it was Sessions who started the entire argument during the Alito confirmation that nominees “deserve an up or down vote”. Will he live by that argument, or will the Democrats have to take away the filibuster from the Republicans?
Here’s another example that if you want a job in government you need to make it your first job ever:
{[}]lt;p>Senators might want to hold David Ogden's confirmation hearing after the kids go to bed.
That's because the man in line to become No. 2 at the nation's top law enforcement agency was once a strident defender of Playboy and other purveyors of nudity. {[}]lt;/p>
And some critics are drawing attention to his risque legal work ahead of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday. In one case, Ogden paved the way for the blind to enjoy Playboy at the Library of Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved new legislation creating a form of "copyright cops" to go after file swappers and people who violate intellectual property laws. Under this bill, they can now seize any computers involved in the infringement.
So will they go after McCain for his constant use of music without consent?
In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray, telling a key Democratic senator he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy's plan for changing the law.
Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell co-signed the letter released Wednesday night by the Justice Department.
"We strongly oppose the proposed substitute amendment. If the substitute is part of a bill that is presented to the president, we and the president's other senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill," they said.
And what is it Mukasey is actually opposing? Well that would be Leahy's amendment to strip out immunity for the telecom companies. I guess we can thank Chuck and Di for this one also.
The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.
Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.
The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.
"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."
Now will he claim "executive privilege"? But Cheney isn't under the executive branch - his words. So if he tries to play that he is in the legislative branch, then the subpoena should stand. Just ask William Jefferson.
I swear there are just not enough hours in the day, so let me do a quick catch up.
First we have the Senate Judiciary Committee issuing a subpoena to former Rove aide Sara Taylor, while the House Judiciary Committee is issuing one to Harriet Meirs. Regarding this matter, John Conyers said, "Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House...to help us answer the questions that remain".
Next up we find out that even with the "surge", we still don't have enough troops in Iraq and might need yet another surge. This came from Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey as he was testifying before the House yesterday. Oh and let's remember that this was yesterday, before our next item of:
In the early morning hours Sunni insurgents blew up the Askariya Shrine. This is the same shrine that was blown up last year and caused the sectarian violence to explode. Before al-Maliki could issue the new "indefinite curfews", arsonists set fire to a Sunni mosque in western Baghdad. a Shiite shrine was blown up north of Baghdad and two Sunni mosques were bombed south of Baghdad.
To make matters even worse, al-Sadr and his bloc of 30 members suspended its membership in Iraq's parliament. Yes al-Sadr is a bad guy, but now he is that much worse.
Hey John McCain - is this still like a stroll in any American town? What say you Joe Lieberman or Mike Pence?
The Senate will hold a “no confidence†vote on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this Monday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, announced.
In a statement released Friday, Schumer said if all senators followed their conscience, “this vote would be unanimous.â€
“However, the president will certainly exert pressure to support the attorney general, his longtime friend,†Schumer added. “We will soon see where people’s loyalties lie.â€
The attorney general is under investigation by Congress over last year’s dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys.
Last month, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted Gonzales would resign before facing a “substantial†no-confidence vote.
“I think that if and when he sees that coming, that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark,†the Pennsylvania senator told CBS’ “Face the Nation†on May 20.
But a day after Specter’s comments, Bush reiterated his support in Gonzales and denounced the prospect of a no-confidence vote as “pure political theater.â€
Of course watching the news channels you would have no idea something like this was happening. I mean Paris is going back to jail. That is far more important than things like wars and the state of our nation. America is a sad, pathetic place any more.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize more subpoenas in the U.S.A. purge. Five of the subpoenas are targeting Justice Department officials.
In the wake of this growing scandal, we also find out from Murray Waas that Bush worked to shut down another investigation that may have targeted Gonzales:
Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.
Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.
It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.
Yes - the showdown is heating up. The next big question is rather the White House will let Karl Rove testify. If he doesn't I would accept that as an admission of guilt from Bush and that is grounds to immediately start impeachment hearings.
Today we find out that the firings of the United States Attorneys went all the way to the oval office:
The White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers, administration officials said Monday.
Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.
The president did not call for the removal of any specific United States attorneys, said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She said she had “no indication†that the president had been personally aware that a process was already under way to identify prosecutors who would be fired.
Josh points out that these claims of voter fraud by the Republicans have been nothing more than a red herring used by Republicans for years. One of the fired U.S.As, David McKay, said he is "stunned" at this revelation and that "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.".
This is a really interesting story that is thankfully gaining attention. Halliburton announced this weekend that they will be moving their corporate headquarters from Houston, Texas to Dubai. There are a lot of questions surrounding this move - the biggest on their taxes. Halliburton generates a large portion of their income from U.S. contracts and will now pay far less taxes to the U.S. Our new Democratic Congress does not seem very happy about it either:
Time’s Karen Tumulty comments on Halliburton’s plan to move its headquarters from Houston to Dubai: “Is this about tax breaks? Getting beyond the reach of congressional subpoenas? And what about all that sensitive information that Halliburton has had access to? At a minimum, reincorporating in Dubai would mean that Halliburton will be paying less taxes to the U.S. Treasury, even as it collects billions from government contracts.†She also reports, “Henry Waxman is already planning to hold a hearing on this, an aide tells me.â€
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) told ABC News it was “an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers.â€
There should be great concern with this move. Halliburton does a lot of support work for our troops. Should we let this work be handled by a company located in Dubai? This has the same stink on it that the ports deal had.
Yesterday I posted a video clip of Steny Hoyer on the House Floor. The clip was from C-Span. I posted it to YouTube, where it still remains.
Luckily it looks like I might be ok in spite of the recent rash of YouTube bannings for copyright violations. This came to light by another apparent fight that the right-wingers wanted to start with Pelosi and Kos pointed out:
Earlier today, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released a document about the Speaker's use of copyrighted/trademarked C-SPAN material on a Congressional website. The document was based upon a conversation that RSC staff had with Barry Katz, the Manager of C-SPAN Video Assets (and the employee identified as being directly responsible for answering questions to Congress about the use of C-SPAN material).
