The House of Representatives voted to refer Kucinich’s Motion to impeach the president.

Wow, I thought it would go nowhere.

Members of the Judiciary Committee

The significance of this is that an impeached President cannot issue pardons, amongst other things.

Spy Bill ’Compromise’ Still Gives Amnesty to Telcoms, But Adds Trappings of Justice

House and Senate leaders are still bargaining over how far to expand the government’s domestic spying powers and whether to grant retroactive legal amnesty to companies that violated federal privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans.

But if a proposal from the top Republican from the Senate Intelligence committee is any indicator, telecom amnesty would be all but assured in any final bill.  Read more 

ACLU of WV at West VA Blue

After boldly standing up to The Bush administrations’ fear mongering in February, word comes that House leadership may now be working with Senator Jay Rockefeller to possibly rush a pro-telecom amnesty bill through Congress in the next few days.

Civil libertarians in the Mountain State, say no to back room deals.

The FireDogLake community is trying to do something about this.

So what do local bloggers think of the FISA sellouts?  Read more 

(Updated with a post that totally proves my point) She of 18-hour support wonders, along with the Mighty Glenn:

At last, Glenn Greenwald has gotten down to the nitty-gritty and discussed what no one is saying about the original FISA legislation that was introduced in 1977 - that it was an outrageous ceding to government of the power to violate our Constitutional right to privacy (yes, privacy) as clearly spelled out in the 4th Amendment.
…
Indeed; the most liberal position in the public discourse is this: that it’s okay to take our time on constructing a new, more invasive FISA law, because the original law will cover us adequately in the meantime. But virtually no one is arguing that no updating at all of the original law has ever been necessary (except me and a few security geeks), and no one at all is pointing out that FISA itself is and always was a bridge too far. When the authorities violate the 4th Amendment, they should be put in jail, not given greater latitude to spy on us under a legal fiction of national security.

Am I the only one who thinks that we really don’t live in a nation of laws anymore? That this whole discussion is mostly one for wonks who love detail? Because it seems to me that between the AG refusing to do his job, and the “Constitutional scholar” and “experienced lawyer-stateswoman” both wimping out on major Senate debates about the Constitution, talk like this misses the point. I’m not harshing on A or GG, christ no. But I’m asking for a better way to frame the question. Right now the Constitution is a beautiful dream, but it’s clearly not “in force.” The law of the land is: who is closer to the security-military-contractor-prison complex, me or thee? If I am, I win. If you are, you win. This rule applies in confrontation, business, “the economy,” and across most elements of the social environment. And if you have enough of a connection to the MIC, you can get away with anything, anything at all…  Read more 

I love lists. I make them, I read them, I collect them…the ACLU made a list for 2007 your should read:

2007: The Year We Didn’t Get Our Freedoms Back

Top 10 ways our government failed us:

1. Not putting an end to warrantless NSA spying. Congress instead has continued to let the NSA spy without warrants and is considering letting the telephone companies off the hook for spying on Americans illegally. The Senate debated FISA last month before the holiday recess, and in a gift to the American people, legislation that would have forgiven telecom companies for spying on their customers and given the NSA more freedom to spy on Americans was not voted on. Congress is expected to take up the legislation when members return later in January.

2. Not repealing the Military Commissions Act or restoring habeas corpus. Despite a valiant effort and near success, an amendment to restore habeas corpus received 56 votes when it needed 60 votes. The support in the Senate indicates that legislation to fix the Military Commissions Act could pass. The Supreme Court will also issue a decision in 2008 regarding habeas corpus.

3. Not closing the Guantanamo Bay Prison. January 11 marks the sixth anniversary of the arrival of prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners have been held without habeas corpus rights for six years. The ACLU is organizing people across America to wear orange that day in recognition of the shame the prison has caused for all of us.

The number of inmates shrank this year to 355, having started at over 700; officials expect the prison to close one way or another in 2008. But Guantanamo’s closing will not necessarily mean the end of holding prisoners without due process, especially if the Military Commissions Act is still in place.

4. Not giving due process to immigrants and denying life-saving health care in immigration detention facilities. Although the comprehensive immigration reform bill ultimately failed, even that legislation would not have given immigrants badly needed basic due process rights. Congress failed to pass legislation this year securing those basic human rights for immigrants.

5. Allowing the CIA to destroy interrogation tapes.  Read more 

And, if so, what it is?

I figured the Clinton campaign site had to be the most authoritative source of answers to this question, so I went there and looked at what was on the record, starting with the Issues/Government Reform topic. There, I see a lot of sound, good government administrative ideas like:

• Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
• Strengthening whistleblower protections.
• Creating a public service academy.
• Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
• Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
• Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
• Publishing budgets for every government agency.
• Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
• Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
• Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

All worthy. But where can I find the plan for the restoration of Constitutional government on Hillary’s site?

What I don’t see, anywhere:  Read more 

Funny when Pumpkinhead becomes a junkyard dog, isn’t it? Insofar as a wordy vacuous cipher can be called a dog, of course. From CNN transcript, Pumpkinhead recites the authorized version. His recital is useful, because it illustrates the sheer wrongness that dominates discourse in the Village.

MR. RUSSERT: After September 11th, the government went to many of the private telecom companies in our country and asked them for information, data.

Tweety’s first lie: The administration was seeking this power before 9/11.

The government said they were legally justified to it. They wanted to see if there was a nexus between international terrorists and some phone calls made back here to the United States.

Tweety’s second lie: The program is and has always been about voice and data — Tweety even says so just above! — not just wiretapping. (This has been a problem with the press coverage from the very beginning.) And further, Tweety recites what the administration says without qualification. Surely, at this point, skepticism is more than warranted?

You have been very outspoken about [against] giving those companies immunity from any kind of prosecution, even though they were doing what the government asked them to do.

Tweety’s third lie: “The government” has three branches, only one of them is the executive branch.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democratic [sic] on Senate intelligence, has a view much different from yours.

Tweety’s bias just showed. The Democrats are in the majority on the Committee, so Rockefeller is the chair, not the “ranking member.” Dodd could have broken in, and corrected this obvious “error.”

This is what Rockefeller says: “We recognize that private companies who received legal assurances from the highest levels of government should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security. The onus is on the administration, not the companies, to ensure that the request is on strong legal footing, and if it’s not,” it’s “the administration that should be held accountable.”

Tweety’s fourth lie: The telcos have an independent duty to obey the law, regardless of what the administration says or doesn’t say.

Why you going after these companies for doing what they thought was in the public interest?

Tweety’s fifth lie: FISA provides for criminal penalties; felonies. Intent has nothing to with it.

There you have it. A very compact compendium of Village wisdom on warrantless surveillance, all of it wrong. Wrong on the facts; wrong on the law; and wrong on how the very foundation of our government, the Constitution, works. Tweety’s chatter and clutter and chaff is what passes for discourse these days. Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?

Now Dodd:  Read more 

[Welcome, Eschatonians, and thanks to Lord Atrios for the link. I called up Hoyer’s office, and courteously informed the young staffer about the link. And you know what? They didn’t know who Atrios was. So, this is a teachable moment_{MR SUBLIMINAL And be polite, dammit!} to show Hoyer that (a) restoring Constitutional government is good politics, and (b) it’s good to have the blogosphere with you. Why not call his office and do some teaching? (202) 225-4131. Did I mention that you should be polite?*]

Here’s a very interesting speech that Representative Hoyer gave yesterday over at Georgetown Law School.** (I’m not clued into Village mores enough to know if the location is significant, but I’m guessing it is. Heck, it’s the Beltway’s own law school…). Here’s the text of the speech, and some of what he had to say; I’m leaving out the terra-terra-terra ass-covering boilerplate to focus on what’s new:

We also swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to honor the values and principles that are contained therein for example, the Fourth Amendment right that Americans be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.

Honoring the system of checks and balances carefully established by the Framers of our Constitution will make us more, not less, safe. This was the conclusion of those men in 1789 who had just fought a war, and who faced a very uncertain and dangerous future.

[Here follows a long list of abuses and usurpations; essentially, the same critique we’ve been developing on torture, surveillance, the rule of law, abuse of power, et cetera, et cetera.]

Nor have we helped our cause by dispensing with centuries-old legal concepts such as habeas corpus. And, the Administration s penchant for presidential signing statements that assert a right of the President to effectively ignore all or part of the laws he signs must give all of us pause.

It is long past time for effective Congressional oversight and Judicial review of this Administration’s actions.

And now comes something I personally find amazing:  Read more 

Perhaps it’s hard for Hillary and Barack to get hold of their expensive Beltway consultants on a Friday afternoon. Or maybe the consultant’s scarfing a cocktail wienie, so they can’t speak clearly.

Regardless, check out this amazing WaPo chat:

San Francisco: Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd’s hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms? Thanks for joining us for this chat today, Sen. Biden, and thanks for the leadership you provide the Democratic Party and America.

Sen. Joe Biden: Yes.

Amazing for the brevity, I mean. (Via McJoan Big Orange). Dunno who that was from SF, but I’d like to think it was FDL’s Teddy.

And before you say “Oh, Dodd and Biden aren’t top-tier candidates”:  Read more 

Seems that Hillary’s got a business model a lot like Microsoft’s: She lets others (in this case, John Edwards) do the innovating, and then releases her own version when user acceptance reaches critical mass. Of course, Microsoft has been very successful with this strategy, and if what Hillary is saying proves out, I wish her every success as well. Via Glenn, she was interviewed by the Globe:

“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,” Clinton told the Boston Globe’s editorial board.

Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the “unitary executive” theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president’s power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.

Well said. How do we know she’ll keep her word?  Read more 

Insert your plan here. The candidates clearly need our help articulating this one. Friday night after a nice dinner with family and cards is the wrong time to do this, but the thought did occur to me. Step by step, what do you want the ’critters to do? Or, what do you dream of doing? No restriction, speak freely about what you think would/should/could work.  Read more 

The Hill:

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Michael McConnell has quietly courted key members of the House Blue Dog Coalition for a short-term fix for the administration’s foreign-intelligence surveillance program, putting additional pressure on Democratic leaders to pass a bill before the end of the week.

McConnell’s office, however, started reaching out to Blue Dogs before negotiations intensified in an attempt to help leverage the Democratic Caucus. Rep. Bud Cramer (D-Capitulation), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said over the weekend McConnell asked him to organize a Blue Dog meeting, which was held on Tuesday in a secure location.

Interesting. Secure location where? Cheney’s bunker?

The DNI’s office also reached out to Rep. Jane Harman (D-Capitulation), the former ranking member of the Intelligence panel who now chairs the intelligence subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee. Pelosi denied her the top spot on Intelligence last winter.

Harman said that she has been privy to information about the increased terrorist “chatter” and believes there’s a real risk that terrorists could strike in this country in August, and that an overhaul of the bill could help the NSA deter it.

“The two of us became lead dogs on this,” Cramer said.

Nice work, there, Jane.  Read more 

Glenn Greenwald:

The common, defining political principle [here at YearlyKos] — what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea — is a fervent and passionate belief in our country’s constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who — having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it — instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

Bingo!  Read more 

[I’d like to leave this up top for awhile, ‘til I get some kind of answer. - See Update 1 - Update 2 - Update 3 - Update 4 - Update 5: At last! Somebody gets it! Read more for the YouTube. - Update 6]

[Welcome, Readers of Duncan The Grey. I was starting to think nobody noticed this one. Question: I thought by this time that it would be obvious that Bush wasn’t governing Constitutionally. Was I wrong?]

Just asking….

Since I won’t be in Chicago, I thought I’d put the Constitutional Question now.

Je repete: Say, Kos: “What is the Democrats’ plan to restore Constitutional Government?”

Is the replacement of Constitutional government by tyranny under Bush on anyone’s radar? Is there a workshop, maybe? Some kind of panel?

Kos? (Since your mission is to elect Democrats)

John Edwards?

Obama?

Hillary?  Read more 

Case closed, I’d say. Barbara Jordan on impeachment (via the Bra’ed One). It’s a case study for today’s Democrats on how to talk about the issue, so go read the whole, wonderful thing. I’m going to pull out quotes on the legal rationale:

[BARBARA JORDAN]:We know the nature of impeachment. We’ve been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the executive if he engages in excesses. “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”

Justice Story: “Impeachment” is attended — “is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.”

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

And she concludes:  Read more 

[Welcome, C&L readers! Of course, the real “God Save” stuff is over here. Gotta keep those hamsters turning the cages. So, check out CD’s fresh promotional concept after you’ve finished this post….]

Let’s hope the UK is a leading indicator. From the Guardian:

Brown hands key powers to parliament
[New Prime Minister Gordon] Brown’s route map for constitutional reform was unveiled in his first Commons statement as prime minister. It was intended as a clear rupture with the Blair administration, and a shock to critics who fear he is a centralising autocrat.

Ridiculous! Just show me one country happening, for heaven’s sake!

Setting out a series of initiatives that could fundamentally change the balance of power in the UK, he also launched a cross-party debate on a new bill of rights that could for the first time enshrine the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. The age of voting could also be reduced to 16 and elections held on Sundays.

Mr Brown announced his government was surrendering or limiting the executive’s powers over the right to declare war. He set out proposals that would also block the government’s ability to recall parliament and choose bishops.

There could also be limits on the executive’s power to ratify international treaties, grant pardons and make key public appointments. He proposed that MPs hold US-style pre-appointment hearings initially for senior public officials such as the chief inspector of prisons.

The contrast between “The Mother of Parliaments” moving toward the separation of powers and a Bill of Rights, while the criminal Bush regime tramples on them, couldn’t be more obvious.

But it looks like in this country, unlike the UK, impeachment now is the only good option to get our Constitution back, eh?  Read more 

Great, great little piece in NYT today, which interestingly enough they chose not to hide behind the evil Paywall. The author: Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Not a big name, not a politician. Very nice writer though, and his logic (as well as politcal savvy) seems quite impeccable.

His topic: Should Congress impeach the Attorney General? That they can is unquestionable:

A cabinet officer, like a judge or a president, may be impeached only for commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But as the Nixon and Clinton impeachment debates reminded us, that constitutional phrase embraces not only indictable crimes but “conduct … grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government.”

Emphasis added, because as we’ve said on possibly a time or two before, this is the heart of the matter.  Read more 

[Updates below on blogosphere, media coverage.]

The only problem with firing all the attorney’s who weren’t “loyal Bushies” and who were investigating Republicans—Lam—or wouldn’t smear Democrats—Iglesias?

The Explainer didn’t do his job. But then, does he ever? From Bush’s speech today at 5:45:

[BUSH] The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled.

I’ll bet.

We’re determined to correct the problem.

And how! Er, I mean, and how?

[BUSH] It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available.

Sweet Jeebus! Since when is testifying under oath about potential obstruction of justice a “show trial?” Talk about overheated rhetoric! And since when does the executive determine who gets to testify before the legislative branch? And who said the exective gets to throw out chaff and then call it “unpredented disclosure”? Gosh, it’s almost like Bush wants to be the judge and jury in his own case, isn’t it?

Unbelievably, Bush takes questions. (So where’s “Jeff Gannon” when we need him to throw The Explainer some softballs? Under Karl’s desk?)

And speaking of obstruction of justice, Bush doesn’t speak of it:  Read more 

That’s the question you should ask every Democratic representative and Senator—especially the new ones.

The Republicans are saying they will never disgorge their authoritarian gains. Listen to this bravado from the Republican losers in the White House. They just don’t know any other way to behave. Mike Allen:  Read more 

Do heads of departments like the NSA get sworn in, as in hand-on-the-Bible-and-take-