VIDEO: Sarah Palin Meets the Press after Testifying in Hacking Trial

By GottaLaff



Wordy McMilkIt even took advantage of this moment to play the Trig card... again... or as Wordy would say:

PeopleexploitmykidsbutIwouldneverdothatI'maRAGINGHYPOCRITE!
Let'stalkaboutBristolwhilewe'reatit.IllegalprivateexposenotrightWORDSALAD
Isthismygoodside?ThiswassohurtfulWEAREVICTIMSPlayvictimcardoften.
NOBREATH.
Itwassnowin'athome!
I'lljustkeeptalkingtogarnersympathyandattention.Youguysalwaysfallforthat.
Memememememememememememememememeeeeeeee!

A little background:

During the 2008 campaign, David Kernell, then a college student, thought it might be fun to hack into Sarah Palin's email account and publish her private information on the web.

Gay service members who "tell" during Congress testimony would be immune from forced discharge

By GottaLaff

Every time I read about the incremental steps to ensure gay rights, I shake my head in disbelief, realizing anew how many scared, ignorant people still don't get it.

It's good to see Hastings out there fighting the good fight, but it shouldn't even be necessary in this day and age:

Gay service members who reveal their sexual orientations during congressional testimony would be immune from forced discharges under a bill introduced Wednesday, as lawmakers prepare to consider repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military.

The legislation's author, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said the bill is needed to ensure that Congress has reliable and relevant witnesses at its disposal if the House holds hearings next year on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The bill also would protect from retaliatory personnel actions any members of the military who testify for or against lifting the 16-year ban.

There are arguments for and against the bill included in the article, but IMHO, it is, sadly, an essential protection.

Heavy sigh.

Military Lawyers Claim U.S. Paid Gitmo Prosecution Witnesses

By GottaLaff

I have posted about several times about Mohammed Jawad, the very young detainee whose testimony was ruled inadmissible by two U.S. judges because it was coerced. He was tortured and his attorney, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, quit over Jawad's treatment and asked that he be released.

Jawad is in the news again. Voila! Bombshell:

In a startling accusation, defense lawyers in the case of an adolescent arrested and brought to Guantanamo Bay six years ago claim the Justice Department may bring a criminal case against the young man based on testimony from witnesses paid by the U.S. government for their cooperation. [...]

Now, although the Justice Department has conceded it can’t rely on those confessions and can no longer imprison Jawad based on the laws of war, it’s said it may file new criminal charges against him based on previously unavailable eyewitness testimony to the crime. Those witnesses, however, according to Jawad’s U.S. military defense lawyer, were all paid in gifts or cash in exchange for their testimony.

U.S. Marine Corps Major Eric Montalvo, one of Jawad’s military defense lawyers, said he’s spoken to all of “the government’s star witnesses” and “they all have a couple of things in common.” First, “they know how to describe the day of the incident anywhere from two to five different ways, placing themselves in different locations for each of these descriptions and witnessing or not witnessing different things,” he said in a recent e-mail message. Second, “they have all received some sort of U.S. government compensation, from shoes and a trip to the United States to $400 for cooperation, which is a princely sum in Afghanistan.”

Furthermore, Montalvo says, when he spoke with officials from the government of Afghanistan, which has been demanding Jawad’s return home, they “openly admit that the matter was not handled properly and they don’t even know what happened because the Americans in their lust for bloodletting snatched Jawad away before the incident could be investigated.” [...]

Asked about the claims that the government’s witnesses had been paid for their testimony, Dean Boyd, spokesman for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, wrote in an e-mail that “Jawad has not been charged with any crime in federal court. To begin speculating in public about possible evidence or witnesses in such a case is inappropriate and not an exercise the government will engage in.” He did not say that the government would not or cannot pay or otherwise compensate witnesses in these circumstances, however. Jawad’s defense lawyers, meanwhile, have not been reticent about their view of the evidence.

While explaining that he cannot describe the evidence because it’s classified, Hafetz insisted that “it is not new and it is not credible or reliable.” So far, the government has lost 28 out of 33 habeas corpus cases brought by Guantanamo detainees and heard by a federal court because the courts have found the evidence unreliable or otherwise insufficient to justify their continued detention. The Justice Department is reportedly planning to bring criminal charges against “dozens more” Guantanamo prisoners.

Stay tuned.
*************************************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

H/t: BuzzFlash

Senators Dodd, Conrad allegedly told of Countrywide favors

By GottaLaff

Ruh-roh:

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation’s largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn’t know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment. [...]

Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide’s VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that “who you know is basically how you’re coming in here.”

“You don’t say ’no’ to the VIP,” Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber’s more powerful members:

Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.

Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.

Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as “friends of Angelo.” Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.

Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.

Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, “was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?” Feinberg answered: “Yes, he was aware.”

Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:

“And do you know if during the course of your communications” with the senator or his wife “that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?”

“Yes, yes,” Feinberg replied.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd’s spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment that were not true. [...]

Conrad’s spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator “never asked for, expected or was aware of loans on any preferential terms” and has “worked overtime to set the record straight.” [...]

Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd’s case and one in Conrad’s appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.[...]

Conrad initially said in June 2008, “If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it.”

The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.

There is much, much more here.

H/t: Jim Alger

VIDEO: Cheney may be called to testify

By GottaLaff

Not that we could believe anything he said, but still....

Top FBI Agent Will Detail Failures Of Enhanced Interrogation, Contradict Claim That It Worked

Greg has alot more, including an outline of Soufan's testimony. Wonder how much time this will get on the cablers? You can stream the hearing here.

A top FBI interrogator who witnessed CIA enhanced interrogations firsthand will offer a detailed explanation at a Senate hearing today of the ways the techniques were ineffective and even counterproductive — and will directly contradict claims that they extracted high-value information, according to an advance copy of his testimony.

(snip)

The use of the techniques “taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world,” he will say. “It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.”

Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005, is set to testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

VIDEO: Cheney May Be Willing To Testify Under Oath About Torture Program

By GottaLaff



Of course, this doesn't mean he'd actually tell the, you know, truth, no matter what he claims now:

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly.

Speaking of setting precedent, former Vice Precedent Dick (emphasis on vice), you and the rest of BushCo set a doozy. The United States of America, under your watch, began using torture, covering yourselves by concocting a few self-serving, underhanded, so-called "legal" opinions. Now some of us are doing whatever we can to UN-set that precedent.

Ari Fleischer: "I’ll be proud to testify if I get a subpoena. I’m proud of what we did...”

By GottaLaff

Go ahead, Ari, make our day:

He argued that neither Congress nor anyone else is up to the task, and that any investigation would “lead to acrimony and blame-gaming” and “devolve into the worst type of partisanship.” While noting that “no one likes to get a subpoena,” Fleischer said, “I’ll be proud to testify if I get a subpoena. I’m proud of what we did to protect this country.” Those wanting to see Fleischer—or at least some of his former colleagues—on the witness stand include his fellow panelists Noonan, who called for a 9/11 Commission-style investigation, and Tina Brown, who quoted Senator Patrick Leahy’s contention that “before you can turn a page, you want to read it.” When moderator (and Media Project host) Gideon Yago brought up the idea of a special prosecutor, Fleischer sternly pointed out that “that assumes a crime has been committed.”

Ari just admitted he's proud of being part of the gang of thugs that committed war crimes. That was big of him. Remind me to thank him with a smile as he's carted off to prison.

Today, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) also demanded an investigation into Bush's torture program. "To continue to ignore the mounting evidence of clear wrongdoing is a national humiliation," writes Byrd.

Yes, let's try that. Let's investigate, just to give Ari a chance to show us how proud he is when he's convicted of war crimes. And as he's being cuffed and chained, can someone please read him the definition of "protect"?

VIDEO-- Hillary Clinton: "I don't consider Cheney a reliable source." Oh, suh-nap!

By GottaLaff

Oh, suh-nap!



Hillary caused a little damage to the Nation of Dick. Looks like he just got owned by a giiiirl:

I am watching SOS Hillary Clinton's testimony to the House Foreign Affairs committee on CNN.com whereupon some Republican congressman (Dana Rohrabacher) asked about the wisdom in releasing the torture memos, and went on to quote Dick Cheney's statement to Fox News that torture works to keep us safe. He continued with Cheney's claim that there are memos that show that torture techniques work. Hillary abruptly cut the congressman saying acerbically:

"It won't surprise you that I don't consider Dick Cheney a particularly reliable source...I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this"

[...] It shut up the guy instantly.

Here are a couple of bonus quotes, this time regarding The Marxist Commie Handshake between President Obama and Hugo Chavez:

She just right now knocked away all that silly huffing and puffing about "handshake-gate." She described the book gift-giving incident as a case of Hugo Chavez camera hogging, including the way he deliberately positioned the book cover so that the title would catch the camera lens. She said:

I found it all amusing...President Obama was right; why should we be afraid of shaking somebody's hand...Iran is seeking influence in our hemisphere...we buy their (Venezuela) oil...let's see if we can turn some of this (animosity) around... [laughter]

To another "concerned Republican" about the Hugo Chavez handshake, she just said:

8 years of isolation hasn't worked. We've isolated him (Hugo Chavez), so he's gone elsewhere. He's a sociable guy, so he's found the sorts of friends we don't like. Eight years of isolation hasn't worked so let's try something else.

Hillary Clinton: Secretary of Snap.

Gov. Palin's pick for AK attorney general: Ethics schmethics

By GottaLaff

A Wayne Anthony Ross license plate

I've posted twice about Sarah Palin's horrendous choice for Alaska's attorney general here and here. Now we have a very informative piece from one of my favorite bloggers, Celtic Diva, in which she shares with us her written testimony against Wayne Anthony Ross:

(I wrote my testimony against Governor Palin's choice of Wayne Anthony Ross on the issues specific to ethics. However there are any number of major concerns with this man becoming AG.

Refer to the online archive for Gavel to Gavel. [...] [L]isten to the April 10th House Judiciary Committee hearing and testimony. If all of that doesn't alarm you, I don't know what will... ) [...] [Laffy Note: Follow the link, she provides e-mail addresses for those who want to contact the legislators]

Dear Legislators: Friday, April 10, 2009, I watched the House Judiciary Committee's interview with Wayne Anthony Ross, Governor Palin's appointee for the Alaska Attorney General position. I was surprised when, towards the end, Representative Ramras referenced the ethics complaint I submitted in March. I was then disgusted by Mr. Ross's response: Representative Ramras: "We have a Governor who is provocative in a lot of her actions. Recently it comes to mind when she was in Fairbanks for the finish line for the Iron Dog she was wearing Arctic Cat gear...Arctic Cat letters..." Wayne Anthony Ross: "It was provocative; she looked very good in them, didn't she?" The fact that Mr. Ross thought it appropriate to sexualize the issue on the floor of the House during his confirmation hearing is probably alarming enough by itself. It seemed to add credibility to the Senate and House public testimony from multiple individuals alleging disturbing past negative comments and attitudes from Mr. Ross towards women. However, the focus of this letter is the cavalier way in which Mr. Ross seems to view charges that the Governor of Alaska has behaved unethically. While this attitude is clearly obvious in the previous comment, it is also reflected farther into the exchange between Rep. Ramras and Mr. Ross: Representative Ramras: Presently, General, there are some concerns in this building about the focus of our chief executive because she's taken a speaking engagement in Indiana for a 36 hour period with only 72 hours to go in the Legislative Session. [Laffy Note: My post about this here] Although she's available by phone, there's a reason we have you here in front of us because we're not interested in doing the confirmation hearing telephonically. Nor are we interested in having a Governor available telephonically with only three days to go in the session. So my question for you...as the Governor's attorney as well as the chief attorney for the State of Alaska...how are you going to advise the Governor, with these lucrative offers she has on the table to write a biography and the requirement for anyone who writes a book to take a book tour across the country? Are you going to advise the Governor that this is something that is within her rights and purview or is that something that infringes upon the rights of all Alaskans? W.A. Ross: I don't know how I'm going to advise her because the question hasn't been made and I don't know all the facts. Later on, Mr. Ross gives this response: W.A. Ross:...Whether that's part of her job or not, I'm not making any decisions on that. Whether she should wear Arctic Cat or I should get in trouble for wearing a Steton, I'm not making any decisions on that. If the questions come to us maybe we'll have to make a decision at that time. I'm sure she feels appreciative that you guys are going to miss her for two days while she's outside giving a speech. She's never talked to me about it and I'm sure you'll be in her heart and mind the whole time. Again, he is clearly not taking any of this seriously. He also states that he is not making any decisions on advising the Governor whether or not the above behavior is ethical. Here is the rest of the exchange: Ramras: I would look forward to an opinion from the Department of Law on that point...whether the Dept. of Law will endorse a chief executive writing a book and making a multi-city book tour while she's serving in the capacity of the chief executive. On that point we would like to get an opinion from the Department of Law going forward as we have a new Attorney General. Ross: I think I have a lot more important issues as Attorney General then deciding whether or not the Governor should write a book. Ramras: I didn't ask you if she should write a book. I asked you if she may take prolonged absences from the State of Alaska on a book tour. Ross: I don't have all of the knowledge of the issues facing the Department of Law, but when it comes time that I have plenty of extra time for such things I will certainly devote the time appropriate to such an issue I believe that Mr. Ross needs to read the job description for the State Attorney General a little closer. In a 2007 letter and attachments (starting at page 6) from the former Attorney General, Talis Colberg explains his role as AG to Governor Sarah Palin as the person who is supposed to assist her in understanding her responsibilities regarding her own ethical behavior: Since I serve as your designated ethics supervisor, I want to remind you that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act requires that all state employees report to their designated ethics supervisors any outside employment or services benefiting their personal or financial interests by July 1 of each year.

So, one of the functions of the Attorney General is to serve as the Governor's designated ethics supervisor, which not only has time-sensitive reporting requirements but would require him to properly advise her if there is a possibility she may be violating the Alaska Executive Ethics Act. I believe that requires Mr. Ross to take action on the issue of ethics whether he has "plenty of extra time for such things" or not. It's an important part of his job. Further, the letter from the former AG lays out more specific guidelines for chief executives: However, the Ethics Act also precludes "the head of a principal executive department of the state" from engaging in "outside employment."l The Office of the Governor is a principal department of the state.2 Therefore, as head of that office, you may not be engaged in outside employment. We construe "employment" to have its ordinary meaning. These definitions are explained in an attachment to the memo for the Governor (page 8), a list of Frequently Asked Questions that looks like it may be given to all new state employees. What's disturbing is that it very clearly raises questions as to the legality of the chief executive officer (Governor Palin) accepting "a book deal." Mr. Ross seems to be completely unaware of this: 3. What does "outside employment" include? • Any employment for which you are paid, but not your state employment. • Examples: a job with another employer, work as an independent contractor, and work in your own business. Also, Mr. Ross seems to be unaware that established DOL criteria may already address the issue of leaving the state for extended travel on a book tour: The statute (AS 39.52. 170(a» restricts public employees from providing services that benefit a personal interest if those services are incompatible or in conflict with the proper performance of official duties. Mr. Ross discussed none of this when asked pointed questions by Representative Ramras. Instead, Mr. Ross gave flippant answers, seemed to dismiss the importance of Executive Ethics Act enforcement and didn't seem to understand the requirements of the Act himself. While I don't expect Mr. Ross to be up to speed on all the requirements of his potential job, I believe he should have at least a passing understanding of some of the more important duties. Keeping the Governor out of trouble is a VERY important duty and not something to be taken lightly. Wayne Anthony Ross's disrespectful attitude during the ethics questioning concerns me for another reason. The Alaska Executive Ethics Act does require that the Personnel Board hire an independent investigator in place of the Attorney General when ethics complaints involve the Governor, the Lt. Governor or the AG him/herself. However, the AG is the head of the Department of Law which still the "gatekeeper"-Dept. of Law employees make the decision whether or not the ethics complaint meets the criteria and is sent to the Personnel Board at all. I am concerned that Mr. Ross may not take the process seriously enough to become well-informed and base the fate of ethics complaints upon unbiased legal criteria. I believe we should all be deeply concerned about the appointment of Wayne Anthony Ross for many reasons already presented to both Judiciary Committees. However, no behavior in front of either Judiciary Committee causes more concern and reflects more directly upon how Mr. Ross may perform at his job than the ethics exchange with Representative Ramras. Ethical government should be a high priority for everyone but especially for the person whose job it is to lead the Department of Law. I urge you to reject the appointment of Wayne Anthony Ross for Attorney General. Sincerely, Linda Kellen Biegel

Sorry for the long post, but I didn't want to edit this.

Why House Committee wanted Rove behind closed doors

By GottaLaff

More time? That was it? Really?

The House Judiciary Committee chose to interview former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove behind closed doors because they wanted more time to question him, and not as a concession to Bush Administration representatives, sources say.

“It was our choice,” one House Judiciary aide told Raw Story.

I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice. Does that mean I have to support this decision?

According to two Judiciary Committee aides, the committee opted for the private testimony so that they could depose Rove for an extended period of time. During a public hearing, each committee member would have only a few minutes to ask questions.

I am now a supporter.

“We could question him for 12 hours if we choose to,” said one of the aides.

I am now a huge supporter.

Both aides confirmed that Rove would not be sworn in before his testimony but explained that testimony before Congress is de facto sworn testimony and any false statements would in fact be perjury regardless.

Asked why in that case Congress bothers to swear people in during public hearings, one of the aides quipped, “Because it looks good.”

I'm sorry, what? Seriously... huh? Is it just me, or shouldn't this swearing in stuff be taken a little more literally?

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that his client had not requested to be deposed in private. [...]

Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor who was convicted of bribery charges in 2006 and released on appeal this year, said he agreed with the Committee’s decision to question Rove behind closed doors.

“Rove can always be called back before the full Committee for a public hearing if there is reason for the Committee to do so,” Siegelman said in an email. “If the investigation and interrogation of Rove is done thoroughly then we will see Rove again in public testifying after first having been properly sworn in.”

I am now even more of a supporter than I was a few paragraphs ago.

No date has yet been set for Rove’s deposition. Rove is expected to testify after the Judiciary Committee receives documents from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. [...]

The Judiciary Committee aides would not say whether the documents have been provided to the Committee already or how far along they were in the process of obtaining them.

Asked if Rove’s testimony will be made public immediately, one Judiciary aide said it would not.

Oh, come on!

“We want to question other people and call Rove in again if necessary,” the aide said. “We don’t want any testimony to be influenced.”

Okay, you assuaged me all over again. I need to learn to keep my big mouth shut until you're finished.

The aide explained that they want to be sure that Rove and the others to be deposed do not “compare notes,” but that all testimony will be released to the public when the investigation is concluded.

Fair enough. I'm shutting up now.

Rove Can Claim Privilege Only When Asked About Bush

By GottaLaff

As usual, Bush is off limits:

Are any subjects off limits?

The scope of the interviews will be limited to: (1) facts relating to the evaluation of, decision to dismiss, or decision to replace the former U.S. Attorneys in question; the alleged decisions to retain certain U.S. Attorneys; and any allegations of selective prosecution related thereto; and (2) testimony or representations made by Department of Justice officials to Congress on the U.S. Attorneys matter. For the period beginning on March 9, 2007 (the date of the Committee's first written demand for information from the White House), interviews will not include the content of conversations involving: (i) Mr. Rove and members of the White House Counsel's office; or (ii) Ms. Miers and members of the White House Counsel's office. In the case of Mr. Rove, the interview also will include facts relating to the prosecution of Alabama governor Don Siegelman.

And when can Rove and Miers claim executive privilege?

As to official privileges, counsel will direct witnesses not to respond to questions only when questions relate to communications to or from the President or when questions are outside the scope of questioning set forth above.

You can see a copy of the agreement here.

My frustration level just rose again.

Bush deputy White House counsel agrees to testify at commission

By GottaLaff

Just got a Tweet:

bush deputy WH counsel tim flanigan, asked by a law prof, just said he'd be willing to testify before a truth commission

Wiki