October 19-20, 2007
Oct 19 02:31 The Investigation Continues Oct 19 10:56 Republicans Jump On Stark's Statements Oct 19 16:35 Three Cheers for John Eichelberger Oct 19 20:02 Spin That'd Make a Clinton Proud Oct 20 00:09 Dodd As Road Kill Oct 20 15:12 110th Congress's Epitaph Oct 20 19:17 Democrats Strike Back
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
The Investigation Continues
After writing about the corruption investigation in Pennsylvania, I did more digging. There's definitely more to this than initially meets the eye. Here's the start of another portion of the alleged scandal :
Seven employees of the state House Democratic caucus have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury investigating bonus payments to legislative staffers, and six of them have worked in the same office.That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Here's what I just posted about :
According to state House records, six of the seven workers are or were employees of the House Democrats' Office of Legislative Research . That's the office that agents from Attorney General Tom Corbett's office searched last month, leaving with evidence in cardboard boxes, House officials have said.
Corbett's office is investigating the payment of $3.6 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses to legislative staffers during the 2005-06 session. Corbett has said he wants to determine whether any of the payments were intended as compensation for staffers who worked on or donated to election campaigns. The grand jury has been meeting in Harrisburg.
HARRISBURG -- Files seized from a Democratic House research office were laden with campaign and other political documents, according to a judge who reviewed them.The man that seems to be stuck in the middle is Rep. Bill DeWeese, (D-Waynseburg). Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
Contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature," said Judge Barry Feudale, who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections. The grand jury also is looking into whether state employees received substantial state bonuses for work on political campaigns.
It is illegal for campaign work to be done in state offices, on state equipment or by state employees on work time.
The boxes, taken by search warrant from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research on Aug. 23, included files with labels such as " opposition research ," " incumbent protection plan " and " memo on challenger in election ."
Some recipients already were making six-figure salaries and got five-figure bonuses on top of that. House Democratic leader Bill DeWeese of Waynesburg urged his bonus recipients not to tell anyone , but unhappy legislative employees, who didn't get the extra money, leaked word to the Harrisburg Patriot-News and then other newspapers.That isn't the only thing pointing in DeWeese's direction:
House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Greene, has denied any tie between the bonuses and campaign work.If Mr. DeWeese is denying a connection between the bonuses and the campaign work, that tells me that he's been asked about that possible connection, most likely by the Pennsylvania AG's investigators. Here's another facet that shouldn't be overlooked:
The attorney general's investigation was spurred by news reports that the Democratic caucus secretly gave out $1.9 million in bonuses last year. Most of the largest amounts went to employees who had worked on or contributed to campaigns, according to a review of records by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.It isn't a stretch to think that Mr. DeWeese told these employees to keep quiet about their bonuses because it's illegal for legislative staff to get paid through the state treasury for campaign work. That's certainly a plausible explanation. This quote from an unnamed state employee raises more red flags:
" If you were looking for people to go out the whole last week and work on a campaign, that's the office you would turn to ," said a Democratic aide who, like many interviewed for this story, asked not to be identified because caucus officials have asked staffers to decline comment on the probe.After reading this information, I've got other questions:
Corbett is looking at bonuses paid by all four caucuses, spokesman Kevin Harley has said. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate gave bonuses in 2005-06.What made the Democrats' staffers worth 400+ percent more in 2006 than in 2005? Was it something as innocent as them helping write legislation? Or is it something sinister like helping their bosses become committee chairmen by working 'overtime' on their campaigns? It isn't a stretch to think that it had more to do with helping the campaigns while working their day job.
House Democrats paid the most. The caucus' bonuses surged from $435,000 in 2005 to more than $1.8 million last year , when Democrats successfully battled to take control of the House.
One of the heroes in all this is freshman Republican Sen. John Eichelberger. He defeated "longtime incumbent Sen. Bob Jubelirer by promising to reform state government. Here's how he reacted when this first went public:
"After the bonus scandal hit, I sent a letter to Attorney General Tom Corbett asking him to investigate. I also introduced Senate Bill 986, a ban on future bonuses," Mr. Eichelberger, R-Blair, said yesterday.Mr. Eichelberger is bound to be a future star in the GOP. He's the Pennsylvania legislature's version of Tom Coburn. I'm basing my opinion on this:
Mr. Eichelberger said the bill, if approved by the House and signed by Gov. Ed Rendell, would effectively end the practice of bonuses in state government, including the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. The student loan and grant agency upset some people recently by giving a $180,000 bonus to its former president, Dick Willey, on top of his $289,000 salary, and bonuses to at least 22 other top executives.I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Eichelberger's efforts don't help him win over good government liberals. This guy doesn't just talk about reform. He's started putting an impressive list of reform accomplishments together already, especially for a freshman in the minority party.
Mr. Eichelberger said that in the future, any bonus would have to be publicly disclosed through an incentive clause in an employee's contract and would be linked to surpassing objective performance standards. He said the bill would not ban lump sum payments for unused vacation time or sick leave and would also allow employees to be paid for overtime hours they work.
Check back later today. There isn't any doubt that I'm just getting started with this. I'm betting that this investigation will develop more 'tentacles' the longer I dig around.
Posted Friday, October 19, 2007 3:42 PM
No comments.
Republicans Jump On Stark's Statements
Republicans have pounced on Pete Stark's diatribe , demanding that he apologize . Here's what Pete Stark said yesterday:
"I'm just amazed that they can't figure out,the Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq."If you think that's bad, brace yourself. As you'll soon see, it got much more ridiculous. Here's the most bombastic of Stark's statements:
"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."Now Republicans are demanding Pete Stark apologize:
"Congressman Stark's statement dishonors not only the commander in chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America's armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. He called for Stark to retract his statement and apologize.I wasn't surprised when Stark didn't apologize:
Instead of retraction or apology the statement Stark issued in response to Boehner just offered more criticism of the "chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care." Stark did also express respect for the troops.He's one of the strangest, most out-of-control people in the House. (It isn't surprising that he's from the San Francisco area.) Here's a blast from Stark's past:
On one occasion in 2001 he and then then-Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma had to be separated after Stark claimed all of Watts' children were illegitimate. In fact only two of Watts' six children had been born out of wedlock.It's obvious that Stark isn't in control of his emotions or thoughts. He's one sick puppy. Here's the results from the Gallup poll on this subject:
37. (Asked of a half sample) As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?Fortney Pete Stark went on a harsh diatribe. He very much represents Democrats' thinking on SCHIP, though I'd doubt that they'd make their argument in the emphatic manner that Rep. Stark made his argument.
President Bush 52%
Democrats 40%
I don't think that this issue is a big election year winner for Republicans but I'm equally certain that it isn't a big winner for Democrats. That must be discouraging for Democrats, who invested their efforts in making the most emotional of pleas for overriding President Bush's veto of this bill.
Posted Friday, October 19, 2007 10:59 AM
No comments.
Three Cheers for John Eichelberger
I didn't know anything about John Eichelberger a week ago. Now I'm impressed with him. I think he might be a rising star in the GOP. This article will tell you why I think so highly of him:
Bonuses to state government employees like the ones that have triggered an investigation by the state attorney general would be largely prohibited under a bill approved by the Senate on Wednesday.In writing this legislation, John Eichelberger has painted a bulls-eye on his chest. Anyone that restricts education advocates/lobbyists will be targeted when they're up for re-election. That didn't stop Sen. Eichelberger from doing the right thing.
The bill, which passed unanimously, has been designed to address the millions of dollars in bonuses that have been awarded to staff members in the Legislature and the state's student loan agency. It still requires approval from the House and Gov. Ed Rendell.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. John H. Eichelberger Jr., R-Blair, said it effectively would stop bonuses from being awarded to staff members of all three branches of government. The legislation would prohibit the bonuses unless they were spelled out in advance in an employment contract or labor agreement.
Attorney General Tom Corbett is now investigating whether taxpayer-paid bonuses paid to legislative staff members were tied to work performed on political campaigns. In comments on the Senate floor before the vote, Eichelberger called the bill "an important first step in the process of addressing and remedying these abuses of public trust."
The measure also would force public disclosure of incentive clauses in employee contracts at all government agencies, including the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and pension management agencies, which award performance incentives, Eichelberger said.
His insistence on reforming a corrupt government should be held up as the path forward for Republicans. If we want to be the majority party again, we need to become the party that doesn't accept corruption, wherever it's found. Sen. Eichelberger's example provides a stark contrast to the example set by House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, who's currently involved in an investigation. DeWeese is trying to rehabilitate his image. Here's what he just said in his latest attempt:
In a statement, House Democratic leader Bill DeWeese of Greene County said he would support the legislation, although he pointed out that it should contain exceptions for state troopers and possibly prison guards "for acts of bravery and selflessness."I don't care if Mr. DeWeese didn't exceed his budgetary limits for bonuses. That's an insignificant fact. All that means is that they didn't break that law. What concerns me most is that those bonuses might've been paid for campaign work , not legislative work.
DeWeese, whose party holds a one-vote edge in the chamber, banned bonuses for his caucus after their existence was first reported earlier this year by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg. He also defended their use.
"It's important to remember that we did not exceed our budgetary limits," DeWeese said in the statement. "We kept our salaries modest and allowed for bonuses just as in the corporate world. However, the challenges of the moment are obvious and a change in course likely is necessary."
Rep. DeWeese can put a ton of lipstick on that pig but it won't hide the corruption that apparently happened:
HARRISBURG -- Files seized from a Democratic House research office were laden with campaign and other political documents, according to a judge who reviewed them.Here's another interesting thing that needs an explanation:
Contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature," said Judge Barry Feudale, who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections. The grand jury also is looking into whether state employees received substantial state bonuses for work on political campaigns.
It is illegal for campaign work to be done in state offices, on state equipment or by state employees on work time.
The boxes, taken by search warrant from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research on Aug. 23, included files with labels such as "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan" and "memo on challenger in election."
Corbett is looking at bonuses paid by all four caucuses, spokesman Kevin Harley has said. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate gave bonuses in 2005-06.What made these staffers' work worthy of a 400+ percent increase in their bonus pay? The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office is investigating whether those bonuses were paid for campaign work done in the House Democrats' Office of Legislative Research. That's where the Attorney General's investigation found folders titled "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan" and "memo on challenger in election."
House Democrats paid the most. The caucus' bonuses surged from $435,000 in 2005 to more than $1.8 million last year , when Democrats successfully battled to take control of the House.
Forgive me if I don't believe that the "House Democrats' Office of Legislative Research" should be maintaining file folders titled opposition research, incumbent protection plan and memo on challenger in election. Bill Clinton couldn't spin his way out of that fix.
The point to all this is that Republicans shouldn't be shy about standing up for virtuous principles. John Eichelberger stood for the right principles. Because he did, he had an impact by putting corrupt politicians in an uncomfortable position. The lesson to be learned is that Republicans shouldn't worry whether the press glorifies them. Republicans' motivation should be driven by whether they're having an impact. The best way to measure their impact is whether they're seeing corrupt politicians squirm.
Thus far, Sen. Eichelberger is making lots of politicians squirm. I suspect that he'll continue making politicians squirm as long as he stays true to first principles.
Posted Friday, October 19, 2007 4:37 PM
No comments.
Spin That'd Make a Clinton Proud
You know that life is surreal when ABCNews is giving Democrats credit for raising money for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation . I guess I should've predicted this when Harry Reid made a conciliatory-sounding speech on the Senate floor this afternoon:
HARRY REID: Earlier this month, I came to the floor discussing comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I cosigned a letter to the chairman of Clear Channel, Mark May, telling him that we wanted him to...to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made. I've since spoken to Mark May about this. Mark May, in fact, called me regarding this letter.Regular listeners to Rush's show know that Harry Reid's statement is nothing more than last minute showboating. He's obviously had his staff paying attention to this auction all week. The question I have isn't about why he made this speech. That's the easiest thing to figure out. He wanted to sound conciliatory without apologizing for his disgusting statements.
This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay. Mr. President, we didn't have time or we could have gotten every Democratic Senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. What is the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation? It provides scholarship assistance to children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause? And I think it's really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose. When I spoke to Mark May...I think that he and I thought this would probably not raise much money, a letter by Democratic Senators complaining about something. This morning, the bid is more than two million on this. We've watched it during the week. It keeps going up, and up, and up, and there's only a little bit of time left on it. But it's certainly going to be more than two million. Never did we
think that this letter would bring money of this nature...the cause, Madam President, extremely good. Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life, and maybe that's kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May, the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a really worthwhile cause. I don't know what we could do more important than helping make sure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education. Think about this. More than $2 million, this is going to really help. And that's, again, an understatement. There's only a little bit of time left. So I would ask those that are wanting to do more, that they can go to the Harry Reid, arch...actually go on say "Harry Reid letter," this will come up on eBay. I encourage anyone interested in this with the means to do so to consider bidding on this letter and contributing to this worthwhile cause.
The question I have questions Reid's integrity. Why didn't he mention that Rush has repeatedly said that he's writing a check to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that matches the winning bid? When Harry Reid said "it's certainly going to be more than two million", Reid's knew that the auction would raise in excess of $4 million.
As disgusting as Reid's artificial conciliatory speech is, it's easily surpassed by this line from the ABCNews article:
No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.Let me rewrite that for ABCNews. Here's how I'd rewrite it:
Instead of intimidating Rush Limbaugh and ClearChannel CEO Mark Mays, the Democrats' threats and intimidation exposed them as opponents to the First Amendment. Their interference was meant to have a chilling efffect on a private citizen's First Amendment rights.God bless Rush for showing America what happens when we stand up to intimidation. There aren't many things that are as inspirational as watching a man say with his actions that he's mad as hell and that he isn't going to take it anymore.
Unfortunately, Democrats forgot that the man they tried intimidating doesn't intimidate because he's got a big enough megaphone to defend himself. Instead of intimidating Rush, they motivated Rush to go on the offensive.
In rallying to Rush's going on the offensive, Betty Casey and Rush Limbaugh have given the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation an unexpected and welcome fundraising boost.
Rush has likely given conservatives everywhere extra confidence to stand up to liberals through his belittling Harry Reid.
Posted Friday, October 19, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment 1 by M. Simon at 21-Oct-07 10:33 AM
I have just received an anonymous e-mail with a link to a site, I Call BS, that purports to have a secret recording of Harry Reid's Secretary from Friday morning. You can listen to the mp3 and judge for yourself. It seems authentic to me.
Some one should tell Rush.
Dodd As Road Kill
Christopher Dodd announced Friday that he's putting a hold on the FISA bill that DNI Mike McConnell negotiated with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller. In so doing, he's about to become the next target of opportunity for a suddenly revitalized Bush administration.
Dodd said he would place a "hold" on the FISA bill, a device available to any senator to stop legislation from moving forward. "By granting immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's terrorist surveillance program, even though such participation may have been illegal, the FISA reform bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving the President sweeping authorization to neglect the right to privacy that Americans are entitled to under the Constitution," Dodd explained in a statement outlining his concerns.Christopher Dodd should sit down and shut up. The Senate Intelligence Committee examined the White House documents pertaining to the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. Jay Rockefeller isn't exactly on the White House's Christmas card list. He didn't see anything wrong when he looked things over.
The rhetoric got hotter with every paragraph. "It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the president is the perpetrator," Dodd said. "I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this President's agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness."
It's important that we look at what would happen if these telecommunications companies didn't have immunity. It's likely that they wouldn't take the risk of helping in this program. It's predictable that they'd refuse to cooperate. Dodd holding up this bill has the effect of telling Americans that we wouldn't be intercepting terrorists' communications with the efficiency that's needed.
What's likely is that he's read the Nutroots' blogs and decided that this is a way to boost his fundraising efforts. Playing fundraising games with terrorist surveillance is a pretty juvenile thing. That isn't the type of thing that will move voters into your camp in a general election campaign.
This exposes Dodd's motivation for this diatribe:
Civil libertarians oppose the compromise as going too far to protect telecoms that were revealed to have participated in a warrantless wiretapping program, and because the legislation wouldn't establish warrants for each individual wiretap.In the Democratic Party, civil libertarians is code for the ACLU. They've filed lawsuits against programs that protects Americans against terrorist attacks. They spearheaded the NSA v. ACLU lawsuit where Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the intercept program unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. That absurd ruling got overturned once it reached a serious panel of judges.
Posted Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 20-Oct-07 07:35 AM
Gary,
Can you expand on what you mean by "Chris Dodd is about to become a target of opportunity"?
Because where I come from, that's a military term that refers to someone or something who's about to be killed.
I only ask because I want to make sure you're not advocating a U.S. Senator's political assassination.
Thanks.
Comment 2 by Winston Smith at 20-Oct-07 08:10 AM
Gary,
Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Just in case:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Comment 3 by Winston Smith at 20-Oct-07 08:18 AM
And Gary,
Before you reply about how this doesn't affect U.S. citizens and is only targeted at foreign terrorists, I would encourage you to read this coverage of the federal appeals court case that AT&T is likely to lose if the FISA bill giving them immunity isn't passed:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/nsa-hearing-ope.html
And ask yourself one question: Why isn't the Bush administration willing to sign a sworn affidavit stating that the government is NOT warrentlessly spying on domestic phone calls?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-07 11:02 AM
Gary,
Can you expand on what you mean by "Chris Dodd is about to become a target of opportunity"?
Because where I come from, that's a military term that refers to someone or something who's about to be killed.
I only ask because I want to make sure you're not advocating a U.S. Senator's political assassination.
Thanks.
Comment by Winston SmithGladly. What I meant by that statement is that the White House likely will cite his statements in saying something like 'We've worked out a bipartisan agreement that has the support of the American people and the Senate. Sen. Dodd's objection is standing in the way of getting this important legislation passed. We urge him to withdraw his hold so we can get this bill passed.'
That help?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-07 11:18 AM
Constitution?
Just in case:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Comment by Winston Smith The Constitution also says that it's the commander-in-chief's affirmative duty to protect its citizens from attacks. The day after 9/11, the Bush administration asked the telecommunications companies for their help in intercepting terrorist to terrorist communications. That's exactly what we should've done. Doing that prevented a number of attacks over the next few months.
It's impossible to be "secure in their persons & houses" if you're a potential target for terrorists.
You also overlooked an important word in the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The Supreme court has ruled that gathering intelligence while we're at war is a reasonable search.
There's a litany of court precedents that say presidents have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless intercepts.
This inherent authority doesn't apply to domestic criminal cases. The courts have ruled that it only applies in times of war or in the gather of international intelligence.
BTW, there's a group of constitutional scholars that think FISA is unconstitutional because it might prevent the president from doing his constitutionally-mandated duties.
Comment 6 by Winston Smith at 20-Oct-07 02:11 PM
Gary,
And you and President Bush completely ignore the phrase "probable cause" and that a warrant is necessary.
Further, you ignore the fact that the warrants need to be for a particuar person and place, not just a fishing expedition.
This is not some liberal interpretation, Gary. These are the words right there in black and white. Or black and grey, given your color scheme.
And it's why AT&T and other telcos are giving bucketloads of money to senators, especially Jay Rockefeller.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-07 03:21 PM
This is not some liberal interpretation, Gary. These are the words right there in black and white. Or black and grey, given your color scheme. Winston, it most definitely is a liberal interpretation. Appellate court after appellate court has ruled that warrantless intercepts for intelligence-gathering is a reasonable search, which is why the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.
The Fourth Amendment applies to criminal investigations, not in prosecuting a war.
Comment 8 by Winston Smith at 20-Oct-07 07:42 PM
Gary,
So basically, am I understanding you correctly that you believe warrantless wiretapping and evesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant is okay if a government agency suspects you might be involved in terrorism, with no judicial involvement, no probable cause and no limits on what they can access?
Because it sounds like you can justify just about anything under the banner of the war on terror.
Just checking.
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-07 10:03 PM
So basically, am I understanding you correctly that you believe warrantless wiretapping and evesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant is okay if a government agency suspects you might be involved in terrorism, with no judicial involvement, no probable cause and no limits on what they can access?
Comment by Winston Smith Not exactly. This is a little nuanced but it's logical.
Hypothetically speaking, imagine a situation where American troops raid a terrorist safe house & find a laptop that details a terrorist network.
They hand the information off to the NSA, which then starts intercepting communications from a terrorist in Iraq.
Let's suppose that this terrorist sends an email to someone in Chicago after sending out communications to terrorists in Syria, Turkey & Germany.
The NSA then must find out if the person in Chicago is a "US person". If he isn't, then the NSA doesn't need a warrant to continue listening. If he is, then they need a warrant from the FISA court.
From what I've read, the FISA judges apply these rules rather tightly. Because the judges are tight with those warrants, lawyers don't file frivolous warrant applications.
Comment 10 by Winston Smith at 21-Oct-07 02:28 PM
Again, Gary, if that's the case, why are representatives of the federal government not willing to swear for the record that they are not conducting warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens?
110th Congress's Epitaph
Bill Kristol has just written another brilliant article about what's likely to be the 110th Congress's epitaph. It's one of the best articles I've read lately. Here's what Mr. Kristol thinks will be the 110th Congress's epitaph:
All of this followed by several months the defining statement of the 110th Congress: Harry Reid's assertion, this past April 19, "This war is lost." History may well record that statement as the epitaph for the 110th Congress, and the party that led it.Pundits and strategists are saying that this might be another difficult year for the GOP. I don't buy into that theory because activists won't allow our candidates run another fetal position campaign. Alot has happened since the midterm elections that's changing the dynamics for 2008. Here's what I see as major dynamics that've changed since last November:
1. Iraq: Simply put, Petraeus' surge helped create the conditions that've allowed the Anbar Awakening to happen. Petraeus' surge, along with the Anbar Awakening, has turned the Sunni sheikhs against AQI, leading to increased stability in Iraq. That stability happened because Anbar isn't the sanctuary/planning headquarters that it was eighteen months ago.
2. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: They've become national laughingstocks. Their 'leadership' skills are almost nonexistent. They're politically tone deaf. The agendas that they're pushing aren't popular amongst the masses.
3. Media Matters, MoveOn.org and DailyKos: Simply put, they've demanded monolithic obedience to their anti-war agenda. That worked in 2006 when the war wasn't being prosecuted properly but it won't work now that the war is being won. These organizations have forced the Democrats to overplay their hand on a host of issues.
They're trying to push presidential candidates to vote against the McConnell/Rockefeller compromise on FISA reform. They're pushing for a massive expansion of SCHIP. Now that people see the details of the plan, public opinion is turning against Democrats.
4. Anti-War Sentiment Is Diminishing: Niki Tsongas ran a 2006 campaign, meaning that she ran against the war and President Bush in general. She almost lost. Jim Ogonowski supported the war. It didn't hurt that he took a sensible but tough stand on immigration reform. People responded enthusiastically. That wasn't coincidence.
5. John Murtha: Murtha had a profound impact on the 2006 campaign. His accusations against the Haditha Marines fit into his anti-war theme in 2006. Now that his accusations have been disproved and he's facing at least 2 lawsuits and Iraq has substantially improved, his message isn't playing well.
That's what's changed in Washington but that isn't the only place where the dynamic has changed. Here in Minnesota, the DFL has written its epitaph, too. Their epitaph might be Steve Murphy' statement :
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."Of course, a strong argument could be made that the DFL's epitaph should be Cy Thao's quote :
"When you win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money."Rest assured that these quotes will be used against DFL candidates in 2008.
One thing is certain about 2008: there isn't a shortage of potential epitaphs to go around.
Posted Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:27 PM
No comments.
Democrats Strike Back
It was inevitable that scared Democrats would strike back now that Judge Barry Feudale ruled that contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature." Here's the course that Democrats are taking:
State House Democratic leaders are waging a legal battle against Attorney General Tom Corbett's probe of taxpayer-funded bonus payments to legislative staffers.This sounds like John Murtha's attempt to use the Speech and Debate Clause to avoid Frank Wuterich's lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that the Democrats' attorney will make a separation of powers argument. I'd further think that that won't fly because it appears that a substantial portion of the work was campaign-related :
In appeals filed before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, attorneys for the House Democrats are seeking to pre-empt subpoenas requiring several caucus employees to appear before a statewide investigating grand jury.
The grand jury, which is meeting in Harrisburg, is probing the payment of $3.6 million in bonuses to legislative staffers during the 2005-06 session. Corbett has said that he is looking into whether the bonuses were intended as compensation for staffers who worked on legislative campaigns. Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate gave out bonuses, but House Democrats paid the most.
Files seized from a Democratic House research office were laden with campaign and other political documents, according to a judge who reviewed them.It's just my opinion but I'm thinking that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the separation of powers clause to apply to campaign-related work product. There's more to the Democrats' strategy:
Contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature," said Judge Barry Feudale, who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections. The grand jury also is looking into whether state employees received substantial state bonuses for work on political campaigns.
It is illegal for campaign work to be done in state offices, on state equipment or by state employees on work time.
The boxes, taken by search warrant from the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research on Aug. 23, included files with labels such as "opposition research," "incumbent protection plan" and "memo on challenger in election."
Attorneys have now filed separate motions with the grand jury's supervising judge seeking a return of "privileged documents seized in the execution of a search warrant" at the legislative office.This seems like a flimsy argument considering what Judge Barry Feudale said about the contents:
Contents of the 20 boxes were "overwhelmingly and patently non-legislative in nature," said Judge Barry Feudale , who allowed the documents to be considered in a grand jury investigation into whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to run elections.Based on what Judge Feudale said, he could easily rule that he'll return the documents that are legislative in nature but that the campaign-related documents aren't privileged. I suppose it's still worth a try, though, on the odd chance that someone will buy the argument.
This information should get everyone's attention:
All four legislative caucuses , House and Senate Democrats, and House and Senate Republicans, had bonus programs . But House Democrats, whose bonuses jumped from $435,000 in 2005 to more than $1.8 million in 2006 , have been under the closest scrutiny. House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Greene, has said that the bonuses weren't tied to campaign work.It doesn't say that staffers to Senate Democrats noticed a significant increase in their bonuses. Here's the first question I'd ask: Why they didn't increase dramatically like House Democratic staffers? What can House Democrats use as justification for their decisions? I'm betting that they don't have anything that'd work as justification but that they've got something to rationalize their actions.
I've been wrong before but I don't think there will be happy ending for Democrats on this potential scandal.
Technnorati: Scandal , Tom Corbett , Attorney General , Barry Feudale , Bill DeWeese , John Murtha , Corruption , Democrats , Year End Bonuses , Midterm Elections , Election 2008 , House Democratic Office of Legislative Research
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:18 PM
No comments.
