This is an Anchorage Daily News editorial about the Troopergate emails:
Gov. Sarah Palin is using flimsy grounds for withholding potentially embarrassing e-mails from a political supporter-turned-critic.
Former Republican candidate Andree McLeod has appealed the governor’s decision to withhold or redact some e-mails and other state records. She’s seeking the records in a dispute about the Palin administration’s recruiting and hiring decisions. KTUU has reported that some of the withheld e-mails have subject lines referring to Palin critics Andrew Halcro, Dan Fagan and Alaska Ear.
From here it looks like McLeod has a strong case.
First, she argues that the governor’s office waived executive privilege for any state e-mails sent to Todd Palin, Gov. Palin’s husband.
With all due respect to the First Gentleman, he wasn’t elected to anything and as far as we know, hasn’t been appointed to anything. He’s a private citizen. If he’s on the e-mail list for state business, those e-mails become public information. The law protects some communications between government officials — not communications between government officials and private citizens.
The reason is simple. The executive branch shouldn’t be able to use executive privilege to hide correspondence between government officials and private special interests, from corporate interests to spousal interests.
Alaska state legislators approved subpoenas for the husband of GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and 12 others, as part of an ongoing investigation into whether Palin abused her power as state governor.
Todd Palin, husband of vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin, was one of 13 people that Alaska state legislators approved subpoenas for Friday as part of the ongoing “Troopergate” investigation.
In a nondescript conference room filled to capacity, a Republican-dominated panel of lawmakers voted to issue subpoenas to force testimony by Alaska “First Gentleman” Todd Palin and a dozen current and former state officials, including aides to Gov. Palin, to determine whether she had misused her authority in firing one of her commissioners in July.
David Gregory speculates that the Edwards’ affair may be bad news for Obama. I have a very hard time seeing how Edwards’ affair reflects on Obama. What I do know is that this is another of those cases where there is a tacit but uniform agreement among pretty much all reporters and close campaign watchers not to publicly state the obvious: that this is a perilous development for John McCain. Just as Bill Clinton’s public undressing in the Lewinsky scandal led indirectly to the exposure of several high-profile Republican affairs, Edwards’ revelation will inevitably put pressure on the press in general to scrutinize John McCain under something more searching than the JFK rules they’ve applied to date. I assure you that this dimension of the story occurred to every reporter even tangentially involved in reporting this race soon after the Edwards story hit yesterday afternoon.
We have some great political reporters in America. We also have a large number of vapid, shallow, gossipy twits, with the percentage going way up among TV journalists (and even higher among cable TV journalists). No offense to the good reporters, but there are times that I despise our political press corps as a whole with the heat of, well, maybe not a thousand suns, but a solid nine hundred. Now is such a time.
“Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?” Gregory also said that, “now, questions about his [Edwards'] future abound in the party and whether this creates another shadow over Barack Obama as he gets ready for the conventions.”
Of course the Edwards affair is going to be covered. But this treatment is weak, insipid stuff worthy of the sex-obsessed David Broder or Maureen Dowd, and sure seems to be an attempt to try to justify covering a tabloid story as legitimate campaign news, when of course it isn’t. Meanwhile, it just happens to smear the entire Democratic Party and their nominee. Gregory’s approach is symptomatic of a wider problem. Read more »
Crooks and Liars provided a roundup of reactions to the Edwards affair Friday night. I found myself agreeing quite a bit both with Digby:
I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It’s human nature. But it’s important to keep in mind that John Edwards didn’t even come close to winning the nomination and this is just another sleazy tabloid story with absolutely no serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have finally found their hook: it’s because he lied to the press about his sex life. How could he???
(Lying to the press about the anthrax killer and WMD in Iraq, well, not a problem.)
Let’s assume that the rules now say that denying an affair to the press is a cardinal offense that merits endless bloviating about dishonesty from a bunch of hypocritical celebrities who protect their “sources” when they lie about torture and war. Fine…
Sources in Washington tell me that the year-long probe of the Bush Administration’s decision to fire a still-undetermined number of U.S. Attorneys for political and improper reasons is “substantially completed” and that it remains the subject of wrangling in a fairly transparent effort to slow down its release.
The probe is a joint effort between the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Inspector General (OIG), though it seems clear that in this case, as in plenty of others, OIG has been the accelerator pushing the matter forward and OPR has been the brake coming up with a seemingly endless number of limp excuses and complications designed to frustrate it.
First Up: Former Bush Justice Official Bradley Schlozman Evidence that the probe is winding up can be found in this morning’s Wall Street Journal:
Justice Department lawyers have filed a grand-jury referral stemming from the 2006 U.S. attorneys scandal, according to people familiar with the probe, a move indicating that the yearlong investigation may be entering a new phase.
The grand-jury referral, the first time the probe has moved beyond the investigative phase, relates to allegations of political meddling in the Justice Department’s civil-rights division, these people say. Specifically, it focuses on possible perjury by Bradley Schlozman, who served a year as interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo.
It wasn’t clear which of Mr. Schlozman’s comments prosecutors are focusing on. He has declined to be interviewed by investigators since leaving the department. One possibility focuses on Mr. Schlozman’s 2007 testimony to Congress, one part of which he later retracted.
Indeed, the evidence uncovered on Schlozman’s political machinations while at Justice is stunning, leading one to wonder exactly which angle prosecutors may have decided to start with. As one of his colleagues put it in an interview with the Washington Post, “everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so.”
Keep repeating this bastard’s ties to Abramoff every day all the way through to the elections. And if he still gets voted in, then the voters of Colorado will certainly get what they deserve.
Abramoff Story Lives On
Just when it seemed that Washington had moved on to more recent scandals like the D.C. Madam trial or the indictment of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), an old chestnut — the Jack Abramoff scandal — has come back to life.
The tale of the disgraced lobbyist and his congressional partners in crime (some alleged, some convicted) had appeared to be dormant, until Colorado’s open’seat Senate race returned it to the media radar. That contest pits Rep. Mark Udall (D) against ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer (R), and its Schaffer’s alleged ties to Abramoff that have become a key issue in the campaign. [...]
But the interesting part to Capitol Briefing is how the Abramoff scandal is still managing to get its tentacles into new targets in 2008, more than four years after the story broke. And for what it’s worth, the Justice Department appears to be still slogging along in its investigation of the Abramoff matter, meaning Schaffer may not be the last member under the microscope.
Hmmmmm…….we’ll see what this adds up to. Must be the water…….
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.
Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He is set to make an announcement about 2:15 this afternoon at his Manhattan office.
Mr. Spitzer, a first-term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform and end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.
A San Antonio-based gay male escort categorically denied Monday that outgoing GOP Sen. Trent Lott had ever procured his services, putting to bed one of the more stunning rumors to emerge following Lott’s announcement earlier in the day that he was leaving Congress.
The charge was first published by the Washington DC blog Big Head DC, which claimed to have emails where the escort, Benjamin Nicholas, allegedly playing coy, declined to go on the record because “Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don’t want to add to it.”
But in an email message, Nicholas himself said the item was false.
“There’s nothing to be said, as Lott and I have no connection whatsoever,” Nicholas wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. “How these ‘quotes’ have been fabricated are beyond me. The Senator is someone I have had no personal dealings with, ever.”
Keep it up Larry! I’m sure the Republican party is thrilled to death with your indecision. NOT!
U.S. Sen. Larry Craig says he might reconsider his decision to resign if he clears his name in his arrest for disorderly conduct in a restroom sex scandal.
That’s why Craig chose his words carefully during his resignation speech Saturday in Boise, according to a voice mail message he mistakenly left on a stranger’s phone. In the message obtained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Craig tells a man named “Billy” that his choice of language is deliberate because it leaves the door open for him to stay in office.
Craig made the call just minutes before his speech.
“We have reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30,” Craig said. “I think it is important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon, and I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras. I think it would help drive the story that I-m willing to fight, that I-ve got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape, it has that potential.”
The recording was offered for sale to the Idaho Statesman, which turned it down because the newspaper’s ethics policy precludes it from paying for information from sources. A Roll Call editor said that publication wouldn-t pay either, but managed to obtain the recording without charge.
The voice is indeed Craig’s, spokesman Dan Whiting said. Whiting would not say who “Billy” is. Later that day, Craig announced that he had hired high-profile criminal defense lawyer Billy Martin, whom Craig hired to help him unravel the guilty plea Craig filed last month.
He’ll resign…..because they’ll make him resign. That won’t stop the ship from sinking, though. I think in general people have had enough of their “family values” hypocrisy.
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is considering resigning, Republican activists said Friday, after days of public and private pressure stemming from his arrest in June in a police undercover operation at an airport men’s room.
Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct on Aug. 1, and while he has since said he did nothing wrong, the episode has roiled the Republican party and produced numerous calls for him to step down.
As a measure of the pressure Craig faces, party officials said a statement had been drafted at Republican Party headquarters calling for the third-term senator to resign. It was not issued, these officials said, in response to concerns that it might complicate quiet efforts under way to persuade the 62-year-old lawmaker to give up his seat
Nice they can use campaign funds to fight pervert charges. We SOOOOOO need campaign finance reform.
WEST PALM BEACH — Former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned from Congress amid an Internet teen sex scandal, has racked up nearly a half-million dollars in legal fees paid from his campaign account, according to recent filings.
Foley spent $277,367 on legal fees from February to April, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
That’s on top of the $206,000 in campaign cash Foley spent on attorneys from last November to January.
Foley’s filing indicated that he still has about $1.4 million in campaign cash as of July 15.
The FEC has ruled that such expenditures for legal fees that arise from congressional duties are generally lawful, but Foley must still return money to donors who request refunds.
I would have thought the DC Madam story would have been much much bigger. They have done a good job of keeping this one quiet.
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called “D.C. Madam” accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a “serious sin” and that he has already made peace with his wife.
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
Vitter’s spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement Monday evening in an e-mail to The Associated Press after a statement purported to be from Vitter was received by to the AP bureau in New Orleans.
It said his telephone number was on old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates before he ran for the Senate.
H/T to Bur$atil for this post and for keeping us up to date on economic and financial news!!! Sounds alot like the politicians here. When in trouble, scream terror terror terror!!!
An investigation launched by the United States into BAE corruption allegations has raised more questions about the role of the British goverment in the affair, write David Leigh and Rob Evans.
BAE’s chief executive, Mike Turner, is eating his words today, only days after trying to dismiss the Guardian’s accurate prediction that the arms giant would face a criminal investigation in Washington.
Named as a potential corruption suspect himself in the Serious Fraud Office BAE dossiers, Mr Turner told a Sunday paper the only reason the SFO had begun its previous investigation was because of allegations in the British media.
“I think the US department of justice is more robust about standing up to the press,” he said patronisingly. “Just because the press make accusations, you don’t have to then start an investigation. We’ve done nothing wrong.”
Mr Turner is not the only one with egg on his face today. Had he not already announced he would quit, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, would face harsh questions about his behaviour as the British government’s chief law officer.
He is now seen to have played a part in suppressing a British investigation into allegations that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was paid £1bn for arranging an arms deal, only to have the US authorities take up the same issue under their own Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Tony Blair too, as outgoing prime minister, is now in a curious position. He wrote a letter to Lord Goldsmith, who showed it to the head of the SFO, Robert Wardle, claiming that British “national security” was at risk if the Saudi investigation went ahead. This left the SFO with no choice but to cancel its own inquiry.
The right-wing lawyers’ group is the casting couch for the federal judiciary-and may have been, newly released documents indicate, for the Justice Department too.
Before midnight on March 7, 2005, Leonard Leo (pictured at left)tapped out an email on his BlackBerry to Mary Beth Buchanan, then the director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, suggesting a candidate to replace Carol Lam, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. “You guys need a good candidate?” Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, wrote to Buchanan, herself a member of the influential conservative lawyers’ group. “I’d strongly recommend the current GC [general counsel] of the Air Force, Mary Walker.”
At the time, White House and Justice Department officials were in preliminary talks about replacing an unspecified number of “underperforming” federal prosecutors, a plan that would culminate almost two years later in the forced resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys, including Lam, and ignite a scandal that has claimed the jobs of at least four high-ranking Justice Department officials. Leo’s email, written so early in the process, speaks to the close relationship that has developed between the Federalist Society-an organization whose aims include “reordering priorities” within the judicial system to fit its conservative agenda-and key Justice Department decision makers, many of whom are members of the group.
While perhaps not a prerequisite for employment at the highest echelons of Justice, membership in the society has become a standard by which political appointees at the agency identify candidates who share their agenda. Some officials at the agency view it as such an indicator of conservative virtue that membership in the society was included as a category-along with Hill and campaign experience-on a spreadsheet that was used to rank the qualifications of the 93 sitting U.S. Attorneys, a document included in the reams of Justice Department memoranda released by the House Judiciary Committee this spring.
Sunday, September 14th
Just when it seemed that Washington had moved on to more recent scandals like the D.C. Madam trial or the indictment of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), an old chestnut — 
