Josh alerts us to a company called Reflections Photography whose president just up and decided to delete all pictures they had of Jack Abramoff with President Bush.  Funny how that happens just when people at the White House worry that something like that might make it onto TV or something.  She claims the decision to delete was made because they weren't "relevant", to what she wouldn't say...Daily Delay says it might be because she's a Republican political donor hoping to help sweep this under the rug. 

Update (1/26/06): Oddly enough the President in his press conference yesterday used the words "not relevant to the investigation" when asked about any Abramoff pictures.  Don't know about you, but that sounds like an Administration talking point to me and something we're likely to hear more of.  Funny that the owner of a digital photography gallery who happens to be a Republican political donor and who just recently ordered the deletion of all pictures of the President with Mr. Abramoff would use practically the same words when defending her actions. 

Do you think maybe somebody called and asked her to get rid of some embarrassing pictures?  I think I do...

Please, somebody tell him that he doesn't get to choose who becomes Palestinian Prime Minister and maintaining Mr. Abbas in his current role would pretty much undermine a democratic Palestinian political process we've pledged to support.  

Then again we've said we will not deal with governing Islamic political parties who are anti-American, anti-Israel and maintain and deploy their own armed militias....the only exception would be if they're forming a new government in Iraq.

I think that Paul Glastis hits one out of the park with a post that basically says even if we accept the notion that the NSA wiretap program is legal and above board how do we know if it actually works or whether or not its even being competently managed?  Does it make sense to trust the government with such powers when only executive branch lawyers and officials beholden to this Administration are monitoring and approving what what's happening?  In fact, what results do we have so far, no noticeable uptick in arrests of terrorist suspects in the United States and a bunch of FBI agents bitching about being flooded with thousands of worthless tips? 

If you do agree that this program is essential to national security wouldn't you want to make sure its better managed than say the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina relief, Medicare D, the federal budget, or just about anything else the Bush people have royally screwed up over the past five years?  If you agree that this program is essential to national security, wouldn't you want more than an NSA shift supervisor or a lower level justice department political appointee making most of the decissions overseeing things?  What's so scary about having somebody outside the executive branch monitoring this, anyways?

A number of national news organizations are suddenly picking up the story of how the Bush Administration and its Justice Department refused to support Congressional legislation in 2002 that would loosen the parameters for obtaining FISA warrants; a fact which obviously flies in the face of most of their recent rationales for implementing their wiretapping program.  The DOJ official who went before Congress at the time was one James A. Baker and he told Senators a.) FISA worked fine and there were no impediments to getting warrants as needed and b.) certain aspects of the proposed change might actually be unconstitutional. 

Now, if this story gets wider scrutiny and suddenly appears on say CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the nightly news, I predict in addition to the McClellans, Mehlmans, Bartlett's and Gonzales' you'll probably see Mr. Baker, or one of his colleagues at the time, trotted out to refute the suggestion that what he said is actually what he said.  Doesn't matter if they have video of the proceedings, memos or any other evidence regarding this matter, somebody's gonna get up and lie about it, and not just lie but tell you you're crazy to think that their previously stated and recorded position was actually what they meant.  In fact they'll probably take it a step further and suddenly break into some sort of legalese revolving around various federal regulations or statutes and even rarely talked about passages in the Constitution until the anchors become too scared to ask anymore questions.  A picture of a fatigued George Orwell spinning around in his grave suddenly comes to mind.

Update (1/26/06):  The likelihood of the above scenario happening increases exponentially if the above named James Baker turns out to be this man, but I don't think it is.

Okay, listen to this and then read this letter and see if you don't come to the conclusion that the President's personal lawyer/ long time legal advisor should never, ever be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States of America!  This especially holds for a man whose fabled career is almost exclusively linked to the President's political sponsorship.

Except Pentagon planning.  Leaked details of the latest Quadrenial Defense Review suggest the Defense Department will spend the majority of its future budgets, planning and strategic posture preparing for war with China, not fighting Al-Qaeda.  The "War on Terror" evidently isn't such a big deal after all, although maybe the Pentagon has never truly left its "pre- 9/11 mindset" behind....or would that be a "post-World War II mindset"?   Hmmmm! 

Update (1/25/06): Forgot to mention that Iraq doesn't fit into the equation, either.

Can they tell the truth about anything?  Atrios brings us this Glenn Greenwald post that Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) offered legislation in 2002 that sought to lower the burden of proof for a FISA warrant to reasonable suspicion and the Bush administration not only refused to support it but called parts of the bill unconstitutional  all at the same time they were pursuing a program that purposely ignored FISA regulations and other legal restrictions on domestic wiretapping.  Why?  I have no clue other than maybe they thought their perverse attachment to secrecy and expanded executive power/privilege might be threatened by openly debating the issue, but regardless this information pretty much makes most of this Administration's excuses (or lies) to this point null and void.

Update (1/24/06): Alberto Gonzalez went on NPR and said that they were convinced by unnamed Congress people that they shouldn't encourage Congressional action because is would reveal details about the wiretapping program already underway.  Man do I feel safer with this crew running things!

I'm a big fan of the suggestion at Americablog that the one question every journalist should immediately ask administration defenders of the NSA wiretap program should be:

How is wiretapping without a court order NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution?

That said, its clear from this Editor & Publisher rundown of former NSA director Hayden's recent press conference that this Administration either doesn't understand the Fourth Amendment or they've taken it upon themselves to redefine "probable cause" down to "reasonably believe" and, because the Attorney General said its okay, they dispensed with the idea of getting any sort of court order all together.   Of course since this Administration also insists that giving brief and incomplete information about the program to a handful of Congressional leaders constitutes "advising Congress" I can't say I'm surprised. 

On a related note, "domestic spying" is not "domestic spying" and Congress did not cut the $12.7 billion dollars from federal student loan programs that it actually did cut from federal student loans.

Josh Marshall brought this little ditty over at the Carpetbagger to my attention and while chuckling to myself I realized that Ralph Reed actually did get something out of his relationship with Jack Abramoff; enough money to pay people to come to his political events!

 Because the President thinks you use too much of the health insurance you already have and are too dumb to decide when you should go to the doctor.

Feel better?  I know that the White House is going to frame this proposal as "we trust the American people to manage their own healthcare decisions" but as the article above notes, that's not the case, in fact the opposite is true.  The people putting this proposal together think that most Americans go to the doctor too often and when they don't have to and since they have insurance they aren't being properly disciplined by the cost of it all.  In fact, if anything they believe most Americans are over-insured. 

Wow, as if having had to spend almost $900 up front for a 30 minute minor surgical procedure for my one year old (in spite of a good health insurance plan) didn't already piss me off enough, but hey,what do I know?  I surely don't have the kind of insight into everday people and their problems the way the White House policy political wonks do and lord knows they've never screwed anything up before.  

Then again I predict that people like Bill Thomas (R-CA) who'll be pushing this proposal through Congress, after having the honor of crafting a Medicare prescription drug plan with a noticibly hugh hole in the coverage scheme, are probably going to pooh-pooh those who'll note that HSA's will primarily attract the healthy and the wealthy (its another tax break shelter, after all) but not work so well for pretty much everbody else who isn't....but then again, this really isn't about finding something truly workable and affordable that will cover everyone while providing a high level of healthcare service is it?

From the Saipan Tribune, November 1998:

Mr. Abramoff, in a very real sense, is an ardent champion of the little guy—of the much maligned Northern Marianas as well as the Choctaw Indian tribe of Mississippi.

With the governor of the Marianas Islands cooperating with the federal probe, I wonder if the writer would agree with those sentiments today.

Take a look at Jack Abramoff's archived Greenberg Traurig bio page:

Education

• J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1986
• B.S., magna cum laude, Brandeis University, 1981

Admitted to Practice

*Not admitted to the practice of law

That's right, Not admitted to the practice of law.  Now why would someone who is a lobbyist and a graduate of Georgetown University not take the bar exam and make all of that hard work worthwhile?

Let's see, could it be D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1?

Rule 4.1 — Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly:
   (a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
   (b) Fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Looks like Cerebus Capital Management hedged their bets by timely campaign donations to Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA):

One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis. . .

Lewis himself had criticized the Navy-Marine computer project in October 2002, telling The Washington Post he was not satisfied with its progress. He also said he was concerned about MCI's involvement. "When you have a big piece of the pie in trouble, it just gums up a process that already has great difficulty," he said. . . .

In the early summer of 2003, Lewis said, he heard that "some business people in New York" were interested in giving money to his political action committee, the Future Leaders PAC. At the same time, the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, which Lewis led and which oversees Pentagon spending, was considering the 2004 defense budget.

On June 16, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee preserved the money for the Navy-Marine Corps network. Lewis said he changed his mind and supported full funding for the program because the Navy maintained that management of the program had improved. On June 26, the full committee followed suit.

On July 7, Lewis traveled to New York for a fundraising dinner with Cerberus executives and their spouses, lawyers and business associates. They gave the Future Leaders PAC more than $110,000 that night and more in the following weeks, bringing the total to nearly $133,000 that month.

The day after the dinner, the House passed Lewis' defense spending bill that preserved all of the funding for the Navy project. And two months after receiving the Cerberus money, Lewis led House negotiators working out a House-Senate compromise on the Pentagon bill that finalized the $1.6 billion for the Navy project

I thought I'd throw this out there because I don't think the media will pick up on it in any significant way, but much of what allows them to call the Abramoff scandals a bipartisan affair revolves around Democrats receiving money from Indian tribes Abramoff represented and is basically a non-story.  As this Bloomberg article explains Abramoff didn't need to direct contributions to Democrats because these tribes had already been giving almost all of their political contributions to Democrats for years. 

What is interesting, and what the article shows, is that once Abramoff became a lobbyist for the tribes in question, those tribes significantly cut back on giving to Democrats and suddenly gave most of their political contributions to Republicans.  In fact, Bloomberg notes of the top 10 tribal political donators, only the three tribes represented by Abramoff gave more money to Republicans than Democrats. 

In effect, Abramoff brought Indian tribes with strong casino interests into the Republican "pay to play" legislative system and then traded off his relationship with Tom Delay and others in the Republican Congressional leadership to bilk them for millions of dollars.  End of story. 

Now, some of you will write in asking why a few Democrats decided to give back money received from the three tribes represented by Abramoff and I don't have an answer other than they felt that was a prudent thing to do.  In fact, please send their offices a note if you're truly concerned, but don't deny that most of Abramoff's crimes are wrapped up in his participation in a much larger effort by the Republican party to create an institutional linkage between their legislative/political agenda and the big time lobbying community in Washington DC.  The truth is without Republican control of Capitol Hill and corrupt initiatives like the K Street project Jack Abramoff would be pretty much a nobody to most Americans outside a select group of die-hard conservative Republican operatives already based in DC and that's the story that most journalists seem afraid to touch.

Watching the disastrous roll-out of the new Medicare prescription drug plan kinda makes me wonder  how badly the Bush folks would mess up Social Security if given the chance. Uff da!

Top Conservatives fed up with Bush's power grabs.  Apparently, even Grover Norquist thinks the Dear Leader is off the reservation.

Ohio Rep. Robert Ney personally lobbied the then Secretary of State Colin Powell to relax U.S. sanctions on Iran.

These are the men who speak of defending the country.

Any of you labor lawyers out there know what the Special Assistant for Conservative Outreach at the Labor Department does?

I had heard brief reports about companies selling private cell phone records to just about anyone willing to pay money for them but I don't think it really hit home until John Aravosis publicized his purchase of Gen. Wesley Clark's cell phone records.  I know that corporations have been buying and selling personal information for years but how the hell is this legal?

The Daily Show provides some pointers for those of you confused by what is now permissible and not permissible when it comes to "responsibly" debating the Iraq War. 

Just remember: "This is America, and in America you're welcome to say whatever he wants."

This piece by Mickey Kaus would make sense if he'd never read an Adam Nagourney article in his life, however since I don't think that's the case I'm lead to believe he's just making shit up for the hell of it. 

Nagourney article headlines look more like this short list from the last presidential campaign; see anything approaching Mickey's "GOP always on the ropes" theme?  Me neither.  Besides perhaps this one article, can anyone point to a Nagourney article where Democrats aren't politically inept, divided and totally without hope of ever winning the White House or Congress?   

I think I'm beginning to understand why James Wolcott labeled Kaus the classic example of a "counterintuitive" pundit. 

William Jefferson of Louisiana.  Although not a part of the gigantic "culture of corruption" that is the K Street machine under DeLay and Abramoff, there is no doubt that corruption comes in all shapes, sizes and party affiliations.  Let's see if there's a difference here in the way each party handles the fallout.  Expect Jefferson to resign in a week.