“Alaskans deserve transparency and accountability from their leaders. It’s a philosophy
I will promote as Governor.”
-Sarah Palin

Hmm… She has now refused be deposed in the independent investigation (approved by 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats) looking into the unethical pressure she put on members of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety to fire Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law in the middle of a custody dispute. And she filed an ethics complaint against herself in an effort to avoid the investigation. Clearly “Ms. Smith Goes To Washington” won’t be the title of the movie script written about her. Scoffing at the rule of law seem just like someone we all know: the Worst. President. Ever. - George W. Bush. She’s tested the corrupt Republican waters, and they feel just fine.

Remember, on July 29th, 2008, Palin’s spokesperson said:

“The governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well,” Leighow said.

Not anymore. More of the same.

So tonight at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin told the story of her sister and brother-in-law opening a new gas station. My question is: As Governor of Alaska, what special favors did she give her sister when she opened the station?

Given Palin’s history of firing anyone who wouldn’t help her family (see Troopergate), did she have to fire the head of the regulations board to get their Alaska Motor Fuel Qualified Dealer License through quickly?

MSNBC and KTUU in Anchorage just reported that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has hired a private attorney to defend her and her staff in the Troopergate investigation. As I said before, this is only the beginning of this story.

[update 09-01-08 2:42PM]
Palin’s lawyer has apparently contacted MSNBC and indicated that he was hired two weeks ago and represents not only the Governor, but also the staff in the Governor’s office. The Alaska Governor’s office does not have a regular attorney on staff.

The Republicans may have dispatched their mouthpieces to the networks and newspapers to extoll the wisdom of McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running-mate, but the fact is, a fact that is surely sinking right now within the core of the Republican Party, McCain made an embarrassing and dangerous choice for his ticket: Palin is embroiled in a scandal that, when the press and the national bloggers begin to examine it, will blow wide open. [as I wrote this, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo does his own take on this story, one that TPM had been reporting on for quite a while]

That scandal is called “Troopergate” by the Alaskan press and blogger corp and it only takes a cursory reading of the story to smell the chum in the water that will draw them into this story further.

The basic summary of the story is that Sarah Palin’s sister married 4-year-veteran State Trooper, Mike Wooten. Four years later, Wooten files for divorce from his wife. And then the trouble starts. A rash of complaints begin to be filed against Wooten from members of Palin’s family against Wooten. All of the charges are investigated, he was found guilty of some of the charges and was sanctioned, but the majority of the Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) investigations find in favor of Wooten.

What does Andrew Halco, former gubenatorial candidate and Alaska Independent, have to say?

In Wooten’s eight year career, the only complaints that have been filed against him came from people associated with Governor Palin during a divorce and child custody fight in which they were trying to get him fired so he wouldn’t be able to get custody of his children.

Unfortunately for Wooten, Sarah Palin is elected to the office of Governor. Now the calls begin from within the Governor’s office (from her staff and her husband) allegedly attempting to force the head of the Alaska DPS Commissioner, Walt Monegan, to fire Wooten.

Monegan refuses to do anything more. Palin fires him.

Palin claims in the Juneau Empire newspaper,

Palin said late Monday she welcomes the investigation.

“I’ve said all along, ‘Hold me accountable,”‘ she said. “I’m telling the truth when I say, there was never pressure put upon Commissioner Monegan.

“I did not ask him to hire or fire anyone in the two years that we worked together. If it takes an investigation to prove that to Alaskans, then so be it, certainly.”

A month later, a tape is discovered that has one of her staffers (staff member, Frank Bailey) calling one of the troopers at the DPS. Bailey claims to be calling on behalf of Sarah and Todd (Todd Palin, her husband, who the press will soon discover, made a habit of spending a lot of time in Sarah’s official government meetings). From the Juneau Empire one month later after her claim of knowing nothing about the contacts with the DPS:

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said at least two dozens calls were made from her staff members to Department of Public Safety officials questioning the employment of a trooper who went through a messy divorce with Palin’s sister.

Palin says that she had no knowledge of those calls. This will also prove to be false: the day of the call in question, a series of emails were exchanged (after the call) between Bailey, Palin, her husband and several other staffers, which likely discussed this call and how it had not been very successful. Form your own opinion. You can listen to the call here. While the call is somewhat long, I suggest you listen through the entire thing.

The State of Alaska begins an investigation, after a bipartisan group votes 12-0 in favor. With an investigator now on the case, Palin dispatches her Attorney General to interview the witnesses within the DPS in advance of the State’s investigator. Shades of witness tampering? It sure seems like it.

So all in all, McCain’s vetting process doesn’t exactly seem thorough. And Governor Palin is in the middle of a legislative investigation. While all the facts certainly have not come out yet, the very fact that they haven’t come out one way or the other underlines just how dangerous this choice really is.

After years of a Bush Administration that scoffed at the rule of law, is choosing an ethically-challenged inexperienced Governor really the right choice? Don’t forget that one of the key things voters rebelled against in the 2006 election was political corruption in the Republican Party (Abrahamoff, Ney, etc, etc).

Last night, I heard Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow both refer to this story and utter, in almost perfect sync, “That story is a non-starter.” I think both Keith and Rachel should consider who told them this line.

Today, the United States Senate voted 69-28 in favor of HR6304 and capitulated to the White House, eviscerated the Fourth Amendment, weakened the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s ability to review surveillance of Americans, removed restraints on the uses of information vacuumed up in the process and gave an entire cadre of lawbreaking telecommunications companies a free pass on their activities. Beyond that, Congress decided that they were better equipped to decide Federal lawsuits than the courts (even though about 70 Senators have no idea what the programs being immunized even did).

“We’re considering granting immunity when roughly 70 members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the president’s wiretapping program,” he said. “The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we’re being asked to grant immunity for.” - Senator Russ Feingold 7/8/2008

Why all the fuss? Besides legalizing massive Hoovering of data generated by innocent people without a warrant, the following text within HR 6304 is the Telecommunications Immunity section of the bill, “TITLE II–PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS”.

‘(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that–

‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was–

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was–

‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was–

‘(i) authorized by the President; and

‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or

‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

‘(b) Judicial Review-

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

‘(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall–

‘(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

‘(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

‘(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

‘(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

‘(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

‘(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

‘(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

‘(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

So let’s review this in some detail with my paraphrase of the bill’s text:

The Attorney General must certify that the surveillance was authorized by the president and determined to be legal.

Hmm. So surveillance that broke multiple federal laws, including the 1978 FISA law, must be certified to be “legal”. Given the inherent nature of the President giving an order and expecting it to be followed is inherently “illegal”, I guess will get some rationale about how the unitary executive theory justifies anything the president does. No matter though. Providing this reasoning is not required to get civil cases dismissed.

the activities must have been designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack; or detect or prevent activities in preparation for a terrorist attack

It seems strange that they left off the phrase “detect or prevent” when mentioning “activities in preparation for a terrorist attack.” Why is that? What exactly could the NSA be doing to prevent activities from happening? And could the words here be any more broad? Any amount of surveillance, and I mean ANY, could be justified by a politician as falling within the umbrella of detecting activities in preparation for a terrorist attack.

How about these activities? The Bush Administration requests AT&T to redesign their cell phones so they transmit all ambient sound to the NSA at all times. Surely someone could claim that this may help detect an attack. How about a request to have AT&T transmit continuous GPS location data about every cell phone customer to the NSA. Literally the E911 system could give the NSA a bead on every single American who has an AT&T cell phone. Under this bill, both of those unconstitutional and illegal requests would be immunized under this act.

Mark Klein, the whistleblower, provided documentation on unfiltered, unmonitored taps being installed in AT&T’s data hub in San Francisco. How exactly, if monitoring under a specific warrant, would AT&T have any idea which customers the NSA is monitoring and whether they are monitoring within the limits of the warrant? The answer: they don’t because there was no warrant and there are no limits because these requests broke the law.

limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

What would such a disclosure reveal that it needs to be so protected by statute? This leaves us never to know whether AT&T DID conduct surveillance on behalf of the Administration or DID NOT. We already believe that the Administration has been Hoovering up massive amounts of data in order to data-mine it (without a warrant). The Bush Administration has admitted this publicly.

Here’s the disclosure we could have without this clause:

Dear American Citizens:
In the matter of the EFF vs. Big Telecom A, the Attorney General sent the court a letter. Here’s the text of the complete letter:

Dear Judge,
The President authorized Big Telecom A to do something secret that I'm not required to tell you. We determined that action to be legal.
Sincerely,
Attorney General Mukasey


Since the AG says this was authorized by the President and was determined to be legal, I must, by statute, dismiss this action.

Sincerely,

The Judge

Here’s the letter we’ll get instead.

Dear Public, Subsection A has been met. Case dismissed. Sincerely, The Judge.

So the Attorney General’s letter to the judge could be as brief as that. The bill would not even require the Attorney General to specify what was actions were done. This proposed statute says nothing about:

• a burden of proof that the Attorney General must meet;
• does not allow the judge to assess the basis upon which the “legality” was determined
• require that the judge must concur that such assurances of legality and presidential order meet a good faith test.

The judge must simply dismiss the case and state only that Subsection A requirements have been met, if the Attorney General claims that release of the long version of his letter would damage national security.

A great tragedy has occurred today. Of my California senators, only Boxer voted against, but Feinstein and my chosen presidential candidate, Obama, (despite his vociferous opposition to Telco Immunity) voted for this sick, horrible bill under the cynical notion that Americans don’t care and that somehow ensconcing in law the ability for the President to spy on Americans without a warrant was a positive. You should see all the “great” stuff Feinstein pointed out to me in her form letter response to a letter I sent. Then, they made the window-dressing effort to seem like they were opposed to this bill by voting for pathetically weak Bingaman Amendment (as if the vaunted IG’s report would ever be completed or have any ability to root out the truth). Both the House and the Senate Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. For the Republicans, I expect this kind of behavior from you now, though real conservatives should be as sick about this travesty as anyone.

[update]
Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Dorgan - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

This morning, the House and Democrat Steny Hoyer, with the acquiescence of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, brought forth and have now are in the process of getting passed just passed one of the most shameful pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. The supposed “compromise” gives the White House everything they wanted and Republicans are now gloating over their complete victory over the Democrats.

The most egregious element of the FISA legislation offers Telecommunications companies almost automatic immunity from prosecution for violating the law. With the mere certification from the Attorney General (both of those in the past few years of the administration have shown themselves to have more allegiance to the President than the Constitution that they are charged with defending), the court MUST toss out the cases.

It should be obvious when Republicans are gloating over their victory, AT&T and Verizon are popping champagne, and the House allows only a single hour for debate, that this bill is a scam.

Finally, where the hell is Barack Obama on this issue? What the hell is going on?

Here’s the text of my email to Speaker Pelosi yesterday:

Madam Speaker:

I’m writing you today to voice my extreme concern about the supposed FISA “Compromise” that Steny Hoyer has put forward and your House is considering. This legislation is no compromise. It is complete capitulation to the Bush administration and its lawless unitary executive branch. Besides allowing the government to continue to wiretap Americans without a warrant, this legislation would allow these huge telecommunications companies to receive immunity for CLEARLY breaking the law of the land if the Attorney General says it’s OK.

It’s never going to be ok to pass legislation like this. Our courts MUST have full power to review what these companies did under the existing laws of the United States. At this point, we don’t even know everything that they did…and you would immunize them for everything on the Attorney General’s say so?

As Senator Feingold describes this “compromise”:
“Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power.”

Based on the duplicity of Attorney General Mukasey and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in front of your committees, do you really believe that a certification those who claim sole allegiance to the President (even above the Constitution) should be effectively deciding a court case (and in complete secrecy, no less). This legislation provides NO judicial review and is frankly a complete disgrace.

The fact that this legislation was drafted in secrecy, nearly came to the floor without the review of the people, gives the President everything that he has been requesting, and might be bundled with the War Funding bill (on a Friday) is extremely dishonest and suspect. And why would the legislation sunset in 2012? Should we tie the next president to this?

I expect more from my Democratic representatives when we are in the clear majority in the House.

There is no reason this legislation needs to move forward now and I’m getting tired of seeing the Constitution continue to get kicked around and dishonest corporations get a free pass from those who we elected to stand for us, the people.

Hear your constituent clearly, “Immunity is not acceptable.” Please take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this travesty never sees the floor.

Hillary Clinton must think wistfully of her days as frontrunner like I remember paying $1.90 for gas and complaining about it. Those days are long gone and everyone knows it…and, Hillary, a single shot of whiskey won’t take away the pain.

As I’ve watched Hillary flail around during the Pennsylvania primary race trying to ruin Barrack Obama’s rep among the electorate, I can’t help but think that we’ve truly reached the end of both her and her husband’s legacy. Between the two of them over the last couple months, they both need to go. I’m a long-time Bill Clinton supporter, but as a TV commentator said the other night, watching Bill Clinton stumble around the stage on the campaign trail is like watching an aging boxer get back in the ring.

Now how bitter is Hillary? Very. Just watch how she talks and what she’s been talking about. Anyone who takes time in a presidential debate to chide questioners about how she always gets the first question is bitter. Clinton is bitter about her campaign the way the Worst President Ever, George W. Bush, looks back at his idiocy of a presidency and puzzles at how it all turned out this way.

So Hillary channeled her bitterness into her campaign and she, along with her husband, basically became mini-Karl Roves out there on the campaign trail in the hopes she could bring down Obama. We’ll see as the returns come in whether her efforts to sling some mud had her desired effect.

As we await the Pennsylvania returns tonight, Hillary Clinton is also bitter about the fact that despite all her fight and all her conniving, she won’t be any closer to winning the nomination after tonight. And yet, despite all that, Hillary will claim victory and again use the most tired trick in her book: claim that since she won the Democratic Primary, Obama can’t win in the general election. It shockingly looks like, in exit polls taken by CBS today, 25% of Clinton’s supporters voting today claim they would vote for McCain over Obama, but that hardly signals any likelihood of McCain winning there–especially after these petulant voters come to their friggin’ senses.

Really? I accused another campaign of something it didn’t do?

Only 612 days after Joe Lieberman’s Joe2006.com web site crashed and burned, causing his campaign to claim the vicious bloggers at DailyKos.com and Ned Lamont’s campaign had hacked into poor Joe’s server and broken it, we now learn through a Freedom of Information Act request that the FBI long ago determined that his server simply crashed. It was never hacked. It was never subject to a Denial of Service attack. The server administrators had a mis-configured server on their hands. The Joomla! hacker never defaced the site.

Where’s the apology, Joe? Obviously those in the Lieberman campaign were aware of this finding a long time ago (the FBI email obtained by the AP was sent in October 2006) but details on the outcome of the investigation were never released. Seems like some political hackery was up. This information might have been useful to the voters in November 2006.

“Senator Lieberman’s campaign team accused an awful lot of good people of breaking the law on the eve of the primary, and they did it for political purposes,” Lamont told the AP in a telephone interview. “If he does the right thing, he’ll stand up and say, ‘I was wrong.”

We’ll never know how much this incident influenced the voters of Connecticut when they all got “hepped-up” on Joementum and put this idiot back in the Senate, but it certainly could come back to haunt him if he tries shacking up with McBush for the general election.

Did you really think this looked appetizing?

I received a spam email today from a caterer in Hollywood (that will remain nameless) and it prompted me to offer this advice to caterers and restaurants all over the world: If you’re not a professional food photographer, do not shoot your own photos of your food. What might have quickly gotten my stomach growling with hunger now has it slightly churning with disgust.

And while I’m offering advice, a couple tips on spam:

1. don’t add me to your spam list without my permission.
2. if you do add me without my permission, please don’t include me and all the people on your list in the To: field.
3. edit your photos to be a reasonable size before attaching them to your spam.
4. don’t attach photos to your spam.

Mmmmm. Is it the food or the Craftsman cottage that’s being sold here?

Poor John Digweed barely makes the top ten list, with Tiesto, Van Dyk, Corsten and Oakenfold clogging up the works.