Moebius Strip Quotation

[Lindsey]

A "senior administration official" (thought to be White House counsel Fred Fielding) explaining to reporters why the White House is only willing to have former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor talk with congressional investigators if no transcript of the session is made:

Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth in that regard. The position that the president took and conveyed to the committees and the offer of compromise did not include transcripts. The accommodation was designed to provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony. One of the concomitants of testimony, of course, is transcripts.

As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. Well, yeah, when you lie under oath, it is perjury, yeah.

[Lindsey]

In this case, it wouldn't even have to be under oath -- giving false or misleading information to Congress is a felony even without an oath, just as it is to give false or misleading information to the FBI. Hence the insistence that there be no trail of evidence that would support a perjury charge. They learned from Scooter Libby's missteps (and Karl Rove's close shave).

But don't you find the phrasing of that whole sentence to be more than just a little weird? Who talks that way, for heaven's sake? That's passive voice cubed. Fielding is trying to say something without actually saying it -- it's the verbal equivalent of a moon walk -- going backward while appearing to move forward.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

But don't you find the phrasing of that whole sentence to be more than just a little weird? Who talks that way, for heaven's sake? That's passive voice cubed. Fielding is trying to say something without actually saying it -- it's the verbal equivalent of a moon walk -- going backward while appearing to move forward.All of "official" Washington speaks in the passive voice, so that doesn't faze me at all. But the "we won't talk because if we do, it's perjury" notion... now that's funny: it's essentially an admission that they're incapable of speaking the truth.

[Lindsey]

But the "we won't talk because if we do, it's perjury" notion... now that's funny: it's essentially an admission that they're incapable of speaking the truth.
Yep, that's the way I read it, too. In fact, I'm not sure there is any other way to read it.

You know, you'd think they'd want to get all of this out of the way quickly, while their boy is still in office and can pardon any an all perjury offenses by his team...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You know, you'd think they'd want to get all of this out of the way quickly, while their boy is still in office and can pardon any an all perjury offenses by his team...I suspect they think that, with Fitzgerald out of the way, they don't need to worry about it much. Their arrogance is astounding.

[Lindsey]

I suspect they think that, with Fitzgerald out of the way, they don't need to worry about it much. Their arrogance is astounding.
Their arrogance will be their downfall. They'd best pay attention to the rising clamor. The masses are beginning to call for impeachment (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/06/poll_americans_evenly_divided_on_impeachment_of_bu sh_majority_for_targeting_cheney).

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Their arrogance will be their downfall. They'd best pay attention to the rising clamor. The masses are beginning to call for impeachment (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/06/poll_americans_evenly_divided_on_impeachment_of_bu sh_majority_for_targeting_cheney).They know they have nothing to fear. Regardless of any other factor, there will never be the necessary votes for impeachment before their terms expire.

[Jeff]

They know they have nothing to fear. Regardless of any other factor, there will never be the necessary votes for impeachment before their terms expire.

Votes? We don't need no stinkin votes! I hear the clatter on the cobblestones. Raise the blade...

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

Votes? We don't need no stinkin votes! I hear the clatter on the cobblestones. Raise the blade...As much as I would like to have them out of office, I would not like it to be at the cost of a domestic revolution. Seriously. I remember only too well being with a group of foreign students in the summer of 1974 who were all, without exception, astounded that we had managed to remove a sitting President without bullets flying in the streets. And then they started telling stories of the bullets flying in the streets... No, no thanks, no domestic revolution.

[Lindsey]

Regardless of any other factor, there will never be the necessary votes for impeachment before their terms expire.
If they keep on going as they have been lately, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Even if it there weren't the votes in the Senate to convict, I'd settle for impeachment hearings and a vote in the House.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I hear the clatter on the cobblestones. Raise the blade...
Somewhere lately I heard a blog comment along the same lines. Something like "Is it time to roll out the guillotine yet?" One other commenter offered to knit the guy a red cap...

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I remember only too well being with a group of foreign students in the summer of 1974 who were all, without exception, astounded that we had managed to remove a sitting President without bullets flying in the streets.
And how did we do that? Because members of that president's OWN PARTY were willing to put country ahead of party and tell him it was time to go. And also because the Democrats were THREATENING TO IMPEACH.

If they don't want a revolution, then the political leaders of this country have got to step up and do what they need to do to check the megalomaniacs (or at least the chief megalomaniac sitting in the OVP) runnning the country. Because I don't think most of the people in this country are going to be willing to tread water and let BushCo continue on its present course for the next 18 months. Their abuses of power are at least as bad as those of the Nixon administration, and they don't have anywhere near as much in the way of positive accomplishment to offset them.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

And how did we do that? Because members of that president's OWN PARTY were willing to put country ahead of party and tell him it was time to go. And also because the Democrats were THREATENING TO IMPEACH.And, as I recall, there weren't enough votes to impeach until the proverbial "smoking gun" was found in the form of the June 23, 1972 Haldeman tape. It took two years from the beginning of the Watergate fiasco to the time of the impeachment vote in the House, plus a couple of fire-breathing reporters working for a newspaper that wouldn't back down, plus a couple of cases going all the way to the Supreme Court (a much much different Court than we have now, of course), plus the hearings in both the House and the Senate ("what did the President know and when did he know it?"), plus the Saturday night massacre, plus plus plus plus...

Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of Republicans in the Congress who think that the President is doing the right thing to protect the country. As I keep saying, you need a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and there are how many Republicans???

[Lindsey]

As I keep saying, you need a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and there are how many Republicans???
I don't care about the Senate vote; I care that impeachment be seriously discussed in the Congress. If they're not willing to make it a serious option, they are giving up any hope of being able to serve as a check on an executive branch determined to have its way.

Karl Rove's former assistant, Sara Taylor had said she would answer the Congressional subpoena that she received and was willing to testify as scheduled before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday without any claim of personal privilege. But now her lawyer has sent the Committee a letter saying they are anticipating a letter from the Bush administration directing her not to comply with the subpoena, and now, oh, dear, what a dilemma she is in. If she obeys the directive, she could be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. If she obeys the subpoena, it would put her at odds with a president she likes and admires. What's a girl to do?

She's no longer planning to testify on Wednesday. I wonder if she figures she can count on a pardon or a commutation if she's sent to jail for contempt?

At any rate, the executive branch is forcing a showdown, and the Congress had better be prepared to push back hard.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

the Congress had better be prepared to push back hard.The Congress had better be thinking also about 2008...

[Lindsey]

The Congress had better be thinking also about 2008...
Which is why they should be pushing back hard.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Which is why they should be pushing back hard.I agree that they should push back hard, but to me that doesn't mean tying the entire country in knots over an impeachment that will never result.

[Lindsey]

I agree that they should push back hard, but to me that doesn't mean tying the entire country in knots over an impeachment that will never result.
I'm not sure they will be able to avoid that. Not without leaving the balance of government significantly tilted in favor of the executive branch.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm not sure they will be able to avoid that. Not without leaving the balance of government significantly tilted in favor of the executive branch.If they secure the election of a different President, they will.

[Lindsey]

If they secure the election of a different President, they will.
Not really. Because at that point the precedents will have been established, and walking it back is likely to be a good deal more difficult.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Not really. Because at that point the precedents will have been established, and walking it back is likely to be a good deal more difficult.Losing an impeachment battle (and the votes are NOT THERE, simply not there, and won't be there in the next 18 months) will do more IMO to cement the bad law in place than anything else the Democrats could possibly do.

[Lindsey]

We are headed for a confrontation of one kind or another over the extent of presidential power. Bush has ordered Harriet Miers not to answer the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena, and her lawyer has informed Sen. Leahy that she will not appear, not even to invoke privilege. She and her lawyer are saying, basically, that a presidential order takes precedence over a legal subpoena. This is headed to court, because I don't see the president backing down, and I don't see Harriet Miers defying him.

Let's hope the courts are not as accommodating as his former employees.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Let's hope the courts are not as accommodating as his former employees.Don't bank on it. This is his Court in the final analysis, and whether politics was involved in firing eight US attorneys is not the same "pressing public interest" as the crimes involved in Watergate.

[Lindsey]

Don't bank on it. This is his Court in the final analysis, and whether politics was involved in firing eight US attorneys is not the same "pressing public interest" as the crimes involved in Watergate.
It's beyond politics. The question is whether they were using the US Attorney's office to subvert the election process.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

It's beyond politics. The question is whether they were using the US Attorney's office to subvert the election process.If there were more evidence of that, beyond the "mere scintilla" the law speaks of, that might be accepted by the courts. But courts are generally unwilling to breach a privilege for what they consider a fishing expedition.

[Lindsey]

If there were more evidence of that, beyond the "mere scintilla" the law speaks of, that might be accepted by the courts. But courts are generally unwilling to breach a privilege for what they consider a fishing expedition.
Oh, I think there is more than a scintilla. And it seems rather ridiculous to turn over thousands of e-mails to Congress and then invoke executive privilege when Congress wants to talk to the parties those e-mails to clarify their meaning.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, I think there is more than a scintilla.I'm not sure you could convince this Court of that.

And it seems rather ridiculous to turn over thousands of e-mails to Congress and then invoke executive privilege when Congress wants to talk to the parties those e-mails to clarify their meaning.Except that the whole idea of the privilege is to protect the thought processes. The law says they have to keep the records. So, fine, they turned over the records they kept (we won't get into the question of the records they didn't keep...). But now Congress wants to talk about the thought processes behind the records and that's where, legally, it gets murky at best.

[Lindsey]

But if what they were doing was engaging in a criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud? Surely that is not covered by privilege?

But: Even if they intend to claim privilege, Harriet Miers can't just not answer a subpoena. She has to show up at the hearing, even if she refuses to testify. Otherwise, she could be charged with contempt of Congress.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

But if what they were doing was engaging in a criminal conspiracy to commit election fraud? Surely that is not covered by privilege?Not by executive privilege, no. (There are some criminal conspiracies that are covered by privilege -- some husband-wife conspiracies are covered by the spousal privilege, for example.) But just saying there was a conspiracy to commit election fraud isn't enough to prove it, especially where the requisite mental state is so hard to prove. The fact is, there is election fraud, on both sides, all the time. So how do you prove that rooting out election fraud (the ostensible reason for what the Republicans did) was itself election fraud because it was one-sided?

But: Even if they intend to claim privilege, Harriet Miers can't just not answer a subpoena. She has to show up at the hearing, even if she refuses to testify. Otherwise, she could be charged with contempt of Congress.Yep. And if the courts tried to enforce that, the President would pardon her.

[Lindsey]

The fact is, there is election fraud, on both sides, all the time.
Actually, no there is not. The claim that the Republicans continually try to make is that voter fraud is a widespread, pervasive problem. But years of studies have turned up no evidence of that at all.

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10614F9395B0C718DDDAD0894DF404482 (Subscription or payment required)
In Wisconsin, prosecutors lost twice as many voter fraud cases as they won, bringing charges against people for things like mistakenly filing more than one registration form. That's a mistake, it's not fraud. Only a handful of convictions are actually for voting more than once.

Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, "not dead yet."

Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names." After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801969.html
But in an effort to prevent this so-called fraud for which there is no evidence, Republicans have repeatedly done things like conduct dubious purges of voter rolls, or institute stringent Voter ID requirements, even in the face of warnings that such actions may disenfranchise legitimate voters, and that the effects of that disenfranchisement will fall disproportionately on minorities.

We also know that they have punished US Attorneys who refused to bring voter fraud cases on thin evidence and rewarded those who did.

But other forms of election fraud, things such as voter intimidation, voter suppression, disruption of polling stations, misinformation campaigns -- it seems to me that in recent years, at least, those have been almost entirely the province of Republicans, acting perhaps under the influence of Karl Rove and the College Republicans. But do you see the Justice Department clamping down on known instances of this sort of thing? No. No, this is not a "both sides are equally guilty" situation.

Yep. And if the courts tried to enforce that, the President would pardon her.
One more count to add to the impeachment resolution...

But we may not have to depend on the courts. Congress has the power to try that, and to imprison anyone it finds guilty, at least until the end of the Congressional session. It ain't much, but it's something.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Actually, no there is not. The claim that the Republicans continually try to make is that voter fraud is a widespread, pervasive problem. But years of studies have turned up no evidence of that at all. I didn't say it was widespread. I said it existed. And I have no doubt that there are cases, everywhere, on both sides.

[Lindsey]

I didn't say it was widespread. I said it existed.
Well, you said both sides did it all the time.

Beyond that, though, saying "both sides do it" suggests that both sides are equally guilty. I don't think that is the case. But the die-hard Republicans defend the corruption of people like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens and all the people in Jack Abramoff's address book by pointing to one lone Democrat sitting in the dock and saying, "They do it, too." And then the MSM picks up that meme and it becomes the conventional wisdom. And then people conclude that it doesn't matter who they vote for, or even if they vote at all, because they're all the same.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, you said both sides did it all the time. Yes, and I think they do. I think it's a few dead voters in Chicago all the time, and a few whites in deep south towns where the racial balance is close all the time, and a few illegal aliens in border towns all the time. I think Republicans engage in it by trying to frighten people away from the polls; I think Democrats do it by trying to turn out people who shouldn't (or aren't entitled to) vote. I don't think there's enough of it, certainly not from the Democratic side, to make it worth hiring or firing US Attorneys over, but I think you could probably find one or two legitimately prosecutable cases in every federal district in the country every year. Which is why the intent issue is so murky.

Beyond that, though, saying "both sides do it" suggests that both sides are equally guilty. I don't think that is the case. But the die-hard Republicans defend the corruption of people like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens and all the people in Jack Abramoff's address book by pointing to one lone Democrat sitting in the dock and saying, "They do it, too." And then the MSM picks up that meme and it becomes the conventional wisdom. And then people conclude that it doesn't matter who they vote for, or even if they vote at all, because they're all the same.That of course is a different issue altogether.

[Lindsey]

Yes, and I think they do.
I don't think I'd describe a handful of cases as something that happens "all the time," but as something that happens rarely. And what is even rarer is that there is any evidence of criminal intent in those cases. More often than not, it's simple error -- people mistakenly filling out the voter registration form when they apply for a driver's license, for example. In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any organized effort, on the part of Democrats or anyone else, to bring ineligible voters to the polls in order to swing an election. The Bush Justice Department has been trying very hard for the last 6-1/2 years, and cannot point to a single case in which illegally cast votes have tipped an election. And there are just too few cases altogether to suggest an organized campaign.

There are, on the other hand, many documented cases of Republican efforts -- legal, illegal, and questionable -- in recent years aimed at voter suppression. The New Hampshire phone jamming scandal in 2002, for example. Massive purging of voter rolls in Florida in 2000. Threatening minority voters that attempts to vote could get them arrested for unpaid parking tickets or apartment rent. Bogus calls to voters in Democratic districts about changing of poll locations. Disallowing tribal photo IDs as voter identification in Minnesota. Obnoxioius (and illegal) robo-calls from the GOP to voters in closely contested races that sound as if they come from Democratic candidates, aimed at generating voter backlash against Democrats. Ridiculous jot-and-tittle voter registration requirements, as when Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell in 2004 disallowed voter registrations that were not on 80-pound stock paper. Cumbersome requirements for groups conducting registration drives and threats of heavy fines and even imprisonment for small breaches of them.

I think the scale tips pretty heavily in one direction.

I think it's a few dead voters in Chicago all the time, and a few whites in deep south towns where the racial balance is close all the time, and a few illegal aliens in border towns all the time. I think Republicans engage in it by trying to frighten people away from the polls; I think Democrats do it by trying to turn out people who shouldn't (or aren't entitled to) vote. I don't think there's enough of it, certainly not from the Democratic side, to make it worth hiring or firing US Attorneys over, but I think you could probably find one or two legitimately prosecutable cases in every federal district in the country every year. Which is why the intent issue is so murky.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think the scale tips pretty heavily in one direction.Certainly when it comes to dirty tricks. At least outside of Chicago...

[Lindsey]

Certainly when it comes to dirty tricks. At least outside of Chicago...
Chicago certainly takes the prize when it comes to reputation, no question about that!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Chicago certainly takes the prize when it comes to reputation, no question about that!A fact that never ceases to annoy my Chicago-based older brother.

[Lindsey]

A fact that never ceases to annoy my Chicago-based older brother.
LOL!! I suspect they've cleaned things up at least a bit since the old Daley days. But what would Chicago be if it didn't make you think of political graft, election fraud, and Al Capone?

--Lindsey

[Jeff]

LOL!! I suspect they've cleaned things up at least a bit since the old Daley days. But what would Chicago be if it didn't make you think of political graft, election fraud, and Al Capone?

--Lindsey

Broad shoulders?

- Jeff

[Lindsey]

Broad shoulders?
Oh, a Carl Sandburg fan, I see! Yeah, I guess you're right at that!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

LOL!! I suspect they've cleaned things up at least a bit since the old Daley days. But what would Chicago be if it didn't make you think of political graft, election fraud, and Al Capone?A town with good pizza and a basketball team?

[Lindsey]

A town with good pizza
New York has better pizza. :p As for basketball -- I dunno, I don't follow professional basketball. (Don't follow college backetball any more, either, for that matter.) But there are other towns with good B-ball teams, too.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

New York has better pizza. :p As for basketball -- I dunno, I don't follow professional basketball.I agree with you as to the pizza... but as to basketball, think Michael Jordan.

[Lindsey]

but as to basketball, think Michael Jordan.
Michale Jordan is so last century!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Michale Jordan is so last century!So, dear lady, am I.

[Lindsey]

So, dear lady, am I.
Actually, I think I myself am rather 19th century...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Actually, I think I myself am rather 19th century...Nah... I like having the right to vote!

[Lindsey]

Nah... I like having the right to vote!
Well, yes, there is that. Of course, there was always the west, if you didn't mind living on the frontier. The Wyoming Territory granted women the right to vote in 1869; Utah Territory in 1870; the state of Colorado in 1893; and the state of Idaho in 1896. I could go with Colorado, I think. Dunno about the rest.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, yes, there is that. Of course, there was always the west, if you didn't mind living on the frontier. The Wyoming Territory granted women the right to vote in 1869; Utah Territory in 1870; the state of Colorado in 1893; and the state of Idaho in 1896. I could go with Colorado, I think. Dunno about the rest.As a Colorado native, I could go for Colorado... but only if it comes with high speed internet and indoor plumbing, personally.

[Lindsey]

As a Colorado native, I could go for Colorado... but only if it comes with high speed internet and indoor plumbing, personally.
The modern age is not all bad, at that...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The modern age is not all bad, at that...My kid sister put things into real perspective for me recently. She reminded me that if she'd been born even 50 years earlier, she'd be dead or dying of congestive heart failure. As it is, she's not even slowing down after her heart surgery last year.

[Lindsey]

She reminded me that if she'd been born even 50 years earlier, she'd be dead or dying of congestive heart failure.
Or, perhaps, if she had been born into a different demographic...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Or, perhaps, if she had been born into a different demographic...That too, but a lot of credit for that goes to her public school teacher job and terrific insurance.

[Lindsey]

That too, but a lot of credit for that goes to her public school teacher job and terrific insurance.
Oh, sure, but if she had grown up in, say, Bed-Stuy, she might not have that advanced degree and the public school teacher's job.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, sure, but if she had grown up in, say, Bed-Stuy, she might not have that advanced degree and the public school teacher's job.I won't disagree generically, but would remind you that my sister went back to school at 40 with four kids at home and an unsupportive husband, drove an hour each way to her college, borrowed herself into what will probably be permanent debt... and graduated summa cum laude with a double major in physics and geology.

[Lindsey]

I won't disagree generically, but would remind you that my sister went back to school at 40 with four kids at home and an unsupportive husband, drove an hour each way to her college, borrowed herself into what will probably be permanent debt... and graduated summa cum laude with a double major in physics and geology.
Well, that's a good point -- there are people who are pretty darned near unsinkable, and I think your family has a very great number of them!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, that's a good point -- there are people who are pretty darned near unsinkable, and I think your family has a very great number of them!There are some good'ns in my family, and my baby sister is one of the best.

[Lindsey]

There are some good'ns in my family, and my baby sister is one of the best.
Her big sister set a good example. ;)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Her big sister set a good example. ;) As did her medical doctor oldest brother and her PhD planetary scientist older brother and her MBA younger brother and...

Sigh. A bunch of overachievers if I ever saw one.

[Lindsey]

Sigh. A bunch of overachievers if I ever saw one.
You guys are disgusting!! ;)

--Lindsey