September 13, 1787 - July 9, 2008

Instead the suspension of the Constitution comes in the guise of secret memos:

… our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001)

Since the Executive has been operating in a manner “justified” by this memo, we must assume that they are indeed performing domestic military operations and have therefore suspended the Constitution.

I’m rather disappointed really, the whole thing was pretty anti-climactic.

Q And last thing. Senator Obama is saying speculation is a big part of this. The administration seems to reject that; Secretary Bodman over the weekend saying in Saudi that speculation really is not the issue here. But the Saudis themselves came out yesterday and said they do believe speculation is a problem. So where does this White House –

MS. PERINO: We believe the fundamental problem is the basic one of law – the basic law of supply and demand. We do think that speculation could have impact on the day-to-day volatility in the market. But over the long term what we have seen is a leveling off of supply and a dramatically rising – rise of demand, and that is what the fundamental problem is.

But in terms of the day-to-day volatility or turbulence in the market, perhaps that can be attributed to speculators, and the CFTC is looking into that aspect and all the other aspects that go into this, as well.

Q And a follow to that. Congress is actually perhaps considering legislation to set stricter limits, or even ban trading on energy futures in some markets. Is that something that the White House – I mean, what’s your position on that?

MS. PERINO: I think the best place for that discussion and that review is at the CFTC, and we’ll let that independent agency look at it and then review any of their recommendations. I know that Walter Luken is heading that up.

Okaaaayyyy…. Then let’s get Mr. Luken up there to the Hill and get him squirming:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – Near-record oil prices could quickly fall by half if Congress were to rein in speculators, according to testimony Monday from a hedge fund manager and oil company adviser before a House subpanel.

Michael Masters, of Masters Capital Management fund, told the subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committe that - with greater regulation - oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days.

The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How?

What would be the effect of a big increase in the volume of purchases of near-term futures contracts? If investors were all equally informed and risk neutral, an increased volume of purchases would have no effect on the price. In such a world, there would be an unlimited potential volume of investors out there willing to take the other side of any bets if the purchases were to result in a price that was anything other than the market fundamentals value. But with risk-averse investors or with differing information, the answer is a little different. For example, I might read your willingness to buy a large volume of these contracts as a possible signal that you know something I don’t. For this reason, standard financial “market micro-structure” theory predicts that a large volume of purchases may well cause the price to increase, at least temporarily, until I have a chance to verify what the true fundamentals value would be.

In a scramble to find a fix for energy prices, Congress has tried (and failed) to strip tax breaks from Big Oil, to open protected sites for exploration and drilling, and to jump-start a new era in nuclear power.

Now, Capitol Hill is zeroing in on speculators and the legal loopholes that some lawmakers say are adding as much as $70 to the price of a barrel of oil.

“Energy speculation has become a fine growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D) of Michigan, at hearing on Monday.

Fixes in the works on Capitol Hill range from new constraints on speculators – including a 50 percent margin requirement on financial speculators, full disclosure of all trading by investment banks in all markets, and prohibiting investment banks from holding energy assets – to more funding and regulatory mandates for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.”

Whoopdee doo and la di da.

The moral of this story is that the Constitution applies to everything our government does, always and without exception. Ours is a government of limited powers, and if We the People have not granted the power to act through the Constitution, then the government has no power to act. Period.

– jlynne

The politicians seem surprised at the spiraling economy and never entertain the idea that their policies may be to blame. As consummate bureaucrats, their only response is to enact even more policies, culminating in the overreaching Directive 10-289. The absurd act is riddled with contradictions and double-speak, such as the order that inventors be compelled to “voluntarily” give up their patents. In blindly piling irrational law upon irrational law, the politicians reveal their unwillingness to see the reality before them. They have become so used to feeding off the productive elements in society that they have not noticed that these elements are no longer there.

Sheehan and crew talk with Conyers and they don’t like what he had to say. In fact they so don’t like what he had to say that they were willing to park their keesters in his office until they were hauled away by the Capital police.

And now they’re crying about how Conyers had the audacity, the mendacity, the [insert prefix here]city to throw them out.

Here’s Medea Benjamin’s story:

I remember before the 2006 election being at a fundraiser in Los Angeles for the Democratic Party when one of the featured guests was Rep. John Conyers. The issue of impeachment came up and the crowed roared in approval when Conyers said that if the Democrats took control of Congress, he would become head of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and would initiate impeachment proceedings. That, he said, was one of the reasons why it was so important to go all out to get Democrats elected.

Fast forward to July 23, 2007. About 300 of us gathered at Arlington Cemetery, convened by peace mom Cindy Sheehan, to march to Cong. Conyers office to demand that seven months after coming to power, he fulfill his promise about initiating impeachment proceedings. Shouting “Conyers, Conyers need a reason? Torture, lies, war and treason,” the angry crowd packed the halls outside the Congressman’s office while Cindy, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and former Conyers’ protégé Reverend Yearwood met with the Congressman inside.

Rejoining the story:

A hour later, they emerged stone-faced and disillusioned. Cindy said that Conyers had told them that “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes” and that “our only recourse was to work to get a Democrat in the White House.” The crowd booed and 45 people sat down inside and outside Conyers’ office. They were arrested by the Capitol Police as the supporters shouted “Shame on Conyers” and “Arrest Bush and Cheney, not the peacemakers.”

Imagine that, protesters being arrested in the Capital building. Surprise, surprise. And what’s also not surprising is that these good folk appear offended that they were forcibly thrown out by one of their “allies”.

But wait a sec, exactly why were they thrown out? Was it because they were blocking the important work of a powerful committee head? Was it because they were being unruly? I s’pose the answer is ‘both’. But let’s take a little closer look at what happened here:

Conyers (and his staff) knew they were coming. Certainly they knew the agenda and if they’d taken even a passing thought at the positions the two sides were taking, they (Conyers’ people) would’ve realized that there was going to be a confrontation and the police would probably be called.

So why didn’t they arrange for the Sheehan contingent to be accommodated? Couldn’t they have met in a more ‘crowd friendly’ location than the Congressman’s office? Couldn’t Conyers’ people have done just a bit more to prevent the bad publicity that (surely) they knew would result?

This is the point that makes me really wonder just what the fuck is going on here. Conyers and Pelosi did nothing at all to protect their “allies” in this situation. They’re standing their ground, hanging all objectors in the breeze and acting all powerful and hubristic just like, like - oh dear GOD! - George Bush.

Sure Sheehan and her people went there loaded for bear and they surely found it - they knew exactly where to look. And the result plays well to those that like that kinda thing. But the vast majority of us that casually observe these things will conclude that “they’re whackos” and their cause suffers a blow - to the head.

But why? Why does it lose credibility? Because it was “in your face”? Or because they “broke the law”? Or is it ultimately that their rudeness is an embarrassment to those of us that prefer a more decorous approach to conflict?

Well this is yet another example of how decorum and protocol are used to disarm, insult and nullify an opponent. I believe the real rudeness, the real incivility here comes from the Democratic leadership. They’re using the time tested approach of allowing their opponent’s perceived “lack of civility” be used to stifle the discussion. By allowing Sheehan and her group to be labeled as ‘whackos’, they’re actually strengthening their position (from a public perception point of view at least) without actually having to defend that position.

By allowing this situation to progress the way it did (and I’m sure it went exactly to script), the questions surrounding Conyers’ and Pelosi’s “reasons” are never really investigated. They’re no longer required to justify and support their positions. They can simply turn their backs and smugly accuse anyone who disagrees as being “whacko” and “over the top”.

Civility? Decorous public discourse? Sure, there’s always a time & place, but when decorum is used against one, there is only one avenue left.

I’ll give this to President Bush. He makes no pretense when he disses. He would not meet with Sheehan to define for her the “noble cause” for which her son Casey died or tell her why he had said it was “worth it.”

Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretense as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me Monday in his office in the Rayburn building. I have seldom been so disappointed with someone I had previously held in high esteem. And before leaving, I told him so.

Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some 50 others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of action as the Capitol Police “processed” us for the next six hours.

Movin’ on:

On May 29, 2007, Col. Ann Wright and I were among those who flew to Detroit for a highly advertised Town Hall meeting on impeachment, because we were assured that John Conyers would be there.

That Town Hall/panel discussion was arranged by the Michigan chapter of the National Lawyers Guild less than two weeks after the Detroit City Council passed a resolution, cosponsored by Conyers’ wife Monica Conyers-calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. We had hoped that Monica’s clear vision and courage might be contagious.

I had to remind the congressman that he did not show up for the Town Hall.

Apparently, that incident was of such little consequence to the congressman that he had completely forgotten about it. Small wonder, then, that he has apparently forgotten the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Selective Alzheimers? I don’t know. What was clear was that he had forgotten a whole lot.

When I raised James Madison’s role in crafting a Constitution that mentions impeachment no fewer than six times, he replied: Madison did not say Conyers has to impeach every one. Why, if I had to impeach everyone for high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s all my committee would have time to do.

But what he doesn’t get a pass on is the hyperbole. If that’s his job then that should be his top priority. Nothing Conyers’ committee does should take precedence over removing and prosecuting corruption wherever it’s found.

How about just Bush and Cheney, we suggested.

Conyers protested that he would need 218 votes in the House and complained that the votes are not there. His priorities showed through in his loud lament that if he fell short of the 218 votes, the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day.

There was no getting through to Conyers, who seemed astonished at the direct questions we were posing.

It’s ironic - Conyers and his ilk will quickly use some great dead guy’s words to their advantage - but they never seem to understand that quoting some great dead guy is not enough.
One must act in the face of adversity in order to become one of those great dead guys.

Perjury. Lying under oath. Lying to Congress. Lying to U.S. Senators under fucking oath!

Think about that again: The Attorney General of these United States stands accused of perjury by U.S. Senators.

Need to think about that again?

Now try this one on: The President of The United States continues to stand behind this man, continues to endorse him and support him. What does that say for our so called President?

I assert that among all the other things that G.W. Bush has done or allowed on his watch, he his now obviously guilty of malfeasance and obstruction of justice. For if he were an honorable man with a modicum of respect for the law, he’d demand Gonzales’ immediate resignation and demand that he be tried for every possible violation and infraction that could be drummed up.

Without a demand of resignation, G.W. Bush is guilty of malfeasance.

Without a demand of investigation and and indictment, G.W. Bush is guilty of obstruction.

From The Speaker Of The House:

Today the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law met to consider the executive privilege claims asserted by White House Counsel in response to the subpoena for the production of documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff or appropriate custodian of records.

Chairwoman Linda Sánchez’s ruling:

Ruling on White House Executive Privilege Claims

We have received letters from White House Counsel Fred Fielding on June 28 and July 9 refusing to produce documents concerning our U.S. Attorney investigation that were called for in our June 13 subpoena to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, and further refusing to even provide the necessary information to explain his purported executive privilege claim. On July 17, Chairman Conyers and I again wrote to Mr. Fielding, notified him we would formally consider those privilege claims today, and again urged compliance with the June 13 subpoena.

Let me say at the outset that Congress certainly recognizes and appreciate the fact that, in appropriate circumstances, a President may need to assert executive privilege over White House information. We therefore take executive privilege claims seriously, and treat them with the careful consideration we believe is appropriate. In this case, we have given the White House’s privilege claims careful consideration, and the Chair is prepared to rule that those claims are not legally valid and that Joshua Bolten of the White House is required pursuant to subpoena to produce the documents called for.

After I make my ruling, I will entertain a motion to sustain it, but first I would like to set forth the legal grounds for it. A number of these grounds are similar to the grounds in the ruling sustained by this Subcommittee on July 12 overruling the related executive privilege and immunity claims sought to be raised by Harriet Miers through her counsel, and where appropriate, I will incorporate the reasoning and legal authorities by reference. The grounds for my ruling today are as follows:

First, the claims of executive privilege are not properly asserted. We have not received a statement from the President himself asserting the privilege, even though Chairman Conyers has specifically requested one. As stated in my July 12 ruling and as incorporated by reference herein, the courts have ruled that a personal assertion of executive privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid, as, for example, in the Shultz case. 1

The second basis for my ruling is essentially the same as the fourth ground for my July 12 ruling as to Ms. Miers, which is incorporated by reference herein. The courts have required a party raising a claim of executive privilege as to documents to provide a “descriptive, full, and specific itemization of the various documents being claimed as privileged” and “precise and certain reasons for preserving their confidentiality.”2

Such a privilege log has been specifically requested from the White House, both in the subpoena and in a subsequent letter, and the White House has specifically refused. In other words, the White House is refusing not only to produce documents pursuant to subpoena, but also to even explain why the documents are being withheld. In effect, the White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret. Our system of government does not permit the White House to demand this type of blind faith and secrecy.
[… more …]

So Miers doesn’t bother to show up, at Bush’s instruction. The House rules that even if there were basis for executive privilege, the White House hasn’t done ANY of the procedures necessary to invoke it. Call it what it is: Obstruction Of Justice

And from Conyers (same link):

Statement of Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Meeting to Consider the Executive Privilege Claims asserted by White House Counsel in Response to the Subpoena for the Production of Documents issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or Appropriate Custodian of Records

July 19, 2007

I am disappointed that we have reached this day in our continuing investigation into the U.S. Attorney controversy. Time and time again, I have emphasized the critical importance of acquiring information from the White House, yet as we sit here today we have not received a single document from them.

What we have received from them is an unacceptable “take it or leave it offer” that excludes any internal White House communications and suggests informal discussions with no transcripts. If we accept that stingy offer, no one should expect that the White House would give us a second bite at the apple. In fact, they have made clear that they will not, and that a condition of the offer is that we cannot ask for more under any circumstances.

This is one of the main reasons why we reluctantly had to resort to the step of issuing subpoenas for White House documents. Yet, instead of producing documents pursuant to our subpoena, the White House produced an unprecedented, blanket assertion of Executive Privilege.

Our sincere effort to obtain documents from the White House is rooted in evidence that we have received to date that demonstrates White House involvement in this controversy. We have learned, for example, that the White House was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department. New Mexico Republican officials complained repeatedly to Karl Rove and his aides about a voter fraud case that they wanted former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to pursue. Mr. Iglesias was fired soon after some of these complaints, and one of the complaining Republican officials was suggested as his replacement.
[… more …]

This pussy-footin’ around because “we don’t want to cause a ‘crisis’” or in the name of “civility” has got to end.

The President Of The United States is Obstructing Justice. I can’t get away with it and neither can he.

The time has come to send the Sargent At Arms to the pickup Miers and throw her in jail. Armed Confrontation? It’s time. Force Bush to either 1) back down and account for his actions or 2) execute his coup in public.