More bad news for Boss DeLay: Once again, a Texas court has refused to dismiss money-laundering charges against him. Meanwhile, Speaker Dennis Hastert taps David Dreier to pen new lobbying rules for the House (ignoring the fact that Dems, with the aid of Republican Chris Shays, composed stricter lobbying legislation months ago.) And GOP insiders (and, basically, DeLay flunkies) Roy Blunt and John Boehner scramble to take DeLay’s place as majority leader, despite both being tainted by Abramoff contributions. Two days after the Hammer’s fall, and it’s already becoming clear: The only real way to cleanse Congress of this current wave of corruption is the ballot box, come November.
Category: Politics (2005-2006)
Hammer Falls.
“The job of majority leader and the mandate of the Republican majority are too important to be hamstrung, even for a few months, by personal distractions.” Whether it be due to Abramoff’s encroaching testimony, the uprising of GOP moderates, Duke Cunningham’s wire, or all of the above, Boss DeLay has admitted defeat and given up his post for good. While this is excellent news, there’s still much work to do: The ringleader may be dethroned, but the DeLay Ring persists. Hopefully prosecutors in Texas and the Justice Department, as well as members of Congress shamed by the rampant corruption characterizing DeLay’s reign, won’t rest until the Hammer is thrown out of the House and taken to the woodshed. In fact, with any luck, Boss DeLay will be a featured member of the Big House before long.
He has refused his assent to laws.
“It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here,’ the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration’s legal justification ‘does not seem to be…well-grounded.'” A 44-page nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research Service finds Dubya’s dubious reliance on presidential prerogative to explain away the NSA wiretaps doesn’t hold up.
Repeated Injuries and Usurpations.
With most of their arguments already rendered false or nonsensical, “Big Time” Dick Cheney invokes an old standby to justify the illegal NSA wiretaps (which, it turns out, may have begun before White House authorization): 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. And, also in the King George department, Dubya in effect announces he’ll bypass the new torture ban whenever he feels like it. Says one legal expert: “The signing statement is saying ‘I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it’s important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.’” (Media Matters link via Looka.) Update: The FISA court judges want answers, and a possible NSA whistleblower steps up.
Red Letterman Day.
“I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.” Along the lines of (2006 Oscars host) Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004, a driven-to-anger David Letterman goes after guest Bill O’Reilly on Cindy Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and his “fair and balanced” drivel. “I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country…however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of ‘Why the Hell are we there to begin with?’” (Via Dumbmonkey.)
Folding Operations.
“In the short run, members of Congress will get allergic to lobbyists.” As Casino Jack enters a second plea and the fatcats of K St. begin to panic, many top GOP officials burn their Abramoff cash (and for good reason), including Ney, DeLay, Hastert, Blunt, and Dubya. “Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney ’04 re-election campaign, earning the honorary title ‘pioneer’ from the campaign. But the campaign is giving up only $6,000 that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes that he worked to win influence for in Washington.” Update: According to the NYT, the Abramoff plea may have put the dagger to Boss DeLay’s comeback hopes.
Casino Jack-pot.
Happy 2006, y’all. Today’s a travel day for me (from San Diego back to Norfolk), so updates will be sparse. That being said, amid the grim news in West Virginia, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this glint of light for the new year: As rumored, the Feds have flipped Jack Abramoff, meaning trouble ahead for the DeLay-driven GOP corruption machine. While the inquiry into Boss DeLay, who just picked up a Dem opponent in the 2006 midterms, “could take up to a year and require the cooperation of other witnesses before issues are resolved,” it seems prosecutors will move more quickly against DeLay deputy and GOP official Bob Ney, who corresponds to a “Representative #1” referred to in the plea agreement. Let’s get this show started!
Jack of Clubs.
“‘Jack would say, ‘I gave that guy 10 grand and he voted against me!'” Previewing “what could become the biggest congressional corruption scandal in generations” when it fully erupts in 2006, the Washington Post offers a brief overview of the meteoric rise and sordid fall of Casino Jack Abramoff.
The I-Word.
“‘The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear,’ Turley says. ‘At the heart of this [NSA wiretap] operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.'” Salon‘s Michelle Goldberg assesses the current political temperature for Dubya’s impeachment. “‘For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.‘” Update: Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick also muses on Dubya’s distaste for the rule of law.
Luttig Livid.
Passed over thrice for a Dubya high court nomination, conservative appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig today got the chance to exercise his wrath upon the administration in a decision regarding Jose Padilla, and for good reason. “The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government…Luttig said the government’s actions created the appearance ‘that the government may be attempting to avoid’ Supreme Court review in a matter of ‘especial national importance.’ He also suggested that the government’s actions in the Padilla case may possibly have had negative consequences for ‘the public perception of the war on terror’ and ‘also for the government’s credibility before the courts in litigation ancillary to that war.‘”