Treason as defined by Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt …
Jan 12 2018
Jul 11 2017
Update: 7/11/2017 18:00 CET Donald Jr. released the e-mails before seeing his lawyer and before the NYT. Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said By Matt Apuzzo, Jo Becker, and Adam Goldman The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his …
May 23 2017
Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Trump appealed to two intelligence chiefs for help to push back the FBI investigation into his campaign after then Director James Comey revealed its existence in March. Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the …
May 16 2017
For someone who was so concerned as Trump was about national security and revealing American secrets while he was on the campaigned trail, he’s pretty loose with the information when it comes to the Russians. Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador By Greg Miller and Greg Jaffe, The Washington Post …
May 12 2017
Donald Trump sat down for an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and gave congress all the cause they need to start writing the articles of impeachment when he admitted that he fired FBI Director James Comey because of the investigation of his campaign’s possible connection to the Russian interference with the 2016 election. In an …
Jul 28 2016
In 1968, GOP presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon conspired with a foreign government to scuttle the Paris Peace Talks and the election of his Democratic opponent Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. From the FBI wiretaps, (President Lydon B.) Johnson quickly learned about the role of Nixon campaign official (and right-wing China Lobby figure) Anna Chennault …
Jan 29 2010
Crossposted at Daily Kos
Thanks to the Supreme
Council Court, meet your new Corporate Masters!
Say hello to Saudi Arabia!
Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”:
Saudi Arabia’s economy depends on oil exports so stands to be one of the biggest losers in any pact that curbs oil demand by penalizing carbon emissions. “It’s one of the biggest threats that we are facing,” said Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to U.N. talks on climate change and a senior economic adviser to the Saudi oil ministry. […] Climate talks posed a bigger threat, Sabban said, and subsidies for the development of renewable energy were distorting market economics in the sector, he said.
It’s good to be the King
of Saudi Arabia!
More below the fold
Jun 19 2009
From the Washington Post :
federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney’s political enemies or late-night commentary on “The Daily Show.”
Ugh. But it gets even better.
But career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, responding to Sullivan’s questions, said Bradbury’s arguments against the disclosure were supported by the department’s current leadership. He told the judge that if Cheney’s remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern “that it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or somehow be used as a political weapon.
Fitzgerald, in a 2008 letter to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) cited by CREW, drew a distinction between interviews that he conducted under standard investigative secrecy rules and the meetings he held with Bush and Cheney. Fitzgerald said “there were no ‘agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation’ and either the President or Vice President ‘regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews.’ ”
So the Change You Can Believe In administration is arguing, with an apparent straight face that this isn’t a cover up of treason by Richard Bruce Cheney, that’s a 1st amendment issue. Let me calm down and try to suss this out.
The claim made originally by war criminal Bradbury, that the Vice President may not participate in a criminal probe in which he is himself the prime suspect, because Jon Stewart might make fun of him. Not because he may incriminate himself. And we can’t know about this, not because it might provide proof that Cheney is a criminal, but because in the future, when a Vice President breaks the law, he may, out of a fear of embarrassment, not cooperate with criminal investigations against him.
May 22 2009
Whenever I read a piece like the one last night from McClatchy News Service, “Cheney’s speech contained omissions, misstatements”, I often wonder where they’ve been for the last 8 years, pre-Obama? To its credit though, McClatchy had far better reporting going on than AP and Reuters during the Bush years. This one is just scorching… HOT! It’s the kind of reporting we all lusted after, but never got, while Cheney was in office.
Cheney said that “the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence,” but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.
I envision Yosemite Sam, right after Bugs blows him up with gunpowder or something, still smoldering.
– Cheney said that only “ruthless enemies of this country” were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.
A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.
This piece, written by reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, is to be applauded. It’s nice to see some media not afraid of Dick Cheney.
There’s so much more at the link. For your viewing pleasure (don’t miss it!):
Sep 03 2008
Joe Biden….excuse me, future Vice President, Joe Biden:
“In an Obama-Biden administration, we will not have an attorney general who blatantly breaks the law,” Biden said at a town-hall meeting in West Palm Beach, Florida, his voice at times drowned out by applause. “We will not have a president who doesn’t understand the Constitution. And I will not be a vice-president who thinks he’s not part of any of the three branches of government.”
Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with “a fine-toothed comb” and pursue criminal charges if necessary.
“If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation,” he said, “they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution – out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law.”
Encouraging stuff, especially when reinforced by Obama’s previous statement to Will Bunch:
Jul 12 2008
The likely outcome of the Bush-led Republican raid on America astonishes me. As America’s national nightmare approaches the eight-year mark, the Bush administration is apparently going to escape unpunished. They are going to skate scot-free. They have brazenly committed major crimes against the people of the United States, not to mention the terrible things they have done to much of the rest of the world…and these bastards are going to skate scot-free.
Jul 02 2008
The dualistic mind is enjoying the on-going debate between “purity trolls” and “sell-outs.” And most people on both sides of the issue appear to be quite certain of their stance. Feeling somewhat queasy from the shaky ground under me, I’ve been looking in vain for the solid ground others seem to have found. All I see is a Sophie’s Choice: which one do you choose to kill–the Constitution of the United States or any chance of participation in the process? I don’t know. But I’m here to urge people to accept that we have a tough decision which cries out for meaningful, respectful debate. And during this debate, may we keep in mind the most important political question we face–what action gives us the best chance of rescuing the constitution from imminent demise.