John Snyder's Errant Thoughts

Ice Cream

Last weekend I bought a half gallon of ice cream, bananas, and chocolate fudge.
I forgot how much I like banana splits.
They are delicious.
And good for you.

More U.S. Attorney Firing Emails

The sleazy spectacle of the U.S. Attorney firings continues. Another few pages of emails were released yesterday (Friday, naturally). As noted on White Collar Crime Prof Blog, the most interesting email concerns a statement by Kyle Sampson regarding Carol Lam's replacement. "For obvious reasons, [redacted] would be best."

This email was from January 14. Why wasn't it produced before? Don't tell me that things happen when massive amounts of documents are involved. Right now we're talking about 2,000 pages of documents. That's nothing. I'm actually very surprised that so few documents have been produced about this. Most of the produced documents are forwards of news articles. I'm skeptical that anything approaching full disclosure has been made.

But more to the point, Senator Leahy needs to call Kyle Sampson back and ask him one simple question: what were the "obvious reasons" for wanting a particular person (or kind of person) for Carol Lam's job. This goes to the very heart of the case.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Lefty Land)

Here's a real man of the people. According to this article from Politico, Senator Larry Craig from Idaho (what is it about Idaho that is inherently funny?) expresses his outrage over the Ted Stevens bribery scandal.

Well, not so much about the bribery. Apparently that's as American as apple pie. But the FBI raid?

"I think some people say, 'Ah, but for the grace of God go I.' Especially when you have the allegatiatons, you have the judicial segment of our government, the executive branch, out raiding the homes of senators, that is a very frightening propostion. It is a bit Gestapo-like in its style and tactics," Craig said on Wednesday.

"When the FBI was offered a key and invited into the home, they chose publicize it to make sure the media was there first, and they broke in. That is gamesmanship. That makes senators very, very angry when they attempt to cooperate when for reason they are caught in these webs and yet they are denied that for the sake of the juduciary’s publicity. That is wrong.’’

First of all, can we have a federal law making it a jailable offense to compare anything to Hitler, Nazis, or the Gestapo unless it is at least within the 1,000 miles of being comparable? I'm not one of these people who say you can never make the comparison, but not everything you dislike is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. Really.

More to the point, though, Senator Craig is right that the FBI is prone to being heavy handed, and if you believe only a tenth of what you read, it's gotten very bad in the last decade. What is interesting here is that Senator Craig only now get peeved about it...when it happens to a fellow Senator. Where was the concern when it was only happening to the regular people?

Not that this sense of Senatorial entitlement is anything new or remotely surprising. What is surprising is that a member of the world's most exclusive club would actually say what he is thinking.

The other part of this that is interesting to me is the tendency, particularly among Republicans, of being hard line uncompromising rock-ribbed conservatives when it comes to you, but sappy lefties when the given matter, whatever it is, affects them or their friends or family personally. Nancy Reagan suddenly supports stem cell research when it could help Ronnie. Darth Cheney eases up on the lesbians when his daughter turns out to be a lesbian. All of the neo-Cons suddenly wake up to the harshness of the federal sentencing guidelines when Scooter gets a sentence that is right in line with said guidelines. Now Larry Craig becomes a one-day-only card-carrying ACLU member when the FBI does to a friend of his what they do to lots of Americans every single day.

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Read this.

Apparently the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a euphemism for torture isn't new, but in fact originated in 1937 when it was coined by the Nazis. The techniques are the same, and Nazis were sentenced to death for using some of the same techniques that the Bush administration has approved.

One of my colleagues is fond of reminding people that "Hitler didn't think he was Hitler." Obviously Bush isn't Hitler, either. He probably doesn't think he's Bush. But what does it say when our current regime independently comes up with a verbatim identical phrase to defend the unconscionable as the Nazis used?

Two further points here:

(1) Bush and the neo-Cons like to think that they are so smart for coming up with all of these clever artifices and schemes to put one over on everyone else -- politicizing the US Attorneys, redefining torture, rigging the election process, etc, etc, etc -- as if they have hit on something that no one else has ever thought of. On the contrary, these are all very old tactics that most leaders have probably considered in the dark of night, then rejected after a moment's thought, on human decency grounds. Those who are drawn to this way of ruling tend to be grotesque monsters.

(2) I am constantly amazed that people are not more alarmed. People seem to think that dictators and thugs and authoritarians take over erstwhile peaceful and civilized societies by announcing, "hey, it's a beautiful day, everything's wonderful, how would you like to live under totalitarianism now?" And the people say, "Sure, that sound terrific!"

As I write this, I am suddenly conscious that the government is logging what I do and, very likely, putting me in a database for future use. Probably nothing will come of it because, by sheer numbers, it is unlikely that anyone will consider it worth the while to do anything about a blog that no one reads. But the fact that this thought crosses my mind is exactly what we should be worried about.

The Democrats Are Cowards

I can't put it much better than Keith Olbermann, who lays out the Democrats for lacking the spine to stand up to a discredited president with a 32% approval rating. Here it is, if you care to watch. It's about seven minutes, and worth watching.

I really have nothing to say that has not been said by others. Politics is not like sports. If you're a Red Sox fan, you support the Sox because you want to see your team (i.e., the guys who happen to be wearing your favorite team's uniform) beat the other team.

With politics, you support the candidates on your team because, one supposes, you actually believe that when an important moment comes, they will do the right thing, or at least come closer to doing the right thing than the other team. That is why I was so irritated after 9/11 when I heard someone -- a rabid Bush hater -- say that she hoped that Bush would "really screw this up." Her reasoning was that if Bush screwed things up, the Republicans would suffer in future elections and more members of the Blue Team would get elected.

That misses the whole point. We wanted Gore to be elected in 2000 because we believed (correctly) that, when it mattered, Gore would do a better job than Bush. But the end goal, or the ultimate hope, was that we would have someone in the White House who would handle the situation wisely and well. Gore did not win, so we got Bush, and from my standpoint, I hoped for the best.

Obviously, Bush has been a disaster. People finally came around to recognizing this in November 2006, voting the Republicans out and sending the Democrats to do one thing: end the war. I worked the polls as a volunteer lawyer in Cleveland to help make sure voters were not disenfranchised. Lots of folks did as well, and helped in many other ways. But part of the deal was that the Democrats, if put in power, would give their best effort to stop the war.

The Democrats, under the weak and deplorable leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, seem to be afraid of their own shadows. They are terrified that if they stand up and actually do what they were sent to do, they will lose some popularity. Well guess what? Game day is today, not tomorrow. If you lose popularity, so be it. After all, what did you spend all these years building popularity for, if not to spend it when it matters?

That's not a rhetorical question, because I believe that among many Democrats, the answer to that question is not all that obvious. One problem with Democrats is that they tend to be more public-sector oriented, which means that you see fewer Democratic politicians who feel they have viable rewarding options outside the warm embrace of public life. That makes the Democrats particularly terrified of losing an election (and losing the best job they'll ever have). Thus, unlike Republicans, who are more likely to have other non-government options if they lose an election, Democrats tend to be more panicky and more risk averse.

There are plenty of left-leaning people out there who have succeeded in other walks of life, and who could run for Congress, serve, and actually contemplate a meaningful life even if defeated in the next election. Democrats need to recruit more of them. For now, I'm sick of these cowardly Democratic hacks who consider a lost election to be the end of the world.

Stunning Testimony from James B. Comey

James B. Comey, who was acting Attorney General in March 2004, gave absolutely remarkable testimony today concerning a very ugly incident that apparently took place in mid-March 2004 concerning disgraceful conduct of Alberto Gonzalez and Andy Card.  The incident is recounted in its full glory on DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo.

The long and short of it was that Attorney General John Ashcroft was very sick at that time, and had been in the hospital for about a week.  Due to his condition, the powers of the Attorney General had been transferred to Comey.  At that time, Comey and Ashcroft had concluded that they could not certify the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program.  Gonzalez and Card (apparently with the knowledge and assistance of President Bush) tried to make an end-run around Comey, visiting Ashcroft in his hospital bed in an effort to take advantage of Mr. Ashcroft's incapacitated state and obtain his signature.

This incident nearly led to the resignation of Ashcroft, Comey, Robert Mueller (FBI Director) and others.

If this doesn't indicate something about the calibre of human being that Bush has working for him, I'm not sure what does.  These people are utterly ruthless.  They cannabalize their own.  January 20, 2009 (or impeachment) cannot come soon enough. 

Lost Emails!!!

While the network news fixates on Don Imus and the "Nappy-Headed Hos," as well as the vindication of the Duke lacrosse players, they are sleeping through a story that is actually important.

The White House, which has used RNC email addresses to conduct "off-the-record" business in an effort to avoid subpoenas, now claims to have lost the emails!!! As I posted a couple weeks ago, the Democrats need to keep their eye on the fundamentals -- getting the evidence.

I want to see the Democrats subpoena everyone in the IT department of the White House and the RNC. I want the key White House aides' computer hard drives mirror-imaged and preserved. I want to know how these emails were "lost." Who was in charge of preserving the emails? When did the loss occur? This is outrageous.

Tim Russert, Wake Up!!!

My jaw hit the floor when Orrin Hatch said this on Sunday about Carol Lam, the fired US Attorney:

"Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically?"

I was shocked when I heard this because (1) the GWB I know and love does not appoint former Clinton campaign managers to key posts; and (2) if indeed that were true, wouldn't someone have mentioned it before?  Come to find out, it was complete and utter bullshit.

Yet Tim Russert, purportedly the "toughest interviewer in Washington," let this howler slip past him.  Hey Tim.  Tim!  EARTH TO TIM!!!  You can't let a sneaky guy like Orrin Hatch slip something as blatantly wrong as that past you.

My Alberto Moment

My one and only experience with Alberto Gonzalez came in 2002 when he was a speaker at my law school graduation.  I still remember coming away from his speech with a feeling that there was something fundamentally not right about him.

It was not just that I disagreed with his politics.  I generally enjoy listening to someone who has a different view.  In point of fact, I don't remember much about the content of his talk (something about terrorism, but that's all I remember). 

No, it was something far more visceral.  I don't believe I have ever encountered a person so deeply self-satisfied, smug, and eager to humiliate others not because he was right, but because he had proximity to power.  I say this after only a brief encounter, but my reaction was a red alert from some reptilian survival center in the mind that shouted -- "watch out, this guy is dangerous."  I have never had the same reaction to any other person, and I will never forget it.

The strange thing is that I don't get the same impression from television.  He seems like a fairly regular person on TV.  But from what I have heard, he is tremendously unpopular among members of Congress, and I wonder if some of them do not get the same read that I got.

Comparing Goodling With Scooter Libby

John Dowd is a great lawyer.  Not a good lawyer, a great lawyer.

A lawyer of Dowd's talent, sophistication, and experience does not write anything without having carefully thought through every scenario and every possible interpretation of his words.

For that reason, I was puzzled when I saw his letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which he stated:

The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real.  One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby.

Hmmm.  What does that mean?  I don't agree with this guy who said:

Goodling's attorney, John Dowd made a huge public relations mistake by comparing Ms. Goodling's situation with what happened to Scooter Libby. That's because Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice --and now the American people will link the two and think that Ms. Goodling might have similar skeletons in her closet.

Look, there are very few things I would literally bet my mortal life on.  I would bet my life that this was not a mistake, an accident, or a PR blunder.  John Dowd is not going to publicly compare his client with a government official recently convicted of perjury unless he had a very good reason for doing it. 

So let's discuss the possible reasons.

We can immediately cross off the list "engendering public sympathy."  It seems most people basically agree that Scooter Libby perjured himself and they don't have a big problem with his conviction.  If Dowd wanted to imply that the Democrats were out to get her for partisan reasons, there are certainly more apt analogies.

Nor to I buy that Dowd was so brainwashed with GOP tripe that he assumes that everyone thinks that Libby is actually innocent.  (Much less that the recipients of the letter, Senate Democrats, believe that or would be moved by that sentiment.)

There's something far more subtle going on.  Re-read those words.  "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby."  If Dowd meant to convey that the Libby trial resulted in a wrongful conviction, he could have simply said "the Libby trial."  Dowd did not say that.  He said, ". . . the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby."

Also note that this sentence really isn't a sentence.  "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby" . . . to find . . . what exactly?

Dowd leaves that deliberately unclear, but one thing is apparent.  Whatever Libby was, it is something that Goodling intends not to become.  So what was Libby?  By many accounts, he was the fall guy.  He was also someone who did the corrupt bidding of Karl Rove and others at high levels.  He lied under oath to protect those above him.  And he took a bullet for the GOP cause, like a good soldier.

Dowd's statement was not a careless or poorly considered reference.  It was a message to Senate Democrats as well as the White House:  "I'm 33 years old, I have my whole life ahead of me, and I'm not going to prison for this Administration.  I am no Scooter Libby."