My friend EM at The Grievance Project is carrying forward on his idea of filing grievances against all the crooks who have hijacked America’s justice departments, especially the Gonzales’, now Mukasey’s cover-upped criminal institute. I hope that you will go visit the Grievance project and help any way you feel you can. EM is a patriot and worthy to be on B’Man’s Patriot Watch.
I have had mixed feelings regarding attorneys, but EM (and those he seems to respect, like Jonathon Turley, who I have long linked to and respected myself) is a different breed. I believe he is doing what he can to make real change and I support him (even though he writes above my legalese head, at times).
You all know about AG Mukasey’s horrendous decision to not prosecute Sampson, Goodling, et al. Although expected, that’s not good enough. These attorneys are an embarrassment to the legal profession and this country deserves better. I’ve long had enough. Have you had enough?
My grievance strategy is based on sound legal theory and can begin to restore some credibility to the legal field. My concept has also been advocated by Prof. Jonathon Turley. On an episode of Countdown a few weeks ago when the OIG/DPR report was released, Prof. Turley strongly argued that grievances should be filed against Goodling and Sampson.
Please help me promote this important project.
LATE BREAKING Richard Noggin Addition:
As of 10PM last night, this prick took over as Dickhead of the week.
The Political “Scribe” has been “scribbled” off the Redstate Revolt Honor Roll and added to the lying, Yankee Asshole Roll.
Hey, Schumer and Feinstein: Are you happy you have endorsed and enabled Mr Gonzales’ Clone of Lying Scumbaggery? When I saw Mr Mukasey make these remarks, tear up and quiver his lip, I didn’t feel his “pain”… I felt outrage. I felt outrage because I know that what he is saying is a downright lie meant to mislead Americans and play on our Patriotic sympathies.
Michael Mukasey has conclusively proven himself to be an exact replica of Alberto Gonazles — slavishly loyal to every presidential whim and unbound by even the most minimal constraints of truth while serving those whims. Speaking in San Fransisco this week, Mukasey demanded that the President be given new warrantless eavesdropping powers and that lawbreaking telecom be granted amnesty. To make his case, Mukasey teared up while exploiting the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and said this:
Officials “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that’s the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that’s the call that we didn’t know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went.“
At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America’s anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. “We got three thousand. . . . We’ve got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn’t come home to show for that,” he said, struggling to maintain his composure.
At the time of the attacks, Mr. Mukasey was the chief judge at the federal courthouse a few blocks away from the World Trade Center.These are multiple falsehoods here, and independently, this whole claim makes no sense. There is also a pretty startling new revelation here about the Bush administration’s pre-9/11 failure that requires a good amount of attention.
Even under the “old” FISA, no warrants are requiredwhere the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it’s really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have — and should have — eavesdropped on that call and didn’t need a warrant to do so. So why didn’t they? Mukasey’s new claim that FISA’s warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it’s all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the “Afghan safe house.” It just didn’t. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.
They perpetually lie about issues that are key fear factor points for Americans. Then, this nasty little man, who obviously misled congress during hearings, plays on emotions of people with clear lying intent. Make no mistake that he knows exactly what is legal and what is not.
But he didn’t stop there, he is insisting that the Telecom Companies being protected:
Mukasey was even more dishonest in demanding amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms. According to today’s admiring Wall St. Journal Editorial, this is what Mukasey said on that subject:
The AG also addressed why immunity from lawsuits is vital for the telecom companies that cooperated with the surveillance after 9/11. “Forget the liability” the phone companies face, Mr. Mukasey said. “We face the prospect of disclosure in open court of what they did, which is to say the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence against foreign targets.” Al Qaeda would love that.
Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie. Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in “open court.” There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information — closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex partecommunications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge — and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases — is going to allow “disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence.” And Mukasey knows that.
Worse, FISA itself (50 USC 1806(f)) explicitly provides that telecoms are permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (both in camera and ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. Just go read 50 USC 1806(f)of FISA; it’s as clear as day. In fact, it doesn’t merely permit, but explicitly requires, the federal judge to review evidence in secret whenever the Attorney General requests that (“the United States district court in the same district . . . shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance.”).
But Mukasey also lies about what Americans want, and especially what New Yorkers want:
Michael Mukasey can cry all he wants about the 9/11 attacks. But neither he nor the rest of the Bush administration are the proprieters of those attacks. There were millions of New Yorkers in Manhattan on 9/11 other than Michael Mukasey, who lived and worked there for a long time. Neither Mike Mukasey nor his tearful pleas for unchecked government surveillance power and the erosion of the rule of law are representative of them.
To the contrary, the substantial majority of New Yorkers — and huge majorities of Manhattanites– vehemently reject the Bush/Cheney agenda of dismantling our constitutional framework and basic safeguards in the name of these sorts of fear-mongering and manipulative appeals. Unlike Mukasey and other Bush followers, most New Yorkers have ceased quivering in fear long ago — if they ever did — and have had their resolve to defend our basic constitutional liberties strengthened, not obliterated, as a result of the 9/11 attack and the subsequent, self-serving exploitation of it by Mukasey’s White House bosses. And under no circumstances do Mukasey’s tears provide license for this tidal wave of lies in defense of presidential lawlessness, from our nation’s highest “law enforcement officer.”
The Boehner Crybaby routine is old and tired, Mike. It may play with the assembled crowds within the 31% that worships your King, but the rest are wise to the foolishness.