Citizen emptywheel and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

“It’s a far cry yet from putting Bush in the pokey for his illegal acts.”

Indeed, but it is a beginning of a light of accountability to shine on the last 8+ years of lawlessness and corruption…I am not at all certain that anyone will see the inside of a courtroom let alone a jail cell for ANY of the criminal acts from the theft of the entire public treasury to the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegal war but what we are about to see is jest how far the rot in our federal court system and system of justice extends. We are beginning to see jest how far the corruption extends in the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate and before the fight over Penetta to the CIA concludes we will have a great look at jest how far the corrution extends in our security and secret police structure.

I have long argued that we have never had a “rule of law” in our country but instead we have had a 200 year struggle to acheive that end…and until the entire legal justification for corporate power is rewritten we will never make progress toward a true “rule of law” society.

Thanx for the post, keep up the great work and…

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION THE WAR IS NOW IN OUR LIVINGROOMS!!

This will finally put Bush’s behavior in ordering illegal wiretapping under scrutiny by a judge. It’s a far cry, yet, from putting Bush in the pokey for his illegal acts. But at least it is judicial review.

I must say I am excited

Come on Obama- give us a justice department worthy of the name—try the bastards.

I’d like to see the govt. prosecute.

[Though I think even you have to admit you’ve had SOME help from the Bush administration’s hiring standards.]

[a] application to Judge Walker to re-hear submissions;
[b] application to Judge Walker to re-consider decision;
[c] application to Judge Walker to stay effect of decision pending appeal;
[d] application to Judge Walker to extend time for production;
[e] application to appeal court to direct Judge Walker to [a];
[f] application to appeal court to direct Judge Walker to [b];
[g] application to appeal court to direct Judge Walker to [c]’
[h] application to appeal court to direct Judge Walker to [d]’
[i] emergency application to SCOTUS judge for full court hearing –

as to which one? Doesn’t matter; they’ll never get to [i].

On a MacBlago thread here earlier today, I raised how even the convicted still suffer from denial and invoke delay. Given the distance between the Water Boy and iron bars here, I expect it will be a lot more difficult to get the Water Boy’s to focus on the urgency of this situation than either Rezko or Ata.

I would very much like to suggest it’s most likely that the ever efficacious Addington is directing the draftsmanship of the relevant pardon documents, but given that recent one with the rubber band attached, I’m not convinced it’s possible to predict that this bunch is capable of demonstrating more cravenness than incompetence.

You see, he’s demanding the document within two weeks.

I checked my calendar. That puts the document in his hand on or before January 19. That is, just before Obama takes office. And well before–given the attempts to obstruct Holder’s nomination–Obama has an AG.

In reply, plaintiffs call attention to the circular nature of the government’s position on their motion:

Do defendants mean to assert their theory of unfettered presidential power over matters of national security —— the very theory plaintiffs seek to challenge in this case —— as a basis for disregarding this court’s FISA preemption ruling and defying the current access proceedings under section 1806(f)? So it seems.

So it seems to the court also.

I gotta say, this bodes very badly for the govt, given that Vaughn Walker is also pondering whether or not he buys Mukasey’s arguments about his certification that the program is legal in regards to the immunity provision passed last year. Walker is pissed as shit at this stuff.

Defendants simply continue to insist that § 1806(f) discovery may not be used to litigate the issue of standing; rather, they argue, plaintiffs have failed to establish their “Article III standing” and their case must now be dismissed. But defendants’ contention that plaintiffs must prove more than they have in order to avail themselves of section 1806(f) conflicts with the express primary purpose of in camera review under § 1806(f): “to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.”

Shorter Vaughn: You dumbshits are ignoring the very language of FISA.