Comments on: DiFi’s Whitewash http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: pmorlan http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138162 pmorlan Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:32:57 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138162 <p>She is so pathetic. I’m so sick of her arrogance. She wants everyone to stroke her because she chairs a committee. Could it be any more obvious that she doesn’t give two hoots for the country and is only concerned that everyone bow down to her. ugggghhhhh!</p> She is so pathetic. I’m so sick of her arrogance. She wants everyone to stroke her because she chairs a committee. Could it be any more obvious that she doesn’t give two hoots for the country and is only concerned that everyone bow down to her. ugggghhhhh!

]]> By: radhika http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138103 radhika Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:45:17 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138103 <p>If it’s suggested by DiFi, it’s a cover-up. Plain and simple. She and war profiteer hubby have many things to keep from light of day.</p> If it’s suggested by DiFi, it’s a cover-up. Plain and simple. She and war profiteer hubby have many things to keep from light of day.

]]> By: Leen http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138097 Leen Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:06:43 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138097 <p>voted for the 2002 war resolution, voted for the Kyl LIeberman amendment, voted for Mukasey</p> voted for the 2002 war resolution, voted for the Kyl LIeberman amendment, voted for Mukasey

]]> By: siri http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138050 siri Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:36:09 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138050 <p>whatever HAPPENED to DiFi’s censure that was actually gaining speed FAST, I believe after the San Fran oil spill???? I signed petitions to censure her and then, poof, it just went away.<br /> Can we resurrect that or start another? i’m REALLY VERY OVER her and her pro military state stances on everything!!!<br /> And her backstabbing obtuse and downright sneaky ways of operating in the Senate. She’s a complete blemish on that entire body! There are others, to be sure, but she is about the worst of the worst imho.</p> whatever HAPPENED to DiFi’s censure that was actually gaining speed FAST, I believe after the San Fran oil spill???? I signed petitions to censure her and then, poof, it just went away.
Can we resurrect that or start another? i’m REALLY VERY OVER her and her pro military state stances on everything!!!
And her backstabbing obtuse and downright sneaky ways of operating in the Senate. She’s a complete blemish on that entire body! There are others, to be sure, but she is about the worst of the worst imho.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138026 Mary Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:18:51 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-138026 <p>Here’s an interesting note to factor in with DiFi’s sudden desires to look like she’s doing something.</p> <p>In a Feb. 26th piece, Pro Publica has a story up covering, in part, DiFi’s questioning of Johnsen earlier this week:</p> <p><a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-long-will-secret-bush-counterterrorism-memos-stay-secret" rel="nofollow">http://www.propublica.org/arti.....tay-secret</a></p> <blockquote><p>Months before being nominated, Johnsen called the Bush OLC’s secrecy a “terrible abuse of power.” [5] She said that secrecy prevented public scrutiny and congressional oversight. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked yesterday when the nominee, if confirmed, would release approximately 40 secret OLC memos about counterterrorism policies generated between 2000 and 2005. (Here’s our user-friendly chart detailing what’s known about three dozen still-secret memos [6].)</p> <p>Feinstein is especially interested in an October 2001 memo [7] that is believed, based on a passing mention in a different memo, to say the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures doesn’t apply to military operations within the United States.</p> <p>…<br /> Johnsen replied that, “in the normal case,” an opinion could be released as soon as the executive branch agency that requested it signed off. “There may be other opinions, though, where there is classified information in the opinion that would need to be redacted, or that prevent the opinion from being released at all at that point in time,” she said. She had previously said that national security concerns would be an important reason to withhold OLC’s work, but she has argued in favor of a presumption of disclosure and redactions rather than total secrecy.</p> <p>The answer was “very vague and imprecise,” Feinstein said<br /> …<br /> At the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) urged Johnsen to conduct her national security review of the OLC memos closely. An entire category of opinions dealing with warrantless wiretapping remains secret. </p></blockquote> Here’s an interesting note to factor in with DiFi’s sudden desires to look like she’s doing something.

In a Feb. 26th piece, Pro Publica has a story up covering, in part, DiFi’s questioning of Johnsen earlier this week:

http://www.propublica.org/arti…..tay-secret

Months before being nominated, Johnsen called the Bush OLC’s secrecy a “terrible abuse of power.” [5] She said that secrecy prevented public scrutiny and congressional oversight. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked yesterday when the nominee, if confirmed, would release approximately 40 secret OLC memos about counterterrorism policies generated between 2000 and 2005. (Here’s our user-friendly chart detailing what’s known about three dozen still-secret memos [6].)

Feinstein is especially interested in an October 2001 memo [7] that is believed, based on a passing mention in a different memo, to say the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures doesn’t apply to military operations within the United States.

…
Johnsen replied that, “in the normal case,” an opinion could be released as soon as the executive branch agency that requested it signed off. “There may be other opinions, though, where there is classified information in the opinion that would need to be redacted, or that prevent the opinion from being released at all at that point in time,” she said. She had previously said that national security concerns would be an important reason to withhold OLC’s work, but she has argued in favor of a presumption of disclosure and redactions rather than total secrecy.

The answer was “very vague and imprecise,” Feinstein said
…
At the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) urged Johnsen to conduct her national security review of the OLC memos closely. An entire category of opinions dealing with warrantless wiretapping remains secret.

]]> By: Leen http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137983 Leen Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:50:53 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137983 <p>Bingo Feingold, Whitehouse, Leahy</p> Bingo Feingold, Whitehouse, Leahy

]]> By: bluebutterfly http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137979 bluebutterfly Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:45:18 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137979 <p>Corruption with lobbyists is sanctioned.<br /> *******<br /> ” The House voted Wednesday to kill a resolution calling for an ethics investigation into potential quid pro quo between lobbyist campaign donations and lawmakers.</p> <p>Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., sponsored the proposal that would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks. “</p> <p><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37448" rel="nofollow">http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37448</a></p> Corruption with lobbyists is sanctioned.
*******
” The House voted Wednesday to kill a resolution calling for an ethics investigation into potential quid pro quo between lobbyist campaign donations and lawmakers.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., sponsored the proposal that would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks. “

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37448

]]> By: bluebutterfly http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137977 bluebutterfly Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:38:29 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137977 <p>” Gregg said that during his consideration for the Cabinet job, the White House did not know about his Pease earmarks, although the administration knew about his investments at Pease.</p> <p> Under new Senate ethics rules, Gregg had to certify that federal aid he directed to specific projects was not intended solely to enrich him or immediate family, including siblings. Senators are also supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, though the Senate Ethics Committee seldom investigates or disciplines senators when questions are raised about their activities. “</p> <p><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37468" rel="nofollow">http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37468</a></p> ” Gregg said that during his consideration for the Cabinet job, the White House did not know about his Pease earmarks, although the administration knew about his investments at Pease.

Under new Senate ethics rules, Gregg had to certify that federal aid he directed to specific projects was not intended solely to enrich him or immediate family, including siblings. Senators are also supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, though the Senate Ethics Committee seldom investigates or disciplines senators when questions are raised about their activities. “

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37468

]]> By: earlofhuntingdon http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137976 earlofhuntingdon Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:38:08 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137976 <p>The result would still be a watered down, slow-walked agenda, whether bad past practices are investigated or not. The ethics twist Obama would quickly get into is if the investigations documented heinous behavior and he water down the findings as leverage to get his agenda past. That would be the Beltway way.</p> The result would still be a watered down, slow-walked agenda, whether bad past practices are investigated or not. The ethics twist Obama would quickly get into is if the investigations documented heinous behavior and he water down the findings as leverage to get his agenda past. That would be the Beltway way.

]]> By: acquarius74 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137974 acquarius74 Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:36:46 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/difis-whitewash/#comment-137974 <p>Thanks for the link to Leahy’s petition, oregondave. Went there and signed.</p> Thanks for the link to Leahy’s petition, oregondave. Went there and signed.

]]>