In another filing submitted after the 9th rejected Obama’s appeal yesterday, the Obama DOJ admitted that there was an “inaccuracy” in the classified filings that had previously been submitted to Vaughn Walker. Did Bush lie to Vaughn Walker?

Both main suits on FISA–the al-Haramain suit and the retroactive immunity suit–are about to go to the Ninth Circuit so that Court can define the meaning of “if” in each case. Obama argues those “ifs” should give his Administration the utmost flexibility to keep secrets–and avoid legal consequences for illegal wiretapping.

Wow, the Obama Administration is piling up the misrepresentations in its effort to prevent Judge Walker from ruling that Bush broke the law when he illegally wiretapped al-Haramain.

EFF came up with a really good response to the telecom claim that the Executive Branch can decide which telecoms get immunity because it’s part of the inherent authority tied to foreign affairs.

EFF’s response? This isn’t foreign surveillance, you dummies, it’s domestic surveillance.

For some reason, the telecoms don’t want to talk much about what Vaughn Walker has asked them to talk about.

By my reading, the latest filing in the al-Haramain case supports the Bush stance, without refreshing Bush’s invocation of State Secrets.

Threat Level posts an interview they did with Russell Tice three years ago. In it, he suggests we subpoena the corporate executives involved in the illegal wiretap program to find out how our government spied on us.

Neither and or I, and obviously, I can’t really speak for Andy, but I’m confortable saying that neither Andy or I would have gone there to take advantage of someone who was sick. Um, Andy and I both, in fact, talked about the importance of satisfying ourselves as we talked with General Ashcroft that he was in fact competent.

The Obama administration has, in theory at least, supported Bush’s motion to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s al-Haramain decision. But that’s with an administration that doesn’t have a DOJ yet.

The FISCR has stressed that its ruling did not rule on whether or not