Graft in Iraq

What I'm wondering is, has there ever been a war where nobody made a buck?

Judicial Corruption Watch

Former Senator Trent Lott's name surfaces in the indictment of Mississippi state judge Bobby DeLaughter on allegations that he ruled favorably for a defendant in exchange for the defendant-noted attorney "Dickie" Scruggs"-using his connection to Lott to get DeLaughter a seat on the federal bench:

Scruggs, through the help of then-Sen. Trent Lott, Scruggs’s brother-in-law, promised to have DeLaughter considered for a federal judgeship in exchange for the favorable ruling.

Lott called DeLaughter, but ultimately tapped someone else for the open judgeship seat. Lott has not been charged in the case and has repeatedly denied wrongding, though his name does surface in the DeLaughter indictment.

From the indictment unsealed on Thursday:

On or about March 29, 2006, in order to exploit Judge DeLaughter’s aspirations to become a federal judge, Richard F. “Dickie” Scruggs caused his brother-in-law, then a United States Senator from Mississippi, to offer Judge DeLaughter consideration for appointment to a federal judgeship then open in the Southern District of Mississippi.

Scruggs, who was sentenced to last summer to five years in prison for his part in a scheme to bribe another state judge, has already pleaded guilty for his part in this case. Scruggs was one of the attorneys involved in the massive tobacco lawsuit portrayed in the film "The Insider". Lott's connection to the case had already surfaced last week in a complaint filed by a former partner of Scruggs, who's original lawsuit was decided by DeLaughter in Scruggs' favor. I imagine we'll hear more about this case and Lott's involvement in it, as federal investigators appear to be working on that aspect of the case.

But that's just run-of-the-mill corruption compared to this next story:

Eastern Pennsylvania has a terrible reputation for judicial corruption and venality -- the stories one hears from practitioners and others around Philadelphia are truly awful, with bags full of money and all the rest. But a story in the NY Times today breaks new, and more nauseating, ground. Two judges in the Wilkes-Barre area have pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks -- $2.6 million worth -- from local juvenile detention centers for sentencing young offenders to time in the facility (the facilities were reimbursed by the state on a per-prisoner basis, so the more kids they had, the more money they earned). So dozens and dozens of kids who would ordinarily have expected to get a slap on the wrist -- for writing nasty things about their high school principals on Facebook, for starting fights in the playground, that sort of thing -- received sentences of several months in the detention facility instead, all, it turns out, to line the pockets of the judges.

According to the NY Times, one of the judges ordered the closure of the state-run juvenile facility, forcing county officials to send juveniles to newly built private facilities. They then received kickbacks for sending youth to the centers, in the form of payments to a shell corporation that the judges owned. According to the timeline I link to above one of the judges even ordered the sealing of a trade secrets suit initiated by the owners of the detention facilities so as to prevent the release of state audit results that revealed that the private facilities were a bad deal for Luzerne County, a ruling that was overturned by the State Superior court as “nothing more than a ruse to prevent public exposure.” In short, these were two nasty and corrupt individuals who abused their power to wrongfully deprive kids of their liberty. They both agreed to a plea deal that would send them to prison for 87 months, but the stocks sounds too good for them.

Alabama Sheriff Starves Inmates

In the category of WTF:

The prisoners in the Morgan County jail here were always hungry. The sheriff, meanwhile, was getting a little richer. Alabama law allowed it: the chief lawman could go light on prisoners’ meals and pocket the leftover change.

And that is just what the sheriff, Greg Bartlett, did, to the tune of $212,000 over the last three years, despite a state food allowance of only $1.75 per prisoner per day.

In the view of a federal judge, who heard testimony from the hungry inmates, the sheriff was in “blatant” violation of past agreements that his prisoners be properly cared for.

“There was undisputed evidence that most of the inmates had lost significant weight,” the judge, U. W. Clemon of Federal District Court in Birmingham, said Thursday in an interview. “I could not ignore them.”

The sheriff’s defenders, like Mr. Timmons, said Sheriff Bartlett, who told the court his salary was about $64,000, was merely following the law — Alabama law.

“He has not violated any laws of the state of Alabama,” Mr. Timmons said. “Everything he has done is by the rules, including the feeding allowance.”

But that was the whole problem, in Judge Clemon’s view. An unusual statute here dating from the early decades of the 20th century allows the state’s sheriffs to keep for themselves whatever money is left over after they feed their prisoners. The money allotted by the state is little enough — $1.75 a day per prisoner — but the incentive to skimp is obvious.

That is what the sheriff did, Judge Clemon found. As Mr. Bartlett’s wallet got fatter, according to testimony, the prisoners got thinner and thinner. One testified to losing 30 pounds in the brick jail by the railroad tracks in this quiet courthouse town of clean and empty streets near the Tennessee border.

The judge expressed no regret about sending Mr. Bartlett to jail. The Alabama law is “almost an invitation to criminality,” he said in the interview. Sheriffs, he said, “have a direct pecuniary interest in not feeding inmates.”

With precision and some wonder, Judge Clemon, who is retiring shortly, recounted a typical inmate lunch here: “Two peanut butter sandwiches, with small amounts of peanut butter, chips, and flavored water.” Hunger pains were not uncommon.

One inmate interviewed from the jail, William Draper, said he had lost 15 pounds since his incarceration on marijuana trafficking charges in October. “Yeah, you stay hungry,” Mr. Draper said. “Hunger is something you live with.”

Inmates were forced to supplement the meager meals with purchases at the high-priced jail store, he said. “We have clients who are indigent who are very, very thin,” said Ms. Velez. Some spend as much as $100 a week at the store, a severe burden for their often impoverished families.

“If you can’t catch store, you’ll starve to death,” Mr. Draper said. Complaints, he said, were met with cold stares from the guards: “They look at you like, ‘you’ve got to deal with it,’ ” he said.

I don't want to hear any nonsense about how these guys are criminals and aren't entitled to a decent meal. We don't starve people in this country for being convicted of a crime, and I can't believe any state in America, even Alabama, thinks its okay for a public official to keep for himself money that is allocated for the service he oversees. And I couldn't care less that it was "legal" (if a violation of these prisoner's constitutional rights); what this guy did was wrong, and he knew it.

Stevens Convicted

Well, despite the shenanginas of prosecutors and the loss of a juror over the weekend, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven counts of corruption in D.C. today. 

Palin shown to have abused authority

Of course everyone's jumping on this story so I had to as well.

An Alaska state legislative investigator found yesterday that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her executive power when she and her husband engaged in a campaign to oust her former brother-in-law from the state police force.

Sure, whatever. Do we Obama supporters care? My wife appreciates having one more reason to dislike Palin, but since Palin is irrelevant I couldn't care less. As far as I'm concerned talking about her is as interesting as talking about Paris Hilton, which means it's not.

However, it would be funny if she was indicted while still on the campaign trail. Or impeached, whatever they do up in Alaska. I'd like to see the film of her supporters at the rallies after that.

By the way, anybody notice that Alaska's Republicans seem to have real problems not abusing their power?

Senator Stevens will be tried in Washington

Corruption scandals are always so fun. Read the story here.

Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens indicted for accepting money

Mr. Stevens declared his innocence and his intention to fight the charges against him in a statement posted on his Web site. “I am innocent of these charges and intend to prove that,” he said.

Uh, Senator Stevens, are you saying you simply forgot to report that $250,000 in improvements to your home?

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia charged Mr. Stevens, who is 84 and the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, with failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, including extensive renovations to his house in Alaska, a Land Rover and home furnishings on financial disclosure forms that he filed from 1999 to 2006.

I'm not going to be discriminatory and assume his mind is going just because he's got a few years, which I think means we have to assume this was a case of deliberate forgetfulness. Hey, I might buy the argument that he just doesn't even know why he did it. After all, this is the man that fought for the bridge to nowhere. I mean, maybe he's just so used to getting money that goes towards nothing he completely missed that it went to him and his house and just forgot about it.

Nah, seriously, this guy's got to go down. Sure, I know corruption is rampant in Congress...but seriously, is it not remarkable that during this administration we saw Republicans who were so corrupt even other Republicans couldn't ignore them? Ted Stevens gets indicted when we know the Department of Justice was hiring people based on their conservative leanings and firing non-partisans? I ask you, if the DOJ had been truly unaffected by this administration, how many more Republicans might be running for the hills?

Legislative Week in Review VI

President Bush at last nominated a VA secretary and is considering a recess appointment for his controversial surgeon general nominee. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Dr. James B. Peake is likely to face tough questions during his confirmation hearings (likely weeks away) about how he would lead a troubled Department of Veterans Affairs. If confirmed, Peake would become the first general and first medical doctor to head the VA. President Bush on Wednesday also nominated Edward Schafer, a former two-term Republican governor from North Dakota, to head the Agriculture Department in an attempt to influence the upcoming farm bill. AG nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation is less in doubt now that Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein have announced they will vote him out of committee on Tuesday, November 6th.

Bush vetoed the water projects bill but he will be easily overridden next week. The first big budget battle also looms. House and Senate negotiators on Thursday agreed to tack a $65 billion bill funding the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction onto a $151 billion bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education departments. When the conference report moves to the Senate floor — which could happen as early as next week — Republicans plan to raise a point of order to strike the language on Veterans Affairs and military construction. President Bush is threatening to veto the combined spending package. Democrats in Congress have also refused to provide money for his European missile shield program.

The Senate voted 64-30 in favor of the SCHIP bill again. This time it did not achieve a veto-proof margin as some supporters weren't there and others (such as our own Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison) switched their position. House and Senate negotiators will now try to come up with another version that can win enough support to override a Bush veto.

The House of Representatives unanimously voted to extend the Internet tax moratorium another 7 years (matching the Senate version) and passed, 244-166, a bill that would put new environmental controls on hard-rock mining, set up a cleanup fund for abandoned mines and permanently ban cheap sales of public lands for mining. Additionally, the House passed by a voice vote legislation that orders a government study into the technology needed to overcome the circumstances of miners being trapped far underground without the ability to communicate with would-be rescuers. And, defying a White House veto threat, the House on Wednesday passed a multibillion-dollar expansion of a program to help retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition, 264-157.

The Ways and Means Committee voted 22-13 in favor of a bill that would provide temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax and pay for it in part by raising taxes on private equity fund manager. Majority Leader Reid has said the Senate will not wave "pay-go" rules for the AMT fix, but it is not clear that Rangel's proposal will fly there. The House Ways and Means Committee also voted 39-0 for a free trade pact with Peru.

The Senate's Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection approved a climate change bill by a 4-3 vote. The measure would limit greenhouse gas emissions thought to contribute to global warming. It may see a floor vote by year's end.

Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send to a floor vote the Reagan-era "Law of the Sea" treaty supported by President Bush. With Senate ratification, the United States would join 155 nations that are party to a convention that sets rules and settles disputes over navigation, fishing and economic development of the open seas and establishes environmental standards. Treaty supporters, after making little headway for years, have gained momentum recently with concerns that the melting of the global ice cap will trigger a rush of claims by Arctic countries, including Russia, to previously iced-in resources.

House and Senate panels voted Tuesday to eliminate a five-year expiration date for registered phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Oh, and it looks increasingly unlikely the "No Child Left Beind Law" will be brought up for re-authorization by the end of the year.

In corruption news, an oil services contractor testified Monday that he was blackmailed by an employee over renovations at Sen. Ted Stevens' home. Sen. David Vitter has agreed to pay a $25,000 fine for violating federal election laws during his campaign for the Senate in 2004. And Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Wednesday demanded that the White House turn over hundreds of pages of material about Jack Abramoff.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are weighing the possibility of adding a “millionaire’s amendment” to presidential campaign finance reform measures. As it applies to Senate races, the amendment states that if a candidate exceeds the statutory threshold by 10 times, then the cap on the amount of money other candidates can accept from a single donor can be raised. Unfortunately, the Senate appears deadlocked over legislation that would require members to file their campaign finance forms electronically. Oh well.

Legislative Week in Review III

According to The Politico, House Democrats have set a record for the number of roll call votes they've held.

Senate Republicans' demand an Ethics Committee inquiry into Larry Craig has backfired. The GOP had hoped it would force Craig to resign, but he called their bluff by reversing his decision to resign Sept. 30 unless a court let him drop his guilty plea. "Now Republicans are powerless to stop a process almost certain to do more political damage to the party in general than to a retiring senator," according to the AP.

Key members of Congress vowed Friday to defend the independence of the CIA's inspector general and put an end to the agency's probe of its own internal investigator. And four congressional committee chairmen also accused the State Department of suppressing information about corruption inside Iraq's government. A non-binding measure on the issue will be debated on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives voted 389-30 on Tuesday to make it easier to convict private contractors of defrauding the U.S. government during wartime by creating a new federal criminal statute banning contracting abuse associated with military operations and reconstruction efforts. It also would ensure federal courts have jurisdiction in all cases. A similar measure was approved in April by the Senate Judiciary Committee but Republican objections have prevented it from getting a quick floor vote. Other House bills passed this week include one to ensure durable infant products will be sold with a postage-paid registration card so consumers would be informed quickly of recalls, a call for an end to worldwide genital mutilation which passed 378-0, and legislation that would end the use of private tax collectors by the IRS, 232-173 (it faces a veto threat and a Republican filibuster in the Senate, however).

As Xanthippas has followed, the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27 to 21 to recognize the WWI massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide, and can now be sent on to the full House for a possible vote. President Bush opposed the measure because an enraged present-day Turkey says it will harm diplomatic relations with the U.S., but Bush himself labeled it genocide in the 2000 presidential campaign.

As I've followed, the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees both approved the FISA bill. President Bush is threatening a veto because it lacks immunity for telecom companies and sunsets after 2 years. Most Republicans have fallen in line, of course.

On their plate in the coming weeks, the House will consider a reporter shield law, an extension on an Internet tax moratorium, informal negotiations with the Senate on energy legislation, paid parental leave for federal employees, more subprime loan proposals, NFL pensions, and a veto override attempt for SCHIP this coming Thursday. Senate confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey begin on October 17th, Sens. Lieberman and Warner will introduce a bill to create a carbon auction system with mandatory emissions caps ("cap and trade") to help combat global warming, the Ag committee may or may not take up the farm bill soon after intense battles over it, and some Senators are considering making wealthy private colleges spend more of their endowments to lower the cost of tuition.

Legislative Update VIII

Rep. Mark Udall (who is running for U.S. Senate out in Colorado) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark. For those unaware, Limbaugh slandered troops who have spoken out against the war as somehow "phony" and less than good, conservative persons in the military, I guess. Since Republicans took delight in forcing a vote on condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betrayus" ad, Udall is hoping to put them on record in regards to Rush's idiotic comment. No word yet on whether the Democratic leadership will bring it to a vote, but I would think there would be support for it.

Rep. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House oversight committee, says that aides to State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard threatened two investigators with retaliation, including losing their jobs, this week if they cooperate with a congressional probe into Krongard's office.

While the House has passed all 12 appropriation bills for the upcoming fiscal year, the Senate has only gotten to four (but will finish before the end of the year). To keep the government running, both chambers passed a "stopgap" spending measure to fund everything at current levels (the Senate also voted to increase the national debt limit - an unfortunate but necessary move). However, President Bush has threatened to veto many of the appropriation bills put forth by Congress, so we will have to see what happens.

The Senate approved the conference report for the Water Resources Act, 81-12, the first of its kinds in seven years that improves the country's water infrastructure. The House approved it before the August recess, so the bill now goes to President Bush. If he signs it, it will be law; if he vetoes it, the Congress will hold a vote to override the veto.

On Tuesday, the House voted 397-16 to slap new energy sanctions on Tehran and brand its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group (which the Senate later concurred with in a "Sense of the Senate" resolution)).

The Senate will vote Monday on the 2008 defense authorization bill which has seen many amendments related to the Iraq war, hate crimes, etc. Late Thursday, the Senate by voice vote adopted a string of amendments that would streamline the system for granting asylum to persecuted Iraqis, especially those whose lives are threatened because of their work for U.S. troops or government agencies, establish a wartime commission on contracting, allocate $24 billion for vehicles to protect soldiers from roadside bombs, and establish controls over arms delivered to Iraq’s military in order to reduce the odds they will fall into insurgents’ hands. Bush has threatened to veto the bill.

The House will vote on a bill next week that would regulate conduct of government contractors overseas in response to mounting outrage over recent killings of Iraqi civilians by employees of Blackwater USA. The bill would make all U.S. contractors in combat zones, not just those working for the Pentagon, subject to criminal prosecution in U.S. courts in addition to defining the role of civilian security contractors in Iraq, mandating basic background screening and establishing rules of engagement for their operations. Rep. John Hall has also introduced legislation that would freeze the number of private security contractors operating in Iraq by prohibiting federal agencies from entering into contracts that would increase the number of private security contractors in Iraq above the number present in Iraq on September 1, 2007. In addition, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is working on a bill to strengthen the oversight role of executive branch inspectors general in foreign conflict zones. While there is an inspector general for Iraq, there is not one for Afghanistan.

Last, but not least, the House will also soon return to legislative attempts to change Iraq war policy: One fairly non-controversial bill would ban “war profiteering," to be passed on the fast-track suspension calendar early next week. That will be followed by a vote on a bill that calls for President Bush to report regularly on his administration’s plans for withdrawal from Iraq which is expected to pass with Republican support and without the "Out of Iraq" Democratic caucus that considers something that will provide political cover for Republicans when it doesn't do anything to end the war. Then would come a bill, yet to be written, ordering the administration to undertake a “diplomatic surge” similar to the Iraq Study Group recommendations bill.

The next big battle over the course of the war will be over the White House’s $190 billion supplemental funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may not come to the floor until perhaps early next year. Democrats in the House and Senate both have said they want to scrub it of non-related provisions and may break it up into smaller installment. In any case, expect some sort of war policy amendments to be offered as the timetable was on the last request.

Did the DOJ target trial lawyers supporting John Edwards?

From Scott Horton's "Tracking Political Prosecutions" at Harper's Magazine:

In the last two weeks, two sources, one of them inside of the Justice Department, have told me that a scheme was hatched in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration shortly after it took office in 2001 or early in 2002. The project identified John Edwards and Hilary Clinton as likely Democratic challengers to President Bush, and identified prominent trial lawyers around the United States as the likely financial vehicle for (Edwards's) rise. It directed that their campaign finance records be fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses.

The scheme contemplated among other things that raids be staged on the law offices involved, and that the records seized not be limited to campaign finance—there was an acute interest in all politically oriented documents, in order to seize valuable intelligence on strategic planning from the enemy camp.

As Horton points out, this goes beyond even Nixonian tactics to something that you'd find in Third World dictatorships. Karl Rove was likely behind it and, of course, it can be tracked to the highest levels of the administration:

Why, I wondered, would the attorneys involved not scream bloody murder about this? Then it struck me. The threat of criminal investigation and prosecution is devastating to their law practices. Of course, they would keep it completely secret. And that silence has made the entire scheme possible. I am told that these cases involved the attorneys general personally—both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales—that their go-ahead was needed to stage the raids. And that in each case, the greatest concern within the political pirates commanding the operation has been that the public would get wind of the bigger picture. It was essential to pull it off that each case be viewed as something standing all on its own, and that the fact that there was a politically motivated project be obscured.

The key factor here is that all the cases involve campaign finance violations which are of a rather mundane nature. And in each case the FEC violations have been hyped into something quite preposterous. The political angle, I am told, is simple: make trial attorney’s money radioactive. Dry up the source. Take out a key element of the Democrats’ campaign finance strategy.

This again shows the lengths the Bush people will go to in using U.S. government departments for purely political purposes. Horton says it best:

If the scheme to get the Edwards trial lawyer supporters is as described to me, then it was a criminal conspiracy and those involved in it need to be tracked down, removed from office for their abuses, and punished.

Indeed. I would hope this will go to the top of the list of things Democrats have to investigate.

Your Babies Are Not Safe...

...from political corruption and influence:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. In a February 2004 letter, the lobbyists told then-HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson they were "grateful" for his staff's intervention to stop health officials from "scaring expectant mothers into breast-feeding," and asked for help in scaling back more of the ads.

Some senior HHS officials involved in the deliberations over the ad campaign defended the outcome, saying the final ads raised the profile of breast-feeding while following the scientific evidence available then -- which they say did not fully support the claims of the original ad campaign.

But other current and former HHS officials say the muting of the ads was not the only episode in which HHS missed a chance to try to raise the breast-feeding rate. In April, according to officials and documents, the department chose not to promote a comprehensive analysis by its own Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of multiple studies on breast-feeding, which generally found it was associated with fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, as well as lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.

The report did not assert a direct cause and effect, because doing so would require studies in which some women are told not to breast-feed their infants -- a request considered unethical, given the obvious health benefits of the practice.

A top HHS official said that at the time, Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and senior science adviser for the department's Office on Women's Health, argued strongly in favor of promoting the new conclusions in the media and among medical professionals. But her office, which commissioned the report, was specifically instructed by political appointees not to disseminate a news release.

So, "senior officials" at HHS-political appointees, of course-weakened the power of the ads because they believed the science didn't "support" the claims made in the ad. It's only coincidence that infant formula lobby just so happened to want the ads softened as well and quite vigorously told Thompson and his staff of their desires. I'm sure had they not, Thompson and his staff would have changed the ads anyway-in accordance with their own beliefs-after rigorous study of the scientific evidence available. Or not.

See, the thing about breast-feeding is that it is actually better for an infant. So much so that the radicals at the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that women should exclusively breast-feed their infant for at least the first six months of its life, unless they have a compelling health reason not to. Breast-feeding rates are lower in American than in the rest of the developed world, but they are rising steadily. Of course this is a problem for the manufacturers of infant formula who, who see their revenues dropping with each successful public health campaign to raise breast-feeding rates.

Who knows whether stronger ads would be more effective? Perhaps they would be, perhaps not. The problem is all scientific evidence indicates that breast-feeding is better for infants, and political considerations should not be a factor in how soft or strong an ad campaign is. Of course that's completely obvious to you or I; it's only in the hyper-politicized current administration that this fact bears reminding.

Ted Stevens Home Raided

Oops:

Agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday as part of a broad federal investigation of political corruption in the state that has also swept up his son and one of his closest financial backers, officials said.

Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, Veco executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens's house in Girdwood, an exclusive ski resort area 40 miles from Anchorage, according to statements by the contractors.

It's Payback Time!

Yes, according to Robert Novak, all these subpoenas and threatened contempt citations are "payback":

Waxman planned payback through 12 years in the minority. In response, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Tom Davis, at an April 25 committee meeting tried to extend Waxman's subpoena of Republican e-mails to include Democratic e-mails during the Clinton administration. Davis was defeated on a party-line vote.

I can almost see Waxman, sitting at his desk late at night, rubbing his hands and chortling with glee at the thought of revenge for a decade of humiliation! Or in the real world, doing his job and ferreting out corruption. Also, Davis seriously wanted to include Clinton era e-mails in the subpoena? Are the Republicans that stupid? NOBODY cares, except the 25% of Americans who would support the Republican party even if (or especially if) it established a totalitarian dictatorship in our country. Is it worth the 10 second soundbite he got out of that stunt, for people such as myself to read columns like this and immediately assume Davis is a moron? I guess so.

The Government Politicized

Via Scott Horton, here is an incredible list of the Government departments and agencies that were the beneficiaries of political briefings from Karl Rove's underlings:

The list of agencies empressed into GOP electoral politics is stunning. Here’s the Washington Post’s current tally:

State Department
Treasury Department
Agriculture Department
Interior Department
Labor Department
Department of Education
Energy Department
Commerce Department
Department of Veterans Affairs
Transportation Department
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
General Services Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA
Small Business Administration
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy
U.S. Agency for International Development
Peace Corps

That's 20 departments or agencies that were expected by Karl Rove and his minions to fall in line with the GOP's electoral goals and strategies. Were this phenomenon not documented so thoroughly by reporters and journalists like Horton, it would simply be unbelievable. There is nothing "conservative" about the subversion of government to politics. However, it appears to be a highly popular Republican approach to governance.

Another Agency Subverted

It has become quite clear that in the Bush administration, governance is defined as "using the machinery of government to get yourself re-elected" as opposed to say, serving the interests of the American people.

Bob Ney sentenced to 30 months

The sentence was harsher than recommended by prosecutors or Ney's lawyers, Huvelle said, because Ney had violated the trust placed on him as a public official. "Both your constituents and the public trusted you to represent them honestly," she said.

What? Excuse me, did I read that right? They didn't even recommend 30 months? The guy should go to jail for 30 years! He was fined $6,000, which may not even equal the value of the illegal gifts he received! What kind of justice system is this where we sentence our legislators who betray their trust to less time than people who sell weed?