In March 2004, the Justice Department under Ashcroft ruled that the Stellar Wind domestic intelligence program was illegal. The day after the ruling, Ashcroft became critically ill with acute pancreatitis. President Bush sent his White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. to Ashcroft’s hospital bed. They wanted him to sign a document reversing the Justice Department’s ruling. But the semi-conscious Ashcroft refused to sign; Acting Attorney General James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel for DOJ, were there to back him up. Bush reauthorized the operation by executive decision, over formal Justice Department objections.

Also there was FBI Director Robert Mueller.  None of them, neither Ashcroft nor Comey nor Goldsmith nor Mueller was any sort of hero.  The program continues to this day, it’s merely been renamed.

8 Years Later, NSA Still Using Same PR Strategy to Hide Illegal Wiretap Program

by emptywheel

Posted on November 21, 2013

Between these two posts (one, two), I’ve shown that the Executive Branch never stopped illegally wiretapping Americans, even after the worst part of it got “shut down” after the March 2004 hospital confrontation. Instead, they got FISC to approve collection with certain rules, then violated the rules consistently. When that scheme was exposed with the transition between the Bush and Obama Administrations, the Executive adopted two new strategies to hide the illegal wiretapping. First, simply not counting how many Americans they were illegally wiretapping, thus avoiding explicit violation of 50 USC 1809(a)(2). And, starting just as the Executive was confessing to its illegal wiretapping, moving – and expanding it – overseas. Given that they’re collecting content, that is a violation in spirit, at least, of Section 704 of FISA Amendments Act, which requires a warrant for wiretapping an American overseas (the government probably says this doesn’t apply because GCHQ does much of the wiretapping).

One big discovery the Snowden leaks have shown us, then, is that the government has never really stopped Bush’s illegal wiretapping program.

…

When WSJ reported that the NSA has access to 75% of the Internet traffic in the US, I Con released a misleading rebuttal. When, in the wake of a NYT report that NSA and GCHQ were using vastly expanded contact chaining (which we now know was initiated just as the illegal domestic program was being revealed) to produce dossiers on people, even inattentive members of Congress started asking about upstream collection and EO 12333 violations, top officials first distorted the questions then refused to answer them. When various outlets in Europe revealed how much spying NSA and GCHQ were doing on Europeans, the I Con unleashed their secret weapon, the “conjunction,” which succeeded in getting most National Security journalists to forget about GCHQ’s known, voracious collection.

Then there’s the response to WaPo’s report that NSA had returned to its old ways of stealing data from Google and Yahoo. At first, I thought they were just engaging in their typical old non-denial denials. They were doing that, sure, but as Bart Gellman revealed during his debate with Michael Hayden (just after 44:00), they also tried to undermine WaPo’s report by refusing to engage at all.

…

In response to this treatment, the WaPo did a remarkable fisking of Administration pushback claims and – in the process – released more sensitive documents to prove they were right. Ha!

Almost 8 years ago, when NYT revealed the illegal wiretap program, the Bush Administration largely succeeded in hiding the biggest legal problems with the program by focusing attention on just a small fraction of the program, which they dubbed the “TSP,” while hiding the rest. Remarkably, the I Con is still using precisely the same strategy to hide what remains structurally the same illegal wiretap program that has, however, ballooned in size.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

By Paul Kane, Washington Post

Updated: Thursday, November 21, 1:11 PM

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries.

The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, reverses nearly 225 years of precedent and dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.

…

The vote to change the rule passed 52-48. Three Democrats – Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) – joined with 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states.

…

(T)he impact of the move is be more far-reaching. The means for executing this rules change – a simple-majority vote, rather than the long-standing two-thirds majority required to change the chamber’s standing rules – is more controversial than the actual move itself.

Many Senate majorities have thought about using this technical maneuver to get around centuries of parliamentary precedent, but none has done so in a unilateral move on a major change of rules or precedents. This simple-majority vote has been executed in the past to change relatively minor precedents involving how to handle amendments; for example, one such change short-circuited the number of filibusters that the minority party could deploy on nominations.

Reich: How Unequal Can America Get?

Inequality for All

and hasn’t been happening right along?  Just a few “professional leftist” malcontents?

Bad policy is bad politics and “but the other guys are worse” only goes so far.

Obama hits new low with Dems

By Amie Parnes, The Hill

November 20, 2013, 06:00 am

President Obama’s relationship with congressional Democrats has worsened to an unprecedented low, Democratic aides say.

They are letting it be known that House and Senate Democrats are increasingly frustrated, bitter and angry with the White House over ObamaCare’s botched rollout, and that the president’s mea culpa in a news conference last week failed to soothe any ill will.

Sources who attended a meeting of House chiefs of staff on Monday say the room was seething with anger over the immense damage being done to the Democratic Party and talk was of scrapping rollout events for the Affordable Care Act.

…

“Is he even more unpopular than George W. Bush? I think that’s already happened,” said one Democratic chief of staff.

…

But as the healthcare problems continue to persist, lawmakers in swing districts aren’t sure that’s the best idea, especially because, according to one Democrat, “systemically you have what is a long-term problem.”

“It wouldn’t be helpful,” the Senate aide said. “Maybe he can help raise some money for Democrats, but that’s the extent of it.”

Democrats say the biggest favor Obama can do for them at the moment is to focus on untangling the web and trying to smooth out the glitches on healthcare.

“The only way he can really make it up to us is by fixing this s–t,” one Democratic House aide said.

Electoral victory my ass.

The Obamacare albatross for congressional Democrats

By Sean Sullivan, Washington Post

November 19 at 10:55 am

Nearly four in 10 voters (39 percent) say they would be more likely to oppose a candidate for Congress who supports the law. Just under a quarter (23 percent) say they would be more likely to support a candidate who backs the law, according to the survey. Thirty-six percent of voters say a candidate’s position on Obamacare would not make a difference in their vote.

The support/oppose gap is much wider than it’s ever been in Post-ABC polling, including four months before the 2010 midterm elections in which Republicans made historic gains. In that July 2010 poll, voters split, with 39 percent saying they would be more likely to support a candidate who backed health-care reform and 37 percent saying they were more likely to oppose. In July 2012, the support/oppose split was an even 28 percent among voters.

Obama Job Approval Drops To Lowest Point Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Health Care Act Won’t Improve Health Care, Voters Say

Quinnipiac University

November 12, 2013

American voters disapprove 54 – 39 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, his lowest approval rating in any Quinnipiac University national poll since he became president, as even women disapprove 51 – 40 percent, according to a national poll released today.

Today’s results compare to a slight 49 – 45 percent disapproval October 1. President Obama’s lowest score before today was a 55 – 41 percent disapproval in an October 6, 2011 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

Today, disapproval is 58 – 37 percent among men, 91 – 6 percent among Republicans and 63 – 30 percent among independent voters. Democrats approve 79 – 14 percent. White voters disapprove 62 – 32 percent while black voters approve 75 – 15 percent and Hispanic voters disapprove by a slim 47 – 41 percent margin.

Voters in every income and age group disapprove of the job Obama is doing, with the biggest disapproval, 59 – 36 percent, among voters over 65 years old.

For the first time today, American voters say 52 – 44 percent that Obama is not honest and trustworthy. His previous lowest marks on honesty were May 30, when 49 percent of voters said he was honest and 47 percent said he wasn’t.

This is what Neo-Liberal policies get you, you “third way” centrists.  You are in the center of nothing except Beltway Bubbledom Village Courtier opinion bought and paid for by by your corporate masters.

In Afghanistan: ‘Security Deal’ Means US Occupation Forever

Sarah Lazare, staff writer Common Dreams

Published on Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Days before the so-called bi-lateral security agreement heads to an Afghan council of elders and political leaders for a final decision, the U.S. is attempting to force through a stipulation that would allow U.S. troops to continue raiding Afghan homes, in addition to measures giving U.S. troops and contractors immunity from Afghan law and extending U.S. military presence far beyond Obama’s 2014 pullout date.

…

The U.S. is pushing for the right to enter Afghan homes over the apparent objection of Afghan negotiators. “We believe it is not only the violation of the Afghan sovereignty, but also of the basic rights of the Afghan people,” said President Hamid Karzai’s spokesperson Aimal Faizi on Monday, referencing the U.S. demand to be allowed to enter Afghan homes.

This latest sticking point comes after attempts on the part of U.S. negotiators to ram through immunity for U.S. troops and independent contractors from Afghan law. According to (t)he Washington Post, the U.S. appears to have succeeded in including this immunity in an accord reached Saturday.

…

The Washington Post reports that a draft text of the agreement does not specify how many U.S. troops will be allowed to remain in Afghanistan, giving the U.S. unilateral power to determine this number. Furthermore, the document does not prohibit the U.S. from using Afghan territory to launch drone strikes against nearby Pakistan.

Leaked Draft Points To Endless War In Afghanistan

By: DSWright, Firedog Lake

Tuesday November 19, 2013 10:42 am

Despite constant public promises by President Obama and his administration that US forces were leaving Afghanistan in 2014 a draft of a US-Afghan security deal details plans for endless war in Afghanistan. Support for the war in Afghanistan is non-existent among the American public which rightly sees it as a waste of blood and treasure. The only ones benefiting at this point are opium dealers in Kabul and war profiteers in Washington.

…

This draft stands in stark contrast to public commitments Obama made to the American people wherein he declared “as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.”

…

15,000 American troops indefinitely? That is the Afghans taking “full responsibility?” And how much will that cost since President Obama keeps searching for a Grand Bargain to cut even more spending on the backs of seniors and the poor. Currently the Afghanistan War is costing $1.7 billion a week – it’s the age of austerity for everything but pointless wars.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Obama Administration’s lack of imagination is only surpassed by its dishonesty. A war that is pointless even by American imperial standards will seemingly go on forever until strong enough opposition can be mustered here at home to stop this senseless killing and profligate spending.

The loya jirga which must ratify this agreement starts meeting on Thursday.  Hamid Karzai has indicated he will lobby in favor of immunity for US Troops and CIA and DOD Mercenaries but is unalterably opposed to allowing random home invasions.

What Walmart Could Learn from Henry Ford

Robert Reich

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Walmart just reported shrinking sales for a third straight quarter. What’s going on? Explained William S. Simon, the CEO of Walmart, referring to the company’s customers, “their income is going down while food costs are not. Gas and energy prices, while they’re abating, I think they’re still eating up a big piece of the customer’s budget.”

Walmart’s CEO gets it. Most of Walmart’s customers are still in the Great Recession, grappling with stagnant or declining pay. So, naturally, Walmart’s sales are dropping.

…

Walmart could learn a thing or two from Henry Ford, who almost exactly a century ago decided to pay his workers three times the typical factory wage at the time. The Wall Street Journal called Ford a traitor to his class but he proved to be a cunning businessman.

Ford’s decision helped boost factory wages across the board – enabling so many working people to buy Model Ts that Ford’s revenues soared far ahead of his increased payrolls, and he made a fortune.

So why can’t Walmart learn from Ford? Because Walmart’s business model is static, depending on cheap labor rather than increased sales, and it doesn’t account for Walmart’s impact on the rest of the economy.

You can help teach Walmart how much power its consumers have: Stand with its workers who deserve a raise, and boycott Walmart on the most important sales day of the year, November 29.

So, remember Ronnie Reagan?  You know, that senile old actor who sold missiles to our sworn enemies the terrorist sponsoring, embassy despoiling, nuclear developing state of Iran gift wrapped with a cake and a Bible and a perfectly high profile secret spilling hostage NSC head just so he could get a little off the books money so he could finance his own nun killing anti-communist secret terrorist army?

Neither do I.

Nor does Bernie apparently.

Bernie Ecclestone admits to memory loss over details of Formula One reign

Paul Weaver, The Guardian

Monday 11 November 2013 16.22 EST

Bernie Ecclestone told the high court in London on Monday: “I have a bit of a difficulty to remember what happened last week.” The Formula One chief executive, who was 83 last month, was facing his fourth day of questioning in the case brought by Constantin Medien.

The German media company claims that Ecclestone undervalued Formula One when it was sold to the private equity group CVC Capital Partners and that he colluded with the German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky – who was jailed last year for eight and a half years – to keep control of the sport. Ecclestone denies wrongdoing.

…

Earlier, when asked about CVC’s purchase of a controlling interest in Formula One in 2005, a hesitant Ecclestone replied: “By the look of this I – dates – I’m sorry, I can’t keep up with these days.”

Ecclestone also had difficulty remembering a meeting he allegedly had last year, at the time of the jailing of Gribkowksy. Ecclestone and three other parties are accused of paying $44m in bribes to Gribkowsky to undervalue F1 when it was sold to CVC.

But when asked about the meeting, Ecclestone, after a pause, replied: “I don’t remember what the meeting was for but, if you – I don’t remember the meeting but, if you said – I have hundreds of meetings a month but, if you said there was a meeting, there obviously was a meeting but I don’t remember what it was for.”

…

Asked whether the case is damaging for Formula One, Ecclestone said: “I don’t think so. It’s good because a lot of facts come out of it.”

Sigh.

And nothing to see here-

Lawyer of Bernie Ecclestone’s ex-wife briefly suspected F1 chief had orchestrated robbery at his home

By Tom Cary, The Telegraph

10:17PM GMT 15 Nov 2013

Stephen Mullens, a former legal advisor to the Ecclestone family trust, and his wife and children were subjected to a “horrific” robbery in 2009 that he suspected may have been orchestrated by Bernie Ecclestone himself, a court has been told.

…

Recounting the robbery on Thursday at the High Court, where Mullens and Ecclestone are co-defendants in a $140 million damages claim brought by German media firm Constantin Medien, Mullens said that he was ready to “change my life, give up my practice and leave the country”, so traumatised was he by the experience which happened in April 2009.

…

Ecclestone, Mullens and Bambino are defendants in Constantin Medien’s lawsuit, which claims that they paid a total of $44m in bribes to German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky in order to steer the 2005 sale of Formula One to its current owners CVC Capital Partners.

Constantin claims that Formula One was purposefully undervalued by Gribkowsky, and that it lost out on a hefty commission as a result.

Ecclestone and Mullens deny the charges, claiming that they paid Gribkowsky to keep him quiet after he threatened to go to the UK tax authorities and make false claims regarding Ecclestone’s control of Bambino.

Bernie Ecclestone court case sees F1 deal-making under scrutiny

Richard Conway, BBC

The case stems from a claim for £90m in damages by Constantin Medien, a German media company that says it lost out because of a “corrupt bargain” when a stake in Formula 1 was sold in 2006.

,,,

But when a verdict finally comes in this case, it will not mark the end of Ecclestone’s legal issues.

A £400m civil case related to the 2006 sale is waiting to be heard in the United States.

And then early next year a German criminal court will decide whether Ecclestone should stand trial on bribery charges related to payments made to Gerhard Gribkowsky.

Gribkowsky, a German banker who was a central figure in the sale of the shares to CVC, is currently serving an eight-year jail term for being in receipt of corrupt payments.

Ecclestone denied in court this week that the £10m he personally provided to Gribkowsky was a bribe and said it was unrelated to the Formula 1 sale.

…

The job, it transpired, was to ensure Mr Gribkowsky didn’t “shake him down” by talking to the UK tax authorities about the structure of his family’s financial trust, Bambino.

The evidence heard in court so far has shone a light on how business and deals are conducted within Formula 1 – with everything from the Concorde agreement between the F1 teams and the sport’s governing body and commercial arm to the potential for a rival breakaway series under discussion.

Well, at least it’s not global thermonuclear war or anything like that in the hands of a senile old rich man.

Tires on offer are the Hards and Mediums (which show no particular speed advantage).  Top 10 will all start used Mediums.

Engine failures are a possibility as the track is fast and has considerable elevation changes that are not visible on TV.

Live coverage is on NBC main.

• Circuit of the Americas
• Guardian Interactive Track
• Formula One Interactive Track

• Formula One Official Site
• NBC Sports Motor Sports

The piece speaks for itself, as what I choose to highlight so often does.  That is my style, to draw your attention to articles of significance and interest and construct from them a narrative, a story that encapsulates a truth about our current situation.  After all, who are you going to believe?  Me, or your own lying eyes?

I expect that some that read this will be as outraged as I am, others (equally outraged) will spring forth in defense of a President and his intimate staff who choose to immerse themselves in a West Wing bubble no less insular and irrelevant than the Imperial Court of the Forbidden City.

I have rightly called Politico Tiger Beat on the Potomac after the fashion of  Charles Pierce because of its attention to process and personality instead of politics or policy and there is no denying their conservative point of view in a Village that is essentially composed of aristocrats and courtiers, but unlike the stridently partisan depictions of this President and his Administration as do nothing layabouts who lounge all day in their sweats watching Hoopies this one has the air of authenticity even though composed by the same Rolodex stenography I frequently decry.

Maybe better than I can distill it to a few paragraphs, but the rot is so pervasive I can’t easily summarize it.  It is a tale of corruption and greed and disorganization and indifference that touches so many policies and actions that it is hard to condense.

I’ll introduce it as the author does with the tale of Steven Chu, but you should read the whole thing.  This is not an isolated incident.

Locked in the Cabinet

By GLENN THRUSH, Politico Magazine

November 2013

Steven Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, a brilliant innovator whose research fills several all-but-incomprehensible paragraphs of a Wikipedia entry that spans his achievements in single-molecule physics, the slowing of atoms through the use of lasers and the invention of something called an “optical tweezer.” President Barack Obama even credits Chu with solving the 2010 Gulf oil spill, claiming that Chu strolled into BP’s office and “essentially designed the cap that ultimately worked.” With rare exception, Chu is the smartest guy in the room, and that includes the Cabinet Room, which he occupied uneasily as secretary of energy from 2009 to the spring of 2013.

But the president’s aides didn’t quite see Chu that way. He might have been the only Obama administration official with a Nobel other than the president himself, but inside the West Wing of the White House Chu was considered a smart guy who said lots of stupid things, a genius with an appallingly low political IQ-“clueless,” as deputy chief of staff Jim Messina would tell colleagues at the time.

In April 2009, Chu joined Obama’s entourage for one of the administration’s first overseas trips, to Trinidad and Tobago for a Summit of the Americas focused on economic development. Chu was not scheduled to address the media, but reporters kept bugging Josh Earnest, a young staffer, who sheepishly approached his boss, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, with the ask. “No way,” Gibbs told him.

“Come on,” Earnest said. “The guy came all the way down here. Why don’t we just have him talk about all the stuff he’s doing?”

Gibbs reluctantly assented. Then Chu took the podium to tell the tiny island nation that it might soon, sorry to say, be underwater-which not only insulted the good people of Trinidad and Tobago but also raised the climate issue at a time when the White House wanted the economy, and the economy only, on the front burner. “I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans, and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes,” Chu said. “This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. … The island states … some of them will disappear.”

Earnest slunk backstage. “OK, we’ll never do that again,” he said as Gibbs glared. A phone rang. It was White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel calling Messina to snarl, “If you don’t kill [Chu], I’m going to.”

As Air Force One headed back to Washington, Messina found Chu-who has “no recollection” of this exchange, a person close to him says-sitting at the long table in the plane’s conference room. “What did you say?” Messina demanded, according to a witness. “What were you thinking?” he yelled. “And how, exactly, was this fucking on message?”

…

The staffers who rule Obama’s West Wing often treat his Cabinet as a nuisance: At the top of the pecking order are the celebrity power players, like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to be warily managed; at the bottom, what they see as a bunch of well-intentioned political naifs only a lip-slip away from derailing the president’s agenda. Chu might have been the first Obama Cabinet secretary to earn the disdain of White House aides, but he was hardly the last.

“We are completely marginalized … until the shit hits the fan,” says one former Cabinet deputy secretary, summing up the view of many officials I interviewed. “If your question is: Did the president rely a lot on his Cabinet as a group of advisers? No, he didn’t,” says former Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

…

“Going into D.C., I didn’t know the political side. I knew the science and technology side,” recalls Chu, who today professes thinly veiled disdain for the people who “hover around”-the political types who felt little compunction about condescending to a Nobel Prize winner. “It took me a while to realize that one’s own instincts and judgments are sometimes better than the people that have been on the scene for a while.”

A Drivers Tale

What a shallow “sport” this is.  You know, much as I hate to admit it, Fernando Alonso is the only driver who makes a damn bit of difference at all because he can make a piece of crap look like a contender.  Otherwise they’re interchangeable parts except for the truly bad ones who’s only qualification is the amount of personal sponsorship money they bring to a Team (I’m sure I’ve mentioned that almost every seat in Formula One is bought and paid for by bribery, not based on talent at all).

Sebastian Vettel is a despicable arrogant asshole who only knows how to drive one kind of race- get out of range quick, where he is aided and abetted by Red Bull’s massive sponsorship (2 Teams of 11, Red Bull and Toro Rossa) that allow them frequent passes when they violate formula rules for competitive advantage.  Otherwise he’s a talentless hack who’s challenge to Michael Schumaker’s records is as meaningless as Mark McGwire’s steroid dependent Home Runs (not that I’m a huge Schumaker fan either).

Though that does bring us to the subject of Lotus/Renault’s driver changes.  After the disappointing performance of Scuderia Marlboro and Mercedes at Buddh they suddenly find themselves in contention for 2nd in the Constructors’ Championship.  They haven’t been paying Kimi Raikkonen anyway, about which Bernie says–

He has signed a contract with somebody, they need to pay him. He now needs to do what he can to get paid. I feel sorry for him but he should have been a little more sensible when he signed the contract and know what he was signing for. If he drove for me, I’d have paid him. I am not his manager, but I would not have let him get into that trouble in the first place. If he wants to stand down for a couple of races, that’s up to him.

Well, as it turns out Raikkonen has been driving hurt with a back injury and underwent surgery for it last week.  He will not finish the season for Lotus.  After offering the seat to Schumaker (told you there was a connection) who is very happy in retirement and turned them down (deadbeats) they turned to Heikki Kovalainen.

The other driver news comes from McLaren who have unceremoniously dumped Sergio Perez despite his out qualifying Jensen Button on 8 occasions this year and beating him 5 times.  He’ll be replaced by rookie phenom Kevin Magnussen, their Danish development driver.  He’d better be prepared for a short stay since rumor has it that McLaren is going to wave serious wads of cash at Alonso when his contract is up in 2015.

Fat chance, though he’s a good fit for McLaren because he can make “a piece of crap look like a contender” as I said above.  He’d be a fool to leave the Scuderia just when it looks like they’re poised to deliver a reasonably good car.

Finally, it looks like Lew Hamilton has been driving around on a cracked chassis for the last 2 or 3 races so he gets a replacement.

Ecclestone’s convenient senility tomorrow.

Live qualifying now on CNBC, repeat at 6:30 pm on Vs.