I’m sitting here in Jane Harman’s Congressional district right now.  I could probably go out on the street and informally poll a dozen people about AIPAC, and I’m pretty certain nobody would know what I’m talking about.  But inside the Beltway, AIPAC is sacrosanct and Israel practically the 51st state.  So this blockbuster story is a perfect depiction of, as Attaturk says, the way Washington works.  He simplifies it so I don’t have to:

1. Congressman Jane Harman (D – CA) told a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby.

2. This was known because of an NSA Wiretap.

3. The suspected Israeli agent then promised to lobby Nancy Pelosi to make Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections (she wasn’t).

4. There were some reports of this influence peddling in 2006, but it was dropped for a “lack of evidence” by Alberto R. Gonzales, who intervened to stop the investigation.

5. Gonzales intervened because he wanted Harman to defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times.

6. And she promptly went out and defended it.

This looks just terrible for Jane Harman.  There’s a trail of reporting on this going back to 2006, but the new material concerns Abu Gonzales stepping in to squash the investigation so Harman could parrot the Bush Administration line on warrantless wiretapping.  And there’s an even larger trail of reporting on Harman’s fronting for Bush.  The point is that the pieces all fit together.

Indeed, as I’ve noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as “the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee” to repeatedly praise the NSA program as “essential to U.S. national security” and “both necessary and legal.”  She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she “deplored the leak,” that “it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers,” and that the whistleblowers were “despicable.”  And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.

It’s a classic espionage story, right down to the part where Harman hangs up the phone with the Israeli agent after saying “This conversation doesn’t exist.”  For her part, Harman is denying the story, but Stein has several sources who read the transcripts from the NSA wiretaps (apparently gathered legally, but who the hell knows).  And he’s right, at the end, about the utter futility of this exercise, on all counts:

Ironically, however, nothing much was gained by it.

The Justice Department did not back away from charging Rosen and fellow AIPAC official Keith Weissman with espionage (for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials).

Gonzales was engulfed by the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal. (and the US Attorneys probe -ed.)

And Jane Harman was relegated to chairing a House Homeland Security subcommittee.

Josh Marshall asks a lot of the key questions, including whether Harman was being blackmailed by the Bush Administration to be their front person on wiretapping, having been wiretapped herself.  And Ron Kampeas has a somewhat different take, suggesting that this is only coming out because the case against AIPAC officials Rosen and Weissman is faltering.  There’s one way to know for sure: a full-blown investigation, which Harman ought to welcome to clear her name.

As we read with growing horror the most recent torture memos released by the Obama Administration, knowing that there are more revelations to come, I think a lot of us are asking the question that mcjoan asked yesterday.  “Now what?”  How can we address this moral rot that continues to eat away at our legitimacy?  What can be done?  Mcjoan offers a couple suggestions.

The process by which our government came not only to torture, but through torturous logic try to convince themselves that it was legal is not just the product of evil. It’s the product of excessive, unchecked power that has proven far too easy to seize, to hold, and to exercise.

And we can’t allow that to happen again.

That’s why, at the very least, there must be investigations. Whether through the special prosecutor that the ACLU has called for, or Senator Leahy’s proposal for a commission of inquiry, America has to know how this happened, gruesome step by gruesome step. There is no other way to prevent it from happening again.

Mcjoan is right that our corroded, accountability-free zone in Washington will require an incredible amount of effort just to bring us to these steps.  We need to counter the establishment pressure to move away from this evil with our own pressure, to support the rule of law, to recognize that justice delayed is justice denied, and that a failure to hold accountable these acts will result in them returning, in spades, in the future.  Without this accounting, in a very real sense our democracy dies.

And there is an actual mechanism, a way to leverage grassroots anger and push the elected officials who can make these decisions, at least in one case.  We can prove the desire for accountability in the country and take a systematic approach to restore democracy and the rule of law.  And it starts with Jay Bybee.

over…

As many people noted yesterday, Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel whose name appears as the author of the August 1, 2002 memo justifying and authorizing clear acts of torture by the CIA (some argue that John Yoo wrote the memo, but Bybee signed it), now works as a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, with a lifetime appointment.  He sits in judgment when we have clear evidence that his judgment is fractured.  In just this particular memo, he agreed that waterboarding “constitutes the imminent threat of death” and still allowed its use.  He twisted the research of sleep deprivation experts to justify the torturous delivery of harm to prisoners through this technique.  He found the rationales to explain away his own legal exposure and that of his superiors, while clearly understanding these techniques to be wrong when applied by other countries.

And that’s just this memo.  More are expected.

One focus of scrutiny could be the period from April to August of 2002, when C.I.A. officers interrogated Abu Zubaydah before the Justice Department gave its official written endorsement of the interrogation program. According to a Justice Department inspector general’s report, F.B.I. officials who watched some of the interrogation sessions in a Thailand safe house reported that the C.I.A. interrogators had used several harsh techniques.

The Justice Department is also expected make public an internal ethics report that officials say is highly critical of top Bush lawyers who drafted the interrogation memos, including Jay S. Bybee, John C. Yoo and Steven G. Bradbury. Legal experts said there is an outside chance that the report could include referrals to state bar associations, which have the power to reprimand or disbar their members.

Because Bybee holds a lifetime appointment conferred by the Senate (by a 74-19 vote), I would argue it is the requirement of the Congress to act and right this horrific wrong.  Bybee was confirmed in March 2003, well before these memos came to light.  This new information alone should be grounds for an impeachment and removal of Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit Court.

Impeachment would require a majority vote in the House, and removal would need a 2/3 vote in the trial in the Senate.  I agree with Jonathan Zasloff that there are likely 34 Republicans in the Senate willing to go on record as objectively pro-torture, and thus removal would be less likely to be successful.  I also agree that the Congress should be compelled to do this anyway.

Regardless of the Obama Administration’s decision on prosecution, then, impeachment hearings and a Senate trial for Bybee would signal a necessary reassertion of Congresional authority and would ensure at least some minimal accountability.

Alas, emphasis there should be on the “minimal.” I would hope that the House would impeach, but Senate Republicans would clearly vote no to prevent removal.

I don’t know how the politics work on this. The Beltway media will clearly spin this as the Democrats obsessed with the past and not concerned about the supposedly grave national security implications. On the other hand, Republicans would be forced to defend an incompetent, ethically-challenged judge.

But maybe, given how unclear the politics are, it might be best to do, you know, the right thing. John Conyers should start scheduling preliminary hearings right away.

As it happens, the California Democratic Party can speak with one voice about this next week.  Grassroots activists submitted a resolution to be decided at next week’s convention in Sacramento that would call for the impeachment of Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit.  This resolution has already been accepted, UNANIMOUSLY, by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.  It can pass at the state level.

Resolutions are somewhat toothless unless used properly AFTER the fact.  In the resolution (which I’ll put below), it is stipulated that “a copy of this resolution with its original authorization be sent to the Office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Majority Leader of  the United States Senate, and that copies of the signed resolution be sent to each member of the California delegation to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.”  California members of the HJC include Zoe Lofgren, Maxine Waters, Howard Berman, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff and Linda Sanchez.  The last five, at least, have part or all of LA County in their districts, and could be told RIGHT NOW that their local party has resolved unanimously to impeach Bybee.  Should the entire state party agree, all the California members, including the Speaker of the House, and the two Senators (both of whom voted against confirming Bybee) can be told the same.  And resolutions like this could spring up all over the country, increasing pressure from the bottom up for the Congress to act.

It starts next week in Sacramento.  The Resolutions Committee meeting will be held at 3:00 on Friday, April 24, at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J St., Sacramento, CA.  If you’re in the area or if you are a delegate, you can come to the meeting and advocate for the resolution.  But the decision will likely be made beforehand.  Only a few resolutions get out of committee and to the floor of the convention, and the others are tabled, or combined, or referred to a separate committee.  We CANNOT let this happen.  The ledership of the California Democratic Party needs to hear from constituents on this issue.

Sacramento Office

(916) 442-5707 phone

(916) 442-5715 fax

Los Angeles Office

(310) 407-0980 phone

(310) 407-0981 fax

email contact form

I’ve also created a petition at Petition Online urging the CDP to pass this.

Petition

We have an opportunity to use the party apparatus to push for accountability and send it up to leaders in Washington.  I urge everyone to get on board with this.  Thanks.

RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH JUDGE JAY BYBEE

Passed Unanimously by LACDP, 4/14/09

Whereas, the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the people a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; and,

Whereas the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, the supreme law of the land under Article VI of our Constitution, requires the prosecution of those who authorize torture, waterboarding is torture, and both former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Richard B. Cheney have admitted to authorizing waterboarding; and,

Whereas former Assistant Attorney General, and current Federal Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Jay Bybee signed the “Bybee Memo,” or “Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, which advised the C.I.A. that “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation,” more of which are being currently revealed to the American public as the new administration brings them to light; now,

Therefore be it resolved that the Los Angeles County Democratic Party urges that the United States House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Jay Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, charging him with facilitating the authorization of torture while employed by the United States Department of Justice; and,

Therefore be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution with its original authorization be sent to the Office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Majority Leader of  the United States Senate, and that copies of the signed resolution be sent to each member of the California delegation to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

So the first quarter of fundraising for the 2010 cycle ended, and this week the reports were filed.  Swing State Project has a good roundup.  Here’s what I found interesting:

• In CA-48, Beth Krom had an unusually strong quarter, considering she entered the race in the middle of it.  She raised $63,000 for the quarter, actually beating the incumbent, John Campbell, who raised $55,000.  Now, in 2008 candidates like Nick Leibham and Debbie Cook beat their incumbent counterparts in fundraising repeatedly, but had major disadvantages in cash on hand because the incumbents had assembled war chests from prior fundraising.  And that’s the case here too – Campbell has $300,000 CoH, while Krom has $61,000, a 5-to-1 advantage.  But to beat Campbell so early in the cycle shows a lot of potential.

• Debbie Cook, Charlie Brown and Bill Durston basically raised no money in the quarter, dampening any expectation that they will run again in their respective districts.  Durston raised $9,000, but that was probably all before he hinted at dropping out due to medical troubles.

• In CA-44, Bill Hedrick may be getting national attention, but he’s not raising national numbers, and if he continues to put up $14,000 for a quarter, the D-Trip will either walk away or look for another challenger.  I respect the hell out of Hedrick but he’s got to do better than that.

• CA-37 is absolutely ripe for a primary challenge.  Noted deadbeat Laura Richardson raised a paltry $28,500, as an incumbent, and her $39,000 cash on hand is dwarfed by $363,000 in debt.  We deserve better than Laura Richardson in that very blue district.

• Jerry McNerney put up a $275,000 quarter in CA-11.

• His numbers weren’t spectacular, but Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet is drawing some attention for his challenge to Mary Bono Mack in CA-45.  This is another “Obama Republican” district, and Pougnet, a gay father of two, has an interesting profile for the district and a proven record in the community.  This one bears watching.

That wise Mr. Skelton intones that Prop. 1A is not “a sneaky trick to raise taxes.”  I agree.  It’s a sneaky trick to drown government in a bathtub.  

We touched yesterday on this bigger concern about the lessons that may be learned from the special election battle.  It is clear that those anti-tax forces on the right will take credit if the ballot measures, particularly 1A, are defeated, saying that this is proof that California has had enough and the vote signals the rise of the teabaggers.  That actually would be a dangerous lesson, mainly because it’s not true, and it’s part and parcel of the vast disinformation around taxes that the cynical forces on the right spare no expense in delivering to the public.

Low-, not high-, income Californians pay the largest share of their income in state and local taxes. Here’s an updated analysis of data we’ve blogged about before that takes into account the temporary tax increase included as part of the February budget agreement.

California is a moderate, not high, tax state when all state and local taxes and fees are taken into account.  This results from the fact that California has moderately high state taxes, but low local property taxes due to the impact of Proposition 13 on local property tax collections.

High-income Californians aren’t leaving the state due to higher taxes. In fact, the number of millionaire taxpayers is growing at a rate that far exceeds the increase in the number of personal income taxpayers as a whole.

Over the past 15 years, lawmakers have enacted tax cuts that will cost the state nearly $12 billion in 2008-09. That’s a larger loss than the $11.0 billion 2009-10 temporary increase in state tax revenues included in the February budget agreement.

Moreover, while the tax increases included in the budget are all temporary, regardless of the outcome of the May election, the September 2008 and February 2009 budget agreements included massive corporate tax cuts that are permanent and that will reduce state revenues by approximately $2.5 billion per year when fully implemented.

Saying that tax policy is just plain wacky and inconsistent neglects these plain facts – that the past thirty years of the conservative veto have tilted tax policy, and most everything else, in a very rightward direction.

In actuality, we are seeing a grassroots/establishment divide, where the grassroots in the Democratic Party would like to see some leadership instead of another layer of failed solutions.  Unfortunately, because the voices on the right are so loud in their opposition, and because advocates of the special elections would rather frame themselves in opposition to the right, the right is well-positioned to take credit for the defeat of these measures, should that happen.  When that’s simply not the lesson that ought to be learned.

The resultant fear is that the feckless Democratic leadership takes that lesson, and then cowers from going down the road of enacting the real structural reforms that represent the only solution possible to lift us from this perpetual disaster.  That would be catastrophically wrong.  Don’t assume from a short-term setback that the Yacht Party mentality runs the state.  People will pay for taxes in exchange for services; that was proven in 2005 and it’s just as true today.  Californians elect their leaders to function and yet the structure of government denies them.  Dismantle that barrier, and restore democracy to the state.

Capitol Weekly is typically pretty clued in, and today they report that John Garamendi will run for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher.

We hear that John Garamendi is getting ready to jump into the Congressional race against Mark DeSaulnier for Ellen Tauscher’s vacant, East Bay Congressional seat. Garamendi has name ID in a race that will likely feature low turn-out, and has to be seen as a front-runner (this from a column that has not seen a lick of polling in the race). So, let’s go to the dominos, shall we? Of course, it’s bad news for DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, who both wanted to run for the seat. Of course, everyone’s got a free run at it, so there’s nothing to stop DeSaulnier or Buchanan from plunging into the race. DeSaulnier already has some top endorsements, and is unlikely to back down now. It’s also bad news for Dean Florez and Alan Lowenthal, who were mounting Lite Gov campaigns for 2010. If Garamendi wins, Schwarzenegger will get to appoint a new lieutenant, and Florez or Lowenthal would have to run against an incumbent. Of course, that didn’t work out too well for Bruce McPherson, so all is not lost.

This probably makes sense for him.  While Garamendi arguably had the best policy set among the gubernatorial candidates, he just wasn’t gaining any traction.  And his experience in Washington will be an asset in this race.  I would agree that DeSaulnier stays in, considering that he cleaned up every major endorsement, but that could all be subject to change given this development.  Buchanan probably stays put at this point.