the White House issued a memorandum on the Standards of Official Conduct. “Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government.” On a related note, Karl Rove is lecturing colleagues on how to use the issue of national security.

The Jack Abramoff investigation expands into Hong Kong.

If your legal arguments aren’t working, start a propaganda campaign:

The Bush administration is opening a campaign to push back against criticism of its domestic spying program, ahead of congressional hearings into whether President Bush has the legal authority to eavesdrop on Americans.

And remember, it’s all about the backdrop:

Bush will visit the ultra-secret National Security Agency on Wednesday, underscoring his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.

But that’s not all. Alberto Gonzales has a speech scheduled on the issue for Tuesday and former NSA director Michael Hayden has an event at the National Press Club scheduled for Monday.

The administration does a good job scheduling a PR campaign. They do a bad job of following the law.

“Fitzgerald hasn’t been seen much in Washington lately, and Rove camp remains frustrated by uncertainty over his status,” the Washington Wire reports.

call for McCain’s anti-torture amendment to be “effectively and forcefully implemented,” repudiating Bush’s interpretation.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice released a 42-page defense of President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program. It’s full of impressive sounding citations, legal jargon and footnotes. But all of that is just ornamentation for two – and only two – fundamentally unserious legal arguments in defense of the program:

1. The program was authorized by Congress in the September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

2. As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the “inherent authority” to do whatever he wants.

As to the first point, the administration’s argument isn’t even internally consistent. On the one hand the Justice Department is saying the AUMF authorized this program. On the other hand, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that they didn’t ask Congress for the authority because they knew Congress would reject it:

We have had discussions with Congress in the past — certain members of Congress — as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Legally, it’s impossible for the AUMF to give the President the authority to conduct warrantless domestic wiretapping. Congress has comprehensively regulated all electronic surveillance and federal law designates specific statutes as the “exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted.” The AUMF is not one of those statutes. (For legal citation fans it’s at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f)) Moreover, it specifically contemplates warrantless surveillance “during a time of war” and says “notwithstanding any other law” such surveillance cannot “exceed 15 days.” (50 U.S.C. § 1811) The program has been going on for four years now.

I’ll deal with their second (and last) argument in an upcoming post.

“So I have a question for my colleagues in the news media: Why isn’t the decision by the White House to stonewall on the largest corruption scandal since Warren Harding considered major news?”