ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Evidence Mounts Of White House Ties To New Hampshire Phone Jamming Scheme

james-tobin.jpgOn the morning of election day 2002, repeated hang-up calls assaulted six phone lines tied to the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Three Republican operatives, including consultant Allen Raymond, eventually ended up in jail for their involvement in the phone jamming scheme. A fourth, former RNC offical James Tobin, will begin a second trial in February.

In his new book, Raymond alleges that the scandal goes “to the top of the Republican Party” because “the Bush White House had complete control of the RNC” and there was no way such a risky tactic wouldn’t have been “vetted by” Tobin’s “high-ups”:

“The Bush White House had complete control of the RNC, and there was no way someone like Tobin was going to try what he was proposing without first getting it vetted by his high-ups,” Raymond wrote in How To Rig an Election, a book set for publication next month. “That’s if Tobin, rather than one of his bosses, had even thought of the ploy himself – which seemed unlikely.”

Phone records obtained in a civil suit brought against the NH GOP by the NH Democratic Party show that “Tobin made 22 calls to the White House political office in the 24 hours before and after the jamming” while the Republican National Committee has paid over $6 million in legal fees for Tobin.

Yesterday, McClatchy reported that “senior Justice Department officials” delayed prosecuting Tobin “until after the 2004 election” as part of an effort to protect the GOP “from the scandal until the voting was over“:

However, the official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, told McClatchy that senior Justice Department officials slowed the inquiry. The official didn’t know whether top department officials ordered the delays or what motivated those decisions.

The official said that Terry O’Donnell, a former Pentagon general counsel who was representing Tobin, was in contact with senior department officials before Tobin was indicted.

Marcy Wheeler notes that Tobin’s lawyer, Terry O’Donnell, is also “Dick Cheney’s long-time personal attorney.”

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey today, requesting documents and answers about the case.

Paul Kiel has more here.

Digg It!

Culture

Sad Chicago

Reviewing the strange death of the Chicago Bulls a little while back, I concluded that “the only really plausible theory is that Chris Hayes left the Windy City to become Washington editor of The Nation and the Bulls are too sad to play.” Well, I went with Chris to the Wiz-Bulls matchup last night and, naturally enough, Chicago won. So score one for my theory. To save his job, Scott Skiles desperately needs to persuade Chris to move back.

Politics

Gordon Smith under fire for Lott praise.

On Tuesday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) took to the Senate floor and defended Trent Lott’s controversial comments on former senator Strom Thurmond, despite claiming in 2002 that he was “deeply dismayed” by them. Today, Smith’s home state paper, the Oregonian, sharply criticized the senator:

It’s true that speakers at retirement tributes are under no oath to tell the whole truth; if they were, such events might be a little less warm but a lot more interesting. And nobody thinks that Smith’s remarks on Lott’s remarks on Thurmond somehow make Smith a racist twice removed.

But on issues carrying as much emotional freight as race — and there aren’t many — a U.S. senator needs to speak with care and consistency.

Otherwise, he could find people speaking at his own retirement tribute.

(HT: The Crypt)

Yglesias

“The Case for Collective Force”

My December 8 op-ed “Beyond Preemption” criticized a 2004 op-ed by Ann-Marie Slaughter and Lee Feinstein called “A Duty to Prevent”.

Slaughter feels I mischaracterized the substance of the article, and argues as much in this “Blowback” column for The Los Angeles Times called “The case for collective force” which I thought I might draw your attention to. I’m going to post something in response to Slaughter on Monday.

Climate Progress

Disentangling the confusion of Bali

Tom Friedman is very confused about exactly what happened at Bali and why. So are M.I.T. science journalist fellows. So what are your chances of figuring it out? Well, they are a lot better if you read this excellent Bali debriefing by my friend Holmes Hummel, a Stanford Ph.D. and Congressional Science Fellow.

One interesting point she makes: Some media coverage left the misimpression that the Bush team opposed language that would have committed Annex I (i.e. rich) countries to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. But that isn’t correct. The language they vehemently rejected merely said this:

Recognizing that much deeper emissions cuts by developed countries will be required and that Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are considering the indicative range of emission reductions of Annex I Parties as a group of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020…

Yes, that’s right, the Bush team simply “did not want to ‘recognize’ what the Kyoto Parties clearly were considering.” Sad. So what happened?

Read more

Security

Former CIA Lawyer: ‘If A Tape Is Not Safe In The CIA, We’re In Trouble’

After he was informed that the New York Times was about to publish an article on torture tape destruction, CIA Director Michael Hayden told his employees that the CIA destroyed the tapes in part to protect the identities of CIA interrogators:

[T]he tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qa’ida and its sympathizers.

The White House reiterated this line in defense of the tape destruction, claming, “The President doesn’t have any reason to doubt” Hayden’s response.

In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former CIA Assistant General Counsel John Radsan, who served under George Tenet, said this excuse is bogus since there are plenty of options for protecting intelligence. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the tapes needed to be destroyed to protect identities,” Radsan said:

There was no indication that they wanted to share this with anybody. If they are worried about a leak, the CIA protects a lot of classified information. If you have tapes in an overseas location, then have the tapes moved back to headquarters as Ms. Jackson-Lee said, put it in a safe in the Director’s office. If a tape is not safe in the CIA, in the office of the Director of the CIA, we’re in trouble.

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/judic1220.320.240.flv]

Radsan said such methods have historical precedent. During the Bay of Pigs invasion, the CIA Director did not want a classified internal investigation from “leaking,” so the Director personally kept a copy of the report, put it in a safe, and it “was safe for a long period of time.”

Earlier this month on CBS, a “well-informed source” informed the network that the CIA destroyed the interrogation tapes to “protect CIA officers from criminal prosecution.” “You’d have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) of Hayden’s excuse.

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Iraq’s Walls

Great column from Rosa Brooks in The LA Times “Iraq today also still moves in darkness. We should be glad of the lull in violence, but if stability in Iraq depends on miles of concrete walls and an indefinite U.S. occupation, that’s not ‘victory.’ It’s defeat.”

Right. I should note that I mean that pretty literally: Having a large body of American soldiers bogged down in an indefinite occupation of Iraq is a huge strategic boon to al-Qaeda. I know that nobody cares about foreign policy anymore, and Paul Krugman assures me that “no Democrat is not going to end this war” even though some of them seem to be planning to continue it indefinitely but this stuff seems like a big deal to me.

Politics

Clarence Thomas hates his job.

Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at Chapman University, revealing that he doesn’t even really “like” being a Supreme Court justice:

thms.jpg “There’s not much that entices about the job,” Thomas said, answering questions from the public that provided a rare glimpse of the man behind the office. “There’s no money in it, no privacy, no big houses, and from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me.”

Thomas, 59, said the position is satisfying because he feels he’s serving the public, and he’s honored by it, “but I wouldn’t say I like it.”

“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”

Digg It!

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up