Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

For months, the so-called "DC Madam" --- Deborah Jeane Palfrey --- has been forbidden by a court injunction from discussing or sharing the contents of the meticulous phone records she kept of her Washington D.C. client base.

Before the injunction was handed down, ABC News' Brian Ross had received a partial list. Ross declared, in a broadcast report, that the phone records did not point to any "newsworthy" individuals beyond the three known names of Randall Tobias (former head of the Agency for International Development), Harlan Ullman (developer of the "shock and awe" military doctrine) and former presidential adviser Dick Morris.

ABC dealt only with records going back five years, and did not have access to the earlier records. Long-standing rumors --- as-yet unconfirmed --- have held that Vice President Dick Cheney used Palfrey's escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, in the 1990s, while he was still the CEO of Haliburton.

Less than two hours ago, Judge Kessler released the injunction. Palfrey is now free to make those phone records available to any journalists or bloggers who ask for them. She has set out certain circumstances for their release; her primary hope is that those looking into the matter will do so thoroughly. Palfrey has expressed disappointment in ABC's treatment of this story.

When contacted by The BRAD BLOG, Palfrey first expressed her thanks to Judge Kessler. "This decision could have gone either way," said Palfrey, "given our current political climate."

In her decision [PDF], as posted by Citizens for Legitimate Government, the Judge wrote:

The question everyone is asking, and that we asked, of course, is this: Can Ms. Palfrey confirm that Dick Cheney was a client?...

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

A long predicted constitutional battle has finally begun. The judiciary committees of both the House and the Senate have subpoenaed administration documents pertinent to the U.S. attorney scandal. In a letter of response, White House counsel Fred Fielding has declined to cooperate, invoking executive privilege.

The judiciary committees have, in a separate action, also subpoenaed documents relating to the warrantless wiretapping controversy. The White House is again expected to invoke executive privilege.

Congressman John Conyers has fired back at the White House attorney...

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

As Des points out below, top Republicans are now plotting ways to remove Dick Cheney from office. The thinking is that a vacancy in the Veep's office could well provide a berth for one of the 2008 Republican contenders --- McCain or Thompson.

The strategy could work two ways, of course. Anyone who replaces Cheney will get Bush administration "cooties." It won't be easy to wash off the smell by November of 2008.

How to bell the cat? After Downing Street has some excellent suggestions. I have one of my own.

Call on your senators and congressional representatives and ask to have documents subpoenaed from Cheney's office. Which documents? It almost doesn't matter. Documents pertinent to the energy task force. Documents pertinent to the use of torture. Documents pertinent to the Niger forgeries. Anything will more or less do.

All of Cheney's staffers can be subpoenaed as well, on any number of issues. A Congressional investigation of Plame-gate. Haliburton contracts. The refusal to comply with the National Archives. Anything. Everything. All at once.

If Cheney or any of his underlings refuse to comply with a single subpoena --- and that's a very good bet --- he becomes instantly impeachable, on the same grounds that brought down Nixon. Cheney no longer has many friends in Congress. Nobody has his back.

If every person reading these words made the call to his or her House and Senate members, Cheney could well be history. First subpoena, then impeach. That's the plan, and it WILL work.

Click here to contact your Congress member...

UPDATE 6/27/07 11:15am PT: Breaking: AP reports subpeonas are served on Cheney and the White House...

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

Larisa Alexandrovna draws our attention to a piece by noted reactionary Michelle Malkin. In her blog, Malkin publishes some photos of Iranian police brutalizing four men, and adds these comments:

As we'll see in a moment, Malkin hasn't quite told the truth about those photos. But even if we were to take her assertions at face value, Malkin has ignored what we may call the "Matthew 7:4 factor."...

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

From Wikipedia, which cites the Chicago Sun-Times:

The family also insists that Mary isn't gay, she's ghee.

This morning, everyone's talking about this Washington Post profile, which contains the priceless tale of a quietly chuckling Dick Cheney telling Dan Quayle that 43's veep ain't gonna do the traditional funerals-and-fundraisers thang. That was for lesser Vice Presidents.

The Post article plays it cute, in that it begins by denying that Dick is the power behind the throne, and then goes on to prove that very point. Here's one for the 9/11 researchers:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Bush done more in the way of funerals-and-fundraisers than has Tricky Dick II?

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

As you know, Dick Cheney recently declared that the Vice President is not really part of the Executive branch of government. Why? Because he doesn't want those snoops at the Information Security Oversight Office to stick their unwelcome noses into Cheney-land. (The job of the ISOO is to oversee how everyone within the Executive branch handles classified material.)

Cheney argues that the Veep has a legislative function, since he casts a tie-breaking vote in the Senate --- a task he has had to perform all of seven times. By this reasoning, the Veep has worked only seven days since January, 2001. Congressional Democrats have crafted the perfect response:

More than that. Dick Cheney has claimed "executive privilege" a number of times, most notably when asked to disclose his energy policy meetings. Legislators have no such privilege. May we see the documents now?

More than that. Do you know the technical grounds for the impeachment charges brought against Richard Nixon? Subpoenas. Nixon ignored them, and so he had to go. Any congressional committee may now subpoena anything it wants from Cheney's office. Not a single document in the joint is protected by executive privilege. Not a single person working under Cheney may claim executive privilege. Dick Cheney has made very clear that he is not part of the executive branch of government.

If Cheney does not comply, he becomes instantly and impeccably impeachable.

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

As you probably know, ABC plans to commemorate 9/11 with a lying "docudrama" designed to portray Bill Clinton as soft on terrorism. As a small counter to such assaults on history, AmericaBlog reminds us the the Republicans once had a very different attitude toward terrorism.

In July of 1996, Clinton asked Congress for increased wiretapping authority in order to catch terrorists --- unlike Bush, who simply assumed such powers, consulting his lawyers instead of the legislators. The Republicans smacked down the idea, citing the dangers of increased presidential powers.

They also fired up their base with dark tales of a Clinton power-grab, using terror as a excuse. You can relive this history as I did --- by firing up Google Groups in order to see what Clinton's conservative opponents were saying about terrorism ten years ago.

Below, you will find a hastily-compiled selection of excerpts. Some of these comments were written directly for usenet, others are quotes from web sites or printed sources. In order to convey an impressionistic sense of how conservatives thought at that time, I've decided to forego names and dates; if you want full context, fire up Google for yourself. All the quotes appeared somewhere on usenet during 1996.

Those of you old enough to recall those days will testify that these sentiments were widely shared in conservative circles. The change in attitude is almost as stunning as the attempt to change history itself. As you read, ask yourself if you can imagine any of our modern death-to-Islam types saying such things about Bush or the current world situation:

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

Is someone murdering people who know too much about NSA wiretapping overseas?

Two whistleblowers --- one in Italy, one in Greece --- uncovered a secret bugging system installed in cell phones around the world. Both met with untimely ends. The resultant scandals have received little press in the United States, despite the profound implications for American critics of the Bush administration.

Last month, Italian telecommunications security expert Adamo Bove either leapt or was pushed from a freeway overpass; he left no note and had no history of depression. Last year (March, 2005), Greek telecommunications expert Costas Tsalikidis met with a similarly enigmatic end. Both had uncovered American attempts to eavesdrop on government officials, anti-war activists, and private businessmen.

The Bove case relates to the long-standing controversy over the CIA's kidnapping of cleric Abu Omar, who was flown to Egypt and tortured. The post-Berlusconi government of Italy is attempting to arrest and try all of the CIA personnel involved. Bove used mobile phone records to trace more than two dozen American agents.

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

Did Rove lie to Bush?

The AP has just reported that, back in the fall of 2003, Rove denied to Bush that he (Rove) had any connection to outing Joseph Wilson's wife. So far, we don't know just who gave the Grand Jury that piece of information.

We now know, of course, that Rove discussed the matter with Matt Cooper. So Rove's report to Bush was fraudulent. Unless...unless someone has lied to the Grand Jury in order to cover W's farthole.

Or was W covering his own farthole?

From an under-appreciated piece by Murray Waas, which the AP story has now largely confirmed:

I suspect this means Waas got word from Bush's counsel. (Prosecution lawyers aren't allowed to talk to the press about Grand Jury proceedings, but witnesses --- and their lawyers --- may do so if they wish.)

Did Rove lie to the FBI?

More from Murray Waas:

Lying to the FBI...? Isn't that how Martha Stewart ended up in the slammer?

The Great Judy:

Judith Miller just now discovered notes of a June, 2003 meeting she had with Libby. We should presume that these notes are relevant to the outing of Valerie Plame/Wilson.

The chronology has suddenly become very strange --- June, 2003 was before Wilson publicly criticized the administration.

My take on this won't be popular.

I've hinted at it in previous posts: I think the neocon cabal had reason to expect Wilson to "confirm" the Niger forgeries. For some reason, they trusted him to go along with their plans --- and they felt double-crossed when he did not. So they cobbled together a "get Wilson" strategy even before he published his piece.

I admire Wilson, but I suspect that he has not told all.

What did the President know and when did he know it?

In light of all of the above, the following grab from Jason Leopold's latest column on The Huffington Post has profound implications:

Presuming that this evidence holds up: Does this mean that the "Rove-denied-it-to-Bush" testimony (discussed above) was fraudulent? Lying to a Grand Jury can get one impeached --- and imprisoned.

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

I am the very model of a modern FEMA handle-er
Corrupt as any character you'll find in Raymond Chandle-er
Accomplished very little since I shot past Mummy's labia
Just bummed around until I found some horsies from Arabia

I lost the horsie gig when all the lawsuits started loading up
And then the Bushies asked if I would like to be their toading pup
I got this job because I know the asses that are kissable
I also know the color of the people who are missable.

Who cares about the puling putrid pesky proletariat?
The blacks are just a burden and no longer will we carry it.
The mother of our Fearless One is so aristocratical
And Rove will blame our own misdeeds on forces Democratical.

Denying food and water may have been a little frightening
But there's a city in the south that badly needed whitening.
Our ultimate intention is replacement of democracy --
Here comes a fundamentalist Dominionist theocracy!

(NOTE to LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALL readers and the other Rightie blogsites who parrot that one with misleading headlines like "Bradblog: Don't Donate to Bush States". You may (or may not) wish to know that the following BRAD BLOG Guest Blog item by Joseph Cannon has been entirely misquoted to you out of context by your blogmasters.

Like your "President", your blogmasters seem only interested in misleading you and ensuring that you stay in the dark by giving you only the selected-out-of-context information which meets their own political agenda.

We invite you to read Mr. Cannon's entire blog item before you add your two cents in the comments section here whatever they may be. Unlike LGF and the bulk of the other rightie blogs that have misquoted this article in hopes of avoiding accountability where it belongs for this national disaster, our comments section is open and requires no pre-registration, which LGF no longer seems to allow anyway.

As to LGF's misleading update to their misleading item describing my comment here as "an uttlerly craven excuse," I promise to scratch my head and ponder for the rest of the evening what "excuse" it is they are referring to. Even LGF's reply to my comment is wholly bereft of anything that represents actual information, honesty or reality. LGF and other rightwing blogsite readers, along with all Americans, deserve much better. All opinions here are welcome. Even those with which we don't agree. BF)

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

I'm not going to post the piece I started to write.

My original reaction to the Katrina catastrophe was going to be: "NOT ONE DIME."

For an hour or so, I contemplated the idea of turning it into a crusade: No-one in the blue states (where the money is) should give one dime of aid to the victims of this hurricane, which devastated Bush-friendly regions.

Why did I flirt with such a callous attitude?

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

You have probably never heard of Makram Chams. It's time you met him.

Actually, you can't physically meet him --- he disappeared on September 11, 2001. I bring him to your attention for two reasons:

1. He knew, and apparently aided, Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 terrorists.

2. He owned a casino ship in Florida.

Yes, a casino ship --- just like the SunCruz ships owned by Jack Abramoff, the recently-indicted Republican money-man and wheeler-dealer. According to Associated Press, the terrorists took a mysterious trip on a SunCruz ship on September 5, 2001. And that trip is of great interest for three reasons:

1. SunCruz ships were under investigation for involvement in money laundering and other unsavory activities.

2. Al Qaeda operatives made a number of mysterious casino jaunts in that era; few believe that they were hard-core gamblers.

3. Al Qaeda was funded by drug money. Drug money must needs be laundered. Casinos have been known to be used for that purpose. Casino ships are unregulated.

Perhaps we should tentatively add a fourth reason for concern: Intelligence agents who had identified Atta in the United States and who knew of his ties to Osama Bin Laden were told to steer clear of him. They literally covered up his picture on their charts of Al Qaeda agents. (See my latest piece on Able Danger.)

So with that background in mind, let's learn more about the mysterious Makram Chams (whose first name is sometimes transliterated as Meekram).

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

I just received a note from someone with special understanding of the Able Danger sitch. (Suddenly, everyone on the net has only one or two degrees of separation from Tony Shaffer.) The correspondent asked not to be quoted or identified, so I'll speak only in very general terms.

Basically, you'll receive much the same info if you go to Intel Dump, which relays a message from Shaffer himself.

The bottom line: The identification of Atta was squelched by SOCOM lawyers. As Shaffer tells it:

Do I buy this? Well...

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

The right continues to make disturbing use of the Able Danger story --- which holds that a secretive DIA unit had identified Atta well before 9/11.

Rush Limbaugh and a number of right-leaning newspapers have continued to spread the lie, first published in NewsMax, that Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton Justice Department somehow forced the DIA to refrain from sharing the unit's discoveries. John Podhoretz at National Review has also given respectful attention to this tale, although he has steered clear of the NewsMax spin.

Now CNN and other sources have given us a name for that mysterious DIA officer who told this tale to Representative Curt Weldon. Meet Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer:

More:

These excerpts address one of the more important questions to arise out of this controversy. Were the commission members informed of Able Danger, or were they not? We've received about three different accounts so far.

Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon

The Democratic National Committee has responded to the false charges posted by the allegedly non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.

As most of you should know by now, the ACVR is crawling with Republican operatives, many of whom have strong links to indicted sleazoid Jack Abramoff.

AVCR chairman Brian Lunde has a particularly troubling history...

A lobbyist for a democracy-phobic dictator dares to give the rest of the world a lecture on voting rights? Outrageous!