I have a quick moment for a post-Dental appointment diary. Although I know B'rouser has diaried on this already (below), this is enough text it seemed to merit more than simply a post.

Below the fold are several relevant documents for your perusal:

I. The text of cover letters sent to Karl Rove and Scott Jennings. 

II. Text of the actual subpoenas

III. Explanations of the terminology

IV. The text of a letter sent to Alberto Gonzales affording him an opportunity to amend his statements in light of the potential perjury charges

(Sorry for the formatting challenges… didn't have enough time to do this right…)

Enjoy! 

SUBPOENAS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS:
 

July 26, 2007
Mr. Karl Rove
 
Deputy Chief of Staff
 
The White House
 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 
Washington, D.C. 20500
 
 
 
 
Dear Mr. Rove:
 
Four months ago, Senator Specter and I sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate Judiciary Committee?s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice.  We received no response to that letter.  Similar letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also failed to elicit cooperation.
 
Indeed, the White House has chosen to precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation.  The evidence gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows that you and other White House officials were involved in these firings and in the Justice Department?s response to congressional inquiries about them.  Yet, the White House has responded to requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with unprecedented, blanket assertions of ?executive privilege.?  It has even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional subpoenas. 
 
I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or control related to the Committee?s investigation and for you to appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2, 2007.
 
I have issued this subpoena after exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the White House.  I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys.  I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.
 
We have learned from the limited documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that you were involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys.  E-mails show that you initiated inquires at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys.  The evidence also shows that you raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal.  He was fired a few weeks after you complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ?voter fraud? enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.
 
We have learned you raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election you sent the Attorney General?s Chief of Staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004.  This evidence raises serious concerns about your role in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects, an unacceptable manipulation and subversion of law enforcement.
 
Documents and testimony also show that you had a role in shaping the Administration?s response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public.  This response included an attempt to cover up the role that you and other White House officials played in the firings.
 
The evidence of untoward White House interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections and has seriously undercut the American people?s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

* * * * *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
 

To Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Greeting:
 
Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on August 2, 2007, at 10:00 o?clock a.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committee?s inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein.
 
Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
 
To any Committee staff member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.
 
Given under my hand, by authority vested
 
in me by the Committee, on this  26  day
of  July   , 2007____.
 
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
 
 
* * * * *
Attachment A
 
Documents Subpoenaed
 
1.  Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee?s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to Congress and other violations of federal law.  The documents produced shall include, but not be limited to:
 
A.  Any and all documents related to the: 1) evaluation of or decision to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ?Bud? Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?dismissed U.S. Attorneys?); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for dismissal since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal?); 3) the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.
 
B.  Any and all documents related to the testimony of any official at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress regarding any of the matters set forth in paragraph A, above.
 
Instructions
 
1.  In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or representative acting on your behalf.  You are also required to produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third party.
 
2.  No documents as defined herein called for by this request shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.  If you have knowledge that any subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then document was destroyed, discarded or lost.
 
3.  This subpoena is continuing in nature.  Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by the return date.
 
4.  If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.
 
5.  Production with respect to each document shall include all electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee where possible in its native file format and shall include all original metadata for each electronic documents or data file.  Productions shall be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.
 
6.  Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and shall also be furnished as responsive.
 
7.  Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or other identifying markers with which they were associated when this subpoena was served.  Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena such documents are responsive.
 
8.  All documents shall be bates?stamped sequentially and produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the schedule it is responsive.

Definitions
 
1.  The term ?document? as used in this subpoena includes all emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files, records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
2.  The terms ?related? and ?relating? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.
 
3.  The terms ?including? and ?includes,? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
 
4.  The terms ?Department of Justice? and ?Department? includes without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
5.  The term ?White House? includes, without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
* * * * *

July 26, 2007
 
Mr. J. Scott Jennings
Special Assistant to the President
  and Deputy Director of Political Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
 
Dear Mr. Jennings:

Four months ago, Senator Specter and I sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate Judiciary Committee?s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice.  We received no response to that letter.  Similar letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also failed to elicit cooperation.

Indeed, the White House has chosen to precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation.  The evidence gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows that you and other White House officials were involved in these firings and in the Justice Department?s response to congressional inquiries about them.  Yet, the White House has responded to requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with unprecedented, blanket assertions of ?executive privilege.?  It has even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional subpoenas. 

I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or control related to the Committee?s investigation and for you to appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2, 2007.

I have issued this subpoena after exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the White House.  I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys.  I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.
 
We have learned from the limited documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that you were involved in the discussions and planning that led to the removal of Bud Cummins and bypassing the Senate confirmation process to install Tim Griffin, a former aide to Mr. Karl Rove, as U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas.  You were also part of a group that discussed using the Attorney General?s expanded authority under the Patriot Act Reauthorization to avoid the opposition of the Arkansas Senators by appointing Mr. Griffin as interim indefinitely. 
 
In addition, we have also learned that you set up a meeting between the Department?s White House Liaison, Monica Goodling, and New Mexico Republican officials in

June 2006 to talk about the U.S. Attorney ?situation? in New Mexico, describing it as ?sensitive.?  Mr. Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, was fired months later based at least in part, according to the evidence, on political complaints raised by these officials. 

Finally, documents and testimony show that you had knowledge of the plan for firing multiple U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006, and were involved in shaping the Administration?s response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public.  This response included an attempt to cover up the role you and other White House officials played in the firings.

The evidence of untoward White House interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections and has seriously undercut the American people?s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
 

* * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States 

To J. Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs, Greeting:
 
Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on August 2, 2007, at 10:00 o?clock a.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committee?s inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein.

Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.

To any Committee staff member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.

Given under my hand, by authority vested

in me by the Committee, on this  26  day
of  July   , 2007____. 

Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

 
* * * * *

Attachment A

Documents Subpoenaed

1.  Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee?s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to Congress and other violations of federal law.  The documents produced shall include, but not be limited to:

A.  Any and all documents related to the: 1) evaluation of or decision to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ?Bud? Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?dismissed U.S. Attorneys?); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for dismissal since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal?); 3) the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.

B.  Any and all documents related to the testimony of any official at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress regarding any of the matters set forth in paragraph A, above.

Instructions

1.  In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or representative acting on your behalf.  You are also required to produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third party.

2.  No documents as defined herein called for by this request shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.  If you have knowledge that any subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then document was destroyed, discarded or lost.

3.  This subpoena is continuing in nature.  Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by the return date.

4.  If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.

5.  Production with respect to each document shall include all electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee where possible in its native file format and shall include all original metadata for each electronic documents or data file.  Productions shall be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.

6.  Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and shall also be furnished as responsive.

7.  Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or other identifying markers with which they were associated when this subpoena was served.  Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena such documents are responsive.

8.  All documents shall be bates?stamped sequentially and produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the schedule it is responsive.

Definitions

1.  The term ?document? as used in this subpoena includes all emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files, records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2.  The terms ?related? and ?relating? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.

3.  The terms ?including? and ?includes,? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
 
4.  The terms ?Department of Justice? and ?Department? includes without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
5.  The term ?White House? includes, without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.

TEXT OF LETTER TO GONZALES:

 

July 26, 2007
 
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
 
Attorney General
 
Department of Justice
 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 
Washington, D.C. 20530

 

 
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
 
I have enclosed a copy of the unedited hearing transcript from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which you appeared and testified on July 24, 2007. This is for you to review and should not be copied or distributed.
 
Please mark any changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.  Then return it to my office, to the attention of Jennifer Price, Hearing Clerk, Senate Judiciary Committee, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510.  In order to complete the hearing record, please return this transcript with your changes as soon as possible, and in no event later than Friday, August 3, 2007.
 
I expect in the next few days to also forward follow up written questions from Members of the Committee.
 
[CONTACT INFORMATION]
 
 
Sincerely,
 
PATRICK LEAHY
 
Chairman
 

To Whom it May Concern,

Hi. My name is John and I'm writing to ask your help. You see, I'm really, really confused and concerned.

I want to support my Party's leadership in the Legislature. I really do. I'm committed to doing what I can to make them as effective as possible, even when that means…shall we say… a little “tough love.” Now that gay marriage is on the table, I'll happily work as hard as I can to see it passed.

But the truth is, I feel like I'm caught in a washing machine spin cycle that just went into overdrive this week. Over the last few months, we were admonished by our legislative leaders that many of the issues we were concerned about were too divisive which frustrated many of us to no end. All of a sudden, that's no longer operative, as without warning the most delicate issue of all is now “the issue.” We were told that discussing impeachment would take too much time, and suddenly it barely took a day. After beating up on the governor's education finance plan during the session, we get the news that the Senate President Pro Tem gave it a new lease on life on an impulse. After sucessfully garnering grassroots support for a bold stand against the governor, there was suddenly word (without warning or consultation) that the most controversial aspect was off the table. And now, the Democratic Senate leader is suggesting we should vote for a Republican for governor.

So you can see why I … why we…need your help. We need someone to step up and be the public face of the Party before we're all made to look like utter fools. I'm convinced more than ever that it should be someone from off the bench – from outside. And no, I don't think it should be Matt Dunne, who needs to run for Lt. Governor again first. And I think Freyne is dead wrong when he says it's about a Dem having “testicles” as he said (ahem – let's say “nerve” rather than ascribe the concept of courage strictly to men, eh?). I don't think it's about a lack of nerve anymore. After yesterday's press conference, it's clear that isn't lacking. What we need is nerve coupled with judgement, and framed within a clear progressive ethic.

It's about grounding. We want a progressive message, but we want a consistent one. One we can hang our hat on. We don't want to get out there and argue passionately for policies on the table, only to find the next day that the table has been completely pulled out. We want to see our leaders working with our other electeds, who must be more confused than we are. We need something steady. Dependable.

So whoever you are, I hope you'll answer soon. This crazy merry-go-round is gonna make me hurl before too much longer.

Sincerely,

odum

I think I reacted like most people who read the news about today's press conference announcement from Speaker Symington and Senator Shumlin that they're diving full steam ahead into the issue of gay marriage in Vermont. Basically:

Whaaaaaa…….?   

We can discuss the peculiarities of timing, the prospects of success, the sometimes unfathomable thinking of the Democratic leaders (and we will, no doubt), but what's more interesting to me at this moment is how our reactions to this issue and this initiative are going to define us as activists and progressives.

The kneejerk response is to go the route that Freyne did – outright mockery, but I think that would be a mistake.

The criticism of the Legislative leadership is that they've been wimps. Capitulators. That they strategize and compromise in such a way that takes their base for granted. Both Symington and Shumlin have endured much justifiable and appropriate criticism on their rejection out of hand of this very issue last session.

So now, here thay are. Taking a divisive, high-profile, risky – but morally correct position. Maybe it's bad strategy. Maybe it's a crass attempt to shore up the base. Maybe they've just gone a little crazy.

But at the end of the day, who gives a shit? It's the right thing to do and they're doing it. End of story.

Freyne has become so mired in the personal, he can't see that. During the civil unions debate, he was a regular advocate for equal rights for gays and lesbians in the state, and yet he has nothing to offer but mockery. He has crafted a print narrative that places Symington and Shumlin in the role of comic relief. Of buffoonish clowns. There are certainly many who would agree, as GMD's own JDRyan has repeatedly called for Symington to step down on this very site, and his opinion is shared by many. Lord knows I've been critical of them as well.

The difference is that Freyne seems no longer capable of seeing past it.

And folks, we have to. I think there's a real argument to be made that what we're seeing is the Legislative Leadership becoming more responsive to the base. Sure they picked a strategically odd time/place/way to do it, but to go so far out of one's way (as Freyne does) to ignore the actual content of their presser – that the leaders of the Vermont Legislature are moving to craft a bipartisan push for Gay Marriage – is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. Freyne would even rather talk about how shocking – shocking – it is that Bob Kiss wasn't invited to the press conference than actually engage with the issue that is now front and center (and check the news and the papers tomorrow if you doubt that it will now be front and center). He is that jaded.

Are we?

Again, there's no question that the strange strategy of making this announcement now merits a discussion – and you can bet I'll be neck deep in it myself. There is a lot of justifiable eye-rolling to be done.

But at the end of the day, if we're not going to first and foremost step up to back these folks up on doing the right thing even though it's politically dangerous, than we're just hypocrites. 

If you haven't seen the emails and postings, Sierra Club is targeting Fox “News” for their campaign of crude, scorched-earth style global warming denial (heh… pardon the expression… honestly, it didn't even occur to me until I read the diary preview..heh heh). To do so, they've identified a major Fox advertiser – Home Depot – for action. Here is the associated YouTube video: 

You can add your name to the petition here. What makes this story particularly timely for Vermonters? This (from the Times Argus):

It's not just a rumor any more. Home Depot has set it sights on central Vermont.

The company that bills itself as “the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer” is targeting a partially abandoned strip mall on the Barre-Montpelier.

It's possible they may be more receptive than usual to Vermonters, under the circumstances.

I think it's fair to say that everyone who front pages here has a slightly different reason for doing it, and a slightly different set of objectives. Regular visitors know that I'm a Dem partisan. As for my reasons and objectives, I recognize that we're in a hard-wired political system that will ultimately accomodate only two parties, whatever those two may call themselves. That getting frustrated and adding parties doesn't alter this rather annoying reality, and that – short of truly radical change (which simply adding a party is most assuredly not) – to do as much good as possible therefore means making the “leftist” party – the Democrats – as effective and responsive as possible.

Recently, I've been receiving more criticism from other Dems for having the gall to criticize members of “my own team.” Tonight I received one such email from a state Representative. It was phrased in such a way that I felt the need to respond in as thorough and complete a way as possible, and after consideration, I thought it might be appropriate to share my response here. Given that we're all here for different reasons, I invite others to chime in on the philosophy of political blogging from their own perspectives.

Sorry. I recognize this is perhaps a bit personal in content, so I would remind anyone who is annoyed by it that the “back” button on your browser is just a mouse click away. My email is on the flip (with some selective snipping to hide identities)…

[intro snip]

Green Mountain Daily exists – to my mind (and as the founder, my mind is of a high degree of relevence, but not the only mind) for a number of reasons. A big piece of it is to give those lefties who are angry, frustrated or feel disenfranchised a home in the Democratic Party. A place to be able to say what's on their minds freely and without retribution or kickback. Historically, if they don't get that, they either a) give up on the party and the process, or b) become Progs. The rise of the national blogosphere has changed that dynamic, and as I saw no one picking up the [netroots] ball here, I did it myself. I think the results have been positive.

But if there's going to be a forum like this, it has to have certain qualities that are non-negotiable. The reason why, for example, the “Prog Blog” will never matter more than a little blip on the radar screen is because its an institutional mouthpiece. Propoganda. GMD, and its cousins such as the DailyKos are not. That is precisely why they are relevent and successful.

Bloggers can smell a phony a mile away. I am forever being accused of being some kind of Democratic Party lapdog. The reason why the charges don't stick is because I'm not, and it's obvious. I say what I think honestly. When I wrote that piece I was mad. And I had already had about 10 conversations with people who were equally mad. They were mad at everybody. The governor, Gaye, you, the world at large. Unfocused rage at a time like that is poisonous to the work we all try to do, so I felt the need to acknowledge – and yes, validate – that rage, but in the process try to channel it.

Now if you think I – or anyone – can do that by stepping up and scolding people for daring to feel pissed off at you, you're seriously deluding yourself. You may be hurt by it, and I understand, but I was mad at you. I think I had a right to be. Your letter suggesting I didn't only stirs it back up again.

But what I can do is acknowledge the frustration and do what I did – that is, to say that the one we should focus our anger at is the Governor who put us all in this situation against all reason. If I'd given you a free pass, I'd have been a phony and everybody would've smelled it.

If you want to know “where the wisdom” in this is, take a look at the last national election. This blogger paradigm has turned the political tables on their heads. Bloggers have generated more money to candidates, more votes to candidates and more elections to Democratic candidates than anything we've ever seen. It would take some serious denial to claim this isn't the case. And this “straight talk” is the way we do things. Part of the reason we HAVEN'T gotten Jim Douglas out is we are about 2-3 years behind the rest of the country on this, so we are not mobilized the way the rest of the country is. And I'm sorry, but I think getting there is more important than all holding hands, singing kumbaya and pretending we agree on everything. We don't and everybody knows it. Denying that weakens us. Accepting it strengthens us, because diversity is strength. Democracy is stronger than consensus. The proof is all around.

An institution with no capacity for rollicking self-criticism is a sick institution, and the two left wing parties in the state have their capacities for self criticism completely broken off into the other. If we don't fix it in ourselves first, the Progs might – in which case they'll kick our asses, and probably deservedly so…

[snip] But if you want to make lemonade out of two lines in a blog post that hurt your feelings, rather than castigate me, why not actually ENGAGE with folks on the site? Post a comment. Post a whole diary. If there's one thing that feeds the frustration, it's this sense that the electeds are too good too muddy themselves with the blogs. Sure you guys REACT to them and complain about them. Why don't you DO something? Get in there! Again, that's part of what has so strengthened the national grassroots/netroots movement. Go to DailyKos on any given day and you're likely to see anywhere from 1-3 user diaries on the sidebar written by the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russ Feingold. Earl Blumenauer and so on, and so on.

[last paragraph snip]

UPDATE 6:11 PM – Geez… i post two rumors and the emails start flyin. Consider both amended below… 

There may be some rethinking of roles and responsibilities in the Vermont House Leadership. Majority Whip Floyd Nease was recently under tremendous pressure from the Lamoille County Democratic Committee to shake things up, and there is some word that some sort of shake up may be beginning. Don't expect a big turnover in titles or an internal power struggle, but there could be some “flavor” changes. Stay tuned. UPDATE: I'm getting pushback on this also… while the Lamoille Dem gripe session is in the mix, the fact is that the shakeup that may (or may not) be in the works is apparently Speaker-Symington-driven and has been discussed for some time. DO NOT ask me what that means… we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.

Conventional wisdom says that VT Dem State Chair Ian Carleton will be stepping down soon. Haven't approached hm specifically about it, but it seems to be an open secret. Anybody interested? UPDATE: I'm getting pushback on this… might be looks like it's just a rumor, but it sure aint a rumor I started. Have heard it from several people. One of those 'telephone' games I suppose.

Speaking of State Chairs, the Vermont Republican online activist presence (such as it is) continues to languish with Rob Roper now serving as the State GOP Chair. His Freedom Works site hasn't been updated in some time (listing Jim Jeffords as a “key vote”) – including the Vermont Education Report formerly generated by Libby Sternberg but passed on to Roper and FW. Looks like she unknowingly sent it there to die. As a side note, the site is also using the official Vermont Seal which -as I understand it – is a no-no.

Maybe we should be sending prisoners to the Philippines instead of states like Kentucky (j/k). Here's an interesting rehabilitation technique:

David Corn in the Washington Post rebutts neo-con hack Bill Kristol's seemingly delusional assertion that history will remember George W. Bush's presidency as a roaring success (and that, my friends, was a hard sentence to type without laughing or crying).

The whole piece is a must read, but one particular sentence just made me think for a moment:

Still, Kristol advises, stick with the “surge,” train more Iraqi troops, and all will be well. The United States has already spent $19 billion training 346,500 or so Iraqi troops and police officers, and now merely six battalions — down from 10, according to Gen. Peter Pace — can function independently. That is, only 3,000 Iraqi troops are operating on their own after all this time and money.

Now if you do the math it means that the going rate for each successful Iraqi military or police officer to “stand up so we can stand down” is a breathtaking 6.3 million dollars (in the Bush ledger, that’s one post-Katrina superdome repair).

Hey, it's only money.

The following is an op-ed I wrote that appears in today's Times-Argus, for which I am suitably braced for much grief. In fact, I promise to keep my mouth shut in the comments…

The Vermont Impeachment Movement has taken many forms over the last year-and-a-half. At its best, it represented a political cross-section of Vermonters, united in little more than their view that President Bush had broken the law and should be removed from office. At its worst, it’s been an echo chamber inhabited by a handful of activists with axes to grind against virtually everyone else inhabiting the political system.

The announcement that “the Impeachment Movement” has decreed that Rep. Peter Welch is contemptuous of the Constitution because he doesn’t agree with them and must be punished in November by facing an “impeachment” candidate (who, of course, would only take office after Bush was gone) suggests that the echo chamber is all that remains.

I, for one, am saddened. I was among the earliest organizers of the impeachment movement that swept Democratic Committees last year, demanding action from the Vermont Legislature. When our efforts merged with activist Dan DeWalt’s town meeting movement, I was thrilled.

But gradually, we Democrats who had started the legislative push found ourselves marginalized. When our own party’s leadership spurned us, they created a leadership vacuum that was filled by activists with a different agenda ? one quickly made known to us in no uncertain terms. As Welch dealt with all of us honorably ? bringing our shared concerns to the House floor even though he disagreed ? it seemed clear that the fix was already in. Behind the scenes and before the cameras, Welch became the whipping boy for an increasingly shrill, politically exclusive crowd whose real target was anybody they considered to be in the political mainstream and who dared to disagree.

As such, everybody saw this announcement coming a mile away.

I am saddened because this development will retroactively color the work we did before the movement so rapidly descended into the echo chamber. The echo chamber closes itself off to all voices but those of a chosen few, who then tell themselves they are all there is. It bypasses the hard work of organizing ? winning over those that don’t agree with you ? by creating the conceit that everyone already agrees. The echo chamber voices excite themselves into a fever pitch until it’s impossible to notice the wall ahead. Instead of a grand revolution carrying the anointed candidate into office, the real future holds crushing electoral defeat and political irrelevance.

I still believe firmly that anyone who is inclined to run for political office, should ? but that doesn’t mean that I’m not saddened at the obvious, inevitable result of this particular run, and the unfair attack on Welch underlying it.

I think Peter Welch’s rationale for not pursuing impeachment against a president whose illegal actions continue to have real impacts on people’s lives is thin and poorly considered. His suggestion that such proceedings would delay our exit from Iraq and should therefore not be initiated send the counter-logical message that a future president can violate the law and avoid the consequences by simply starting an illegal war of his or her own.

But I’m still voting for him for two reasons. One, our sincere disagreement on one issue does not invalidate our agreement on most others, or otherwise change the fact that he’s been doing a good job. Two, I have no doubt that he remains a more effective force in Washington for my values than a candidate from the echo chamber would be.

And, honestly, that’s all it’s really about, isn’t it?

Montpelier's re-appraisal process has been extraordinary, to say the least. According to state law, a town-wide appraisal (for purposes of setting property taxes) is mandated when it is estimated that the grand list is less than 80% of the actual value of the town's property. Montpelier continues on a bit of a real estate “boom” track, and hasn't been hit by the housing sales recession in play in much of the rest of the state and nation, so prices are still up, up, up.

But the result has been a shock to many, with average appraisals going up by nearly 40%. My own house went up by about 80%. Many others have seen increases of more than 100%. All this while commercial properties have seen their appraisals stay level or even drop significantly. National Life has had its property evaluation drop by a staggering $11 million, leaving the residents to pick up the slack in the budget. Presumably this means that the average non-commercial increase was far higher than 40%.

In the theoretical, this has spurred renewed discussion of the inherent problems with the property tax (at least on primary, non-mansionesque homes) as a funding source, both in terms of fairness and practicality. But there are likely to be more immediate, more concrete repercussions for the town, as well as next years elections, when you consider the sheer totality of the mess created by the process and its mishandling:

• There was no information sent out with the new assessments on taxation; that is, people were left wondering how a doubling of their assessments would affect their tax bills. Would they too, double? (they wont, but if your assessment when up by more than that magic 40%, they will go up)
• In the narrow, two week window of opportunity to appeal one's assessment, city staffers were reported to have been rebuffing questions, reportedly comparing such requests to a judge advising a criminal how to beat the rap. This left confused residents with questions, no recourse but to file an appeal to have an audience – except for the fact that residents were specifically told the appeal process was not for q&a, and had to meet the textbook definition of a proper appeal. A classic catch-22.
• The assessor did not take into account land condition on the assessment because she did not feel qualified to. This despite the fact that it has been considered in the past. Residents with a high assessment and a cliff in their back yard are at a disadvantage if they don't read the fine print.
• The assessor opted to use new software, which required data to be hand entered. Reportedly, the new system is replete with mistakes.
• The assessor changed the way by which business properties were taxed, basing it largely on their potential rental income. Former city councilor Chris Smart received clamorous criticism a few years back at his suggestion that residential and commercial property should be considered differently, yet this appraisal represents a unilateral, bureaucratic change in appraisal methodology that massively benifits commercial properties (again, at the tune of $11 million for National Life) at the financial expense of homeowners.
• It's hard to find anyone who hasn't filed an appeal in Montpelier – including members of the Board of Civil Authority, which sits as the final appeal arbiters (appealing members will be recused), suggesting a paperwork and procedural backlog unprecedented in the city.

It's a mess which could have implications beyond Montpelier's borders, by echoing into next year's legislative election.

Mayor Mary Hooper is widely understood to be intending to challenge gubernatorial appointee Jon Anderson for his seat in the State Legislature. Before this reappraisal, she was a virtual shoo-in for the seat, having trounced the largely unpopular Anderson in the mayor's race.

But the fact is, although voters' memories are notoriously short-term, if there is one thing that they will hold active grudges about, its a bureaucratic clusterfuck that bumps up their taxes into the stratosphere – especially when that increase fills a hole left by commercial and corporate tax relief.

Fair or no, this issue will be more than just an albatross around Hooper's neck, it'll be a pterodactyl.

And Anderson is already making moves to keep the seat he has so badly wanted. Anderson, whose right-wing ideology is underscored by his strong support from not simply the Governor, but from conservative statehouse interests such as developer lobbyist (and GMD concern troll “Pizzaman“) Tayt Brooks, has been trying very hard to reinvent himself as a Montpelier leftist, broadly trumpeting his votes on impeachment and global warming legislation (and hoping folks will forget his support of a gubernatorial veto and alliance with the GOP and Vermont Right-to-life on campaign finance). He already has a campaign website up,  (with a Dean-esque title, of course) prominently featuring the name of Treasurer (and Hooper predecessor as Mayor), Chuck Karparis.

By moving to the left, Anderson is also hoping city Democrats will forget how he undermined their caucus and used his personal pull with the Governor to get the legislative appointment. And he should not be underestimated, given that he has shown no qualms about using some behind the scenes political intimidation to quiet critics.

But Montpelier Democrats may be in trouble if they count on Hooper to deliver them if things don't change. Of the other two potential appointees originally nominated by the caucus, one is likely not to be up for a bruising, “from scratch” primary slugfest. The other – activist Matt Levin – certainly has the skills and the energy to defeat Anderson, but it's unclear whether he remains interested.

In any event, if Montpelier Dems leave Anderson unchallenged, the Progressive Party will undoubtedly see their best chance ever to take the Montpelier seat they have coveted. Montpelier's Progressives have generally not fared well electorally, but a run against a conservative D who has dissed the activist wing of his own Party and is associated with corporate interests (not to mention the Governor) is not an opportunity they will let pass.

Hooper could still make it work, though. The asessment process is so flawed and – by accident rather than design – so stacked against homeowners, it seems that the only just solution is to scrap it completely and start again from scratch with a more actively inclusive process with a fully, loudly vetted discussion on any changes in appraisal methodologies (especially if they are to the detriment of individual homeowners).

Short of that, Montpelier Dems would do well to start candidate shopping.

The RNC has actively joined in with the unreasonable, unprecedented, and unconscionable assertion of “executive privilege” that seems to apply, not just to anyone President Bush may have ever been in a room with, but any email that an executive branch employee may have sent through the RNC servers in an (obvious) attempt to circumvent the law. From Salon:

 As part of the ongoing investigation into the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys, the committee has been since April seeking e-mails, sent by White House officials using RNC e-mail accounts, which might relate to the investigation. The committee's subpoena calls for the RNC to turn over “complete and unredacted versions of any and all documents consisting of any e-mail communication or related meta-data stored on Republican National Committee servers… that the Republican National Committee is withholding.”

There's no official word from the RNC on whether or not it will comply with the subpoena and deliver the rest of the material covered under it — indeed, the majority of the material covered — by Tuesday. But their statements thus far seem to indicate that they will not.

Although boards are generally indemnified from the illegal actions of staff, that doesn't get them off the hook morally. Given that we have two elected members of the RNC in Vermont – George Schiavone and Sara Gear Boyd – one wonders if it isn't time for some member of the fourth estate to ask them whether they support the illegal rejection of a subpoena in their name. I'd certainly like to know.