UPDATE: the new mothership is here

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties hearing on detainee treatment will feature David Addington and John Yoo (under subpoena to appear) at 10:00 am (EDT).

It'll be on c-span3 and also on the committee website (the webcast link won't be active until shortly before the hearing starts).

And if you're a glutton for punishment, Stephen Hadley is supposed to be on c-span3 in a few minutes with a briefing on North Korea.

House Judiciary sub-committees are meeting today on a variety of interesting topics. The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties wants to talk to Kenneth Blackwell (former OH SoS) about voter suppression, and the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law wants to talk to John Ashcroft about independent corporate monitors, but both have declined 'invitations' to testify voluntarily.

Guess he couldn't stand not being in the middle of a national spectacle.

CNN ran a LONG press conference; Klayman seems to be saying that the "right to life" in the constitution is so inviolable that no-one, including Terri if she were capable, can voluntarily waive that right???

Klayman is jumping on the "pressure JEB and W" bandwagon, claiming they have the authority to enforce this interpretation of "right to life" and saying that he has a "special relationship" with both Bushes and will use it "for the benefit of Terri Schiavo and all of the citizens of Florida".

Yikes.

First, the challenge: as Categorically Imperative put it,

the idea is to post a diary laying out the most comprehensive case possible for there having been fraud in Ohio.  If the case made is at least as convincing as the case that Bush was AWOL from TANG, then Armando will do a front-page post on Ohio fraud.

Second, I hoped that my previous diaries on this topic would generate lots of fact-filled comments, and serve as a collection-point for the evidence that people think is most persuasive and/or most provable. Didn't happen, oh well.

So I've written up some of the facts I believe are supported by evidence AND persuasive of fraud. It's long, but I hope it's worthwhile. Read on!

First, the challenge: as Categorically Imperative put it,

the idea is to post a diary laying out the most comprehensive case possible for there having been fraud in Ohio.  If the case made is at least as convincing as the case that Bush was AWOL from TANG, then Armando will do a front-page post on Ohio fraud.

Since it was to me that Armando issued his challenge/made his promise last night, I'll set up this diary as a collection point for any and all data relevant to "make our case" to hizzoner ;>

I have a list of evidence I think is important, valid, and susceptible of proof: the minister/observer who documented more than 500 absentee ballots without matching absentee signatures (before the roll books were taken away from him); the violations of OH statutes WRT prohibiting examination of public records, barring observers, etc; the clear violations of recount procedure in numerous counties; and the still-outstanding and unaccounted-for discrepancies between some county-level and state-level "Official" results (after certification), among others.

Another day, another email to Dan Froomkin (WaPo).

I won't claim credit, but in his column today, he mentioned the main points of the email I sent him yesterday (including the same WashTimes cite!):

Interestingly, however, Thernstrom was until very recently a Republican. (And according to the Washington Times, nominally independent commissioner Russell Redenbaugh was a Republican at one point, too.)

The commission's rules state that not more than four members shall at any one time be of the same political party.

So how, um, convenient that the two commissioners had such propitious changes in their political affiliation.

Today's email after the break....

Dan Froomkin at WaPo has been reporting on Bush's appointments to the USCCR, and yesterday's resignations of MFB and Cruz Reynoso. I emailed the following to him today:

================

Hi Dan, thanks for your great column! I'd appreciate it if you'd address a related issue about the USCCR.

(more below)

The THOMAS website has put up the content and conference summaries of the omnibus appropriations bill, here . Okay, I have no life -- last night I read one section of the damn thing, and made note of some interesting, funny, awful, or otherwise notable provisions set to become law. (Last night, the docs were only available in pdf format, today there are also text versions which are easier to work with and smaller/faster to load.)

I looked at the Division H segment, "TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS".

(VERY long extended text....)

Five months ago, the Viet Nam War claimed another casualty.

I knew "Bud" for about 5 years. During that time, he lived in a half-way-house type shelter for adults who can't function independently. He subsisted on his veterans' disability pension, supplemented by collecting aluminum cans and dumpster-diving. But at least Bud had a roof over his head, somebody to make sure he ate and (usually) took his meds. He didn't live in a cardboard box under the freeway like so many homeless vets.

Two months ago, the Viet Nam War claimed another casualty.

I knew "Bud" for about 5 years. During that time, he lived in a half-way-house type shelter for adults who can't function independently. He subsisted on his veterans' disability pension, supplemented by collecting aluminum cans and dumpster-diving. But at least Bud had a roof over his head, somebody to make sure he ate and (usually) took his meds. He didn't live in a cardboard box under the freeway like so many homeless vets.

I don't suppose too many people are watching "MSNBC Reports" on the Sunday night of Labor Day wk-end -- okay, so I'm a nerd with no life :) But! it was a good show, and y'all should try to catch the repeat.

After all the disgraceful crap of the last 3 weeks, this Silver Star w/V bullshit has right royally pissed me off. So I took the post from "sadly, no!" as a starting point, did a little more net-searching, and came up with the following. Note: I don't have access to any of the fancy-schmancy subscription search tools -- I used Google, Altavista, and Yahoo. I have a dial-up connection, so it took me about an hour.

I just had to send him an email, since he believes it's our responsibility to tell him to do his job. I have to go to work, so I can't wait for the CNN transcript to be posted, but here's my email:

All the cable news shows are announcing that Patrick Fitzgerald "interviewed" Dubya this morning for "more than an hour", in the presence of his outside counsel Jim Sharp.

I would think that (finally) getting around to the top of the pile, with lawyer in tow, means something is about to happen in the case?

Ashcroft flatly refused to give the Senate Judiciary committee the torture memos (3 that are known to exist, are there more?), refused to invoke Executive Privilege (which he can't do anyway, the pRes has to), and couldn't declare any statute or other reason to refuse the release. As was pointed out to him by Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, and Pat Leahy, that leaves him in contempt of Congress.

I haven't been able to find anything in the Rules of the Senate or the rules of the Judiciary committee on a contempt proceeding -- who can initiate it, what happens, what the penalties are.

If it requires a majority vote of the committee, I don't think Hatch can block it, with the 9 Dems and Lindsey Graham (maybe even Grassley, he's really bent about the Edmonds thing). But then what would happen if the committee does vote it out? Does the full Senate have to vote on it? What are the penalties? Is the case then referred to the District Court, or ???

The other question is, will Dubya leave Ashcroft to carry the can or invoke Exec Priv? This misAdmin has gone to great lengths to avoid taking that step so far, and 5 months before an election isn't a good time to start.

about the "if not for __(name your minority)" spin, and particularly the Tom Davis quote:

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), former head of the Republican House campaign committee (NRCC), told The Hill, "If you take out the Indian reservation, we would have won."

I'm currently reading Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud, and just last night got to Ch 12, concerning the 2000 election. (more)

Warner just got a note from a staffer, and said that the DoD had just now informed him that a new disk of pictures has turned up.

Sanchez and Abizaid are trying desperately to confine this to Karpinski, but it sounds like they're ready to dump Pappas if they have to. (Sanchez: No, my order giving Pappas command of Abu Ghraib didn't really give him command of Abu Ghraib. Levin: So Taguba was wrong about that? Sanchez: Yes.)

Total disorder about who gets ICRC reports, but at least Abizaid admits that part.