January 20th, 2008


In an Exclusive BRAD BLOG Op-Ed, the Legendary 'Pentagon Papers' Whistleblower Calls on the Media to Perform Their First Amendment Obligations, on Congressional Leaders to Perform Their Oversight Duty, and for Insider Sources to Come Forward to the American Public...

-- Guest BRAD BLOG Op-Ed by Daniel Ellsberg

For the second time in two weeks, the entire U.S. press has let itself be scooped by Rupert Murdoch's London Sunday Times on a dynamite story of criminal activities by corrupt U.S. officials promoting nuclear proliferation. But there is a worse journalistic sin than being scooped, and that is participating in a cover-up of information that demands urgent attention from the public, the U.S. Congress and the courts.

For the last two weeks --- one could say, for years --- the major American media have been guilty of ignoring entirely the allegations of the courageous and highly credible source Sibel Edmonds, quoted in the London Times on January 6, 2008 in a front-page story that was front-page news in much of the rest of the world but was not reported in a single American newspaper or network. It is up to readers to demand that this culpable silent treatment end.

Just as important, there must be pressure by the public on Congressional committee chairpersons, in particular Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Patrick Leahy. Both have been sitting for years on classified, sworn testimony by Edmonds --- as she revealed in the Times' new story on Sunday --- along with documentation, in their possession, confirming parts of her account. Pressure must be brought for them to hold public hearings to investigate her accusations of widespread criminal activities, over several administrations, that endanger national security. They should call for open testimony under oath by Edmonds --- as she has urged for five years --- and by other FBI officials she has named to them, as cited anonymously in the first Times' story.

And this is the time for those who have so far creditably leaked to the Times of London to come forward, accepting personal risks, to offer their testimony --- and new documents --- both to the Congress and to the American press. I would say to them: Don't do what I did and waste months of precious time trying to get Congressional committees to act as they should in the absence of journalistic pressure. Do your best to inform the American public directly, first, through the major American media.

But perhaps today the alternative media and the international press are a necessary precursor even to that. It shouldn't be true, but if it is, it's a measure of how far the New York Times and Washington Post have fallen from their responsibilities to the public, to their profession and to American democracy, since I gave them the Pentagon Papers in 1971. They printed them then. Would they today?

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Daniel Ellsberg on 1/20/2008 10:52PM PT  

July 1st, 2007


Blogged by Brad from Nashville...It's not easy keeping up from the road. But we're doing our best....

Leahy on Meet the Press today (via TPM, who has more, video available at C&L)...

RUSSERT: Are you prepared to hold the Bush White House, the vice president, the attorney general and his office under contempt of Congress?

LEAHY: That is something that the whole Congress has to vote on. In our case, in the Senate, we'd have to vote on it; in the House, they would have to vote on it. I can't...

RUSSERT: Would you go that far?

LEAHY: If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far. I mean, this is very important to the American people.

Leahy's comments synch up with what Conyer's telegraphed a week during a House Judiciary hearing when he asked outgoing Dep. AG Paul McNulty if the DoJ would work with Congress should the White House ignore their subpoenas and it became necessary to issue criminal contempt charges. (For the record, McNulty punted in response, stating he's recused himself from the issue, will likely be gone by then, since he's already resigned, and otherwise, couldn't speak for the DoJ on the matter.)

Washington Post noticed Leahy's comments as well, and offers this road map to what comes next in their Monday edition...

The next step is for the congressional committee chairman to rule on the validity of the privilege claims. If the claims are deemed invalid, the committee can repeat the directive to comply. If the president continues to refuse, the committee can find the president in criminal contempt, and the issue would go to the full Senate or House. If a majority in either chamber approves the criminal citation, the matter is referred to a U.S. attorney with a recommendation to issue an indictment.

"Referred to a U.S. attorney." See what a frickin' mess we're looking at here? The USA in question would be Jeffrey A. Taylor of the District of Columbia. Unless he gets fired any time soon. Don't know much about Taylor, with no time to dig for now. So feel free to fill us in with any thoughts on him in comments.

As the Summer of Accountability continues...

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Brad Friedman on 7/1/2007 9:32PM PT  

June 19th, 2007


Former Rove Aide Susan Ralston Testified to Heavy Use of Email Accounts Provided by Republican National Committee
So Where Are The RNC-DOJ-WH-OVP Emails About Chandra Levy? Anthrax Letters? Clint Curtis?

Guest Blogged by The BRAD BLOG's D.C. Correspondent Margie Burns

Those separate email accounts – email accounts held by people working in the White House and the Office of the Vice President, often with security clearances, but not “.gov” accounts – now threaten to become bigger news. Those alternate accounts, as we know now from work done by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the new report from the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, both potentially and actually allowed WH and DOJ and OVP personnel to communicate ‘off the books’ up to a point. While theoretically still bound by the rules for preserving presidential records (see below) the 88 government officials with email accounts provided by the Republican National Committee could move with electronic fluidity from their official to their partisan political duties, and back again, with remarkably little scrutiny for the entire four years of Bush’s first term.

So any correspondence about --- for example --- Chandra Levy and Gary Condit, 9/11 and Iraq, anthrax mailings and Judith Miller, will remain lost from public view until the advanced technology of un-deleting can sweep it up from the bottom of whatever files it has been submerged in to date.

Tabling for now such topics as political motivation in the firing and hiring of US Attorneys, the immediate question is, exactly how EARLY did administration personnel start using these alternate email accounts?...

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Margie Burns on 6/19/2007 10:56AM PT  

April 19th, 2007


A Special Report from the Hearing Room by BRAD BLOG's D.C. Correspondent Margie Burns
Gonzales Calls US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald 'Outstanding'...

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by D.C. Correspondent Margie Burns

Today I sat in on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “Department of Justice Oversight,” part of which Brad posted about, earlier. The solo witness was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, covering some by-now familiar ground in the matter of those questionable firings of US Attorneys in seven of 93 districts. In spite of some repetitive questioning, primarily by Charles Schumer (D-NY), the day was actually enlightening.

First, the hearing further indicated the direct White House connection suggested earlier by Brad. Gonzales is still in a position where he cannot speak freely about Bush, even if he wanted to do so. But even Gonzales’ measured and cautious answers to questions were revealing. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of Judiciary, led off by asking whether Gonzales had had any conversations about the US Attorneys with White House senior advisor Karl Rove. Answer: yes, in fall 2006 Gonzales had a conversation with Rove about USAs, regarding “voter fraud” in three districts – New Mexico, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia....

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Margie Burns on 4/19/2007 5:00PM PT  

March 29th, 2007


DoJ Rated Prosecutor 'Very Strong' --- NOT 'Undistinguished' --- But WaPo Ran With Claims from 'Unnamed Adminstration Officials' Anyway
Who Fed the Poison Pill? And Why Did it Run Unchecked?

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by D.C. Correspondent Margie Burns

Has the Washington Post been fooled (again) by high-level ‘leakers’? It sure looks that way.

On Tuesday, March 20, the Post ran a front-page article on the DOJ-U.S. Attorneys scandal that led off:

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had ‘not distinguished themselves’ on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation...

The item was sourced to unnamed “administration officials” who gave it to two WaPo reporters “yesterday.”

This juicy lede graf was followed up:

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. attorneys..." but above "weak U.S. attorneys who...chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The major problem with this story? It’s not true. The Department of Justice never 'ranked' U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald negatively or as 'undistinguished.' According to sworn testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Fitzgerald was rated 'very strong' internally in the DOJ.

So who fed the Post that story? And why did they run it without pinning it down first?...

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Margie Burns on 3/29/2007 5:04PM PT  

March 20th, 2007


The Vermont Senator Says We Are Otherwise On Track to Send a Full Trillion with No Oversight Adequate to Control Waste, Fraud and Abuse...

Guest Blogged by BRAD BLOG's D.C. correspondent Margie Burns

"We don't have a law that would make war profiteering specifically a federal crime," Sen. Leahy (D-VT) said in this morning's efficient hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, so he is introducing one.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is busy these days --- what with the scandal over White House manipulations of the prosecutorial function of the Department of Justice, the continuing scandals of war profiteering in the "war on terror," and other oversight matters, the Committee is in jeopardy of being overstretched. In fact, it already is overstretched.

The room was full for this morning's hearing, which I attended, on "Combating War Profiteering," but, as with last week's House Oversight Comittee hearings with Valerie Plame et al, this one was also scantly attended by GOP'ers. Of Republicans, only the co-chair of the committee Arlen Specter (R-PA) and --- to do him justice --- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) graced the hearing with their presence. The co-chair could do no less, and indeed did little, though I noticed that both he and Leahy alluded to their past jobs as prosecutors, from which it can safely be inferred that they too think the current manipulations of US Attorneys --- prosecutors --- by the DOJ look very bad...

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

Digg this story! ReddIt this story! Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!
Blogged by Margie Burns on 3/20/2007 1:07PM PT  

BRAD BLOG Featured Stories


From the selection of Sarah Palin as Veep, to the desperate Hail Mary that was the Republican National Convention, it's clear the GOP won't be going down without a fight. But whether it's one they can win is another question...


Brad's Upcoming Appearances
(All times listed as PACIFIC TIME)
Media Appearance Archives...
VotersUnite.org's Daily Voting News 'Daily Voting News' For September 04, 2008
by John Gideon

Readers will recall that as of yesterday Palm Beach Co Florida officials had lost well over 3,000 ballots sometime between the primary election and an election recount. Earlier today there were announcements that over 2700 ballots had been found. Late this afternoon the officials were supposed to meet to announce whether they had found all of the missing ballots and why those ballots went missing in the first place.

Were the ballots run through the high-speed optical scan machines during the recount and did the machines pick-up two or more ballots at a time thus not counting all of the ballots? Or, were the ballots in bins that were never counted?

The media is not clear on this issue yet so we are going to have to wait to find this out. If the machines were, in fact, grabbing two or more ballots at a time jurisdictions around the country need to be made aware of this possibility.

Meanwhile a report from Broward Co of the result of their state-mandated audit is a bit troubling. The county appears to have hand-counted one race on ballots from 16 precincts. The media is reporting that nine of the precincts hand-count matches the machine results. Seven precincts resembled original results by 95 percent or more. That is a huge number and should raise red flags.

Instead one official said, “When you're dealing with people and paper, that's the best you're going to get.” How about agreeing 100% and you keep counting until you are sure that the people and paper are not the problem and then you find out what problem the machines had?...

Click for links to all of today's notable voting news headlines...

BRAD BLOG'S 2008 ELECTION INTEGRITY FUND DRIVE!
SUPPORT DEMOCRACY!
GET COOL STUFF!

Click here for details!
Only you keep us going!
COLLECTORS EDITION PREMIUMS for just $5!
Support The BRAD BLOG
Please visit our advertisers




Spend your advertising dollars wisely! And support the good guys at the same time! or Advertise with the good guys! We're it!













OTHER SITES
Groomsmen Gifts - Pub signs can be personalized for a unique gift for your wedding party.

Support The BRAD BLOG
Please visit our advertisers
Brad Friedman's
The BRAD BLOG



Go to front page...

Recent Entries

Archives
Important Docs
Categories

A Few Great Blogs
Political Cartoonists
Special Coverage Pages...
NM GOP/Rep. Heather Wilson 'Vote-Buying' Scandal

L.A. County "Double Bubble" Debacle

2008 New Hampshire Primary Mess

Riverside CA, Sequoia Hack Challenge

Tom Feeney/Clint Curtis Voting Riggging Scandal
Summary...
Key Articles/Docs...
Ann Coulter's Voter Fraud Felony

Thor Hearne's 'American Center for Voting Rights'
GOP 'Voter Fraud' Scam

Rush Holt's Election Reform Bill (HR811)

'04 White House Website Scrubbing

(Needs updating)
DOWN FOR THE COUNT:
Diebold, DIEB-THROAT
& Deep Trouble for America's
Voting Machine Company...

· Make The BRAD BLOG your Homepage!
· Add The BRAD BLOG to favorites/bookmarks!
· Or syndicate The BRAD BLOG...
BRAD BLOG RSS 2.0 FEED
Add to My Yahoo! Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add to My AOL
Add to Google

· Select a BRAD BLOG color scheme...

Dark on Light Classic BRAD BLOG
Please Help Support The BRAD BLOG...
One-time
any amount you like...
$
Monthly
any amount you like...
$
Or by Snail Mail
Make check out to...
Brad Friedman
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028

The BRAD BLOG receives no foundational or corporate support. Your contributions make it possible to continue our work.
About Brad Friedman...
· Bio & Testimonials
· Media Appearance Archive
· Articles & Editorials Elsewhere
· Contact

Additional Stuff...
Brad Blog Named...



Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics

The BRAD BLOG - Year in Review 2006
Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

Other Brad Related Places...
The BRAD SHOW On the Air! Via RAW RADIO!

Contact the Media

Click for www.electoral-vote.com

Admin
Brad's Test Area
(Ignore below! It's a test!)

All Content & Design Copyright © Brad Friedman unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved.
www.BradBlog.com