Is that acceptable to most of you?

Ron Rogers, Chief of Staff to GOP Representative John Doolittle, and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Blankenburg, announced in writing today (pursuant to House rules) that they have been served with a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia.

One of today's random blogs is michaelmoore.com where he links to an article that tells us:

"The National Coalition of American Nuns is impelled by conscience to call you to act promptly to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for ... high crimes and misdemeanors."

The impeachment debate must continue until there is a concensus on a viable plan of how to repair our civil liberties and other offenses to the Constitution, and how to resist the dangerious precedent of allowing this, or any future, executive branch administration to, at will, reign supreme.

The best argument I've heard in defense of Nancy Pelosi's impeachment stance is this:  Nancy Pelosi would be the Presidential successor in the advent of the successful impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney.  Inherently, to avoid any accusations of having ambitions in that vein, she must avoid any pro-impeachment position.  This is only true should she accept the position, and she doesn't have to.

John Conyers released an announcement on the House Judiciary Committee's website yesterday that a hearing will begin on Wednesday, September 5th (my birthday) over Warrantless Surveillance program(s) and FISA.  He's even given the hearing a title: "Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights."

This is an interesting title considering Congress decided, just before skipping off on vacation, that "checks and balances" need not apply to King George Bush when they gave him his FISA legislation on a silver platter; a decision that has proven to be hugely unpopular with most of the American people.

Not only have the campaigns been dominating the airwaves, newspapers and webpages, they have also been asking me for cold hard cash.  

Because I'm not able to acquiesce to the notion that elections are the best method to fix the transgressions against the Constitution, rebuke the unitary executive and, at the same time, part with my hard earned money (of which I have a limited amount) to blindly support a candidate, then I want to make sure that the candidates who are begging for my financial support will support and defend the Constitution by any means possible, which they will, if elected, take an oath to do.

Kos had asked us to support Darcy Burner and to donate to a fund-raiser for her campaign.

Reluctant to financially support one more status-quo candidate simply based on say-so, I decided to learn as much about her as I possibly could.  Because of the sense of urgency for her fundraiser, I limited this to visiting her website to learn more about her.

There's more below the fold....

Dear Darcy Burner,

On the section of your website titled "About Darcy,"  Your first two sentences resonated with me like the freedom bell just went off.  Congratulations for being the one of the very few who are addressing the importance of maintaining the meaning of the Congressional Oath of Office.

UPDATE: Conyers did not write the press release

This is short and sweet and just wanted everyone to know.

Just released today on the House Judiciary website is this 13 day old press statement:

This amendment to our Constitution is being endangered:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From: The Bill of Rights Institute

This Amendment came from the direct experience of the colonists and is at the core of our Declaration of Independence.  They remembered well the impunity at which King George raided their homes at will, and using materials found to accuse them of defying a "regal law."  The decider's law.  There is an interesting read on the history of our 4th Amendment here.

More below the fold...

Updated: Grammar Update

Interesting article in this month's Time Magazine about how much Bush needs Gonzales to survive as President of the United States.

Not that we didn't already know that Gonzales holds the key to exposing many nefarious activities.

Massimo Calabresi writes:

In backing Gonzales, Bush is influenced by advisers whose future depends on the survival of their political bodyguard.  Gonzales remains the last line of defense protecting Bush, Rove and other top White House officials from the personal consequences of litigation.

I also found out today, maybe many of you knew, that Bruce Fein (of Moyers impeachment show fame) is a legal counsel for the Ron Paul campaign.

Ron Paul's campaign contact page

More on Fein, Cohen, and Impeachment below the fold:

In a press release today, Dianne Feinstein has released a letter by Mike McConnell the Director of National Intelligence "promising" that there will be no abuses of civil rights.

Today, Feinstein issued this statement:

"Yesterday I spoke with Admiral McConnell regarding the minimization procedures, congressional reporting requirements and mandatory judicial review contained in this temporary legislation to protect the privacy of all Americans.

I asked Admiral McConnell to put these assurances in writing, which he has done in the following attached letter.

I am currently working on drafting permanent legislation to ensure the effectiveness of our foreign intelligence surveillance program and to ensure that it protects the rights and liberties of all Americans."

Her last statement sounds as if she is unclear whether her vote to amend FISA is Constitutional.

McConnell's letter is below the fold:

I've been waiting anxiously for word from the House Judiciary Committee about whether the Republican National Committee has complied, pusuant to subpoena, with supplying e-mails and other documents from key White House officials regarding the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys.

*UPDATE: Conyers Response at end of diary...

July 25, 2007
ABC News Justin Rood reports:

The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.

According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

...

To handle the increase in so-called human sources, the FBI also plans to overhaul its database system, so it can manage records and verify the accuracy of information from "more than 15,000" informants, according to the document. While many of the recruited informants will apparently be U.S. residents, some informants may be overseas, recruited by FBI agents in foreign offices, the report indicates.

Be careful who you talk to....

Article

In a letter from John Conyers to Robert Kelner[pdf], the RNC was allowed an extension to supply the requested e-mails relating to the attorney firings and a roster of all documents withheld and a reason.  This extension expires at 5pm today, July 31, 2007.

If anyone has any information about RNC compliance of this subpoena, please do share.  So far I only hear crickets....

Update: Grammar Correction
Update: 5pm Deadline

If this is "old news" to you all, sorry in advance!

After having a good chuckle over Conyers (JC) seemingly to call George Bush crazy, I rewound this mp3 (sorry for the annoying quality) and listened carefully to it again:

**UPDATED:

In an editorial in Friday's Seattle Post Intelligencer, John Nichols writes:

To be sure, there are Bush haters among their number, fierce partisans who -- in an echo of the Republicans who a decade ago went after Bill Clinton -- have adopted a "by any means necessary" approach to the goal of cutting short the Bush/Cheney tenure.

I can’t quite put my finger on the reason for the historically early Presidential Campaign fever. Some might argue that it was born out of "Bush Fatigue," or from the growing anti-war sentiment. I'm not sure either, but one thing is clear; the candidates want your undivided attention, and they want to keep it.

1933

Nazis and their followers began burning the books of Jewish authors and decidedly anti-German literary works beginning in or near the year 1933, nearly six years before Hitler’s invasion of Poland.