Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com
  • Rangel Should Go

    Ben Adler | Oct 7, 2009 02:42 PM

    I've long had a soft spot for Rep. Charlie Rangel. As a native New Yorker, I enjoy his slightly fey, gravelly-voiced regional accent. His pompadour is hilarious, and his impish smile, cheerful partisanship, and blunt-spoken political views have long made him an avuncular character to political junkies, sort of an affable Barney Frank.

    But how can you chair the congressional committee responsible for writing the nation's tax laws when you have some serious tax problems of your own? Democrats seem quick to forget, as Holly pointed out in our recent print edition, that Republican ethics scandals were a major reason for the Democrats' congressional takeover in 2006. Well, voters have not forgotten. Republicans are playing smart politics by, as Katie reports, pushing to strip Rangel of his chairmanship, and for Democrats to go on record on the issue. The Democrats have a reasonable counterargument that the Ethics Committee should be allowed to finish its investigation before rushing to judgment, but they ought to move it along quickly. And, unless the Ethics Committee can compellingly prove that Rangel had only the most minor of infractions and they were made in good faith—an unlikely scenario—the Democrats should dump him.

    More
  • How the Government Lost My Identity—And Maybe Monica's, Too

    Newsweek | Oct 5, 2009 02:49 PM
    by Suzanne Smalley

    About a month ago it was Ben Bernanke, the chair of the Federal Reserve Board, who was making headlines as a victim of identity theft. This month it’s the White House and the National Archives on the hot seat for losing track of former staffers’ names and Social Security numbers, among other things. Imagine my surprise this weekend when I opened a nondescript white envelope from the National Archives and Records Administration only to find out that my Social Security number and other private information had been lost by the U.S. government sometime in the past year. Not only was my identity information floating around in government computers nearly 15 years after I interned at the White House, but it took the National Archives a full six months from the date it discovered the loss to even inform me about it. Who can we trust to keep our information safe these days?

    The archives’ letter didn’t say if another person who happened to be a White House intern at the same time, Monica Lewinsky, has also had her security breached, but based on what it did say, I’m betting it was. According to the letter, dated Sept. 29, the archives discovered “in late March 2009 that an external hard drive containing copies of backup tapes from the Clinton Administration is missing from our College Park, Maryland facility. Although no original information has been lost, we are writing to you because we have determined that personal information identifiable to you, including your Social Security number, may have been exposed to others as a result of this incident.”
    More
  • Advertisement
  • Why Is John Edwards Still Spending Campaign Money?

    Holly Bailey | Sep 22, 2009 09:57 AM
    A federal grand jury is reportedly winding down its investigation into whether former Sen. John Edwards broke any laws when his political committees made payments to his former mistress, Rielle Hunter. But here’s a random question: Why is Edwards, who quit the 2008 Democratic primary almost two years ago, still spending money from his presidential fund-raising accounts? Since January, the John Edwards for President committee along with a separate account, Edwards for President, have spent more than $625,000, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. That’s not much compared to compared to usual Washington standards (A House race, on average, costs $1 million these days). But it’s a significant amount of money when you consider that Edwards hasn’t actively been in the political spotlight for more than a year. He hasn’t been making political appearances on his own or on behalf of other Democrats since August 2008 when he publicly fessed up to an affair with Hunter after months of public denials. So what is he up to?

    Edwards had two committees--One, the Edwards for President committee, dates back to his 2004 run, and lists $333,586 in debts from that race, including $65,000 owed to Obama adviser David Axelrod, who worked for Edwards back then. According to FEC reports filed this year, the 2004 committee listed no major receipts or expenditures--just debts. That's not the case with Edwards's other committee, John Edwards for President, which was set up for his 2008 race.
    More
  • Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?

    Holly Bailey | Sep 3, 2009 07:45 AM
    Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means committee in spite of continuing ethics problems. The latest revelations: He failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dust-up comes amid an on-going House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fund-raising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.

    For his part, Rangel has denied any wrong-doing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics dust-up after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS.  For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask Rangel to resign his post unless the Ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle. But does this meet the standard Pelosi talked about when Democrats took control of the House and she bragged about ending a “culture of corruption” in Washington?
    More
  • Rielle Hunter in Court Amid Campaign Probe. Is This Bad News for John Edwards?

    Holly Bailey | Aug 6, 2009 12:20 PM
     

    John Edwards can't be happy to see this: Rielle Hunter, Edwards’s former mistress, showed up this morning at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, N.C., where a grand jury is reportedly probing whether the Democratic presidential hopeful misused his campaign funds. As your Gaggler reported earlier this year, the feds are looking into payments Edwards’s political action committee paid Hunter, who briefly worked as a videographer for the campaign. According to campaign finance records, Edwards’s PAC paid a firm affiliated with Hunter more than $100,000 for making a few short films. But as the Charlotte Observer has reported, the probe is also looking into the finances of several previously unknown non-profit groups with ties to Edwards who reportedly failed to disclose their fund-raising. Edwards has denied any wrong-doing.

    With some exceptions, grand jury proceedings are largely kept under wraps. But a big question has to be whether the probe will look into some of the more salacious aspects of Edwards’s troubles.

    More
  • Obama Speaks About Detainee Abuse Photos

    Katie Connolly | May 13, 2009 05:25 PM

    After Roberts Gibbs was grilled by reporters over the President's decision not to release the detainee abuse photos earlier today, the President himself made a statement this afternoon. He reiterated his concerns about the safety of troops and echoed much of what Gibbs said at the presser. He said that, in this instance, the Pentagon had not attempted to conceal or justify these wrongful actions. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

    Obama also alluded to Gibbs's obscure argument that releasing the photos would discourage documentation of further abuses. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse," he said.

    This is rocky terrain for the President. Just a couple of weeks ago he was heavily criticized by conservatives for his decision to release the OLC memos regarding interrogation techniques. Today's announcement (which is a reversal of the Administration's previous decision not to fight the court order demanding the photos be released by May 28) has angered the civil liberties and rights activists. Moreover, as CBS's Mark Knoller pointed out at the briefing, it contradicts a statement Obama made on his second day in office. He said: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness.  Information will not be withheld just because I say so."  Sorry sir, but it looks like you're saying so.


  • Former FBI Interrogator Tells Senate Committee Torture Doesn't Work

    Katie Connolly | May 13, 2009 04:06 PM

    Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan (who was profiled by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff a few weeks ago) testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee today and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

    Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

    Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that  Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations. (More after the jump)

    More
  • Obama to Fight Release of Detainee Abuse Photos

    Katie Connolly | May 13, 2009 02:31 PM

    The White House announced today that the President has decided to oppose the release of photographs allegedly depicted the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. military personnel. According to a statement from the press office, Obama isn't comfortable releasing the photographs, believing they have the potential to endanger troops and jeopardize national security. After meeting with his legal team last week, Obama instructed his counsel to object to the release. He informed General Odierno of his decision yesterday. From the statement:

    The President would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos. That is why the Department of Defense investigated these cases, and why individuals have been punished through prison sentences, discharges, and a range of other punitive measures. But the President strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

    At today's briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was hammered with questions from reporters about whether Obama, who has argued for more transparency in government investigations, had reversed his position. Gibbs said that Obama had not been pressured by the military. He then pursued a strange and convoluted line of argument, saying that releasing the photographs woud "provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigations." Say what? According to Gibbs, a public release of the photographs adds nothing to the investigation. He seemed to be arguing that if the military believes that every time a photograph of abuse is taken it will eventually be released to the public, they'll be less inclined to take photos. Asked if the photographs would help enhance public understanding of the issue, Gibbs replied "the President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds to that in any way." Rather, Gibbs believes they add a "sensationalizing portion" to the investigation. OK. Your Gaggler is sure the ACLU will buy that line....(not.)

    Then, the press conference descended into a bizarro-world, with a paternal Gibbs confiscating the cell phone of a reporter after it rang repeatedly. Then someone else's cell phone went off. There was laughter and shenanigans. It was weird. Finally, as Gibbs walked out, he told the reporter whose cell phone was now sitting somewhere in the press office "I have a message for you...your mom called."


  • No Charges Against Bush Lawyers Over Torture Memos?

    Holly Bailey | May 5, 2009 07:11 PM
    A source tells the Associated Press tonight that the Justice Department won’t recommend criminal charges against former Bush administration attorneys who drafted secret memos giving the legal go-ahead for harsh interrogations of terror suspects. An initial draft ethics report, which is still subject to revisions and approval from Attorney General Eric Holder, recommends two of the attorneys—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—be referred to state bar associations for possible disciplinary actions. The report made no recommendations about Steven Bradbury, a third Bush administration attorney involved in drafting the memos, the AP reports. Neither Bybee, who is now a federal Appeals Court judge in California, or Yoo, now a law professor in California, would comment. This comes upon word from the Washington Post that attorneys for the men has pressed other former Bush administration officials to lobby the Justice Department in recent days to “soften” the report. The Bush attorneys aren't out of the woods yet. Holder has the right to overrule the recommendation and pursue his own charges, if he wants, and Congress can jump into the fray, too.
  • The Feds Look Into John Edwards' Campaign Cash

    Holly Bailey | May 4, 2009 11:04 AM

    John Edwards: That’s someone we haven’t seen or heard from in a while, but chances are, we’re going to be talking about him a lot this week. On Sunday, the onetime Democratic presidential hopeful and former senator confirmed reports that federal investigators are looking into his use of campaign funds in relation to payments made to Rielle Hunter, the former campaign videographer who had an affair with Edwards. His political action committee paid a firm affiliated with Hunter more than $100,000 for video services, but as the Charlotte Observer reported yesterday, the inquiry could go deeper into “a cluster” of different non-profit groups affiliated with Edwards that haven’t been subject to the same rules of transparency, including one committee that raised almost $3.5 million from a single donor. For his part, Edwards denies wrongdoing and says he’s cooperating. “I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly,” Edwards said in a statement yesterday.

    But that’s not the only reason Edwards will be in the news. In a bit of either lucky or unfortunate timing—you be the judge—the former senator’s wife, Elizabeth, is out with a new book this week that talks about her husband’s affair with Hunter. According to ABC, the book’s publication was pushed up a week after excerpts appeared in the New York Daily News, and she’s set to appear Thursday on Oprah. In the book, Elizabeth calls Hunter “pathetic,” and writes that after she learned of the affair, a few days after he declared for president in 2006, she wanted her husband to quit the race. “He should not have run,” Elizabeth writes.


  • Pelosi Knew Harman was Wiretapped

    Katie Connolly | Apr 22, 2009 01:56 PM

    Your Gaggler just attended a reporter roundtable with Speaker Nancy Pelosi where she divulged that she had been informed in a confidential briefing that her colleague Jane Harman had been wiretapped but, due to strict intelligence rules, she was unable to speak about it with anyone, including Harman. “Even if I wanted to share it with her I would not have had the liberty to share it with her," Pelosi said. CQ first reported Saturday that the NSA had eavesdropped on a call between Harman and a suspected Israeli agent, Haim Saban, in which Harman had allegedly said she would lobby to reduce espionage charges against two former AIPAC officials. The New York Times later reported that Saban, a wealthy Democratic donor, told Harman that he would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Pelosi if she did not appoint Harman as Chair of the Intelligence Committee. (Pelosi did not.) Harman has vehemently repudiated these allegations.

    Pelosi today denied that Saban had threatened her, but said that he was one of many people who spoke to her about Harman's chairmanship. It's no secret on Capitol Hill that Pelosi and Harman, who differed fiercely on Iraq, aren't BFF. But today, Pelosi took great pains to explain that it was the House tradition of serving only two terms that had barred Harman from the Chair she sought.  “The only reason Jane was not chosen [as Intelligence Chair] is because she already had two terms [as Ranking Member]. It had nothing to do with wiretaps or Iraq,” she said. (Right. Sure. Politics never influences committee chairmanships. And first dog Bo never poops...)

    Pelosi was also asked about possible investigations into the use of coercive interrogation techniques. The Speaker reiterated her support for a Truth Commission to look into the issue. She said she would not like to see immunity taken off the table, but nor would she support blanket immunity being granted.

    And, on Earth Day, she had a message for the coal industry: "I have your interests at heart." After instructing a staffer to bring from her office a sculpture of a coal miner that her father had given her, she told reporters that "coal pollutes the air, there's just no question about that", but that coal companies would not be left out in the cold as Congress pursues energy legislation. She'd like to see investments in technology which would mitigate the effects of coal, like carbon sequestration, rather than eliminating it from the energy equation altogether. "We're all going down that path together or else we can't go down that path, and we must," she said. 


  • ‘I Can’t Talk About Me’

    Tony Dokoupil | Nov 2, 2007 05:18 PM
    Shrewd marketing or government spite? That was the question when Valerie Plame's memoir, “Fair Game,” appeared on bookstands last month with some 10 percent of its 302 pages deleted by CIA censors. Plame, the former agency operative at the center of Washington’s leaked-identity scandal, believes it may be a bit of both. The occasional lapse into ludicrousness, though, was probably unintended. There's a paragraph on breast-feeding riddled with blacked out lines, and an early chapter about Plame's life as an agent in a (redacted) country is entitled "(REDACTED) Tour." But Plame, whose identity was revealed in 2003, says these gutted sections are further proof of a vendetta against her coming from the top of the administration down.

    She tells NEWSWEEK that the CIA's Publications Review Board, the wing of the agency that edits the public writings of ex-employees, moved to approve her work before being overruled by director Michael Hayden. According to Plame, board chairman Richard Puhl told her that her book required only minor redactions before publication, but that "the seventh floor"--a euphemism for senior management--was still debating more extensive cuts. A week later, Puhl told her that she could not reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to 2002, a decision that required her to strike large sections of text. Puhl also told her that the decision was "ludicrous" and that the CIA's censorship was merely a "fig leaf" over information that was already public in the Congressional Record and elsewhere. In 2006, the CIA sent Plame an unclassified letter about her pension eligibility that said she had worked for the agency for "20 years, 7 days," including "6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service."

    More
  • I'm Serious, Man, I Love You Guys. You Think They'd Let Us All Come Back Again and Decide the Fate of Other High-Ranking Government Officials?

    Michael Isikoff | Mar 1, 2007 04:40 PM
    How do you read the body language of a jury? That was the big question in U.S. Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom this afternoon, as he brought in the 11 remaining jurors in the I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby case for a little chat. After nearly six days of deliberations,... More
  • Jonathan Pollard Was A Spy, With The Possible Exception Of His Co-Workers

    Dan Ephron | Nov 29, 2006 05:10 PM
    When a U.S. intelligence agency uncovers a spy in its midst, investigators begin the painstaking process of tracing the lapses that led to the security breach. In the case of Jonathan Jay Pollard, the Navy intelligence analyst who sold secrets to Israel... More
  • Chinese Water Torture, Washington style

    Michael Isikoff | Nov 18, 2006 05:16 PM
    What was President Bush's personal role, if any, in giving a green light to harsh interrogation methods? That's never been clear, but now Democratic leaders are more determined than ever to find out. The CIA acknowledged last week, in response to a freedom... More