Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3389

When 'satisfying vocal elements' is all that matters

House Republicans will spend the day approving the most restrictive anti-abortion bill considered in Congress in the last decade, even though it they have every reason not to. The bill won't be signed into law; it's unconstitutional; and it badly undermines the GOP's flailing "rebranding" campaign, while further alienating women voters.

So why bother? Because, as the New York Times reported, "Republican leaders acknowledge that its purpose is to satisfy vocal elements of their base." And apparently, that's all that matters -- the base is a beast that must be fed, even if it's a pointless vanity exercise, and even if it undermines the party's interests.

Watch on YouTube

But to fully appreciate how proponents are looking at this issue, consider these comments yesterday from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), flagged by John Aravosis.

For those who can't watch clips online, Burgess, speaking during a Rules Committee hearing, complained that the legislation, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, was too liberal -- he wants the line moved to 15 or 16 weeks. Reflecting on his background as an OB/GYN, Burgess added:

"Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If they're a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?"

Some have suggested Burgess seemed to be referring to the concept of fetal masturbation, and, well, I'm not sure what Burgess was trying to say. Since a 15-week fetus doesn't have a developed central nervous system, the notion that it can feel much of anything is highly suspect.

This is, however, symptomatic of the state of the debate.

Remember, we're talking about House Republicans spinning their wheels on purpose, passing the decade's most restrictive bill on reproductive rights with the full knowledge that it will not become law. Indeed, as Rachel explained on the show last night, President Obama issued a formal veto threat yesterday afternoon, insisting that the proposal "shows contempt for women's health and rights."

But GOP lawmakers will go through the motions anyway.

Finally, as we discussed yesterday, House leaders have pulled Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) as the bill's chief sponsor, instead handing the proposal over to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). We're apparently supposed to believe that having a woman lead the way on Franks' bill makes it less offensive.

But as the day progresses, let's not forget that Blackburn is the same far-right Republican who wants to end funding for Planned Parenthood and opposes pay-equity laws.

A champion of women's interests she isn't.

Morning Maddow: June 18

VP Biden will announce progress in the White House's executive actions on gun reform today.

Can the subject of one of those actions--a permanent ATF director--ever be confirmed?

Rep. Darrell Issa is still not releasing the entire transcripts of the Cincinnati IRS office interviews.

Bush v. Gore is cited in a Supreme Court opinion for the first time ever.

Whither the nuclear option?

A story of politics, prayer and an "errant bedsheet drive for troops."

In Rep. Kerry Bentivolio's defense, there are no reindeer in American Samoa.

Cocktail Moment by proxy: The Maddow Colada

 

This isn't quite a Cocktail Moment, but Rachel did provide some consultation on NPR this weekend to The Sporkful's Dan Pashman on how to build a better Piña Colada without the Coco Lopez Cream of Coconut "chemical slurry." There's a transcript here and some background and the original Piña Colada recipe here along with Rachel's customized version:

The Maddow Colada
1.5 oz light rum
1 oz 8 year old Bacardi or other nice medium-bodied amber rum
1.5 oz unsweetened coconut milk
1.5 oz orgeat (almond syrup--Maddow recommends Teisseire. Torani is most common.)
4 oz pineapple juice
blend with ice
don't strain, serve in a short glass, garnish with pineapple wedge, tiny umbrella
serve with short, stubby (fat) straws

Links for the 6/17 TRMS

Monday's citations are listed after the jump.

Richard Nixon-Checkers Speech (9/23/1952)

Mansion spending records indicate improper billing by Virginia governor and his family

Federal grand jury to review McDonnell, drug firm ties

FBI looking into relationship between McDonnells, donor

City prosecutor investigating McDonnell's disclosures

Va. Gov. McDonnell on two-way street with chief executive of struggling company

McDonnell mum on chef's claims

After Long Night of Counting, Post-Election Celebrations in Iran

Iran's Ahmadinejad Says America Entrusted Itself to the Devil

Jubilant Iranians cheer election of new president Hassan Rohani

Gerald Tan explains Iran's political power structure

Wisconsin Republicans pass anti-abortion ultrasound bill

Trent Franks: 'The Incidence Of Rape Resulting In Pregnancy Are Very Low'

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY on H. R. 1797 (pdf)

Fort Hood Suspect Wants to Represent Himself

Fort Hood Suspect Says Rampage Was to Defend Afghan Taliban Leaders

Accused Fort Hood gunman cannot use defending Taliban defense

Judge bans Fort Hood shooting suspect's defense strategy; says Texas troops posed no threat

US House defence bill blocks Obama's plan to close Guantánamo Bay prison

Prosecutor: Court ruling cuts vision for Guantánamo war crimes trials

FOIA suit reveals Guantánamo's 'indefinite detainees'

Defending structures from the ravages of wildfire

REUTERS / Rick Wilking

The above photo was posted on Business Insider with the headline, "Firefighters somehow saved this house from the most desctructive forest fire in Colorado history."

It turns out the "somehow" isn't as much about arbitrary luck as the word (or photo) implies. In fact, a few days ago the city of Colorado Springs posted a video of their fire department strategically managing the fire's fuel on the grounds around a house. Doing so helped ensure the fire didn't have enough energy to transition from the woods to the house as it advanced at a rate of six inches per second.

At around 2:50 in the video the narrator explains that the homeowner has done him-or-herself a service by maintaining the low branches on the trees in such a way that the fire is not able to climb from the ground to the upper foliage. That state of California has a site called "Ready for wildfire" that describes this type of maintenance as part of "creating a defensible space." Included in their instructions is a graphic about preventing that vertical spread of fire.  

The California site has a video as well. 

I've lived on wooded property before but forest fire was never a greater concern than simple Smokey Bear safety and the hazard rating on the sign outside the firehouse. As a news-watching spectator cringing at the loss of life and property, I hope folks out west are familiar with the extra steps that might give their house a fighting chance while they're safely evacuated away.

Ahead on the 6/17 Maddow show

Tonight's guests include:

Mark Segraves, reporter for NBC 4 in Washington

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, (D) California, member of House Judiciary Committee

Here's the soundtrack, and here is executive producer Bill Wolff with a look at tonight's show:

Monday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Awkward: "President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart -- on opposite sides of a civil war but using delicate language about a difference of opinion -- said Monday that they shared an interest in stopping the bloodshed in Syria."

* A new day in Iran: "President-elect Hassan Rowhani of Iran, speaking on Monday for the first time since his election victory, said he wanted to reduce tensions with the United States but ruled out direct talks between the two estranged nations."

* Could the Erdogan government possibly handle this any worse? "Turkey's leaders are prepared to use the armed forces against protesters if they consider it necessary, the deputy prime minister said Monday, raising the threat of military intervention for the first time during the current unrest, in a country that has only recently moved away from its long history of army coups."

* Iraq: "A string of bombing and a shooting killed at least 30 and wounded scores across Iraq on Sunday, extending a wave of violence that is raising fears of a return to widespread killing a decade after the American-led invasion. "

* Over the weekend, North Korea "proposed high-level talks with the United States, saying that it was ready to discuss easing tensions and eventually denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula."

* Moving forward: "President Barack Obama has chosen a high-powered Washington lawyer with extensive experience in all three branches of the government to be the State Department's special envoy for closing down the military-run prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base."

* When it comes to U.S. policy in Syria, the public and the political establishment in D.C. are clearly not on the same page.

* More on this on tonight's show: "Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, have used taxpayer money for a range of small personal items they should have paid for themselves under state policy, according to spending records."

* ENDA: "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act now has majority support in the Senate.
On Monday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) signed on as the bill's 51st cosponsor. The legislation would outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

* Want to see one picture that helps capture so much of what's wrong with conservative politics?

* And everything about this quote from Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is completely wrong: "I fear where we've come to in America, where our administration won't make one phone call to save our men and women in a embassy in Lebanon."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

The nature of international espionage and surveillance

It makes for unsatisfying punditry, but I'll confess to having mixed feelings about Edward Snowden. I find some of the criticism of him from the Washington establishment to be crude and condescending, but I'm also unmoved by characterizations of him as a "whistleblower." Snowden has spirited defenders and critics, each of which have compelling arguments, though I don't find myself in either camp, which is probably why I haven't written much about his predicament.

But I'm open to persuasion and read his online Q&A at the Guardian today with great interest. Whether you love Snowden or hate him, it's certainly worth checking out to get a better sense of where he's coming from, and it's far too long a discussion to excerpt here in the hopes of providing a credible summary. There was, however, one exchange that caught my eye.

Glenn Greenwald asked two good questions at the outset: (1) "Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?" and (2) "How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?" Snowden's answer included a variety of details, but this jumped out at me:

"Congress hasn't declared war on the countries [that have been subjected to U.S. surveillance] -- the majority of them are our allies -- but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the 'consent of the governed' is meaningless."

This is helpful insofar as Snowden's motivations are relevant in the larger context, but I'm at a bit of a loss to understand this argument.

As Snowden apparently sees it -- I say "apparently" because it was not something he elaborated on, beyond the above quote -- the United States should not conduct international surveillance on foreign countries we are not currently at war with. And since the United States does engage in such espionage, he feels justified in exposing what he sees as wrongdoing.

What's disappointing is that I get the impression Snowden has given these issues a fair amount of thought, and this rationale for his leaks -- or at least some of them -- doesn't make a lot of sense.

For example, the U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on Iran, but I think most fair-minded people would agree that surveillance of and intelligence gathering in Iran is a sensible thing to do. (It might even help prevent a war.) The U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on Syria, either, but the U.S. government has an interest in understanding developments inside that country, too.

Indeed, our Congress, even at the height of the Cold War, never declared war on the Soviet Union. Was surveillance of Russia necessarily wrong and in need of sunlight?

Though he didn't specify, in context, Snowden probably intended to focus on countries friendly with the United States, which are nevertheless subject to surveillance. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he doesn't oppose intelligence gathering in countries like Iran and Syria, the argument is still unpersuasive -- international espionage around the globe has been a norm for generations. It's safe to say our allies conduct intelligence gathering in the U.S., just as we do the same in their countries. It's not considered scandalous by much of anyone.

Indeed, the specific question he was responding to asked about Hong Kong. Does anyone really doubt that the United States and China have spies in each other's countries, gathering intelligence?

To persuade more observers to the value of his cause, Snowden will have to do better than this.

Cheney, Rogers show how not to defend NSA surveillance

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, saying exactly what you'd expect Cheney to say on "Fox News Sunday." For example, asked about Americans' right to know about their government's surveillance efforts, the former V.P. argued, "Well, they get to vote for senior officials, like the president of the United States, or like the senior officials in Congress, and you have to have some trust in them."

In other words, we should just give the government vast spying powers, and then hope all goes well. How very Cheney-esque of him.

But there was something else he said that caught my eye. When Chris Wallace asked about President Obama, Cheney had a specific condemnation in mind.

"I don't pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama says. I find a lot of it in other areas -- for example, IRS, Benghazi -- not credible. I'm obviously not a fan of the incumbent president. [...]

"In terms of credibility, I don't think he has credibility... And the problem is the guy has failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So he's got no credibility."

Yes, Dick Cheney -- Dick Cheney! -- wants to talk about the importance of credibility among elected leaders. In case we needed further evidence that irony is dead, the former V.P. seemed happy to oblige.

But more important is the substantive argument here: Obama was dishonest about Benghazi and the IRS, so there's no reason for Americans, or anyone else, to trust his word on anything. On CBS's "Face the Nation," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) echoed the same talking point.

SCHIEFFER: We want to go back to the house intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers. We were talking about this big story about has the National Security Agency over-reached? What is your take, Mr. Chairman? Do you think the government's done anything wrong here at this point?

ROGERS: Well, it depends again what you're talking about when you're talking about the IRS scandal or Benghazi, I think there were certainly government misdeeds and maybe even criminal behavior.

Cheney and Rogers were presumably invited onto the Sunday shows to talk about the NSA controversy, but both support the administration's surveillance programs. So, what happens? Both decide they want to talk instead about Benghazi and the IRS.

There is, of course, one obvious problem: President Obama didn't do anything wrong when it comes to Benghazi and the IRS.

I imagine it's a point of crushing disappointment, but last September's attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi is not a political scandal. Literally every partisan attack and unhinged conspiracy theory Republicans have come up with has been debunked, discredited, and dismissed as nonsense. The violence that left four Americans dead has been the subject of multiple investigations and hearings, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest the president or the White House did anything wrong at all.

As a result, when Dick Cheney and Mike Rogers insist on national television that Obama lacks credibility because of Benghazi, they're either deliberately trying to mislead the country or they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about.

Similarly, with each passing day, it becomes more difficult to take the IRS matter seriously. The entire controversy has unraveled in recent weeks, and Republican efforts to connect the story to the White House have proven to be absurd.

So what are Cheney and Rogers talking about?

If prominent Republican voices want to defend NSA surveillance, fine. If they want to express their contempt for the president, that's their right. But these shameless efforts to breathe life into non-existent controversies is silly and unproductive. Indeed, though the Sunday show hosts didn't think to ask the obvious follow-up questions, the challenge for Cheney and Rogers is pretty straightforward: can they identify literally anything Obama said on Benghazi and/or the IRS matter that wasn't entirely accurate?

NSA cannot wiretap Americans' calls without a warrant

Associated Press

An undated U.S. government photo shows an aerial view of the NSA building in Fort Meade, Maryland.

There have been so many informative reports over the last couple of days on government surveillance programs, it's been tough to keep up with them all, but let's take some time to review what's come to public light.

This CNET story was published on Saturday, for example, and caused quite a stir.

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

If true, this would suggest a return to warrantless wiretaps, used by the Bush/Cheney administration, before Congress expanded surveillance laws and required some modicum of oversight.

By late yesterday, however, it appears that the story was not accurate and the NSA cannot wiretap Americans' calls without a warrant. The FBI said Nadler misunderstood the information provided in the closed-door briefing; Nadler walked back his assessment, and by this morning, CNET had effectively given up on defending its original report.

And while it's at least mildly reassuring that the surveillance programs have not taken such a drastically illegal turn, there were plenty of other revelations that bolstered the concerns of privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

The Associated Press, for example, sketched out how the suddenly infamous PRISM program works, and the "streamlined" process through which the private sector complied with warrants.

Under Prism, the delivery process varied by company. Google, for instance, says it makes secure file transfers. Others use contractors or have set up stand-alone systems. Some have set up user interfaces making it easier for the government, according to a security expert familiar with the process.

Every company involved denied the most sensational assertion in the Prism documents: that the NSA pulled data "directly from the servers" of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL and more.

Technology experts and a former government official say that phrasing, taken from a PowerPoint slide describing the program, was likely meant to differentiate Prism's neatly organized, company-provided data from the unstructured information snatched out of the Internet's major pipelines.

On the other hand, Reuters published a report suggesting surveillance affected a fairly small number of people.

The U.S. government only searched for detailed information on calls involving fewer than 300 specific phone numbers among the millions of raw phone records collected by the National Security Agency in 2012, according to a government paper obtained by Reuters on Saturday.

The unclassified paper was circulated Saturday within the government by U.S. intelligence agencies and apparently is an attempt by spy agencies and the Obama administration to rebut accusations that it overreached in investigating potential militant plots.

I haven't seen this confirmed elsewhere, but so long as we're taking an overview look at reports from the weekend, I thought I'd include it in the mix.

Meanwhile, Facebook and Microsoft confirmed that they received data requests under the FISA law, but "they added that the U.S. government did not permit them to provide specific figures." So what did the government get from the tech giants? The companies only released "broad numbers with no breakdowns. Over the last six months of 2012, Facebook said, it had received as many as 10,000 requests from local, state and federal agencies, which impacted as many as 19,000 accounts. Facebook has 1.1 billion accounts worldwide. Microsoft said that it received between 6,000 and 7,000 similar requests, affecting as many as 32,000 accounts."

And finally, Barton Gellman had a lengthy piece offering some helpful context on various NSA surveillance programs -- it's probably time we familiarize ourselves with words like "STELLARWIND," "MAINWAY," and "MARINA" -- but of particular interest was the report's details on the showdown in John Ashcroft's hospital room in 2004.

Telephone metadata was not the issue that sparked a rebellion at the Justice Department, first by Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel and then by Comey, who was acting attorney general because John D. Ashcroft was in intensive care with acute gallstone pancreatitis. It was Internet metadata.

At Bush's direction, in orders prepared by David Addington, the counsel to Vice President Richard B. Cheney, the NSA had been siphoning e-mail metadata and technical records of Skype calls from data links owned by AT&T, Sprint and MCI, which later merged with Verizon.

For reasons unspecified in the report, Goldsmith and Comey became convinced that Bush had no lawful authority to do that.

Unless I'm remembering the original story incorrectly, this seems like a twist on what had previously been reported. I was under the impression that the showdown was over a legally dubious NSA program related to warrantless wiretaps of telephone calls, but Gellman's new reporting points to concerns from Ashcroft and Comey over the collection of online communications.

Good to know.