Impressive

I got a chance to see some of the Kyle Sampson testimony today. Sheldon Whitehouse took him apart in the part I saw. Whitehouse got Sampson to say that he kept no files on the attorney purge project. Whitehouse summed it up something like this:

So, you worked on this project for 2 years, and you ended the career of 8 US Attorneys, and you didn't even keep a file?

I hope that the rest of the day went better for Kyle, I suspect it didn't.

This is interesting

From cyclingnews.com:

The Cannondale Bicycle Corporation announced this week that it had sold an undisclosed ownership stake of the corporation to King James, Inc., the wholly owned company of Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James.

"Cannondale is one of the premier cycling companies in the industry," said James. "Biking is an extremely important part of my training routine, and I like to invest in what I know." Maverick Carter, CEO of LRMR Innovative Marketing & Branding (where James is both a client and part owner) added, "LRMR is constantly seeking interesting investment opportunities for LeBron, who is a smart and sophisticated businessman. Cannondale is the perfect fit for LeBron and LRMR as we continue to invest in companies that are leading, cutting-edge brands."

According to Cannondale CEO Matt Mannelly, "We're very excited to have LeBron as an owner. In addition, LeBron is one of the world's most accomplished athletes and we are proud to provide him with bicycles for his cross-training. LeBron is an astute entrepreneur and investor who recognizes the quality of our products and value of our business, and he will certainly extend the awareness of the benefits of cycling to more people."

It'll be interesting to see how and if James will be involved in marketing and promotion and if this will translate into more bike sales for Cannondale.

I'd like to take the fifth please

They are going to ask me questions I'd rather not answer. Thanks so much.

When did "they're going to be mean to me" become an acceptable defense? Doesn't that invalidate just about every NYPD Blue episode ever aired? When did the Democrats suddenly develop a reputation for being mean? Remember, Dems used to be the party of brie and pacifism.

Jeez, between Republicans thinking that Dems are mean, and Dems getting busted for attempting to carry loaded firearms onto Capital Hill, it sure seems like the times are a changin'.

Hot off the press!

The Senate is going to pass a supplemental bill that also has a withdrawal timetable in it. That's amazing. I really can't believe the Dems got it done. Now, it remains to be seen what comes out of reconciliation and gets sent to Bush, but I suspect the dates may stay in.

Bush has said that Congress is failing the troops by not funding them. He says they are not funding them because they are sending him a bill he "cannot sign". That is simply not true. They are sending him a bill he will not sign. That's different. They are fully funding the troops (and are in fact giving them more money than he asked for). It will be Bush who puts the funding in jeapordy by choosing not to sign the bill Congress has sent.

That's the choice that underlies all the coming rhetoric.

To boldly go...

where no man has gone before.

I'm reminded of a Josh Marshall post from a bit ago:

I've said this before. But perhaps it seems like hyperbole. So I'll say it again. The president's interests are now radically disjoined from the country's. We can handle a setback like Iraq. It really is a big disaster. But America will certainly survive it. President Bush -- in the sense of his legacy and historical record -- won't. It's all Iraq for him. And Iraq is all disaster. So, from his perspective (that is to say, through the prism of his interests rather than the country's -- which he probably can't separate) reckless gambits aimed at breaking out of this ever-tightening box make sense. Think of it like this. He's a death row prisoner concocting a thousand-to-one plan to break out of prison. For him, those are good odds. The rest of us are doing three months for disorderly conduct. And he's trying to rope us into his harebrained scheme. Like I said, his interests are very different from ours.

I'm thinking about that post as I consider the US Attorney scandal. I think that this is another area where Bush's interests are diametrically opposed to the country's. I suspect he needs to keep the country in the dark about what has been going on because the politicalization of the DOJ is bad, but what is still out there is obstruction of justice, interfering with a federal investigation, and good old fashioned corruption. If the investigations start, then maybe some of this comes out. And if some of this comes out, then more of it comes out, then ALL of it comes out. And when that happens, he's finished, no more Iraq policy, no nothing. He's known as the president who lied us into war, drove our finances towards ruin, and presided over the most corrupt establishment in the history of the country.

So he's going to fight. I don't think Gonzalez is going anywhere if he hasn't already. Earlier I thought they'd rid themselves of him but who would they get in his place? They'd have to nominate someone who can be approved by a Democratic-controlled Congress so no Republican patsies need apply. Anyone they put in would likely uncover as much malfeasance as Congressional investigations. So you leave Gonzalez in office to fight for his job and to keep himself and his bosses out of prison.

You also hit back hard. Like this from Tony Snow today:

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officials you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.

Congress doesn't have oversight ability? Really? I'm starting to fear that the administration will pull the temple down on top of themselves in an effort to avoid accountability. They are wounded right now and they are very dangerous.

Well, that's settled

Tony Snow:

Evidently, [the president] wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up. Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time. One gets the impression that [the administration] values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in [the president] will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law. [edits are mine]

That pretty much sums it up nicely. Snow believes that privilege is a way for presidents to avoid accountability. I'm sure that the White House will now be completely cooperative with the investigation, after all its spokesman is on the record saying it should.

Of course the quote is from 1998 and he's talking about Clinton. I wonder if he's changed his opinion since then? Flip-flop, flip-flop.

Are they serious?

This could get interesting:

In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

Yet another reason for Leahy to call to play hardball with them - they don't respect the process and will only tell the truth when faced with jail time if they don't.

Real Estate Implosion

There's a bunch here, so I'm going to take it in stages. Being a plain vanilla kind of mortgage guy, I really don't have any first-hand knowledge of mortgage products beyond the very boring 30-year fixed. There are some pretty exciting products out there right now. Here is a good rundown from the Washington Post:

Today's pop quiz involves some potentially exciting new products that mortgage bankers have come up with to make home ownership a reality for cash-strapped first-time buyers. Here goes: Which of these products do you think makes sense?
(a) The "balloon mortgage," in which the borrower pays only interest for 10 years before a big lump-sum payment is due.
(b) The "liar loan," in which the borrower is asked merely to state his annual income, without presenting any documentation.
(c) The "option ARM" loan, in which the borrower can pay less than the agreed-upon interest and principal payment, simply by adding to the outstanding balance of the loan.
(d) The "piggyback loan," in which a combination of a first and second mortgage eliminates the need for any down payment.
(e) The "teaser loan," which qualifies a borrower for a loan based on an artificially low initial interest rate, even though he or she doesn't have sufficient income to make the monthly payments when the interest rate is reset in two years.
(f) The "stretch loan," in which the borrower has to commit more than 50 percent of gross income to make the monthly payments.
(g) All of the above.
If you answered (g), congratulations! Not only do you qualify for a job as a mortgage banker, but you may also have a future as a Wall Street investment banker and a bank regulator.

All snark aside, I was pretty surprised by some of the practices in the mortgage market these days. Liar loans don't require any income verification, you tell the mortgage broker how much you make and the broker says, "OK with me, how much do you want?" Even better than liar loans are NINJA loans (No Income, No Jobs or Assets). How exactly does a person gain a house when they have no income, no job, and no assets? Well, the answer, as we're starting to see, is that they don't. Not for long anyway.

This could be the big one

It could be "game-on"!:

The White House will allow the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath in the matter.

"We would be able to interview the four people we requested ... but only in private, not under oath and with no transcript," [Schumer] said.

Since Leahy told the world on Sunday that he was tired of being told lies and half-truths, it'll be interesting to see if he has the balls to tell the administration that it's under oath or it's bullshit. This is going to be a good test to see if the Dems really are interested in exercising power and oversight or if they'll simply shy away from a fight again (as they've done repeatedly in the past). They've got the power, and to repeat a soon-to-be infamous phrase, why have it if they aren't going to use it?

Odd word choice

Ken Starr arguing against free-speech at the US Supreme Court today said the following:

Today, Mr. Starr argued that the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was the kind of disruption schools can suppress, because it "is inconsistent with a fundamental message of the schools, which is the use of illegal drugs is simply verboten."

My questions are, did he say it with a German accent? When arguing against free speech, did he goose-step into the room? Verboten? Jesus.

Cars Talk (with apologies to Click and Clack)

Holman W. Jenkins Jr. is a columnist at the Journal and not a fan of the Prius:

What Toyota really proved with the Prius, ironically, is that Americans have little appetite for high mileage vehicles -- in fact, are willing to buy one only when the stars align briefly and inexplicably to turn a car into a Hollywood-accredited emblem of personal enlightenment. To put it baldly, Toyota got lucky.

He continues bashing Toyota for the next few paragraphs (even as he says that they are cars of remarkable fortitude), then gets to the point:

As Edmunds recites in chapter and verse, Toyotas are far from being in a class by themselves in quality or value. A buyer who carefully, unemotionally weighs the trade-offs does not automatically end up owning a Toyota, or even a Japanese car -- though shoppers whose perceptions are a lagging indicator still treat Detroit products as automatically inferior.

As it happens, the 2007 Consumer Reports car guide came out about the same time as this article. What did Consumer Reports say? Of the cars from each manufacturer it tested, it recommeded 85% of the Toyotas, 54% of the Fords, 36% of GMs and 21% of Chryslers. So, one could argue that people aren't exactly acting reflexively when they prefer Toyotas. By the way, the guide also recommended 100% of the Hondas and (stunningly) 0%, yes that's 0% of the Mercedes-Benzs. Honda and Toyota are 7 of the top 10 CR picks.

We've been hearing for years about how the American cars are finally catching up to the Japanese and it's only these embedded biases that keep people from buying American again. Time and again, the assertions don't hold up.

Something to keep in mind

I have to take the housing implosion in small parts because there's a ton of moving parts. Here is something to keep in mind though:

The Fed is focused on inflation (producer prices were up over 1% in February, CPI was up more than expected as well). They are going to be in something of a quandary because if they raise interest rates to quell inflation, they are going to put the hurt on anyone with an adjustable mortgage, and could really drown those with exploding ARM's. Will they focus on homeowners or stable prices?

I suspect that the housing debacle may take care of those inflation fears all on its own.

Today is the 4th anniversary of the Iraq War

I really don't have anything else to say about that right now.

Creativity points?

Nacchio jury selection starts this week. His defense? Qwest was going to be hugely successful due to millions of top secret projects due from the government. He wasn't selling millions of dollars of stock because the company was about to crater (as it did), but was simply rebalancing his portfolio.

Style points? Sure.

Whoopsies

They're STILL lying (unbelievable, I know). From ABC News:

New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel, weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers, and was her idea alone.

I added the emphasis. So busted. So fucking busted. Now is when it starts getting interesting because they're now starting to throw each other to the lions.

Elections have consequences. POPCORN please!

How much more can he take?

I'm talking about Gonzo Gonzalez here:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Is that obstruction of justice? I'm sorry, isn't that obstruction of justice? Does he make it through the weekend? Or does he quit on Friday afternoon?

Housing

OK, I'll admit that I've predicted 12 of the last 3 housing corrections so my track record may seem a bit alarmist. As such I've restrained from commenting on the latest news until now. Last week, when New Century was imploding, analysts were all saying that the sub-prime market may be in a bit of trouble, but everything else is fine. I didn't, and don't see how that could be so - it's not like sub-primes are the only mortgages that are on properties whose prices have risen meteorically over the last few years. Prime borrowers can get themselves under water as easily as sub-prime borrowers can if they extend themselves enough. Where is this going? Guess:

Most economic forecasters in a new WSJ.com survey believe recent turmoil in the subprime mortgage market is likely to spread to the broader mortgage market and they expect a widely followed index of home prices to fall this year. But they still think the U.S. will avoid a recession and even a significant rise in unemployment.

It's a depressingly familiar story that appears again and again in (bad) crisis PR: minimize the problems until they pass you by. In this case, it goes like this, "The sub-prime market is toast, but the prime market will be fine. Whoops, what I meant to say is that the sub-prime market is toast, the prime market is toast, but you know what, spending is fine, we won't go into recession. Whoops again, what I meant to say is that of course the implosion in the housing market pushed the country into recession, after all housing appreciation was the engine that drove consumer spending. Once that dried up, where was the spending going to come from? What were you thinking listening to us?"

And here's why I think it'll happen: Banks have been too loose in their lending (knowing that they can sell many of the mortgages on the open market) and as these loans start to go bad they will tighten lending requirements. Being human, they will over correct the other way and dry up the mortgage market. If people can't buy, then people can't sell. If people can't sell, they are stuck in a house where they've (likely) extended themselves though equity lines of credit or they had anticipated moving on before the term on their ARM expires. If they get stuck, they're screwed. If they're screwed, they aren't going to spend any money. If they aren't spending any money, the economy tanks.

I also think it will happen much more quickly than people think. Recession by Q3 2007. Bank on it. I've called 28 of the last 6 of those.

I don't care if he's up a million, billion points right now...

This will finish Rudy:

Rudolph Giuliani's law firm lobbies for Citgo Petroleum Corp., a unit of the state-owned oil company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the U.S.'s chief antagonist in the Western Hemisphere. Bracewell & Giuliani LLP registered to lobby for Citgo in Texas on April 26, 2005, less than a month after the former New York mayor joined the firm and became a name partner, state records show. Citgo renewed the contract in 2006 and 2007 and pays the firm $5,000 a month to track legislation. Giuliani doesn't lobby, the firm says.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Rudy will not be the Republican nominee.

Just when I thought I was out...

Part of the reason I started this (new) blog was to move away somewhat from a focus on politics and onto other subjects. Then the Attorney scandal hit. It's going to be mainly politics for a while. I think that this story has the possibility of being big, REALLY big. There are a couple of reasons:

Investigations generally spur investigations. For instance, it was discovered that Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, J. Scott Jennings, using an email address owned by the Republican National Committee. Why does that matter? Well, for one, remember what happened when Al Gore may have used the wrong phone in his office to fundraise? But more seriously there are some substantive questions that should be answered too (asked by my main man Dan Froomkin):

Would these emails be treated any differently from official White House emails when it came to archiving or subpoena purposes? ... Do other White House staffers regularly use non-White House email accounts for White House business, and if so, why?

Good questions, both. Want to make a bet on what the answers are?

In addition to this though, I have a funny feeling that this will re-focus attention (eventually) on why Carol Lam was fired in the first place. She was fired because she began to aggressively investigate top Republicans, period. End of story. What really intrigues me is what is still out there to find. A couple of years ago I read Charlie Wilson's War. It's a story about a Congressman, Charlie Wilson, who over a period of years funnels millions of dollars in US funds, and secures millions more in other funds (from Saudi Arabia for example) to Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets. It was all done in secret. I'd be willing to bet that there are bunches of the same shenanigans going on today and that Lam was on a trail to uncover some or all of it.

Finally, Republicans running for President in 2008 are looking for a way to distance themselves from the disaster that is Iraq. What better way than to focus attention on Al Gonzalez and the Justice Department that couldn't legislate straight? Seriously, by taking down Gonzalez they have the ability to put some distance between themselves and the White House without being viewed as against Iraq. Just a thought.

We'll see if my hunch is right. I do think that some people will pay real penalties (read: jail) for this though.

UPDATE:

There's been some follow-up on the email situation:

Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has sent a letter to House government reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) requesting an investigation of whether the White House has been violating the Presidential Records Act -- in an attempt to keep certain correspondence away from prying eyes.

Jennings use of the RNC's email "raises serious questions about whether the White House was trying to deliberately evade its responsibilities under the PRA, which directs the president to take all necessary steps to maintain presidential records to provide a full accounting of all activities during his tenure," says CREW.

This is just the kind of stuff that Waxman and his very talented staff can pick apart and get to the bottom of.

Good overview on US Attorney info

This is a good post that captures the falseness of some of the "Clinton did it" talking points emerging from the Republicans. Cutting to the chase:

So: at least two, and at most five, US Attorneys were removed from office in the middle of their terms between 1981 and the present firings. George W. Bush managed to fire more attorneys on one day than had been fired in mid-term during the previous 25 years.

And if you don't read Josh Marshall regularly (you should), he a must read if you are interested in this emerging scandal. He was way ahead of everyone else reporting on it, and has had his eye consistently on the big picture. An example concerning Carol Lam:

What people tend to overlook is that for most White Houses, a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation. It's like hearing that Pat Fitzgerald was fired as Plamegate prosecutor for poor deportment or because he was running up too many air miles flying back and forth from Chicago.

Lam's investigation (and allied ones her probe spawned) were uncovering a) serious criminal wrongdoing by major Republican power players on Capitol Hill, b) corruption at the CIA -- which reached back to the Hill, c) and as yet still largely hidden corrupt dealings at the heart of the intelligence operations in the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Nothing matters unless the investigation gets to the heart of what happened there.

This scandal is getting very large, very quickly.

Lying to Congress

The US Attorney story is getting bigger and bigger, happening so fast that I'm having trouble keeping up. From what I can tell, at a minimum, Gonzalez is out. Depending on how feisty the Dems are feeling, it also looks like some people are going to have to explain why it looks so much like they lied to Congress.

Imagine

Things seem to be moving pretty quickly in the US Attorney story.

Imagine if Harriet Miers had actually been confirmed and was sitting on the US Supreme Court right now.

Now THAT'S a letter!

Henry Waxman wrote to Condi Rice today.

Our system of govemment is based on checks and balances. Congress has an obligation to ask tough questions of the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch has an obligation to respond. Refusing to allow officials to testify before Congress, as the Department did in the case of Ambassador Timothy Camey on February 6, 2007, or ignoring congressional requests for information, as you apparently ignored my inquiries, are not consistent with our constitutional system of government.

l realize that there are great demands on your time and that your preference may be to not revisit the issues the Committee is raising. But the fact that four years has passed since my March 17, 2003, letter does not lessen the obligation you have to respond or Congress' responsibility to conduct competent oversight. Just the opposite is true. The long delay in responding makes it even more important that you provide the Committee a complete response to these legitimate and important inquiries.

More like this please.

Hate the beer, love the idea

Click for a demonstration of genius! Can you say "Beer launching fridge"? Probably not for long if you possess one of these things.

Great moments in direct mail marketing

Courtesy of McSweeneys:

Client: First Federal Bank—Life's a Breeze™ credit card

Envelope teaser line: We've got your parents duct-taped together in a van.

Back-of-envelope copy: Life's short. Make it rewarding by earning First Federal reward points, which can be redeemed for gifts like seeing your parents safely exit our van unscathed.

Letter headline: Are you tired of high interest rates, blackout dates, and sky-high finance charges?

Letter subhead/payoff: Well, your parents are tired of being bound together in the back of a van, trying to eat cold Chinese take-out through the gags we've fashioned out of oily rags. That's why you need to use the enclosed postage-paid card to reply. Just check the box that says, "Yes! Sign me up so I can start earning rewards like seeing my parents exit the van unscathed today!" and you'll be on your way.

There's more in the letter body too if you're interested in gaining some valuable marketing tips.

Bike Lust

There are some amazing things coming out of the North American Handmade Bike Show. The great thing about the show is that it combines ridable bikes with works of pure art. For bike freaks, like me, it's a wonderland.

This bike weighs 7 pounds. Let me say that again, this entire bike weighs 7 pounds.

Check out this concept bike. As hot as it looks from the side, it looks more amazing head-on.

Calfee makes some very high-end carbon fiber bikes. He also does things to amuse himself. Here is a bike made out of bamboo. It's a recurring theme with Calfee, he's been making (rideable!) bamboo bikes for years. And yes, those are real bullhorn handlebars. For real amusement from Calfee, however, check this out. Personally, I think the "Spider Bike" is butt-ugly, but it takes all types. Here and here are two more views of the bike.

Independent Fabrications has always made really cool steel bikes. Here is a simply amazing pursuit bike.

But, if I had to pick just one bike to actually ride around on, this would be the one. Very utilitarian, I like it.

THIS is what it's come to?

This is craziness:

Barack Obama is no longer a scofflaw, at least in Cambridge and Somerville. Two weeks before the US senator from Illinois launched his presidential campaign, he paid parking tickets he received while attending Harvard Law School, officials said yesterday. Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, according to the city's Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department. Of those tickets, he paid only two while he was a student and paid them late, said Susan Clippinger, the office's director.

I remember reading (I think it may have been in The Onion) that Obama sometimes took a penny, but never left a penny. This story approaches that level of nonsense. Whomever among us who doesn't have, or has never had, an unpaid parking ticket somewhere, please feel free to cast the first stone. And how exactly does this reflect on his ability to be president? Does it speak to character? To respect for the law? I don't think so.

But, if we're going back to 1988, 1988! looking for stuff, there are going to be a ton of candidates with some 'splainin' to do (I'm talking to you Rudy...).

If this is what the media is going to focus on over the next 2 years this is going to be the longest, most pathetic race in history.

Kicking off

Hello and welcome to More Palaver.