The Alphonso Jackson Affair
Recently the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, told a gathering of developers about a government contractor who lost his bid because the contractor criticized the president. Apparently Jackson didn’t know that is illegal to deny contracts based on political preference because it took his spokesperson two tries to find an explanation that doesn’t involve Jackson breaking the law. The current excuse: he lied.
This sort of thing is just so stupid that it defies belief. Did Jackson seriously understand his job poorly enough to not know that he was breaking the law? Apparently so, or else he wouldn’t go around bragging about it. You want to shake your head, but it seems fairly often that a Bush official lacks a basic understanding of how to do their job. Brownie springs to mind of course. Michael Hayden, former NSA director and administrator of the president’s controversial wiretapping program, recently failed to identify the Fourth Amendment’s standard for obtaining a warrant. Yes, General Hayden, there really is a statement in there about probable cause. Jeesh.
In that vein reader and blogger Mr. Furious has a useful word for government by the people least competent to do their jobs – Kaikistocracykakistocracy. Sounds vaguely dirty but around here that should be a plus.
***Update***
Think Progress has three useful tidbits related to the story:
Dustee Tucker, the HUD spokeswoman with more explanations than she has dipthongs, has taken a conveniently-timed leave of absence.
The HUD inspector General has opened an investigation, which seems like a no brainer as far as investigations go. Find the contractor in question (how many DC-based minority-owned media contractors with business before HUD can there be?) and ask him whether it happened. If it happened like the “anecdote” described, Jackson is gone like yesterday’s news.
Finally, Jackson claims that the whole story is just an “anecdote” (same link). Usually ‘anecdotes’ describe things that actually happened. If you make up a story to illustrate a point you call it a ‘parable’ or a ‘fable’ or a ‘bullshit made-up story that illustrates a point.’ And what sort of point would a HUD secretary be trying to make in front of a gathering of developers? Don’t criticize the president or your contract might be next? At best Jackson was warning the audience that even if he didn’t actually break the law before he probably will in the future.
Punchy
I’ve come to the inevitable conclusion that, much like a frat initiation ritual, in order to become a part of the Bush Admin., you MUST break the law. Delay, probably Frist, Rove, Libby, Bush, Some Other Dudes in Other Positions I Cannot Remember…half the DHS going pedophile…You get double secret probation points, apparently, if you flaunt it (see: Bush himself, Gonzo).
Seriously, how else can you explain how this man could/would so egregiously spew this out in a public forum? He musta been WAY behind schedule on the law-breakage and needed to get this out fast before Cheney shot him in the face as the reminder…
Davebo
Update Tim.
Now he says he made the whole thing up
Davebo
Oops that link is to Eugene.
Here’s the good link
ppGaz
Good grief. He had to shift from being a lawbreaker, to being just a common liar, to try to save his butt.
Surely, people in the future will look back upon this time and shake their heads.
les
ppG, many of us aren’t waiting.
Jess
That Republican Stupidity file must fill a large number of warehouses by now.
Steve
Some scandals are debatable. This one falls into the category of “if you defend this behavior, you might be too stupid to breathe.” This means you, David Blaine!
Of course, the morons at Scrutator have nothing but good things to say about this little parable.
Even Captain Ed is off the reservation, guys!
I’m not stupid enough to believe there are no political preferences in awarding contracts, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t enforce the law when you can actually prove something. If the contractor hears about this, he has a big check coming.
Bone-In RibEye
Well it ‘makes sense’ that he wouldn’t be telling a real story about something that would get him fired so it must be true that its an anecdote. Go ahead try to refute my opinion that it makes sense. You can’t. Only through your dishonest readings will you post in bad faith that you can refute it.
Andrei
Since the goal of Mr. Furious is to carpet bomb the blogosphere and media with a new meme, it should be spelled correctly in said meme spreading carpeting bombing.
Kakistocracy.
Not Kaikistocracy as it is currently spelled in the current article as of the time of this post.
We continue now with your regularly scheduled thread jack to be from either Brian or Darrell. Odds are currently set. Get your bets in soon.
demimondian
Oh, for heaven’s sake. It was a joke. Have any of you lefties even got the faintest connection to reality?
He wasn’t threatening his audience, he was telling jokes to them. You know, comedy? Like Colbert?
Jeez…
neil
I seriously doubt that the HUD inspector will perform a real investigation. Nothing to see here, move along.
I’ve been boggling over exactly what this signifies since yesterday. When I revisited the story this morning I thought it had been a dream, it sounded so crazy and implausible. How on earth could one of Bush’s Cabinet members—indeed, #10 in the line of succession—openly admit that the federal government is being run as a patronage machine, and not even be noticed except by the people who are outraged by this Administration ten times before breakfast?
It’s almost as if he was posing a challenge. Yes, this is the way we do things, and we’re not ashamed of it. You better get used to it. It certainly is going to end up this way. Will anything change as a result of this stark admission of bad government? No, it will not.
Gerard
Here’s some juicy (and unsubstantiated) speculation in the form of a question from one of Josh Marshall’s readers.
demimondian
BTW: kakistrocracy literally means “rule by sh*t”. It’s one of my favorite examples of a perfectly cromulent word which later became merely arcane….
neil
Also, I must admit I smelled something suspicious when I heard that Lieberman was practically first in line to hold an investigation. Is this kabuki? Practically everything else is these days.
neil
Scrutator? That’s a joke site, isn’t it?
Sherard
Gotcha. So now, regardless of anything else, he’s GUILTY AS SIN because he chose the wrong word.
Please stop with the manufactured outrage. It’s pathetic.
neil
Kakistocracy, from the Greek kakistos, superlative of kakos, meaning ‘bad’. Related, but not identical, to the word for human waste.
Sherard
There’s a neat thought. You’d SURE think that if it were actually true, somebody would sure as hell know they were the one in the “anecdote / parable”. I wonder if anyone will actually come forward and claim they were the contractor in question.
Although ever that is dubious since there are probably a half dozen in the comments above that would fall over themselves to falsely claim they were the contractor. Ends justifying the means and all that.
Steve
I don’t know anything specific about the Inspector General of HUD (although Al Maviva will be by any minute to tell us his life story), but Inspectors General tend to do their jobs. Many scandals have come out as a result of IG investigations at various agencies. They’re not like the official whitewashers or anything.
neil
Sherard, his spokeswoman also ‘chose’ the same ‘wrong word’ earlier in the day. Funny how that happens. And even if one were to give the benefit of the doubt that he was telling a ‘parable,’ how would that exonerate him from the ethical violation? Telling a room full of contractors that story is political intimidation whether it’s true or not.
Your reflexive defense of people who are stealing your money is pathetic, but quite amusing.
neil
Steve, the HUD Inspector General has covered Jackson’s ass in the past. Why on earth would he not do it again? This is how political machines operate.
Steve
Well, Neil, from the fact that I said I didn’t know anything specific about the Inspector General of HUD, you might have inferred I didn’t have any idea about the story you link. Still, there could be a million reasons why one particular matter wasn’t pursued, and I stand by my point that not every Inspector General in government is some kind of Republican hack.
neil
....
Sources at the HUD IG office complain that a climate of orchestrated witch-hunts and the creation of scapegoats pervades the current management structure, adding to the attrition rate and skills drain. They point to the case of Jeffrey Finn, a former special agent in charge of the IG’s Denver-based Rocky Mountain district office. Finn did not contest his removal from federal employment in January 2001 after being the target of numerous accusations of misconduct and administrative violations. According to court documents and the testimony of current and former IG employees, however, IG efforts to “destroy” Finn with trumped-up criminal charges also were used to wreck the careers of a number of employees with whom he had a relationship.
Excerpts from from Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton Whitehouse, by Gary Aldrich
snorkel
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at GW just said the very same thing on Olbermann’s Countdown. He was thinking of felons from the Ford/Reagan/Bush41 administrations like Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter.
tBone
Damn those dishonest (and Angry) Leftists! Don’t they know that ends justifying the means is reserved for the Bush Administration?
DougJ
I can’t tell what’s a spoof and what’s not anymore. Scrutator, rathergate, anchoress? Who can tell? There’s evidence over at obsidian wings that perhaps our own Brian is a spoof. There’a guy over there obviously spoofing under the name BrianCohen. Is he our Brian? Or someone who thought it would be funny to combine Brian with Richard Cohen?
neil
(my emphasis)
Insight on the News, March 18, 2003
Steve
They’re all you, DougJ. Scs told me so. She’s you, too, actually, so you should stop ratting yourself out.
DougJ
Neil—thanks for the links. Those are very interesting.
neil
Kenneth Donohue, who let the Mallory complaint drop without a sound, is the current Inspector General, by the way, and according to his White House bio, “he was with the Secret Service from 1969 to 1990, retiring as a Senior Special Agent.” And he was also Assistant Director of the FDIC’s Resolution Trust Corporation, formed in the aftermath of the S&L scandal, which the then-President’s sons were rather deeply involved in, if memory serves.
It makes one wonder.
Otto Man
Well, not to harsh on Mr. Furious’s moment in the sun, but as Mr. F notes in the post, he actually took the term from my partner-in-blogging, Inanimate Carbon Rod, in the comments to this post of mine. I’d called the HUD scandal proof that this administration was a “hackocracy,” and our Li’l Noah Webster pulled out kakistocracy like a trump card.
Of course, i-Rod probably stole it from someone else….
Zifnab
What John Cole doesn’t know is that he’s actually received about 10,000 hits a day entirely from DougJ. In fact, 90% of all forum posts are, in truth, DougJ nicknames. Some speculate that John Cole is DougJ himself, that this blog is actually only inhabitted by one person, and that that person is a very lonely man.
But seriously, I am perpetually amazed at how these people have been elected… REPEATEDLY… to office. The idea that they even want each other in power boggles my mind. People used to laugh at the idea of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Now we know the conspiracy is real, but we still end up laughing at it.
Whoever said Democrats have all the good comedians never visited Washington.
ppGaz
Relax, Zif, your $46 is on the way.
I guess we know which side your bread is buttered on.
Jess
I wonder if this is another example of what thereisnospoon over at Kos describes:
But the important thing to remember is that the Republicans are carrying out this same exercise with every public policy debate today—from invading Iran to making birth control illegal to eliminating Social Security. The once unthinkable becomes possible—and they don’t care if they take some heat for it initially.
fletch
Apparently Jackson didn’t know that is illegal to deny contracts based on political preference because it took his spokesperson two tries to find an explanation that doesn’t involve Jackson breaking the law. The current excuse: he lied.
It’s not ‘political preference’, it’s common sense!
If I am applying for a grant from the City of Columbus, and I say, “Damn, you really have to wonder about Mayor Coleman—his wife is such a drunk that their family has had two houses burn down, and then she blew a .17 breathalyzer after she hit three parked cars…”(all true, BTW…)
Do I get the grant?
Mr Furious
Absolutely true, Otto. This was a word I never heard before I-Rod used it today over at your place.
It just so perfectly describes this Administration…
From dictionary.com:
And, even better, from wikipedia:
Kakistocracy is not used to describe governments run by persons whose primary motivation is graft—-the word for that is kleptocracy. However, the two are not entirely mutually exclusive, as it is possible to be both bad and greedy.
And Andrei, follow the link, I have it spelled right, Tim’s got a typo happening up there…
As far as the carpet-bombing meme, it just burns me that the Bushies are not called for the corruption and incompetence that they should be. I hope that tipping point is upon us, and I’m just doing my little part to inch him over the edge…
Andrew
Comment by GOP4Me — May 9, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
DougJ knows no bounds.
Andrei
I know… I was butsing Tim’s balls. Not yours. 8^)
ppGaz
Does this mean we now live in Kakistan?
r4d20
He didn’t say that I did break the law. He just said that I would break the law. See the difference.
Damn liberal media keep trying to take down our president with their campaign of facts. I got a fact for you. George W. Bush is our facting president. Motherfacters.
Paul Wartenberg
Gee do you think Jackson will get a Medal O Freedom Fries for this?
I think that an earlier, hard-to-find news blurb does admit there was a specific person/company, but I can’t locate it from where I spotted it. I think it might have been in a DailyKos link, need to double-check.
Talking Points Memo has asked a question that has been following this story: WHY did the contractor’s dislike of President Bush even come up as a topic of conversation? Usually when someone is trying to win a deal, the last thing he would do is criticize the boss of the person doling out the contracts. The Occams Razor answer to this is that Jackson asked that contractor for a ‘campaign contribution’ AKA bribe and that the contractor had to admit he couldn’t contribute to the campaign of a President he objected to. Of course, for now that’s speculation but it’s the obly thing that fits (it fits the timing of when this event was supposed to occur, and it would fit the modus operandi of how the GOP has been operating its political funding the last 10-15 years).
Paul Wartenberg
Good grief. He had to shift from being a lawbreaker, to being just a common liar, to try to save his butt.
Surely, people in the future will look back upon this time and shake their heads.
Ah, we’re teaching wonderful morals to our kids, aren’t we? When caught telling a story about how you broke federal law, just admit to being a liar, that’s so much better than being a crook.
:head thump:
The Other Steve
Holy shit! Did you read some of the comments over there? There’s that wingnut Leonidas from scrutator, but he’s the sane one on that thread. RonC is claiming what Jackson did is fighting Communism and it’s perfectly fine.
Captain Ed may be off the reservation, but his commentators are in drinking the koolaid and loving it.
Although, that Adjoran guy there sounds a bit like DougJ. Check this out:
We not only need more patronage in government contracts, we need to scrap the civil service system for government employees.
All civil service has done is ensconce a permanent cadre of untouchable bureaucrats at the upper levels of the Executive branch, able to sabotage the President’s policies at will. For example, the “career” nomenklatura at State and Justice have been vexing Republican Presidents since Nixon.
Although he may be serious. I mean after all they are fighting Communism.
WOW!
DougJ
I’ve got to believe some of the people at Captain Ed’s are ripping me off. That RonC can’t be real. Whenever someone starts off with “he doesn’t go far enough” there’s a good chance it’s a spoof.
DougJ
This one is good too
Political views should certainly not be a disqualifier for receiving a contract.
More trouble to me though: What is this “your president” crap? He’s THE President. I would certainly be rethinking hiring someone who offerred such an unsolicited opinion.
That meteor can’t hit this planet fast enough.
joshua
That’s the greatest sentence in the history of mankind. Why doesn’t he post here anymore?
joshua
Political views should certainly not be a disqualifier for receiving a contract.
More trouble to me though: What is this “your president” crap? He’s THE President. I would certainly be rethinking hiring someone who offerred such an unsolicited opinion.
Clearly the issue is not the opinion, but that it was offered unsolicited. Speak only when spoken to, that sort of thing, I suppose.
AlanDownunder
Bush ain’t quite there yet—Caligula appointed his horse to high office. Close but.
Slide.
You know what is most revealing about this whole story? Its the fact that Jackson didn’t even flinch in saying what he did. These guys are so unethical, so bereft of the concept of good governement, so venal, that they don’t even realize it. Its part of this administration’s DNA. Corrupt and dishonest to the bone. Johnathan Turly had a brilliant piece on Keity Olberman’s show last night comparing the Bush adminstration to the Sopranos. Guys, this is not about ideology. This is not about conservative and liberal. This is not even about competence. This is about a crimainal enterprise that is now running our country. And it is made possible by morons that post things like this:
No, my dear intellectually challenged friend, what is pathetic is that are still people making excuses for this corrupt administration.
A snippet from the Turly interview on Olberman but you really need to read the whole transcript:
Al Maviva
On the subject of Gen. Hayden – he was absolutely correct on the law. I’ve read the transcript, and he was citing the law correctly – his questioner was very sloppy in characterizing the 4th Amendment. It is an area of the law where one has to speak precisely, and Hayden did. Probable cause and warrants are not required for all things considered searches in the popular imagination. If a search is in the category of those intrusions requiring a warrant, then probable cause is always required, though the warrant requirement in some cases is waived due to exigent circumstances, on the theory that such searches are “reasonable”. Many searches can be conducted on something less than probable cause – reasonable suspicion, there’s that word that Hayden alluded to with his discussion of “unreasonable” searches being prohibited by the Amendment. And many other kinds of searches can be conducted without any suspicion of wrongdoing at all, including security screening type searches at airports and government buildings and facilities, the search conducted by the inventorying of property that comes into government possession (by seizure, or by abandonment); or the search that takes place at a DUI checkpoint. Again, those are characterized by the Court as “reasonable” and for various reasons warrants are not required. I don’t care if Hayden gets confirmed or not, but I hate to see the law, and a reasonable exposition of it, so badly misread.
Any thoughts on this, Pooh?
Otto Man
True, but Bush is close—he appointed the bottom half of a horse as Secretary of Defense.
Paul Wartenberg
Even Captain Ed is off the reservation, guys!
Holy shit! Did you read some of the comments over there? There’s that wingnut Leonidas from scrutator, but he’s the sane one on that thread. RonC is claiming what Jackson did is fighting Communism and it’s perfectly fine.
Captain Ed may be off the reservation, but his commentators are in drinking the koolaid and loving it.
Although, that Adjoran guy there sounds a bit like DougJ. Check this out:
I agree with RonC. In fact, he doesn’t go far enough.
We not only need more patronage in government contracts, we need to scrap the civil service system for government employees.
All civil service has done is ensconce a permanent cadre of untouchable bureaucrats at the upper levels of the Executive branch, able to sabotage the President’s policies at will. For example, the “career” nomenklatura at State and Justice have been vexing Republican Presidents since Nixon.
Little history lesson: the Civil Service officially began back in the 1880s in response to 1) disgruntled office seekers shooting at Presidents, and 2) the Kleptocracy that was the Grant Administration, in which the Spoils system of patronage nearly bankrupted the country.
Now we know what era the Republicans really want to take us back to: not the 1950s but the 1870s. Gee, thanks.
Davebo
I read an op ed yesterday by a Republican somewhere who had a great line. To paraphrase, The GOP promised term limits in 1994 and they’ve finally delivered. Only now they’re called indictments.
Mr Furious
That’s a good one, Davebo.
DougJ
Why would it be strange to call Bush “your president” if you were speaking to someone who worked directly for Bush? I also like the way the Mavivistas are acting like whatever Jackson said the guy said is exactly what the guy said, word for word.
DougJ
Is this a good time to ask if John is still happy he voted for Bush? It’s good to ask now while Kerry’s windsurfing and the Dean scream are still fresh in his memory.
DougJ
Actually, the stages of grieving for reasonable Republicans might be interesting to examine here. I think John is in Stage 4:
1. Denial (what about the secret meetings in Prague?)
2. Anger (why won’t the MSM report the good news about Iraq?)
3. Bargaining (if I’m not drafted I promise not to belive the neocons ever again)
4. Depression (I don’t care anymore, I’ll only post about the Steelers and Pirates until this blows over)
5.Acceptance (the moonbats are right—Bush is the worst president ever)
Pb
AlanDownunder, Otto Man,
Bush appointed the former head of the Arabian Horse Association, does that count?
LITBMueller
Al, look more closely at what Hayden actually SAID:
Gen. Hayden: “The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure.”
Landay: “But does it not say ‘probable cause’?”
Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: “No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.”
Landay: “The legal standard is probable cause, General—”
Gen. Hayden [indignant]: “Just to be very clear … mmkay… and believe me, if there’s any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is ‘reasonable’”
He’s just wrong! The Fourth Amendment says, “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 issue, but upon probable cause…”
In other words, for a search to be considered reasonable, a warrant is required, and that warrant will only be issued upon the showing probable cause. Plain and simple. What you are referring to, Al, are different types of searches: Terry stops & frisks, airport searches. These do not require warrants (and probable cause) because they are not considered unreasonable searches and seizures, because people do not have the same expectation of privacy in those circumstances.
Hayden is just dead wrong: the legal standard for searches and seizures where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is that no search/seizure can take place without a warrant which can only be secured with a proper showing of probable cause. In the case of Terry stops on a public street, etc., where there is the expectation of privacy different, and the search is limited (a pat downs outside of the clothing), only a reasonable suspicion is required to initiate the limited search.
Andrew
Al, besides the fact that any honest conservative finds things like DUI checkpoints to be highly unconstitutional, you’re glossing over one pertinent fact: all of those searches are authorized by state or federal law.
The NSA wiretapping program is not. Indeed, it is quite clearly illegal under the FISA act.
DougJ
I don’t think there’s any point in arguing with Al about this. He’s still in Stage 2.
KCinDC
“What do you call your act?”
“The Kakistocrats.”
Steve
No, that part is wrong. There are types of searches that are legal without a warrant, and probable cause is not constitutionally required in those cases. Al Maviva is right.
I don’t believe the NSA warrantless wiretapping is legal; but assuming for the sake of argument that I am wrong, and that they are allowed to wiretap without a warrant, probable cause does not automatically become the applicable standard.
Andrew
Where, exactly, do Brian and Darrell fit in that list? Is there a Stage 0: Lost in Habitrail?
LITBMueller
Steve, you’re right, and I worded that sentence badly. But, I stand by my last graf:
In the end, the legality depends on to things: the level of privacy those being spied upon can expect and how extensive the search/intrusion is. If the search is not unreasonable, then probable cause is not required.
But, the NSA program revealed today is different than even the already revealed surveillance program. Here, the government is sweeping in a ton of information that there are laws to protect, which are designed to protect privacy. So, we know a privacy interest is implicated.
Now, let’s assume that the type of info collected (phone numbers, basic info; no names, etc.) does not rise to the probable cause standard, requiring a warrant. What about the “reasonable suspicion” standard? Is that not implicated?
The whole point of using that standard in the case of, say, Terry stops, is to prevent police from just stopping every fourth guy on the street and patting him down with the hope that drugs will be found. But, isn’t that like what the NSA is doing here?
DougJ
I’d put Brian at Stage 0, Darrell at Stage 1. The real question is where does JeffG fit in.
Steve
Here is a good diary at dkos that talks about some of the legal issues relating to this new program.
Slide
Al Maviva is once again wrong. What a surprise. Lets all remember how Al selectively quoted the FISA law way back when and suggested that the FISA law allowed for the type of wiretapping the NSA is engaged in. It was an argument that was not even being made by the adminstration – just the apologists that reflexively swallow any drivel that supports this law breaking administration.
well, Al is at it again. Making apologies for General Hayden by saying that he was
No. Hayden was totally WRONG on claiming that the constitutional standard was not probable cause. But I’m sure Al won’t take my word for it, even considering the fact that I was a law enforcement official for most of my adult life and have dealt with searches, probable cause, reasonableness, and warrants on a regular basis, so lets go to some experts:
JONATHAN TURLEY
Turley is a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University and has written and practiced in the surveillance and national security areas for many years. He said today: “It was an extraordinary event. Like President Bush, Gen. Hayden stands accused of committing federal criminal acts. His primary defense is that my lawyers told me I could do it. That is hardly a defense. What he did not address was the clear violation of the exclusivity provision of federal law, where it expressly restricts such surveillance to Title III [the federal wiretap law] and FISA. His appearance should reaffirm the need for comprehensive congressional hearings, particularly in the House, as soon as possible.”OH… but I’m sure they don’t matter either, just partisan hacks no doubt. How about a former head of the NSA?
another partisan hack, damn.
Al Maviva
DougJ – could you show me where it was that I defended Sec. Jackson? Just curious because I don’t remember doing so. Or where I collected disciples? I mean, I’d be cool with having some disciples, though I’d have to brush up on the water walking. Maybe I could start with turning 9 bottles of wine into enough Sangria to booze up the multitudes…
LITBMueller, you say:
I’m just curious, in your little jurisprudential universe, and taking just one example, how exactly is it that the Court has come to sanction searches incident to a lawful arrest without warrant (New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)), and protective searches of homes for weapons and other suspects without a warrant (Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990))? Buie would allow an officer to chase a suspect into a house in hot pursuit (even a house that the suspect owns) arrest the suspect, and then conduct a sweep search. It seems to me your major premise, “all searches require a warrant” is false.
Andrew, couple things. You say:
So I guess any conservative who disagrees with you on this point of law is dishonest? What about the liberals who think such searches are constitutional? Y’know, like Justice Blackmun in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)? Is he dishonest? Or do all honest liberals think such searches are highly (or lowly) constitutional? You also tell me that the other searches I mentioned were permissible and distinguishable from traditional home searches and whatnot because they are authorized by statute, so they aren’t 4th Amendment searches. That’s an interesting theory. Exactly what is it that empowers the federal government and the states to overrule the Constitution? My impression is that all searches have to meet constitutional muster, and that means in some cases where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrant is required; but in other cases the expectation of privacy is not reasonable so no warrant is required; in other cases where things are known to be subject to adminstrative inspection (like SEC filings records) that a non-criminal (adminstrative) inspection is not a search; and in still other cases like Buie and Sitz there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the state’s interest in doing the search is reasonable and the search is permissible under the 4th Amendment in spite of the reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems to me, and indeed to many attorneys, that the 4th Amendment always applies to searches by law enforcement personnel, just that some types of searches are not subject to warrant requirements. Go ahead, Andrew, me and the legal community are awaiting your exposition of a new theory, on how statutory authorizations render the 4th Amendment’s variable protections a nullity. All honest liberals could answer this question definitively, I’m sure.
DougJ
I guess it’s clear now that the whack jobs (JeffG, scrutator, etc.) and the semi-whack jobs (Al) have no problem with the fact that all of our calls are being monitored. I wonder what Rick Moran and Don Surber think. (I know a lot of you don’t like Don, but he’s my “go to” blog when I want to know what reasonable conservatives are thinking—that is, now that John has hit Stage 4).
Al Maviva
And Slide, thanks for showing up. I ate some cheese at a dinner party the other night and I think it’s made me a tiny bit constipated. Just seeing your commentary and inimitable, count-on-it-it-will-be-there civiliity and gracious touch gives me consolation. I think it’s just great that there are people like you that we can all rely on to generate a practically unlimited pile of excrement on demand.
tBone
Stage ∞: Recursive Cranial-Rectal Inversion.
DougJ
Okay, so the Ricker is blaming the “leakers” . Telling the press that the media is spying on us is treason, etc., etc.
Disappointing because the Ricker can be good sometimes.
Anyone want to take bets on what John thinks about this? My guess is that he’s very angry about it. I think it could be what pushes him into Stage 5.
Otto Man
He’s where he always is—with his finger up a dog’s ass.
What is it with conservatives and the hot man-on-dog sex anyway?
Steve
It’s kinda funny to see Al write such a long post that by the time he’s done, the guy he’s arguing with has already been corrected and apologized for his misstatement.
Slide
Al
why? because the court lives in the real world and understand practical considerations. A police officer making an arrest cannot wait for a judicial proceeding to get a warrant to check his prisoner’s pants pocket for very practical reasons. His LIFE is in danger. Exigent circumstance. Hot pursuit – exigent circumstance. To compare that with what the NSA program does is just foolish and disengious – especially considering the fact that there is a provision in the FISA law to get the warrant 72 hours AFTER the wiretap. NO EXIGENT circumstances whatsover to justify a warrantless search.
Lets remember what the purpose of a warrant is:
I find it amazing that some conservatives actually support the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens by the Federal government without any judicial review whatsoever. Amazing contradiction to what conservatism used to mean. Now, do you think their position is pure or convenient. Will they feel the same way when President Hillary Clinton is making those unchecked, unchallenged, unreviewed and secret decisions?
LITBMueller
Steve, that DKos diary pointed me to a pretty interesting bit of federal statute:
§ 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records
(c ) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.—
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity—
(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
(C ) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or [1]
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2). [concerns subpeonas]
Slide
LITBMueller yes another law apparently broken by this criminal administration. Even Bill Kristol expressed concerned about this latest law breaking when he was on Fox and Friends this morning.
DougJ
So Don Surber has a pretty reasonable (though slightly confused) post up about this. It’s the first conservative blog I’ve seen criticize this so far and it’s not indignant. So my guess is that there won’t be any real investigation. Let’s see what the Freepers think.
Slide
Constipated Al:
Steve:
Isn’t it a shame that Al’s cheese didn’t have the same effect on his posting as it did on his colon?
Mac Buckets
If I were in charge of giving a government contract to someone, and he (apropos of nothing) started ripping my boss, I’d yank the contract, too. If the guy’s a big enough moron to go off-topic to slam my boss in an unrelated business meeting, he’s just shown me that he’s to stupid to get the deal.
So it’s not because of his politics, it’s because he’s deranged, unhinged, retarded, and/or a giant douchebag. I’m sure there’s a better guy to get the work.
DougJ
The Freepers are all for the giant database. They’re calling Lindsey Graham “gay” for opposing it.
Sojourner
I think the solution is obvious. Americans should have the choice to give up their rights to the Bush administration. Folks like Darrell and Al are free to hand over their civil rights as a token of their love and commitment to the Bushies.
The rest of us can decline and be left alone.
Punchy
Let’s go OT b/c Dr. Cole is ignoring the biggest story of the day:
NSA is collecting phone records of EVERYONE. My mom, grandma, sister, friends, and bosses. Somewhere, someone knows if Joe Sixpack called his mistress instead of his wife. Someone at NSA knows if Joe WallStreet was tipped off about a buyout by the CEO before anyone else (a crime). The implications are enormous. And Bush runs out today and says “Al Queda. 9/11. Tear-rists. 9/11. Bin Laden. Good night, and fuck all of you.”
d.i.c.t.a.t.o.r.s.h.i.p.
Mac Buckets
Yes, they’re called Verizon and Cingular, zippy. If you’re scared, get a dog and change your diapers.
Chickenwing
Because if you don’t agree with the President your “deranged, unhinged, retarded, and/or a giant douchebag”.
You got that, disagree = douchebag.
I’m still waiting to for my mind to go, my IQ to drop to 70 and to be transformed into a giant container of saline and vinegar with a neat little squirting nozzle on top.
Steve
Except if you were in charge of giving a government contract, your boss wouldn’t be the President, your boss would be the American people. There’s a fundamental difference in attitudes that’s coming to the fore here.
This is a circular argument. The only reason it’s “stupid” to let the guy in charge of contracts know your political views is that he might use that as a basis to yank your contract. And the only reason he’s justified in yanking your contract is that you’re “stupid.”
Al Maviva
Y’know Steve, you’re right. Instead of trying to back up my arguments with facts, I think I’ll just say whatever conjecture happens to be on my mind just then. I’ll fit in a lot better that way.
Sojourner
I thought you were already doing that.
neil
Why is everyone assuming he started ripping Bush ‘apropos of nothing’? It wasn’t in Jackson’s story that it was apropos of nothing, he just didn’t say what, if anything, it was apropos of.
You’ve got to stop assuming that politicians and their appointees tell the truth all the time.
DougJ
That’s beneath you, Mac. You’ve bee spending too much time with Jeff Goldstein.
tBone
Possibly the stupidest argument I’ve seen here all week. And that’s saying something.
Steve
That’s a heck of a way to thank me for agreeing with you on this thread. Fortunately, you so rarely put me in a position of having to do so.
LITBMueller
Shorter Darrell: This is a government of Bush, for Bush, and by Bush….you douchebags
Jill
Would you all still like the illegal wire-tapping and data mining if say a Democratic President was the “decider” of such things?
Mac Buckets
I’ll use smaller words for you. No, you’re deranged and a douchebag because you ripped a guy’s boss while you’re trying to do business with him (I know you libs aren’t business-savvy, but I’ll give you that little tip).
Drop to 70? Riiiiiiiight.
Mac Buckets
Seriously, have any of you lefties ever had a job? If a guy hires you, and you report to him, he’s your boss.
Wrong. The reason it’s stupid is because a smart person knows not to rip someone’s boss when you’re doing business with him. It doesn’t matter if your boss is Bush, Clinton, Michael Moore, or even Slide. It’s objectively dumb to mention such stuff in a business setting. If one of my salesman did it, I’d expect to lose the sale, and I’d have the salesman fired on the spot, because someone that dumb can’t do a good job for me.
Andrew
Al, you are so good at standing up and knocking down strawmen. Do you ever get so giddy about winning an argument against no one that you pee your pants?
Mac Buckets
I guess I’m not suffering fools graciously today. I’m hungover from a Chateauneuf-de-Pape-soaked soiree last night and my head feels like the Ramones have re-united in there.
DougJ
What Chateaunuefs did you have? I use to drink those quite a bit.
Chickenwing
If this is a ripping… man I’d hate to be pounded by him.
I bet the Pres is still feeling that…. man ouch!
Cyrus
So it’s not because of his politics, it’s because he’s deranged, unhinged, retarded, and/or a giant douchebag. I’m sure there’s a better guy to get the work.
If that were what happened, then you’d probably be right. Professionalism is a qualification and an indicator of competence, and I’d be very surprised if any court case has said they couldn’t consider that.
On the other hand, what if what happened were different? What if the interview were done and the decision had been made and they were sitting around talking more casually about it, and Jackson made some comment about how great Bush was, and the interviewee responded with his own opinion?
Or what if, as Josh Marshall’s reader guessed, Jackson asked for a “campaign contribution”, and the contractor declined?
Personally, I think the second choice is most likely. Partly because it seems like the kind of thing people would do, but mostly because it’s how Jackson told the story, genius. And, yes, the second example would in fact be illegal. Partisanship isn’t supposed to be a requirement to get a government job. We aren’t talking about a new president kicking out a department director appointed by his predecessor with wildly different ideology, we’re talking about patronage and government by the campaign contributors. That’s illegal.
Of course, you seem to believe that everyone who “has a problem with your president” is “deranged, unhinged, retarded, and/or a giant douchebag”. To someone with your worldview, the first scenario seems most likely. To everyone that doesn’t see The Left™ as a baby-eating, flag-burning boogeyman, however…
canuckofascist
Thank heavens he didn’t say that Bush wouldn’t know funny if it slapped him in the face.
Mac Buckets
Some Gardine, some Cigalons, a couple others I didn’t recognize—the problem with C-de-Ps is that 95% of the labels look exactly the same (tan label, little picture of the Palais at Avignon), so you need a good look.
Steve
To which Mac said:
Exactly! It’s stupid because you’d lose the sale! That’s exactly what I said.
Now, if you want to take the position that “it was illegal to deny the guy the contract, but he’s still stupid for saying what he said,” that’s fine. But to say that his stupidity makes it legal because now you’re denying on the basis of stupidity… that’s just a crazy, crazy argument. There is not a court in the land that would accept it.
Mac Buckets
Never said it. You guys feign more injury than a Spanish soccer team…
Mac Buckets
Crazy, because…? Obviously Cyrus and I disagree with you.
And we’re clearly in the land of fiction here if we’re talking about a court ever hearing a case based on this nonsense.
DougJ
I think they tend to taste the same as well, with the exceptio nof obvious outliers like Beaucastel and the great Henri Bonneau. They’re great wines, but I think that right now, the better Gigondas and even some CDR Villages (Rasteau, particularly), taste almost the same for half to two-thirds the money.
I feel like cracking a bottle just thinking about this. You know you’ve reached a point of liking wine too much when you start wishing you could drink it without having any effects of the alcohol!
Mac Buckets
I’m a huge Gigondas guy myself. Great value for a big wine. Make a daube de boeuf with a Gigondas marinade instead of a C-d-P—ohhhhh, good stuff. Just thinking about it is taking my hangover away. Good work, bro!
Steve
Are you kidding me? If this contractor came forward I would take his case in a heartbeat. It’s a slam-dunk winner.
I seriously cannot believe you’ve talked yourself into this one.
Perry Como
Imagine the scope of the enemies lists you can compile just by knowing who someone calls.
Mac Buckets
Michael Moore’s dry cleaners!
Perry Como
Someone has a machine that big?
Slide
Bucket boy Wisdom:
Business-savvy examples:
damn, I wish us liberals could be business savvy like them repubs….
DougJ
It’s more of a mobile lab.
tBone
I have no idea what this means, but it sounds dirty.
Mac Buckets
Government is the opposite of business.
Slide
bucket boy:
So bucket boy’s take on this whole matter is that the vendor just “out of the blue” decided to rip someone’s boss to the political appointee of the “boss”. You’re right bucket boy that would be dumb. Very dumb. But may I suggest that anyone that belives that that is how it likely went down is even dumber. But wait a minute it didn’t really happen anyway it was just an anecdote. But wait, an anecdote is defined as:
hmmm…. this is getting confusing. Question which takes precedence when describing this administration? Are they more unethical or more dishonest? In this case we’ve seemed to have hit the Daily Double of sleeze.
canuckofascist
Political difference bedamned, I want to set you up with my sister so I can go over for supper.
Cyrus
Never said it. You guys feign more injury than a Spanish soccer team…
Well, I’m sorry, clearly I’ve misjudged you. Perhaps you could explain why you believe the aspiring contractor went off topic by ripping Bush apropos of nothing? I’m eager to hear why you think the face-value interpretation of jackson’s anecdote is inaccurate. Because that’s what you’re saying. Here’s the entire snippet we’re arguing about:
“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’ I thought to myself, ‘Brother, you have a disconnect—the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.’
“Apropos of nothing”, “ripping”, and “go off-topic to slam my boss” are your phrases, not Jackson’s. If you have any reason to believe them other than your own fevered imagination, then your description of the contractor as “deranged, unhinged, retarded, and/or a giant douchebag” could be sortakindamaybe fair. If not, then we’re back to patronage. And as far as I can tell, it looks like “not”.
The Other Steve
It still seems to me the problem here is not a vendor ripping on someone’s boss, but rather this Jackson guy bringing this up as, even as an “anecdote”, in a speech to contractors.
Why did Jackson do that?
If Bucketboy could answer that, I think we’d be on track to a reasonable discussion.
Perry Como
But I thought we had the CEO President?
insert Enron joke
Mac Buckets
Cyrus—
Based on that exact quote, how can you conclude anything but that the alleged Bush reference by the vendor was out-of-the-blue? I think my interpretation is reasonable, as far as we can interpret something that apparently never happened.
HyperIon
Over the last several years, it seems like every entity I do business with has enclosed a “privacy policy” in a bill. I have not paid too much attention to them…lots of fine print and legalese.
But now I am very curious about what they agree not to do: is it only that they will not sell my name and address?
BTW I am a Qwest customer. And I’m thinking I’ll continue to be one. But now I have to dig out their privacy policy!
Cyrus
Now we’re getting somewhere… perhaps, “Thanks for giving me the contract. You won’t regret it. You know, I have a problem with your president, but this opportunity means a lot to me.”
It could be even less out of the blue than that. JACKSON: “Your resume is so impressive, I’m surprised you haven’t worked for us already. Why is that?”
CONTRACTOR: “Well, I have a problem with your president.”
After all, Jackson talked about the would-be contractor’s message in his anecdote, not the medium. He didn’t say a word about the guy’s conduct. He didn’t mention the guy going off on a rant or giving Jackson a hard time about his allegiance to Bush. To Jackson, the biggest problem with the contractor, if not the only one, was that he didn’t like Bush.
You seem to think it went something like this, more or less: [Contractor steps into Jackson’s office] “Thanks for the contract. I don’t like the president. I don’t like President Bush. [Walks out]” That or a longer rant about how bad Bush is. That’s not impossible but it seems pretty unlikely.
You are right about one thing, we’re both guessing. Everything I’ve said so far is based on the assumption that Jackson would include the relevant parts of the story. If the moral is “don’t burst out with a frothing screed in front of a guy who awarding you a contract,” I assume Jackson would have mentioned anger instead of two short, simple sentences.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this really didn’t happen. Maybe Jackson meant to warn his audience about being discreet about their political belief as a general common-sense principle, and he was really just stupid enough to phrase it in a way that makes it look like he personally would do what he was warning them about. Or maybe the contractor really did go on a rant, but Jackson focused on a completely irrelevant detail in his story. Under any imaginable interpretation it was a dumb thing to say, so maybe he was just stupid in a non-evil way.
Bruce Moomaw
Where does the Administration keep FINDING these people? You don’t see them out in the daytime.
As for Jackson’s “explanation” of his statement, let’s quote, first, Josh Marshall: “HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson has now come forward to say how sorry he is that in a public speech he told a story about how he kills government contracts if the owners of the companies in question don’t support President Bush. Now he admits that it never happened. It wasn’t true. And in fact he never lets politics interfere with HUD contracting decisions.
“This reminds me of the time I walked into a bank and told them I’d stolen a bunch of their money even though I hadn’t. I really regretted that. Or the time I told a good friend I’d slept with his girlfriend even though I hadn’t. I really regretted that too.”
And then Mark Kleiman: “Did you know that ‘anecdotal’ was a synonym for “false”? Me neither.
“Of course, it’s virtually certain that Secretary Jackson is lying about having lied. He and his spokeswoman have given too many details of the transaction (which she called ‘hypothetical’ another new synonym for ‘false’) for any sane person to believe that the whole thing was invented.
“Someone ought to remind Mr. Jackson that if he repeats his current lie to his Department’s Inspector General or to the FBI, he could go to jail for it. Unfortunately, there isn’t (yet) a law against officials lying to the public.
“As some blogger remarked today, this may be the first time in Washington history in which an official’s defenders claim that he was lying while his accusers insist that he was telling the truth.”
Still, it’s possible that the nation’s HUD Secretary may manage to get off the hook on the grounds that he’s a complete moron instead of a crook.
Slide.
The Bush administration’s hiring criteria require both traits in order to be considered for high positions.