There is simply no other way to categorize this shoddy piece of "journalism". Whether because he wanted to curry favor with the administration, was afraid of being accused of being biased against it, or was just lazily following the CW narrative that most other journalists continue to follow for god knows what reasons, Shane committed a fundamental and egregious act of journalistic malpractice, not to mention logical fallacy--claiming that something was not the case just because there was as yet no direct evidence that it was the case. That would be like saying that there is clearly no intelligent life in the universe because we have never found evidence of it. Someone needs to explain to Shane that you can't prove a negative--especially when much is still unknown about the underlying details. The point is not proven.

As for the subpoenas, apparently three Repubs voted to authorize and issue them along with all Dems--Hatch, Specter and Grassley. I don't know about Grassley but Hatch is a bit of a surprise. I wonder if this is because the DC USA who will be tasked with serving and enforcing these subpoenas (at least until he's presumably replaced in the fall under the provisions of the recently enacted S.214), Jeff Taylor, used to work for Hatch when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee (before Specter took over), and thus figures that he'll drag his feet in enforcing them and buy the administration some time, while allowing himself to look like he's cooperating with these investigations. We'll have to see about that.

In any case, it's clearly headed for the courts, where it'll be dragged out yet further (assuming that they don't fast-track a ruling all the way up to SCOTUS, as I believe has happened in the past when potentially serious criminality and violations of the constutution were in question) and buy them yet more time. So I suspect that Hatch is just playing games here. Let's hope that Leahy is smarter and tougher than that--and the courts don't prove to be blindly partisan and thus grossly derelict in their constitutional duties. I wonder, if they do rule for Bush, would there be grounds for their impeachment if the ruling was egregiously unfair and obviously partisan? And even if not, do these judges really want to tar the rest of their careers with the stain of having blatantly flaunted the law to side with a clearly criminal administration?

We'll just have to see.

Old news and more than thoroughly covered. In a nutshell, they have claimed two justifications. One is the president's alleged Article II power during wartime to authorize warrantless wiretaps (which implies that FISA is unconstitutional, at least during wartime). And the other is that the AUMF supercedes the limitations places by FISA on the president. Both have been thoroughly shot down by most legal experts (including Glenn) and are absurd on their face. So much so that even the administration has back off from using them. Instead, it claimed a while back to have gone back to using FISA to get warrants. As if we can know if that's true. And as if there's any chance that it is true. One thing's for sure about these guys which is that the never change their MO. This is, I believe, what will ultimately bring them down--they're too inflexible in any but the most symbolic way to change in the ways they'd need to change to save themselves.

I imagine that Glenn will cover this soon. Considering how many scandals and outrages there are to discuss, and his book tour, I'd cut him some slack on this. CSPAN did feature a speech by Taguba early today. I only caught the end of it but am hoping that they repeat it soon. I suspect that congress will open up hearings on it to try to link it to people far higher up in the fool chain. (And that wasn't a typo.)

All that work in 2006 and we just get Libby? If the loyal opposition can not stand up to the illegality of a president now --- when on earth would they?

The Democratic-led 110th congress convicted Libby? Huh? What does one have to do with the other? Did they also convict Paris and kill Anna Nichole?

In any case, you call today's subpoenas and months of intense if methodical investigations "not stand[ing] up to the illegality of a president"? Or are you upset that they didn't pull out the warp drive that Leahy keeps hidden in the man-sized safe in his office? Get serious if you want to be taken seriously and stop being such a concern troll.

I wouldn't write off US journalism quite yet. The work of ethical, honest and hard-working real journalists like Hersh, Scheer, Priest and Gellman gives me hope. The trick is to make their MO the norm, and not the exception. That will take years and a wholesale replacement of today journalistic sychphants. But I believe that it's possible and will happen, and that the internet will play a big role in this--which it has already done on the op-ed end of the news business.

As we who read your blog every day well know. :-)