If anything, there is more rationale now for an autocratic system ruled by ukase and decree -- rather than a constitutional self-governing one ruled by law -- than during the Bush years. The Crisis State that Obama is inheriting is on the verge of -- or is actually -- imploding on many fronts simultaneously. Just prioritizing the Catastrophe the Nation faces calls for an autocrat rather than a democrat (which is one reason why ancient democracies often turned to "temporary dictators", eh?) to get through the troubled times ahead to say the least.

Funny you should talk like that. Yesterday, President-Elect Obama gave a public statement on the economic stimulus package he was sending to Congress. Among the things he said was that he was "going to ban earmarks". In my recollection, the President of the United States does not have the authority to order the Congress of the United States to change the way they write legislation. Is he being inaugurated as Tribune in addition to President?

[our reznit eedjit Sh**ter]: Isn't what Tamm did illegal and isn't the rule of law to be applied impartially? Or just when the "right" people say so?

Tamm is under investigation and threat of prosecution. Do let us know when Dubya and his thugs are similarly situated, and we'll reread your post then. But it won't matter; under such circumstances, your post still won't make any sense.

Cheers,

P.S.: FWIW, case law supports the proposition that criminal acts cannot properly be classified "secret". Which we may see if a trial ensues for Mr. Tam.

I'd take Tamm on my side instead of the other scumbags.

WE can only hope that lots of people are reading what you wrote today, Glenn. This is too important to be forgotten.

is my speciality. So here goes:

The President intends to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council:

Elliot Abrams, of Virginia, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;

Joshua B. Bolten, of the District of Columbia, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;

Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;

Cheryl Feldman Halpern, of New Jersey, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09,;

Michael B. Mukasey, of New York, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;

You can check out the rest at: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/06/bush-makes-last-minute-appointments/

ondelette: Is he being inaugurated as Tribune in addition to President?

We already know that Pelosi wants Congress to be [no, sorry she said] “give Obama the tools he needs”

And speaking of that speech:

Krugman:

Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/

“[…] The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus. […]”

More stimulus notes

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/more-stimulus-notes/

“[…] I’d guess that the CBO estimate, which has unemployment averaging 8.3 percent in 2009 and 9 percent in 2010, is actually too optimistic (see 3, below), but even so it puts the Obama plan in perspective: a 3% of GDP plan, with a significant share going to ineffective tax cuts, to fill an 8% or more gap. […]”

I've made it OFFICE FRIENDLY by not setting the music to automatically play when a page opens. You will find a music player icon on the lower-left-hand corner of every page which has a sound file embedded.

There is also a very good video concerning Gaza on Page 4. I urge you to watch it. It's really excellent.

I'm still gathering information to put a UT Forum together if the readers here want one. Unless I get more positive responses, I'll shitcan the idea very shortly. If you want one, let me know. Details of the concept are in the Lagniappe section of the Wog.

There's also a surprise for Derbig.

link at sig

In my recollection, the President of the United States does not have the authority to order the Congress of the United States to change the way they write legislation. Is he being inaugurated as Tribune in addition to President?

Regarding earmarks and the banning thereof, this is reminiscent of the line item veto talk that surfaces every once in a while. Yet another example of the Executive seeking to undercut the Legislative.

Interesting that, as Jim White noted, the letter from the DOJ refers only to a "Presidentially-Authorized" spying program, not a "legal" spying program.

Of course, this language is consistent with the FISA amendment immunity language, which expressly conditions immunity for illegal spying where it was done pursuant to a presidential authorization but in no way finds, determines or legislates that any such authorization was itself legal. The immunity under FISA is a "good faith" type of immunity, and nothing in the FISA amendments legitimizes Bush's illegal orders themselves. Indeed, the immunity is predicated upon the presumption that Bush's orders were unlawful. Bush is the only person not immunized by the FISA amendments.

Now, here sits Mr. Tamm. He is the (rather,"a") guy with actual, first-hand, admissible-in-evidence knowledge of the nature and scope of the illegalities in action and he seems to be one of the very few willing to say so. He hasn't yet testified about his actual knowledge (has he?), he only has spoken to reporters, whose accounts of what he said do not constitute admissible evidence (it's hearsay, generally not allowed in court). And the DOJ reads more elaboration in another media account and sends out a letter inartfully suggesting he may have waived otherwise applicable privileges by publicly disclosing information otherwise potentially privileged.

But if Tamm possesses evidence of government wrongdoing, wouldn't putting it on the record before a grand jury be an heroic act? It is my understanding of grand jury secrecy principles that the witness is not bound by Rule 6(e) concepts and could divulge what the testimony was (OK, that understanding comes from a West Wing episode and CJ Craig's relief). So it the Mukasey DOJ wants to be heavy-handed here, maybe taking them up on it and explaining for a grand jury just how illegal these NSA actions were could whet the appetite of the real lawyers that DOJ is going to hire after Obama gets there. And then... then... then... maybe somebody could pursue criminal prosecution of Mr. Bush, aided by grand jury testimony of Mr. Tamm elaborating, first hand, upon the gravity of the illegalities ordered by the President.

And never forget, the "real criminal" in the NSA spying scandal was and is George w. Bush, and Congress has confirmed that already by granting immunity to those who followed Bush's illegal orders in implementing the NSA spying program.

Granted, Mukasey's shills deserve no quarter; they should be offering Tamm immunity for his testimony, not threatening prosecution. But Mukasey shed any integrity his long career had generated when he undertook to shield Bush's lawlessness from the law, and this latest action is just one more in a sad list of malfeasances. But maybe it could be turned against him and his overlords: imagine, Bush being impaled on testimony haughtily demanded in a blatant effort to silence a critic, but instead openly given....