Here's a nice e-mail New Year's Newsletter from Harry Reid!

I bolded the buried lede. I see it as a not-very-subliminal statement of the Prime Directive, or theme, of the incoming administration. Seeding the meme here to create a buzz, and get the Big Mo.

Mush! Giddyap! Let's light this candle! "Don't Look Back, Redux"! Forward into the past! Yes We Can!

Of course, despite the relatively non-discouraging appointment of Dawn Johnsen, I remain hypervigilant and paranoid over the prospect of Obama attempting a variation of the Big Lie: The Big Leapfrog, in which Obama amazingly soars from the podium, bearing the Rug of Reconciliation on his shoulders-- and, what the hell, wearing a stovepipe hat-- and lands on the Truman Balcony with said rug perfectly laid over a 21st-Century multitude of sins, high crimes, and misdemeanors.

And we shall never speak of those dreadful things again!

So yeah, maybe I'm reading too much into this devolved hack's pep talk. But I would've felt better if instead, he'd written, "And I'm looking forward to helping to set a lot of wrongs to rights!"

________________________________________________

Dear [Little Brother],

Yesterday was a terrific day to be a Democrat. We swore in 7 new senators, a true testament to all the hard work you put in to ensure a Democratic victory last November.

We still face huge challenges - a slumping economy, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming climate crisis. But looking out over the Senate chamber yesterday, I feel more confident than ever that our new senators - backed by your tireless grassroots support - will be a huge part of turning this country around.

I, for one, am eager to turn the page on the last eight years.

As we welcome these new and vibrant leaders into the Senate, I am reminded of how crucial a role your support for the DSCC played in our stunning victories. Because we could rely on your committed support from the beginning, we were able to recruit terrific candidates like Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Warner in Virginia. Your tireless support for our ongoing field and media campaigns helped us win close races for Mark Begich in Alaska and Jeff Merkley in Oregon.

The DSCC, under the skillful new leadership of Sen. Bob Menendez is already laying the foundation for even more victories in 2010. I know that bringing the change this country needs will take every one of the 59 Democratic seats you have already helped us win, and that if we can win even more in 2 years time, we can help President-elect Obama achieve greater and greater goals.

Thank you once again for everything you have already done to support the DSCC and for everything you will continue to do. We truly owe all of our success to your steadfast dedication.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

Forget Holder. I want to see Glenn Greenwald as Attorney General of the United States.

Can you just imagine? Greenwald with full subpoena power and carte-blanche to investigate crimes against the constitution by the Bush Administration, along with full authorization to indict and prosecute anyone with enough good evidence...like we do out here in the real world.

I can dream

"You are doing a very good job in making my case that true believers like you who accept no criticism and brook no opposition are exactly why our Founding Fathers did their very best to create a complicated government structure which would hopefully forever bar dangerous nut cases such as yourselves from ever winning power."

Ooohhhh! So that's what the Founding Fathers were up to! Stupid me; I just thought they were all about throwing out the lobsterbacks for good. When aaaalll along, in point of fact, they were actually creating a complicated "goobermint" structure to keep out the rabble.

I see.

(nice Bulwar-Litton, by the way...)

"Cheers"

What? Are we drinking already? Starting a bit early today, aren't we?

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.

-- Arne Langsetmo

Arne's point suggests that a criminal trial of Mr. Tamm would allow the defense to put forth the criminality of the entire process on public display! Truly it wouldn't be fair to Mr. Tamm (but it would be amazing to watch on Court TV- hey, ya gotta reach the average American dumba** where they live...)

Dave

re: Illinois Sec. of State

I've heard that wrinkle about SOS needs to certify the appointment, but also that he doesn't. And the Illinois AG is not exactly a disinterested party. That's a rats-nest that the ISC will have to untangle I guess.

But Reids behavior is so lame I can't stand it. He's been all over this thing, interfering with a state issue. Reid's statement:

"We [Senate] determine who sits in the Senate. And the House determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

"President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history."

Nadine Strossen, "No Safer, But a Little Less Free," Washington Post, September 2, 1996 pg A1

Thirteen years ago, President Clinton opened the door to warrantless wiretapping. It was George Bush who blew it into a Constitutional emergency. Everyone here struggles to right that mistake.

I have nothing against "roving wiretaps". The question was whether you needed a new court order for each place or modality of communication of a particular suspect (the 4thAm "particularly describing the place..." considerations). As the subject's the same, and the real "items" sought (the conversations, etc.) are the same, I don't have much issue with broadening the wiretaps to allow the "roving wiretap" ... as long as there's probable cause for the tap in the first place!!!! (which was a requirement for wiretaps beforehand as well).

As for the CALEA laws, I can understand the need for them (disclaimer: they have helped pay for, amongst other things, the nifty PowerMac I'm typing this on). Once again I don't have a problem with technical standards/requirements to facilitate legitimate law enforcement. Just as I wouldn't recommend that police searches be completely done away with, I understand that police have their job to do, and that the customary standards (probably cause, judicial oversight, etc.) that we have had since the Bill of Rights is a reasonable balance between individual liberty and government interests.

I think you're wrong in claiming that "Clinton opened the door to warrantless wiretapping" (not any more that any prior presidents).

What distinguishes Dubya's wiretapping is not the modality and technology, but rather the flagrant disregard for the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Cheers,