Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

The Hill has a nice package of pieces chronicling the full measure of not-ready-for-prime-time goofballery behind that leak investigation Frist and Hastert called for.

From article one ...

Rank-and-file members of the House and Senate intelligence committees said they were in the dark yesterday about the timing and logistics of a possible joint investigation into alleged leaks from the Central Intelligence Agency, and there were strong indications that congressional action could be preempted by a potential Justice Department probe.

Article two ...

Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) contradicted the House Intelligence Committee when they called for an investigation into a specific leak case, the question of who divulged classified information about CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe.

And of course, number three ...

A leak suspected to have come from the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) complicated, confused and nearly derailed a joint effort by Senate and House Republican leaders to seek an investigation of the unauthorized release of classified information.

Forget the insider trading thing. Can we just get an investigation going into whether Bill Frist is too big a goof to be in the senate?

TPM Reader JP checks in ...


Thanks for the excerpt from the Nelson Report. Glad to see adult establishment types finally smelling the coffee.

One more thing: with all the disgusting details emerging about the administration's pro-torture policies, how do they now explain the prosecution of Lyndie England, et al? It's clear this goes all the way to the top. So why is she and her boyfriend rotting in Leavenworth while Dick and Don still roam free? I'd like to hear Scott McClellan answer that one.


What's the answer to that exactly?

Matt Yglesias has a good catch fact-checking Ahmad Chalabi's excuse and dodge of the day on why he fed a stream of liars and con-artists to US intelligence agencies. Actually, it's not even much a fact check. Matt just looked up the page from the Silbermann-Robb Report that Chalabi kept referring to today at AEI. Take a look.

A snippet out of this evening's Nelson Report ...

Scandals..on the torture scandal part of the ongoing psychodrama called America, the political theme is that the Republican Leadership continues to trip all over itself, contradicting each other, insulting each other, and generally looking like incompetent fools. This is almost too much for the Democrats, who can hardly believe what they see unfolding, and who thus, so far, remain in something of a comic stupor, pending an organized, coherent attack.

But things are happening, and Senate Dems are coalescing around efforts to force real hearings on the misuse of Iraq war intel, and the torture scandal...even as the Republicans flounder between trying to deny everything, while simultaneously excusing or explaining it away. Latest example...former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, whom, you will recall, was forced to resign for insensitive racial remarks, is clearly revenging himself with comments that it was a fellow Republican who leaked the “CIA torture” story to the Washington Post last week.

On the larger topic, law and morality...the ethic of being an American leader, and its betrayal by the Bush Administration...the NY Times today details last year’s CIA Inspector General’s classified report that Bush Administration torture directives carried out by the Agency “might violate some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture...”and remember we warned last night that the CIA pros have it out for the White House, and will not rest until responsibility for torture, as Iraq WMD, is laid at the foot of the political bosses responsible, consequences come what may.

On the CIA IG’s report on violating international law, note the word “might”? We checked with a highly informed/involved former State Department source. His comments: “...in 1988 when John Whitehead signed the Convention in New York, and then later, when we ratified it, we enacted domestic laws where necessary to make it ‘the law of the land.’ When we made our report, for example, as required by the Convention we had this to say to the UN, copy to the Senate: ‘Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. US law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a ‘state of public emergency’) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension.’ (Report of the United States to the UN Committee against Torture, October 15, 1999, UN Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, February 9, 2000, para. 6.) Note the language -- as is in the Convention's title -- about other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It's not merely torture....” (End of comments by our source.)

Hummm....sounds like a pretty solid case for an impeachment proceeding, were there anything resembling either a sense or shame, or national ethics, in the Leadership of the House of Representatives and Senate. Something to be argued out in the 2006 Congressional campaigns?

They've brought us very, very low.

It ain't just in Virginia. Bush is poison in Arizona too. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) says he wouldn't want W. to campaign for him in Arizona.

Let me expand a bit on my earlier comments about redistricting reform.

For most of the time I've been actively interested in politics I've been at best skeptical about a lot of what you might call good government reformism. Part of that is just temperamental. To the extent there's substance behind it, I've always felt that there's a strain of 'goo-goo' reform which puts procedural cleanliness over substantive good results for ordinary citizens -- effective provision of services, real representation of different interests in society, and so forth.

Hovering behind these ideas is a recognition that there were strong anti-democratic tendencies in the original Progressive movement, though they did not define the entirety of it. And most important, I think if you look back over the history of the US, our most effective reforms have not come in complex regulatory regimes but in systems which effectively balance different powers and interests against each other. And that still makes me less than a total optimist about the potential of effective campaign finance reform.

All that said, though, sometimes the ship of state just gets too overrun with barnacles and the whole thing has to be scraped clean. And we're clearly at one of those points. One needn't indulge utopian fantasies about abolishing government corruption or dealing a death blow to the power of monied interests in politics. All that is necessary is a recognition that reform is a cyclical process needed to keep the government healthy and functioning. And we're overdue for real reform.

Gerrymandering has been around, literally, since the country began. But I'm persuaded by the argument that computers and data technologies have substantially increased the ability of those in power to shape districts to perpetuate their power.

The real proof though is the sclerotic House of Representatives. Set aside the fact that it's now controlled by a corrupt Republican machine. The House is designed to be the part of the federal government most responsive to the changing views of the public. But it's pretty clear that that role has now been taken over by the senate. I think there's probably a decent argument that more seats are in play in the senate in most cycles these days than in the House -- not just in percentage terms but in absolute terms too. And that's just crazy. The power of money in politics is more tied up with that of non-competitive districts than we might think.

Already this morning I've had a reader write in to tell me that the problem isn't gerrymandering but the increasing trend toward geo-communal self-segregation. Liberals move where there are lots of liberals; conservatives do the same, etc. I don't doubt that's part of it. But I don't think that explains it all either. And if it is a big part of the equation, perhaps we need to rejigger the redistricting calculus a bit to inject some more play into the system.

Tell me what you think.