Friday Reads

Good Morning!! TGIF! It sure has been a busy week for news. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for people who earn less than $250,000.

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.

Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional cuts to wealthy Americans — though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions. However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.

Of course the chances of this bill passing the Senate are slim to none, since it will take 60 votes to get by a Republican filibuster. I hate to be completely cynical, but do you suppose the House Dems did this just for PR, knowing the bill would never become law?

At Huffpo, Howard Fineman, Ryan Grim, and Sam Stein (it took three people?) report that Democrats are afraid that Obama will “cave” and give the Republicans an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. Now where would they get that idea? Oh yeah, because Obama caves on everything. It’s what he does.

I can’t figure out a way to excerpt this article. It’s a long treatise on process, and it’s just plain crazy-making. After reading it, I understand why it took three people to report it. Read the whole thing if you dare.

Republicans keep claiming over and over again that Americans voted for them in order to get more tax cuts for the rich. But according to a CBS News Poll, that just isn’t true:

“The American people want us to stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending, and that should be the priority of the remaining days that we have in this Congress,” incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner added that a House vote Thursday to extend the cuts for all but the highest-earning Americans amounted to “chicken crap.”

According to a new CBS News poll, however, Boehner is off-base in his claim that Americans “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.”

The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.

Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.

The House also chose to publicly humiliate one of their oldest and most popular members yesterday. Charlie Rangel had to stand in the well of the House and listen to Nancy Pelosi censure him for some financial misdeeds.

As Representative Charles B. Rangel’s awkward day unspooled, the jammed House floor was buzzing for this once-in-decades happening. The press rows were busy. Traffic, though, was light in the high-up visitors’ gallery, grade school classes here earlier having left too soon to watch history.

Mr. Rangel entered alone, dressed well for the event in a buttoned dark suit, light blue tie and matching pocket handkerchief. Half his years had been spent in this workplace.

He sat among some of his keenest allies, Representative Robert C. Scott from Virginia and three members of the New York delegation, Representatives Joseph Crowley, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony D. Weiner.

All real liberals, you’ll notice… After the dirty deed was done,

A chastened Mr. Rangel asked for one more minute to speak. He called what had happened to him a “new criteria” and said there was more politics than justice on display. Then he finished by saying, “At the end of the day, compared to where I’ve been, I haven’t had a bad day since.”

As Dakinikat pointed out today, Tom DeLay was never censured. Neither were any of the other Congressmen who were involved with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What is the real reason for the treatment given to Charlie Rangel? Did Obama want him off the Ways and Means Committee as punishment for supporting Hillary?

Is Julian Assange on the Obama assassination list? The U.S. wants him very badly, and Sweden wants to talk to him about sexual assault charges that according to his lawyer consist of having sex with two different women without using condoms.

James D. Catlin, a lawyer in Melbourne, Australia, says in an article published Thursday that Sweden’s justice system is destined to become “the laughingstock of the world” for investigating rape charges in two cases where women complained that Assange had had sex with them without using a condom.

Catlin, who confirmed to Raw Story that Assange retained his services for a “limited duration” in October but did not provide details, also said both of the accusers “boast[ed] of their respective conquests” after the alleged crimes had been committed. “The Swedes are making it up as they go along,” he wrote.

Catlin’s claims are likely to add fuel to speculation that Sweden’s investigation of Assange is politically motivated.

Raw Story links to this article by Catlin: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along. Catlin writes:

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.

Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.

He also writes that

Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.

The Christian Science Monitor wonders if Assange has already been indicted by the U.S.

US officials publicly will only say that they are investigating the matter and that no legal options have been ruled out. But an indictment in such an important federal matter would be handed down by a grand jury, and grand jury proceedings are secret, notes Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law at American University. There may be an empaneled grand jury considering the Assange case right now.

“We wouldn’t know what they’re doing until the whole thing is concluded,” he says.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.

At least one prominent US legal analyst thinks this is just the sort of thing that is going on.

“I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against [Assange],” said CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday. “That question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial.”

On the other hand, it might be faster and easier for President Obama to just have Assange killed. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anyone on just his say-so. If Assange turns up dead, I for one won’t have any doubt who order the hit.

Obama and his “Justice Department” are pulling out all the stops to capture Julian Assange, but they aren’t at all interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for torture, for outing a CIA agent, or for starting two war based on lies.

Nigeria appears to have more cajones than Dear Leader: they are planning to charge Dick Cheney with bribery and ask Interpol to arrest the former VP.

The indictments will be handed up within three days, said Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, speaking Wednesday. An arrest warrant for Cheney will be transmitted through Interpol, he said.

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, when he left to become then-Gov. George W. Bush’s running presidential mate, eventually winning the election.

“As the [former] CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period,” Obla later told AFP.

How will Obama handle this one? Will he try to strong-arm Nigeria like he did Spain? Andrew Belonsky speculates about this at Death and Taxes Magazine:

The idea [of] Cheney being arrested sounds absurd, and the Nigerian news has been received by many with an amused shrug, and no small amount of dismissal. ‘Washington Post’ reporter Al Kamen, for example, wrote, “It’s not as if Cheney, now suffering from some very serious heart problems, was planning to take the family on a cruise up the Niger Delta any time soon. The odds of his showing up in Africa – except maybe for a hunting trip – are zero.” I doubt the Obama administration’s taking this as lightly.

Despite what you may think about Interpol, the group does not command an international army of coppers and flatfoots. Its more of an information-sharing agency, one that helps coordinate information and efforts among its 188 member countries, whose own governments are meant to enforce potential warrants. It’s not Interpol‘s responsibility to arrest Cheney. That honor goes to the associated government, which puts Obama’s Department of Justice in a compromising position.

Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.

First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.

The second option: move forward and nab Cheney.

Not bloody likely. Our Reagan-wannabe President is too afraid of angering Republicans.

Finally, Paul Krugman has taken the final step and accepted that Obama is really being Obama:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.

That’s right, Paul. We’re on our own, with zero leadership from the WH!

That’s all I’ve got. What are you reading today?