Thursday, September 30, 2004
I suppose that, like the President, Representatives Sensenbrenner and Feeney maintain they are just moving ahead steadily, never minding that it happens to be in the wrong direction.
FAMM has the following links for Letters of Opposition and Sign-On Letters (note: letters are in Adobe PDF format.)
- Judicial Conference of the United States
- United States Sentencing Commission
- American Bar Association
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), NAACP, FAMM, ACLU, National Council of La Raza, NACDL sign-on letter
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Scalia: “Knock, knock”
Breyer: “Who’s there?”
Scalia: “It’s me, Nino.”
Breyer: “Oh, God!”
Scalia: “Close, but not quite. It’s just me, Nino.”
Scalia: “Hi! Steve. Listen, I just wanted to tell you I think you were right when you told me I should recuse in Cheney’s case.”
Breyer: “Well, that’s nice of you to say, Nino.”
Scalia: “Yeah, and I wanted to tell you that you should strongly consider avoiding the Court further embarrassment by recusing in Booker and Fanfan. My law clerks tell me you once said you would recuse yourself if the guidelines themselves were attacked, and I think that was a wise decision. It’s all over the internet now, you know, from Tony Mauro at Law.com to Tom Lincoln at Macondo Law to Ken Lammers at CrimLaw and those ethics professors which Tony Mauro cites. Of course, if you should decide that you'll come to Apprendi-land with us, then nobody would question the tough choice you made, . . . and the papers would be full of stories about how you set aside your ego and followed your conscience.”
Breyer: "Nice try, Nino! See ya."
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
The Solicitor General has insisted that Blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines because they are not statutes, and are therefore different than the legislatively enacted Washington State sentencing guidelines. All briefs for respondents Booker and Fanfan, as well as the amici briefs in support of respondents have done an effective job addressing this issue.
But, quite frankly, trying to decide which way the Supreme Court will go is a bit like reading tea leaves. The Solicitor General's theme seems to be that "statutory maximum" whether for Apprendi purposes or for any other purpose, means the maximum penalty enacted by Congress for the offense, rather than any top of a guidelines' base offense level.
Every federal criminal defense lawyer knows that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the guidelines in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). Mistretta, however, dealt with issues of separation of powers, delegation of power, and not the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. A lot has rained since Mistretta was initially decided, including the composition of the Court, and we have a lot more knowledge as to how the Sentencing Commission and Congress have operated during this period as regards the guidelines. I thought it would be prudent to go back to Mistretta.
In Mistretta you had Justice Blackmun, who delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices White, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy, joined, and Justice Brennan who also joined in all but n. 11. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which he famously referred to the creation of the Sentencing Commission as the creation of a Fourth Branch of Government, "a sort of junior-varsity Congress." Id. at 427.
After reviewing Mistretta, only Justice Scalia's dissent made any sense to me. And his dissent in Mistretta makes it very clear that he will view the federal guidelines as legislative in nature. It is a gem, and I strongly recommend you read it again.
While Mistretta was an 8-1 opinion, 4 of the Justices (Blackmun, Brennan, White and Marshall) out of those 8 are no longer in the Court. In their places we have Justices Thomas, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Of these four, all but Justice Breyer joined in Apprendi, together with Justices Scalia (the sole Mistretta dissenter), and Stevens (who authored the Court's opinion in Apprendi).
In Apprendi, Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined as to Parts I and II. OConnor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined. In Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Apprendi you can already see the strong language towards Justice Breyer's views on the matter, as we saw in Blakely.
In Blakely, you have the exact same lineup as in Apprendi. But it is curious that while both Justices O'Connor and Breyer predicted that the Court was in effect dooming the federal sentencing guidelines in Blakely, neither Chief Justice Rehnquist nor Justice Kennedy joined that portion of Justice O'Connor's dissent. Could it be that Justice O'Connor and Breyer finally purchase tickets to Apprendi-land in an effort to save the guidelines by making their voices heard on the severability issue? I seriously doubt it, but wopuld appreciate your expressing your views on this in the comments.
In his opening merits brief, the Solicitor General --very much aware that Justice Scalia's opinion had used 21 U.S.C. §§841(b)(1)(A), (D) as an example in Blakely, slip op. at 15, a non-federal case in which he was also stating that the federal guidelines were not before the Court-- argued that some federal statutes, such as § 841 carried different statutory maximums in the statute itself. This, in my view, is an obvious effort to peel away some of the Justices in the Blakely majority, who joined without any objection or clarification offered to the example provided by Justice Scalia.
Were there Justices in the Blakely majority who did not think the federal guidelines are legislative in nature and that Blakely would not be extended to the federal guidelines? If so, given the dissenters' predictions, and the obvious confusion Blakely's aftermath would cause in the federal criminal justice system, why did they not at least make a clearer distinction? It hardly would suffice to say that they didn't realize it would have such impact, given the dissenters' predictions.
The Solicitor General has a hard row come October 4th, as I think his arguments on the guidelines not being legislative in nature is a rather poor one, at least given what we now know of the manner in which the Sentencing Commission and Congress have operated in regards to the guidelines. As to the Sentencing Commission's placement in the judicial branch, I sauggest you read Justice Scalia's dissent in Mistretta.
The harder question for the Court will be the severability issue, and there may well be a split at that juncture, although I would assume that the Justices would be keenly aware that how they go on this issue would influence Congress' reaction to Booker & Fanfan.
Congress, after all, does not appear to have lost its appetite for mandatory minimums, as seen by the threats made by Rep. Feeney (R-Fla) in his appearance at the Heritage Foundation sponsored discussion on federal sentencing (see posts here and here), or as appears by the bill that Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis) is currently pushing in the House (see post here). It is as if these fellows were not even capable of realizing the impact of the Feeney Amendment and enactment of mandatory minimums may have had on the judiciary's views of the so-called guidelines.
Note: I revised this post to correct a rather serious mistake on my part - having placed Justice Kennedy in the Blakely majority. Sorry for the misinformation. I will expand this post to analyze other cases (and mainly the votes of the various Justices in those cases) spanning the Mistretta to Blakely spectrum.
Trivia: Did you know that Mistretta was argued on October 5th, 1988, almost 16 years earlier to the date than the Booker & Fanfan cases will be argued on October 4th? And did you know that Blakely was decided almost 4 years to the date when Apprendi was decided?
Monday, September 27, 2004
- United States' Reply Merits Brief in Booker & Fanfan (via Sentencing Law & Policy)
Sunday, September 26, 2004
It's a lean & mean browser! It's even got a feature called "Live Bookmarks" for grabbing the RSS feeds from various pages, including Macondo Law, and many others. While I use a stand alone feed reader - FeedDemon - I still found this feature really nice, particularly if you do not want to or cannot shell out the money for FeedDemon.
Oh! . . . and did I tell you I have not experienced a single freeze the whole time I have been using it?! I think Firefox has caught the guys at Microsoft's Internet Explorer asleep at the switch, and they have had a rude awakening. Microsoft is going to have to come up with one heck of a browser to ever get me back to Internet Explorer. I used Netscape way back when, until IE became a better browser and I switched, and somehow Netscape did not quite make it again. But Firefox is --by far-- the best stand-alone browser I have tried. Go for it!
And the other stand-alone products by the Mozilla team, such as Mozilla Thunderbird (e-mail client) and Mozilla Sunbird (Calendar) which I'm also trying out are excellent too. Sunbird is still in development and it already seems to be better than MS Outlook's Calendar. I'm still somewhat hooked on Outlook's e-mail client, but that is probably more a matter of habit than anything else.
Thanks for your patience!
Saturday, September 25, 2004
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
The Connecticut case involves Susette Kelo's pink house on the Thames River in New London and whether the city of New London can take her land away and sell it to real estate developers because they promise to pay more taxes and create jobs by converting the neighborhood into trendy condominiums.You can find a PDF version of the Connecticut Supreme Court's opinion in Kelo here, and the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part here.
"This case hits at the heart of the American dream ... a person's home," says Gregory Garre, a former law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a former assistant to the solicitor general. "The idea that the government can kick you out of your home because they want expensive condos in your neighborhood really scares people."
But the issue is much bigger than the fate of one house on the Thames -- businesses, developers and homeowners throughout the United States have a stake in its outcome, says Garre, who doesn't represent any party in the case.
The Constitution allows governments to take private land for "public use," also known as the eminent domain authority.
Garre says many constitutional scholars consider the phrase "public use" to restrict government takings to uses that are directly owned or primarily used by the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings.
But the Connecticut Supreme Court said the term "public use" means that a taking need only have some anticipated public benefit, such as increased tax revenues and improving the area's economy. Kelo lost in the state courts and is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case.
"If the court agrees with the Connecticut Supreme Court on the definition of 'public use,' cities would have a much easier time justifying the taking of any property," Garre says.
As stated by the Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc. here,
The dispute, known as Susette Kelo v. City of New London, centers around a single principle—whether the government can condemn property to transfer it to another private party for the claimed “public purpose” of economic development. During recent years, government agencies far and wide have been condemning urban properties using the excuse that the properties are “blighted,” whether or not this is reasonably the case, but with the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, the city is exercising its eminent domain power solely on the basis of economic development. Therefore, the question that the homeowners are presenting to the U. S. Supreme Court is narrowly defined to that of whether, or to what degree, economic development is a constitutional reason for eminent domain. In August, Dana Berliner, Senior Counsel at the Institute for Justice, called the Connecticut ruling “eminent domain without limits.” She pointed out, “IJ and the homeowners’ argument was simple—the Constitution forbids condemnations for the purpose of private development.”The Supreme Court in Kelo will likely reassess the viability of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), an case decided by an 8-0 vote, with Justice Marshall not participating. The Hawaii Housing Authority opinion was written by Justice O'Connor.
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Partner, Hogan and Hartson, L.L. P., Washington, D.C., prepared PRFA’s amicus curiae brief, which points out that no U. S. Supreme Court rulings support the contention that eminent domain is justified to transfer private property to another private party solely for the purpose of economic development. By contrast, the PRFA brief points out, that the standard employed by the Connecticut Supreme Court “gives government carte blanche to take private property from one person and transfer it to another person limited only by the government’s willingness or ability to proclaim that is intent is to promote economic development.” With the sad thought in mind that residents stand to lose their cherished family homes for the sake of job creation and tax revenues, PRFA’s brief contrasted the Connecticut policy with the historic rejection of this purpose of eminent domain in the U.S. Supreme Court starting with Calder v. Bull in 1798, where it was stated that it is “against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with “the power to enact “a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B,” and therefore the legislature cannot be presumed to have such a power.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's drunken driving law can't be enforced against people on horseback, a decision that inspired the dissenting justice to wax poetic.
Justice Michael Eakin, who is fond of writing rhyming opinions, summed up the lone dissent with two stanzas mimicking the theme song of "Mister Ed" — a 1960s TV sitcom about a talking horse:
"A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
but the Vehicle Code does not divorce
its application from, perforce,
a steed as my colleagues said.
"'It's not vague,' I'll say until I'm hoarse,
and whether a car, a truck or horse
this law applies with equal force,
and I'd reverse instead."
And our thanks to Phil for pointing us to this AP story here.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
More Mandatory Minimums? Even before Blakely was decided, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced a bill that would increase from one year to 10 the mandatory minimum sentence for anyone 21 or older who sells any amount of a controlled substance (even a single joint) to someone under 18. A second offense of this sort would trigger a mandatory life sentence.For some time all was quiet on the frontlines regarding this bill. But it now appears, as reported here that "Despite growing opposition to long mandatory minimum prison terms, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will consider imposing new, even more draconian mandatory minimums on nonviolent drug offenders on Thursday, Sept. 23, in 2141 Rayburn HOB at 9:00 a.m." The bill, H.R. 4547, is the same one sponsored by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) we mentioned earlier, "and would provide radical new mandatory minimums for a variety of nonviolent drug offenses. 'This bill would effectively impose a five year mandatory minimum for anyone distributing any amount of a controlled substance in an urban area -- even medical marijuana dispensaries supported by local authorities,' said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. 'A 21-year-old who sells a few joints to his 17-year-old brother would face a mandatory ten years in federal prison for the first offense. Such cruel penalties will help nobody.'" Id.
So Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) joins Rep. Feeney as just another ass and a yahoo in Congress we could do without.
UPDATE: See NACDL's website for information on H.R. 4547 ("Alert! Hep Stop Feeney II"); and FAMM Memorandum on "Changes proposed by H.R. 4547 Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2004."
From Representative Feeney, I expected and got the worst Blakely outlook. In essence, he agrees with the DOJ position in Booker & Fanfan, but warns that if the Court does not, then Congress will basically accomodate the guidelines to remove them from the reach of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. He does not say it in so many words, but that is exactly what he is saying. A wise man, this fellow Feeney! Apparently it is beneath such genius as his to simply have a sentencing system that actually accomodates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees.
Archived Link to Heritage Foundation hosted "Federal Criminal Sentencing: Where Are We and Where Do We Go Next?"
As we indicated here the speakers are Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL), James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, The Honorable John Steer, Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Margaret Love, Esq., Reporter for the American Bar Association's Justice Kennedy Commission.
The linked page for the program states as follow:
Federal criminal sentencing policy now, more than ever, is the subject of substantial public debate. Incarceration rates are up and violent crime rates are down – suggesting that our incarceration policies are a success. Yet, a recent report by the American Bar Association is critical of government policy as overly onerous. Meanwhile, Congress and the Courts are in a tug-of-war over which branch controls sentencing policy. Join us for an informative debate on the status of federal criminal sentencing policy.I have yet to view the program, so I have no comments of my own to add.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
- Brief for Petitioner Booker *
- Brief for Petitioner Fanfan *
- Brief for Amicus NACDL in support of petitioners Booker & Fanfan *
- Brief for Amicus FAMM in support of petitioners Booker & Fanfan *
- Brief for Amicus NAFD in support of petitioners Booker & Fanfan *
- Brief for Amicus NY Council of Defense Lawyers in support of petitioners Booker & Fanfan *
- Brief for Amicus Washington Legal Foundation in support of petitioners Booker & Fanfan *
A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2004. Oral argument is set for Monday, October 4, 2004.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Fellow, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation will host the debate. Speakers will include Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL), James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, The Honorable John Steer, Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Margaret Love, Esq., Reporter for the American Bar Association's Justice Kennedy Commission.
I wonder whether anyone will be asking Rep. Feeney whether he has ever considered -even post-Blakely- whether his role in drafting the Feeney Amendment may play a decisive role in the guidelines demise? He should also be asked what other atrocity he has in mind if that turns out to be the case.
Today's New York Times editorial - In Defense of Civil Liberties - reminded me once more of the important role of ACLU and similar organizations.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Aside from the typeface, superscript and other details pointed out by critics of the documents as forgeries, one of the latest is the reference to Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt — who supposedly was exerting pressure on Lt. Col. Jerry Killian to sugar coat Mr. Bush's activities as a member of the Guard in the early 1970s — had been honorably discharged before the date of the memo referring to Staudt purportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. According to most, the fact that Staudt had retired means that he could not have exerted any sort of pressure or influence. Oh, really? How naive have we become that we cannot imagine a retired Col. Staudt having some clout and being able to exert pressure or influence on someone else? It does not have to be the sort of pressure or influence where he is threatening with doing something, but can be perhpas merely the asking of a favor for a friend, Poppy, for his boy.
While we may never find out the truth of all of this, I find it surprising that so many have jumped to the forgery conclusion so easily. I know Dan Rather makes it easier for many to do so, but Bush makes it harder for me to do so, at least so easily. I would like a really good question and answer session with no limits in which Mr. Bush explains to the nation his service in the Texas Air National Guard and answers all questions forthrightly, including the ones related to any drug use by him. I also would like him under oath, but know that would be asking too much. Until then, I will view him with a suspect eye.
Monday, September 13, 2004
I tried explaining that I had cases in which as many as 9 different offers (albeit some being very similar except for details) were made, and I had cases were the only offer was jury trial or straight plea. I would also tell them that I had also had some cases in which the first offer was, say, for 46 months, and then the offers would only increase thereafter.
Obviously enough defense attorneys clarified to their clients "the 3 Offer Rule" that I no longer get clients talking to me about it. Or, perhaps the person who was telling them this is no longer around.
You'd think that was the end, but there is always a new fad. A good friend from the U.S. Probation Office here in San Juan recently retired from Government service, and now offers his services as a sentencing consultant. He's probably praying for the guidelines to be upheld, as he was one of the Sentencing Guidelines Specialists at the Probation Office. Now, after a few defendants with really complex guidelines issues in their cases have retained his services, every defendant approaches me and says I want you to ask the Court for a guidelines specialist. I think Sammy has a chaser! Hey, Sammy, just kidding!
The problem with all of this is that DEA and the rest of the Government have done very little if anything to curb the huge heroin traffic from Afghanistan, instead moving resources into Iraq. Now, if DEA and the Bush administration can explain why they have allowed this continue in Afghanistan, I'd like to hear their explanations. The last time I heard the DEA top guy talk about this on television he reacted as if this were a very nuanced matter that had to take a backburner to the war on terror! Give me a break!
Saturday, September 11, 2004
I previously posted on the importance of this case here, quoting from Professor Kerr's views on the case. His comments , as we quoted, were as follows:
Why is this decision a big deal? It's a big deal because the line between the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act doesn't just regulate ISPs. It regulates everybody, including federal and state criminal investigators. The Justice Department and Congressional staffers have interpreted the Wiretap Act quite broadly and the Stored Communications Act quite narrowly, and based both existing practice and recent legislative amendments on that understanding. When I was at DOJ advising agents on this sort of thing, the informal yardstick was that when a law enforcement agent planned a series of accesses to a file or account, the repeated series of accesses triggered the Wiretap Act rather than the Stored Communications Act. So in a pre-Councilman world, an FBI agent couldn't make an end-run around the Wiretap Act by lining up a bunch of warrants and executing them once every ten minutes. This approach remained true to the Supreme Court's decision in Berger [v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)] and also ensured that the strong privacy protections of the Wiretap Act were not gutted by end-runs around the statute.I will try to obtain a copy of the petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Stay tuned to this case, for I also agree that it is an important one in which the panel's majority got it wrong.
There are rumors afoot that Congress may step in and fix this problem soon. Fortunately, the politics are a win-win: both DOJ and civil liberties groups want the prior understanding restored. There is even proposed statutory language floating about that would do the trick quite nicely. Let's hope that Congress acts sooner rather than later. Stay tuned.
I am afraid that Justice Scalia will write that he is perplexed that all of these judges have not bothered to look up the meaning of statutory in the dictionary, and that he certainly knew the meaning of the word when he used it. What kind of Clerks have they?!
In all frankness, I have not gone to a dictionary to look up the meaning of statutory, but will do so right after posting this. This is what we've been reduced to, rather than really talking about the right to jury trial and findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks for having noticed my absence to Federalist 84 at Crime and Federalism, and the new site looks good! Already updated my FeedDemon to the new feed. I'll probably be changing Macondo Law to write on a white background, but let me get going first. Our feed remains the same.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
In the meantime, Kitty Kelly tells us about the Bushes and W's coke snorting days -not only before 1974 - but at Camp David while Poppy was President. Democrats should present a constitutional amendment to preclude anyone who has ever used cocaine from being president, and take it to a vote or use a refusal to do so for the campaign.
In response to questions, Greenspan said he believed the Bush tax cuts were well-timed to help the economy rebound from the last recession. But he agreed that there were other things the government could have done that might have provided an even bigger boost to growth.
Greenspan, as he has in the past, urged Congress to reinstate budget rules that were in effect through much of the 1990s that required any tax cuts or increases in benefit programs such as Social Security to be paid for either by tax hikes or spending cuts in other areas.
Greenspan warned that Congress must act with more urgency to address the country's long-term deficit problems before the retirement of the baby boom generation at the end of this decade.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Saturday, September 04, 2004
I previously posted on the importance of this case here, quoting from Professor Kerr's views on the case. His comments , as we quoted, were as follows:
Why is this decision a big deal? It's a big deal because the line between the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act doesn't just regulate ISPs. It regulates everybody, including federal and state criminal investigators. The Justice Department and Congressional staffers have interpreted the Wiretap Act quite broadly and the Stored Communications Act quite narrowly, and based both existing practice and recent legislative amendments on that understanding. When I was at DOJ advising agents on this sort of thing, the informal yardstick was that when a law enforcement agent planned a series of accesses to a file or account, the repeated series of accesses triggered the Wiretap Act rather than the Stored Communications Act. So in a pre-Councilman world, an FBI agent couldn't make an end-run around the Wiretap Act by lining up a bunch of warrants and executing them once every ten minutes. This approach remained true to the Supreme Court's decision in Berger [v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)] and also ensured that the strong privacy protections of the Wiretap Act were not gutted by end-runs around the statute.
There are rumors afoot that Congress may step in and fix this problem soon. Fortunately, the politics are a win-win: both DOJ and civil liberties groups want the prior understanding restored. There is even proposed statutory language floating about that would do the trick quite nicely. Let's hope that Congress acts sooner rather than later. Stay tuned.I will try to obtain a copy of the petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Stay tuned to this case, for I also agree that it is an important one in which the panel's majority got it wrong.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
We are still awaiting for the Solicitor General's brief.
UPDATE: The United States' brief in Booker and Fanfan, also courtesy of Professor Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.
I can't comment yet on any of these, as I'm still reading them. I am particularly interested in the severability argument from the government, although I will note that at least the amicus brief filed by the Senators keeps emphasising that the Sentencing Gudleines were intended to operate as an integrated whole. The Sentencing Commission mentions the differences (as they describe them) between the Washington State statutory guidelines and the non-statutory federal guidelines in that "independent" commission in the judiciary. They mention the changes to the Commission's membership brought about by the PROTECT Act in a footnote, without giving it any importance whatsoever.
We are still awaiting for the Solicitor General's brief.
As an example, Giuliani talked about how he had gotten to know President Bush while he was still governor of Texas. Shortly after 9/11, Giuliani remembers saying to himself, "Thank God, George Bush is president."Now, Rudy, which is it? Did you say this to Bernie or to yourself? Or was it to a fireman you said this to? See this post describing a Rudy speech in Louisiana:
Unsurprisingly, President Bush dominated the entire speech, all the way down to Giuliani’s favorite story about spontaneously telling a fireman during that fateful day, “Thank God George Bush is President.”Will Rudy make up his mind? Will he tell us the truth? What a pathetic guy! No wonder he identifies with George Bush. And this is the guy who talks about Kerry not telling the truth?
I think Rudy actually believes he really can make a legitimate run for the presidency in 2008. And offer us what? Patriot Act XX?
To the Editor:
Re "The Natural: Giuliani Plays the Role of Backer With
Relish" (news article, Aug. 31):
As the World Trade Center was falling, do you really think that Rudy Giuliani said to the police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president"?
I'm a New Yorker. Puh-leeze.
New York, Aug. 31, 2004