Banned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
When Bush "stole" the election from Gore the tone was already set in Washington before Bush was sworn in. Democrats were not happy at all, and they let everyone know it. To blame the division entirely on Bush is wrong in my opinion.
Perhaps some of our elected officials in Washington should sit down and form a consensus on a unified message regarding Iraq that is an alternative to Bush's plan. People want to be for something, taking pot-shots at Bush's plan is no longer enough. We need to know what is meant by a military withdrawal. We need to know what kind of support will we give Iraq after withdrawal, if any? Where will we maintain our military presence in the ME given the conditions in the ME after withdrawal? Etc? Etc?
|
ace.... you've convinced me that posting a library full of facts has no effect on you, but it is my only recourse....is there any way to reach you ?
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/pacific/mag...poy_court.html
TIME PACIFIC
December 25, 2000 | NO. 51
Can the Court Recover?
Its controversial decision ended the election tangle but brought the high court as low as has been in years
By ADAM COHEN
..Not every wrong has a legal remedy
Americans generally believe that if the law is being violated, the courts can set things right. But Bush v. Gore makes clear that this is not always the case. Even the majority conceded that among the tens of thousands of uncounted "undervotes" and "overvotes" in Florida, there may be valid votes that simply did not register on the machines. It would be hard to hold otherwise, since the machines' designer had testified that the machines are imperfect and that the only way to get a full count is to examine the undervotes by hand.
<b>But the court said that even if there are additional valid votes, it was too late to count them.</b> The Democrats had argued that the counting could continue up to Dec. 18, when the Electoral College meets, leaving enough time to develop a uniform standard and count all the votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court's majority held that the Florida legislature wanted electors chosen by Dec. 12, and since the ruling came down after 10 p.m. on that day, there simply was no more time to count votes. In other words, the court did not find that the certified results in Florida were accurate - only that it was too late to try to make them more accurate..
..Justices are not above the battle
The Supreme Court, like the Wizard of Oz, augments its authority by working its magic out of sight. Toiling away in their neoclassical palace, the nine Justices are perceived as being above the fray and primly cut off from everyday life. (Which is why, reportedly, former Washington Redskins fullback John Riggins once accosted Sandra Day O'Connor at a Washington dinner party and urged, "Come on, Sandy baby, loosen up.") But during this case, it became clear that the Justices are not as insulated as we like to believe. Clarence Thomas' wife draws a paycheck from the conservative Heritage Foundation, where she has been vetting résumés for positions in a Bush Administration - an Administration her husband's vote helped usher in. Mrs. Thomas denies her work is for Bush and says she and her husband don't discuss his cases. But Lisa Lerman, a legal-ethics expert at Catholic University, calls the situation "unseemly."
Justice Scalia, the Bush camp's fiercest defender, has two sons employed by law firms working on the Bush postelection phase. And according to the Wall Street Journal, O'Connor's husband said at an election-night party that his wife, a 70-year-old breast-cancer survivor, would like to retire but that she would be reluctant to leave if a Democrat won the presidency and got to select her successor. Hers was a key swing vote that ensured a Republican victory. A conflict? Says Lerman: "At the very least it creates an appearance problem."
But other experts insist these are not clear-cut violations and that Supreme Court Justices cannot be expected to remain totally aloof from the real world. What's more, recusals come with costs of their own. "The people who are appointed to decide the country's important business take themselves off the case and don't do their duty, then you get a result that can be skewed in the other direction," says Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein.
Indeed, by the very fact of the nomination process, all the Justices have links to one political side or the other. Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated to the court during the Clinton Administration and have been strong supporters of Democratic views. O'Connor was vetted for her post by, among others, James Baker, who led Bush's postelection fight. And Clarence Thomas was nominated by George W. Bush's father, who backed him during a heated confirmation battle. On the other hand, court appointees have a long history of defying political expectations and going their independent way. President Bush's first nominee to the court was David Souter, now a stalwart of the court's "liberal" wing. .
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...25&postcount=1
Does anyone else suspect that all of this.....the felon "purge lists" in Florida, the world record incarceration rates in the U.S., the feigned cries of "voting fraud" from republicans and the Bush admin./DOJ "reaction" to it, was all a "lead in", for this?:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=55
....but here are excerpts of two main supporting points:
Quote:
Florida is one of six states that permanently strip voting rights to felons for life unless they petition to have them restored. One election-law expert who usually represents Democrats said the release of the list will rekindle the debate over disenfranchising voters. <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml</a>
|
Quote:
..More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About
85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about
125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as
many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency.
Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The
court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized
agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms...
before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted"
that to mean the state must "assist the offender." <a href="http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html">http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html</a>
|
..and in 2004, republican Florida "officials" were "at it", again:
Quote:
http://www.wired.com/politics/securi.../2004/07/64071
Florida Told to Open Voter List
Jacob Ogles Email 07.01.04 | 3:23 PM
ORLANDO -- A Florida Circuit Court judge said Thursday that a list of felons to be purged from Florida's voter rolls must be made available to anybody that wants a copy, handing a victory to media organizations that had sought copies from the state but were refused.
The ruling by Judge Nikki Clark came in a lawsuit filed by CNN in May. The news network said it wanted the list in order to verify its accuracy and to prevent the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. Critics suspect many legitimate voters were not allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election because of inaccuracies in these lists.
"The Division of Elections is hereby ordered to immediately open the suspected felons list for public inspection and permit the plaintiff and interveners to copy and photograph the list," Clark wrote in a summary judgment. State officials said they would not appeal the ruling.
Department of State officials previously said anybody in the public could look at the list, but only political entities such as candidates or political parties could obtain a copy, and those who had the list could only use it for campaign purposes. After being denied a list, CNN filed suit and was joined by the First Amendment Foundation, ACLU and numerous Florida media outlets.
The list contains the names of 47,000 felons who are registered to vote, but may not be eligible to have that right. Florida is among seven states where felons released from prison don't automatically have voting rights restored upon completion of sentence. They still must re-register to vote, according to state law.
In the lawsuit, the state cited a 2001 law that protects the state's Central Voter Database from being copied. State lawmakers said the list should not be public because it would violate the state constitution's privacy clause.
But Clark said that law was unconstitutional, and the Florida Legislature illegally passed the 2001 statute without showing any public benefit.
"The court cannot and will not speculate what the public necessity might be, nor can the court construe or imply the public necessity from the language of the statute itself," Clark wrote.
CNN attorney Gregg Thomas said the ruling would make the felon list available to anybody, but was unsure if the rest of the database would be public as well. Secretary of State Glenda Hood said the entire statute, which also protects voter registration information and other election-related materials, may be void because of the ruling.
"We caution all those who view this information that this is a list of potential matches, not a final list," Hood said. "The Department of State has worked closely with the NAACP to develop a redundant and rigorous process to protect the rights of all eligible voters."
Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said it was important the list be made available for verification, especially considering Florida's election history.
"There's a primary election coming up in just two months in Florida, and of course, the general election in November," Neas said. "We want to help every voter in Florida cast a vote that counts this election year."
George Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes in 2000 by just 537 votes over Democrat Al Gore. That year, then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a private firm to purge felons from voting. Hundreds of voters claimed to have been wrongfully removed from the rolls, possibly altering the outcome of the election.
|
..just a few days later, we were given this revelation:
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/felons/
Florida scraps list of suspected felons barred from voting
Monday, July 12, 2004 Posted: 3:59 PM EDT (1959 GMT)
(CNN) -- Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood has decided to scrap a list that was intended to keep more than 47,000 suspected felons from voting in November.
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed with the decision, his spokesman said Monday.
"The list will not be used," said Jacob DiPietre, a spokesman for Bush, whose state proved key to his brother's victory four years ago.
Hood decided over the weekend to dump the list, which was created by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, after <h3>news stories pointed out that the list included only 61 Hispanic names, DiPietre said.
The state's large Cuban population tends to vote Republican....</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/now/society/prisons3.html
8.27.04
Society and Community:
Prisons in America
Stats and Facts
Some startling new statistics may bring the issue of America's prison population into the 2004 campaign. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has projected that if current trends continue, one out of every three African American men born in 2001 will go to prison at some point during their lifetime. In addition the Justice Policy Institute has just released a study which shows that prison spending has increased five times as fast as education spending in some battleground states. And, according to the study: <b>"Outside the swing states, states leaning Republican saw their incarceration rates increase at nearly twice the rate of Democrat-leaning states." In addition the Institute estimates, nearly 2 million voters are disenfranchised in swing states because they have felony records.</b> Find out more about Life After Prison on NOW.
Prisons are big in the United States. There are more people behind bars literally, and proportionally, than any time in our history. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation. And, we keep building more prisons, in fact many locales lobby for new prisons as a tool of economic recovery. What are the actual numbers that put American prison populations in historical and international perspective?
In 2001, nearly 6.6 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year end. That number represents 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or one in every 32 adults.
American Prisons: The Debate
Between 1973 and 2000 the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled. The International Centre for Prison Studies at Kings College, London now calculates the U.S. rate at 700 people per 100,000. (That number encompasses the most recently available federal, state and local prison population statistics.) There are now more than two million Americans behind bars. Add to that another four and a half million on probation or parole and three million ex-convicts...
|
|
Quote:
From the April, 2006 <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2049107&postcount=19">"Karl Rove Replaced By Fake "Protestor" of Miami-Dade Vote Recount in 2000"</a> Thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
My reply is telling in that I have no idea what hosts original point was, but I think it had something to do with the 2000 election. I fail to see a problem here, an issue here, or where he is going. Perhaps he is mad that Bush wanted to work with people who supported him rather than against him. He is also wrong because Bush did try to 'reach out' to the democrats after 2000, even letting Teddy write the Education bill, and he saw how far THAT got him, but thats all old news.
|
Perhaps I was remiss, by making my own statements and the documentation that I provided in this thread's OP, too brief. Possibly, I made statements that I did not thoroughly back up with references in news reporting, linked to published news articles on web pages owned by prominent MSM news departments. Live and learn...my bad!
I'll let Al Kamen of WaPo, help clarify my core point:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ions/kamen.htm
Al Kamen is a reporter on the national news staff of The Washington Post. <b>He writes the "In the Loop" column four times a week.</b>
He joined The Post in 1980 and has covered local and federal courts, the Supreme Court and the state department.
Kamen assisted Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein in writing "The Final Days," and Robert Woodward and Scott Armstrong in writing "The Brethren."
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1074-2005Jan23
<b>In The Loop
Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?</b>
By Al Kamen
Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13
As we begin the second Bush administration, let's take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House -- the now-legendary "Brooks Brothers Riot" at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.
<b>This was when dozens of "local protesters," actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington</b>, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and "Let us in!" when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space
With help from their GOP colleagues and others, we identified some of these Republican heroes of yore in a photo of the event.
Some of those pictured have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House. For example, <b>Matt Schlapp, No. 6</b>, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. <b>Garry Malphrus, No. 2 in the photo</b>, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And <b>Rory Cooper, No. 3</b>, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
<CENTER><CENTER><img src="http://www.washintonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/intheloop_012405.jpg">
Here's what some of the others went on to do:
<b>No. 1. Tom Pyle</b>, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.
<b>No. 7. Roger Morse</b>, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. "I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight," he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.
<b>No. 8. Duane Gibson</b>, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.
<b>No. 9. Chuck Royal</b> was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.
<b>No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier</b>, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.
(<b>We couldn't find No. 4, Kevin Smith</b>, a former GOP House aide who later worked with Voter.com, or No. 5, Steven Brophy, a former GOP Senate aide and then at consulting firm KPMG. If you know what they are doing these days, please e-mail shackelford@washpost.comso we can update our records.)
<b>Sources say the "rioters" proudly note their participation on résumés and in interviews.</b> But while the original hardy band of demonstrators numbered barely a couple of dozen, the numbers apparently have grown with the legend.
|
In the context of the above Al Kamen column and the phoio embellished doucmentation that it offers, consider rereading the report about John Bolton, located in my OP...here's an excerpt........
Quote:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=3Posted Posted on Sat, Jul. 13, 2002
Bush gave plum jobs to supporters who worked recount, paper reports
By CAROL ROSENBERG
Knight Ridder Newspapers
......Bolton, the U.S. diplomat now responsible for arms control issues, said no payoff was promised for his decision to join the post-election fray. He had worked for the first Bush administration and, <h3>finding himself in South Korea on election night, contacted former Secretary of State James Baker in Texas to see how he might lend a hand. The reply: Go to Florida.</h3>
``I think, frankly, most of the people who did it just went down there by instinct,'' Bolton said. He said he received no legal fees, although the campaign paid his hotel bills and other expenses.
Bolton was part of the legal team and a ballot observer in Palm Beach County. Then he rushed to Tallahassee as the recount battle reached higher courts.
It was his role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to <b>burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time....</b>
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
All I seem to recall are the Union members the democrats bussed in to 'protest' the inital vote.
I fail to see a point other than you didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election. Next time perhaps the democrats won't try SELECTIVE recounts in democrat controlled areas and instead push for the statewide one.
|
The news reporting of that time....in mid to late November, 2000 stated conclusively that the Gore campaing tried to win the Florida vote in the courts, and the Bush campaign.....
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,89419,00.html
.........<b>It looks like Gore is the one doing the disputing and Bush is doing the Gary Cooper thing of being strong and
silent. In fact, of course, it was Bush who first went to the federal courts and first to the U.S. Supreme Court.</b>
For Bush, who has made a mantra of local control, this is like trashing the big bully behind his back and then
enlisting his services when you get in a brawl. You'll notice that the Bush campaign called the Florida Supreme
Court an "instrument of the Democratic party" when it agreed to let the manual count continue, but were silent
about the court's bias when it rejected Gore's emergency appeal to force Miami-Dade to resume its recount. .....
......Right now, there is a vague presumption among Americans that Gore is the down-and-dirty cheater and Bush is the honest cheater. <h3>Bush is using tactics we all are used to, sabre-rattling press conferences and thuggish spokespeople and vague threats to do something really nasty.......</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/27/po...5ab0cd&ei=5070
November 27, 2000
The Demonstrators: Labor Unions Take to Florida Streets, Rallying for Gore
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Nov. 26 � Finally, Al Gore's friends showed up.
<b>After ceding the rallying and protesting to the Republicans for more than two weeks, the vice president's organized labor base gathered its troops today</b>, filling the State Capitol plaza here with more than 200 cheering, chanting demonstrators, signaling a shift in the public relations battle over the presidential race.
<h3>Since the recounting began, Republicans have dominated the rallies on the streets, with their placards and slogans.
And their protests, occasionally unruly, as in Miami last week, have been important to the Republican strategy of
portraying the manual recounts as scenes of confusion and chaos.</h3>
The Democrats had chosen to portray the Florida
recounts as calm, methodical civic rituals.
That changed today, as the recounts wound down for the 5 p.m. deadline. Organized labor turned out its street
soldiers for simultaneous protests this afternoon in Miami, West Palm Beach and here, in the Capitol plaza.
Marilyn P. Lenard, Florida's A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, who called the protests, said she had grown weary of turning
on the television and seeing only all those "Sore-Loserman" placards. Sure, she said, she had considered something
dignified and quiet, like the silent vigil her group had organized on the night of the Florida Supreme Court's
decision last week. But that just got drowned out by the noisemakers from the other side.....
|
Read the following article, linked in the next quote box. All references to the November, 2000, post election Florida protests and accompanying organizing and support, describes republican activity as party managed and driven. There was apparently no "grass roots" (eminating from the people) protest activity or "voice" from the republican side. All republican participation was financed and managed by the party, and conducted by party officials and party activists, staff members of elected officials, and other "careerist" republicans or wannabees.
Contrast the descriptions of those who supported Gore. Some were organized and bussed by efforts of partisan clergy (Jesse Jackson) and by union organizations (AFL-CIO).....but....none apparently were seeking political payback via an appointed, post election job, they were not staff members of elected officials...
Quote:
http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/rallies.html
SPONTANEOUS RALLIES ARE CAREFULLY STAGED
FROM UNIONS TO PARTIES TO JESSE JACKSON, PROTESTS ON CAMERA GOT LOTS OF BACKSTAGE POLISH.
THE ORLANDO SENTINEL
December 6, 2000
Author: Doris Bloodsworth of The Sentinel Staff....
|
The Bush campaign was first to launch a "protest Op", solely engaged in a disinformation campaign to portray the recount process as "in chaos", attacked and shut down the Miami-Dade recount with the "folks" in the above photo, in which <b>Joel Kaplan</b> was one of their number, and directed John Bolton to rush from South Korea, to Florida, to burst into the room where the Miami-Dade recount has resumed..to order it stopped.
When you add the following to the "mix"....
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=44
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. <b>Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes...</b>
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/St...s_felon_.shtml
http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pag...ht_to_vote.htm
|
This....is the "point".....the 2000 Florida vote contest resulted in the closed thing to coup that resulted in the "installation" of a POTUS who lost the popular, nationwide vote, by 500,000. He promised to be a uniter, not a "divider". He appointed 2000 Fla vote recount "intimidator", John Bolton. last year to an interim UN ambassador job that his own party's senators would not approve Bolton to hold. Now....a revamp of the white house staff is touted.
Fake 2000 "local protestor" in the Miami-Dade vote recount gets appointed to take Karl Rove's principle government job.
At what point is it appropriate to stop protestion against this...and end attempts to educate people as to the history of the 2000 Fla. vote....???
...when Bush stops appointing the thugs who broke the rules to put him in office, there would be nothing new to comment on!
|
[/quote]
...and now, in the present time:
Quote:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation
Posted on Thu, May. 10, 2007
White House sought investigations of voter fraud allegations before elections
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.
In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.
Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.
But Friedrich declined to pursue a related matter from Wisconsin, he told congressional investigators, because an inquiry so close to an election could inappropriately sway voting results. Friedrich decided not to pass the matter on to the criminal division for investigation, even though Sampson gave him a 30-page report prepared by Republican activists that made claims of voting fraud.
Late Thursday night, a Justice Department spokesman disputed McClatchy's characterization, saying that the White House asked for an inquiry, but never ordered an investigation to be opened.
While it was known that Rove and the White House had complained about prosecutors not aggressively investigating voter fraud, Friedrich's testimony suggests that the Justice Department itself was under pressure to open voter fraud cases despite a department policy that discourages such action so close to an election.
The new details from Friedrich's closed-door testimony were provided to McClatchy Newspapers as Gonzales made his third appearance Thursday before Congress to answer questions about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Congressional investigators are looking into whether the firings were motivated in part by prosecutors' failure to bring voter-fraud charges against Democrats. .
|
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ngs/?page=full
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 6, 2007
Missouri attorney a focus in firings
<b>Senate bypassed in appointment of Schlozman</b>
...Republicans claimed that ineligible voters were a major problem and pushed for laws to require photo IDs. Democrats said there was no evidence of widespread fraud and that such requirements suppress turnout among legitimate voters who are poor or disabled, and thus less likely to have driver's licenses.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...9c7d0&ei=5088&
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.
Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.
In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.....
|
The Justice Department's voting rights section referees disputes over the fairness of state election requirements. Under federal civil rights law, the section must sign off on redistricting maps and new voting laws in Southern states to ensure that changes will not reduce minority voting power.
Schlozman stepped into this fray in May 2003, when he was promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. He supervised several sections, including voting rights. In the fall 2005, he was promoted to acting head of the division.
Schlozman and his team soon came into conflict with veteran voting rights specialists. Career staff committees recommended rejecting a Texas redistricting map in 2003 and a Georgia photo ID voting law in 2005, saying they would dilute minority voting power. In both cases, the career veterans were overruled. But courts later said the map and the ID law were illegal.
Bob Kengle , a former deputy voting rights chief who left in 2005, said Schlozman also pushed the section to divert more resources into lawsuits forcing states to purge questionable voters from their rolls. One such lawsuit was against Missouri, where he later became US attorney. A court threw the Missouri lawsuit out this year.
Schlozman also moved to take control of hiring for the voting rights section, taking advantage of a new policy that gave political appointees more control. Under Schlozman, the profile of the career attorneys hired by the section underwent a dramatic transformation.
Half of the 14 career lawyers hired under Schlozman were members of the conservative Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association, up from none among the eight career hires in the previous two years, according to a review of resumes. The average US News & World Report ranking of the law school attended by new career lawyers plunged from 15 to 65.
Critics said candidates were being hired more for their political views than legal credentials. David Becker , a former voting rights division trial attorney, said that Schlozman's hiring of politically driven conservatives to protect minority voting rights created a "wolf guarding the henhouse situation."
Asked to respond on behalf of Schlozman, the Justice Department said it considers job applicants with a wide variety of backgrounds and insisted that politics has played no role in hiring decisions.
After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush and a desire by White House political adviser Karl Rove to increase voter fraud prosecutions, documents and testimony have shown. Most of the proposed firings were for US attorneys in states with closely divided elections.
Among those later fired was David Iglesias , from the battleground state of New Mexico, where many of his fellow Republicans had demanded more aggressive voter fraud probes. Iglesias has accused his critics of making the "reprehensible" suggestion that law enforcement decisions should be made on political grounds.
Missouri is another closely divided state. According to McClatchy Newspapers, Graves appeared on a January 2006 list of prosecutors who would be given a chance to resign to save face. He abruptly resigned in March 2006. Gonzales quickly installed Schlozman as Grave's replacement, bypassing Senate confirmation under new law that had been slipped into the Patriot Act.
That summer, the liberal activist group ACORN paid workers $8 an hour to sign up new voters in poor neighborhoods around the country. Later, ACORN's Kansas City chapter discovered that several workers filled out registration forms fraudulently instead of finding real people to sign up. ACORN fired the workers and alerted law enforcement.
Schlozman moved fast, so fast that his office got one of the names on the indictments wrong. He announced the indictments of four former ACORN workers on Nov. 1, 2006, warning that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." Missouri Republicans seized on the indictments to blast Democrats in the campaign endgame.
Critics later accused Schlozman of violating the Justice Department's own rules. A 1995 Justice election crime manual says "federal prosecutors . . . should be extremely careful not to conduct overt investigations during the preelection period" to avoid "chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities" and causing "the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."
"In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," the manual states, adding in underlining that "most, if not all, investigation of alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates."
The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. <h3>It added that the department interprets the policy as having an unwritten exception for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.</h3>
On Nov. 7, 2006, Missouri voters narrowly elected Democrat McCaskill over the Republican senator, James Talent . The victory proved essential to the Democrats' new one-vote Senate majority.
Last week, McCaskill told NPR that she'd like Schlozman to testify before Congress: "What this all indicates is that more questions need to be asked, and more answers under oath need to be given."
As the controversy over the US attorney firings started building, the Bush administration picked someone else to be western Missouri's US attorney. Unlike with Schlozman, the administration first sent the nominee to the Senate for confirmation.
|
Quote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-05-10.html
<b> Republicans give Gonzales more cover this time around</b>
By Susan Crabtree
May 11, 2007
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was in much friendlier territory yesterday during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the U.S. attorneys controversy than he was during a searing all-day session three weeks ago before the panel’s Senate counterpart.
Unlike the Senate Republicans who aggressively grilled Gonzales last month, House Republicans echoed Gonzales’s call for the investigation to end and snapped into action whenever they felt Democrats had maligned the attorney general.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking member, argued that the two-month investigation had tried to criminalize politics.
“As we have gone forward, the list of accusations has mushroomed,” Smith said in his opening remarks. “But the evidence of genuine wrongdoing has not.”
Democrats still snarled, bellowed and pounded the table in frustration when they tried to get answers on who recommended the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys, and why they did so.
Gonzales repeatedly took responsibility for the firings. But in several instances, he said he could not answer specific questions because he had not talked to key officials in order to respect the confidentiality of an ongoing internal Justice Department investigation into the matter.
Even before the hearing began, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman, personally told a number of costumed “Code Pink” protesters to leave because he didn’t think the signs and symbols on their garments were dignified. By contrast, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was much more lenient with protesters who heckled and hissed throughout last month’s hearing.
Lawmakers almost immediately took the pressure off Gonzales and began sparring with each other over the status of Justice Department investigations into the activities of two sitting congressmen.
Just minutes into the hearing, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) demanded answers from Gonzales about the perceived lack of progress in the FBI probe of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).
“My constituents are asking me when something is going to happen, whether an indictment is going to be returned or whether the Justice Department is going to make an announcement that there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute Representative Jefferson,” Sensenbrenner said.
Gonzales responded that Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the panel, knew that he could not talk about ongoing investigations.
“Well, everybody’s talking about it except you,” Sensenbrenner retorted. “I’m just interested in finding out when this matter is going to be brought to conclusion, because we authorize and appropriate a heck of a lot of money to run your department and people are wondering what the dickens is going on.”
Gonzales answered he “had every confidence” that the prosecutors in the case will follow the evidence and take action at the appropriate time.
Unsatisfied, Sensenbrenner then asked whether Gonzales believed the raid on Jefferson’s office and the legal dispute over the separation of powers that it sparked had slowed a decision on whether to indict Jefferson.
Gonzales said only that he couldn’t comment but would do so at the appropriate time.
Sensenbrenner said angrily: “Well, I would hope that the appropriate time would be pretty soon, because the people’s confidence in your department has been further eroded, separate and apart from the U.S. attorney controversy, because of the delay in dealing with this matter.”
The exchange took place after a dust-up over Rep. Linda Sanchez’s (D-Calif.) comments on an FBI investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), and whether the October 2006 departure of U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang, who was leading the probe, was related to the other prosecutors’ firings in December. Yang resigned her position to take a partnership at a law firm defending Lewis in the probe. Yang, a single mother, has told The Hill that she took the job mainly for financial reasons and that her departure would not affect the case.
Sanchez asked Gonzales whether he was concerned about the conflict of interest that Yang’s new job may have raised. He responded: “We had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going to work in that firm.”
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) then interjected when Sanchez attempted to place into the hearing record a New York Times article raising questions about Yang’s departure.
Lungren took exception to Sanchez’s statement that Lewis was a “target” of an investigation and argued there was no proof of that.
“We ought to be careful about that before we start besmirching members’ names around,” he said.
Following Sensenbrenner’s comments about the Jefferson probe, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) raised a point of order asking to “take down” Sanchez’s remarks that Lewis was a target, a process of removing the words from the hearing record.
Sanchez apologized if she had referred to him as a target and agreed to strike it from the record.
Gonzales was also asked about Todd Graves, the former U.S. attorney for Kansas City, Mo., and denied that his early 2006 departure had anything to do with the review and ousting of the other eight U.S. attorneys late in the year. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Graves was asked to leave in January 2006, many months before the other firings occurred.
Gonzales had previously testified that just eight U.S. attorneys were fired and repeated that assertion under questioning yesterday.
At the end of the hearing, Conyers said he was still unsatisfied and asked for Gonzales to produce more answers and documents about the White House’s involvement in the firings.
“I am disappointed that you still cannot answer the basic questions of who put the U.S. attorneys on the firing list and why … the bread crumbs that we referred to earlier seem to be leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”
|
Quote:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/20...es-before.html
Friday, May 11, 2007
Transcript: Gonzales Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee
The chair recognizes the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, Linda Sanchez.
WATCH IT HERE:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...fused-or-what/
..SANCHEZ: I thank the chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales, you've consistently maintained that only eight U.S. attorneys were forced out of their positions. Yet today's Washington Post states that there was a ninth, Todd Graves.
Are there any more U.S. attorneys that we should know about that were forced out?
GONZALES: Congresswoman, it's always been my understanding that this focus has been on the eight United States attorneys that were asked to resign last December 7th and June 14th, including Bud Cummins.
SANCHEZ: Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, in page two of your testimony that you've previously given, you stated that there were only eight that were forced out.
GONZALES: As part of this process -- as part of this review process that I asked Mr. Sampson to conduct and which resulted in the culmination in December of '06, these were the individuals that this process identified as where changes should be appropriate.
Now, clearly, throughout my tenure as attorney general and throughout the tenure of my predecessors and other attorney generals, U.S. attorneys have left the department for a number of -- variety of reasons. So that happens.
SANCHEZ: Let's stop there.
Are you familiar with the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Wong Yang?
GONZALES: Yes.
SANCHEZ: And are you aware the she resigned her position in October of 2006 and took a position with a private law firm?
GONZALES: Yes, I am.
SANCHEZ: Do you have information as to whether Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary?
GONZALES: From what I know, Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary. She did a wonderful job and...
(CROSSTALK)
<b>SANCHEZ: Now, are you aware that when Ms. Yang went to this firm, she received what has been reported as a $1.5 million bonus for joining the private law firm?</b>
GONZALES: I don't know what she received. But whatever it was, it was a bargain for the firm because she is an outstanding lawyer.
SANCHEZ: Are you aware of any reason why she would have been given such an extraordinary bonus payment to hire an individual like her?
GONZALES: I suspect that given her outstanding qualifications, the fact that she's a woman, an Asian-American, would make her particularly attractive to a private firm.
SANCHEZ: So you think a $1.5 million signing bonus is typical for a situation like that?
GONZALES: Again, that's a decision for that firm to make.
SANCHEZ: OK.
Are you aware -- and this has been reported in the press -- that when she was hired by the firm, Ms. Yang was conducting an active investigation into Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis and his financial dealings with a particular lobbying firm? Were you aware of that?
GONZALES: I may have been aware of that. Sitting here today, I can't say that I was aware of that. But that is very likely.
We have public corruption investigations and prosecutions that are occurring every day all over the country, Congresswoman.
GONZALES: So it would not be unusual that such...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, let me tell you what concerns me.
What concerns me are the reports of the same firm that hired Ms. Yang away from her post as a U.S. attorney, with a large bonus payment, also, coincidentally, happens to be the firm that represents Mr. Lewis in this matter. Does that coincidence trouble you at all?
GONZALES: Not at all, because, again, what we have to remember is that for -- the American people need to understand this -- is that these investigations are not run primarily by the United States attorneys. They're handled by assistant United States attorneys, career prosecutors. And so these...
SANCHEZ: She had no role in the investigation of Mr. Lewis?
GONZALES: ... these investigations, these prosecutions continue, as they should.
This great institution is built to withstand departures of U.S. attorneys and attorneys general.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So you don't think it's inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to accept a lucrative job offer from a law firm representing the target of one of their active investigations in a position that she held just prior to going to that law firm? You don't think that that's inappropriate?
GONZALES: Again...
SANCHEZ: You don't think that there's perhaps at least an appearance of a conflict of interest...
(CROSSTALK)
GONZALES: Congresswoman Sanchez, I'm presuming -- knowing Deb Yang the way that I do and the people in that firm -- is that she would be recused from anything related to that matter as a member of that firm.
And, again, what's important for the American people to understand is, despite her departure, that case will continue, as it should.
SANCHEZ: So you're not concerned even with the appearance of conflicts of interest. It doesn't trouble you at all...
GONZALES: I'm always concerned about the appearance of a conflict...
SANCHEZ: ... especially at a point when the Justice Department is under scrutiny, the morale is probably the lowest that it's been in decades, and people are questioning the integrity of the DOJ to act in an evenhanded and fair manner.
GONZALES: Of course, as head of the department, I'm always concerned about the appearance and the perception. Of course I am.
But, again, this is more of a perception for the law firm as opposed to the Department of Justice because, as far as I know, we had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going to work in that firm.
SANCHEZ: What about this: Are you aware that one month before Ms. Yang resigned her post White House Counsel Harriet Miers had asked Kyle Sampson if Ms. Yang planned to keep her post or, as in Mr. Sampson's words to our investigators, quote/unquote, "whether a vacancy could be created there in Los Angeles"? Were you aware of that?
GONZALES: I think I may be aware of that, based on my review. I can't remember now whether or not that's reflected in the document.
Let me just say this, a couple things about that.
<h3>I recall -- Ms. Yang, when I said she left voluntarily, I think she left involuntarily</h3> in that she -- she had to leave for financial reasons. I think if she could have, she would have stayed. But I think she had to leave for financial reasons.
(CROSSTALK)
|
Last edited by host; 05-11-2007 at 08:51 AM..
|