|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
......Wanting something to be illegal or unconstitutional doesn't mean that it in fact is illegal or unconstitutional.
|
I'll gladly continue to attempt to "balance" "thinking" like the following descriptions, loquitur. If you are telling us that we are over reacting, I'll respond by asking you to consider whether you are, and have been, doing the opposite.
I see little to no risk in demanding, at every instance, that the president fully disclose his decisions, and provide clear justification, most especially in cases of offensive military action.
If the president responds in an open and cooperative manner, the worst that can happen is that we annoy him, but disclosure from and accountability of the president and all other elected officials is our duty to demand, and our right to know.
The electorate just took away majority control from congressional leaders who did not understand that.
The attitude of the military mandated by the executive branch and it's partisan politicking, were catalysts for the attitude of the Lieutenant who was interviewed in this article, and of his former commanding general.
What the fuck were the officers who commanded these soldiers thinking? Where did they come by such prejudice against the US press, and why does the Lieutenant think that it is his business how the press reports on the president of the US?
It seems, at least in this account that the military involved in these war crimes was hostile, brutal, and dismissive of the Iraqi people whose protection and civil progress are at the heart of these troop's mission....
Is there more of a danger in suspecting that the military is ineffective in that it triggers the hostility and violence that it has been unable to reign in, and that, in an effort to please the president that has used it's service and dedication to duty as a political PR prop, over and over since the May, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" "presentation on the deck of the US carrier Abraham Lincoln, the military has become almost as politicized and partisan as it's CIC, himself is.....OR IN NOT SUSPECTING IT?
Why does the Lieutenant and other officers presume that the press "asking questions", is an attack on the military or that the press would not ask pertinent and relevant questions that address concerns voiced to it by the Iraqi people?
Is there only room to either kiss Mr. Bush's ass, and assume that Bush, his appointees, elected republicans in congress, and the US soldiers that Bush and his generals command, are not to be questioned or held accountable, or to over react by predictably consistently holding all of them to account, right down the chain of command and responsibility?
If that happened, and all of them assumed at all times that it would happen, would the 19 Iraqi civilians killed in Haditha probably be still alive now, the indicted soldiers not in custody and on trial, and would the US have even invaded and occupied Iraq?
Give me over reaction and accountability, and the assumption that the press reporting from Iraq does not risk it's life to get and cover "the story", with the intent of embarassing the president, and that US officers are smart enough to drum into the rank and file soldiers that the last thing they should be doing is creating new vendettas against themselves from Iraqi civilians.
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...11haditha.html
Questions over lack of Haditha inquiry
General says he believed Marines
By Rick Rogers
STAFF WRITER
May 11, 2007
CAMP PENDLETON – One theme permeated the third day of a court hearing at Camp Pendleton for the Haditha case, which involves Marines who killed 24 Iraqi civilians: <b>How could so many generals and other senior officers know about the deaths yet not launch an investigation? ....</b>
......Yesterday, the top general overseeing U.S. military operations in Haditha and much of western Iraq at the time testified he found no reason to doubt the story.
“I had no information that a law-of-armed-conflict violation had been committed,” said Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, who testified via video conferencing from his current Pentagon job in Washington, D.C.
Huck, a two-star general, spoke at a pretrial hearing for Capt. Randy W. Stone, one of four officers accused of failing to investigate the killings.
Three enlisted Marines are charged with murder and other violations in the case. They allegedly became enraged after a roadside bomb killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and injured other Marines. Prosecutors accuse the three enlisted servicemen of fatally shooting five men who approached the scene in a car shortly after the explosion, then killing 19 people in several nearby homes with an assortment of weapons.
Some of the defendants have said they shot at the Iraqis in the vehicle after they began running away. They also maintain that gunfire was coming from the homes, signaling the presence of insurgents.
Stone's civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, has called on Huck and other commanders to testify. He aims to prove that his client is not guilty of dereliction of duty because Marines throughout the command chain agreed that the Haditha killings were lawful.
Huck, who is not a Haditha defendant, described a military system in which each level of authority largely relied on the one below it to initiate a probe. He also wondered why numerous Iraqi groups in Haditha didn't raise any concerns with him about the alleged massacre.
It took a March article in Time magazine to spur an investigation, which has resulted in the biggest allegation of military atrocities of the Iraq war, which began in 2003.
Huck said he never heard questions about possible war crimes in Haditha until Feb. 12, 2006. His boss, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, sent him an e-mail that day saying Huck must have known that a Time reporter had asked some questions challenging the official military account.
Huck then discovered that his chief of staff and others in his command had known about the reporter's inquiry since mid-January.
<b>Despite being “highly irritated” to learn that he wasn't kept in the loop on these developments, Huck responded to Chiarelli by writing: “I support our account and do not see the necessity for further investigation.”
Chiarelli called for a probe Feb. 13, 2006.</b>
Yesterday, <h3>1st Lt. Adam P. Mathes provided insight into the thinking of the battalion that included the seven Haditha defendants. He testified via a grainy video hookup from an undisclosed location in the Middle East.
Mathes, who was not present during the Haditha killings, said he viewed the Time reporter's questions as an attempt to blemish President Bush and the Marine Corps.
“It was sensationalistic and based on information that was factually inaccurate. It sounded like a really bad, negative spin,” Mathes testified. “This guy is looking for blood because blood leads headlines.”</h3>
Asked if the reporter's questions gave anyone pause that maybe something criminal had happened in Haditha, Mathes replied: “To do an investigation after being prompted by the press would be some kind of admission of guilt.”
Under cross-examination by a prosecutor, Mathes said the reporter's queries centered on the shootings and that neither the Bush administration nor it policies were mentioned.
He also acknowledged that during a town council meeting in Haditha, some Iraqis accused the Marines of murdering three families Nov. 19, 2005. Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell attended the meeting, Mathes recalled.
Afterward, Mathes said, McConnell described the allegations as not “a very big deal – it was nothing, a rumor.”
Stone's court proceeding, known as an Article 32 hearing, is expected to last through Saturday. The investigating officer presiding over it will then review the evidence presented and recommend whether Stone should proceed to trial.
|
Were at the point we are, loquitur, not because of a tendency of critics of Bush and his republican government to over react, but because of a reflexive and obsessive penchant on the part of Bush and his government to avoid and prevent almost all accountability.
Proper decisions and actions performed in good faith build confidence and reputations. Since Gore v. Bush in 2000, and in that election and vote recount, continuing until these Haditha war crimes trials, there had been only the consistent effort to avoid disclosure to the press and to the people, to an obsessive degree that includes avoiding holding fellow republicans or troops accountable, because it has the potential to reveal "too much" to the "other side".....the "other side" being anyone who "over reacts' by asking questions, including the press, who formerly asked question as part of their job description, but now are shut out unless the "earn" access by reporting the carefully selected and distributed talking points....and only those....that earn them the access.
Otherwise, just as you consider me to be, to a degree that you haven't fully recognized, an independent working press, asking questions and indepently reporting the answers, is..... "out for blood".
The "control", (an example is the Bush initiated elongation of the length of time that papers of former presidents must be kept from public access) and the "us v. them" attitude, the avoidance of accountability, and the institutionalization of oppostion voter intimidation/nullification, starting with the president's own brother and his state's secretary of state, Catherine Harris's seven figure contract for a felon voter purge list, the rewards doled out by this president to the most partisan pitbulls (examples: John Bolton & Josh Bolton....) who descended on Florida after the 2000 vote to disrupt the recount, the revelation that the president's brother, in FLA again in 2004, attempted to keep his new felon voter purge list away from the eyes of the press, and the list's nullification after a judge ordered Florida's government to share the list and it's lack of Hispanic names,
the politcization of and PR exploitation of the military by the president, continuing to revelations of the dismantling of civil rights enforecment at the DOJ, and it's redirection into a prosecutorial division of the republican party,
impress me that this is truly an executive branch that casts a pall over the country that is indeed, worse than Watergate, complete with:
....and, isn't it worse now than Nixon using the IRS to harass his critics and perceived politcal enemies?
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003107.php
Controversial USA Delivered "Voter Fraud" Indictments Right on Time
By Paul Kiel - May 1, 2007, 12:15 PM
The Justice Department has a longstanding policy regarding the prosecution of election law or voter fraud cases: the closer to the election it gets, the more cautious prosecutors should be about bringing indictments. The reason is simple. Bringing an indictment close to the election can intimidate minority voters, affect voter turnout and potentially even influence the result of the election.
But Bradley Schlozman -- the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City and controversial deputy head at the Civil Rights Division -- broke with the policy. Not only that, but there's evidence that he rushed four indictments to land just before last November's election.
Indeed, timing aside, even Schlozman's decision to pursue the cases at all is questionable in light of established Justice Department practice. Although trumpeted as cases of voter fraud, the cases alleged only registration fraud, and there's no evidence that those registrations were intended to result in actual fraudulent votes. For that reason, other U.S. attorneys have passed on pursuing similar prosecutions. But Schlozman, who'd worked to push voter I.D. laws while in the Civil Rights Division, leapt at the opportunity.
The more you learn about Schlozman's decision to indict four voter registration recruiters for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) five days before last year's election -- Missouri's Jim Talent was battling Claire McCaskill in one of the closest Senate races in the country --, the worse it looks.
News coverage of the indictments tended to buttress the notion that liberal groups like ACORN were conspiring to steal the election. The indictments were covered by Fox News (where a Kansas City election official was quoted as saying that it was "the worst case of registration abuse in the last quarter century"), as well as the AP, CNN, and other nationwide outlets. Schlozman announced in a statement that "This national investigation is very much ongoing."
It had been the longstanding practice of the Justice Department not to bring such indictments so close before an election. That's according to Joe Rich, the former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Section, and a Justice Department manual written by Craig Donsanto, head of the Election Crimes Branch at Justice, which advised that “Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period or while the election is underway.”
Even Alberto Gonzales himself said just two weeks ago that "We have guidance about that, doing those kind of investigations near an election," to be "sensitive about the effect it has on particularly minority participation."
But if Schozman was trying to be sensitive, he didn't show it. In addition to issuing the statement that the "national investigation" into ACORN's registration of mostly poor, minority voters was "very much ongoing," Schlozman also announced the next day that his office would be monitoring the election for fraud. An assistant U.S. attorney would be on duty all day to "ensure public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process."
And there is evidence that the indictments were rushed to come down before Election Day.
|
It was okay though...Schlozman's "timing"....on the eve of the election:
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ngs/?page=full
.....The department said Schlozman's office got permission from headquarters for the election-eve indictments. It added that the department interprets the policy as having <h3>an unwritten exception</h3> for voter registration fraud, because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.......
|
....an "UNWRITTEN EXCEPTION"....wellllll all-fucking-righty....why din't ya say so????
I wonder if this republican congressman, until recently chairman of the house judiciary committee, also had in his pocket, an "UNWRITTEN EXCEPTION" to the rule that a congressman does not publicly demand an ASAP indictment and prosecution of someone under criminal investigation by the DOJ, a demand for an indictment of someone who is a member of congress from the rival political party.....from the fucking Attorney General, while he is being questioned under oath about other partisan motivated actions and aggressions emanating from the DOJ that he allegedly is the head of?
Quote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-05-10.html
Sensenbrenner grills Gonzales on Jefferson probe
By Susan Crabtree
May 10, 2007
.....“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. “When can the public expect some news one way or the other on this issue?”
Gonzales responded that Sensenbrenner 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 then said he “had every confidence” that the prosecutors in the case will follow the evidence and take action at the appropriate time.
Not satisfied, Sensenbrenner tried a different tack. He 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.
“Well, I would hope that the appropriate time would be pretty soon,” Sensenbrenner said, “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.”......
|
....and we haven't even gotten to the part about the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/">VP's office</a> refusing to disclose how it came to be the issuer of the first government contract to Mitchell Wade. one of two bribers indicted for payoffs to convicted congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA), or what the contract to Wade was for. Wade's fellow briber was Brett Wilkes, <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070511-1559-ca-congressman-bribery.html">indicted for the 2nd time, yesterday</a>, along with his best friend and former #3 at CIA, Kyle Foggo,
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003091.php
.....All this raises a question. The bosses at main Justice seem to have been similarly reluctant to proceed with regard to the Duke Cunningham probe. As TPM reported a couple of weeks ago, U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam had to wait sometimes for months for clearance on certain moves in her investigation. So is there a pattern here?....
|
...or how this all fits with the Wilkes, Foggo, Cunningham, crimes that now have spurred an investigation of the chairman of the defense appropriations committee that Cunningham "served" on:
Quote:
http://tpmmuckraker.com/buckham.php
Ed Buckham
Ed Buckham ran Alexander Strategy Group, a lobby shop known for its access to Tom DeLay. He also worked closely with Jack Abramoff.
Buckham was named in Tony Rudy's March 31, 2006 guilty plea as "Lobbyist B." The plea also names Buckham as having benefitted from Rudy's effort to round up aides for a trip to the Northern Mariana Islands.
Ed Buckham started working for DeLay in 1995 after staff positions with several other Republicans and a run as executive director of the Republican Study Committee. He served as both a pastor and chief of staff for the congressman.
Buckham organized the US Family Network, an astroturf organization that served as a conduit for cash to various DeLay projects, in 1996. He also founded the Alexander Strategy Group (ASG), a lobbying firm that was one of the flagship operations of DeLay's K Street project and a key gatekeeper to DeLay's influence until it closed its doors in January 2006.
See Buckham's Grand Ole Docket entry for ongoing court dates.
Key points:
Buckham's ASG channeled money from Abramoff clients to DeLay through the U.S. Family Network.
A CNMI textile company, the Choctaw Indians and the Russian oil interests each donated large sums of money to the USFN, allegedly in exchange for support from Tom DeLay. USFN paid ASG hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ASG paid Christine DeLay $3,200/month, though she did not work in their offices on Capitol Hill.
Buckham arranged DeLay's first trip to the Mississippi Choctaws.
Buckham, along with Tony Rudy, was the first DeLay staffer to visit with the Choctaws, an Abramoff client. The trip, taken in 1997, lasted 3 days and cost the Choctaw $3,000. The following year, Buckham arranged a trip for DeLay to the Choctaw Casino and golf resort. The day after DeLay left the resort, the Choctaws made an initial $150,000 payment to the USFN. The Choctaws were Abramoff clients.
DeLay's Scotland trip was partially billed to Buckham.
When DeLay traveled to Scotland to play at an exclusive golf resort in 2000, parts of the trip were billed to Buckham's credit card, a violation of House ethics rules since Buckham was, by that time, a registered lobbyist. Other parts of the trip were charged to Abramoff's credit card.
<b>Buckham represented Brent Wilkes' Group W Advisors.</b>
<h3>Group W Advisors, a lobby shop operated by Brent Wilkes, who has been implicated in the Cunningham bribery investigation, hired ASG in 2002 to lobby DeLay on defense contracts. ASG has earned $620,000 on the contracts to date. Buckham represented Group W for ASG along with Rudy and several other ASG lobbyists.</h3>
Buckham's concorde flight caught the press's attention.
On the Buckam-DeLay trip to Russia in 1997, which was financed by Russian oil interests, Buckam took a $5,000 flight home on the Concorde. Questioned by the press, he claimed the ticket was financed by the NCPPR.
|
Quote:
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3906155
Yucca Valley tied to Lewis Inquiry
Guy McCarthy and Andrew Silva, Staff Writers
Article Launched: 06/06/2006 06:48:00 PM PDT
The High Desert town of Yucca Valley has been subpoenaed for records pertaining to the federal criminal investigation of ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, and lobbying giant Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White......
...... Documents released Tuesday by Yucca Valley include a federal subpoena from U.S. Attorney prosecutors in Los Angeles and correspondence from Copeland Lowery lobbyists and former Lewis staffers Jeff Shockey of Redlands and Letitia H. White.
Shockey, who returned to work for Lewis last year, earned $1.5 million over six years with Copeland Lowery and received a $600,000 severance package. Since Shockey was a part-owner of the firm, the $600,000 was a divestiture required by law.
White worked nearly 20 years for Lewis before leaving to work for Copeland Lowery in 2003. She earned lobbying fees of $850,000 that year and $3.5 million last year, <h3>earning her the title ``K Street's queen of earmarks,'' The New York Times reported Saturday.</h3>
Lewis has passionately defended the practice of earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for local projects. But the practice is at least one reason for federal investigators' scrutiny. Some observers, including congressional watchdog groups in Washington, question whether Lewis and other lawmakers have traded earmarks for illegal payments from contractors and lobbyists.
Cunningham was sentenced to eight years in prison after he pleaded guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes. He resigned in disgrace in December.
Yucca Valley has had an agreement with Copeland Lowery since January 2003 on a retainer of $3,000 per month plus expenses.
That was increased in August 2005 to $3,500.
The firm lobbies not only Lewis, but also California's two U.S. senators and others who may have a role in issues of concern, Town Manager Andy Takata said.
Money for improvements to Highway 62 has been obtained and the firm has helped arrange important meetings with federal officials to help solve problems, he said.
``We felt they have done a good job for us,'' Takata said. ``Jerry Lewis has been a very good Congressman for us all these years.''
That was true long before the town hired Copeland Lowery, he said.
|
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000838.php
Lewis' Daughter Runs Defense PAC Tied to Lobbyist
By Justin Rood - June 7, 2006, 12:01 PM
A powerful House Republican's ties to a lobby firm under investigation just became a family affair.
Here's what we knew as of this morning: House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is under investigation, along with at least two of his former staffers. Just after leaving Lewis' employ, staffer Letitia White bought a house with one of the defense contractors who wanted funds earmarked from Lewis' committee. Later we learned that house was the headquarters for a Political Action Committee, chaired by that same defense contractor.
Now we can report that the PAC is operated by Lewis' stepdaughter, Julie Willis-Leon.
The group, the Small Biz Tech PAC, takes money from defense firms with business before Lewis' committee. A number of them are clients of the Copeland Lowery lobbying firm, which employs Letitia White. (Both Copeland Lowery and White are under investigation in the Lewis matter.)
At least two of the PAC's contributors -- ICUITI Corp. and Advatech Pacific -- have received earmarks from Lewis' panel, according to records kept by the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. (Neither company has returned our calls.)
I spoke with Julia Willis-Leon this morning and asked her if she thought her PAC got any special treatment because her stepfather was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "Absolutely not," she told me. "You might note that the PAC has never contributed to him," she added.
Lewis' office has not yet returned my call for comment. I should note that Lewis isn't Julia's only relative on the Hill; her mother, Arlene Willis, is Lewis' staff director. And Jerry Lewis' wife.
|
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1n12lewis.html
Lewis subject of 'earmarks' investigation, source says
By Jerry Kammer and Dean Calbreath
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE / STAFF WRITER
May 12, 2006
.....“Lewis and Duke worked together, exerting a lot of control. It was pretty frightening,” said a San Diego military contractor who dealt with both Lewis and Cunningham.
The contractor spoke on the condition of anonymity because he didn't want to jeopardize his professional relationships in Washington, D.C.
In the months after Cunningham pleaded guilty, Lewis resisted an independent investigation of Cunningham's activities on the Appropriations Committee. He said he did an informal review of Cunningham's earmarks over several years and was satisfied that they were all legitimate.
Lewis said in his written statement yesterday that he would “welcome a thorough review of these projects.”
His office did not respond to requests that it release the results of his informal review. Copley News Service requested a list of the earmarks, the companies that benefited from them and the amount of money involved.
A former director of the committee's Democratic staff called on Lewis to be more forthcoming about Cunningham's actions.
“I think he has an obligation to explain what happened here because his committee . . . was used for corrupt purposes,” said Scott Lilly, who left the committee in 2004.
According to government and defense industry sources, Lewis and Cunningham worked together to help Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes as he pursued contracts on Capitol Hill. Cunningham admitted taking bribes from Wilkes, who has been identified as co-conspirator No. 1 in Cunningham's plea agreement.
On April 15, 1999, three months after Lewis was named chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, he received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes and his associates. At the time, Wilkes was vying for a project to digitize military documents in the Panama Canal Zone, which the United States was about to return to Panama.
“If you can't go to people on Capitol Hill, it's very difficult to remain viable as a government contractor,” said one of Wilkes' associates who contributed money to Lewis at the time. “You have to talk to people. And to talk to people, you have to give money.”
But the Panama project hit a snag. The Pentagon did not want to give Wilkes as much money as he requested. .....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ny_051007.html
......... 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?
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...
.... 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.....
|
Quote:
http://www.gibsondunn.com/news/firm/...pubItemId=8231
.......October 17, 2006
Los Angeles. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce Debra Wong Yang, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, will join the firm as partner in the Los Angeles office.
At Gibson Dunn, <b>Yang will co-chair the firm’s Crisis Management Practice Group, along with Washington, D.C. partner Theodore B. Olson, the former Solicitor General of the United States, and New York partner Randy Mastro, the former New York Deputy Mayor of Operations. In addition, Yang will play a central role in the Business Crimes and Investigations Practice Group.</b>
“Debra Wong Yang is one of the most respected U.S. Attorneys in the country. She has done a remarkable job in leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, which handles some of our Nation’s largest and most difficult cases,” said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. “She was selected to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a small group of U.S. Attorneys that I consult on policy matters, and she served in this and other capacities with great distinction. She is an energetic leader and has an amazing ability to build connections with community leaders at all levels.”
“We are thrilled to have Debra join the firm,” said Ken Doran, Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. “She is an extraordinarily accomplished lawyer. Her national reputation, profile and experience make her perfectly suited to play a leadership role in our firm’s widely acclaimed Crisis Management practice.”.........
|
loquitur....I didn't make this "stuff" up.....for almost everyone...just the Abramoff/Buckham/Delay/Wilkes/Wade/Cunningham/Lewis associations are mind boggling. IF you add the DOJ/Gonzales/Meiers/Lam/Yang/Ted Olson "dimension" to the investigative and prosecutorial "side" to it....who else but an increasingly amazed and angry "zealot"...with anger and zealotry rising as the details steadily stream in.....could, or would even be bothered to follow it all.
Somebody has to "follow it", though.....loquitur, because.....it should interest you, but it doesn't, and I'm curious about your curiously uninterested reaction, too.....
Last edited by host; 05-11-2007 at 10:36 PM..
|