|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Understood. I acknowledge politics being played on both sides of the aisle...spilling over into the public domain. My thing is that this trial was on very, very shaky and partisan ground from the start, initiated by an anti-war politico with a frogmarch agenda. I think what Joe Wilson tried to do policically was shady, and the white house fought back politically.....
|
powerclown, could you please post your article in a quote box....like the rest of us do.....
The article you posted is the work of an extreme partisan. You ignore that, by posting it, and....in order to hold the opinion that you posted, you must ignore the fact that Joe Wilson had no influence on the decision to prosecute Libby. Libby was prosecuted by a US Atty appointed by Bush, in a trail heard by a federal judge appointed by Bush, and Libby was investigated via a DOJ headed by an Atty General, appointed by Bush. The US Atty who acted as special counsel and prosecutor of Libby was appointed by Asst. Atty. General, Jame Comey, who was appointed by Bush. Two of the three judges on the appellate panel criticized by your articles narrator, Dershowitz were appointed by Reagan or by Bush's father....
You Dershowitz article has to compete with the following information, and, considering that he accuses 3 judges on the appellate panel and the trial judge, Reggie Walton, of somehow "playing politics", I can demonstrate how ludicrous Dershowitz's opinion is, by providing the background of one of the appellate panel judges, David Sentelle, and that of trial Judge Walton.....
On the one hand, your argument consists of the unsubstantiated accusations of Dershowitz, which fly in the face of the record of Sentelle and Walton, and your own opinion that this is "Wilson's fault". You attempt to advance these ideas as "reasonable"...things I'm assuming that you believe that we should consider, when the only non-Republican appointee in "the mix", is one democratic appointee of the three judges on the appellate panel. Even Joe Wilson was a Bush '41 dispatched, (to Baghdad) career diplomat, who Bush '41 once described as a "hero"....and Wilson had no influence over the investigative, indictment, trial process, or over Libbyy's appeal.
If Dershowitz's article is representative of why you feel so strongly opposite to the record of what happened in the Libby prosecution, and <b>the key things that you must deny to reach your conclusions...i.e.... that this is somehow "partisan", even though only Bush appointees took the Libby investigation, prosecution, and sentencing, all the way up to the point of appeal, and then, David Sentelle, of all people....ruled against Libby</b>....if this is how your "opinion gathering process", "works" with other issues....how would someone like me....ever be able to engage you in a substantative discussion on any issue?
powerclown....in order for a prosecution to be "partisan", or politically influenced, wouldn't it be most likely that a Bush appointed judge would be prosecuting a politically connected member if the opposing party. Here is what can happen, when that is the case....does this seem remotely lime the way Judge Walton treated Libby???? Both sentencings took place last month:
Quote:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...328/1001&cid=0
July 5, 2007
Siegelman, Scrushy led off in shackles
By Marty Roney
Former Gov. Don Siegelman and ousted Healthsouth CEO Richard Scrushy begin their first full day in prison today after being sentenced to about 7 years each on federal corruption charges.
Both men were led out of the federal courthouse in shackles and handcuffs Thursday night. U.S. Marshals refused to say where they will be held until the Federal Bureau of Prisons decides to which facility they will be assigned.
Scrushy and Siegelman appeared surprised when U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller refused to let them set up a voluntary surrender date or remain free on appeal bond.
"I'm shocked disappointed and surprised," said Vince Kilborn, one of Siegelman's attorneys, of his client being taken into custody. "The governor is upbeat. The last time I saw him he was in a holding cell. He was in shackles but his hands were free. He was concerned about consoling me."
Siegelman attorney David McDonald, holding the belt and suit jacket of the former governor because prisoners are not allowed to wear them, echoed Kilborn's remarks. He said Siegelman had remained positive, even professing his continued faith in the judicial system, following the sentence.........
|
<b>Is it even a possibility that David Sentelle, given his own record and reputation.... one of three appellate judges accused by Dershowitz of :
Quote:
|
That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong
|
....could possibly have acted as Dershowitz described....AGAINST Libby...out of a partisan motivation?</b>
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...B80&refer=home
Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Must Go to Jail During Appeal (Update2)
By Cary O'Reilly
Enlarge Image
Lewis "Scooter" Libby leaves Federal Court
July 2 (Bloomberg)
..... Three-Judge Panel
The three-judge appeals panel that issued today's order included Judges <h2>David Sentelle</h2>, nominated by President Ronald Reagan; Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and David Tatel, nominated by President Bill Clinton. ........
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...oth%2c%20Lauch
August 17, 1994, Wednesday
By PETER APPLEBOME, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Special to The New York Times
When David B. Sentelle was nominated to be a Federal judge in 1985, his patron, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, said that he had decided when he first met Mr. Sentelle, "I would do whatever I could to make sure that this young man's integrity and talent, principles and courage, would be used by this country."
Now as he is embroiled in the controversy over the replacement of Robert B. Fiske Jr. by Kenneth W. Starr as the Whitewater independent counsel, Judge Sentelle has already had an influence on the country that may exceed the Republican Senator's fondest expectations.
He was a member of the three-judge panels that overturned the Iran-contra convictions of Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter, and he is regarded as the driving force behind the appointment of Mr. Starr, whose conservative credentials have riled Democrats.
Friends and critics alike here recall Judge Sentelle, 51, as a first-rate lawyer; an affable, folksy personality; and a politically savvy, ideologically committed leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and a supporter of Mr. Helms.
"I used to see David on a number of issues, everything from Confederate monuments to minority set-asides," said Harvey Gantt, who dealt with Mr. Sentelle often in the late 1970's when Mr. Sentelle headed the local Republican Party and Mr. Gantt, a Democrat, sat on the City Council. "I can't remember David being on on my side about anything, but he was a very affable fellow, a friendly assassin, cowboy boots and all."
In the current dispute, Democrats say the judge acted improperly by having lunch with Senators Helms and Lauch Faircloth, North Carolina's other conservative Republican Senator, while the Federal appeals panel he headed was still considering the future of the special prosecutor. Mr. Faircloth was a leader of the effort to oust Mr. Fiske because he thought Mr. Fiske had not been tough enough in his investigation.
On Aug. 5, three weeks after the lunch, the three-judge panel, which oversees matters involving special counsels, replaced Mr. Fiske, whose work on Whitewater had generally pleased the White House. It chose Mr. Starr, a former Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, to replace him. Many Democrats were outraged by the appointment of Mr. Starr, a strong conservative who had been highly critical of President Clinton's claim of immunity in a sexual harassment suit. Removal Is Sought
Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said today that Mr. Starr should either step down or be removed and that Judge Sentelle should either step down or be removed from the judicial panel before he "has another chance to taint the appearance of another appointment."
Asked tonight for comment, Judge Sentelle said, "I don't talk to reporters."
The judge has issued a single written statement saying that the lunch was a routine social event and "to the best of my recollection nothing in these discussions concerned independent counsel matters."
People here who know Judge Sentelle generally describe him as a first-rate judge and lawyer. And even North Carolina Democrats are less likely to see an improper use of judicial power than further evidence of Mr. Helms's genius at finding like-minded conservatives and putting them in positions of power.
"I don't think there's a conspiracy here, just good politics," said State Representative Paul Luebke, a liberal Democrat and a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro who has frequently written on North Carolina politics. "Senator Helms has always known how to recognize talent and support capable Republicans who share his views. The real story is that David Sentelle was tapped years ago by Senator Helms as a young man with a bright future, and he ended up doing the sort of thing that would make Senator Helms proud of him." Steps to Success
There are few wildly conflicting views of David Bryan Sentelle, whom President Ronald Reagan chose in 1987 to join the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The son of a mill worker from Canton, N.C., Judge Sentelle's public life has centered on conservative, Republican politics and a successful career in the law.
At the University of North Carolina, he was president of the Young Republicans and chairman of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom. After graduating from the university's law school in 1968, he entered private practice in Asheville, in the hills of western North Carolina where he grew up, and then moved to Charlotte as an Assistant United States Attorney from 1970 to 1974.
He served as a state district judge from 1974 to 1977, becoming increasingly active in Republican politics and serving as Mecklenburg County Republican chairman in 1979 and 1980 until he ran unsuccessfully for the Mecklenburg County Commission.
He then worked in private practice until being named by Mr. Reagan in 1985 as a Federal district judge for the Western District of North Carolina, in Asheville. Two years later, 12 years first impressing Mr. Helms, he was named to the powerful appeals court in Washington to fill the vacancy created by the elevation of Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. Judge Sentelle's ties to Senator Faircloth, who became a Republican only in February 1991 and comes from the other side of North Carolina, are not as long-lived. 'Just a Good Guy'
It is far harder to find harsh critics of Judge Sentelle here in Charlotte than in Washington. Tom Ray, a longtime lawyer here and a prominent Democrat, said the judge's integrity was beyond dispute.
"David has always appeared to me to be rather conservative," Mr. Ray said, "but a man of great common sense. He's just a good guy. I have never heard of anybody questioning his integrity or the strength of his character. Nobody could seriously contend that he wasn't qualified for that court."
Phil Van Hoy, a lawyer and friend of Judge Sentelle, said the judge's rulings were determined by the law, not politics, and he scoffed at the notion that there was anything sinister about a luncheon between three North Carolinians in Washington.
"I think it's comical that anyone would make that sort of accusation about Dave," Mr. Van Hoy said, "especially when it comes from the people who see nothing untoward about Roger Altman having 40 meetings with the specific purpose of blowing the beans about what investigators are up to. If you're going to conspire, you don't do it in the middle of the Senate dining room with everyone watching."
But others, including Mr. Ray, said the luncheon was, at the least, a lapse of judgment. A more common response from critics is an uncomfortable sense of deja vu about Mr. Helms's continuing ability to affect government and policy despite his standing at the outer fringes of the political grid.
"From my perspective, Helms is still a more skilled politician than most people give him credit for," Mr. Luebke said. "That's why he's been elected four times despite always being more conservative than the majority of the people in North Carolina. He's always thought better about his long-range goals than have most senators, and that he recognized the potential of someone like Judge Sentelle 20 years ago is typical of his skill as a politician."
|
Quote:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-917269.html
Toni Locy. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 1994.
Two former presidents of the American Bar Association said yesterday they were surprised by the way a federal supervisory judge rejected questions raised about the propriety of appeals Judge David B. Sentelle's luncheon meeting with Republican senators as he was considering appointment of the Whitewater independent counsel.
In a harsh 16-page opinion issued Tuesday and obtained by The Washington Post, Judge Harry T. Edwards, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, called citizens who filed complaints against Sentelle "naive" and said they have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how such appointments are made.
Three citizens filed complaints about Sentelle's July 14 luncheon on Capitol Hill with Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth, both North Carolina Republicans. Five former ABA presidents, in an unprecedented action, wrote a letter in September to the three-judge panel that Sentelle heads - and which is responsible for appointing independent counsels - asking the judges to act in an impartial manner in the future. They did not file a formal complaint.
"I can assure you that the one thing the five of us do not suffer from is naivete," said Robert MacCrate, a New York lawyer who was among the former ABA presidents critical of Sentelle.
Helms and Faircloth are staunch critics of the Clinton administration, but Faircloth was especially critical of early findings of special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. in investigating President Clinton's Whitewater real estate deal and his involvement with a failed Arkansas savings and loan.
MacCrate and John J. Curtin, a Boston lawyer and former ABA president, said Edwards may have missed the real point: that the public has a different view of the "appearance of impropriety" than judges and lawyers.
Two weeks after the luncheon, Sentelle's panel replaced Fiske with former solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr, who also served with Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The panel cited Fiske's appointment by Attorney General Janet Reno as a possible conflict of interest.
Edwards is revered by many lawyers for his common-sense approach to the law. "I am surprised that someone who can make as good sense as I have found Judge Edwards to make would take this approach in this instance," MacCrate said.
Edwards, in dismissing the complaints, said Sentelle could consult with anyone he wanted about the appointment because he was not acting as a so-called Article III judge at the time, but as an Article II judge. Article III judges decide cases between adversaries and must guard against outside contacts, while Article II judges make appointments and must seek input, Edwards said.
"The whole point was not whether he was acting as an Article II or Article III judge," said Curtin, "but whether or not the public would feel there was an appearance of impropriety. It is an interesting legal distinction."
Sara Ruschaupt, a self-described housewife who filed one of the complaints, said Edwards was condescending. "It's like patting me on the head and telling me, `Don't worry your pretty little head about it. We know what we're talking about.' That's insulting," she said.
|
Quote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1990s/consor42.html
‘Politicized’ Prosecutors
By Robert Parry
The late U.S. Appeals Court Judge George MacKinnon, a respected Republican who oversaw independent counsels from 1985-92, stated that he would not have picked Kenneth Starr to investigate President Clinton, according to MacKinnon's son.
The son, James D. MacKinnon, said Judge MacKinnon objected to Starr's appointment in 1994, in part, because of the appearance of partisanship arising from Starr's senior position in the prior administration.
Judge MacKinnon also expressed concern about Starr's frequent public appearances, which the judge felt "were wholly inappropriate for an independent counsel," James MacKinnon wrote in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Judge MacKinnon "was always most careful to appoint independent counsels whose motivations could not be criticized," his son stated. "My father always felt that independent counsels and judges should be extraordinarily discreet with any public comments, and be as anonymous as possible and simply do their work." Judge MacKinnon died in 1995.
James MacKinnon wrote the letter about his father's views on Feb. 3, in response to comments made by Frank in a TV interview. But the correspondence was not made public at the time. James MacKinnon faxed me a copy of the letter on Dec. 2 after I contacted him while reporting about the politicization of the special prosecutor apparatus.
Judge MacKinnon's view is significant because MacKinnon was an old-line conservative Republican who jealously defended the impartiality of the special prosecutor system. MacKinnon was a friend of Richard Nixon who appointed MacKinnon to the federal bench in 1969.
MacKinnon's statements to his son also indicate that had he been re-appointed chief of the three-judge panel that picks special prosecutors in 1992, Starr likely would never have been assigned to investigate President Clinton. The political landscape might look very different today.
In 1992, for reasons that have never been explained, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist replaced MacKinnon with one of the most right-wing judges in the federal judiciary, U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Sentelle.
By naming Sentelle, Rehnquist altered the political climate surrouding the selection of special prosecutors, effectively injecting conservative ideology into the process in a way that had been avoided during the previous 14 years.
With the Sentelle appointment, Rehnquist also ignored a provision in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act designed to safeguard the process against politics. The original law stipulated that "priority shall be given to senior circuit judges and retired judges."
The law’s drafters hoped that recommendation would prevent appointment of younger, more politically ambitious judges who might, in turn, use their position to advance a partisan cause.
Before Sentelle, the judges named to lead the special-prosecutor panel were all senior jurists known for their non-partisanship. Rehnquist broke with that tradition in naming Sentelle, who was an active junior judge then in his 40s.
A North Carolina Republican, Sentelle was seen as a hard-line conservative, a protege of Sen. Jesse Helms and a close ally of Sen. Lauch Faircloth, two of the Senate's most conservative members.
Before donning black robes, Sentelle also had been a Republican Party activist. He had served as chairman of the Mecklenburg County Republican Party and had been a Reagan delegate at the 1984 GOP national convention. Sentelle was so enamored of the former president that he named his daughter, Reagan.
Even after his appointment to the federal bench, Sentelle engaged in public writings harshly critical of liberals. In one article, Sentelle accused "leftist heretics" of wishing to turn the United States into "a collectivist, egalitarian, materialistic, race-conscious, hyper-secular, and socially permissive state." [See the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, winter 1991.]
Sentelle "takes politics seriously enough that he would do what it takes to make sure his party comes out on top," commented Ted Arrington, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. [Legal Times, March 24, 1997]
By contrast, MacKinnon was cast more in the Eisenhower mold of reformist Republican who shunned overt partisanship. Some modern-day Republicans doubted his commitment to the ideological cause.
MacKinnon fell further out of GOP favor with his choice of Lawrence Walsh to investigate the Iran-contra scandal in 1986. Though a life-long Republican, too, Walsh refused to look the other way when he encountered what he considered significant crimes by President Reagan and his national security aides.
To the dismay of conservatives, Walsh pursued the scandal aggressively, winning convictions against White House aide Oliver North and Reagan's national security adviser John Poindexter. Walsh also squeezed guilty pleas out of other Reagan administration officials.
MacKinnon staunchly backed Walsh. But Reagan-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington bristled at the Iran-contra convictions.
In his book Firewall, Walsh called those judges "a powerful band of Republican appointees [who] waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army."
A leader of this partisan faction was Judge Laurence H. Silberman, an obstreperous conservative. Silberman had served as a foreign policy advisor to Reagan's 1980 campaign and took part in a controversial meeting with an Iranian emissary behind President Carter's back during the Iran-hostage crisis.
At one point during the Iran-contra scandal, Silberman berated MacKinnon. "At a D.C. circuit conference, he [Silberman] had gotten into a shouting match about independent counsel with Judge George MacKinnon," Walsh wrote. "Silberman not only had hostile views but seemed to hold them in anger."
On the North appeal in 1990, Silberman teamed up with Sentelle to overturn North's convictions. Sentelle also served on a second three-judge panel that threw out Poindexter's convictions.
Despite the North-Poindexter setbacks, Walsh kept digging. By 1991, his investigators had discovered hidden documents revealing an elaborate Iran-contra cover-up. In effect, Walsh learned that North had told the truth when he claimed to be the "fall guy" for the scandal.
In 1992, Walsh confronted former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger with evidence of his role in the cover-up. When Weinberger refused to admit he had lied about his knowledge of Reagan's Iran-contra decisions, Walsh indicted Weinberger on perjury and obstruction charges.
The Weinberger indictment touched off a conservative firestorm against Walsh and, less visibly, against his protector, Judge MacKinnon. Walsh's breakthrough on the cover-up threatened to tarnish Reagan's legacy and complicated President Bush's re-election strategies in 1992.
Rehnquist, a conservative Republican who had been elevated to the chief justice spot by Reagan, moved to replace MacKinnon. In an interview, Walsh told me that he received a call from MacKinnon sometime in early 1992 with the news that Rehnquist was easing MacKinnon out and bringing Sentelle in.
"He [MacKinnon] was giving me a heads up," Walsh said, adding that it was clear that MacKinnon would have liked to continue in the post. "He really loved that job," Walsh said.
Rehnquist has never explained his reasoning for replacing MacKinnon. But the supposed rationale for picking Sentelle was that he had some prosecutorial experience while other judges didn't.
The law, however, says nothing about a background as a prosecutor. The law does grant "priority" to senior and retired judges, a provision Rehnquist ignored.
Since his appointment, Sentelle has steered nearly all sensitive investigations into the hands of partisan Republicans.
In late 1992, when the Bush administration was caught searching Clinton's passport files looking for derogatory information, Sentelle's three-judge panel handed off the investigation to GOP stalwart Joseph diGenova, who found no wrongdoing by his Republican associates.
After Clinton's inauguration, Sentelle's panel kept picking Republicans for high-profile cases. David Barrett, head of Lawyers for Reagan in 1980, was named to pursue allegations that Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros had understated how much money he had paid a mistress.
Barrett built the case into an 18-count felony indictment, which is still pending. [For a critical review of this case, see The New Yorker, Nov. 30, 1998.]
Another Sentelle appointee, Donald Smaltz, amassed a 30-count indictment against Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy for accepting free tickets to sporting events and other favors. On Dec. 2, a federal jury in Washington acquitted Espy on all counts, a verdict that sparked new questions about the overreach of Sentelle's prosecutors.
But Sentelle's most controversial special prosecutor was Kenneth Starr. When the Whitewater issue bubbled to the boiling point in early 1994, the independent law had lapsed. So, Attorney General Janet Reno picked Republican Robert Fiske to investigate.
Fiske made progress in the Arkansas phase of the inquiry but annoyed some conservatives by concluding that White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster had committed suicide in July 1993. Some conservatives were pushing vague conspiracy theories about Foster's "murder." One of the conservatives angered by Fiske's findings was Sen. Faircloth, Sentelle's friend.
After a Capitol Hill lunch with Helms and Faircloth, Sentelle ousted Fiske and arranged the appointment of Starr in August 1994. Starr's selection prompted complaints from some Democrats because Starr had served as solicitor general for President Bush and was an active Republican. Starr also had assisted the Paula Jones legal team with a friend-of-the-court brief against Clinton.
But Sentelle's choice stuck. Over the next four-plus years, Starr's investigation careened through a variety of allegations against the president -- Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the FBI's delivery of GOP personnel files to the White House and, finally, the Monica Lewinsky matter.
As the investigations dragged on, other concerns about Starr arose, particularly whether he had become obsessed with pinning some crime on the president to justify the expensive investigation.
Starr did conclude that there was no case to be made against Clinton on Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate -- but he kept those decisions secret until his November testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
With the start of the Lewinsky scandal in January, however, Starr finally felt he could make an impeachment case against Clinton. But Starr's single-mindedness drew more Democratic complaints.
In the early days of the scandal, Rep. Frank commented on the different standards applied by MacKinnon and Sentelle.
“Look at the contrast,” Frank said. “When Judge MacKinnon appointed an independent counsel to investigate Ronald Reagan in Iran-Contra, Lawrence Walsh, he picked a Republican who had served in the Eisenhower administration. The analogy here would have been somebody from the Kennedy or Carter administrations to investigate Clinton.” [NBC’s Meet the Press, Jan. 31, 1998]
In writing to Frank, James MacKinnon stated, "You are correct. He [Judge MacKinnon] was always most careful to appoint independent counsels whose motivations could not be criticized."
According to MacKinnon's son, another part of the judge's opposition to the Starr appointment was the appearance that Starr might be "using his office to promote himself. He [Judge MacKinnon] did not conclude that was the case, but he was very uncomfortable with the appearance."
The history of the past six years might have been very different if MacKinnon had remained in charge of special prosecutors in 1992. Clearly, Kenneth Starr would not be appearing before the House Judiciary Committee making the case for impeachment.
But a larger question might be whether Rehnquist's political loyalty to the Reagan administration -- rather than a commitment to impartial prosecutions -- led to Sentelle replacing MacKinnon.
That question could be phrased another way: Did Rehnquist and Sentelle effectively rig the special-prosecutor apparatus starting in 1992 to protect Republicans and to punish Democrats?
|
....and Judge Walton's background:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center
Libby's judge known as 'tough guy'; that's why Bush appointed him
Libby's judge was one of the president's first judicial appointments.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
June 7, 2007
......That Walton would put the Bush administration in an uncomfortable position of having to consider a politically charged pardon for Libby is highly ironic: The 58-year-old jurist was one of the first appointments that Bush made to the federal bench in October 2001, a prime example of a new law-and-order mentality that the administration wanted to infuse in the courts.
"Bush wanted people to know that 'I appoint tough guys to the bench,' " said Roscoe Howard, the U.S. attorney in Washington during Bush's first term. "They appointed him just for what he did to Scooter; they were just not expecting it to happen to Scooter."
By all accounts, Walton is a tough guy. A judge for more than 25 years, he did two separate stints on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, appointed by both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He served as an associate director of the White House drug control office and as chairman of a national commission to curb prison rape.....
|
Last edited by host; 07-05-2007 at 09:38 AM..
|