Alberto GONEzales? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 03-29-2007, 07:24 AM

Ace do you feel that the law should be politically applied? That is the party in power uses the law to primarily find dirt and discredit their competition?

Somehow I don't think that was the founding fathers idea of what this nation should be like.

ubertuber · 03-29-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The President has the responsibility to enforce laws. US Attorneys' are the "hatchetmen" of the President. Given limited resources the President sets the priorities.

Fitgerald wasted millions on the Plame investigation and the Libby trial. He would not get my vote for most effective US Attorney.

I don't mean to be rude, but are you kidding with this?

A) Legal hatchetmen, not political hatchetmen. And removing people for not pursuing unsubstantiated claims of election fraud (Iglesies with evidentiary problems)? Aside from being absurd, this doesn't square with you other point. Speaking of which,

B) Pat Fitzgerald was APPOINTED as independent counsel. He didn't go out and seek that case. He followed the evidence, and apparently made a decent case that Scooter Libby perjured himself - which, in fact, is a crime. Period. In terms of his production before his was assigned to that case, he was extremely effective.

It really seems as though you have made your mind up about this and are cherry picking arguments to support pre-formed conclusions.

aceventura3 · 03-29-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ace do you feel that the law should be politically applied?

No. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Law is envorced based on politics - it is nothing new. Example: just last week we had a police officer in our neighborhood because we made complaints to the city about drivers going too fast. We used our political clout to get the law enforced. Is that right? I don't know, but it worked for us.

Quote:

That is the party in power uses the law to primarily find dirt and discredit their competition?

This is more clearly wrong in my view. I think reasonable people see this when it happens and most have a low tolerence for it. However, there have been and still are real abuses. For example in my view our marijuana laws compared to alcohol. People who drink make and enforce our laws, their perception of marijuana is skewed. Marijuana users face all kinds of problems for using their "drug" of choice.

Quote:

Somehow I don't think that was the founding fathers idea of what this nation should be like.

I also think they were more Libertarian than either of our current political parties. If we had fewer B.S. laws there would be less political prosecution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I don't mean to be rude, but are you kidding with this?

A) Legal hatchetmen, not political hatchetmen. And removing people for not pursuing unsubstantiated claims of election fraud (Iglesies with evidentiary problems)? Aside from being absurd, this doesn't square with you other point. Speaking of which,

Help me understand the difference between political law enforcement and non-political law enforcement. When are politics not involved in law enforcement? Also isn't up to our Judicial system to filter unjustified prosecution?

Quote:

B) Pat Fitzgerald was APPOINTED as independent counsel. He didn't go out and seek that case. He followed the evidence, and apparently made a decent case that Scooter Libby perjured himself - which, in fact, is a crime. Period. In terms of his production before his was assigned to that case, he was extremely effective.

He could have concluded the matter early, upon his determination there was no crime. But he did not, why?

Quote:

It really seems as though you have made your mind up about this and are cherry picking arguments to support pre-formed conclusions.

Yes, I pick cherries. I won't eat cherries with worms, rotten, brused, unripen, etc. Do you pick your cherries, or do you eat them blindly?

If you ever read what I write, you know I readly admit mty bias. Do you admit yours?

The_Jazz · 03-29-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you ever read what I write, you know I readly admit mty bias. Do you admit yours?

I was ready to fire off a long-winded refutation of a lot of your points until I got to this. That's the basic point, I think. The US Attorneys are supposed to be unbiased, at least in theory. The fired ones were let go because they weren't biased enough.

dc_dux · 03-29-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
The President has the responsibility to enforce laws. US Attorneys' are the "hatchetmen" of the President. Given limited resources the President sets the priorities.

Ace...thats not quite how it is described in the United States Attorneys Mission Statement:

The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

* the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
* the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
* the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

Although the distribution of caseload varies between districts, each has every category of cases and handles a mixture of simple and complex litigation. Each United States Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his/her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities. United States Attorneys have been delegated full authority and control in the areas of personnel management, financial management, and procurement.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/

I would suggest justice is better served when the US attorneys are able to focus on their core mission of the law enforcement "priorities of the "local jurisdiction and the needs of the community" without worrying about meeting an arbitrary standard of the political priorities of a President?

Again, I would remind you that this is the first President in 25 years to dismiss US Attorneys in mid-term for politcal reasons...IMO, an indefensible precedent to the detriment of law enforcement.

host · 03-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The President has the responsibility to enforce laws. US Attorneys' are the "hatchetmen" of the President. Given limited resources the President sets the priorities.

Fitgerald wasted millions on the Plame investigation and the Libby trial. He would not get my vote for most effective US Attorney.

ace....sometimes, you really..... kindly support your "wasted millions" statement.
The CIA leak investigation, compared to any past investigation that you can name, cost almost NOTHING. Show us facts that support an argument that the entire expenditure of the government on the CIA leak investigation, was more than only Libby's defense costs, to date.

The CIA asked for the investigation. Bush's atty. general, Ashcroft, recused himself, because the CIA wanted a serious investigation. Ashcroft authroized the #2 at the DOJ, James Comey, to appoint a special counsel. Show us even one example of Patrick Fitzgerald not acting in an ethical manner in the investigation, in the trial, or in his prior professional, or non-professional life.

Show us how Patrick Fitzgerald erroneously came to be named "special counsel" in the investigation, where he wasted money, and what he should have done, instead of indicting Libby, when Libby claimed, under oath, that he first heard about "Wilson's CIA wife", from Tim Russert, vs. testimony that the grand jury heard from Russert, Judith Miller, Ari Fleischer, Matt Cooper, Armitage, and from Karl Rove.....or.....please stop doing this....

ubertuber · 03-29-2007, 08:28 AM

Ace:

Let's see here... US Attorney has a track record of excellence in election fraud situations, works with FBI and investigates 100 claims of voter fraud. Finds that all are not substantiated enough to go to court (and the FBI agrees) and does not file suit. To me, that sounds non-political.

Then he gets fired for not pursuing the cases involving the opposition party before the election. Oh yeah, these are the cases that weren't pursued for legal and evidentiary reasons. That part sounds political. Let's have the former without the latter. I really can't imagine how other US Attorneys could help but interpret this to mean that to preserve their jobs, they have to produce a number of politically favorable prosecutions, regardless of legal or moral validity.

In terms of bias, Ace, I can tell that you've got absolutely 0 clue how I vote. Yeah, we've all got biases, but I make an effort to see around mine. Ask yourself this - who is served by a system in which it is appropriate for the justice system to be subserviant to the current party in power. It sure isn't the voters/taxpayers. I thought government was supposed to serve the people, not itself, and not at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system.

aceventura3 · 03-29-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would suggest justice is better served when the US attorneys are able to focus on their core mission of the law enforcement "priorities of the "local jurisdiction and the needs of the community" without worrying about meeting an arbitrary standard of the political priorities of a President?=

During the Civil Rights movement the Federal Government set the standard for going after local official for violating the civil right of American citizens. This is an example of the opposit of what you suggest. If I were President during that time - I would have fired those who did not act on the priorities I set. This was clearly a political issue. The country benefitted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I was ready to fire off a long-winded refutation of a lot of your points until I got to this. That's the basic point, I think. The US Attorneys are supposed to be unbiased, at least in theory. The fired ones were let go because they weren't biased enough.

US Attorneys have to have the view that a law has been violated and want to prove the violation. They have to have a bias by definition. It is the Judge and jury who should not have a bias.

Should a US Attorney target people because of party affiliation, no. Should a Us Attorney target people based on the law, yes. For example if the President wants to target organized drug traffic, the US Attorney needs to act accordingly. This is political.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....sometimes, you really..... kindly support your "wasted millions" statement.

No charges where brought against anyone for "outing" Plame. What more do you want? If you can give me an answer to that, I would gladly take the issue to the next level, but that is the base question in my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace:

Let's see here... US Attorney has a track record of excellence in election fraud situations, works with FBI and investigates 100 claims of voter fraud. Finds that all are not substantiated enough to go to court (and the FBI agrees) and does not file suit. To me, that sounds non-political.

Why not investigate 101, 150, 1,000. The decision to start and end, to file or not file suit has political issues connected in the decision.

Quote:

Then he gets fired for not pursuing the cases involving the opposition party before the election. Oh yeah, these are the cases that weren't pursued for legal and evidentiary reasons. That part sounds political.

If the Democrats have evidence of this, they have a strong case. I don't think they do.

Quote:

In terms of bias, Ace, I can tell that you've got absolutely 0 clue how I vote. Yeah, we've all got biases, but I make an effort to see around mine. Ask yourself this - who is served by a system in which it is appropriate for the justice system to be subserviant to the current party in power. It sure isn't the voters/taxpayers. I thought government was supposed to serve the people, not itself, and not at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system.

Government is the people. Government serves the people. People have agendas (politics, bias, etc). How can politics be seperated from government? I don't think it possible. Everything the government does is political. Republicans are not altruistic, neither are Democrats. when I say Democrats are guilty of political grand standing or that they are doing something fro political gain, it is funny how many want to jump all over the issue and want to believe in mythical ideals that don't and have never existed.

Not sure I have anything else to add on this subject.

dc_dux · 03-29-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

During the Civil Rights movement the Federal Government set the standard for going after local official for violating the civil right of American citizens. This is an example of the opposit of what you suggest. If I were President during that time - I would have fired those who did not act on the priorities I set. This was clearly a political issue. The country benefitted.

Ace...I think you might want to reread the history of the civil rights movement.

While JFK and brother Bobby, his Attorny General, were very vocal about the priority of civil rights during the 1960 campaign, they were much more reluctant to make it an issue once it office, until their hands were forced by the courageous actions of many of the US Attorneys in the south.

But the issue goes beyond that.

It is how this administration has falsely accused and discredited the reputations of the US attorneys by suggesting they were not "bushies" and were not supportive of Bush's priorities when they have no documentation to support that claim.

ubertuber · 03-29-2007, 09:31 AM

The reason not to investigate 101, 150, or 1000 claims is that there weren't 101, 150, or 1000 claims. Iglesias investigated complaints made, not fictitious whims or drumming up cases without cause. This is one of the most basic facts in this case. This is a man who was invited to teach at a voter integrity conference in 2005!

Circumstantially, it seems likely that these dismissals were retaliatory. To believe that Iglesias and Lam just happened to be for other reasons is exceptionally trusting. In terms of having evidence that is more than circumstantial, that's exactly why there is and should be an inquiry. This isn't a court case, it's fact finding.

aceventura3 · 03-29-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

While JFK and brother Bobby, his Attorny General, were very vocal about the priority of civil rights during the 1960 campaign, they were much more reluctant to make it an issue once it office, until their hands were forced by the courageous actions of many of the US Attorneys in the south.

Just for the record, I did not refer to JFK and his brother. I did state that the Federal Government took the lead role (the Civil Rights movement extended prior to and beyond JFK's Presidency), which is true. And I hope the point of my bringing the issue up isn't lost. The priorities of the DOJ are set by the President. These priorities are political. This has been true and will always be true.

ubertuber · 03-29-2007, 10:18 AM

Ace:

That's a valid point, and I think you've made it with an effective example. However, it is only superficially comparable to the current situation. A more accurate parallel would be if the DoJ had been ordered to prosecute instances of racism and discrimination perpetrated by the opposition party. And then if someone who had successfully prosecuted members of the President's party for that thing was fired. THEN this would be a parallel example.

__________________________________________________________

EDIT: merged double post

I want to post this excerpt from today's NY Times editorial. This pretty much captures my feelings. I'm not calling for anyone's head, though I do think Gonzales will find himself in an untenable situation quickly. I just think a real inquiry with sworn testimony and transcripts is appropriate. I suppose this whole thing could be the implausible coincidence that Gonzales, Sampson, et al would have us believe, but I'm having trouble getting on board with that given the evasiveness the Bush admin folks are displaying. Does this really seem like a good place for Bush to stage a showdown with the Congress?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

The senators questioning Mr. Sampson pointed to a troubling pattern: many of the fired prosecutors were investigating high-ranking Republicans. He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress.

Mr. Sampson’s claim that he had only casual knowledge of these highly sensitive investigations was implausible, unless we are to believe that Mr. Gonzales runs a department in which the chief of staff is merely a political hack who has no hand in its substantive work. He added to the suspicions that partisan politics were involved when he made the alarming admission that in the middle of the Scooter Libby investigation, he suggested firing Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago who was the special prosecutor in the case.

The administration insists that purge was not about partisan politics. But Mr. Sampson’s alternative explanation was not very credible — that the decision about which of these distinguished prosecutors should be fired was left in the hands of someone as young and inept as Mr. Sampson. If this were an aboveboard, professional process, it strains credulity that virtually no documents were produced when decisions were made, and that none of his recommendations to Mr. Gonzales were in writing.

It is no wonder that the White House is trying to stop Congress from questioning Mr. Rove, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials in public, under oath and with a transcript. The more the administration tries to spin the prosecutor purge, the worse it looks.

ubertuber · 04-05-2007, 03:49 AM

Apparently Monica Goodling is reiterating her intention to exercise her 5th Amendment rights if questioned by Congress. I remain conflicted in my thinking about this - but part of that may be due to ignorance on my part. Is it appropriate to (and is there precedent for) plead the 5th pre-emptively? It would seem to be a cynical or evasive move on her part to issue a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions in an inquiry in which there may not be a crime before she's been asked a single question. Would she refuse to confirm known details, such as the dates of her tenure at the DoJ? If so, could she rightfully be held in contempt of Congress?

I don't know too much about this - can anyone else chime in?

aceventura3 · 04-05-2007, 08:01 AM

When Goodling's attorney's talk about a perjury trap it is a very real threat. Here is an example from Sampson's testimony, had he not corrected the record he would have told a lie and was at risk of perjury when it was clear he just did not have a clear memory of being in the same room with Bush.

Quote:

LEAHY: Good afternoon.

Before we start, I've been advised that Mr. Sampson -- I've been advised that Mr. Sampson has a clarification he wants to make about something that came out in the testimony in our morning session.

And so before I yield to Senator Kyl, Mr. Sampson, what is the clarification you wish to make?

SAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stated this morning that I had not spoken with the president since the time that I had worked at the White House as associate counsel...

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: As I recall, that was in answer to a question I asked you.

SAMPSON: Yes, sir.

I remembered at lunch that I had spoken to the president briefly sometime in 2005 at a meet-and-greet in honor of Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation.

I don't think -- we didn't speak about anything substantively. I'm not even sure if I said words with the president. But I wanted to be clear that I had been in a room with the president since I worked there at the White House.

LEAHY: Well, I appreciate that clarification. Had you not, I would have reminded you of it. I was there at that -- I was there at that time.

(LAUGHTER)

Just for whatever that's worth.

SAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ipt032907.html

If you watch the testimony the laughter was pretty telling of Leahy's plans to trigger his trap.

host · 04-08-2007, 06:32 AM

if this is true....Gonzales does not have the grasp on ethics to be an animal control officer let alone the US Atty. General and "Rudy's not presidential "material":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701398_pf.html
White House Looked Past Alarms on Kerik
Giuliani, Gonzales Pushed DHS Bid Forward

By John Solomon and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 8, 2007; A01

When former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani urged President Bush to make Bernard B. Kerik the next secretary of homeland security, White House aides knew Kerik as the take-charge top cop from Sept. 11, 2001. But it did not take them long to compile an extensive dossier of damaging information about the would-be Cabinet officer.

They learned about questionable financial deals, an ethics violation, allegations of mismanagement and a top deputy prosecuted for corruption. Most disturbing, according to people close to the process, was Kerik's friendship with a businessman who was linked to organized crime. The businessman had told federal authorities that Kerik received gifts, including $165,000 in apartment renovations, from a New Jersey family with alleged Mafia ties.

Alarmed about the raft of allegations, several White House aides tried to raise red flags. But the normal investigation process was short-circuited, the sources said. Bush's top lawyer, Alberto R. Gonzales, took charge of the vetting, repeatedly grilling Kerik about the issues that had been raised. In the end, despite the concerns, the White House moved forward with his nomination -- only to have it collapse a week later.

The selection of Kerik in December 2004 for one of the most sensitive posts in government became an acute but brief embarrassment for Bush at the start of his second term. More than two years later, it has reemerged as part of a federal criminal investigation of Kerik that raises questions about the decisions made by the president, the Republican front-runner to replace him and the embattled attorney general.

A reconstruction of the failed nomination, assembled through interviews with key players, provides new details and a fuller account of the episode -- how Giuliani put forward a flawed candidate for high office, how Bush rushed the usual process in his eagerness to install a political ally and .how Gonzales, as White House counsel, failed to stop the nomination despite the many warning signs. "The vetting process clearly broke down," said a senior White House official. "This should not happen."

Federal prosecutors have told Kerik that they are likely to charge him with several felonies, including providing false information to the government when Bush nominated him, sources have told The Washington Post. Kerik recently turned down a proposed agreement in which he would plead guilty and serve time in prison because, his attorney said, he would not "plead to something that he didn't do."

The investigation has put Giuliani's relationship with Kerik back in the spotlight at a time when the former mayor leads the Republican presidential field in national polls. During an appearance in Florida last weekend, Giuliani told reporters that they had a right to question his judgment in putting Kerik in charge of the New York Police Department and recommending him to Bush. "I should have done a better job of investigating him, vetting him," Giuliani said. "It's my responsibility, and I've learned from it."

The White House explanation has shifted significantly. Just after Kerik withdrew, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that "we have no reason to believe" he lied and that it "would be an inaccurate impression" to say the vetting was rushed. Now current and former White House officials assert that Kerik lied "bald-faced," as one put it, and say they erred by speeding up the nomination.

Aides said they now believe they were lulled by Kerik's swaggering Sept. 11 reputation, and were too passive in accommodating the president's desire for secrecy and speed and too willing to trust Giuliani's judgment.

"There is no question the mayor's support for Kerik was important," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "But Kerik was also known to some degree within the administration for his work in Iraq. If we had this to do over again, it certainly would have been done differently. We probably moved more quickly than was appropriate, but fortunately the nomination was withdrawn."
From 9/11 Hero to Nominee

Bush met Kerik in the debris of the World Trade Center and was so impressed that he later sent him to Iraq to train police. The bald, mustachioed street cop appealed to Bush, who admired his can-do persona. By 2004, Kerik was sent to the Democratic National Convention as part of an opposition war room, given a prime speaking slot at the Republican National Convention and tapped to appear with the president on the

campaign trail. click to show

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 12:41 PM

Here's where it could get really interesting. For the record, I absolutely don't believe this is a fishing expedition. While these emails could demonstrate that the whole brouhaha is over nothing, I think there's good reason to need to find out.

Senate Subpoenas Gonzales on Rove E-Mail

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOX News/AP

Senators subpoenaed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Wednesday, ordering him to provide all e-mails related to presidential adviser Karl Rove and the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"It is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the committee's inquiry have not been produced," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in a letter to Gonzales. The subpoena gives Gonzales until May 15 to turn over the information.

Not accepting the White House's explanation that some of the Rove-related e-mails may have been lost, Leahy subpoenaed any in the custody of the Justice Department. Leahy pointed to Rove's lawyer's statement that some of those the White House claims might be lost had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

It was unclear whether any of those were related to the prosecutor firings, but congressional investigators believe that if Fitzgerald could retrieve some e-mails for his investigation, the ones related to the firings of U.S. attorneys are recoverable as well.

The White House has said it is trying to recover e-mails that were lost but has not promised to turn any over to congressional investigators.

A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Gonzales said during his April 17 testimony to Leahy's committee that he did not know the details but would get back to the chairman.

"I have not heard from you since," Leahy wrote, urging compliance with all of his panel's requests for information "to avoid further subpoenas."

It was the committee's first subpoena issued since the firings caused an uproar earlier this year and imperiled Gonzales' job.

The order compels the Justice Department to turn over "complete and unredacted versions of any and all e-mails and attachments to e-mails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove" related to the firings, written on White House, Republican National Committee or any other e-mail accounts.

The committee is probing whether Rove and other top White House officials conducted official business on RNC accounts intended for political work, then deleted them in violation of the law.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Locobot · 05-02-2007, 02:50 PM

No one has mentioned what a complete mockery Gonzales' testimony makes of our system of justice. To have an Attorney General who is "unable to recall" anything regarding this scandal is preposterous. At this point he's either complicit in the cover up or grossly incompetent, either way he deserves to be fired. Of course his boss(es) have never shied away from baldfaced arrogance, so I'd say he's equally likely to be awarded the Medal of Freedom as fired.

Elphaba · 05-02-2007, 03:09 PM

I think 'Justice' has been irrelevant to this administration other than using it to achieve particular ideological ends. If true, Gonzales performed exactly as he was expected to which makes Bush's continued support of him understandable.

I think this administration depends on the appearance of incompetence to disguise their very deliberate intentions.

tecoyah · 05-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When Goodling's attorney's talk about a perjury trap it is a very real threat. Here is an example from Sampson's testimony, had he not corrected the record he would have told a lie and was at risk of perjury when it was clear he just did not have a clear memory of being in the same room with Bush.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ipt032907.html

If you watch the testimony the laughter was pretty telling of Leahy's plans to trigger his trap.

Surely, you are not serious here Ace. Claiming a clarification of details from a previous statement is akin to simply pretending you have no memory of your job at all, are far from the same thing. And by saying Gonzales is forgetting to avoid the "perjury Trap"....you pretty much accept he is lying to congress by claiming he forgot anyway.

I dont see hoe anyone who watched this testimony, can fail to see the fiasco it was.

ubertuber · 05-02-2007, 05:54 PM

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they say they can't retrieve the emails, which they'll almost certainly say. Executive privilege can't apply to emails on the RNC servers. We'll see how quickly the inquiry ensues.

Rekna · 05-17-2007, 06:03 PM

I can't believe Gonzales is still the AG. The senate is going to hold a vote of no confidence soon. Do you think this will be the last straw?

Elphaba · 05-17-2007, 07:57 PM

I may be wrong, but I think only Bush can fire Gonzales. That he has chosen not to do so has only further motivated congressional investigations concerning Gonzales. IMO, Bush believes he needs Gonzales to derail any investigations involving the executive branch. With Republicans demanding resignation, Bush may have to capitulate, but one wonders who he will appoint as a replacement.

ubertuber · 05-17-2007, 08:39 PM

The confirmation hearings would likely be a nightmare for the administration.

Rekna · 05-17-2007, 09:09 PM

I think Gonzales could also be impeached. From the constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

I would think he would qualify as a civil officer.

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 06:44 AM

Drama and intrigue, this is as good as a Grisham novel.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - First came revelations about the firing of US attorneys. Now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is taking criticism from Congress for a second controversial subject: warrantless eavesdropping.

Specifically, key lawmakers want to know about Mr. Gonzales's possible role in an alleged fierce battle within the Bush administration itself in 2004 over the wiretapping.

Gonzales has denied that such a fight took place. Yet on May 15, Deputy Attorney General James Comey riveted a Senate hearing with his tale of a race to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, where White House officials – including Gonzales – tried to pressure an ailing Mr. Ashcroft to overrule his own department and reauthorize the program.

"That night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life, so it's not something that I'd forget," Mr. Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In March 2004, Ashcroft was hospitalized with a medical condition serious enough to have him sign over control of the Justice Department to his second-in-command, James Comey.

At the time, the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program, which allowed the monitoring of the international electronic communications of people within the US suspected of links to terrorism, was up for renewal by the president. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had decided that the program as it stood was illegal.

Comey was a Bush appointee and by all accounts a staunch Republican. But as a career prosecutor he decided to stand by the Justice Department's interpretation.

So the White House tried to go over his head, he said. Late in the day on March 10, 2004, a team of White House officials that included counsel Gonzales and chief of staff Andy Card raced to Ashcroft's room at George Washington University hospital. Comey beat them there, and shortly was joined by FBI Director Robert Mueller. Gonzales entered the room and began to appeal to Ashcroft. Ashcroft then lifted his head from the pillow and pointed out in a strong voice that Comey, not he, was acting as the head of the Justice Department, and that the White House would have to deal with that fact.

"I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general," Comey testified.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p03s03-uspo.html

Does the left have a new hero in Ashcroft?
Will Gonzales admit to his sex change operation?
Will Congress ever remember we are at war and that without fixing social security the nation will go into ruin?

Tune in next week, same time same channel.

host · 05-18-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Drama and intrigue, this is as good as a Grisham novel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p03s03-uspo.html

Does the left have a new hero in Ashcroft?
Will Gonzales admit to his sex change operation?
Will Congress ever remember we are at war and that without fixing social security the nation will go into ruin?

Tune in next week, same time same channel.

ace....you and "your ilk" tried and failed to demonize and discredit Libby prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, a close and trusted friend of James Comey.

Read this, ace.

Quote:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...litics/n_9353/
Mr. Comey Goes To Washington
Just as his terrorism and corporate-corruption cases here are heating up, United States Attorney James Comey is heading south to become John Ashcroft’s deputy. What’s a nice, nonpartisan prosecutor going to do in a Justice Department like that?

I think that Comey is flawed.....and his flawed thinking (attitude towards Padilla prosecution, 1984 vote for Reagan, etc...), but a liar....under oath in a senate committee hearing, he is definitely not, ace.

I'm a pretty good judge of character, ace. Comey and Fitzgerald have some, Bush, Cheney, Libby, Card, Gonzales have.....none that I can discern.

Unlike you, I think that Comey's senate committee testimony confirmed our worst fears of the depths of the criminality and disregard for the US Constitution that we have had confirmed, in six long years. As a result, I have changed my "sig" here to reflect my impression. I also don't think it will be a very long time until we get confirmation of how "far off" the sentiments that you expressed in your last post, actually are from the implications of what Comey said in his testimony mean....for what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney "stand for".....

What have you been right about, ace? Sheesh ! This isn't about reversing an unfavorable opinion with regard to Ashcroft. It's about the degree of the reversal of the oath that president Bush and vice-president Cheney took to

Quote:

"solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It came to Comey's attention, and to the attention of the people Comey named in his testimony....that President Bush, on the flawed, contrived "advice" of his OLC attorneys, had flagrantly usurped the rights guaranteed to the rest of us, in the US Constitution. Comey simply testifed as to how he attempted to reverse those illegal actions, and about who, in addition to himself, were willing to resign if the president did not agree to conduct the duties of his office within the CONFINES of the law.

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....you and "your ilk" tried and failed to demonize and discredit Libby prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, a close and trusted friend of James Comey.

I did not try to discredit Fitzgerald. I simply stated that his prosecution of Libby was a waste of taxpayer dollars and a waste of justice department resources. Given real criminal activity occurring, I would hope we spend more time on that in the future.

Quote:

I think that Comey is flawed.....and his flawed thinking (attitude towards Padilla prosecution, 1984 vote for Reagan, etc...), but a liar....under oath in a senate committee hearing, he is definitely not, ace.

I don't think he lied. I think the meeting took place. I simply think he is melodramatic. All parties involved eventually came to agreement. So what is the point of this testimony?

Quote:

Unlike you, I think that Comey's senate committee testimony confirmed our worst fears of the depths of the criminality and disregard for the US Constitution that we have had confirmed, in six long years.

If the Bush administration had no regard for the US Constitution, why did they seek the advice of the Justice Dept.?

If the Bush administration has violated US Constitutional rights of citizens why hasn't Congress taken any action? Why has no one filed any lawsuits? I take that back, Plame has filed a lawsuit, I am very interested in seeing how far it gets.

Quote:

What have you been right about, ace? Sheesh !

I don't keep score. Do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Surely, you are not serious here Ace. Claiming a clarification of details from a previous statement is akin to simply pretending you have no memory of your job at all, are far from the same thing. And by saying Gonzales is forgetting to avoid the "perjury Trap"....you pretty much accept he is lying to congress by claiming he forgot anyway.

I dont see hoe anyone who watched this testimony, can fail to see the fiasco it was.

As Host points out I am probably wrong. But just for kicks, I have a question, do you think the possibility exists that a member(s) of Congress might actually set a perjury trap?

Rekna · 05-18-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If the Bush administration has violated US Constitutional rights of citizens why hasn't Congress taken any action?

They have but the white house refuses to release any internal documents and claim emails are lost, ect.

They illegally used RNC email accounts so that their business couldn't be tracked. They they claim it was an accident..... I'm sorry but I don't buy it that everyone involved was using RNC accounts on accident. I could see 1 person doing that but not everyone.

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

They have but the white house refuses to release any internal documents and claim emails are lost, ect.

They illegally used RNC email accounts so that their business couldn't be tracked. They they claim it was an accident..... I'm sorry but I don't buy it that everyone involved was using RNC accounts on accident. I could see 1 person doing that but not everyone.

Assuming they did violate the law, it would be nice if they told everyone how they did it. On the other hand, if I violated the law, I know the first thing I would not do is turn over my written plans. In fact if I had written plans I would destroy them. So, I guess those who want proof that the Bush administration violated the Constitution or the law, will have to do some old fashion investigative work.

But first I guess the have to find-out what crime they are investigating. What crime are they investigating?

host · 05-18-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Assuming they did violate the law, it would be nice if they told everyone how they did it. On the other hand, if I violated the law, I know the first thing I would not do is turn over my written plans. In fact if I had written plans I would destroy them. So, I guess those who want proof that the Bush administration violated the Constitution or the law, will have to do some old fashion investigative work.

But first I guess the have to find-out what crime they are investigating. What crime are they investigating?

ace....I'll try to answer your question:

ace....I posted this article back on March 23:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35 ...and here it is again:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm
Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007

New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records
By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...qH9hLUzASLt7jw
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

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.....

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the four U.S. attorneys weren't chosen only because of their backgrounds in election issues, but "we would expect any U.S. attorney to prosecute voting fraud."

Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Bush has said he's heard complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in selecting a Rove aide to replace one of the U.S. attorneys. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.

Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys.

Bradley Schlozman, who was the civil rights division's deputy chief, agreed in 2005 to reverse the career staff's recommendations to challenge a Georgia law that would have required voters to pay $20 for photo IDs and in some cases travel as far as 30 miles to obtain the ID card.

A federal judge threw out the Georgia law, calling it an unconstitutional, Jim Crow-era poll tax.

In an interview, Schlozman, who was named interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City in November 2005, said he merely affirmed a subordinate's decision to overturn the career staff's recommendations.

He said it was "absolutely not true" that he drove out career lawyers. "What I tried to do was to depoliticize the hiring process," Schlozman said. "We hired people across the political spectrum."

Former voting rights section chief Joseph Rich, however, said longtime career lawyers whose views differed from those of political appointees were routinely "reassigned or stripped of major responsibilities."

In testimony to a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing this week, Rich said that 20 of the 35 attorneys in the voting rights section have been transferred to other jobs or have left their jobs since April 2005 and a staff of 26 civil rights analysts who reviewed state laws for discrimination has been slashed to 10.

He said he has yet to see evidence of voter fraud on a scale that warrants voter ID laws, which he said are "without exception ... supported and pushed by Republicans and objected to by Democrats. I believe it is clear that this kind of law tends to suppress the vote of lower-income and minority voters."

Other former voting-rights section lawyers said that during the tenure of Alex Acosta, who served as the division chief from the fall of 2003 until he was named interim U.S. attorney in Miami in the summer of 2005, the department didn't file a single suit alleging that local or state laws or election rules diluted the votes of African-Americans. In a similar time period, the Clinton administration filed six such cases.

Those kinds of cases, Rich said, are "the guts of the Voting Rights Act."

During this week's House judiciary subcommittee hearing, critics recounted lapses in the division's enforcement. A Citizens Commission on Civil Rights study found that "the enforcement record of the voting section during the Bush administration indicates this traditional priority has been downgraded significantly, if not effectively ignored."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chaired the hearing, said, "The more stringent requirements you put on voting in order to get rid of alleged voter fraud, the more you're cutting down on legitimate people voting."

Acosta, the first Hispanic to head the civil rights division, said he emphasized helping non-English speaking voters cast ballots. In 2005, he told a House committee that he made an unprecedented effort to monitor balloting in 2004 to watch for discrimination against minorities.

Justice spokesman Roehrkasse said Acosta "has an impressive legal background, including extensive experience in government and the private sector" and as a federal appeals court clerk.

A third former civil rights division employee, Matt Dummermuth, 33, was nominated to be U.S. attorney in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December. Before his appointment, he was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. He was a special assistant to the civil rights chief from 2002 to 2004.

Details of his involvement in reviewing voter rights couldn't be determined, and Dummermuth, a Harvard Law School graduate, didn't return calls seeking comment.

Bush administration officials have said that no single reason led to the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. But two of those who were forced to resign said they thought they might have been punished for failing to prosecute Democrats prior to the 2006 congressional elections or for not vigorously pursuing Republican allegations of voter irregularities in Washington state and New Mexico.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico has said he thought that "the voter fraud issue was the foundation" for his firing and that complaints about his failure to pursue corruption matters involving Democrats were "the icing on the cake."

John McKay, the ousted U.S. attorney for western Washington state, looked into allegations of voter fraud against Democrats during the hotly contested governor's race in 2004. He said that later, when top Bush aides interviewed him for a federal judgeship, he was asked to respond to criticism of his inquiry in which no charges were brought. He didn't get the judgeship.

Rove talked about the Northwest region in his speech last spring to the Republican lawyers and voiced concern about the trend toward mail-in ballots and online voting. He also questioned the legitimacy of voter rolls in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

One audience member asked Rove whether he'd "thought about using the bully pulpit of the White House to talk about election reform and an election integrity agenda that would put the Democrats back on the defensive."

"Yes, it's an interesting idea," Rove responded.

Despite the GOP concerns, Bud Cummins, the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was fired, said he had "serious doubts" that any U.S. attorney was failing to aggressively pursue voter fraud.

"What they're responding to is party chairmen and activists who from the beginning of time go around paranoid that the other party is stealing the election," Cummins said. "It sounds like to me that they were merely responding to a lot of general carping from the party, who had higher expectations once the Republican appointees filled these posts that there would be a lot of voting fraud investigations. Their expectations were unrealistic."

Griffin, the interim U.S. attorney in Arkansas who's replaced Cummins, was a Rove protege and a former Republican National Committee research director. He was accused of being part of an attempt to wipe likely Democratic voters off the rolls in Florida in 2004 if they were homeless or military personnel.

Griffin couldn't be reached for comment.

Ed Gillespie, then the RNC chairman, said the Republican Party was following election laws and trying to investigate voter fraud by sending out mailers to addresses of registered voters. If the notices came back, he said, the names were entered into a database and checked to see if the voters were listing actual residences.

"The Republican National Committee does not engage in voter suppression," he said. "The fact that someone was trying to prevent voter fraud should not disqualify someone from being U.S. attorney."

ace....I posted about Ralston's reference to alternative "RNC email" back on March 31:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=141

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/29/...mail-archives/

Waxman Reveals New Evidence Showing White House Use Of Political E-mail Accounts

rovebb.gifU.S. News reported recently that several White House aides “said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence. … <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070327/email_controversy_prompts_many.htm">‘We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed,’</a>” said one aide.

In a new letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, House Government and Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman reveals new e-mail communications that provide further evidence that White House employees were trying to circumvent the archives system:

New Scott Jennings E-Mails. Scott Jennings, the deputy director of political affairs in the White House, and his assistant used “gwb43.com” e-mail accounts to communicate with the General Services Administration about a partisan briefing that Mr. Jennings gave to political appointees at GSA on January 26, 2007. When Mr. Jennings’s assistant emailed the PowerPoint presentation to GSA, she wrote: “It is a close hold and <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070329130758-87640.pdf">we’re not supposed to be emailing it around.”</a>

New Job Appointment E-Mails. Mr. Jennings also appears to have used his “gwb43.com” account to recruit applicants for official government positions through the “Kentucky Republican Voice,” an internet site that describes itself as “the best source for Kentucky Republican grassroots information.” One posting from May 2005 advertised 17 vacancies on assorted presidential boards and commissions. A second posting from May 2006 sought applicants for various boards within the Small Business Administration. In each case, these postings encouraged applicants to contact Mr. Jennings at his “gwb43.com” address.

New Abramoff E-Mails. Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove’s executive assistant, invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid “security issues” with the White House e-mail system, writing: “I now have an RNC blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.” Ms. Ralston similarly wrote Mr. Abramoff: “I know [sic] have an RNC laptop at the office for political use. I can access my AOL email when necessary so if you need to send me something that I need to read, you can send to my AOL email and then call or page me to check it.”

Asked about White House policy and procedures regarding use of e-mail accounts, spokeswoman Dana Perino <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070327-4.html">did not cite</a> any specific policy or guidance issued to White House staff for the preservation of presidential records, and she acknowledged that certain officials in the White House have been given access to political e-mail accounts. In his <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070329130758-87640.pdf">letter</a> to Fielding, Waxman requests “all policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials regarding appropriate use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts.”

The White House e-mail system has been crafted to <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-15-2007/0004547135&EDATE=">comply</a> with the Presidential Records Act. Ordering White House employees to use the in-house e-mail system “is intended to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-12.html">establish procedures</a> for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.”

The irony — as Kevin Drum writes — is that by not using the White House system, staffers “using private accounts specifically to <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/011021.php">evade legitimate congressional oversight”</a> might lose their claim to executive privilege.

...and ace....here's a summary that I hope, will help to answer your question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601087_pf.html
The Politics of Distraction

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 16, 2007; 2:50 PM

As far as the White House public-relations machine is concerned, here is all you need to know about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year: The Justice Department made some mistakes in how it communicated that those prosecutors were let go for appropriate reasons. And, oh yes, there is no evidence that White House political guru Karl Rove ever advocated the firing of all 93 U.S. attorneys previously appointed by President Bush.

But from the very beginning of this scandal, the central question has been and remains: Was there a plot hatched in the White House to purge prosecutors who were seen as demonstrating insufficient partisanship in their criminal investigations?

Everything else is deception or distraction.

The latest development in the case is an e-mail chain showing that Rove and Alberto Gonzales (then White House counsel, soon to become attorney general) were both mulling the idea of replacing U.S. attorneys as early as the first month of Bush's second term.

According to the e-mails, Rove stopped by the White House counsel's office in early January 2005 to find out whether it was Gonzales's plan to keep or replace all or some of the U.S. attorneys that Bush had appointed in his first term.

And it just so happened that Kyle Sampson, soon to become the attorney general's chief of staff, had discussed that very issue with Gonzales a few weeks earlier. "As an operational matter," Sampson wrote in a e-mail, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones. . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc."

The response from White House spokesmen to this latest disclosure is that there is no conflict with their earlier story, which was that Rove opposed the firing of all 93 attorneys -- an idea they earlier credited to Harriet Miers, who succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel.

But as I first wrote in Tuesday's column, the proposed housecleaning of all 93 U.S. attorneys is a red herring. Not only would firing all of them have been a political and logistical nightmare, but it would have been foolish from Rove's point of view. After all, the vast majority were apparently behaving exactly as he wanted -- as "loyal Bushies."

The key question, that the White House continues to duck: Did Rove approve of -- or perhps even conceive of -- the idea of firing select attorneys? And if so, on what grounds? The latest e-mails certainly indicate that he was involved very early on.

Right now, Washington is engaged in feverish speculation about whether Gonzales is in his last days, or even moments, as attorney general. But as I wrote in my Wednesday column, Gonzales is a diversion.

The mainstream media was slow to get hot on the trail of this story. As Paul McLeary writes for CJR Daily, the liberal blog Talking Points Memo's dogged coverage is what kept the story alive.

But now, the mainstream media is in danger of getting distracted by the White House razzle dazzle -- and, quite possibly, by the spectacle of Bush throwing Gonzales, one of his oldest friends, overboard.

Keep your eye on Karl Rove, people.
Looking for Clues

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico was fired because he didn't file corruption charges against New Mexico Democrats in time to help Republican candidates in the 2006 election.

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney David McKay of Washington State was fired because he didn't file voter-fraud charges in the wake of the 2004 elections, after Republicans narrowly lost the gubernatorial election.

There's been speculation that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego was fired because of her aggressive pursuit of corruption charges against two Republican congressmen.

Now Richard A. Serrano writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. 'Bud' Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.

"Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.

"In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

"But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year's end to make room for Timothy Griffin -- an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove."
The Coverage

David Johnston and Eric Lipton write in the New York Times: "Karl Rove, the senior presidential adviser, inquired about firing United States attorneys in January 2005, e-mail messages released Thursday show. The request prompted a Justice Department aide to respond that Alberto R. Gonzales, soon to be confirmed as attorney general, favored replacing a group of 'underperforming' prosecutors.

"The e-mail messages, part of a larger collection that the Justice Department is preparing to turn over to Congressional investigators, indicate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, had considered replacing prosecutors earlier than either has previously acknowledged. . . .

"The White House had said earlier this week that Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel, initiated the idea in early 2005 of replacing all the prosecutors.

"Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said again Thursday that Ms. Miers had first proposed the dismissals, but Mr. Snow acknowledged in an interview that the e-mail shifted the time line earlier than the White House had previously said.

"'The e-mail does not directly contradict nor is it inconsistent with Karl's recollection that after the 2004 election, Harriet Miers raised a question of replacing all the U.S. attorneys and he believed it was not a good idea,' Mr. Snow said. 'That's his recollection.'"

Ron Hutcheson and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers: "Democrats cited Rove's involvement as more evidence that the firings were intended to purge prosecutors who refused to let partisan politics influence criminal investigations."

Richard A. Serrano and Richard B. Schmitt write in the Los Angeles Times: "The e-mails also show that the Justice Department was willing to defer to Rove on the matter."

Sampson, in his e-mail, wrote that "'when push comes to shove,' home-state senators who supported their prosecutors likely would resist the firings. Nevertheless, Sampson said, 'if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, so do I.'"

Mark Silva writes for the Chicago Tribune that the new e-mails now date the genesis of the firings back to "a time when the Bush White House, and Rove in particular, were talking about the president's reelection as marking a major conservative realignment in the country, presenting the administration with the opportunity to remake much of the government. The revelation that Rove may have known more about the plan is likely to further embolden Democrats who are demanding that he testify in congressional hearings."

Julie Hirschfeld Davis writes for the Associated Press: "E-mails released this week, including a set issued Thursday night by the Justice Department, appear to contradict the administration's assertion that Bush's staff had only limited involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have suggested were a politically motivated purge.

"Each new piece in the rapidly unfolding saga of how the prosecutors came to be dismissed has made it more difficult for the White House to insulate itself from the controversy."

Talking Points Memo has a purge scandal timeline.
Rove Watch

Phillip Rawls writes for the Associated Press from Troy, Ala.: "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said Thursday the removal of seven U.S. attorneys was based entirely on policy and personnel matters at the Justice Department. . . .

"In an appearance Thursday morning at Troy University, Rove said the dismissals were no different than ones in the Clinton administration, and he questioned why the Bush administration's action is drawing 'super-heated rhetoric' while the dismissals during President Clinton's terms did not."

Here, on the Think Progress Web site, is video of Rove talking about the attorneys: "We're at the point where people want to play politics with it, and that's fine. I would simply ask that everyone who's playing politics with this be asked to comment about what they think of the removal of 123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration and see if they have the same super-heated rhetoric then that they're having now."

But Frank James blogs for the Chicago Tribune that "Bush himself said [Wednesday] while still in Mexico that he himself was troubled by how his Justice Department dealt with the firings. . . .

"The president acknowledges that Republicans and Democrats alike are accusing Gonzales of misleading them and that he has a real problem on his hand. So what's happening, according to Bush, is a lot more than people playing politics.

"Now the president just needs to get that point across to his chief political strategist."

As for the "Clinton did it, too" position, Andrew Cohen writes for CBS News: "There is so much disinformation and misinformation floating around cyberspace these days about the firing of eight federal prosecutors that you would almost think people on one side of the debate and the other are writing about and analyzing two completely different stories. Over and over again, supporters of the White House, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seem to want to compare the current controversy with, especially, the decision by President Bill Clinton in 1993 to dismiss all of the federal prosecutors who had served under his predecessor, George H. W. Bush.

"To compare these two episodes is to say that when a dog bites a man it is as newsworthy as when a man bites a dog."

And Joe Conason writes for Salon: "From the Drudge Report to the Fox News Channel to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the usual suspects are shrieking in unison:

"Bill Clinton fired a lot of U.S. attorneys too! In fact Clinton was worse because he fired all of them at once! And the Democrats didn't complain when Clinton did the same thing!

"If those wails are loud enough, hapless mainstream journalists tend to repeat the same bogus accusations. Phony analogies and bad history gush out in a toxic stream of informational sewage. Then somebody (sigh) debunks those claims, just like someone hoses down the street after a parade of circus elephants."
Editorial Watch

USA Today: "The case of the fired federal prosecutors keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, not to mention more odoriferous, with each passing day. . . .

"The cries for Gonzales' head, however, are premature and miss the point. The emerging evidence is that the plan was hatched and approved inside the White House. The Gonzales hubbub just diverts attention from the still murky White House role in these firings.

"Among the key unanswered questions:

"* Why were these eight fired? . . .

"* Whose idea was it? . . .

"* Was the administration trying to stop investigations of powerful Republicans?"

Washington Post: Bush "should ensure that lawmakers get the full story. That means allowing White House staff members to be interviewed if the Senate deems necessary."

The Boston Globe: "It is customary for newly elected presidents to replace large numbers of US attorneys, especially if the new president is from a different party. It is not customary for presidents to sweep out many of their own appointees to these positions in the middle of their administration.

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales caved in to pressure from the White House for such a housecleaning in recent months. Then department officials led Congress to believe that the eight US attorneys in question were forced out for performance problems, not for what now appears to be the real reason in at least some cases -- that the prosecutors were not sufficiently partisan in election and political corruption cases. Gonzales has lost any credibility he had with Congress and the public as the nation's chief law enforcer. He should resign."

And the Baltimore Sun has gotten deeply cynical: "When Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales says he intends to stay in his job, that's a sign he probably won't. When President Bush says, 'I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales,' you have to assume his days are numbered.

"Six years into the Bush administration, this is the way you have to think sometimes. Pronouncements are strong contra-indicators. (There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's up to Saddam Hussein to choose war or peace.)"
On Voter Fraud

When Bush himself mentioned complaints about U.S. attorneys to Gonzales in a conversation in October 2006, the specific complaints were from Senate Republicans who accused certain prosecutors of being lax on "voter fraud."

I've been promising a disquisition on voter fraud for three days now. But the New York Times editorial board did a lot of my heavy lifting for me this morning:

"In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

"In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on 'fraud,' the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system. . . .

"There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. . . .

"The claims of vote fraud used to promote these measures usually fall apart on close inspection. . . .

"[The charge that] United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, [is] a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense."

David Bowermaster wrote in the Seattle Times on Tuesday about the suggestion that McKay, the former U.S. attorney in Washington State, might have been soft on voter fraud.

"'Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned,' McKay said. 'There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.' . . .

"McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a 'very active' review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charges and did not convene a federal grand jury because 'we never found any evidence of criminal conduct.'

"McKay detailed the work of his office in a recent interview. He spoke out because he believed Republican supporters of Dino Rossi, still bitter over his narrow loss to Democrat Christine Gregoire, continue to falsely portray him and his office as indifferent to allegations of electoral fraud.

"McKay also wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election."

And here's a bit of irony: Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor possibly fired for not filing charges in a Democratic corruption case in time for the 2006 election, actually came under fire in 2004 for investigating voter fraud too aggressively. As Jo Becker and Dan Eggen wrote in The Washington Post on September 20, 2004: "U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico launched a statewide criminal task force to investigate allegations of voter fraud. . . .

"The probe is one of several criminal inquiries into alleged voter fraud launched in recent weeks in key presidential battlegrounds, including Ohio and West Virginia, as part of a broader initiative by U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft targeting bogus registrations and other election crimes. The Justice Department has asked U.S. attorneys across the country to meet with local elections officials and launch publicity campaigns aimed at getting people to report irregularities.

"The focus on registration problems comes amid a fiercely contested presidential race and at a time when many Democrats are still angry over the 2000 election, in which ballot irregularities in Florida prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the winner. And it puts the Justice Department in the middle of a charged and partisan debate over when aggressive fraud enforcement becomes intimidation."

Iglesias never filed any voter-fraud charges.

U.S. News has a timeline of the voter fraud allegations in New Mexico and Washington State.
Gonzales Watch

Ron Hutcheson writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "As attorney general and in his previous job as White House counsel, Gonzales has been at the center of virtually every controversy involving the administration's view of civil liberties in the war on terror, the use of torture on suspected terrorists and spying on Americans without warrants. That's left him vulnerable to attacks from both ends of the political spectrum.

"Struggling to save his job, Gonzales plans to talk privately with lawmakers on Friday to address some of their concerns."

But it appears to be an uphill battle.

From the Think Progress Web site, video of Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer telling reporters yesterday: "I know, from other sources, that there is an active and avid discussion in the White House whether [Gonzales] should stay or not."

U.S. News Political Bulletin reports: "The CBS Evening News led its broadcast last night saying, 'That ticking sound around Washington tonight may be the clock running out on . . . Gonzales.' The pressure on him 'is building,' and 'one Republican strategist close to the White House told CBS News Alberto Gonzales is 'finished.'"

After the latest e-mail release, Kelli Arena told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "Now, Wolf, several Republicans that I spoke to earlier in the day said they feared if there was one more negative revelation, that Gonzales would be gone. We'll see."
GWB43.com

I wrote at some length in yesterday's column about the unusual and questionable use of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts by White House staffers conducting official business.

Are they trying to avoid rules about the archiving of presidential records? That and many other questions remain unanswered.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) yesterday sent a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asking for an investigation.

A White House Watch reader also pointed me toward this Paul Bedard item from his Washington Whispers column in U.S. News item in January 2004: "Our recent Whisper about 20 million Clinton White House E-mails being made public next year shook up a few in the Bush administration. 'I don't want my E-mail made public,' said one insider. As a result, many aides have shifted to Internet E-mail instead of the White House system. 'It's Yahoo!, baby,' says a Bushie.".....

.....Cover-Up Watch

The ACLU announces: "Following reports by the National Journal that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to shut down an internal review of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program due to the possibility that his own actions would be scrutinized, the American Civil Liberties Union today renewed its call for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the program."

In a letter to Gonzales, four Democratic senators ask: "When did you learn that you were a target of the OPR investigation? Did you inform President Bush that you were a target of the OPR investigation? Did you recommend that President Bush deny security clearances to the OPR investigators?"

Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: "The plainly illegal warrantless eavesdropping program is still, in my view, the area in which real investigations are most needed. And this obstructed OPR investigation is part of a clear, broader pattern whereby all such investigations into the NSA program have been blocked.".....

powerclown · 05-18-2007, 09:02 AM

I think its pathetic the lengths the Dems are going to try and bring down any and every Repub in their little warpath. Checks and balances are wonderful, but the abject cynicism the Dems are showing is embarrasing. They're not bright enough to get at Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove or Mr. Cheney, so they go after everyone around them for the most politically trivial reasons. Meanwhile, their alternative to all this in '08 is Hillary Pantsuit. Like little kids, these people.

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....I'll try to answer your question:

ace....I posted this article back on March 23:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35 ...and here it is again:

ace....I posted about Ralston's reference to alternative "RNC email" back on March 31:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=141

...and ace....here's a summary that I hope, will help to answer your question:

Host, your post lacks clarity and fails to answer basic questions related to illegal activity.

Even if you assume the firings were politically motivated, came directly from Bush, and based on the failing of the Justice Department to prosecute Democrats and to drop criminal charges against Republicans, were the firings illegal? If so, what law was violated?

Those are the basic questions that have to be answered if you want to talk about impeachment or the illegality of this matter.

If you want to talk about "lies", that is a different subject. I can agree, that Gonzales has been less than 100% honest on this subject, for reasons I don't understand. But even if we agree that he has been less than 100% honest, I don't think I have seen actual proof of a lie to Congress that qualifies as perjury or impeachment.

If people in the administration are guilty of using non-official email accounts, I personally don't care. If Bush or Rove used these accounts or told people to use them and we want to start impeachment of a President over that, I think I may need to consider moving to France.

Rekna · 05-18-2007, 09:53 AM

Laws that may have or have been broken:
1) Using RNC accounts for official email
2) Interfering with official investigations
3) Falsifying evidence to create propaganda to lead us to war
4) Falsifying evidence to continue to create support for the way (aka more propaganda, examples: lynch, tillman).
5) Lying under oath
6) Warrentless wiretapping
7) Failing to uphold the constitution
8) Funding terrorists in Iraq (look at the way we handed out money and you will see much of it ended up in our enemies hands)
9) Outing an undercover CIA official for political gain

I'm sure there are a bunch I missed. Ohh yeah here is one more....

10) Eating babies (this has to be a hobby of Karl Rove

)

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Laws that may have or have been broken:
1) Using RNC accounts for official email

Has this been proven yet? And if so, what is the point. To me it is like saying they used UPS rather than FEDEX if there was a regulation to use FEDEX. Who cares? What is it that they really want to know? They want to know if Bush, Rove or Chaney told Gonzales to fire people. If they did, they had a right to do so. In-fact almost everyone already knows Gonzales would not have made such a move without Bush's o.k. Now gonzales is covering for the White House. Do we need a federal investigation to know that? And now that we all know it, so what? It is not illegal to fire these folks.

Quote:

2) Interfering with official investigations

Which investigations? How have they interfered? Congress has been on fishing expeditions, looking for something, anything, wasting time and resources and not focusing on real issues.

Quote:

3) Falsifying evidence to create propaganda to lead us to war

Did they falsify evidence or "cherry-pick" the evidence to support their case? One would be criminal in my view the other not.

The administration certainly had enough evidence to support a case for war using information that was common knowledge. Actually most who supported the war - supported it based on that information, including Sen. Clinton.

Quote:

4) Falsifying evidence to continue to create support for the way (aka more propaganda, examples: lynch, tillman).

Was this the Bush administration or the military? The way I understood the Tillman situation was that military officers at the location at the time and on the scene tried to cover-up the truth from the very begining, do you think the Bush administration was involved in that? Is there proof?

I don't know anything about the Lynch controversy.

Quote:

5) Lying under oath

If you refer to Libby, that is debatable in my view. If you are talking about Gonzales, if they have proof, they should move forward with perjury charges.

Generally, all I have seen are "perjury traps", oh wait, no one in Congress would ever set someone up for that.

Quote:

6) Warrentless wiretapping

That has not been tested in court. The administration obtained legal opinions and selected members of Congress were aware of what the administration was doing. Has any victims of thes illegal wiretaps come forward and is willing to show how their rights were infringed upon?

Quote:

7) Failing to uphold the constitution

I don't get that one.

Quote:

8) Funding terrorists in Iraq (look at the way we handed out money and you will see much of it ended up in our enemies hands)

The nature of war can be strange and often not understood, however, to suggest the administration is funding terrorist against our national interest and public saftey especially during war is to suggest they are guilty of treason. If this charge is true, people should be hung. Would you be willing to hang people now and in the future on the kind of evidence you have supporting your allegation?

Quote:

9) Outing an undercover CIA official for political gain

Why didn't the special investigator bring that charge against anyone?

Quote:

I'm sure there are a bunch I missed. Ohh yeah here is one more....

10) Eating babies (this has to be a hobby of Karl Rove

)

Why are people on the left so obsessed with Rove?

host · 05-18-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I think its pathetic the lengths the Dems are going to try and bring down any and every Repub in their little warpath. Checks and balances are wonderful, but the abject cynicism the Dems are showing is embarrasing. They're not bright enough to get at Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove or Mr. Cheney, so they go after everyone around them for the most politically trivial reasons. Meanwhile, their alternative to all this in '08 is Hillary Pantsuit. Like little kids, these people.

Well....I've met my match here, I guess! Inciteful comments, especially with the background of 6 years of no oversight by a republican congress, of a republican executive branch, and ranking house oversight committee democrats banished by republican congressional committee chairman to basement hearing rooms with no subpoena power, and no republican support.or cooperation. Democrats blocked from introducing new bills or participation in conference committees crafting final drafts of passed legistlation.

What happened to Pat Roberts final, senate select intelligende committee report related to the Bush administration's handling of pre Iraq invasion intelligence? Last I knew, Roberts divided the "half of the report", it's release delayed since July, 2004, into 5 parts, and only one of those was released last september.

Direct me to the location of the other 4 parts, powerclown. Direct me to any report from Robb-Silberman or the 9/11 Commission, or Pat Robert's committee's determination of how the Bush administration handled pre-Iraq war intelligenc, other than the very damning little segment released last september 8th.

This has been the most secretive, and uncooperative presidential administration in memory. I've published polling results that support the opinion that the majority of Americans polled, support these aggressive investigations....they want answers, disclosure, accountability.

What do you want, powerclown....a free ride....no accountability from an administration so secretive and so corrupt that it had to abandon the security of the white house email system to hide the record of it's own communications, an administration, that, as one of it's first 2001 post inaugural acts, installed Abramoff's "gal friday", in a west wing office just down the hall from Bush and titled her special assistant to both Rove and bush....then, when her white house "service" was publicized, promoted her in title and raise her pay from $60000 to $92000 annually?

Damn it, powerclown....how can we have any discussion here when you post an opinion so uncoupled from the record of this administration and from the easily supported news reporting of it's malfeasance of te last several years?

Rekna · 05-18-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Has this been proven yet? And if so, what is the point. To me it is like saying they used UPS rather than FEDEX if there was a regulation to use FEDEX. Who cares? What is it that they really want to know? They want to know if Bush, Rove or Chaney told Gonzales to fire people. If they did, they had a right to do so. In-fact almost everyone already knows Gonzales would not have made such a move without Bush's o.k. Now gonzales is covering for the White House. Do we need a federal investigation to know that? And now that we all know it, so what? It is not illegal to fire these folks.

Yes it was proven, the white house came out and said "oops sorry it was an accident". I don't buy their excuse. And if there is nothing wrong with what they did then why not cooperate and come out and say what they did? Why all the smoke and mirrors? Why lie to congress and the public about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Which investigations? How have they interfered? Congress has been on fishing expeditions, looking for something, anything, wasting time and resources and not focusing on real issues.

There was many of them where the GOP was calling up the AG trying to get them to do certain things. They refuse and say their isn't a case for it and they end up fired. This is why we have investigations. You seem to believe we should have all the evidence that is needed to convict prior to investigating? Wouldn't that make an investigation pointless and useless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Did they falsify evidence or "cherry-pick" the evidence to support their case? One would be criminal in my view the other not.

The administration certainly had enough evidence to support a case for war using information that was common knowledge. Actually most who supported the war - supported it based on that information, including Sen. Clinton.

He presented the Niger evidence knowing they were forgeries and were blatantly false. That is lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Was this the Bush administration or the military? The way I understood the Tillman situation was that military officers at the location at the time and on the scene tried to cover-up the truth from the very begining, do you think the Bush administration was involved in that? Is there proof?

I don't know anything about the Lynch controversy.

Either way there should be investigations into it. You don't have a conclusion to an investigation and then try to prove it. You investigate it look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Whoever is responsible for the lies and propaganda should be charged. There is a reason that propaganda is illegal.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you refer to Libby, that is debatable in my view. If you are talking about Gonzales, if they have proof, they should move forward with perjury charges.

Generally, all I have seen are "perjury traps", oh wait, no one in Congress would ever set someone up for that.

I'm referring to both. They both lied and are covering things up. They are not falling for "perjury traps" but instead they are purposefully withholding truth and stating falsehoods. I'm betting that as more things come out Gonzales will be tried for perjury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That has not been tested in court. The administration obtained legal opinions and selected members of Congress were aware of what the administration was doing. Has any victims of thes illegal wiretaps come forward and is willing to show how their rights were infringed upon?

Since when does something have to be tested in court to be illegal.... if that were the case nothing would be illegal. How can victims come forward if they don't know they are a victim? How can we know if our rights were infringed if it is all secret? The fact that the DOJ would not sign off on it and they did it anyway is telling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't get that one.

See all of the above, and Bushes comment about the constitution being a damned piece of paper...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The nature of war can be strange and often not understood, however, to suggest the administration is funding terrorist against our national interest and public saftey especially during war is to suggest they are guilty of treason. If this charge is true, people should be hung. Would you be willing to hang people now and in the future on the kind of evidence you have supporting your allegation?

Someone allowed the money to get into their hands and that is criminal negligence. There should be hearings on this. Same goes for the way Halliburton has been war profiteering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why didn't the special investigator bring that charge against anyone?

Maybe because he couldn't prove the intent. The problem with this law is it requires a proof of intent. Which is almost impossible to do without a confession or some sort of tape/memo/email incriminating the defendant. This is of course impossible to get when the white house claims executive privilege on all the communications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why are people on the left so obsessed with Rove?

Alas, it was a satirical joke on the fact that Rove is hated by so many.

Ace you seem to think that investigations are a bad thing. Those who fear investigations are the ones who have something to hide. If the administration can listen to my phone calls, read my emails, ect without a warrant. Then I too should be able to read ALL of their emails and listen to ALL of their conversations, especially when it has been subpoenaed. The investigations are being done because their is evidence that wrong doing may have occurred. This does not mean that it has occurred and if it has not then the investigation should clear them. When someone doesn't cooperate with an investigation it typically means they are guilty and are hiding it. The administration has not cooperated in these very serious investigations and this makes me think they are hiding something........

We need to remove the corruption from Washington and what a better place to start than the top?

host · 05-18-2007, 11:30 AM

...continued....

....an administration where the indicted chief of staff of the vice-president of the US did not take the witness stand in his own defense to charges that he lied to investigators and to a grand jury investigating a CIA complaint of a criminal leak of the name and employment details of one of it's agents...an administration where the VP, after calling his indicted chief of staff, "one of the finest men I've known", did not come to his aid's criminal trial to testify on his behalf....

....and where, in his summation, the special counsel prosecuting the Vice president's "man"....a prosecutor appointed by the president as US Attorney for So. Illinois, and appointed special counsel in the CIA leak investigation by the Justice Dept. led by an appointee of the president, Asst. Atty Gen.,James Comey, described to the jury that:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030601969.html

..."a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before Novak's column was published, and it was created by testimony about Cheney directing Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information on Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.

"We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened," Fitzgerald added......

....that jury reacted to the absence of both the defendant, former chief of staff of the US, and of the VP himself, from the witness stand to testify in their own defense, by accepting the special counsel's evidence and summation....by convicting the defendant on 4 of 5 felony counts.

So what we can "take to the bank", is that the COS of the VP is a convicted felon....convicted of obstructing an investigation, during wartime, of the leaking of classified information, a leak that a prosecutor, appointed by the president, declared to be approved and directed by the VP, himself, and we have the fact that the former employer of president Bush and Karl Rove's speical assistant, is serving a federal prison sentence, after pleading guilty to charges related to and involving that special assistant, and reports that she, while working at the white house, had more than 300 instances of contact with her convicted former employer, a man who ther president himself, denied any official contact with....and we have proof that her communications with this felon were intentionally shifted from the white house email system to the RNC.org system, for the stated purpose of avoiding detection, traceibility, accountability.....

nope....powerclown...nothing to see here.....it's a partisan witch hunt, all of it the fault of petty democrats....who is next to be voted off "American Idol"... Nice little alternate universe you live in, there....powerclown...who does your lawn....it's immaculate !

aceventura3 · 05-18-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Yes it was proven, the white house came out and said "oops sorry it was an accident". I don't buy their excuse. And if there is nothing wrong with what they did then why not cooperate and come out and say what they did? Why all the smoke and mirrors? Why lie to congress and the public about it?

You are correct. If they admitted it, there is or was no reason to lie about it. But, my point is more about the information and less about which email system they used. The reasonable person test says it is foolish to email something that you don't want used against you using an email system out of your control. We know that any incriminating emails have been deleted if anyone has a brain in the White House. If I were in Congress my focus would be on other means to prove the case.

Quote:

There was many of them where the GOP was calling up the AG trying to get them to do certain things. They refuse and say their isn't a case for it and they end up fired. This is why we have investigations. You seem to believe we should have all the evidence that is needed to convict prior to investigating? Wouldn't that make an investigation pointless and useless?

Perhaps it is a fine line. But people in authority can easily abuse investigative authority. There should be reasonable cause for an investigation.

Quote:

He presented the Niger evidence knowing they were forgeries and were blatantly false. That is lying.

Not sure sure that is true. I think there was conflicting evidence.

Quote:

Either way there should be investigations into it. You don't have a conclusion to an investigation and then try to prove it. You investigate it look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Whoever is responsible for the lies and propaganda should be charged. There is a reason that propaganda is illegal.....

They should investigate the deaths of every military "hero" then. Just like fishing tales, I am sure almost all have been exagerated.

Quote:

I'm referring to both. They both lied and are covering things up. They are not falling for "perjury traps" but instead they are purposefully withholding truth and stating falsehoods. I'm betting that as more things come out Gonzales will be tried for perjury.

There problem is more about giving too much information. For perjury, there has to be materiality. If they lied I still don't see how it was material.

Quote:

Since when does something have to be tested in court to be illegal.... if that were the case nothing would be illegal. How can victims come forward if they don't know they are a victim? How can we know if our rights were infringed if it is all secret? The fact that the DOJ would not sign off on it and they did it anyway is telling.

Because there is no victim in this and some have the opinion that is not illegal and others have the opinion it is, therefore the issue needs to be tested in the courts.

Quote:

See all of the above, and Bushes comment about the constitution being a damned piece of paper...

Well, they should impeach him.

Quote:

Someone allowed the money to get into their hands and that is criminal negligence. There should be hearings on this. Same goes for the way Halliburton has been war profiteering.

I agree, we should have hearings. I am especially interested in giving Haliburton an opportunity to respond to charges against the company. To me this is more real than the Gonzales matter. If I were in Congress the money trail involving terrorists and the Haliburton scandle would be top priorities to me. The Gonzales matter may lead to his resignation, but he will be replaced by another Bush man.

Quote:

Maybe because he couldn't prove the intent. The problem with this law is it requires a proof of intent. Which is almost impossible to do without a confession or some sort of tape/memo/email incriminating the defendant. This is of course impossible to get when the white house claims executive privilege on all the communications.

Or, the evidence did not support brining charges.

Quote:

Alas, it was a satirical joke on the fact that Rove is hated by so many.

Why do so many hate him?

Quote:

Ace you seem to think that investigations are a bad thing.

I think political grandstanding is a bad thing.

Quote:

Those who fear investigations are the ones who have something to hide.

I bet if the IRS investigated your income and expenses, just fishing they would find a crime. It is not always about hiding something, sometimes it is about abuse of power. I think the IRS should only audit when they have a reasonable reason to do it, blind audits are an intrusion and an abuse of power in my view, as are some of these blind investigations by Congress.

Quote:

If the administration can listen to my phone calls, read my emails, ect without a warrant. Then I too should be able to read ALL of their emails and listen to ALL of their conversations, especially when it has been subpoenaed. The investigations are being done because their is evidence that wrong doing may have occurred. This does not mean that it has occurred and if it has not then the investigation should clear them. When someone doesn't cooperate with an investigation it typically means they are guilty and are hiding it. The administration has not cooperated in these very serious investigations and this makes me think they are hiding something........

I think when we are investigating known terrorists and then those people communicate with you or anyone, that opens you or them up to investigation, do you agree? The Bush administration isn't blindly looking at your emails or phone calls.

Quote:

We need to remove the corruption from Washington and what a better place to start than the top?

I would start with Congress, with term limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Well....I've met my match here, I guess!

Getting a bit touchy? I bow down to your great ability to post lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff, but why not directly answer some of those silly little questions that come up every now and again.

Hanxter · 05-19-2007, 05:03 AM

NEW YORK - A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy
International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he
believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He did
not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Gonzales said. "They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common
denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.
As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle.' "

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."

White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the president.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 11:35 AM

Looks like Mcnulty is going to pay the price for all of this.

Quote:

May 23 (Bloomberg) -- A former top Justice Department aide denied knowledge of any improper White House role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and accused Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty of misleading Congress about the dismissals.

Monica Goodling, the former White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, told the House Judiciary Committee she had no discussions before the firings with Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, or then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Goodling testified that she ``crossed the line'' by inquiring into political affiliations of people applying for career jobs at the Justice Department. She disputed McNulty's assertion that she withheld information from him about the extent of White House involvement in replacing U.S. attorneys before his Feb. 6 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.

Goodling said today she provided McNulty with ``dozens of pages of statistics and other information'' to help him prepare for his testimony. ``Despite my and others' best efforts, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects,'' she said. ``I believe that the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision.''

House and Senate committees are investigating whether the firings were carried out for improper political motives such as to spur investigations of Democrats or squelch those of Republicans.

There was no immediate comment from the Justice Department on Goodling's testimony.

Grant of Immunity

Goodling, testifying under a limited grant of immunity from prosecution, said she was ``not aware of anyone'' in the Justice Department ``ever suggesting the replacement'' of prosecutors ``to interfere with a particular case.''

Likewise, she told Texas Republican Lamar Smith she had ``no knowledge'' of White House aides requesting dismissals as retribution for failing to prosecute Democrats or for investigating Republicans.

During his Feb. 6 Senate testimony, McNulty -- who is resigning from the No. 2 job at the Justice Department -- said the White House was consulted about the dismissals before they were made in late December.

Goodling, 33, said that during his testimony McNulty was ``downplaying the role of the White House'' in the firings. McNulty ``was aware the Department for Justice had worked for at least several months with the White House,'' which ``had signed off'' on the dismissals, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...r2I&refer=home

03-29-2007, 08:28 AM	#47 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ace: Let's see here... US Attorney has a track record of excellence in election fraud situations, works with FBI and investigates 100 claims of voter fraud. Finds that all are not substantiated enough to go to court (and the FBI agrees) and does not file suit. To me, that sounds non-political. Then he gets fired for not pursuing the cases involving the opposition party before the election. Oh yeah, these are the cases that weren't pursued for legal and evidentiary reasons. That part sounds political. Let's have the former without the latter. I really can't imagine how other US Attorneys could help but interpret this to mean that to preserve their jobs, they have to produce a number of politically favorable prosecutions, regardless of legal or moral validity. In terms of bias, Ace, I can tell that you've got absolutely 0 clue how I vote. Yeah, we've all got biases, but I make an effort to see around mine. Ask yourself this - who is served by a system in which it is appropriate for the justice system to be subserviant to the current party in power. It sure isn't the voters/taxpayers. I thought government was supposed to serve the people, not itself, and not at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-29-2007, 09:31 AM	#50 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	The reason not to investigate 101, 150, or 1000 claims is that there weren't 101, 150, or 1000 claims. Iglesias investigated complaints made, not fictitious whims or drumming up cases without cause. This is one of the most basic facts in this case. This is a man who was invited to teach at a voter integrity conference in 2005! Circumstantially, it seems likely that these dismissals were retaliatory. To believe that Iglesias and Lam just happened to be for other reasons is exceptionally trusting. In terms of having evidence that is more than circumstantial, that's exactly why there is and should be an inquiry. This isn't a court case, it's fact finding. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-05-2007, 03:49 AM	#53 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Apparently Monica Goodling is reiterating her intention to exercise her 5th Amendment rights if questioned by Congress. I remain conflicted in my thinking about this - but part of that may be due to ignorance on my part. Is it appropriate to (and is there precedent for) plead the 5th pre-emptively? It would seem to be a cynical or evasive move on her part to issue a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions in an inquiry in which there may not be a crime before she's been asked a single question. Would she refuse to confirm known details, such as the dates of her tenure at the DoJ? If so, could she rightfully be held in contempt of Congress? I don't know too much about this - can anyone else chime in? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-02-2007, 03:09 PM	#58 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I think 'Justice' has been irrelevant to this administration other than using it to achieve particular ideological ends. If true, Gonzales performed exactly as he was expected to which makes Bush's continued support of him understandable. I think this administration depends on the appearance of incompetence to disguise their very deliberate intentions. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

05-02-2007, 05:54 PM	#60 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	It'll be interesting to see what happens when they say they can't retrieve the emails, which they'll almost certainly say. Executive privilege can't apply to emails on the RNC servers. We'll see how quickly the inquiry ensues. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-29-2007, 07:24 AM	#41 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ace do you feel that the law should be politically applied? That is the party in power uses the law to primarily find dirt and discredit their competition? Somehow I don't think that was the founding fathers idea of what this nation should be like.

05-02-2007, 02:50 PM	#57 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	No one has mentioned what a complete mockery Gonzales' testimony makes of our system of justice. To have an Attorney General who is "unable to recall" anything regarding this scandal is preposterous. At this point he's either complicit in the cover up or grossly incompetent, either way he deserves to be fired. Of course his boss(es) have never shied away from baldfaced arrogance, so I'd say he's equally likely to be awarded the Medal of Freedom as fired.

05-17-2007, 06:03 PM	#61 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I can't believe Gonzales is still the AG. The senate is going to hold a vote of no confidence soon. Do you think this will be the last straw?

05-17-2007, 07:57 PM	#62 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I may be wrong, but I think only Bush can fire Gonzales. That he has chosen not to do so has only further motivated congressional investigations concerning Gonzales. IMO, Bush believes he needs Gonzales to derail any investigations involving the executive branch. With Republicans demanding resignation, Bush may have to capitulate, but one wonders who he will appoint as a replacement. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

05-17-2007, 08:39 PM	#63 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	The confirmation hearings would likely be a nightmare for the administration. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-17-2007, 09:09 PM	#64 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think Gonzales could also be impeached. From the constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" I would think he would qualify as a civil officer.

05-18-2007, 09:02 AM	#71 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I think its pathetic the lengths the Dems are going to try and bring down any and every Repub in their little warpath. Checks and balances are wonderful, but the abject cynicism the Dems are showing is embarrasing. They're not bright enough to get at Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove or Mr. Cheney, so they go after everyone around them for the most politically trivial reasons. Meanwhile, their alternative to all this in '08 is Hillary Pantsuit. Like little kids, these people.

05-18-2007, 09:53 AM	#73 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Laws that may have or have been broken: 1) Using RNC accounts for official email 2) Interfering with official investigations 3) Falsifying evidence to create propaganda to lead us to war 4) Falsifying evidence to continue to create support for the way (aka more propaganda, examples: lynch, tillman). 5) Lying under oath 6) Warrentless wiretapping 7) Failing to uphold the constitution 8) Funding terrorists in Iraq (look at the way we handed out money and you will see much of it ended up in our enemies hands) 9) Outing an undercover CIA official for political gain I'm sure there are a bunch I missed. Ohh yeah here is one more.... 10) Eating babies (this has to be a hobby of Karl Rove ) Last edited by Rekna; 05-18-2007 at 10:03 AM..

05-19-2007, 05:03 AM	#79 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	NEW YORK - A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator. At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction. "Al-gebra is a problem for us," Gonzales said. "They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle.' " When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes." White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the president.