Alberto GONEzales? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:39 AM

For the record, she also admitted she broke the law when she used political affiliation in hiring career attorneys...but she "didnt mean to".

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

For the record, she also admitted she broke the law when she used political affiliation in hiring career attorneys...but she "didnt mean to".

She was wise to get immunity.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 12:50 PM

Whatever the personal consequences for her, as a result of the oversight hearings, there is one less political hack in the Dept of Justice who put political partisanship above the administration of justice.....oh wait, there are three less political hacks at DoJ as a result....Sampson and McNulty resigned as well.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 01:07 PM

I think next Democratic Party administration in the White House will appoint some DOJ lawyers based on party affiliation.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 01:26 PM

ace....once again you leave me bemused and befuddled.

Of course, the next Democratic president will appoint Democratic lawyers to political positions, although no recent Democratic president (or Republican president for that matter) fired such attorneys for not pursuing a political agenda in the manner that Bush fired 9 Republican attorneys he appointed.

But I am curious as to your insight that the next Democratic administration will use party afflilation as hiring criteria for career (non-political) positions at the DoJ in violation of the Civil Service Act.

Based on what? THe Clinton administration didnt do it (the Repubs investigated them on everything including funding for Socks the cat fan club). There is no evidence the Carter administration used such illegal personal practices either.

So how do you come by such a conclusion that the next Democratic administration will knowingly and willfully break the law?

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....once again you leave me bemused and befuddled.

Of course, the next Democratic president will appoint Democratic lawyers to political positions, although no recent Democratic president (or Republican president for that matter) fired such attorneys for not pursuing a political agenda in the manner that Bush fired 9 Republican attorneys he appointed.

But I am curious as to your insight that the next Democratic administration will use party afflilation as hiring criteria for career (non-political) positions at the DoJ in violation of the Civil Service Act.

Based on what? THe Clinton administration didnt do it (the Repubs investigated them on everything including funding for Socks the cat fan club). There is no evidence the Carter administration used such illegal personal practices either.

So how do you come by such a conclusion that the next Democratic administration will knowingly and willfully break the law?

You called the people who resigned political hacks. I took that to mean Democrats don't have political hacks. I don't believe that for a second. The question of party affiliation does not have to be asked for it to be a basis for someone getting a job at DOJ or any civil service position. I don't know the technicalities of the law, but I bet some people in the future at DOJ will get appointed not based on being the best qualified candidate, but because of part affiliation (I did not say there would be a violation of the law). If you are certain this won't happen in the future and under and Democratic Party administration, I don't know what to say.

I grew up in the Chicago area and lived there during the 60's, 70's and 80's, in Chicago, I doubt many got good city jobs who were not a Democrat. They did not have to ask either, they knew who would get the jobs. I would love to visit the world you live in.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

I would love to visit the world you live in.

You dont really want to visit DC...Its not Chicago of the 60s-80s....and it would destroy all of your political fantasies about how federal agencies/executive branch and Congress (that you define and suggest should act as one "living being") actually works.

host · 05-23-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You called the people who resigned political hacks. I took that to mean Democrats don't have political hacks. I don't believe that for a second. <b>The question of party affiliation does not have to be asked for it to be a basis for someone getting a job at DOJ or any civil service position.</b> I don't know the technicalities of the law, but I bet some people in the future at DOJ will get appointed not based on being the best qualified candidate, but because of part affiliation (I did not say there would be a violation of the law). If you are certain this won't happen in the future and under and Democratic Party administration, I don't know what to say.

I grew up in the Chicago area and lived there during the 60's, 70's and 80's, in Chicago, I doubt many got good city jobs who were not a Democrat. They did not have to ask either, they knew who would get the jobs. I would love to visit the world you live in.

ace...I share the articles/reports etc. that shape my opinions, suspicions, conclusions. I'll confide that I try hard to confine my posted "items" to the things that I can defend because I believe that they have a high probability of being accurate and reasonable, consistent with related items I'm posting, or I point out how they differ.

My impression of what you share here are mostly IBD.com editorials, and on occasion, news articles, along with what "you know"...unaccompanied by your information sources.

The following articles describe the research of the Boston Globe, based on what it learned from FOIA requested documents obtained from the DOJ, the testimony of DOJ officials, interviews with knowledgeable sources in or working with the DOJ, and from DOJ "document dumps" resulting from demands congressional investigative oversight committees.

The contents of these articles, and the e-mail photo at the bottom, tell what has changed in this presidential administration ace....supporting the accuracy of my conclusion that "this time", it is different.

Over on the "Al Gore/Diane Sawyer" thread, on wednesday (May 23) <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2250729&postcount=27">I posted enough</a>, I think, to foster a reasonable (and strong) suspicion, that ace....as far as the Bush administration directed prosecutions of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2249878&postcount=4">baseless election fraud charges</a>, and the campaign of officially planned and executed vote suppression</a> that it supported, this time....as far as the planning and appointments of this executive branch and it's DOJ, this time....<b>it's criminal....compared to the conduct of past presidential administrations, and compared to what adherence to ethics and to the law require:</b>

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...d_in_bush_era/
Civil rights hiring shifted in Bush era
Conservative leanings stressed

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.

The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.

In an acknowledgment of the department's special need to be politically neutral, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants -- not political appointees.

But in the fall of 2002, then-attorney general John Ashcroft changed the procedures. The Civil Rights Division disbanded the hiring committees made up of veteran career lawyers.

For decades, such committees had screened thousands of resumes, interviewed candidates, and made recommendations that were only rarely rejected.

Now, hiring is closely overseen by Bush administration political appointees to Justice, effectively turning hundreds of career jobs into politically appointed positions.

The profile of the lawyers being hired has since changed dramatically, according to the resumes of successful applicants to the voting rights, employment litigation, and appellate sections. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Globe obtained the resumes among hundreds of pages of hiring data from 2001 to 2006.

Hires with traditional civil rights backgrounds -- either civil rights litigators or members of civil rights groups -- have plunged. Only 19 of the 45 lawyers hired since 2003 in those three sections were experienced in civil rights law, and of those, nine gained their experience either by defending employers against discrimination lawsuits or by fighting against race-conscious policies.

Meanwhile, conservative credentials have risen sharply. Since 2003 the three sections have hired 11 lawyers who said they were members of the conservative Federalist Society. Seven hires in the three sections are listed as members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, including two who volunteered for Bush-Cheney campaigns.

Several new hires worked for prominent conservatives, including former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, former attorney general Edwin Meese, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, and Judge Charles Pickering. And six listed Christian organizations that promote socially conservative views.

The changes in those three sections are echoed to varying degrees throughout the Civil Rights Division, according to current and former staffers.

At the same time, the kinds of cases the Civil Rights Division is bringing have undergone a shift. The division is bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans, and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians.

``There has been a sea change in the types of cases brought by the division, and that is not likely to change in a new administration because they are hiring people who don't have an expressed interest in traditional civil rights enforcement," said Richard Ugelow, a 29-year career veteran who left the division in 2002.

No `litmus test' claimed
The Bush administration is not the first to seek greater control over the Civil Rights Division. Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan tried to limit the division's efforts to enforce school-desegregation busing and affirmative action. But neither Nixon nor Reagan pushed political loyalists deep in the permanent bureaucracy, longtime employees say.

The Bush administration denies that its changes to the hiring procedures have political overtones. Cynthia Magnuson , a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the division had no ``litmus test" for hiring. She insisted that the department hired only ``qualified attorneys."

Magnuson also objected to measuring civil rights experience by participation in organizations devoted to advancing traditional civil rights causes. She noted that many of the division's lawyers had been clerks for federal judges, where they ``worked on litigation involving constitutional law, which is obviously relevant to a certain degree."

Other defenders of the Bush administration say there is nothing improper about the winner of a presidential election staffing government positions with like-minded officials. And, they say, the old career staff at the division was partisan in its own way -- an entrenched bureaucracy of liberals who did not support the president's view of civil rights policy.

Robert Driscoll , a deputy assistant attorney general over the division from 2001 to 2003, said many of the longtime career civil rights attorneys wanted to bring big cases on behalf of racial groups based on statistical disparities in hiring, even without evidence of intentional discrimination. Conservatives, he said, prefer to focus on cases that protect individuals from government abuses of power.

Hiring only lawyers from civil rights groups would ``set the table for a permanent left-wing career class," Driscoll said.

But Jim Turner , who worked for the division from 1965 to 1994 and was the top-ranked professional in the division for the last 25 years of his career, said that hiring people who are interested in enforcing civil rights laws is not the same thing as trying to achieve a political result through hiring.

Most people interested in working to enforce civil rights laws happen to be liberals, Turner said, but Congress put the laws on the books so that they would be enforced. ``To say that the Civil Rights Division had a special penchant for hiring liberal lawyers is twisting things," he said.

Jon Greenbaum , who was a career attorney in the voting rights section from 1997 to 2003, said that since the hiring change, candidates with conservative ties have had an advantage.

``The clear emphasis has been to hire individuals with conservative credentials," he said. ``If anything, a civil rights background is considered a liability."

But Roger Clegg , who was a deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights during the Reagan administration, said that the change in career hiring is appropriate to bring some ``balance" to what he described as an overly liberal agency.

``I don't think there is anything sinister about any of this. . . . You are not morally required to support racial preferences just because you are working for the Civil Rights Division," Clegg said.

Many lawyers in the division, who spoke on condition of anonymity, describe a clear shift in agenda accompanying the new hires. As The Washington Post reported last year, division supervisors overruled the recommendations of longtime career voting-rights attorneys in several high-profile cases, including whether to approve a Texas redistricting plan and whether to approve a Georgia law requiring voters to show photographic identification.

In addition, many experienced civil rights lawyers have been assigned to spend much of their time defending deportation orders rather than pursuing discrimination claims. Justice officials defend that practice, saying that attorneys throughout the department are sharing the burden of a deportation case backlog.

As a result, staffers say, morale has plunged and experienced lawyers are leaving the division. Last year, the administration offered longtime civil rights attorneys a buyout. Department figures show that 63 division attorneys left in 2005 -- nearly twice the average annual number of departures since the late 1990s.

At a recent NAACP hearing on the state of the Civil Rights Division, David Becker , who was a voting-rights section attorney for seven years before accepting the buyout offer, warned that the personnel changes threatened to permanently damage the nation's most important civil rights watchdog.

``Even during other administrations that were perceived as being hostile to civil rights enforcement, career staff did not leave in numbers approaching this level," Becker said. ``In the place of these experienced litigators and investigators, this administration has, all too often, hired inexperienced ideologues, virtually none of which have any civil rights or voting rights experiences."

Dates from '57 law
Established in 1957 as part of the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Division enforces the nation's antidiscrimination laws.

The 1957 law and subsequent civil rights acts directed the division to file lawsuits against state and local governments, submit ``friend-of-the-court" briefs in other discrimination cases, and review changes to election laws and redistricting to make sure they will not keep minorities from voting.

The division is managed by a president's appointees -- the assistant attorney general for civil rights and his deputies -- who are replaced when a new president takes office.

Beneath the political appointees, most of the work is carried out by a permanent staff of about 350 lawyers. They take complaints, investigate problems, propose lawsuits, litigate cases, and negotiate settlements.

Until recently, career attorneys also played an important role in deciding whom to hire when vacancies opened up in their ranks.

``We were looking for a strong academic record, for clerkships, and for evidence of an interest in civil rights enforcement," said William Yeomans , who worked for the division for 24 years, leaving in 2005.

Civil Rights Division supervisors of both parties almost always accepted the career attorneys' hiring recommendations, longtime staffers say. Charles Cooper , a former deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan administration, said the system of hiring through committees of career professionals worked well.

``There was obviously oversight from the front office, but I don't remember a time when an individual went through that process and was not accepted," Cooper said. ``I just don't think there was any quarrel with the quality of individuals who were being hired. And we certainly weren't placing any kind of political litmus test on . . . the individuals who were ultimately determined to be best qualified."

But during the fall 2002 hiring cycle, the Bush administration changed the rules. Longtime career attorneys say there was never an official announcement. The hiring committee simply was not convened, and eventually its members learned that it had been disbanded.

Driscoll, the former Bush administration appointee, said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft changed hiring rules for the entire Justice Department, not just the Civil Rights Division. But career officials say that the change had a particularly strong impact in the Civil Rights Division, where the potential for political interference is greater than in divisions that enforce less controversial laws.

Joe Rich , who joined the division in 1968 and who was chief of the voting rights section until he left last year, said that the change reduced career attorneys' input on hiring decisions to virtually nothing. Once the political appointees screened resumes and decided on a finalist for a job in his section, Rich said, they would invite him to sit in on the applicant's final interview but they wouldn't tell him who else had applied, nor did they ask his opinion about whether to hire the attorney.

The changes extended to the hiring of summer interns.

Danielle Leonard , who was one of the last lawyers to be hired into the voting rights section under the old system, said she volunteered to look through internship applications in 2002.

Leonard said she went through the resumes, putting Post-It Notes on them with comments, until her supervisor told her that career staff would no longer be allowed to review the intern resumes. Leonard removed her Post-Its from the resumes and a political aide took them away.

Leonard said she quit a few months later, having stayed in what she had thought would be her ``dream job" for less than a year, because she was frustrated and demoralized by the direction the division was taking.

The academic credentials of the lawyers hired into the division also underwent a shift at this time, the documents show. Attorneys hired by the career hiring committees largely came from Eastern law schools with elite reputations, while a greater proportion of the political appointees' hires instead attended Southern and Midwestern law schools with conservative reputations.

The average US News & World Report ranking for the law school attended by successful applicants hired in 2001 and 2002 was 34, while the average law school rank dropped to 44 for those hired after 2003.

Driscoll, the former division chief-of-staff, insisted that everyone he personally had hired was well qualified. And, he said, the old hiring committees' prejudice in favor of highly ranked law schools had unfairly blocked many qualified applicants.

``They would have tossed someone who was first in their class at the University of Kentucky Law School, whereas we'd say, hey, he's number one in his class, let's interview him," Driscoll said.

Learning from others
The Bush administration's effort to assert greater control over the Civil Rights Division is the latest chapter in a long-running drama between the agency and conservative presidents.

Nixon tried unsuccessfully to delay implementation of school desegregation plans. Reagan reversed the division's position on the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools and set a policy of opposing school busing and racial quotas.

Still, neither Nixon nor Reagan changed the division's procedures for hiring career staff, meaning that career attorneys who were dedicated to enforcing traditional civil rights continued to fill the ranks.

Yeomans said he believes the current administration learned a lesson from Nixon's and Reagan's experiences: To make changes permanent, it is necessary to reshape the civil rights bureaucracy.

``Reagan had tried to bring about big changes in civil rights enforcement and to pursue a much more conservative approach, but it didn't stick," Yeomans said. ``That was the goal here -- to leave behind a bureaucracy that approached civil rights the same way the political appointees did."

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ypes_of_cases/
With new faces, new types of cases

July 23, 2006

After the Bush administration changed hiring rules, the Civil Rights Division has been bringing in more conservative lawyers. Here are three recent cases worked on by some of the new hires, along with information about their backgrounds:

Case: United States v. Southern Illinois University

Year: 2006

Issue: The university offered paid fellowships for minorities and women. The Civil Rights Division sued the university for discriminating against white men. To avoid a court battle, the university dropped the program.

Attorney: The case was handled by a graduate of Indiana University Law School who was hired in February 2004. He is a member of the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Previously, he worked for the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit group that has filed many lawsuits opposing affirmative action in higher education.

Case: Georgia photo ID voting law

Year: 2005

Issue: Georgia enacted a law requiring voters to present a photo ID card, charging $20 for voters who didn't already have a driver's license or a passport. Five career Justice Department officials reviewed the law to see whether it discriminated against blacks. According to an internal memo that was later leaked, four of the five recommended objecting to the law because blacks were less likely to own licenses or passports, but the Civil Rights Division cleared it anyway. A judge later blocked the law, comparing it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Attorney: The lone member of the review committee who favored the law was hired in May 2005. He is a graduate of the University of Mississippi Law School and a member of both the Federalist Society and the Christian Legal Society.

Case: Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover

Year: 2006

Issue: A Christian group sued a public library for preventing religious organizations from using its facilities to hold worship services. The division filed a ``friend-of-the-court" brief saying that the library policy violates the Christian group's civil rights.

Attorney: The brief was written by a Notre Dame University Law School graduate who was hired in November 2004. He is a member of two groups that seek to integrate Catholic faith in law and society. He also clerked for then-appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative whom President Bush recently elevated to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701825_pf.html
Hiring Process Was Bypassed for Prosecutor
D.C. District Attorney Says Justice Officials Recommended Candidate but the Decision Was His

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; A04

When he was counsel to a House subcommittee in 2005, Jay Apperson resigned after writing a letter to a federal judge in his boss's name, demanding a tougher sentence for a drug courier. As an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia in the 1990s, he infuriated fellow prosecutors when he facetiously suggested a White History Month to complement Black History Month.

Yet when Apperson was looking for a job recently, four senior Justice Department officials urged Jeffrey A. Taylor, the top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, to hire him. Taylor did, and allowed him to skip the rigorous vetting process that the vast majority of career federal prosecutors face.

As Congress and the administration spar over whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales allowed politics to unduly influence the work of the Justice Department, Apperson's hiring has been cited by government lawyers and others as an example of how a system that relies on apolitical prosecutors should not function.

It is not clear whether Apperson's hiring is part of the internal Justice Department investigation of Monica M. Goodling, until recently the agency's senior counselor and White House liaison, for allegedly considering applicants' political affiliation in hiring decisions. That probe began when Goodling allegedly tried to hold up the hiring of another prosecutor whom Taylor was recruiting, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry.

Goodling said the candidate, a government civil rights lawyer, appeared to lean Democratic, two sources said yesterday. Taylor ultimately gained permission from the Justice Department to bypass Goodling and hire prosecutors without her review. He hired the civil rights lawyer, who is scheduled to start work on Monday.

But Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, heard about Taylor's allegations and referred the matter to the agency's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility while serving as Gonzales's interim chief of staff in March and April, according to two law enforcement sources.

Newsweek first revealed in its current issue the matter that led to the investigation.

Taylor, who formerly worked as Gonzales's counsel, said the decision to hire Apperson was his. But he said that Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, and Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer urged him to consider Apperson. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella and Michael A. Battle, who at the time headed the office that oversees U.S. attorneys, also suggested that Apperson would be a good hire.

"They said, 'The guy needs a job. He'd do a good job for you,' " Taylor recalled in an interview this week. "But I want to be clear. No one ordered me to hire Jay Apperson. If someone says I made an error in judgment, that's fine."

Taylor said he "may have" discussed hiring Apperson with Goodling but does not recall doing so.

Apperson, 51, declined to be interviewed for this article. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse referred to Taylor all questions on Apperson's hiring.

Taylor said he allowed Apperson to skip the three-stage screening process for applicants because of Apperson's experience as a prosecutor in Virginia from 1987 to 1996.

That review normally begins with lengthy separate interviews with three hiring committee members, followed by a mock "opening argument" that applicants must deliver on videotape. If candidates are judged worthy after these two stages, they are interviewed by the U.S. attorney.

Taylor said he has hired 20 prosecutors since he took over in September and has allowed one other -- who was rejoining the Washington office after a few years' hiatus -- to bypass the screening process.

He said half a dozen other prosecutors in the office skipped the screening process because of their experience, but he acknowledged that many others were screened, particularly if they were assigned to D.C. Superior Court.

Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School who testified before Congress on Feb. 6 about the politicization of the Justice Department, said that she did not know the circumstances of Apperson's hiring but that politics should not be part of the equation.

She said it is not unusual for a political official to "put in a good word" for an applicant for a prosecutor's job. "The question is," she said, "did this one go beyond that? Did this open the door for someone they otherwise wouldn't have taken?"

Taylor said that in hiring Apperson, he took into account that the Eastern District of Virginia had signaled it would not rehire him. Apperson acknowledged that joking about a proposal for a White History Month was inappropriate, according to a source in the prosecutor's office.

Apperson, who worked for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr on the Whitewater and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations, abruptly left his job as chief counsel for a House Judiciary subcommittee in July 2005 after he wrote a letter over the signature of his boss at the time, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to a chief judge of a federal appeals court. In the letter, Sensenbrenner demanded that the chief of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rethink his court's pending sentencing decision and give a drug courier a longer prison term.

A Capitol Hill official familiar with the matter said at the time that Apperson's leaving "had everything to do" with his role in the letter.

Ethics experts said the letter violated House rules that prohibit lawmakers from intervening in court cases and from communicating with judges without notifying the other parties in the case. Several judges in Washington remember the letter well, describing it as part of a pattern by the then-Republican-led Congress to interfere with the judiciary.

Apperson also wrote 2003 legislation known as the Feeney Amendment, which instructed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to help reduce the number of times judges gave more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend. It required that Justice officials and courts create a system to report to Congress when individual judges showed leniency in sentencing.

Judges across the political spectrum, including then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, derided the provision as damaging and insulting.

Late last year and early this year, Apperson was working as legislative counsel for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and was passing around his résumé. Taylor said he agreed in January, after conferring with several Justice Department officials, that the best fit for Apperson was as a prosecutor in his office.

"Sure, he's made some mistakes in judgment," Taylor said. "For gosh sakes, everybody deserves a second chance."

The following is a seperate but related problem; the disqualification of politcally appointed US Attorneys (non-civil service positions) of anyone currently serving or anyone to be considered for appointment...who was not obviously a <b>"loyal Bushie"</b>...loyal and partisan beyond the constraints of ethics or of legality...perjury and Hatch Act violations, along with election fraud, and misuse of office to conspire to commit election fraud, and obstruction of justice...quickly come to mind as blatant and obvious examples of exhibiting <b>"loyalty to Bush":</b>

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ip&btnG=Search
April 14, 2007
E-Mail Identified G.O.P. Candidates for Justice Jobs
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, April 13 — A Justice Department e-mail message released on Friday shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for United States attorneys <h3>nearly a year before they were dismissed in December 2006. The department has repeatedly stated that no successors were selected before the dismissals.</h3>

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail message, written by D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month as the top aide to Mr. Gonzales, identified five Bush administration officials, most of them Justice Department employees, whose names were sent to the White House for consideration as possible replacements for prosecutors slated for dismissal.

The e-mail message and several related documents provide the first evidence that Mr. Sampson, the Justice Department official in charge of the dismissals, had focused on who would succeed the ousted prosecutors. Justice officials have repeatedly said that seven of the eight prosecutors were removed without regard to who might succeed them.

Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.

The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.

Taken together, Democrats asserted, the e-mail supported their contention that the ousted prosecutors were dismissed to make room for favored candidates who were chosen on the basis of their political qualifications as much as

prosecutorial experience. click to show

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail message was sent by Mr. Sampson to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William Kelley, another White House lawyer. In the e-mail, Mr. Sampson proposed the dismissal of a total of seven United States attorneys and named at least one replacement candidate for each prospective vacancy.

Because of deletions in the e-mail copies turned over to Congress, the document discloses only the names of four United States attorneys slated for removal and five of their possible successors. The names of the replacement candidates, in most cases, are followed by a question mark, suggesting that Mr. Sampson might have been uncertain about them.

The United States attorneys identified for removal are four who were ultimately dismissed: Ms. Chiara in Michigan, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, Carol C. Lam in San Diego and Mr. Cummins in Arkansas. Justice Department officials have acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was an able prosecutor who was removed solely to make room for Mr. Griffin, a former aide to Mr. Rove, the White House senior political adviser who was appointed to the job on a temporary basis.

“Please treat this as confidential,” Mr. Sampson wrote in the message. He concluded, “If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and possible replacement.”

Mr. Sampson testified under oath on March 29 at a hearing of Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no candidates in mind to replace any of the fired prosecutors. In his prepared statement, he said that “none of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot.”

At one point in the hearing, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Sampson, “Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. attorneys before they were asked to resign on Dec. 7, 2006.”

Mr. Sampson, testifying under oath, replied: “I personally did not.”

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/13/washington/0414-nat-webATTORNEYS.gif">

I suppose if I was in Karl Rove's position...chief political strategist for a party that "offers" a platform, an ideology, and an agenda that is in the best interests of only a small number of voters who bother to inform themselves of it's history, performance, principles, and the commitment of it's elected officials and party administrators to following and supporting and enforcing the requirements of the constitution and of the criminal and civil statutes, I'd have few options, save the following....to influence election outcomes, either:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...n/17102319.htm
Posted on Wed, Apr. 18, 2007

Administration pursued aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - <b>For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.</b>

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.....

..... Later in 2005, career lawyers wrote a memo recommending that the department oppose a new Georgia law requiring voters to present a $20 photo ID. They argued that the requirement would discriminate against poor blacks, but that was quickly rejected.

Toby Moore, one of the five career lawyers who reviewed the memo, said the only dissenter to the recommendation was a new hire, Joshua Rogers, a member of the National Republican Lawyers Association, a partisan organization interested in election issues.

Moore said that John Tanner, who'd just been appointed the new section chief, "doctored the memo ... reversing many of our findings," and used the occasion to change procedures so that he alone could make future recommendations.

A Georgia state judge, acting on a suit by civil rights groups, struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Moore, now the project manager for American University's Commission on Election Reform, said he believes that administration officials felt the Voting Rights Section was populated by "recalcitrant, embedded, liberal Democrats ... and they were determined to plant their DNA, change the institution and bring it to bear on behalf of Republican interests." .......

.... Just before the 2006 election, the California Secretary of State's Office rejected more than 20,000 registration applications, including 43 percent of Los Angeles County's new applicants. Those rejections were reversed before Election Day amid a public clamor.

Former Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a moderate Republican, said in a phone interview that Justice Department officials reviewed his office's regulations and okayed the rejections, but gave no hint that they exceeded federal law.

The Bush administration also has shifted enforcement priorities under the National Voter Registration Act, known as the "Motor Voter" law because it provides for registration at state vehicle licensing and public assistance agencies.

In the last six years, the number of voters registered at state government agencies that provide services to the poor and disabled has been cut in half, to 1 million.

Instead of forcing lax agencies to increase registrations, the Justice Department sued at least six states and sent threatening enforcement letters to others requiring them to scour their election rolls for potentially ineligible voters.

Deputy Director Michael Slater of Project Vote, a national voter registration group, called this "selective enforcement. ... They've focused on purging of voters from registration rolls at the expense of enforcing provisions that encourage registration."

He said that Kentucky eliminated 4,000 people from its list of voters, but "did it poorly, and took off people who lived there and tried to vote."

One of the Justice Department suits was filed against Missouri's Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey in Jefferson City, the capital, threw out the suit, noting that the motor voter law was intended to increase voter participation and eliminate fraud.

The judge wrote that the Justice Department had offered no evidence that anyone had been denied his right to vote as a result of deficiencies in voter rolls, and "nor has the United States shown that any voter fraud has occurred."

aceventura3 · 05-24-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You dont really want to visit DC...Its not Chicago of the 60s-80s....and it would destroy all of your political fantasies about how federal agencies/executive branch and Congress (that you define and suggest should act as one "living being") actually works.

Give me a break, you can't be as pollyanish as you seem to imply in your posts. Things worked well in Chicago even with corruption and cronyism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace...I share the articles/reports etc. that shape my opinions, suspicions, conclusions. I'll confide that I try hard to confine my posted "items" to the things that I can defend because I believe that they have a high probability of being accurate and reasonable, consistent with related items I'm posting, or I point out how they differ.

My impression of what you share here are mostly IBD.com editorials, and on occasion, news articles, along with what "you know"...unaccompanied by your information sources.

The following articles describe the research of the Boston Globe, based on what it learned from FOIA requested documents obtained from the DOJ, the testimony of DOJ officials, interviews with knowledgeable sources in or working with the DOJ, and from DOJ "document dumps" resulting from demands congressional investigative oversight committees.

The contents of these articles, and the e-mail photo at the bottom, tell what has changed in this presidential administration ace....supporting the accuracy of my conclusion that "this time", it is different.

Over on the "Al Gore/Diane Sawyer" thread, on wednesday (May 23) <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2250729&postcount=27">I posted enough</a>, I think, to foster a reasonable (and strong) suspicion, that ace....as far as the Bush administration directed prosecutions of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2249878&postcount=4">baseless election fraud charges</a>, and the campaign of officially planned and executed vote suppression</a> that it supported, this time....as far as the planning and appointments of this executive branch and it's DOJ, this time....<b>it's criminal....compared to the conduct of past presidential administrations, and compared to what adherence to ethics and to the law require:</b>

The following is a seperate but related problem; the disqualification of politcally appointed US Attorneys (non-civil service positions) of anyone currently serving or anyone to be considered for appointment...who was not obviously a <b>"loyal Bushie"</b>...loyal and partisan beyond the constraints of ethics or of legality...perjury and Hatch Act violations, along with election fraud, and misuse of office to conspire to commit election fraud, and obstruction of justice...quickly come to mind as blatant and obvious examples of exhibiting <b>"loyalty to Bush":</b>

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/13/washington/0414-nat-webATTORNEYS.gif">

I suppose if I was in Karl Rove's position...chief political strategist for a party that "offers" a platform, an ideology, and an agenda that is in the best interests of only a small number of voters who bother to inform themselves of it's history, performance, principles, and the commitment of it's elected officials and party administrators to following and supporting and enforcing the requirements of the constitution and of the criminal and civil statutes, I'd have few options, save the following....to influence election outcomes, either:

I don't know what your point is. I don't know why you want me to read the information you provided. If you think it is wrong for people in power to select those who are sympathetic to their causes for positions, I don't. We will never agree on that, in fact I would think it would be foolish for anyone in power to do what you consider improper.

dc_dux · 05-24-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Give me a break, you can't be as pollyanish as you seem to imply in your posts.

ace.....let me try one more time to penetrate your veil of political fantasy with FACTUAL information that runs counter to your unique, but baseless insights into how the federal government works (or not work, in the case of the Bush administration)

Start with the high level DOJ official who admitted to breaking the Civil Service Act by using political afflilation in the hiring of career employees...

Add two other high level DOJ political appointees who resigned under suspicion of lying or withholding information on the firing US attorneys for political reAons....

Mix in the director of the GSA who was found to have violated the Hatch Act by being involved (and encouraging or reqiurement other emplyoees) in improper and illegal politcal activities on the job....and numerous other agency heads who were likely involved in the same acts with the complicity of the White House....

Stir in the actions by political appointees at EPA, DOI, NASA and NOAA to improperly influence or withhold research findings by career scientits/researchers for political purposes...

and other high level political appointees in several agencies who took improper and potentially illegal actions against whistleblowers in their agencies for political purposes....

Dribble in Dept of Ed and HHS political appointees who violated the law by giving grant money to several "journalists" to promote the Bush political agenda and pass it off as unbiased news.....

and cap it off with Inspector Generals at four separate agencies who are responsble for ensuring their respective agencies compliance with laws and procedures for proper agency administration who themselves are under investigation for illegal, improper or unethical activities.

(I can supply additional examples if I am not getting through to you yet)

No, ace...it is not pollyanish at all to say this is not how the federal government is supposed to operate..and in FACT, no recent Democratic or Republican administration has acted in such a manner.

THe Bush crowd is unique in its putting politics above the law and/or the ethical and proper administration of Executive Department agencies.

I know this is hard for you to accept...but I think most objective observers would see that my facts might just be a little more credible than your suppositions that "they all politicize".

Rekna · 05-25-2007, 06:57 AM

Why hasn't Gonzales been charged with perjury yet? He told congress that he never met with any of his underlings to discuss his testimony. But Goodling testified he did..... This provides the congress the criminal act by which they can impeach him and override the president.....

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....let me try one more time to penetrate your veil of political fantasy with FACTUAL information that runs counter to your unique, but baseless insights into how the federal government works (or not work, in the case of the Bush administration)

Start with the high level DOJ official who admitted to breaking the Civil Service Act by using political afflilation in the hiring of career employees...

Did she admit it because of immunity? Do you think she was the first in her position to use political affiliation in civil service hiring in Washington?

Quote:

Add two other high level DOJ political appointees who resigned under suspicion of lying or withholding information on the firing US attorneys for political reAons....

Seems like a basis for perjury and further investigation into criminal activity. I am looking forward to seeing how Congress responds. Am I still allowed to use the term Congress, or have we adopted some new form of political speak?

Quote:

Mix in the director of the GSA who was found to have violated the Hatch Act by being involved (and encouraging or reqiurement other emplyoees) in improper and illegal politcal activities on the job....and numerous other agency heads who were likely involved in the same acts with the complicity of the White House....

Again, clear violations of the law. Given this level of proved criminal activity and as you say likely involvment of the White House (Is your use of White House o.k. in the new political speak?) criminal charges should be brought against someone in the White House, don't you agree?

Quote:

Stir in the actions by political appointees at EPA, DOI, NASA and NOAA to improperly influence or withhold research findings by career scientits/researchers for political purposes...

I am sure these are all firsts and unique to the Bush administration. I apologize for suggesting otherwise. That was sarcasim, I can't help it. If your point is there is some corruption in this presidential administration, I can't and don't argue against that point. I only suggest that corruption is a reality in Washington, and will be in the future as it has been in the past. Given my view, you seem to take a very unrealistic position.

I have no interest in going through long lists of illegal or corrupt acts occuring in every presidential administration. I did not have an interest in doing it during Clinton's administration either, my view on corruption and illegal activity is consistent regardless of party. People who break the law should pay a price for that.

Quote:

and other high level political appointees in several agencies who took improper and potentially illegal actions against whistleblowers in their agencies for political purposes....

Being a whistleblower takes a special kind of resolve and courage. Even in the face of the law a whistleblower has to know their actions will have an impact on their life. People in power will defend themselves with everything they have, this is a reality. People get hurt. Whistle blowers are not really protected by these laws. The implication of what you write, suggests that you think a whistleblower can blow the whistle and go on as if nothing happened, that is pollianish. I agree, whistleblowers should not have to pay a price, I wish they did not have to, but courage/conviction/resolve comes with a price. We know this has been true since the dawn of recorded history.

Quote:

Dribble in Dept of Ed and HHS political appointees who violated the law by giving grant money to several "journalists" to promote the Bush political agenda and pass it off as unbiased news.....

You mean that there are people in the media that are unethical? Do you suggest that money and power can influence? Do you suggest that the Bush team invented this form of political influence? Do you suggest that Democrats would never use money and power to "buy" favorable news? Could this be a reason why I am so cynical?

Quote:

and cap it off with Inspector Generals at four separate agencies who are responsble for ensuring their respective agencies compliance with laws and procedures for proper agency administration who themselves are under investigation for illegal, improper or unethical activities.

Sure. Being under investigation is equal to being guilty? Isn't there enough proven stuff? What is the score, how many Bush people have actually been found guilty of crimes?

Quote:

(I can supply additional examples if I am not getting through to you yet)

You have not shown how you are not pollyanish.That was the claim I made that seemed to prompt this response. So, it has been sort of a hoot, but...there was corruption and croneyism in Chicago politics and there is corruption and croneyism in Washington politic, always has been and always will be.

Quote:

No, ace...it is not pollyanish at all to say this is not how the federal government is supposed to operate..and in FACT, no recent Democratic or Republican administration has acted in such a manner.

This is a cute way to make sure you take no risk in making a point. Yes, the Bush administration is unique as is the corruption surrounding the administration. Every administration has been unique as has been the corruption surrounding those administrations. I am not sure how you measure or compare corruption from one administration to the next, I don't.

Quote:

THe Bush crowd is unique in its putting politics above the law and/or the ethical and proper administration of Executive Department agencies.

If true Congress should impeach Bush. They won't, why?

Quote:

I know this is hard for you to accept...but I think most objective observers would see that my facts might just be a little more credible than your suppositions that "they all politicize".

Yes, the two or three people who read this can decide. Given, that they hate Bush like you (I bet you wonder how I know that, without posting facts), you can let that further feed your view that the Bush administration is the most corrupt in history.

ubertuber · 05-25-2007, 08:06 AM

What does "pollyanish" mean?

At first I thought you might be implying that dc_dux was somehow unrealistically naive. But then I figured that couldn't be it, since dc has, you know, actual experience working in this area. Somehow, I doubt his views on the way things work are actually all that unrealistic.

dc_dux · 05-25-2007, 08:08 AM

ace...all of your attempted ratinalizations above for your opinion can be summed up in one connclusion you drew:

Quote:

my view on corruption and illegal activity is consistent regardless of party.

Your view may be consistent...but the facts are pretty clear that corrpution and illegal activity have not been consistent....the Bush administration sets the record by far.

Quote:

(my) view that the Bush administration is the most corrupt in history.

no..only in my 20+ years working in Washington, both at the Congressional level and working regularly with numerous agencies in the federal government.

I have never seen anything like the last 6 years and hope to never see it again.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Your view may be consistent...but the facts are pretty clear that corrpution and illegal activity have not been consistent....the Bush administration sets the record by far.

Given how you respond to my opinions without facts, you must have some kind of score card to backup your opinion, right? If so, what is it?

Is there a difference, in your world, between corruption and corruption that is made public? In my world corruption is corruption.

dc_dux · 05-25-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Why hasn't Gonzales been charged with perjury yet? He told congress that he never met with any of his underlings to discuss his testimony. But Goodling testified he did..... This provides the congress the criminal act by which they can impeach him and override the president.....

Rekna.....Congress cannot charge Gonzales with a crime (other than through an impeachment inquiry which may be coming increasingly justified).

The most Congress can do is refer their findings of potential criminal activity to the the agency in the Executive Branch responsible for initiating criminal investigations and proceedings against federal officials for potential criminal activiites....and that would be the Justice Department.

BTW, ace...the same applies to other potential illegal activites by political appointees throughout the Executive Branch......DOJ (ie Gonzales) would have to initiate criminal proceedings.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

What does "pollyanish" mean?

At first I thought you might be implying that dc_dux was somehow unrealistically naive. But then I figured that couldn't be it, since dc has, you know, actual experience working in this area. Somehow, I doubt his views on the way things work are actually all that unrealistic.

He seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington. Call it what you will, you know my opinion.

Quote:

You dont really want to visit DC...Its not Chicago of the 60s-80s....and it would destroy all of your political fantasies about how federal agencies/executive branch and Congress (that you define and suggest should act as one "living being") actually works.

dc_dux · 05-25-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

He seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington. Call it what you will, you know my opinion.

No, ace...I did not make such suggestions about Chicago...just like I never
suggested you were "cynical, narrow minded or dumb"...as you falsely implied elswhere.(link)

I simply responded to your vague comparisons of the federal government to Chicago of the 60s-80.

Your continuous mischaracterizations of my posts only lessen your credibility

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No, ace...I did not make such suggestions about Chicago...just like I never
suggested you were cynical or stupid...as you implied elswhere that I did.

I simply responded to your vague comparisons of the federal government to Chicago of the 60s-80.

Your continuous mischaracterizations of my posts only lessen your credibility

The context of my reference to Chicago was relative to how people obtain jobs based on political affiliation. I did not compare Chicago to Washington or the fedral governemnt(ed.). If your scroll wheel is not working here is what I posted.

Quote:

You called the people who resigned political hacks. I took that to mean Democrats don't have political hacks. I don't believe that for a second. The question of party affiliation does not have to be asked for it to be a basis for someone getting a job at DOJ or any civil service position. I don't know the technicalities of the law, but I bet some people in the future at DOJ will get appointed not based on being the best qualified candidate, but because of part affiliation (I did not say there would be a violation of the law). If you are certain this won't happen in the future and under and Democratic Party administration, I don't know what to say.

I grew up in the Chicago area and lived there during the 60's, 70's and 80's, in Chicago, I doubt many got good city jobs who were not a Democrat. They did not have to ask either, they knew who would get the jobs. I would love to visit the world you live in.

dc_dux · 05-25-2007, 09:08 AM

Ace...what you said was that I "seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington."

I made no such judgement about Chicago on this or any other thread (but for the record, I happen to agree with you about past corruption and cronyism at the municipal level) ...my comment was that things are absolutely different in Washington...I will add here...that is because of much more strict personnel/administrative laws at the federal level (ie civil service act, hatch act,etc) regarding the management of government agencies than ever existed in cities like Chicago. That is until those laws and practices were so blatantly violated in the last 6 years at levels never before in my time in Washington.

Your inconvenient triuths (no, falsehoods) are catching up with you.....and this should not be interpreted as calling you "cynical, narrow minded or dumb".....well mabe "narrow minded" but that would only be in response to your "pollyanish" charge

aceventura3 · 05-25-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...what you said was that I "seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington."

I made no such judgement about Chicago on this or any other thread (but for the record, I happen to agree with you about past corruption and cronyism at the municipal level) ...my comment was that things are absolutely different in Washington...I will add here...that is because of much more strict personnel/administrative laws at the federal level (ie civil service act, hatch act,etc) regarding the management of government agencies than ever existed in cities like Chicago. That is until those laws and practices were so blatantly violated in the last 6 years at levels never before in my time in Washington.

Your inconvenient triuths (no, falsehoods) are catching up with you.....and this should not be interpreted as calling you "cynical, narrow minded or dumb".....well mabe "narrow minded" but that would only be in response to your "pollyanish" charge

One final attempt at communicating reality to you on coruption and cronyism. There is a level of coruption and croynism that exists in government, local, state and federal , these levels of coruption and croynism are not necessarily correlated with the amounts uncovered or brought to light. So you can pretend that the levels of corruption and croynism in the federal government changes based on who is in the White House, and if you do after 20 years in Washington, I would suggest taking another look at what is really happening.

On the other issue, this is what I wrote:

Quote:

I posted a link so readers would have a source other than me. My views about Edwards goes deeper than what was in the blog.

I also gave readers the benefit of listing questions that came to my mind on the Edwards issue, questions that if answered could actually change my point of view. So, instead of addressing the issue and questions that could lead me to a different view of Edwards, criticism is directed towrds me rather than moving the discussion forward.

I honestly think Edwards is a hypocrit. It is my view, right or wrong, but I think it is right. We can discuss the information and facts that lead me to that conclusion or we can comment on how cynical/narrow/minded/dumb/etc/etc. I am. You tend to choose the latter on most issues with me, the discussion goes know where and we leave more entrenched in our views. This supports my premise.

And I seemed to be going along o.k. (starting from post #80 with new info on this topic) without getting personal with you until you commented on my political fantasies.

Quote:

...and it would destroy all of your political fantasies about how federal agencies/executive branch and Congress (that you define and suggest should act as one "living being") actually works.

I am not sure I have ever shared my political fantasies with you or anyone else you know. In my world the comment suggests the target of the comment has a less than intelectual view and is a personal attack where the writer is assuming a position of intellectual superiority. I then responded in-kind, which in hindsight I should have avoided. But like I have said many times, I am imperfect and I am trying to control how I respond to perceived personal attacks. I guess you did not see it as one. Enjoy the weekend.

Rekna · 05-25-2007, 11:29 AM

There has to be a way to start a perjury trial against AG other than AG initiating it. Otherwise that is a major problem in our justice system. No one is above the law.

dc_dux · 05-25-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One final attempt at communicating reality to you on coruption and cronyism. There is a level of coruption and croynism that exists in government, local, state and federal , these levels of coruption and croynism are not necessarily correlated with the amounts uncovered or brought to light. So you can pretend that the levels of corruption and croynism in the federal government changes based on who is in the White House, and if you do after 20 years in Washington, I would suggest taking another look at what is really happening.

I think I get it now, ace.

Am I to understand your point to view to be that Reagan, GWH Bush and Clinton had administrations that were or may have been as equally corrupt and unethical as G Bush...it was just not uncovered....even with more investigations of Clinton than any recent President?

Now that is a unique perspective, but it does enable you to hold the Bush administration less accountable for its actions than I do.

Its basically the old "they all did it" defense.

host · 05-25-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think I get it now, ace.

Am I to understand your point to view to be that Reagan, GWH Bush and Clinton had administrations that were or may have been as equally corrupt and unethical as G Bush...it was just not uncovered....even with more investigations of Clinton than any recent President?

Now that is a unique perspective, but it does enable you to hold the Bush administration less accountable for its actions than I do.

Its basically the old "they all did it" defense.

dc_dux, ace "answered" you in a similar way as in my exchange with him, today on your <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=118311">"Bush Says What He Means II" thread</a>..... I'm thinking that he cannot "do" specifics...only sweeping generalizations that require nothing to support them. It's like talking to yourself, because "everybody knows", and "some people say" that all politicians check one:

A.) Lie
B.)Cheat
C.)Steal
D.)Are Corrupt

.....so the "degree", the "specifics"....just don't effing matter. Keeping a mistress, accepting a bribe...is no different from transforming the DOJ into a mechanism to suppress votes and civil rights protections, or using the authority of your office to initiate an avoidable and unnecessary war of aggression....they're all crimes, and they "all do it", and that is all that there is to talk about. The rest is just finger pointing......live with it, the political parties and those who they nominate and get elected are equally flawed...indistinguishable.

What are not "indistinguishable", however, are the consequences of the corrupt or illegal acts, themselves. I don't think that ace wants to "go there"

aceventura3 · 05-26-2007, 09:13 AM

I looked at the Goodling testimony to Congress (or to whatever). Her exchange with Issa was of note:

Quote:

ISSA:OK.Well, let's talk about Carol Lam, because Mr. Keller mentioned that members had made these complaints.Well, I'm the member.I'm the member who saw somebody who would not enforce stated national policy and brought this to the attention of Attorney General Ashcroft and then the Attorney General Gonzales.And, quite honestly, I spoke to the president directly on my concerns, and I'm not ashamed of it.

But let's go through Carol Lam.Carol Lam was not a Republican, isn't that correct?

GOODLING:I actually don't know.Someone told me she was an Independent but I never checked her voter registration.

ISSA:Right.Well, I have.It's public in California.So let's go through this.She was a career professional assistant U.S. attorney, right?

GOODLING:Yes.

ISSA:So this administration, even though it has the absolute right to make political appointments based on party registration and party loyalty and loyalty to the president appointed a career professional in San Diego.

GOODLING:Yes, actually.We did that in a lot of districts.

GOODLING:And I supported that.In many cases, career professionals have the best backgrounds for the job.

ISSA:OK.

So you were looking for people who had an obligation to deal with a policy for which the American people had chosen.But you looked to career professionals.

Isn't it also true that when people turned in their resignations or left for any reason, you also looked very often to the existing career professionals inside the U.S. attorney's office?

GOODLING:Yes.

ISSA:So here we have an absolute right to make political appointments based on party registration, party loyalty and support of the president.And yet you chose to be non-partisan very often.And yet that's not being heard here today.

GOODLING:I'm afraid I don't have a comment on that.

ISSA:Well, I think my comment will stand on that.

Last but not least, is there any reason that this group of Republicans and Democrats -- there's not an independent sitting here -- should be surprised that the Clinton administration appointed Democrats and disproportionately made lifetime appointments for federal judges by people who were Democrats.I run into them all the time.

Isn't it, in fact, absolutely the right of a president elected by the American people to choose people who will support his policies and that in fact when you did that you were doing what was your right, and when you chose not to, was actually the exception that should be noted here today?

GOODLING:I think presidents of both parties have the right to pick the people to serve them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ny_052307.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think I get it now, ace.

No you don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

dc_dux, ace "answered" you in a similar way as in my exchange with him, today on your <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=118311">"Bush Says What He Means II" thread</a>..... I'm thinking that he cannot "do" specifics...only sweeping generalizations that require nothing to support them.

I start the basis of my views from basic generalities or truisms regarding an issue and go from there. If there is no agreement on the geralities or truisms, in my view there can be no further basis for discussion. For example - world and political leaders use hyperbole to rally support and to motivate their population to act. You don't don't agree with that and therefore think when Bush uses these kinds of statments they are lies. Or, there is a basic level of coruption and cronyism in Washington regarless of who is in the White House. DC, with 20+ years in Washington, thinks there is a correlation with what is uncovered. Given disagreement on those generalities, we will never find agreement on the issue in question.

You don't understand how I construct my views, yet you constantly criticize how I construct my views. I find it interesting how you comment on what you don't understand. Your approach is different, which is o.k. with me. I just find it difficult to follow, and I rarely engage your points. On the few occasions when I have, you avoided the exchange, which is your right, but as is my right, I drew my conclusions.

Most of the topics presented on TFP are interesting. When I initially participate I share my view on the topic. But, when I participate, more times than not, people like you or DC, turn it in to a discussion about me. That is a waste of time. I am not going to change who I am or how I think, my views may change, but I won't. I have no idea what you guys are trying to accomplish, other than to get me to attack back in-kind. At one point DC decided to ignore me, perhaps both of you should, or stay focused on the topic rather than me or my style.

dc_dux · 05-31-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

There has to be a way to start a perjury trial against AG other than AG initiating it. Otherwise that is a major problem in our justice system. No one is above the law.

The DoJ has expanded its internal investigation by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibilty, both of which operate outside of the direct line reporting to Gonzales.

Unlike Congressional oversight investigations, this internal DoJ investigation may lead to specific criminal charges, if the facts point to that necessity.

Rekna · 05-31-2007, 06:29 AM

Thanks DC, I knew there had to be some part of the department which could check Gonzales without him being able to stop it.

host · 05-31-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Thanks DC, I knew there had to be some part of the department which could check Gonzales without him being able to stop it.

dc_dux, Rekna.... don't hold your breath...I posted this on 06-16-2005:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=90768
Prosecutor Misconduct In Two Recent High-Profile Cases:
Why It Happens, and How We Can Better Prevent It
By ELAINE CASSEL
----
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004

...........What about federal disciplinary options when prosecutors go astray? Sadly, they are also weak.

In 2001, the General Accounting Office wrote a stinging report on the Justice Department's Office of Professional

Responsibility. It found that OPR rarely held prosecutors accountable for misconduct. And if OPR turned over a case over

to the state that licensed an errant prosecutor, OPR rarely followed up....

......Did OPR improve itself? It's hard to tell. OPR is supposed to file an annual report, but the last one I found on its

website was for 2001. It is filled with self-congratulatory reports of how well it is doing its job -- but it is also

lacking in specifics. We should all watch closely to see if the Mellin and the Detroit cell prosecutors -- all of whom

plainly committed misconduct -- are disciplined by OPR or not. If not, that in itself will be a strong sign that OPR is

still not doing its job..........

Rekna, yours is the last post in this thread, after I posted this on 10-16-2006:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...51&postcount=6
I'm not going to just walk away from this. The DOJ and it's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) have made no public comment of this travesty of justice conspiracy, apparently committed by high government officials. It cost Edwin O. Wilson, 22 years of his life as a potentially unincarcerated man.

Here is a more recent reference:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...139812,00.html

Monday, Dec. 12, 2005
A Rogue's Revenge
Disavowed by the CIA and jailed for 22 years, an ex-spy now wants someone to pay
By ADAM ZAGORIN.....

<b>What you should know....the DOJ OPR is still 2 years behind in posting it's investigations report on it's website:</b>
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/reports.htm
....so no disclosure there on what became of the OPR investigation of what Judge Lynn Hughes descibed in 2003 as,

Quote:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=6
(page 15)
The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.
Governmental regularity—due process—requires personal and institutional
integrity. CIA attorneys told Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be used as evidence, as then written, and asked him not introduce it. He did.

CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin advised that, at minimum,the word
“indirectly” should be removed from paragraph four. Deliberately, knowing the
facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it. (Wilson Mot. to
Vacate, Ex. 98 ¶¶ 3-5.)
Although it admits that it presented false evidence at Wilson’s trial and
now lists solicitations and services he performed post-termination, the
governmentsaysthat Wilson has not proved that the prosecutors knew that it wasfalse. Persistence in this contention reveals that consistency is valued higher thanfidelity at the Department of Justice.

First, the government says that the prosecutors meant “taskings related to
the gathering of intelligence” where Briggs’s affidavit reads, “asked or requested directly or indirectly to perform or provide services.” (Gov't Answer at 54.)...

In 2004, Stanley Sporkin was hired by Fannie Mae to conduct an internal investigation:
http://whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanley/#FannieMaeQ1
http://whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanleysporkin.htm

....and last month, BP hired Sporkin as an "ombudsman"
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/09/05/...its-ombudsman/

<b>Stanely Sporkin, and 9th District Senior Judge Stephen Trotta, et al, are accused of knowingly withholding evidence that could have prevented Edwin Wilson from serving some...or all of 22 years that he spent in prison.....If democrats win control of the house or of the senate, a high priority should be put on finding the status of the OPR investigation, reported by WaPo's Susan Schmidt, nearly three years ago (see image of article in previous post:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingt...+Of+Arms+Deale

The integrity of our justice system was identified by Texas federal judge, Lynn Hughes, 41 months ago as broken, and he referred to "about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it."

Damn it.....the current DOJ, by 35 months (now...on May 31, 2007, it's 42 months...) of it's OPR's silence, is now implicated in this travesty of justice, and coverup. I want to see subpoenas issued to Sporkin, Trott, et al, and I want to see them give testimony, or take the 5th, in a public, congressional hearing....ASAP....while 77 year old Edwin Wilson is still alive, and before any other current or former CIA operatives, or anyone else prosecuted by DOJ for any offense, is fucked over.
</b>

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Lega...tory?id=708779
Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit
April 27, 2005

.....Wilson, at age 54, was sentenced in 1983 to 52 years in prison. He was convicted of selling weapons and 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Moammar Gadhafi's Libya. He was also convicted of trying to arrange a contract hit on the prosecutors.

Wilson's defense was that he was still working with the CIA and that the agency knew and approved of everything he was doing with Libya, including the shipment of the explosives.

Prosecutor Ted Greenberg said at the time that Wilson was making up his connection to the CIA. "Mr. Wilson did not work for the CIA or any other part of the intelligence community," he said.

In Houston, Wilson's conviction was overturned by a federal judge, Lynn Hughes, who identified about two dozen government lawyers, including Greenberg, who participated in the use of a false CIA affidavit that sent Wilson to prison and the silence about the affidavit after serious questions were raised about its accuracy. And Hughes minced no words in his opinion.

"In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process," wrote Hughes, "than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

Wilson is a free man now......

.......It would take 20 years for Wilson to prove that the affidavit was false. From his cell in Marion, Wilson began to seek government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. It was 14 years later that the government turned over an internal Justice Department memo, buried in a large stack of other documents, in which Justice Department officials acknowledge the CIA affidavit was possibly false and discuss what to do about it.

"Somebody slipped up and never intended for Mr. Wilson to see this document," Adler said. "I think they forgot that if you put someone in solitary confinement, that they don't have a lot to do all day other than to pore through these documents, and I think Mr. Wilson paid a lot more attention to the materials than the people who were responsible for releasing them at the Justice Department."

Since then, Adler, a former CIA officer himself who was at first skeptical when assigned the case, has discovered dozens of Justice Department and CIA documents that prove the key affidavit in the Wilson case was false and that many in the government knew it. He said one document revealed at least 80 instances of contact between Wilson and the CIA. ...

.....After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

"The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

Stephen Trott replaced Jensen as the top Justice Department official at the time. Trott says he recalls a meeting on the Wilson case but none of the details.

The Justice Department has now admitted the affidavit used to convict Wilson was false, an innocent error, its lawyers told Hughes.

As for the CIA, they will only say, "It was Mr. Wilson's decision to sell explosives to Libya, and that's why he was sent to jail."

However, Hughes put it another way. "America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent," he wrote.

Wilson says he lost all he had, his family and his wealth, over the 22 years he was in prison. Now living with his brother in Seattle, he says he simply wants to clear his name.

To be sure....the OPR has known about this for seven years and has never reported about it:

Quote:

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0004nn/000424nn.htm
(Scroll half way down page to view this article)

Fallout From a CIA Affidavit
Rogue Ex-Agent Seeks to Overturn '83 Conviction

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
<h3>Monday, April 24, 2000; Page A01</h3>

Wilson's court-appointed attorney, former CIA operative David Adler, has filed a motion seeking to have Wilson's conviction overturned on grounds that prosecutors knowingly used false testimony and then failed to disclose it to Wilson's lawyers. <h3>His allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are under review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.</h3>

"I don't think there's any question I wanted disclosure; that's the way I operate," said Stanley Sporkin, the CIA's general counsel at the time, who retired in January after 14 years as a U.S. district judge in Washington. "I probably went further than anybody would have gone--I took it up to the top of the [Justice Department]. This was a Justice Department issue. They were the lawyers in the courtroom. How much can you insist?"

Sporkin denied knowing that the Briggs affidavit was false at the time. The Justice Department also denies that prosecutors knowingly used a false affidavit. But the department now admits in legal filings: "With the benefit of retrospection and in light of all the information now known to the Department, it appears that the statement was inaccurate."

Nonetheless, Justice lawyers argue that the affidavit's inaccuracy should not invalidate Wilson's conviction without evidence that the CIA authorized him to sell C-4 to Libya. The department also contends that its limited disclosure 16 years ago corrected Briggs's "misstatement."....

.....Wilson's attorney also has filed a motion before U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes in Houston asking that 17 current and former CIA and Justice Department officials be held in contempt, including Sporkin; two top Reagan Justice officials, Stephen S. Trott and D. Lowell Jensen, both now federal judges; Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark M. Richard, now in his 33rd year with the department; former assistant U.S. attorney E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., now a well-known D.C. defense attorney; and veteran federal prosecutor Theodore Greenberg.

Like Sporkin, Barcella denied knowing that the Briggs affidavit was false at the time. Trott, Jensen, Richard and Greenberg either declined to comment or did not respond to telephone calls.......

.....The Briggs Affidavit: A Crucial Tool for Trial

The Briggs affidavit took shape in Houston on Feb. 3, 1983, three days before Wilson's conviction. This account is based on hundreds of pages of internal government documents introduced in court as part of the motion to overturn Wilson's conviction.

Lead prosecutor Ted Greenberg wanted to shred Wilson's "CIA defense" with an affidavit from Briggs, then the CIA's executive director and now retired. So Briggs and two CIA attorneys, Edmund Cohen and David Pearline, got together to draft it. They agreed at the outset that the Briggs affidavit should state that there were no CIA records authorizing the shipment of C-4 to Libya. They set out to define Wilson's relationship with the CIA as narrowly as possible by using the word "tasking," a specific request for a service.

The three CIA men knew that the agency's own extensive reporting had found that there were many "contacts" with Wilson since his retirement in 1971--social occasions, exchanges of information--but no "tasking." There was one exception in 1972, when the CIA paid Wilson $1,000 for sending an employee to Libya to gather information. The $1,000 payment would be noted in the affidavit.

The three men then decided that a layman might not understand the term "tasking." So the group substituted the word "services." The document now said the CIA never "asked or requested [Wilson] to perform or provide any services for CIA."

Greenberg, seeking to make the affidavit even stronger, rewrote the sentence to read: Edwin P. Wilson was not "asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

But the tinkering had so expanded the meaning of the sentence that it made the document inaccurate. Wilson alleges that the government lawyers knew they were shading the truth. The Justice Department now concedes only that government lawyers apparently failed to comprehend that they had "stripped the term 'services' of crucial qualifying language connoting an intelligence gathering function."

Shortly after the affidavit was drafted in Houston, CIA general counsel Sporkin, in Langley, told the lawyers that he opposed using it, thinking it confusing and a possible basis for appeal, because Wilson's lawyers would not be able to cross-examine a piece of paper.

But Greenberg disregarded Sporkin's repeated objections, saying he felt the affidavit was essential to winning the case.

Greenberg read the affidavit in court on the final day of trial. The jury retired for the evening after deliberating for four hours.

When jurors reconvened the next morning, they asked the judge to reread the Briggs affidavit. An hour later, they returned a verdict: guilty.

"There were several of us that thought possibly the CIA might have something to do with that, but when they admitted that last affidavit, that convinced me," juror Betty Metzler told United Press International the day Wilson was convicted.

A Debate Over Duty To Disclose Inaccuracy

At the CIA, Mark Tanes wasn't convinced. He worked in the agency's inspector general's office and had been researching Wilson for at least a year to help the prosecutors in Houston.

On Feb. 8, three days after Wilson's conviction, Tanes penned a memo to the CIA's inspector general questioning the accuracy of the Briggs affidavit. Tanes cited several undisclosed CIA requests for services from Wilson.

Within two days, Justice Department attorney Kim Rosenfield sent a memo to her boss, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard, entitled, "Duty to Disclose Possibly False Testimony."

The memo noted that case law required a prosecutor to correct false testimony. A new trial was required if the false testimony could "in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury."

At the top of the memo someone wrote: "Plain meaning of services--the affid. is inaccurate."

Spurred by the memos from Tanes and Rosenfield, Sporkin's office quickly drafted a letter to Wilson's lawyer disclosing problems with the Briggs affidavit.

Sporkin, the CIA's top lawyer, forwarded the draft letter to Richard at the Justice Department. Sporkin pushed to have the matter resolved before Wilson's sentencing, but noted in a memo he placed in his own files that Richard "indicated there was very little sentiment in DOJ to do anything about the Briggs' declaration."

Richard, often described as a pillar of the Criminal Division, then alerted his boss, Assistant Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen, now a senior U.S. district judge in Northern California.

"As for my own views, I think we must make a disclosure--either to the judge or the defense attorney," Richard counseled in a handwritten note to Jensen dated Feb. 22. "A third option is to disclose to both."

In April, the CIA completed its final review of Wilson's services and sent the Justice Department a detailed list of 80 contacts between Wilson and CIA personnel after 1971. Twice, a CIA officer had asked Wilson to provide antitank weapons for a sensitive operation. On another occasion, the CIA had negotiated the sale of two salt-water distillation units to Egypt through Wilson's firm.

The CIA's associate deputy director, Theodore G. Shackley, a legendary operative known as the "Blond Ghost," had asked Wilson for a list of his Libyan contacts. Shackley also had met with Wilson in the late 1970s to see if Wilson could acquire a Soviet surface-to-air missile system.

By midsummer, Richard wrote Jensen that "disclosure is, unfortunately, necessary. I suspect I am in the minority."

In undated handwritten notes by an unidentified participant at a CIA-Justice meeting, Jensen is quoted as saying the government had an "underlying obligation of disclosure to court."

Jensen left the Justice Department and was replaced on Aug. 1, 1983, by Stephen Trott. And the thinking on disclosure shifted.

Another handwritten note from an Aug. 8 meeting states that disclosure, if deemed necessary, should be made only in the government's reply to Wilson's appeal, not to Wilson or his attorney.

This would likely ensure that the appeals court would "treat the issue without much attention," the note says. Such disclosure "at worst" would result in only a "limited remand" to the trial court, not a full reversal of Wilson's conviction.

It is not clear who decided to limit disclosure to the appellate brief. Wilson's lawyer alleges it was Trott.

The eventual disclosure was brief and perfunctory: two instances beyond the Briggs declaration in which "the CIA enlisted Wilson's assistance in business transactions." There was nothing about the list of 80 contacts. The appeals court upheld Wilson's conviction without comment.

The letter drafted to Wilson's attorney was never sent.......

....The Paper Trail

Government documents obtained by lawyers for former CIA agent Edwin P. Wilson show the evolution of the government's position, presented in a Houston federal courtroom in 1983, that Wilson was not asked to do work for the agency after his retirement in 1971.

Feb. 3, 1983: Affidavit by CIA official Charles A. Briggs denying Wilson did work for the agency.

Feb. 8, 1983: Memo from CIA employee Mark Tanes showing that Wilson did do work for the agency.

Feb. 10, 1983: Memo from Justice Department attorney on issues raised by the Tanes memo.

Feb. 17, 1983: CIA general counsel Stanley Sporkin seeking a quick resolution.

Feb. 18, 1983: Letter drafted by Justice Department informing Wilson's lawyer of problems with the Briggs affidavit. The letter was never sent.

Feb. 22, 1983: Note from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard recommending disclosure.

Aug. 8, 1983: Notes of a CIA-Justice meeting in which the benefits of a limited disclosure are discussed.

January 2000: Government's response to Wilson's motion for a new trial.

Between 1981 and 1983, during the period that the above "paper trail" documents that the Wilson "cover up" was happening, David Addington, now Cheney's COS was CIA general counsel to Stanley Sporkin....

dc_dux · 05-31-2007, 10:28 AM

Host...I would agree with you if not for the fact that the OPR and IG at DoJ have two high profile committee chairs breathing down their back and who will continue to act concurrently with the DoJ internal investigations.

Particularly as a result of Goodling's testimony, in which she:

* admitted breaking the law (50 times?) and infered in some cases it was with the knowledge of superiors

Rep. Scott:
“Rules? Laws? You crossed the law on civil service laws — You crossed the line on civil service law, is that right?”

Goodling:
“I believe I cross the law — line — but I didn’t mean to.”

Rep. Johnson:
“Would you say less than 50 or more than 50?”

Goodling:
“I hesitate to give you an estimate because I can’t remember. I don’t think that I could have done it more than 50 times but I don’t know.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler:
“Were any of your superiors in the Justice Department aware… that you were asking such kinds of questions either for Assistant US Attorneys or for career positions at all?”

Goodling:
“Um, in some cases, when, relating to immigration judges (career, non-political positions)....

* accused Gonzales of lying to the committee

Rep. Davis: “General Gonzales testified that he never saw the US Attorneys list, the list of terminated US Attorneys, is that accurate to your knowledge Ms. Goodling?”

Goodling: “Um, I believe he did see a list.”

Rep. Davis: “So if General Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the list, you believe that would be inaccurate testimony on his part don’t you?”

Goodling: “I believe he saw a list.”

Rep. Davis: “So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony?”

Goodling: “Yes.”

* admitted to having files at DOJ from her opposition research days at the RNC (possibly related to the voter suppresion tactics used in 04 and 06)

Rep. Waters:
“Do you have files that may have information in it that you gathered during your research, using your opposition research skills?”

Goodling:
“There would be some files, yes.”

Rep. Waters:
“Where would those files be?”

Goodling:
“At the Department of Justice.”

These and other issues are far from settled at DoJ, whether it be though internal investigations or overisght hearings.

Rekna · 08-27-2007, 07:55 AM

That took a lot longer than it should have.....

ottopilot · 08-29-2007, 06:38 PM

aceventura3 · 08-30-2007, 07:32 AM

I think he will get a 7 figure book deal. I bet his memory will improve after he gets his first advance payment.

JohnBua · 09-03-2007, 04:51 PM

What did he do wrong? Why was he being grilled in the first place?

05-23-2007, 11:39 AM	#81 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	For the record, she also admitted she broke the law when she used political affiliation in hiring career attorneys...but she "didnt mean to". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-23-2007, 12:50 PM	#83 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Whatever the personal consequences for her, as a result of the oversight hearings, there is one less political hack in the Dept of Justice who put political partisanship above the administration of justice.....oh wait, there are three less political hacks at DoJ as a result....Sampson and McNulty resigned as well. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-23-2007, 01:07 PM	#84 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think next Democratic Party administration in the White House will appoint some DOJ lawyers based on party affiliation. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-23-2007, 01:26 PM	#85 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....once again you leave me bemused and befuddled. Of course, the next Democratic president will appoint Democratic lawyers to political positions, although no recent Democratic president (or Republican president for that matter) fired such attorneys for not pursuing a political agenda in the manner that Bush fired 9 Republican attorneys he appointed. But I am curious as to your insight that the next Democratic administration will use party afflilation as hiring criteria for career (non-political) positions at the DoJ in violation of the Civil Service Act. Based on what? THe Clinton administration didnt do it (the Repubs investigated them on everything including funding for Socks the cat fan club). There is no evidence the Carter administration used such illegal personal practices either. So how do you come by such a conclusion that the next Democratic administration will knowingly and willfully break the law? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-23-2007 at 01:50 PM..

05-25-2007, 08:06 AM	#93 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	What does "pollyanish" mean? At first I thought you might be implying that dc_dux was somehow unrealistically naive. But then I figured that couldn't be it, since dc has, you know, actual experience working in this area. Somehow, I doubt his views on the way things work are actually all that unrealistic. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-25-2007, 06:57 AM	#91 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Why hasn't Gonzales been charged with perjury yet? He told congress that he never met with any of his underlings to discuss his testimony. But Goodling testified he did..... This provides the congress the criminal act by which they can impeach him and override the president.....

05-25-2007, 09:08 AM	#100 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace...what you said was that I "seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington." I made no such judgement about Chicago on this or any other thread (but for the record, I happen to agree with you about past corruption and cronyism at the municipal level) ...my comment was that things are absolutely different in Washington...I will add here...that is because of much more strict personnel/administrative laws at the federal level (ie civil service act, hatch act,etc) regarding the management of government agencies than ever existed in cities like Chicago. That is until those laws and practices were so blatantly violated in the last 6 years at levels never before in my time in Washington. Your inconvenient triuths (no, falsehoods) are catching up with you.....and this should not be interpreted as calling you "cynical, narrow minded or dumb".....well mabe "narrow minded" but that would only be in response to your "pollyanish" charge __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2007 at 09:28 AM..

05-25-2007, 11:29 AM	#102 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	There has to be a way to start a perjury trial against AG other than AG initiating it. Otherwise that is a major problem in our justice system. No one is above the law.

05-31-2007, 06:29 AM	#107 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Thanks DC, I knew there had to be some part of the department which could check Gonzales without him being able to stop it.

05-31-2007, 10:28 AM	#109 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host...I would agree with you if not for the fact that the OPR and IG at DoJ have two high profile committee chairs breathing down their back and who will continue to act concurrently with the DoJ internal investigations. Particularly as a result of Goodling's testimony, in which she: * admitted breaking the law (50 times?) and infered in some cases it was with the knowledge of superiors Rep. Scott: “Rules? Laws? You crossed the law on civil service laws — You crossed the line on civil service law, is that right?” Goodling: “I believe I cross the law — line — but I didn’t mean to.” Rep. Johnson: “Would you say less than 50 or more than 50?” Goodling: “I hesitate to give you an estimate because I can’t remember. I don’t think that I could have done it more than 50 times but I don’t know.” Rep. Jerry Nadler: “Were any of your superiors in the Justice Department aware… that you were asking such kinds of questions either for Assistant US Attorneys or for career positions at all?” Goodling: “Um, in some cases, when, relating to immigration judges (career, non-political positions).... * accused Gonzales of lying to the committee Rep. Davis: “General Gonzales testified that he never saw the US Attorneys list, the list of terminated US Attorneys, is that accurate to your knowledge Ms. Goodling?” Goodling: “Um, I believe he did see a list.” Rep. Davis: “So if General Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the list, you believe that would be inaccurate testimony on his part don’t you?” Goodling: “I believe he saw a list.” Rep. Davis: “So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony?” Goodling: “Yes.” * admitted to having files at DOJ from her opposition research days at the RNC (possibly related to the voter suppresion tactics used in 04 and 06) Rep. Waters: “Do you have files that may have information in it that you gathered during your research, using your opposition research skills?” Goodling: “There would be some files, yes.” Rep. Waters: “Where would those files be?” Goodling: “At the Department of Justice.” These and other issues are far from settled at DoJ, whether it be though internal investigations or overisght hearings. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-31-2007 at 10:33 AM..

08-27-2007, 07:55 AM	#110 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	That took a lot longer than it should have.....

08-29-2007, 06:38 PM	#111 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:23 AM..

08-30-2007, 07:32 AM	#112 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think he will get a 7 figure book deal. I bet his memory will improve after he gets his first advance payment. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

09-03-2007, 04:51 PM	#113 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	What did he do wrong? Why was he being grilled in the first place?