If you could grill Gonzales ... - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So your position is that "it" is a one sided thing. O.k., and you talk about wanting a serious discussion?

The readers of this exchange can determine who has been more objective. We have gotten off topic here and I am not sure I can add any value to Host's other thread.

ace....read what I wrote...."Recent history suggests it goes more one way than the other". That does not imply a "one-sided thing", rather it suggests a "tilt" to the right with more Repub abuses and excesses than Dems when it comes to recent Congressional oversight by a majority party of a Pres of the opposing party.

And the facts bear me out if you take the time to look objectively.

Or post your own facts to make the case (as I asked) that Dem revenge against Reagan or GHW Bush was anything near the level of the Repub Congress "grandstanding" and "milking" of Clinton...and you can even include Dem hearings on Reagan-Iran/Contral and GHW Bush-BCCI/Iraqgate (illegal funding of arms to Iraq)...both having far more serious national policy implications that Clinton's affair.

Absolutely, let the readers determine for themselves if "it" is equally balanced or tilts more one way that the other....and if anyone cares to share facts that back up their opinion, I will be happy to discuss it further in a new thread so as not to get further off track from Gonzales.

aceventura3 · 04-24-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....read what I wrote...."Recent history suggests it goes more one way than the other". That does not imply a "one-sided thing", rather it suggests a "tilt" to the right with more Repub abuses and excesses than Dems when it comes to recent Congressional oversight by a majority party of a Pres of the opposing party.

You are correct. However, recent history, in this context, is simply a function of the party in control. I am sure the Democrats have plans to make up for lost time, included are these Gonzales hearings.

Quote:

And the facts bear me out if you take the time to look objectively.

I am not sure if we really disagree on the issue, which is why I am confused by what you are saying.

I think the "revenge" cycle is real in Washington, you seem to agree.

When the Republican party was in control they abused power to embarass Democrats, you seem to agree. I agree that the worst abuse of power in my lifetime was the Clinton investigation and impeachment garbage, you seem to agree.

When Democrats were in control they abused power to embarass Republicans, I guess you agree but I am not sure. And if you do agree I guess you think the Democratic Party abuses pale in comparision to abuses by Republicans-excluding the Clinton matter.

And now with Democrats in control I am not sure if you think Democrats are going to showing restraint or not, but I do not and the Gonzales hearings is an example of that. Perhaps this is the key point of our disagreement.

Quote:

Or post your own facts to make the case (as I asked) that Dem revenge against Reagan or GHW Bush was anything near the level of the Repub Congress "grandstanding" and "milking" of Clinton...and you can even include Dem hearings on Reagan-Iran/Contral and GHW Bush-BCCI/Iraqgate (illegal funding of arms to Iraq)...both having far more serious national policy implications that Clinton's affair.

I have stated here and in other threads what I thought about the Clinton matter.

In my opinion this Gonzales hearing is an example of what I am talking about - between this thread and the other thread on the Gonzales matter, this issue has been beat to death. Doing the same with other past issues does not interest me. I am more interested in discussing current events. I have no plans on going through the historical record to provide examples.

dc_dux · 04-24-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

I am sure the Democrats have plans to make up for lost time, included are these Gonzales hearings.

You are sure? Based on what? (certainly not on how they treated Reagan and GHW Bush in oversight)

You're right...I am not sure and see nothing from recent history that would suggest that Dems wont show restraint.

Quote:

And now with Democrats in control I am not sure if you think Democrats are going to showing restraint or not, but I do not and the Gonzales hearings is an example of that. Perhaps this is the key point of our disagreement.

At the very least, the Gonzales affair represents mismanagement or incompetence by the AG, and misleading, contradictory and false information by persons, including the AG , regarding the reasons for the firings and the role of the AG and the WH. At it worst, it raised questions about the greater potential for undue political influence in the criminal justice process (opening the door to 412 WH politicos as opposed to 4 previously raises the opporunity and possibility (not certainty) of potential abuse - its common sense, that IMO, most people would agree with even if you dont), and, potential violations of Senate ethics rules (the questioning of a US attorney by a member of Congress (NM senator) on a pending case and then contacting the AG urging the firing of the attorney)

If this does not meet your test for oversight, what does?

Are there other recent oversight hearings that you would characterize as "revenge motivated" rather than fact-finding?

If not, I would ask again...if you are sure that Dems will act in such a manner, based on what?

trickyy · 04-24-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think I recall him saying that he did not want to give the appearance of obstructing the investigation by talking to his staff on the subject to clear up details. I am sure if he started asking his staff a bunch of questions about meetings, emails, etc. that would have a much bigger problem.

he did say that, but doesn't that sound like a [weak] excuse? he has no shortage of electronic and paper references, and his staff have already publicly testified.

he selectively forgets things from a few months ago. it's not that he remembers things differently in these instances, his memory is 100% blank.

i don't think he is being honest, and although you did not answer my earlier question about his honesty, i doubt you think he is being honest either.

aceventura3 · 04-24-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You are sure? Based on what? (certainly not on how they treated Reagan and GHW Bush in oversight)

You're right...I am not sure and see nothing from recent history that would suggest that Dems wont show restraint.

At the very least, the Gonzales affair represents mismanagement or incompetence by the AG, and misleading, contradictory and false information by persons, including the AG , regarding the reasons for the firings and the role of the AG and the WH. At it worst, it raised questions about the greater potential for undue political influence in the criminal justice process (opening the door to 412 WH politicos as opposed to 4 previously raises the opporunity and possibility (not certainty) of potential abuse - its common sense, that IMO, most people would agree with even if you dont), and, potential violations of Senate ethics rules (the questioning of a US attorney by a member of Congress (NM senator) on a pending case and then contacting the AG urging the firing of the attorney)

If this does not meet your test for oversight, what does?

Are there other recent oversight hearings that you would characterize as "revenge motivated" rather than fact-finding?

If not, I would ask again...if you are sure that Dems will act in such a manner, based on what?

This is a clear abuse of Congrssional power for political gain.

Quote:

Politics: The House last week passed legislation giving the District of Columbia voting rights in Congress. Is this correcting an injustice or a violation of the Founding Father's intent?

The bill the House passed on Thursday was something long desired by liberal activists nationwide as a prelude to granting D.C. statehood and expanding Democratic numbers in the Senate.

It expands the House of Representatives to 437 from 435, giving one vote to the District and, to dampen charges of political motives, one extra seat to the red state of Utah.

With typical pomposity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "We know that the citizens of the District of Columbia will give their voices to a vision of justice, equality and opportunity for all. They already have the voice, now they will have the vote."

Would this sentiment have been the same had the District's representative been, say, Rush Limbaugh instead of Eleanor Holmes Norton?

A lot of things in the U.S. Constitution are ambiguous and open to political and judicial debate, but the status of the District of Columbia is not one of them.

"If the citizens of D.C. want voting representation, a constitutional amendment is essential," says Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

Indeed it is.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the "House of Representatives shall be comprised of Members chosen every second Year by People of the several States . . ." and that the "Senate shall be comprised of two Senators from each State . . ."

Well, the District of Columbia is not a state and was deliberately intended by the Founding Fathers not to be one. It is not entitled to representation in either the House or the Senate, unless the Constitution is amended to permit it.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...62221125418515

It does not clearly fall into the oversight category, but it is clearly Unconstitutional and a political maneuver targeted to the black vote.

The Plame testimony was political, served no purpose other than an attempt to embarass the white House.

Al Gore's global warming testimony was political, served no purpose other than to give Gore a shot at the spot light.

The Gonzales hearings.

Or how about the Finance Committe refusing to give a hearing to Bush nominee for Deputy Comissioner post at SSA, purely political because he supports privatization.

How about Pelosi's trip to Syria, purely political and only served as an attempt to embarass the White House.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

he did say that, but doesn't that sound like a [weak] excuse? he has no shortage of electronic and paper references, and his staff have already publicly testified.

he selectively forgets things from a few months ago. it's not that he remembers things differently in these instances, his memory is 100% blank.

i don't think he is being honest, and although you did not answer my earlier question about his honesty, i doubt you think he is being honest either.

I think he is being political in a political environment where everyone is being political.

At this point I am not sure what the bigger concern is - that he was not deeply involved in the firings and delegated too much, or he was deeply involved and is downplaying his role and the role of others in the White House. So far it looks like he was not deeply involved, which makes this even more pointless, in my view. Everyone knew he got the post because of his relationship with Bush and not based on competence, and now they want us to believe his competence is an issue???

I also think the standard was set after the Libby trial. People would be foolish to give specific testimony under oath if it is not spot on perfect because of the risk of perjury over issues not material to a crime. I would always qualify my answers or say I don't recall, wouldn't you.

dc_dux · 04-24-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

This is a clear abuse of Congrssional power for political gain.
It does not clearly fall into the oversight category, but it is clearly Unconstitutional and a political maneuver targeted to the black vote.

The question of a voting delegate in the House is NOT clearly unconstitutional. Many constitutial scholars on both ends of the political spectrum refer to the "seat of government" clause as giving Congress the power:

Artice I, section 8
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This same clause has been used in the past to justify requiring DC residents to pay federal taxes (can I stop paying my fed taxes now?) and be drafted into the military (when we had a draft).

The bill also adds a seat to Utah - a presumed R seat to balance a presumed D seat so how is it partisan or for a political gain rather than to give ME something approaching the same rights YOU have.

I recall the Repub co-sponsor of the bill saying at one time that the reason for the bill, rather than another attempt at a Constitutional amendment (which failed in the past) is because there are many still state legislators, particularly in red states, who make it racial (like you) and equate it with a "black vote" rather than a prvilege of citizenship that should be extended to all citizens.

Quote:

Plame and Gore testimony

I agree the Plame and Gore testimony were one-day "shows.

In the case of Plame, I think it was reasonable to give her an opportunity to refute the blatantly false charges against her spread by the right wing. In Gore's case, I would simply refer you back to the global warming hearings conducted by the Repubs.

Quote:

The Gonzales hearings.

I guess mismanagement or incompetence by the AG, misleading, contradictory and false information by persons, including the AG, greater potential for undue political influence by dropping the DoJ/WH firewall, and potential ethical violations of members of Congress....does not meet your threshold for oversight. I couldnt disagree more.

Quote:

The hearing to Bush nominee for Deputy Comissioner post at SSA

How about the 8 Clinton judicial nominees who were never given a hearing by the Repubs....8 lifetime judges vs 1 beaurocrat for 2 years...I would suggest the Repubs got the best of this exchange.

But you're right. They should have had a hearing, then voted him down in committee because his goal is not to protect and ensure the credible administration of SS , but to dismantle the current system.

Quote:

Pelosi's trip to Syria, purely political and only served as an attempt to embarass the White House

Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) was also on that trip. But in an interview published in the WaPo, he states that he never received any of the attacks that were thrown at Pelosi:

“Before we left, we met with the State Department people and nobody told us not to go,” Hobson said, adding that none of his Republican colleagues broached the subject, either. “Nobody ever called me to say, ‘Why are you going to Syria with those people?’“

Hobson has also defended Pelosi against his colleagues’ attacks, noting that she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”

The Repub attaks of Pelosi and not Hobson or the group of Repubs who went to Syria one month earlier (do you think their trip was "purely political" or just Pelosi's) is about as hypocritical and ugly partisanship as anything I have seen recently.

ace...I would still ask...what is your test for reasonable and responsible oversight?

aceventura3 · 04-24-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The question of a voting delegate in the House is NOT clearly unconstitutional. Many constitutial scholars on both ends of the political spectrum refer to the "seat of government" clause as giving Congress the power:

True - there was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I blame it on the media, people like Rosie O'donnel. They encourage an irrational tone. But I do think the step taken by congress here is wrong and purely for political gain.

Quote:

The bill also adds a seat to Utah - a presumed R seat to balance a presumed D seat so how is it partisan or for a political gain rather than to give ME something approaching the same rights YOU have.

First - giving the seat in Utah has nothing to do with giving people in DC representation, in essence proving the issue is purely a strategic political move.

Second - The issue of DC statehood has been around for a long time. I see this as an attempted step in that direction. If DC had a Republican base a Democratic Congress would not have done this, again proving my point that it is less about representation and more about maintaining control.

Quote:

I recall the Repub co-sponsor of the bill saying at one time that the reason for the bill, rather than another attempt at a Constitutional amendment (which failed in the past) is because there are many still state legislators, particularly in red states, who make it racial (like you) and equate it with a "black vote" rather than a prvilege of citizenship that should be extended to all citizens.

I am not affraid to call it like I see it. We can pretend that Democrats don't have a lock on the "black community", and pretend that they don't want to keep it, and pretend that this issue doesn't help the cause, or we can put it on the table and discuss it.

Quote:

How about the 8 Clinton judicial nominees who were never given a hearing by the Repubs....8 lifetime judges vs 1 beaurocrat for 2 years...I would suggest the Repubs got the best of this exchange.

But you're right. They should have had a hearing, then voted him down in committee because his goal is not to protect and ensure the credible administration of SS , but to dismantle the current system.

The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Democrats, in my opinion, want to avoid debate on the issue. Bush did a recess appointment, so he is in anyway.

Quote:

Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) was also on that trip. But in an interview published in the WaPo, he states that he never received any of the attacks that were thrown at Pelosi:

“Before we left, we met with the State Department people and nobody told us not to go,” Hobson said, adding that none of his Republican colleagues broached the subject, either. “Nobody ever called me to say, ‘Why are you going to Syria with those people?’“

Hobson has also defended Pelosi against his colleagues’ attacks, noting that she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”

The Repub attaks of Pelosi and not Hobson or the group of Repubs who went to Syria one month earlier (do you think their trip was "purely political" or just Pelosi's) is about as hypocritical and ugly partisanship as anything I have seen recently.

The hole thing was political nad served no purpose other than the White House and Pelosi trying to upstage each other. Pelosi was sending a political message to her supporters, Bush was sending a political message to his (and to ME countries and our enemies), Syria and others had their political agendas as well.

Quote:

ace...I would still ask...what is your test for reasonable and responsible oversight?

Oversight is fundementally about people protecting that which is in their best interest. It becomes irresponsible when it is dishonest in my view.

Like him or not Bush says what he wants or what he wants to do and does it. Others often say one thing and mean or want another thing.

A perfect example is the DC issue. Democrats are not looking out for your right to vote, they are looking out for their ability to control more votes in Congress. Giving the issue thought-it is clear that one seat in DC will translate to more political power than one seat in Utah. And one House seat in DC is one step closer to two senate seats, which will be Democratic.

dc_dux · 04-24-2007, 02:58 PM

ace.....I would urge you to read the testimony of Kenneth Starr (hardly a flaming liberal) and his argument for voting rights in the House based on the "Seat of Goverment Clause majestic in its scope" (link-pdf)

or Viet Dinh, conservative former US attorney, Georgtown Univ law professor and principal author of the Patriot Act - "The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Represenation in the House of Representatives" (link-pdf)

But beyond that, DC voting rights in the House is not a desire among most DC voting rights supporters for statehood or Senators. The supporters believe in the concept that the House of Rep is the "people's house" including the people of DC...and the Senate is the "states house" as envisoned in the Constution.

Now we are way off track....but please, read up more on DC voting rights before you jump to conclusions and make broad generalizations.

edit - my final thoughts on the central issue here, now that we've beaten it to death:
On rereading many of your posts, IMO (and I am not trying to read your mind or put words in your mouth), it appears to me that actions that you dont agree with you tend to characterize as politically motivated for political gain (you use those expressions often), rather than having any altrustic motive or public policy value.

I think its sad to have such a cynical attitude about goverment and politics, but I do understand what has driven people to that extreme.

aceventura3 · 04-25-2007, 02:33 PM

I expect people to do what they think is their best interest. When they do, I enjoy pointing it out to people who don't get it. The joy I get in looking, understanding and pointing out how decisions and actions are guided by that basic principle is the sad part, primarily because I waste so much time doing it (my wife hates it, so I come here for my regular fix). This is another one of my weaknesses, but at least I know what they are.

Just to be clear, I actually, don't have a cynical attitude about politics and government any more than I have a cynical attitude about wolves hunting and killing prey. It is just the nature of things.

dc_dux · 04-25-2007, 02:47 PM

ace....just a word of friendly advice.

Its always wise to have a full set of facts before you "point out to people who dont get it"... "how decisions and actions (of other people you dont know) are guided."

In the words of one of our most revered politicians:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln

Willravel · 04-25-2007, 02:50 PM

If you could grill Gonzales...

host · 04-25-2007, 11:19 PM

ace....even with the extreme politicization of the DOJ by the Bush admin., corrupt republican officials were still being indicted and convicted....and that is a good thing....appointees of a republican president investigating crime and indicting and prosecuting those republicans who are too blatantly corrupt and dishonest to be overlooked or benignly neglected:

democrats now in control of the house and the senate, just want to be sure that justice will continue to be pursued, and right now....they don't have that assurance....here is a description of "the problem" that I outlined in my <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2234143&postcount=8">last post</a> over at the "two parties" thread. I think that I did a good job of supporting my contentions there with news articles, and what I posted there, matched nicely with this:

<b>Consider that the following "testimony" from Sampson happened on March 29, 2007.....and....even after Sampson's obvious lies and contradictions about the justification for firing Carol Lam was videotaped (click on link displayed in next quote box), Gonzales told the same obvious lies, while testifying under oath, 3 weeks later:

"Gonzales hedged the question, saying that Lam must have known that there was “interest” in and “concern” with her immigration performance. Members of Congress, Gonzales said, had complained about Lam’s performance. Gonzales allowed that she “may not have been told that if there is no change in policy, there will be a change,” but seemed to think that was an unimportant distinction." <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003055.php">Watch the Video</a>
</b>

Quote:

<b>Sampson Admits He Made Call To Silence FBI Complaints Over Lam’s Firing</b>

During today’s hearing, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) questioned Kyle Sampson about the head of the FBI office in San Diego, Dan Dzwilewski, who told reporters in January that Carol Lam’s firing was a blow to efforts to prosecute ongoing cases.

At a hearing with FBI Director Robert Mueller this week, Feinstein said that Dzwilewski’s office had told her it had subsequently been contacted and “warned to say no more.” Under questioning today, Sampson acknowledged he had made a call to complain about Dzwilewski’s statement. But Sampson said he had merely “asked…why an FBI employee was commenting on that issue.” Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/29/sampson-feinstein/

Also today, Sampson claimed that the “real problem” with Carol Lam that Sampson referred to in an email “was her office’s prosecution of immigration cases.”

Feinstein told Sampson, “It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases.” She then revealed a letter of commendation to Carol Lam dated Feb. 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. She read some excerpts to Sampson:

(Link to letter of praise from US Border Patrol to Carol Lam:
http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com...ion-letter.pdf )

"To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts."

Transcript:

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I’d like to go back to your answers to Senator Specter’s questions, when he asked you about the notice you received on the search warrant on May 10th, 2006, and you indicate — and he asked you if that was related — the real problem aspect was related to this case. And you said no, it was her immigration record. I’m sending — asking my chief counsel to give you a letter and asking that that letter be also distributed to the committee as well as to the press. This is a letter dated February 15th…

LEAHY: And does the senator want that in the record also?

FEINSTEIN: I would. Thank you very much.

LEAHY: Without objection.

FEINSTEIN: … September 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. It’s sent to Carol Lam. And it is a letter of commendation, and I will just read a few sections.

To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

In validation of enforcement initiatives, your staff aggressively prosecuted enrollees in the Sentry program who engaged in smuggling to support a zero-tolerance posture. They have focused on cases of fraud, special-interest aliens, prosecution of criminal aliens and supported our sustained disrupt operations.

The prosecution’s unit presented 416 alien smuggling cases, which represents a 33 percent increase over the 314 cases presented in ‘05. The prosecutions unit identified and pursued the prosecution of several recidivist alien smugglers and presented 30 non-threshold alien smuggling cases for prosecution, resulting in a 100 percent conviction rate. This represents a 329 percent increase over the seven non-threshold cases presented in 2005.

<h3>Additionally, a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases.</h3> It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. Now, if I might go on, who, Mr. Sampson, was Dusty Foggo or is Dusty Foggo?

SAMPSON: I understand from news reports, Senator, and from general knowledge, that he was an employee at the CIA.

FEINSTEIN: And who is Mr. Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t know. I understand, again from news reports, that he’s affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo.<br>
<h3>It should be an outrage to the sensibilities of any thinking person, to read that the recently resigned Chief of Staff of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, would answer, "I don't know"....when asked, while testifying under oath, if he knew who the named, principle briber of Randy Cunningham was, since Cunningham was sentenced, just 14 months ago, to the longest federal prison term ever meted out for corruption while in office related offenses, more so....since Wilkes was also the best friend of the #3 official at CIA, who was indicted by US Attorney Lam's office on charges related to bribery, just as Cunningham's crimes were.....WTF are the interests and priorties of Gonzales and Sampson???? - host </h3>

FEINSTEIN: And are you aware that on May 10th Carol Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying she would be seeking a search warrant of the CIA investigation into Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t remember ever seeing such a notice.

<b>FEINSTEIN: But the next day you wrote the e-mail</b> which says, The real problem we have right now — right now — with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day after her four-year term expires, that that relates to her immigration record.

SAMPSON: The real problem that I was referring to in that e-mail was her office’s failure to being sufficient immigration cases.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

SAMPSON: The attorney general in the month before had been subject to criticism at his — at a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. And thereafter at the Department of Justice, in our senior management meeting with the deputy attorney general and others, there had been a robust discussion about how to address that issue.

The department was being criticized for not doing enough to enforce the border, largely by House Republicans. And the attorney general was concerned about it. And he asked the deputy attorney general to take some action to address that issue.

I recall also that the deputy attorney general was scheduled to meet with the California House Republicans, who were critical of Carol Lam, on May 11th.

<b>FEINSTEIN: Let me just move on.

On January 13th, Dan Dzwilewski, the head of the FBI office in San Diego, said that he thought Carol Lam’s continued employment was crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations.

FEINSTEIN: Did you call FBI headquarters and complain about those comments?

SAMPSON: I did.</b> I called Lisa Monaco (ph), who serves as a special assistant to the director of the FBI, and asked her why an FBI employee was commenting on that issue.

FEINSTEIN: And why would you think that the special agent in charge in the area should not comment on whether her termination was going to affect cases?

SAMPSON: I understood that Carol Lam was a political appointee, and that a decision had been made in the executive branch to ask her to resign so that others could serve.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

Quote:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-04-23.html
Miers weighed Yang’s firing according to Sen. Feinstein
By Susan Crabtree
April 24, 2007
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers discussed firing ex-U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, who was leading an investigation into lucrative ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and a lobbying firm before she left her government post voluntarily last fall, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged in a hearing last week.

Feinstein has repeatedly questioned the circumstances surrounding Yang’s departure, but until last week she provided no reasons for her suspicions. Last Thursday, however, during the questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales late in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Feinstein flatly stated that Miers had discussed “whether to remove Debra Yang from Los Angeles.”

A Feinstein spokesman indicated only that the senator had learned that Miers had considered ousting Yang “through interviews” and did not respond to repeated questions to elaborate. Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is leading the probe, also did not respond to questions about whether Miers had targeted Yang and any evidence Feinstein may have about it.

Yang resigned last October, months before Democrats began reviewing the Justice Department’s decision to fire eight other federal prosecutors. According to a report in the American Lawyer, she was lured away by a $1.5 million-plus offer to become a partner at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, which is defending Lewis in the probe.

Yang will co-chair the firm’s crisis-management practice group, along with Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general of the Bush administration who is now at the firm’s D.C. office. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Fuchs, Yang’s colleague at the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office, also has joined her at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. Yang and Fuchs have recused themselves from working on Lewis’s defense.

Fuchs did not respond to The Hill’s queries. Yang responded by e-mail yesterday but gave no details, saying only she had been busy with work and had not followed Feinstein’s comments about Miers.

In an interview with The Hill last month, Yang dismissed questions about the timing of her departure, which occurred about a month before seven other U.S. attorneys were fired late last year. She argued that she left for personal reasons based on financial concerns and the fact that she is a single mother. She said it had nothing to do with the firings of other U.S. federal prosecutors.

While Feinstein has repeatedly questioned the motive behind Yang’s decision to leave the U.S. attorney job, she provided no reasons for her suspicion before the hearing.

“I have questions about Debra Yang’s departure and I can’t answer those questions right at this time,” Feinstein told reporters on March 20. “Was she asked to resign, and if so, why? We have to ferret that out.”

Feinstein also contends that former San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam’s firing is connected to her role in the investigation of former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (Calif.), who is in jail for accepting bribes in return for contracts. The Lewis probe is related to the Cunningham probe, which has recently ballooned to include the former third-highest ranking official at the CIA as well as a San Diego businessman.......

aceventura3 · 04-26-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....just a word of friendly advice.

Its always wise to have a full set of facts before you "point out to people who dont get it"... "how decisions and actions (of other people you dont know) are guided."

I not sure what set of facts you are referring to, but if your implication is that I don't have 100% of the facts on an issue and you do...(never mind).

Or that a person can not comment on an issue unless they have 100% of the facts...(never mind).

Or that I have never admitted an error and you have...(never mind).

Or that your facts are better than mine... (never mind).

You are trying to bait me into going into the gutter, aren't you? Its like waiving a peice of fresh red meat in front of a lion, but no, I will avoid it today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....even with the extreme politicization of the DOJ by the Bush admin., corrupt republican officials were still being indicted and convicted....and that is a good thing....appointees of a republican president investigating crime and indicting and prosecuting those republicans who are too blatantly corrupt and dishonest to be overlooked or benignly neglected:

Host,

I am not sure what you want from me. Do you want me to say that Republicans are bad and do everything for the wrong reasons, and Democrats are good and do everything for the right reasons? I can not do it, because it is not true. This issue is political, not an issue about justice.

dc_dux · 04-26-2007, 09:25 AM

MR. AG:

The House Judiciary Committee voted 32-6 (thats alot of Rebubs voting "aye") to authorize give immunity to Monica Goodling, your primarily liaison to the White House. If the Committee decides to move forward with the immunity offer, she will be compelled to testify (with no 5th amendment claim) or face contempt charges.

Since she was apparently involved in crucial discussions over a two-year period with senior White House aides and would potentially be a key witness to any possible undue or improper interference from the WH.....

Do you want to take one more crack at refreshing your memory and/or encouraging the WH to be more responsive to requests for key documents that appear to be "missing or lost"?

04-24-2007, 02:58 PM	#88 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.....I would urge you to read the testimony of Kenneth Starr (hardly a flaming liberal) and his argument for voting rights in the House based on the "Seat of Goverment Clause majestic in its scope" (link-pdf) or Viet Dinh, conservative former US attorney, Georgtown Univ law professor and principal author of the Patriot Act - "The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Represenation in the House of Representatives" (link-pdf) But beyond that, DC voting rights in the House is not a desire among most DC voting rights supporters for statehood or Senators. The supporters believe in the concept that the House of Rep is the "people's house" including the people of DC...and the Senate is the "states house" as envisoned in the Constution. Now we are way off track....but please, read up more on DC voting rights before you jump to conclusions and make broad generalizations. edit - my final thoughts on the central issue here, now that we've beaten it to death: On rereading many of your posts, IMO (and I am not trying to read your mind or put words in your mouth), it appears to me that actions that you dont agree with you tend to characterize as politically motivated for political gain (you use those expressions often), rather than having any altrustic motive or public policy value. I think its sad to have such a cynical attitude about goverment and politics, but I do understand what has driven people to that extreme. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-24-2007 at 03:57 PM..

04-25-2007, 02:33 PM	#89 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I expect people to do what they think is their best interest. When they do, I enjoy pointing it out to people who don't get it. The joy I get in looking, understanding and pointing out how decisions and actions are guided by that basic principle is the sad part, primarily because I waste so much time doing it (my wife hates it, so I come here for my regular fix). This is another one of my weaknesses, but at least I know what they are. Just to be clear, I actually, don't have a cynical attitude about politics and government any more than I have a cynical attitude about wolves hunting and killing prey. It is just the nature of things. __________________ "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."

04-25-2007, 02:47 PM	#90 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....just a word of friendly advice. Its always wise to have a full set of facts before you "point out to people who dont get it"... "how decisions and actions (of other people you dont know) are guided." In the words of one of our most revered politicians: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-26-2007, 09:25 AM	#94 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	MR. AG: The House Judiciary Committee voted 32-6 (thats alot of Rebubs voting "aye") to authorize give immunity to Monica Goodling, your primarily liaison to the White House. If the Committee decides to move forward with the immunity offer, she will be compelled to testify (with no 5th amendment claim) or face contempt charges. Since she was apparently involved in crucial discussions over a two-year period with senior White House aides and would potentially be a key witness to any possible undue or improper interference from the WH..... Do you want to take one more crack at refreshing your memory and/or encouraging the WH to be more responsive to requests for key documents that appear to be "missing or lost"? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-26-2007 at 09:47 AM..

04-25-2007, 02:50 PM	#91 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If you could grill Gonzales...