Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Fired U.S. Attorneys Will Meet in Seattle - Capitol Briefing
Washington Post
Joining McKay will be David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Paul K. Charlton, the former prosecutor for Arizona. McKay, Iglesias and Charlton are three of the most controversial firings of the eight ousted prosecutors, because they were either conducting sensitive investigations of Republicans or under fire for not prosecuting Democrats around the time of their dismissals on Dec. 7. All three were also contacted by members of Congress or their staff at a sensitive time regarding ongoing criminal corruption investigations.
The four-hour symposium could spark sharp criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House for alleged politicization of the Justice Department. One session is titled: 'The 2007 Experience -- Myths and Realities: explanation of the current incidents, with comparison of historical similarities and differences.'"
Joining McKay will be David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Paul K. Charlton, the former prosecutor for Arizona. McKay, Iglesias and Charlton are three of the most controversial firings of the eight ousted prosecutors, because they were either conducting sensitive investigations of Republicans or under fire for not prosecuting Democrats around the time of their dismissals on Dec. 7. All three were also contacted by members of Congress or their staff at a sensitive time regarding ongoing criminal corruption investigations.
The four-hour symposium could spark sharp criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House for alleged politicization of the Justice Department. One session is titled: 'The 2007 Experience -- Myths and Realities: explanation of the current incidents, with comparison of historical similarities and differences.'"
Taleb on Forum (NPR)
Tip from Uncle Andy:
The show discusses randomness, probability and evidence with philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of "Fooled by Randomness" and, most recently, "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable."
Host: Dave Iverson
Guests:
Thu, Apr 26, 2007 -- 10:00 AM
Immigration Series: Patterns of Migration
The show discusses randomness, probability and evidence with philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of "Fooled by Randomness" and, most recently, "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable."
Host: Dave Iverson
Guests:
 | Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" |
Thu, Apr 26, 2007 -- 10:00 AM
Immigration Series: Patterns of Migration
 | Listen (RealMedia stream) |
| Download (MP3) (Windows: right-click and choose "Save Target As." Mac: hold Ctrl, click link, and choose "Save As.") |
Thursday, April 26, 2007
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 04/26/2007 | Bush administration targeted another top federal prosecutor
McClatchy Washington Bureau 04/26/2007 Bush administration targeted another top federal prosecutor:
"The attorney general is to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on May 8. "
"The attorney general is to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on May 8. "
November, 2005 Google CEO Interview
Epicenter - Wired Blogs:
"Eighteen months ago, in November 2005, I interviewed Google CEO Eric Schmidt for a story I was working on for Fortune Magazine. I left the magazine before I finished the piece, and in a classic case of old media thinking, I didn’t publish the interview. It seemed like a great piece of research for a bigger Google story in the future, so I squirreled it away hoping for a better time to use it. When I finished my most recent interview with Schmidt at the end of March, I decided I’d made a mistake - that I needed to post it. The interview is a fascinating conversation about how Schmidt along with founder Larry Page and Sergey Brin ran and, based on recent conversations, continue to run the most interesting and profitable company in a generation. In it Schmidt talks about what it was like to join Google back in 2001 when it wasn’t yet making money, how the company almost disintegrated amid bickering over how to partner with AOL in 2002, how he was ultimately able to bond with the two powerful founders when most other executives would have become frustrated, and how flying his own jet helps him manage"
"Eighteen months ago, in November 2005, I interviewed Google CEO Eric Schmidt for a story I was working on for Fortune Magazine. I left the magazine before I finished the piece, and in a classic case of old media thinking, I didn’t publish the interview. It seemed like a great piece of research for a bigger Google story in the future, so I squirreled it away hoping for a better time to use it. When I finished my most recent interview with Schmidt at the end of March, I decided I’d made a mistake - that I needed to post it. The interview is a fascinating conversation about how Schmidt along with founder Larry Page and Sergey Brin ran and, based on recent conversations, continue to run the most interesting and profitable company in a generation. In it Schmidt talks about what it was like to join Google back in 2001 when it wasn’t yet making money, how the company almost disintegrated amid bickering over how to partner with AOL in 2002, how he was ultimately able to bond with the two powerful founders when most other executives would have become frustrated, and how flying his own jet helps him manage"
Think Progress » RNC Releases Partial List Of White House Officials With Party Email Accounts
Think Progress » RNC Releases Partial List Of White House Officials With Party Email Accounts: "The White House use of these accounts appears to be extremely extensive. The letter states that the RNC “has gathered approximately 25,500,000 kilobytes of e-mail data from the 37 individuals listed above.” Moreover, this figure “will almost certainly increase” once forensic experts complete the “collection of active e-mail files off of hard drives and blackberries.”"
Bar association gives ex-U.S. attorney Lam 'prestigious' award
via Think Progress
SAN DIEGO -- Carol Lam, one of eight former U.S. attorneys across the country whose dismissals have ignited a political firestorm and calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has been named outstanding attorney of the year by the San Diego County Bar Association, the organization announced Wednesday afternoon.
Andy Albert, the association's immediate past president, said the decision to give Lam what the association calls its "most prestigious" award was not a political one.
"We just felt she was a great example of courage and dignity under fire," Albert said. "She really took the high road in her entire tenure. ... It was merely a recognition of the high-class way she represented herself and, as an extension, the legal community."
Lam, a senior vice president and legal counsel for Qualcomm, Inc., since February, said Wednesday that the award is "a great honor."
"I'd like to be accepting the award on behalf of the United States attorney's office," Lam said. "The attorneys in that office surely deserve it more than I do.
"In a news release announcing the award for Lam and 10 other awards, the bar association said Lam "has demonstrated the highest level of ethics and professionalism and fought government corruption and corporate misdeeds."
A longtime assistant U.S. attorney, Lam was appointed to and served as a Superior Court judge for less than two years before being named U.S. attorney in San Diego in 2002. Lam resigned as the top federal prosecutor Feb. 15.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, whose district covers much of North County and Temecula, was a vocal critic of Lam, contending she was not prosecuting alien smuggling and other border cases enough.
Issa's spokesman, Frederick Hill, said Wednesday afternoon that the congressman's criticism of Lam was focused on a "policy difference," and that Issa believes Lam deserves the recognition the bar association is giving her.
"Congressman Issa thinks the bar association has made a good choice," Hill said Wednesday. "Carol Lam has made important contributions to San Diego."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Critics of the firings of Lam and the other U.S. attorneys have argued that the actions were politically motivated. The White House has said the dismissals were for failing to follow policy objectives.
A former top official at the Justice Department testified to Congress in March that Lam was asked to resign because of a problem with her immigration prosecutions and not because her office pursued a political corruption case that resulted in a guilty plea and federal prison sentence for now-disgraced former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican.
SAN DIEGO -- Carol Lam, one of eight former U.S. attorneys across the country whose dismissals have ignited a political firestorm and calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has been named outstanding attorney of the year by the San Diego County Bar Association, the organization announced Wednesday afternoon.
Andy Albert, the association's immediate past president, said the decision to give Lam what the association calls its "most prestigious" award was not a political one.
"We just felt she was a great example of courage and dignity under fire," Albert said. "She really took the high road in her entire tenure. ... It was merely a recognition of the high-class way she represented herself and, as an extension, the legal community."
Lam, a senior vice president and legal counsel for Qualcomm, Inc., since February, said Wednesday that the award is "a great honor."
"I'd like to be accepting the award on behalf of the United States attorney's office," Lam said. "The attorneys in that office surely deserve it more than I do.
"In a news release announcing the award for Lam and 10 other awards, the bar association said Lam "has demonstrated the highest level of ethics and professionalism and fought government corruption and corporate misdeeds."
A longtime assistant U.S. attorney, Lam was appointed to and served as a Superior Court judge for less than two years before being named U.S. attorney in San Diego in 2002. Lam resigned as the top federal prosecutor Feb. 15.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, whose district covers much of North County and Temecula, was a vocal critic of Lam, contending she was not prosecuting alien smuggling and other border cases enough.
Issa's spokesman, Frederick Hill, said Wednesday afternoon that the congressman's criticism of Lam was focused on a "policy difference," and that Issa believes Lam deserves the recognition the bar association is giving her.
"Congressman Issa thinks the bar association has made a good choice," Hill said Wednesday. "Carol Lam has made important contributions to San Diego."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Critics of the firings of Lam and the other U.S. attorneys have argued that the actions were politically motivated. The White House has said the dismissals were for failing to follow policy objectives.
A former top official at the Justice Department testified to Congress in March that Lam was asked to resign because of a problem with her immigration prosecutions and not because her office pursued a political corruption case that resulted in a guilty plea and federal prison sentence for now-disgraced former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Think Progress: Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
«
Tonight on MSNBC, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.
Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation. Despite suggestions that the White House may have initiated the OSC investigation to obstruct parallel congressional probes, Iglesias expressed confidence in Bloch.
Iglesias also said that while evidence of Rove’s potential illegal actions is currently only circumstantial, “I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.”
[T]he Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.
Finally, Iglesias said he believes that Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge, since she can describe the communication that took place between the White House and the Justice Department.
Below, key excerpts from Iglesias’ interview:
Iglesias filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House officials, likely leading to the Office of Special Counsel probe.
MATTHEWS: Was your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel the reason for this investigation of Karl Rove?
IGLESIAS: It could have started the ball rolling, yes. It’s is something I filed back on April 3 of this year…based on, you know, Special Counsel having powers to investigate where evidence goes. I actually filed a Hatch Act complaint against Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson and Goodling and they’re already getting documents from the Justice Department and possibly from the White House. […]
MATTHEWS: Do you believe the investigators, have they talked to you at all, have the people at the office — has Scott Bloch talked to you at all?
IGLESIAS: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Bloch and his deputy and two other attorneys approximately three weeks ago.
MATTHEWS: And did that lead you to believe they were going to act like they have?
IGLESIAS: Yes, yes. Yes, it did.
MATTHEWS: So you believe affirmatively that your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel in the Justice Department led to this probe we’re reading about today in the L.A. Times, the Associated Press and here on NBC?
IGLESIAS: I do. There may be other complainants that I’m not aware of, but I believe my complaints are at least a partial basis for that.
There is a paper trail documenting the attorney purge, and if it’s not in the Justice Department, it’s in the White House.
SWEET: When you talk about how you wanted to know the link between the e-mails and the memos, sometimes a good lawyer knows the answer to a question before they ask it. Do you know what are in some of those memos and emails?
IGLESIAS: No, I sure don’t. But I do know that the Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.
Karl Rove may have violated the Hatch Act.
MATTHEWS: What law do you believe [Rove] broke?
IGLESIAS: He could have violated the Hatch Act by putting undue pressure on the Justice Department to fire me and my colleagues.
MATTHEWS: Do you have any evidence that Karl Rove had a hand in your dumping, your firing?
IGLESIAS: There are some emails — there is some evidence. It is circumstantial now. I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.
Monica Goodling “holds the keys” to uncovering the reasons behind the firings.
I think Monica Goodling is holding the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript, and have her describe the process between the information flow between the White House counsel, White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer.
«
Tonight on MSNBC, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.
Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation. Despite suggestions that the White House may have initiated the OSC investigation to obstruct parallel congressional probes, Iglesias expressed confidence in Bloch.
Iglesias also said that while evidence of Rove’s potential illegal actions is currently only circumstantial, “I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.”
[T]he Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.
Finally, Iglesias said he believes that Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge, since she can describe the communication that took place between the White House and the Justice Department.
Below, key excerpts from Iglesias’ interview:
Iglesias filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House officials, likely leading to the Office of Special Counsel probe.
MATTHEWS: Was your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel the reason for this investigation of Karl Rove?
IGLESIAS: It could have started the ball rolling, yes. It’s is something I filed back on April 3 of this year…based on, you know, Special Counsel having powers to investigate where evidence goes. I actually filed a Hatch Act complaint against Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson and Goodling and they’re already getting documents from the Justice Department and possibly from the White House. […]
MATTHEWS: Do you believe the investigators, have they talked to you at all, have the people at the office — has Scott Bloch talked to you at all?
IGLESIAS: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Bloch and his deputy and two other attorneys approximately three weeks ago.
MATTHEWS: And did that lead you to believe they were going to act like they have?
IGLESIAS: Yes, yes. Yes, it did.
MATTHEWS: So you believe affirmatively that your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel in the Justice Department led to this probe we’re reading about today in the L.A. Times, the Associated Press and here on NBC?
IGLESIAS: I do. There may be other complainants that I’m not aware of, but I believe my complaints are at least a partial basis for that.
There is a paper trail documenting the attorney purge, and if it’s not in the Justice Department, it’s in the White House.
SWEET: When you talk about how you wanted to know the link between the e-mails and the memos, sometimes a good lawyer knows the answer to a question before they ask it. Do you know what are in some of those memos and emails?
IGLESIAS: No, I sure don’t. But I do know that the Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.
Karl Rove may have violated the Hatch Act.
MATTHEWS: What law do you believe [Rove] broke?
IGLESIAS: He could have violated the Hatch Act by putting undue pressure on the Justice Department to fire me and my colleagues.
MATTHEWS: Do you have any evidence that Karl Rove had a hand in your dumping, your firing?
IGLESIAS: There are some emails — there is some evidence. It is circumstantial now. I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.
Monica Goodling “holds the keys” to uncovering the reasons behind the firings.
I think Monica Goodling is holding the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript, and have her describe the process between the information flow between the White House counsel, White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer.
Kucinich announces impeachment charges against VP Cheney
The Raw Story
"Update: The Articles of Impeachment themselves are now available, and can be accessed [here].
After a series of delays, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for president in 2008, announced a series of charges against Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, DC, late in the day. Kucinich alleged that the Vice President had committed a series of impeachable offenses, and he was therefore introducing Articles of Impeachment against Cheney in the Congress today.
Kucinich started off by reading the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, arguing they were 'instructive at this moment.'
'Whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official must be held accountable,' he said.
The Ohio Democrat's move intended to provide a 'defense of the rights of American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful.'
Kucinich excoriated the Vice President who he called 'a driving force for taking us into war against Iraq under false pretenses, and is once again rattling sabers of war against Iran, with the same intent to drive America into war, again based on false pretenses.'
The Ohio Congressman, who is running for president for the second time, noted three charges in his Articles of Impeachment, which were submitted as House Resolution 333. The first concerned manipulation of intelligence about Iraq's threat to the US. The second concerned manipulation of intelligence on the Iraq-Al-Qaida relationship. The last concerned what he called having "openly threatened aggression against the Republican of Iran."
"Update: The Articles of Impeachment themselves are now available, and can be accessed [here].
After a series of delays, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for president in 2008, announced a series of charges against Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington, DC, late in the day. Kucinich alleged that the Vice President had committed a series of impeachable offenses, and he was therefore introducing Articles of Impeachment against Cheney in the Congress today.
Kucinich started off by reading the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, arguing they were 'instructive at this moment.'
'Whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official must be held accountable,' he said.
The Ohio Democrat's move intended to provide a 'defense of the rights of American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful.'
Kucinich excoriated the Vice President who he called 'a driving force for taking us into war against Iraq under false pretenses, and is once again rattling sabers of war against Iran, with the same intent to drive America into war, again based on false pretenses.'
The Ohio Congressman, who is running for president for the second time, noted three charges in his Articles of Impeachment, which were submitted as House Resolution 333. The first concerned manipulation of intelligence about Iraq's threat to the US. The second concerned manipulation of intelligence on the Iraq-Al-Qaida relationship. The last concerned what he called having "openly threatened aggression against the Republican of Iran."
Kucinich claimed the charges were "deeply researched," in the press conference, and insisted that his accusations were not just a political stunt.
"This is not brought forth lightly. I've carefully weighed the options available to Members of Congress, and I have found this path the path that is most important to take," he explained.
Kucinich dodged a question about whether or not he had the support of fellow Members of Congress, and claimed the Articles were just now being examined by Congress members, and "you can't expect anyone to make a snap judgment."
He also said that he was only introducing the resolution, and not going to try and persuade Members of Congress to join him
"I'm not promoting it," he told Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Situation Room.
The former Cleveland Mayor further acknowledged in the press conference that he had not recently spoken with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on the matter. Pelosi had said last year that impeach[ment] was "off the table."
In a conference call with today, the Speaker went further, telling RAW STORY that "President Bush was not worth it," because impeachment proceedings would be a distraction from passing Democratic policies that would ensure the party's future political victory.
Pelosi: "We will do more work to make for our own reelection, and maintain a Democratic Congress, and have a Democratic President," she said. "And frankly, for impeachment, George W. Bush is just not worth it. We have great work to do for the American people."
He also acknowledged that he had not yet discussed his charges with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, whose committee must consider whether or not to forward the articles on to Congress.
A reporter asked Kucinich why the Vice President should be impeached, and not President George W. Bush.
Kucinich: "There is a very practical reason - each and every charge relates to Vice President Cheney's conduct or misconduct in office," he said. But he added, "It is very important that we start with Mr. Cheney because if we were to start with the President, Mr. Cheney would then become president. ... We'd have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."
The full Articles themselves, a large collection of PDF documents [i.e., the support for the assertions in the articles], are accessible at Congressman Kucinich's website.
More USA...LA USA Yang
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.
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.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Daily Kos: US Attorney Scandal: Rep. Roy Blunt connection to Todd Graves and Bud Cummins
Daily Kos: US Attorney Scandal: Rep. Roy Blunt connection to Todd Graves and Bud Cummins:
"Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. 'Bud' Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.
Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.
In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.
But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year's end to make room for Timothy Griffin — an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove.
In an interview Thursday, Cummins expressed disgust that the Bush administration may have fired him and the others for political reasons. 'You have to firewall politics out of the Department of Justice.
Because once it gets in, people question every decision you make. Now I keep asking myself: 'What about the Blunt deal?' '
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have cited the firing of Cummins and the corruption investigation he was supervising as evidence that the dismissals were politically motivated."
"Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. 'Bud' Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.
Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.
In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state's driver's license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.
But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year's end to make room for Timothy Griffin — an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove.
In an interview Thursday, Cummins expressed disgust that the Bush administration may have fired him and the others for political reasons. 'You have to firewall politics out of the Department of Justice.
Because once it gets in, people question every decision you make. Now I keep asking myself: 'What about the Blunt deal?' '
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have cited the firing of Cummins and the corruption investigation he was supervising as evidence that the dismissals were politically motivated."
URB
Think Progress » High praise for Gonzales.:
"High praise for Gonzales.Here’s Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee overseeing the probe into the U.S. attorney firings, on Thursday’s hearing: “The Attorney General acquitted himself well while he jumped through the hoops he was asked to jump through. Short of asking him to stand on one foot and sing the Star Spangled Banner, I don’t know what else the Democrats will require in their quest to create a scandal where none exists.” Clearly not all conservatives have turned their back on Alberto Gonzales. 6:05 pm Comment (69)
"High praise for Gonzales.Here’s Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee overseeing the probe into the U.S. attorney firings, on Thursday’s hearing: “The Attorney General acquitted himself well while he jumped through the hoops he was asked to jump through. Short of asking him to stand on one foot and sing the Star Spangled Banner, I don’t know what else the Democrats will require in their quest to create a scandal where none exists.” Clearly not all conservatives have turned their back on Alberto Gonzales. 6:05 pm Comment (69)
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Google Voice Local Search
Welcome to Google Voice Local Search
Google Voice Local Search is Google’s experimental service to make local-business search accessible over the phone.
To try this service, just dial 1-800-GOOG-411 (1-800-466-4411) from any phone.
Using this service, you can:
search for a local business by name or category.You can say "Giovanni's Pizzeria" or just "pizza".
get connected to the business, free of charge.
get the details by SMS if you’re using a mobile phone.Just say "text message".
And it's free. Google doesn’t charge you a thing for the call or for connecting you to the business. Regular phone charges may apply, based on your telephone service provider.
Note: Google Voice Local Search is still in its experimental stage. It may not be available at all times and may not work for all users. We’re fine-tuning the service to get better at recognizing your requests. It’s currently only available in English, in the US, for US business listings.
Why?
Google Voice Local Search is Google’s experimental service to make local-business search accessible over the phone.
To try this service, just dial 1-800-GOOG-411 (1-800-466-4411) from any phone.
Using this service, you can:
search for a local business by name or category.You can say "Giovanni's Pizzeria" or just "pizza".
get connected to the business, free of charge.
get the details by SMS if you’re using a mobile phone.Just say "text message".
And it's free. Google doesn’t charge you a thing for the call or for connecting you to the business. Regular phone charges may apply, based on your telephone service provider.
Note: Google Voice Local Search is still in its experimental stage. It may not be available at all times and may not work for all users. We’re fine-tuning the service to get better at recognizing your requests. It’s currently only available in English, in the US, for US business listings.
Why?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sessions
On Friday, another Republican, Sen Jeff Sessions of Alabama, told CNN that Gonzales should consider leaving office.
"I think the attorney general ought to take the weekend and think about this and ask himself whether he can effectively reconstitute the attorney general's office," Sessions said, "and I'll be thinking about the same thing.
"If he feels like he cannot, then it would be best for the president and the country to resign."
"I think the attorney general ought to take the weekend and think about this and ask himself whether he can effectively reconstitute the attorney general's office," Sessions said, "and I'll be thinking about the same thing.
"If he feels like he cannot, then it would be best for the president and the country to resign."
This is what I was trying to recall
via Think Progress
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House — the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel — who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.” There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department “be independent from” the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
see video
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House — the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel — who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.” There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department “be independent from” the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
see video
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Lies and the Lying Liars
In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, [Tucker] Carlson interviewed then-Governor of Texas George W. Bush for Talk magazine. Carlson reported that Bush mocked soon-to-be-executed Texas death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker and "cursed like a sailor." Bush's communications director Karen Hughes publicly disputed this claim. Carlson did not vote in the 2004 election, citing his disgust with the Iraq war and his disillusionment with the once small-government Republican party.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Spoliation of Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lawyers and courts use the term spoliation to refer to the withholding, hiding, or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding and is a criminal act in the United States under Federal and most State law. Spoliation has two consequences: [1] the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; [2] case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: The finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had consciousness of guilt or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator.
Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.
Spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost. In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff's usual burden of proof - plaintiff's witnesses e.g. cannot make up for the lost product because of the spoliation exception).
External link
Purge Affair Talking Points
by Scientician (DailyKos)
Being an avid follower of this scandal, I have decided to try and coagulate a set of talking points and talking point responses for the Republican talking points on the Attorneygate Eight/Dogate/Purgegate/Karl-Rove-tried-to-turn-America-into-a-one-party-State scandal.
I know that the concept of "talking points" has taken a credibility hit because of how Republicans have used them like bleating sheep straight out of Orwell's Animal Farm, but having seen a fair amount of internet debate going on about this topic, and more to come, it behooves us to have concise responses ready to sway the uninformed correctly, and make the Administration defenders look as foolish as they are.
Scientician's diary :: ::
Today, I will tackle a set of responses to the most common Republican talking points I have heard for this affair:
Republican talking point: Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, they can be fired for any reason, even politics.
Response: James Madison certainly didn't agree
Republican talking point: Democrats are just engaging in a partisan political investigation to win votes. This is wrong.
Response: If you're going to argue that Bush can use the DoJ to persecute Democrats to win elections, than you can hardly blame the Democrats for persecuting Bush with their investigatory powers. Turn and turn about. Investigations serve at the pleasure of congress. Of course, as Jay Carney with Time Magazine noted, Democrats were not initially all that concerned with the firings, until TalkingPointsMemo succeeded in bringing the story to the forefront:
Republican talking point: Clinton fired all 93 USAs and you Democrats didn't care back then.
Response: Most of you know this one, but I'll just include it for completeness. It is their most frequent refrain.
Republican talking point: Clinton fired prosecutors in 1993 to stop the investigation of his friend Rep Dan Rostenkowski (D-Il)! It was a cover up!
Response: This is a comically bad conspiracy theory. It might have looked bad in 1993, but with the lens of history we can soundly refute it. The line goes that Rostenkowski, as chair of Ways and Means was a key ally of Clinton in trying to pass a Universal health care plan, so it was essential to protect him. It's plausible Clinton may have hoped that he could delay Rosty's indictment long enough to get his plan through Ways and Means, but the end result of this conspiracy was pretty freaking bad for Clinton and the Democrats. It's also plausible that Clinton didn't trust Bush I's prosecutor, and wanted a Democrat investigating Rosty instead. It's also possible Rosty had nothing to do with the decision to fire the Prosecutors.
In any case, Rostenkowski was indicted by Clinton's appointee for DC, Eric H. Holder in May 1994. This was after Rosty had just defeated a primary challenger, and, look, just in time for him to lose his ultra-safe Chicago seat in the 1994 deluge. Quel conspiracy! Do Republicans picture the Clintonistas plotting to indict Rosty with plenty of time for it to sink in across the electorate and have him defeated? Way to protect an ally.
Shorter response: Oh yeah? How come Rosty was still indicted, defeated for re-election in 1994, convicted and sent to prison. Some "cover up."
Republican talking point: Clinton fired the Arkansas investigator to cover up Whitewater!
Response: Media Matters refutes this one in detail. In summary: No, even George H.W. Bush's prosecutor, Charles Banks had declined to prosecute the Clintons over Whitewater, and thus there was no "ongoing investigation" to interrupt by replacing him. Not to mention that the matter would get investigated twice more, most notably by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr with an unlimited staff and budget. Charles A. Banks had himself resisted investigating the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.
Bonus Response: Tell you what Republicans, let's have a left wing equivalent of Kenneth Star, say John Kerry or Patrick Leahy (both former prosecutors) investigate Purgegate for 50 million dollars worth of time and staff, and if they fail to find anything, we'll call it even.
Republican talking point: Prosecutors are political appointees, and Presidents need to replace the ones who don't follow the broad political directives of the current Administration.
Response: This one is true. It doesn't apply to Purgegate in the slightest, but in the abtract, it's correct. If a Prosecutor was focusing their office's efforts on a type of crime that was not a priority for the Administration, to the detriment of another category of crime the Administration had vowed to tackle, that would be fair grounds for firing.
The problem is that no such credible grounds exist for these fired 8. Immigration? No, one of the released emails shows a DoJ official offering that as a suggested rationale, after the decision to fire them had already been made. Immigration was to be a proferred reason, but not the actual reason. Worse, in Carol Lam's case, we have Sampson testifying that no one at DoJ had ever spoken to her about her supposedly unacceptable record on Immigration cases. So it was such a big problem as to warrant firing her, but no one could pick up a phone and ask her to put more emphasis on immigration, the way any normal human boss would with an erring subordinate? Poppycock. In Iglesias' case, we know his name appears on a list of non-Bushie attorneys to be fired long before Republican congressional complaints about him appeared. Again, more rationalizations after the fact.
The short response is that no acceptable professional reason for the firings has been found or demonstrated by the Bush Administration. This talking point speaks to a possible acceptable reason to fire one, but the firings here do not meet that bar.
Being an avid follower of this scandal, I have decided to try and coagulate a set of talking points and talking point responses for the Republican talking points on the Attorneygate Eight/Dogate/Purgegate/Karl-Rove-tried-to-turn-America-into-a-one-party-State scandal.
I know that the concept of "talking points" has taken a credibility hit because of how Republicans have used them like bleating sheep straight out of Orwell's Animal Farm, but having seen a fair amount of internet debate going on about this topic, and more to come, it behooves us to have concise responses ready to sway the uninformed correctly, and make the Administration defenders look as foolish as they are.
Scientician's diary :: ::
Today, I will tackle a set of responses to the most common Republican talking points I have heard for this affair:
Republican talking point: Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, they can be fired for any reason, even politics.
Response: James Madison certainly didn't agree
The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the. So yes, he can fire people, but that doesn't mean he should. He was entrusted broad latitude in firing members of his branch without interference, but the very concept of "entrusting" someone with something, necessarily implies that it is possible to abuse that trust. If there was no possibility of abuse, there would be no question of trust in the first place.
motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust. Commondreams
Republican talking point: Democrats are just engaging in a partisan political investigation to win votes. This is wrong.
Response: If you're going to argue that Bush can use the DoJ to persecute Democrats to win elections, than you can hardly blame the Democrats for persecuting Bush with their investigatory powers. Turn and turn about. Investigations serve at the pleasure of congress. Of course, as Jay Carney with Time Magazine noted, Democrats were not initially all that concerned with the firings, until TalkingPointsMemo succeeded in bringing the story to the forefront:
When this story first surfaced, I thought the Bush White House and Justice Department were guilty of poorly executed acts of crass political patronage. I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were "concerned", but this was not a priority. The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I'd first thought. I was wrong. SwamplandSome partisan "witch hunt." Again, to Republicans, would you not be concerned to learn a Democratic administration had investigated Republicans 7 times as often as Democrats, the way this Administration has done to Democrats?
Republican talking point: Clinton fired all 93 USAs and you Democrats didn't care back then.
Response: Most of you know this one, but I'll just include it for completeness. It is their most frequent refrain.
No, Democrats did not complain, because firing political appointees like Federal Prosecutors is something that incoming Presidents are expected to do. This is
necessary and proper. No President should be expected to keep on the political appointees of the prior administration, particularly when the prior administration was from another party. News flash: Clinton fired all of George H.W. Bush's cabinet too! Further, as we now know, Reagan and George W. Bush did the same thing when taking office (the pace of firings may have varied a little, but replacing all 93 within the first year of a President's first term is par for the course). Finally, when Clinton fired all 93, you Republicans tried
to raise a stink about this!
Republican talking point: Clinton fired prosecutors in 1993 to stop the investigation of his friend Rep Dan Rostenkowski (D-Il)! It was a cover up!
Response: This is a comically bad conspiracy theory. It might have looked bad in 1993, but with the lens of history we can soundly refute it. The line goes that Rostenkowski, as chair of Ways and Means was a key ally of Clinton in trying to pass a Universal health care plan, so it was essential to protect him. It's plausible Clinton may have hoped that he could delay Rosty's indictment long enough to get his plan through Ways and Means, but the end result of this conspiracy was pretty freaking bad for Clinton and the Democrats. It's also plausible that Clinton didn't trust Bush I's prosecutor, and wanted a Democrat investigating Rosty instead. It's also possible Rosty had nothing to do with the decision to fire the Prosecutors.
In any case, Rostenkowski was indicted by Clinton's appointee for DC, Eric H. Holder in May 1994. This was after Rosty had just defeated a primary challenger, and, look, just in time for him to lose his ultra-safe Chicago seat in the 1994 deluge. Quel conspiracy! Do Republicans picture the Clintonistas plotting to indict Rosty with plenty of time for it to sink in across the electorate and have him defeated? Way to protect an ally.
Shorter response: Oh yeah? How come Rosty was still indicted, defeated for re-election in 1994, convicted and sent to prison. Some "cover up."
Republican talking point: Clinton fired the Arkansas investigator to cover up Whitewater!
Response: Media Matters refutes this one in detail. In summary: No, even George H.W. Bush's prosecutor, Charles Banks had declined to prosecute the Clintons over Whitewater, and thus there was no "ongoing investigation" to interrupt by replacing him. Not to mention that the matter would get investigated twice more, most notably by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr with an unlimited staff and budget. Charles A. Banks had himself resisted investigating the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.
Bonus Response: Tell you what Republicans, let's have a left wing equivalent of Kenneth Star, say John Kerry or Patrick Leahy (both former prosecutors) investigate Purgegate for 50 million dollars worth of time and staff, and if they fail to find anything, we'll call it even.
Republican talking point: Prosecutors are political appointees, and Presidents need to replace the ones who don't follow the broad political directives of the current Administration.
Response: This one is true. It doesn't apply to Purgegate in the slightest, but in the abtract, it's correct. If a Prosecutor was focusing their office's efforts on a type of crime that was not a priority for the Administration, to the detriment of another category of crime the Administration had vowed to tackle, that would be fair grounds for firing.
The problem is that no such credible grounds exist for these fired 8. Immigration? No, one of the released emails shows a DoJ official offering that as a suggested rationale, after the decision to fire them had already been made. Immigration was to be a proferred reason, but not the actual reason. Worse, in Carol Lam's case, we have Sampson testifying that no one at DoJ had ever spoken to her about her supposedly unacceptable record on Immigration cases. So it was such a big problem as to warrant firing her, but no one could pick up a phone and ask her to put more emphasis on immigration, the way any normal human boss would with an erring subordinate? Poppycock. In Iglesias' case, we know his name appears on a list of non-Bushie attorneys to be fired long before Republican congressional complaints about him appeared. Again, more rationalizations after the fact.
The short response is that no acceptable professional reason for the firings has been found or demonstrated by the Bush Administration. This talking point speaks to a possible acceptable reason to fire one, but the firings here do not meet that bar.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
State-based impeachment: Now Wisconsin and Hawaii
For those of you keeping score at home, the ninth and tenth state legislatures to enter into the impeachment sweepstakes are: Wisconsin (thanks to State Rep. Frank Boyle of Superior) and Hawaii (thanks to State Senator Les Ihara, Jr. of Kapahulu).
Wisconsin and Hawaii join eight predecessors: California, Illinois, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Missouri, and Texas.
That makes 10 states and 80 state legislators cosponsoring the call to impeach since bills began being introduced last year.
Word is that New Jersey and Maine are on the cusp. One more state after that would put it at 1/4 of the states in the country.
But as you know, Joe Klein says that while the president is "clearly unfit to lead," actually doing something about it is "counterproductive and slightly nutso."
::
Tags: impeachment, Wisconsin, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Missouri, Texas. (all tags)
Wisconsin and Hawaii join eight predecessors: California, Illinois, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Missouri, and Texas.
That makes 10 states and 80 state legislators cosponsoring the call to impeach since bills began being introduced last year.
Word is that New Jersey and Maine are on the cusp. One more state after that would put it at 1/4 of the states in the country.
But as you know, Joe Klein says that while the president is "clearly unfit to lead," actually doing something about it is "counterproductive and slightly nutso."
::
Tags: impeachment, Wisconsin, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Missouri, Texas. (all tags)
Think Progress » Spanish-language papers want Gonzales to resign.
Think Progress » Spanish-language papers want Gonzales to resign.:
"The daily La Opinión in Los Angeles and the Chicago weekly La Raza argue in a common editorial that Alberto Gonzales should resign. ‘The firing of the U.S. attorneys is sufficient cause for doubting his capacity for distinguishing his loyalty to President George W. Bush from his duty to citizens,’ the editorial says. Another Spanish-language column in the Chicago paper Hoy:
Gonzales’ ascent was “a double triumph,” Muñoz wrote: “Not only was he was the first Latino attorney general, but he was the first Latino to occupy one of the four most important seats in the presidential cabinet.”
But with many in Congress calling for his resignation as a result of the U.S. attorney firings, the columnist added, “Latino leadership needs to join” in that demand. “Gonzales not only has let down the community — he’s let down the nation,” "
"The daily La Opinión in Los Angeles and the Chicago weekly La Raza argue in a common editorial that Alberto Gonzales should resign. ‘The firing of the U.S. attorneys is sufficient cause for doubting his capacity for distinguishing his loyalty to President George W. Bush from his duty to citizens,’ the editorial says. Another Spanish-language column in the Chicago paper Hoy:
Gonzales’ ascent was “a double triumph,” Muñoz wrote: “Not only was he was the first Latino attorney general, but he was the first Latino to occupy one of the four most important seats in the presidential cabinet.”
But with many in Congress calling for his resignation as a result of the U.S. attorney firings, the columnist added, “Latino leadership needs to join” in that demand. “Gonzales not only has let down the community — he’s let down the nation,” "
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Joe Klein in Tomorrow's TIME: Bush 'Clearly Unfit to Lead'
Klein claims, in referring to the president, that he has “tried to be respectful of the man and the office” but now he recognizes that the “defining sins” of his administration “are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”
The Time columnist declares that the three major Bush problems of the year “precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
The Time columnist declares that the three major Bush problems of the year “precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Keith Richards: I snorted my father
via HuffPo
Rolling Stone 'snorted father's ashes' Breaking News News Telegraph:
"Rolling Stones wildman Keith Richards claims he snorted his own father's ashes during a drugs binge.
Richards is known for his hard-living lifestyle
Richards made the extraordinary admission in an interview with NME magazine.
'The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father,' he said.
'He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared, he didn't give a s***.
'It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive.'
Richards' father, Bert, died in 2002 aged 84."
Rolling Stone 'snorted father's ashes' Breaking News News Telegraph:
"Rolling Stones wildman Keith Richards claims he snorted his own father's ashes during a drugs binge.
Richards is known for his hard-living lifestyle
Richards made the extraordinary admission in an interview with NME magazine.
'The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father,' he said.
'He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared, he didn't give a s***.
'It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive.'
Richards' father, Bert, died in 2002 aged 84."
Dems to Goodling: No, Really
I enjoyed this letter and (something I rarely read) the comments
"Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department."
I love it - she's afraid HER OWN DEPARTMENT is going to prescute her. Either this is all a shell game or the powers that be know that this woman knows more than what we thinks she knows - and they have threatened her with prosecution if she testifies truthfully.
"Both of them were found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, which we are confident you do not expect Ms. Goodling to do. If her testimony is truthful, she will have nothing to worry about in terms of a perjury prosecution, which, of course, rests in the exclusive control of the Department."
I love it - she's afraid HER OWN DEPARTMENT is going to prescute her. Either this is all a shell game or the powers that be know that this woman knows more than what we thinks she knows - and they have threatened her with prosecution if she testifies truthfully.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Walk Away, Sisyphus
Daily Kos
antifa
In Walk Away, Sisyphus, an in-depth and beautifully written piece about reaching the middle third of American voters that are neither identified with the Right or the Left, antifa notes that our daily battle of rolling the rock up the hill may be fruitless. Instead, ridicule may be a better tactic. (dannyinla)
antifa
In Walk Away, Sisyphus, an in-depth and beautifully written piece about reaching the middle third of American voters that are neither identified with the Right or the Left, antifa notes that our daily battle of rolling the rock up the hill may be fruitless. Instead, ridicule may be a better tactic. (dannyinla)
Sunday, April 01, 2007
It was Gonzales who chose April 17
It seems that all of a sudden the Bush administration can't wait to get one of its high-ranking officials under oath.
Until recently, department officials also said they wanted to give Congress enough time to go through the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails, memos, calendar pages and other documents detailing the decision to fire the prosecutors.
That changed Friday — the day after Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the committee — when aides said they would try to get Gonzales to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to explain his side.
Do they think he's going to talk his way out of this, or do they want to get it over with and get him out of office ASAP? Or does it have to do with the fact that Senate Democrats will be using their recess interviewing other Justice Department officials to be better prepared for Gonzales?
Testifying under oath is already like garlic to the vampires of the Bush administration.
Testifying under oath before well-prepared Democrats has to be like, well, sunlight. Whatever the administration's reasoning, Democrats aren't playing along.
The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said Gonzales had been offered earlier dates but turned them down. It was Gonzales who chose April 17, said Leahy, D-Vt., and that date will not change now because "everybody has set their schedule according to that."
"It's the date that the attorney general originally picked. It's the date the hearing will take place," Leahy said.
Democrats have the White House and Gonzales sweating. Let them keep sweating.
Until recently, department officials also said they wanted to give Congress enough time to go through the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails, memos, calendar pages and other documents detailing the decision to fire the prosecutors.
That changed Friday — the day after Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the committee — when aides said they would try to get Gonzales to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to explain his side.
Do they think he's going to talk his way out of this, or do they want to get it over with and get him out of office ASAP? Or does it have to do with the fact that Senate Democrats will be using their recess interviewing other Justice Department officials to be better prepared for Gonzales?
Testifying under oath is already like garlic to the vampires of the Bush administration.
Testifying under oath before well-prepared Democrats has to be like, well, sunlight. Whatever the administration's reasoning, Democrats aren't playing along.
The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, said Gonzales had been offered earlier dates but turned them down. It was Gonzales who chose April 17, said Leahy, D-Vt., and that date will not change now because "everybody has set their schedule according to that."
"It's the date that the attorney general originally picked. It's the date the hearing will take place," Leahy said.
Democrats have the White House and Gonzales sweating. Let them keep sweating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
