|
Firing of US attorneys by Bush (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Gap in Justice, White House e-mails raises questions
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 16-day gap in e-mail records between the Justice Department and the White House concerning the firing of U.S. attorneys last year has attracted the attention of congressional investigators.
In an investigation into whether seven U.S. attorneys were fired for political rather than professional reasons, the Justice Department on Monday handed over 3,000 pages of documents to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
But the documents included no correspondence about the firings in the critical time period between November 15, 2005, and December 2, 2006, right before the attorneys were asked for their resignations.
In addition, citing executive privilege, President Bush has refused a congressional request to have his key aide Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who was involved in the firings, testify under oath.
All eyes on the AG
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has come under fire in the past week, as both Republicans and Democrats suggested it might be best if he resign.
On November 15 -- the last day before the e-mail gap -- Kyle Sampson, who was then chief of staff to Gonzales, e-mailed Miers and her deputy an outline of the plan to fire the prosecutors and wrote, "The plan, by its terms, would commence this week."
Sampson resigned last week amid outcry about the firings.
Later in the same e-mail Gonzalez said, "I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result."
Miers responded that same morning, saying, "Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention" and noted that President Bush had left town the night before. Sampson then asked, "Who will determine whether this requires the president's attention?"
There is no follow-up response in the documents so far released to those questions and no correspondence at all about the plan to fire the attorneys from that point until December 2, when Sampson e-mailed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's chief of staff, saying, "The list is expanded; still waiting for green light from White House (though we would not launch until after 12/7 anyway)."
On December 4, Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley told Sampson, "We're a go for the US atty [sic] plan. WH leg [legislative affairs], political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."
Sampson said he forwarded the message to other Justice Department officials, saying, "We are a go for Thursday."
Justice denies gap in e-mails
There are documents from days in that time period, but they deal with related issues such as setting up an interview for Tim Griffin, who was the replacement for Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was one of the eight asked to resign. They also deal with a request for a copy of an evaluation of an unnamed U.S. attorney and how U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was directed to provide a prosecutor for a high-profile trial.
A Justice Department official said "there was no lull" when asked about the time period between mid-November and early December.
The White House has yet to release internal communications that could shed light on the issue. It has offered to release communications between White House staffers and those at the Justice Department or others outside the White House, as part of negotiations with congressional committees over their access to key White House officials.
The White House, however, has not included internal communications between White House officials in its offer.
Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee voted Wednesday to authorize the committee's leaders to issue subpoenas to force testimony from key White House and Justice Department figures in the controversy over the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. (Full story)
The vote does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be used if at least four White House officials and a former Justice Department official do not voluntarily come to testify before the committee.
CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry and Justice Producer Terry Frieden contributed to this report |
How deep will the rabbit hole go?
Unfortunately, it looks like we'll end up in litigation over this executive privilege issue until after Bush is done as president, so nothing's even going to come of it besides that his reputation might be tarnished a little from the pristine one that he has now. :nervous: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
This is getting reaaal ugly.
MORE |
Indeed it is, and the Dems. had better find their shriveled cajones and stand up for this "executive privilege" bull being pulled by Bush. Jesus, I'm sorry but for him to cry "FOUL!" and discuss the separation of powers is the ultimate irony of ironies. To make it even more ironic and I didn't even think that was possible), he's calling this subpoena move a game of partisan politics.
Wow. Just wow. I can't seem to remember what got us into this whole mess in the first place? Anyone?
Greenwald sums this little problem of "just trust us" by Bush nicely:
| quote: | The President intends to invoke "executive privilege," the same doctrine used by Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective (unsuccessful) attempts to resist subpoenas:
First, the President began his Press Conference by admitting that the administration's explanations as to what happened here have been -- to use his own words -- "confusing" and "incomplete." Why, then, would Congress possibly trust Bush officials to provide more explanations in an off-the-record, no-transcript setting where there are no legal consequences from failing to tell the truth?
Once a party demonstrates a propensity to issue false explanations and refuses to tell the truth voluntarily, no rational person would trust that party to make voluntary disclosures. One could trust (if at all) only on-the-record testimony, under oath, where there are criminal penalties for lying (if they have questions about that motivational dynamic, they can ask Lewis Libby).
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...lege/index.html |
Sorry to finally hold their feet to the fire for once in the past 6 years, but that's what much needed oversight will get you.
And lastly, all those GOPers like Tony Snow are ing hypocritical turds:
| quote: | Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.
Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:
In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it's an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr's investigation. There's an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered.
Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?
Paul Gigot, Fox News, March 8, 1998:
GIGOT: Senator Torricelli, the president has from the very beginning pledged to cooperate with the investigation, said he wants to get the truth out sooner rather than later.
Would you define claims of executive privilege as cooperation? . . . But aren't claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters -- in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs?
Kate O'Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:
O'BEIRNE: Let me say, Mark, I think Newt Gingrich delivered a really good speech. He gave voice to that which millions of people know to be true. I don't think it's good news for the Democrats. The Republicans have had trouble finding their voice on this and they're scared off by being told it just has to do with the president's personal, private behavior. And Newt Gingrich, I think, has given voice to them in a way that's not helpful to Democrats.
He says there are two principles involved, the public's right to know, because secrecy has so benefited Bill Clinton, and second, no one is above the law. Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, Bill Clinton's in a lot of trouble.
Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998
SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee -- if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that's the kiss of death. You're not going to have any more hearings. . . . .
BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months.
GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don't think the speaker does either.
We're going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them.
You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn't hide behind executive privilege, if he'd just come out and tell the American people the truth.
From William Safire, writing in The New York Times, June 4, 1998 (h/t Invictus):
The Supremes will not have to decide President Clinton's claim of executive privilege to shield his P.R. aide Sidney Blumenthal because when Starr went eyeball-to-eyeball with the White House on this, Clinton blinked. I think the President knew this claim on a matter unrelated to national security was a loser all along, but made it in lower court to run down the clock. Smart; it bought him four months.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...lege/index.html |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Not political my ass:
| quote: | RALEIGH, N.C. - Four years ago in Asheville, N.C., a lawyer filed a document that contained a scandalous accusation: The U.S. attorney general had intervened in a local bank-fraud case and prevented investigators from questioning one of Congress' most powerful members, Rep. Charles Taylor.
As Washington swirls with allegations that the Justice Department and White House intervened in federal prosecutions across the country, a review shows that U.S. attorneys in North Carolina have gone after a lot of Democrats - and a few Republicans, too - during the Bush administration.
But many in the western part of the state recall a particular case a few years back that was handled quietly in the North Carolina mountains, when a pair of lawyers thought that Taylor, a North Carolina Republican, ought to be questioned over a loan-fraud case that involved the bank he owns.
"Essentially the question is, `Why was he not interrogated? Why was he not interviewed?'" asked Forrest A. Ferrell, the lawyer who leveled the charges in 2003. "He knew about it all and should've at least been interrogated about it."
Ferrell still believes that John Ashcroft, who was then the attorney general, or other top officials prevented the interrogation of Taylor. But he wouldn't go into further details last week.
When the allegations surfaced in 2003, the Justice Department had no comment when asked whether Ashcroft or his aides had blocked an investigation of Taylor. On Tuesday, the Justice Department and Taylor couldn't be reached for comment, and an assistant at Ashcroft's Washington consulting firm said he'd have no comment.
(snip)... In Asheville, investigators never interrogated Taylor.
Ferrell contends that someone in Washington - either Ashcroft or his subordinates - intervened.
"My information was that the U.S. attorney general in D.C. prohibited the U.S. Attorney's Office in North Carolina from interrogating Charles Taylor," Ferrell recalled last week. He'd give no other details.
"My information was confidential," he said.
Ferrell filed a motion based on his "information and belief," requesting an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16941877.htm |
In case you're wondering how this relates to the current scandal, from the article above:
| quote: | | In North Carolina, e-mails disclosed last week reveal that U.S. Attorney Gretchen C.F. Shappert of Charlotte was among those on the list to be fired. She later was removed, and said last week that she had no idea why she was targeted. |
You're right, Krypton, this is getting very, very ugly, but that's exactly what happens when your neocon Administration with an unfettered belief in "Unitary Executive" overextends its arms out to the Dept. of Justice and seemingly stymies possible investigations into corruption scandals and wrongdoing. That's a big no-no. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And the possible political meddlings into investigations by the DoJ and possibly the White House doesn't end there:
| quote: | “Last September, CREW named Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in our report, “Beyond DeLay.” Last October, the Associated Press reported that Renzi was under federal investigation for a land deal. In December, Paul Charlton, the U.S. Attorney in Arizona who was investigating Renzi, was fired. Speculation is growing about whether the Renzi investigation led to Charlton’s dismissal.
http://blog.citizensforethics.org/node/743 |
and I think I reported this one previously:
| quote: | Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...cs/16931329.htm |
And this is Iglesias' op-ed in the NYTimes (the New Mexico AG fired):
| quote: | Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Albuquerque
WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.
Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.
United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.
Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.
Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.
A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)
When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.) |
I gotta stop right there because the following part debunks the bull talking point by wingers as to why Iglesias was supposedly fired (the most recent talking point, that is):
| quote: | As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.
What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.
After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.
Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.
President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.
David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |
This stinks, bad. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And in the blink of an eye, this Administration suddenly discovers the Bill of Rights. The irony is just so thick you can cut the sucker with a chainsaw:
| quote: | Aide to Gonzales Won't Testify
Counselor Cites Fifth Amendment Right in Refusal
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will "decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
Goodling, who was also Justice's liaison to the White House, and her lawyers alleged that Democratic lawmakers have already concluded that improper motives were at play in Justice's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Goodling also pointed to indications that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty blames her and others for not fully briefing him, leading to inaccurate testimony to Congress.
Goodling's refusal to testify illustrates the rising political and legal stakes surrounding the removal of the federal prosecutors, and underscores the fissures developing among Gonzales and his current and former senior aides as the attorney general struggles to keep his job.
Goodling's decision contrasts sharply with the approach of her onetime colleague D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former chief of staff, who resigned March 12: He has agreed to testify before the same Senate committee. Sampson has also disputed allegations by Gonzales and others that he withheld information about White House involvement in the firings, which were initially portrayed as a routine Justice Department personnel matter undertaken without significant White House involvement.
Sampson is expected to testify that "the fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years was well known" to many senior Justice officials, including Goodling and others who had briefed department witnesses, according to a statement issued by his attorney March 16 .
"Hearings in a highly politicized environment like this can sometimes become a game of 'gotcha,' " the lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, added yesterday, "but Kyle has decided to trust the Congress and the process."
But one of Goodling's lawyers, John Dowd, said in a statement yesterday that "the potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."
Seven federal prosecutors were fired Dec. 7; another had been dismissed months earlier. The Justice Department's shifting explanations for the removals have sparked an uproar in Congress and have led to a standoff with the White House over whether presidential adviser Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and other Bush aides should testify publicly and under oath.
Goodling and Sampson are among six current or former Justice officials who have been listed as potential witnesses by the Senate and House judiciary panels, which are conducting separate investigations of the coordinated firings of the U.S. attorneys.
The others are William Mercer, acting associate attorney general; William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general; Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff; and Michael A. Battle, the now-departed head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who called the prosecutors to fire them.
House and Senate Democrats said they were disappointed that Goodling would not testify, and several raised questions about her motives.
"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath," said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Goodling contended in her affidavit yesterday that Leahy and other lawmakers, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Calif.), had already "drawn conclusions" about the prosecutors' firings.
Dowd said that the "hostile and questionable environment in the present Congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately, the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling."
The Justice Department declined to comment on Goodling's move.
Gonzales agreed earlier this month to allow aides to be interviewed privately without being subpoenaed. But Sampson and Battle no longer work for Justice, and Goodling is on leave.
In the House yesterday, a provision stripping the attorney general of the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate confirmation passed overwhelmingly. Following a 94 to 2 vote in the Senate last week, the bill strikes a provision inserted into the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the behest of the Justice Department. The White House has signaled that Bush will sign the bill.
In an interview last night on NBC News, Gonzales sought to clarify his role in the firings, after the release of documents showing he presided at a Nov. 27 meeting to discuss them. In the interview, Gonzales said that he "wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign." But he said he approved a final list and defended the decision as justified for performance reasons.
Staff writer Peter Baker and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7032600935.html |
Buh bye Gonzales........ |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
This is also interesting. In yet another blink of an eye, the White House goes against it's "Executive Privilege" claim of keeping all internal WH emails by, uhh, releasing an internal email. And as it would appear, they are seemingly trying to throw someone else under the bus:
| quote: | The firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys was sparked last month when a top Justice Department official ignored guidance from the White House and rejected advice from senior administration lawyers over his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1 |
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: |
Schumer: Rove, Miers subpoenas authorized, ready to be issued RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 28, 2007
Print This Email This
A source from the office of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) tells the New York Observer that subpoenas to compel White House adviser Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers to testify before the Judiciary Committee regarding their roles in the dismissals of eight US Attorneys have been authorized and are ready to be issued.
"Senator Charles Schumer finds it 'hard to believe' that embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can continue in office for much longer," Jason Horowitz reports for the Observer. "At the same time, Mr. Schumer believes that the practical consequences for the Republican Party resulting from Mr. Gonzales’ actions—the culling of eight U.S. Attorneys—will be lasting."
Schumer tells the paper, "Clearly, it will affect 2008, because the credibility of the President and the people close to him is lower now today than it was a month ago, and that’s going to hurt."
The Senate Judiciary Committee member called the White House's offer to allow "behind doors" testimony by White House officials "ridiculous."
"The terms that they proposed for Rove and Miers were so ridiculous—that’s why they haven’t had any traction," Schumer said. "I haven’t seen one Republican who has justified doing it with no transcript. You can argue whether it should be public or private, or you can even argue about whether it should be sworn testimony. You cannot argue that there should be no transcript. The fact that they had to say ‘no transcript’ says something. Doesn’t it? It means that they want no accountability."
Excerpts from article:
#
Subpoenas for Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers have been authorized but not issued, according to a source in Mr. Schumer’s office.
“The Justice people will come, and the White House people—we’ll have to see,” Mr. Schumer said. “Every day there is a new development that makes it harder and harder for them to resist.
“If you get half the Republicans willing to give subpoenas,” he added, “that says something.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Schum...ready_0328.html
#
|
This could get messy. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
This could get messy. |
Indeed. Sampson today essentially layed out the case that Gonzales lied to Congress:
| quote: | Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales' "candor" in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting "where there were discussions" and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales' statement about taking part in no discussions accurate?
"I don't think it's accurate," Sampson said. "He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting."
"So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked.
"Yes." Sampson replied.
Sen. Charles Schumer then asked about Gonzales also claiming that he saw no documents on this matter.
Sampson replied: "I don't think it's entirely accurate."
Schumer: "There was repeated discussions?"
Sampson : "Yes."
Schumer: "As many as, say, five."
Sampson: "Yes."
Schumer then asked if Gonzales was truthful in saying Sampson's information on the firings was not shared within the department.
Sampson: "I shared information with whoever asked....I was very open and collaborative in the process."
Schumer: "So the Attorney General's statement is false?"
Sampson: "I don't think it is accurate."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1003564888 |
And Sampson and company was also examining yet another interesting U.S. attorney:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002915.php
Hmm, gee, I wonder why Fitzgerald's name came up? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Very interesting op-ed from a former DOJ lawyer:
| quote: | Bush's long history of tilting Justice
The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer.
By Joseph D. Rich
JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
March 29, 2007
THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.
Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.
Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.
This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.
Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.
At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.
For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favor.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...inion-rightrail |
|
|
|
| Krypton |
| Was anything illegal done? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Was anything illegal done? |
Potentially obstruction of justice. People aren't pleading the 5th for s and giggles. Then there's that whole lying to congress thing ... |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Potentially obstruction of justice. People aren't pleading the 5th for s and giggles. Then there's that whole lying to congress thing ... |
Well, I beg to differ on the 'pleading the fifth for s and giggles' argument, as the Tonya Harding lookalike (seriously she looks exactly like the trailer park ice capader) probably considers all of the legal process a joke considering her alma mater.
It is really too bad that no one looks enough like Jeff Gilooly in this affair to make a good knee-whacking SNL skit out of it.
MrS |
|
|
|
|
