I’d move on to another topic, but the one at hand, Eight Gate, is just sucking up the oxygen big time as the White House behaves badly — and now, to take us back into Nixonian flashbacks, we have 18 days of missing emails ….a GAP! Dub upped the ante, Tricky Dick only gave us 18.5 minutes of dead space.
CNN broadcast the entirety of Tony Snow’s tap dance today, with reporters going after him pretty aggressively, and nailing him on the gap. Snow was defensive, and now the previous “very generous” offer is “off the table,” sez the Snowman. He announced that Dubby has “no memory” of knowing about any of this … but reporters questioned why executive privilege would be part of something that Dub wasn’t aware of.
Can’t have it both ways, Dub … and there may not be a family retainer to pull you out of this mess.
There are numbers to call, below, courtesy of FireDogLake, to give encouragement for going after real answers … I swear, the blogs outclass MSM all to hell and back.
In other news, Al Gore testified before a Congressional hearing today, bringing over a half-million “postcards” signed by activists … me for sure, perhaps you … with him. The Right says he’s an hysteric; the Left listened carefully as he urged them to address a “planetary emergency.” Read about it here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gore22mar22,0,1367370.story?coll=la-home-headlines
And now — the gap.
Jude
18 Day Gap? Let’s Hit The Phones!
Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/21/18-day-gap-lets-hit-the-phones/#more-7973
President “What, Me Lie?” just took a credibility hit this morning. Via Josh (with a huge H/T to Muck commenter Donp who spotted the gap at 2:19 am!):
I think a commenter in our document dump research thread may have been the first to notice that the emails released by the Justice Department seem to have a gap between November 15th and December 4th of last year….
The firing calls went out on December 7th. But the original plan was to start placing the calls on November 15th. So those eighteen days are pretty key ones. (emphasis mine)
What are you trying to hide, President Bush? You think that Karl Rove’s little political manipulation dance goes unnoticed by everyone? That you can simply dump a bunch of documents and that no one will bother to read them? The days of Congress and the public not paying attention and the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress are long gone. It is time that that the Bush Administration adjusted to the new reality: accountability and oversight. So let the sun shine in.
Accept no substitutes: Testimony. In public. Under oath.
As Glenn says:
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). (emphasis mine)
The Bush Administration has shown, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why on earth would Congress trust them on the US Attorney firings? Especially after they left an 18 day gap in the records turnover from the DoJ during a crucial period in the decisionmaking process for the firings?
Let’s hit the phones, gang. Call the Capitol switchboard at 1-800-459-1887 or 1-202-224-3121, and ask to speak to the offices of Sen. Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to tell them:
Accept no substitutes: Testimony. In public. Under oath.
It is high time for some public accountability. Let Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers know that we stand behind them all the way in exercising their constitutional obligation of oversight.
While you are at it, if you have time to contact the members of both committees to voice your concerns and your outrage over the Bush Administration’s attempt to hide these eighteen days worth of e-mail, here are the committee rosters:
Senate Judiciary Committee:
[open link for contact information]
Cure For Amnesia
by digby
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/cure-for-amnesia-by-digby-tony-snow-is.html
Tony Snow is saying that there’s simply no reason for Rove and Miers to go under oath or even a transcript of their “interview” to be created if the congress really wants to get the truth.
He had no information on the “18 Day Gap” and seems not to be aware that Karl Rove just recently came within a hairs breath of being indicted for lying to the FBI and and perjuring himself before a Grand Jury. See, he apparently has a terrible disease that renders him an amnesiac until he’s facing indictment, at which point he suddenly uncovers e-mails which jog his memory and he “amends” his statements.
Getting the truth from this disabled fellow in simple interviews has already proven to be a big waste of time. Better to just put him under penalty of perjury from the beginning. Recent history shows that he can barely remember his name unless he’s facing jail time.
Turtles and Bugmen
by digby
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/turtles-and-bugmen-by-digby-david.html
David Gregory says that he had been under the impression all day that the president was going to handle this press conference by saying that he knew mistakes had been made but that he was hopeful that the Democrats would work with the white house in good faith, blah, blah blah.
Apparently, however, the Republicans had a meeting today that showed a split in the GOP with half the members saying that Bush should dump Abu G, while others, notably the Box Turtle Cornyn (and Tom Delay on TV this morning) told Bush there was no margin in being accommodating and that Bush should “fight” which I’m sure sounded like music to his puerile little ears. It makes him feel like a man.
You can never go wrong telling Bush to act like an ass. He’s the Dad Who Is Always Mad — and it’s just this type of manipulation and advice that’s gotten him — and this nation — into the trouble we’re all in today.
Meanwhile, virtually all the reporters on NBC seem to not know that numerous very close white house advisors were hauled before congress during the Clinton administration. Can’t somebody get them an intern?
Or maybe we could just send them this, from Think Progress today:
According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:
Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94
George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94
John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94
Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96
Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97
Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00
In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.
Gee, I’m tired of MSM incompetence (or bias.)
Update: Greenwald has a post up on executive privilege, illustrated with all the GOP rending of garments over Clinton’s attempts (and failure) to claim executive privilege when Ken Starr was trying to rummage through his underwear in the Lewinsky scandal. It’s especially rich to see Tony Snow’s editorials on the subject.
I wonder if there’s any chance in hell that an intrepid member of the White House press corps reads his blog and gets up the nerve ask the Snowman about it tomorrow.
King Leonides Lives
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
by digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/king-leonides-lives-by-digby-wow-lets.html
Wow, let’s party like it’s 2002 and pretend President Pissypants has an 80% approval rating! He won’t stand for the congress “acting inappropriately” by subpoenaing members of the white house. He says he hopes they don’t keep wasting his time with “showtrials” because he’s offered a “reasonable proposal” (to allow Karl Rove to lie his ass off in private.) When asked if Gonzales could function since he doesn’t seem to have much support, he hit back hard with “he has stong support with ME!” Ssss-nap!
He is, by the way, only doing this to protect future presidents, which is very generous of him. And he feels sorry that this has bubbled up to the surface, because it’s hard on those (incredible loser) US Attorneys, but that’s Washington for you, (inadvertantly reminding everyone that he spends most of his time clearing brush in Crawford.)
Wolf says he was very, very strong and very, very tough and something about the president’s pleasure and … oooh baby. If he’d had on a loin cloth and a nice mullet his testosterone-addled cartoon manliness would have been right out of “300.” Too bad King Codpiece’s toothless little tirades are about as convincing as Village People machismo these days.
I suspect that many Americans are saying, “is he still here?”
Update: Atrios says:
Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn’t give you magic immunity from everything.
Well, now, that’s not exactly true. Nixon said, when the president does it, “it’s not illegal.” And in Bush’s case, it’s only slightly modified to say “when the president’s brain does it, it’s not illegal.” Clinton’s closest aides were called up 47 times and testified under oath. But that, of course, was completely different.
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) 246 pill xanaxconsultation free shipping 24hour xanaxxanax 2684v and3 98 xanax tabletovernight prescription no xanax delivery 3mgxanax too 5mg muchthe abuse drug of xanaxallegra skin skin adderall xanax skin Map
March 21st, 2007
The Judicial Committee is ignoring Bush’s rant that he’ll go to the mat to protect his bubbled ones, and issuing subpoenas. Harry Reid put out a piece for Political Editors, showing the Dem position and adding this lovely mouthful: ” … the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”
Yep, it’s a rumble, alright! And I couldn’t be more pleased — this makes Bush and his gangster buddies look like exactly what they are, institutional liars … you can feel the spectre of Dick Nixon, down on his knees in the White House halls, wishing he hadn’t taped anything! To sweeten the pot, CNN is playing a snip of A Few Good Men, where Jack Nicholson screams back at prosecutor Tom Cruise, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.” That’s because the Cruise character is based on David Iglesias, the New Mexico legal eagle fired. The implicants of Nicholson’s rant is pretty obvious … hard not to connect those dots.
Here’s a bit of everything — the JC’s announcement, Raw Story’s report on a scathing NYTimes editorial, a clever piece by Will Durst, one on “political profiling,” and last, Reid’s [very detailed] tit/tat on the facts.
Bush seems ready to take this whole affair all the way to the Supreme’s … counting on his salt-licks, Roberts and Alito, I’d suppose. But Congress has decided it actually IS one of the three branches of government — and after seven long years [and on this issue anyway] I’m giving the Blue an A on spine. Go get ‘em, kids!
Jude
House panel approves subpoenas for top Bush aides in prosecutor flap
LAURIE KELLMAN, AP
March 21, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070321/fired-prosecutors
WASHINGTON — A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the “media spectacle” that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
“The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?” Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
“There must be accountability,” countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.
The panel also voted to compel the production of documents related to the firings from those officials and Gonzales, Fielding and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton.
Fielding a day earlier refused to provide Congress internal White House communications on the subject.
The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers of Michigan chose to do so.
The committee rejected Bush’s offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.
Authorizing the subopenas “does provide this body the leverage needed to negotiate from a position of strenghth,” said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.
Republicans called the authorization premature, though some GOP members said they would consider voting to approve the subpoenas if Conyers promises to issue them only if he has evidence of wrongdoing.
Conyers agreed. “This (authority) will not be used in a way that will make you regret your vote.”
Several Republicans said, “No” during the voice vote, but no roll call was taken.
For his part, Bush remained resolute.
Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?
“Absolutely,” Bush declared Tuesday.
Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.
“Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true ccountability,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court - ultimately the Supreme Court - in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the “public spectacle” of the Justice Department’s firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel’s former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.
“It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation,” Specter said.
Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in “a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.”
“It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available,” the president said.
Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys’ firings over the past year.
“He’s got support with me,” Bush said. “I support the attorney general.”
Democrats say the prosecutors’ dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.
But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.
The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush’s second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.
In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted “there is no indication that anybody did anything improper.”
Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.
“What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: ‘Don’t quarrel with us any longer,’” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.
The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush’s desk.
In an op-ed in Wednesday’s editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: “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.”
The U.S. attorney firings: the Senate takes action and Bush tapdances
Mary Shaw
Mar 21 2007
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6237
Two interesting developments yesterday in the U.S. attorney scandal:
First, the U.S. Senate voted 94-2 in favor of S.214, The Preserving United States Independence Act of 2007. This legislation would revoke the provision of the 2006 Reauthorization of the Patriot Act that allows the Attorney General appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms and without Senate confirmation. This bill still needs to go through the House. But, in any case, the 94-2 Senate vote clearly indicates that the recent U.S. attorney firings is not a partisan issue, but one that Senators in both parties chose to address by clipping Gonzales’s wings via this legislation.
Then George W. Bush made a speech in which he tried to turn it into a partisan issue.
Said George:
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.”
Hey, George: If it’s a partisan thing, how do you explain the 94-2 vote? (I’m guessing that nobody had told him about S.214. Or, more likely, maybe he’s hoping that the American public hadn’t heard about S.214.)
And then George tried to sell us on his “solution”: He offered us interviews with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers - but in private and not under oath.
Why in private, George? And why don’t you want them to testify under oath?
What is there to hide?
It seems to boil down to this: The Senate finally took some bipartisan action and Bush did a partisan tapdance around it. Bush had better get used to dealing with a Congress that will actually challenge him. And Congress had better keep up the pressure.
NY Times slams Bush’s ‘nasty and bumbling comments’ on US Attorney firings; Calls on Congress to subpoena Rove, others
Ron Brynaert, Raw Story
Wednesday March 21, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/New_York_Times_slams_Bushs_nasty_0321.html
Democratic leaders were right to reject an “unacceptable” offer presented by the White House on Tuesday which would allow unsworn testimony by White House officials behind closed doors, and should press on with planned subpoenas for Karl Rove and others, according to the lead editorial in Wednesday’s New York Times [a Times Select offering.]
“In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that ‘people just need to hear the truth’ about the firing of eight United States attorneys,” the Times editorial states. “That’s right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for ‘interviews’ did not come close to meeting that standard.”
In his address, Bush defended his administration’s disclosure of an “unprecedented” amount of documents showing how the firing of those U.S. attorneys was handled.
“There is no indication that anybody did anything improper,” said Bush, asserting that Democrats were more interested in “scoring political points” than constructing an honest account of the firings.
The Times editorial continues, “Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.”
In a statement released before Bush’s remarks that was sent to RAW STORY, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called on Rove to testify under oath.
“After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt,” Reid said. “Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”
Not very happy with the offer, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called it a “very clever proposal,” and said that it will be considered by the Congressional committee leaders.
Democrats have been calling for on-the-record testimony by Rove, Miers and others, and the Senate may issue its own subpoenas.
“The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation,” the Times editorial states.
“Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials’ statements to Congress, which may have been untrue.”
However, the Times editors find it “no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress,” since “this is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government.”
Still, the editorial adds, “Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.”
Excerpts from Times editorial:
#
It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?
The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed. The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.
The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton’s high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.
The Department of Just Us
Checks and balances few and far between after Bush administration makeover
Will Durst, WorkingForChange
03.14.07
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=22112
For those of you who enjoyed the devastation that the Bush Administration unloaded on America through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the K Street Project, you’re going to love the Extreme Makeover going on over at your new Department of Justice. Where justice stems from the eye of The Decider.
You might think that, dragging around an approval rating lower than that of a flatulent weasel crashing a preschool prophylactic pageant, President Bush would be handicapped in accumulating another stash of clueless roommates, obscure toadies and party hacks to fill important government posts, but you my friend, would have another think coming. Even in his position as the lamest of ducks, the Prez remains steadfast in his two-term mission to replace experienced professionals with the wretched excesses of party flackery, or more precisely — a reflection of him.
The story so far: say you’re a good Republican afflicted with a problem US Attorney who has not demonstrated proper exuberance whilst prosecuting Democratics near election time or one who refuses to apologize for stepping on a few big contributor toes, well don’t you worry your pretty little head, because a single call to the Attorney Weasel, Alberto Gonzalez, and you got yourself a slack-jawed partisan lackey waiting to fill the offending prosecutor’s shoes. With Kleenex.
Eight US Attorneys have been fired without any explanations despite positive internal performance reviews. And most have been or are on track to be replaced with candidates whose major qualifications is knowing the correct response to the Republican Party’s “Jump!” command is to inquire “How high?” Head Toady Karl Rove undoubtedly has a basement assembly line stamping out a series of clones learning his sinister brand of myopic kowtowing as we speak.
Apparently the fact that these guys have less experience with the law than your average IHOP early bird shift manager is a good thing. Can’t teach an old dog new suck-ups. Although many potential replacements must have gained valuable experience from being called as character witnesses for the defense in Scooter Libby’s recent trial.
Some of those fired, I’m sorry, let go, or rather, victims of partisan duty management were warned not to talk to the press or risk retaliation such as the further trashing of their reputation. Who knows what diabolical measures these fiendish minds might conceive? Possible links to Joseph Biden? Or having Robert Novack disclose connections to such anti- American movements as law school?
In the old days, before the threat of terrorism loomed over everything in this country like a rain gutter over an ant farm during monsoon season, the administration needed Senate approval for appointing new US attorneys, but snuck a provision into the Patriot Act allowing the Attorney General to appoint new federal prosecutors at his discretion.
“Checks and balances? We don’t need no stinking checks and balances.”
You’d think if anybody, the Department of Justice would be immune from politics. You know… justice- moral integrity. Rightness. I’m thinking someone became fixated on the left hand part of that word. Totally forgot about the people’s Justice. By, for and of the people. But these are the new days. When even an Easter Egg Hunt can be politicized.
And the Department of Justice becomes the Department of Just Us. And that “us” don’t include you or me.
Comic, writer, actor, former radio talk show host and bus boy in the Grand Canyon, Will Durst wants to know: where’s Jimmy Stewart when we need him?
Study: White House guilty of “political profiling”
Eighty percent of Justice Department political probes on Democrats
Bob Geiger, Alternet
March 21, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49576/
In a study cited on the floor of the United States Senate earlier this week, two researchers have found that the Bush administration’s Justice Department has persistently engaged in what they call “political profiling” and that there is a “non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials” by U.S. Attorneys.
In a February 2007 article, “The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok,” Donald Shields, Ph.D. and John Cragan, both Professors of Communications at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and Illinois State University, respectively, provide the data behind a charge leveled by Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) on the Senate floor Monday.
“These statistics are troubling, and we have to look into them,” said Durbin. “The firings of the U.S. attorneys and documents that have been turned over to Congress really call into question the legitimacy of all prosecutions brought by the U.S. attorney in cases involving partisan interests.”
Durbin is referring to a study done by Shields and Cragan showing that, under the Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Departments from 2001 through 2006, a vastly disproportionate number of Democratic officials were scrutinized when total investigations were viewed based on political party affiliation.
“We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys’ federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials,” write the authors in their study. “The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).”
The Shields-Cragan report reveals that, of the 375 investigations of public officials conducted by the Bush Justice Department, 298 — or almost 80 percent — were done against Democratic public officials. Only 67 investigations were performed on Republicans, while 10 probes were done on people affiliated with the Independent, Green or other parties.
“Our ongoing study of the Bush Justice Department (to be published in 2009) investigates the implications of the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department’s blended religious-fundamentalist and neo-conservative rhetorical vision,” write Shields and Cragan. “The study views the impact of the Justice Department’s vision on the fight against public corruption and reveals the non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials.”
Shields and Cragan also take the corporate media to task for allowing all of this to go on right under their noses:
“We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-state-wide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest. The real Pulitizer Prize-winning story is the extent of the politicization of Justice Department investigations and/or indictments of local elected and office-seeking Democrats vis-a-vis their Republican counterparts across the nation.”
What’s also interesting is to take a look at the list of 375 names and see what prominent Democrats have been investigated under the Bush watch.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was investigated in 2005, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in 2002 and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in 2004 — all led to nothing.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) were investigated by the Gonzales Justice Department — both also dead ends — and, in what should surprise nobody, those investigation occurred in late 2006 as both were locked in tight U.S. Senate campaigns.
Conversely, of the relatively few times U.S. Attorneys bothered to look under the Republican rock, they dug up Randy “Duke” Cunningham for receiving bribes for defense contracts, Congressman Bob Ney for public corruption and a guy named Tom DeLay for influence peddling.
The study draws the same conclusion that is likely to be seen in the Congressional investigations of the Justice Department that will come in the next few weeks and months — that this all stinks to high heaven and Americans are damn lucky they chose to return oversight to the United States Congress in November.
“Our paper calls for new federal laws that would create a national registry of federal investigations of elected officials by party affiliation,” say Shields and Cragan. “The current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling.”
Rove Should Testify Under Oath
Harry Reid
Tue Mar 20
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070320/pl_usnw/reid__rove_should_testify_under_oath
To: POLITICAL EDITORS
WASHINGTON, March 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on the Bush administration’s efforts to prevent White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove from testifying under oath on the partisan firing of U.S. Attorneys.
“After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”
A fact sheet follows.
The Bush administration on the U.S. Attorneys Case: Fact vs. Fiction
Time and again, members of the Bush administration have failed to level with the American people on the events surrounding the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Here are the facts.
FICTION ON “PERFORMANCE”
FICTION: The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General both claimed that the eight United States Attorneys were dismissed for “performance” related reasons.
Attorney General Gonzales made that claim under oath. “What we do is we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions. And that’s the reason why changes sometimes have to be made, although there are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people leave on their own.” (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty repeated that claim under oath. “As the attorney general said at his oversight hearing last month, the phone calls that were made back in December were performance related.” (Testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/6/07)
FACT: Justice Department performance evaluations of these U.S. Attorneys were overwhelmingly positive.
FACT: Attorneys fired not for bad performance but for political differences. “All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases.” [Washington Post, 2/18/07]
FACT: Daniel Bodgen, U.S. Attorney for Nevada, received a “very positive” evaluation. “For instance, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a ‘capable’ leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. ‘He didn’t get any dings,’ said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. ‘The overall evaluation was very positive.’ Bogden was told to step down in December.” (McClatchy, 2/12/07)
FACT: Deputy Attorney General McNulty admitted to never having seen Bogden’s performance records. “I’m still a little skittish about Bogden … I’ll admit have not looked at his district’s performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and evening.” Email from Deputy AG Paul McNulty to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/5/06)
FACT: John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Seattle, was “effective, well- regarded, and [a] capable leader.” “McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn’t explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign. The 65-page evaluation described McKay’s relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as ‘excellent’ and praised the quality of his office’s work. McKay ‘is an effective, well- regarded and capable leader,’ the evaluation stated. ‘I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well,’ director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006.” (McClatchy, 2/12/07)
FACT: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was “well-respected.” “Lam, another U.S. attorney who was told to resign, was described in her 2005 evaluation as ‘well respected’ by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall, the review was positive, according to another Justice Department official who has seen the evaluation. ‘We’re not aware of any significant issues,’ said the official, who also asked not to be identified. Lam is leaving office Feb 15.” (McClatchy, 2/12/07)
FACT: Even the Justice Department now admits performance wasn’t the issue. “Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors’ ‘performance-related’ problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration’s unhappiness with the prosecutors’ policy decisions and revealed the White House’s role in the matter.” (WashingtonPost, 3/3/07)
FICTION: Karl Rove claimed that Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was dismissed because she did not focus on immigration cases. “Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. [She] refused to file immigration cases … at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office.” (Karl Rove Remarks at the Statehouse Convention Center in Littlerock, AK, 3/8/07)
FACT: The Justice Department wrote to Senator Dianne Feinstein three months before the firing, vouching for Lam’s handling of immigration cases. “Please know that immigration enforcement is critically important to the Department and to the United States Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California. That office is presently committing fully half of its Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases. The immigration prosecution philosophy of the Southern District focuses on deterrence by directing its resources and efforts against the worst immigration offenders and by bringing felony cases against such defendant that will result in longer sentences.” (Letter from William E. Moschella, Asst. Attorney General, to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, 8/23/06)
FACT: Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, looked to immigration as an excuse to fire Carol Lam. “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re: immigration enforcement? Has anyone? If the AG ordered 20 more prosecutors to the S.D. Cal. To do immigration enforcement only where would we get them from (remember the premise: AG has ordered it)? Please advise?” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Bill Mercer, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 5/31/06)
FACT: Disgraced former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham signed a letter expressing frustration with Carol Lam four months after she began prosecuting him - and one month before he pled guilty. “Again, we would like to meet to discuss the disparity between crimes committed and prosecutions conducted at your earliest convenience … Sincerely … Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham.” (Letter to Attorney General Gonzales, 10/20/05)
FICTION: The Bush Administration told Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) that Daniel Bogden was fired because he did not prosecute enough “adult obscenity” cases. “One is that I was trying to get the specifics of why he was let go. And to be honest with you, this is what I was told. I was told that there were two areas that they didn’t feel that Dan was being aggressive enough. One was on obscenity cases — adult obscenity cases.” Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)
FACT: Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella said that Daniel Bogden actually had no significant deficiencies. “The general sense in the department about Mr. Bogden is that given the importance of the district in Las Vegas, there was no particular deficiency. There was an interest in seeing new energy and renewed vigor in that office, really taking it to the next level.” Testimony of William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, to the House Judiciary Committee, 3/6/07)
FACT: Daniel Bogden moved forward on adult obscenity cases - even when the Justice Department gave him little to work with. “A former senior law enforcement official knowledgeable about the work of the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office said he was shocked to see the criticism of Bogden … The case in question, involving adult obscenity on the Internet, was ‘woefully deficient’ of details according to the official, who confirmed that Ward had gone to Nevada in early September 2006 to present it. ‘All they had was a Web site,’ he said. ‘They didn’t have a target fully identified, they had no assets — they didn’t even know where the guy was managing his server.’
Nevertheless … Bogden’s office agreed to put together a proposal for pursuing the case, outlining the additional work and resources needed to build it, the official said. The implication that Bogden was refusing to take on a ‘good case’ in that instance, the official said, ‘is totally absurd.’” (Salon.com, 3/19/07)
FACT: Senator Ensign may have been “intentionally mislead.” “I said it before: I was either intentionally misled or somebody was misinformed and unaware of the complete process.” (Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)
FICTION: White House Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that David Iglesias was fired because of complaints on his handling of voter-fraud cases. “That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases — not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania … “(Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)
FACT: David Iglesias was asked by the Department of Justice to lead a voter fraud seminar for more than 100 prosecutors across the country. “David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a ‘voting integrity symposium’ in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice’s public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed.” (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)
FACT: Republican lawmakers pressured U.S.Attorneys to bring indictments against Democrats - and then fired them when they refused.
In New Mexico: “Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts. The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.” (McClatchy, 3/1/07)
And in Seattle: “Another fired prosecutor, John McKay, of Seattle, tells NEWSWEEK that local Republicans pressured him to launch a criminal probe of voting fraud that would tilt a deadlocked Washington governor’s race. ‘They wanted me to go out and start arresting people,’ he says, adding that he refused to do so because there was ‘no evidence.’ After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a ‘clearly nervous’ Elston asking if he intended to go public: ‘He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won’t say anything bad about you.’” (Newsweek, 3/19/07)
FICTION ON “POLITICAL REASONS”
FICTION: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that no United States Attorney would be replaced for political reasons - or to stop a growing corruption probe. “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.” (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)
FACT: The Justice Department graded prosecutors on whether they were “loyal bushies”. “As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys … The vast majority of US Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal bushies, etc.” (Email from Kyl Sampson, Dept. of Justice, to Deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)
FACT: Rove was asked to fire one of the U.S. Attorneys by the New Mexico Republican Party Chairman. “Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state’s U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state. ‘Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?’ Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month. ‘He’s gone,’ Rove said, according to Weh. ‘I probably said something close to Hallelujah,’ said Weh.” (McClatchy, 3/10/07)
FACT: Carol Lam served a search warrant on Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, fmr. Executive Director of the CIA, and then became targeted for firing. “The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general’s chief of staff warned the White House of a ‘real problem’ with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday. The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys.” (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)
FACT: Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, wanted a nominee to replace Lam immediately upon the expiration of her term. “Sensitivity: Confidential … Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following: … The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to William Kelley, 5/11/06)
FICTION ON PATRIOT ACT PROCEDURES
FICTION: Attorney General Gonzales claimed the White House had no intention of subverting the Senate’s constitutional “advice and consent” role. “Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. attorneys, and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role.” (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)
FACT: Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Gonzales’s Chief of Staff, and Chris Oprison, of the Office of White House Counsel, openly talked about using their new authority to go around the Senate on the nomination of J. Timothy Griffin in Arkansas.
“(2) ‘interim may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor’s and Lincoln’s office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself ‘US Attorney’ rather than ‘interim’ or ‘acting’ and our talkers should avoid referring to him as ‘interim.’” (Email from Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/19/06)
“I think we should gum this to death … There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, 12/19/06)
FICTION ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S KNOWLEDGE
FICTION: The Attorney General was unaware of the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. “As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.” (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)
Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales decided that the U.S. Attorneys should go. “David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) ‘how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.’ I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge’s hearings, and he said the matter was not urgent.” (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Office of White House Counsel, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)
FICTION ON KARL ROVE’S INVOLVEMENT
FICTION: The White House claimed it had no involvement in the firing of these eight United States Attorneys. “‘The White House did not play a role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,’ said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s counselor, referring to a roster of those who were fired.” New York Times, 3/13/07)
FACT: Emails show the White House came up with the plan to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. “The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.” (WashingtonPost, 3/13/07)
FACT: The idea to fire US Attorneys started in Karl Rove’s office. “New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales’ explanations of the matter.” (ABC News, 3/15/07)
FACT: Karl Rove served as a conduit to for political complaints about the U.S.Attorneys. “The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Department about federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics charge were partisan political reasons.” (McClatchy, 3/11/07)
FACT: A capable United States Attorney was replaced with a former aide to Rove. “The Justice Department removed a prosecutor in Arkansas without cause to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, a senior Justice official conceded in testimony Tuesday … former U.S. attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, has said that he was asked to leave last year to give the job to [J. Timothy] Griffin, who previously worked for Rove and for the Republican National Committee.” (The News-Observer, 2/7/07)
FICTION ON HARRIET MIERS’S INVOLVEMENT
FICTION: White House Senior Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that the idea to fire U.S. Attorneys originated in the office of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. “And what Harriet floated was the idea of saying should we treat the fifth year as the first year — give new blood — an opportunity for new blood to come in. Kyle, to his credit, and others said, that would be highly disruptive to the process, there are a lot of good U.S. attorneys that are performing; some of them have not served full four-year terms because we hadn’t removed them all in the first place. So it was appropriate for Harriet to raise the idea; it was quickly rejected.” (Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)
FACT: Kyle Sampson discussed the dismissals with Alberto Gonzales in 2004 - when Gonzales was still the White House Counsel. “Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago … As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys - the underperforming ones.” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)
FACT: White House emails show idea was discussed by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, neither dismissed it outright. “David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) ‘how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.’ I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge’s hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent.” (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)
SOURCE: Senate Democratic Communications Center
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) movies south indian masalamoulin rouge moviejack ass the moviemovies bittorrentporn movie clips freethe glory movieporn movie clips freegirls of stripping movies Map
March 21st, 2007