Rove Invoved In Firing Of Attorneys General

[drankin]

And firing prosecutors for successfully prosecuting Republicans (Duke Cunningham) or for failing to aggressively pursue Democratic candidates prior to the election should be considered obstruction of justice. If politicians are allowed to use the Justice Department to shield themselves or smear their opponents, then the DOJ is a joke.

OK, now I get it. Thank you, turbo. Certainly, if that was the motivation for the firings, there needs to be some rules around that.

 

[Astronuc]

And firing prosecutors for successfully prosecuting Republicans (Duke Cunningham)

That is believed to be the case regarding Carol Lam, USAttorney in San Diego, who successfully prosecuted Cunningham and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam

The controversy includes whether or not the firings were legitimately 'performance-based' or were really political retaliation with some subsequent lying to Congress or investigators about what actually did happen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This morning at the WH press conference with Tony Snow:

Reporter: Why is there a large gap in the emails [released by the WH] just before the firings occurred?

Snow: I've been led to believe that there's a good answer for that question.

Hmmmmm...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OK, now I get it. Thank you, turbo. Certainly, if that was the motivation for the firings, there needs to be some rules around that.

There are rules [laws] about this. That's why this is an issue.

 

[edward]

The firings were definitely not due to poor performance.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070321-apjc-firedprosicuters.170cf4c.html

Bush is not going to allow "his people" to testify under oath.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOV9T1.DTL

 

[SticksandStones]

The firings were definitely not due to poor performance.



http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070321-apjc-firedprosicuters.170cf4c.html

Bush is not going to allow "his people" to testify under oath.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOV9T1.DTL

Funny thing is...Bush doesn't have a say in the matter. They have been subpoenaed. If they don't show up, they'll be arrested. Bush can't do anything about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush is claiming Executive Privilege, which is a legitimate Constitional concern, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this [EP] applies to matters of national security and otherwise sensitive issues, so he probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. Still, this may go to the SC.

 

[Astronuc]

This morning at the WH press conference with Tony Snow:

Reporter: Why is there a large gap in the emails [released by the WH] just before the firings occurred?

Snow: I've been led to believe that there's a good answer for that question.

Hmmmmm...

Or misled as the case may be.

 

[turbo]

Bush is claiming Executive Privilege, which is a legitimate Constitional concern, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this [EP] applies to matters of national security and otherwise sensitive issues, so he probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. Still, this may go to the SC.

Nixon claimed Executive Privilege, too. It didn't fly. If Bush and Rove want to drag this into the courts, they will benefit from the press coverage of this issue since it will take air-time away from warrantless spying on US citizens, torture of detainees, lying about the need to wage wars, and a dozen other things that warrant impeachment. Bush is already making pronouncements about how the Democrats are engaging in a partisan "fishing expedition" and otherwise denigrating the Congress' responsibility to provide oversight over the actions of his administration. He had a free ride for 6 years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If Bush and Rove want to drag this into the courts, they will benefit from the press coverage of this issue since it will take air-time away from warrantless spying on US citizens, torture of detainees, lying about the need to wage wars, and a dozen other things that warrant impeachment.

A red herring...? I thought about that. I can even imagine that the [apparently] missing emails were intentionally left out, but that the emails are meaningless.

Who planted the doc that took down Dan Rather? I still wonder about that. Do we know?

Or, maybe they have gotten that sloppy with the free ride.

 

[turbo]

By making a huge issue out of the President's "right" to deny Congress the ability to question his aides under oath, Bush is muddying the whole issue, and is casting the issue as if it is nasty partisan Democrats trying to cause injury to hard-working political appointees in his administration. The whole issue of checks and balances and Congressional oversight does not exist in Bush's little peanut brain. He is "the emperor" and we mere citizens have no right to know what he and his minions are up to. I wish Pelosi would "grow a set". By taking impeachment off the table, she has told Bush that he can proceed with impunity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just heard another interesting point made: By allowing his people to meet with Congress under any conditions, Bush has already agreed to yield on the issue of executive privilege. Therefore, one would tend to conclude that Bush is really worried about accountability.

 

[turbo]

Snow has said today that if Congress issues subpoenas, the "offer" to let selected members of Congress "interview" aides (not under oath, with no transcripts, and with no right of recall of witnesses) will be withdrawn. Big deal. Under those limitations, generalizations, "hazy recall" etc will allow perjury and cover-up to go unpunished. The WH has turned over no internal emails regarding this issue from mid-November until Dec 6th, when the firings started. This is suspicious, since after the Republicans lost both houses of Congress, Rove et al may have been seeking retribution against prosecutors who failed to bring enough cases against Democrats in the months before the election. It is time that Congress started providing the oversight that it is tasked with. The last six years have been disgusting, with a shameless grab of power by the executive branch and a compliant Congress satisfied with filling their own pockets and keeping their cushy jobs.

 

[BobG]

I'd look for a few more instances of 'coincidental timing' of US Attorneys to come out.

Here's one. Abramoff was first investigated for lobbying activities back in 2002. The day after a grand jury in Guam subpoenaed records concerning Abramoff, the acting US Attorney, Frederick Black, was demoted. Black was also investigating Guam's Democratic governor, Carl Gutierrez, at the time.

Finally appointing someone to replace a temporary official really wouldn't be very unusual. In fact, having someone serve as a temporary official for over a decade, as Black did, is more unusual than replacing a temporary official. Still, I'd look for questions about the timing of that replacement to come up, as well.

And, obviously, while the replacement of Black delayed Abramoff's problems from hitting the headlines, it didn't prevent it.

Boston Globe - Bush removal ended Guam investigation - US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist

 

[denverdoc]

I am still hoping that this will be the Rubicon--too much executive arrogance, and fire in the belly provided by an upcoming election, and years of unfulfilled promise for bi-partisan politics from 2001 outward, with nary an olive branch. Dems are spoiling for a fight.

Bush, must have better reason than pure allegiance to his appointee, for a tooth and nail fight to the end, maybe hopeful that as a lameduck, and promises by pelosi it will never reach impeachment. But part of Pelosi's promise was meant to put some distance between her and her Northern California district that already has impeachment mandates in place--like yes this is my electorate, but I have more sweeping, national views. Well if the dominos fall, she may change her tune. Bush needs to be careful IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now I want to know about the "missing" emails as much as anything else. That is sooooo reminiscent of Nixon's missing 18.5 minutes. And it could well be an obstruction of justice issue. .

But I had hoped and thought that Gonzales would be gone by now. It seems that both sides are working hard behind the scenes to prevent an all out Constitutional crisis. Of course, I think we reached the point of a crisis nearly five years ago.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whoops!

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals. [continued]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070324/NATIONWORLD/703240464/1012/NATIONWORLD

This is going to make the "you should trust us" argument a bit harder to push.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This all just got much more interesting.

WASHINGTON Mar 26, 2007 (AP)— Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd. [continued]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2982627

I don't know what this means since there are no specific legal allegations yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was more deeply involved in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys than he has sometimes acknowledged, and Gonzales and his aides have made a series of inaccurate claims about the issue in recent weeks, the attorney general's former chief of staff testified Thursday.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, D. Kyle Sampson also revealed that David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, was not added to the dismissal list until just before the Nov. 7 elections, following complaints from presidential adviser Karl Rove that Iglesias had not been aggressive enough in pursuing voter-fraud cases. Previously, Rove had not been tied so directly to the removal of the prosecutors. [continued]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4674034.html

If there is nothing to this, one really has to wonder why we have so many contradictions. I keep thinking that we don't know the real issue yet.

 

[denverdoc]

gonz will resign. maybe the dems, so emboldened, will insist on a reexamination of all the spy issues gonz stamped as legal and valid.

 

[Astronuc]

"At the end of the day, I know what I did. And I know that the motivations for the decisions I made were not based on improper reasons. "

ALBERTO GONZALES
the U.S. Attorney General defending his actions in firing eight U.S. attorneys but acknowledging confusion about the role he played.

from http://www.time.com/time/quotes - Friday, March 30, 2007.

Gonzales seems a bit confused about truth and other matters.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can Gonzales claim no knowledge of the specifics of the firings, yet assert that the specific judges fired were not chosen for political reasons? Does he not see the logical contradiction there?

But then, if "I wasn't involved in any discussions" is logically consistent with "he was involved in a few discussions", then this really must be a different system of logic than I'm used to.

 

[Astronuc]

It's called BushLogic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This morning on MTP, Leahy mentions how the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed Bush to appoint attorneys without Congressional approval, was tagged on at the last minute - I think he even says that it was snuck in. He then keeps coming back to the Patriot Act. It almost sounds like he's arguing that there was a willful deception - on the part of the Administration - that was intended to subvert the Constitution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10386260/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...We do not need more evidence, however, to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the Department of Justice. While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department [continued]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNjY2U3Yjk0NTRmNTcyNjg1M2EwM2FlNTA0OTYyMzU=

I find it funny that my old long lost friends, the real Conservatives, and siding with my newest friends, the liberals.

The French translation of neo-con is correct.

 

[Skyhunter]

This morning on MTP, Leahy mentions how the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed Bush to appoint attorneys without Congressional approval, was tagged on at the last minute - I think he even says that it was snuck in. He then keeps coming back to the Patriot Act. It almost sounds like he's arguing that there was a willful deception - on the part of the Administration - that was intended to subvert the Constitution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10386260/

Hey Ivan the real story is even better than that.

The provision was put into the patriot act at the last moment by request of the Justice department by a member of Specter's staff. According to Specter, it was done without his knowledge.

Guess who he is?

Brett Tollman, one of the new US attorneys appointed under the provision he put into the patriot act.

This is potentially a crime against the constitution. I will wait for the investigation, (gotta love that subpoena power) and if the executive branch has sereptitiously violated the separation of powers by inserting or altering legislation it is a high crime and impeachable offense IMO.

I am somewhat aghast at the politica nature of everything that Bush does. I was so reieved to see the SC rule against him today.

If they have the judiciary things could get very ugly in the coming months.

Here is a good starting place if anyone is interested in pursuing this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/18/211857/323

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON -- A top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly quit Friday, almost two weeks after telling Congress she would not testify about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.

Monica M. Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, gave no reason for her resignation. Since she was at the center of the firings, Goodling's refusal to testify has intensified questions about whether the U.S. attorney dismissals were proper and heightened the furor that threatens Gonzales' own job. [continued]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top13apr06,0,6084833.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

This just keeps getting more interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

Gonzales Adviser Goodling Gives Up Her Post
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9443741

Goodling found herself at the center of a battle with Congress over her refusal to testify about the firings. Since the scandal broke, she has been on a leave of absence from the Justice Department. The resignation simply formalizes what many people had assumed — that Goodling will not return to her job as liaison to the White House.

Congress has pushed hard for her to testify about the firings. Democrats had pointedly asked Gonzales how a Justice Department staffer could refuse to testify as part of an investigation in which the Justice Department has pledged to cooperate.

. . .
Goodling is the second senior Gonzales aide to resign in the wake of the furor over the attorney firings. The first was Kyle Sampson, who was Gonzales' former chief of staff. Sampson testified before Congress last week, contradicting some of his former boss's statements on the firings.

Goodling's testimony was sought because she was in a unique position to know how significant a role the White House played in orchestrating the firings and what the attorney general knew about the White House's role. She began her leave of absence when the scandal broke.
. . .

Interesting. I wonder when she will testify.

 

[Astronuc]

Gingrich Suggests Gonzales Should Resign
Former House Speaker Slams Attorney General Over Firings
By HOPE YEN
AP

WASHINGTON (April 8) - Joining a growing list of Republicans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning. The possible presidential candidate said the botched firing of U.S. attorneys has destroyed Gonzales' credibility as the nation's top law enforcer.

"I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board," Gingrich said. "I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration. ... They're going to be involved in endless hearings."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is helping lead the investigation into the firing of eight federal prosecutors, said Gingrich's comments pointed to building bipartisan support for a new attorney general.

"This is another important voice who believes that the attorney general should step down for the good of the country and the good of the department," Schumer said in a statement. "We hope both the attorney general and the president heed Speaker Gingrich's message."
. . . . continued

Well? Perhaps by Friday?

 

[Astronuc]

Another Layer of Scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon1.html

As Congress investigates the politicization of the United States attorney offices by the Bush administration, it should review the extraordinary events the other day in a federal courtroom in Wisconsin. The case involved Georgia Thompson, a state employee sent to prison on the flimsiest of corruption charges just as her boss, a Democrat, was fighting off a Republican challenger. It just might shed some light on a question that lurks behind the firing of eight top federal prosecutors: what did the surviving attorneys do to escape the axe?

Ms. Thompson, a purchasing official in the state’s Department of Administration, was accused by the United States attorney in Milwaukee, Steven Biskupic, of awarding a travel contract to a company whose chief executive contributed to the campaign of Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. Ms. Thompson said the decision was made on the merits, but she was convicted and sent to prison before she could appeal.

The prosecution was a boon to Mr. Doyle’s opponent. Republicans ran a barrage of attack ads that purported to tie Ms. Thompson’s “corruption” to Mr. Doyle. Ms. Thompson was sentenced shortly before the election, which Governor Doyle won.

The Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seemed shocked by the injustice of her conviction. It took the extraordinary step of releasing Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. “It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin,” Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from Mr. Biskupic’s office.

Who would have thought that such a thing would happen in the US in this day and age?