More Gonzales Scandal

Not good. Former AG charges prosecutions of Democrats were politically motivated:

"Washington - Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh's home state, Pennsylvania.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution."

Back to Top

Cheney's Nose is Growing

Thanks to Talking Points Memo for this video of Larry King and Dick Cheney. They noticed his lack of eye contact during the whoppers.

Back to Top

The Gonzo Train Wreck

Special thanks to Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo for this compilation on the Gonzales scandal:

Back to Top

Gonzo: Bush's Stay-out-jail-free Card

We thought the clock was winding down on Alberto Gonzales. That there was a sort of "death watch" going on as we wondered when he would resign. Things have changed, though. Now it seems that no matter how bad it gets, no matter how many lies he's caught telling, that there is nothing Alberto can do that will move Bush to fire him. Bush seems dead set on defying reason, logic, and standards of good governance. Who is surprised?

The common knowledge now is that Bush keeps Gonzales on board because it's his "stay out of jail" card for his staff and perhaps even for himself. Every time Gonzales appears before the committee it's a train wreck of even more epic scale than the train wreck before. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has compiled an excellent video summary of the proceedings. Be sure to check it out.

By the way, some of you may recall that I predicted in December of 2000 that there is no outrage too bold for this gang.

Back to Top

DOJ Veteran Speaks Out

This appeared in the Denver Post on July 5, 2007.

"As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."

In his long-awaited but uninformative testimony concerning the extraordinary firings of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not allay these concerns. Indeed, he faced a no-win situation. If he testified falsely regarding his alleged lack of recollection and lack of involvement, he perjured himself and lied to both Congress and the American people. On the other hand, if he told the truth, he clearly has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job. Either way, his fitness to serve is now in doubt.

Tellingly, in his congressional testimony, D. Kyle Sampson (the junior aide to whom the attorney general delegated vast authority) expressed the view that the distinction between "performance" considerations and "political" considerations was "largely artificial." This attitude, however, is precisely the problem. The administration that Sampson served has elided the distinction between government performance and politics to an unparalleled extent (just as it has blurred the boundaries between the White House counsel's office and the attorney general's office). And it is no answer to say that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The point that is lost on those who make this argument is that U.S. attorneys must not serve partisan purposes or advance a partisan agenda - which has nothing to do with requiring them to promote an administration's legitimate policy priorities.

As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.

They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.

The sweeping, judicially unchecked powers granted under the Patriot Act should neither have been created in the first place nor permanently renewed thereafter, and the Act - which also contributed to the ongoing contretemps regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys, by changing the appointment process to invite political abuse - should be substantially modified, if not scrapped outright. And real, rather than symbolic, responsibility should be assigned for the manifold abuses. The public trust has been flagrantly violated, and meaningful accountability is long overdue. Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

The views presented in this essay are not representative of the Department of Justice or its employees but are instead the personal views of its author.

John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981. "

Back to Top

Rove Associate Implicated in "Caging" Crimes

Thanks to TPM Muckrakers's Paul Kiel for this bit.

"The allegations stem from two emails sent to and from Griffin in August of 2004, when he was working as the Research Director for the Republican National Committee. The subject line of the emails was “caging” and attached was a spreadsheet with the names and addresses of 1,835 voters in Duval County. A woman working for the Republican Party of Florida seems to have prepared the spreadsheet, which she sent to Griffin and other RNC researchers, as well as Brett Doster, the executive director of the Bush-Cheney Florida 2004 re-election campaign."

Back to Top

Snow Caught Lying Again

Tony Snow on June 13, 2007:

Q: Okay, but at the beginning of this story, the President, you, Dan Bartlett, others said on camera that politics was not involved, this was performance-based.

MR. SNOW: That is something -- we have never said that

---

Oh, really? Now for the truth!

---

Tony Snow on March 15, 2007:

"[W]hat the President has -- the Department of Justice has made recommendations, they've been approved. And it's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on sort of attempts to do political retaliation, if you will.".

Back to Top

Caging?

Goodling revealed the scheme to prevent minorities from voting.

Back to Top

No Shame Whatsoever

We posted this sometime back in our header, and now it's time to move it to the archives, because things have changed. It now looks like Bush has no intention of letting Alberto resign.

The clock is winding down on Alberto Gonzales. There's a sort of "death watch" going on right now as we all ponder when will Alberto bail.

Back to Top

Cohen on Alberto's Case

You've GOT to see this. Congressmen Steve Cohen reduces Gonzales to rubble. If there was any doubt that Gonzales was lying, that doubt has been removed.

Here's Dana Milbank's take on it in the Washington Post:

"Finally, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) cruelly turned Gonzales's ignorance against him: "You said you didn't know who put [U.S. Attorney David] Iglesias on the list" to be fired?

"That is correct," Gonzales said.

"But you said you knew the president and the vice president didn't," Cohen pointed out. "How do you know they didn't?"

Gonzales paused, trapped. "Well, I just know that they would not do that," he said."

[Part 1]



[Part 2]

Back to Top

Trouble in the Dept of Justice

Paul Kiel, of TPM-Muckraker reports on a letter sent to Gonzales from two influential Senators who are not one bit happy with DOJ's explanation for the purge of eight US Attorneys in recent months.

"In a letter sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this morning, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) charged that the evidence available regarding the administration's purge of eight U.S. Attorneys showed that 'the intent was to replace some of these U.S. Attorneys with others who might be more politically-connected.'"

This is isn't going away soon, folks.

Back to Top

How Thugs Make Threats

Former US Atty forced to resign, John McKay explains what it's like being threatened by Bushies.

"Honestly, I was thinking about what a thug does when they threaten a witness. And when a thug threatens a witness, they don't say, 'I'm going to kill your family.' They say, 'I know where your family lives.'"

The interviewer asked McKay about Gonzales, "Do you feel that now he's just covering for the president?" McKay replied, "Yes, I do."

Back to Top

More on US Attys

I don't know about you, but this is just beginning to look a bit too suspicious. From McClatchy News Services:

"A U.S. attorney in Wisconsin who prosecuted a state Democratic official on corruption charges during last year's heated governor's race was once targeted for firing by the Department of Justice, but given a reprieve for reasons that remain unclear. A federal appeals court last week threw out the conviction of Wisconsin state worker Georgia Thompson, saying the evidence was "beyond thin."

Congressional investigators looking into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Wisconsin prosecutor Steven M. Biskupic's name on a list of lawyers targeted for removal when they were inspecting a Justice Department document not yet made public, according to an attorney for a lawmaker involved in the investigation. The attorney asked for anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the investigation. "

It looks like that US Atty in WI was set for firing until he decided to push a VERY THIN ''voter fraud'' case against a high profile Democrat - apparently with hopes of influencing the outcome of a close governer's race there. Push the case? Okay, you can stay on.

The case, though, was so flimsy, that an appeals court didn't just throw it back to the lower court to be retried. The Appeals court outright overturned the conviction and acquited the accused.

Back to Top

For God's Sake

The New York Times
April 13, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

For God’s Sake

By PAUL KRUGMAN

In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.

Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.

Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.

One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.

There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?

Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.

And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.

You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.

Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.

The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.

Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.

Back to Top

Guest Editorial: Time to Consider Impeaching Bush

The following is a guest editorial by my friend from the Boston Tea Party Chat Room, troublemkr.

---

I was against impeachment. I thought it was a waste of time/effort. It has become apparent to me, though, with the recent GSA no-bid contract and Doan's stewardship, with the recent Department of Justice US Attorney firings and the Attorney General's inability to be honest with Congress, that the administration does not believe in the rule of law. And the law is the foundation of our democracy.

This is not a government by the republicans for the republicans. The Hatch Act does not permit federal employees to act in partisan ways in the operation of government. (Go here for more on the history of the Hatch Act.)

Ironically, the republicans were instrumental in passage of the Hatch Act. Times have changed very much. I am a dissident republican because the values of our party are not evident to me now. It seems that these "republicans" are trying to force their will on the whole government, to govern with one-party rule. They conduct business secretly. They have broadened the executive branch control over the other two branches of our government. This was NEVER envisioned by our forefathers. The natural result of this is a dictatorship. Would the republicans want the democrats to win the white house and exercise these powers? Doubtful.

While Doan was advised by the Bush Administration attorneys not to pursue a no-bid contract for her friend's company, she disregarded this instruction. And the Bush Administration did nothing.

In an effort to circumvent possible subpoenas for the white house email system, the administration has used the Republican National Committee's email system. This indicates that some White House personnel conspired with Abramoff, at the very least, to hide communications from a possible prosecution in the future.

In the US Attorney scandal, one of Gonzales' assistants is asserting her fifth
amendment right on the basis that the committee has made up its mind. these
grounds have not been established as a circumstance that would permit a
witness to claim their fifth amendment right. The fifth amendment was never
designed to hide guilt from congress.

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Congress is not a body that is trying criminal cases. Congress does not deprive the defendant of due process of law. but the assertion of the fifth amendment smacks of obstruction of justice. This says nothing about whether a defendant can choose to testify to congress or not.

If the US Attorneys that were not fired might be guilty of a violation against the Hatch Act, the citizens of this country should know that. US Attorneys are not just a political appointment. They are the prosecutors for the people of this nation. If White House personnel directed these firings for not carrying out Bush policy, then the White House personnel should also suffer the same punishment as the people that they directed. There should be no assertion of executive privilege because executive privilege was not designed to circumvent the law.

Violation of the Hatch Act requires removal from their position of authority. At this time, i feel ample examples exist to demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence in the operation of government. This administration cannot conduct itself outside of the law.

Therefore, i am willing to accept Bush's impeachment as the only reasonable alternative.

---

troublemkr, aka Suzanne Hamlet Shatto, describes herself as "a moderate republican" whose been "active in politics" "for many years."

Back to Top

Congressional Oversight

According to this report in the Boston Globe, there once was a time when it was considered "okay" to bring in Presidential aides and put them under oath.

"WASHINGTON -- Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors."

Back to Top

Rove Lied in Plame Case

Why is it important that Rove be under oath and a transcript made of his testimonty to the Senate Judiciary Committee? Joe Conason tells us why.

"Rove is a proven liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is under oath, unless and until he is directly threatened with the prospect of prison time. Or has everyone suddenly forgotten his exceedingly narrow escape from criminal indictment for perjury and false statements in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation? Only after four visits to the grand jury convened by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a stark warning from Fitzgerald to defense counsel of a possible indictment, did Rove suddenly remember his role in the exposure of Plame as a CIA agent.

Not only did Rove lie, but he happily let others lie on his behalf, beginning in September 2003, when Scott McClellan, then the White House press secretary, publicly exonerated him of any blame in the outing of Plame. From that autumn until his fifth and final appearance before the grand jury in April 2006, the president's "boy genius" concealed the facts about his leak of Plame's CIA identity to Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper."

Back to Top

Like Father - Like Son

Clinton-haters like to suggest that in 1993 he fired the US Attorney that was investigating his role in the Whitewater land deal. Rightwingers hope you won't remember the truth, or that you don't know where to go to refresh your memory.

According to a February, 1998 investigative report by Mollie Ivins, the fraud division of the Justice Department, shortly after Clinton's inauguration, concluded that the RTC's Whitewater referral didn't appear to "warrant any criminal investigation."

Even more interesting, in light of today's allegations of hanky-panky in Dubya's Justice Department, it appears that Daddy Bush's henchmen also tried to pressure a US Attorney into pushing ahead on an investigation for purely political purposes.

Daddy Bush's Attorney General William Barr was angry that things weren't moving quickly enough on the RTC's Whitewater referral, and ordered Little Rock US Attorney Charles Banks to get the lead out. This was despite the fact that Banks had already determined that "no action should be taken on the referral at that time." He also said he believed "no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses," particularly against the Clintons.

'On Oct. 8, Barr convened a joint FBI-Justice Department panel to examine the referral. But the panel concluded that the referral "failed to cite evidence of any federal criminal offense." The panel's comment about the referral ranged from "junky" and "half-baked" to that its allegations were "reckless, irresponsible" and "odd."

Nevertheless, Barr put a preliminary investigation into motion and ordered Banks to review it again and to report back by Oct. 16, two weeks before the Nov. 3 election.'

[Then the October 16, 1992 report back to Bush's DOJ]

As Banks noted in his report to the Justice Department dated Oct. 16, Barr's desire to expedite the Whitewater investigation smacked of improper political use of the federal judicial system. "I know in investigations of this type," wrote Banks, "the first steps, such as issuance of ... subpoenas ... will lead to media and public inquiries of matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions about such an investigation all too often publicly purport to 'legitimize what can't be proven' ... I must opine that after such a lapse of time, the insistence for urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene into the political process of the upcoming presidential election ... For me personally to participate in an investigation that I know will or could easily lead to the above scenario and to the possible denial of rights due to the targets, subjects, witnesses or defendants is inappropriate. I believe it amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions and believe that such would be detrimental to the Department of Justice, FBI, this office and to the President of the United States [George Bush]."'

Does this sound a bit familiar, boys and girls?

Back to Top

Not All Firings Are the Same

Gleen Greenwald writes for Salon

"The fundamental difference between (a) a new administration replacing all U.S. attorneys (as multiple Presidents have done -- including Clinton, Reagan and even Bush 41) and (b) cherry-picking ones for firing in the middle of an administration, has been amply documented. Alberto Gonzales' own Chief of Staff recognized the unprecedented nature of what they were planning in an email he wrote to the White House. "

See this email from Sampson to Miers dated January 9, 2006.

Back to Top

Bush Fired All 93 US Attys Too

The rightwinger whine that it's okay for Bush to politicize the Justice Department is okay because Clinton replaced the previous administration's US Attorneys isn't holding water. According to Glenn Greenwald of Salon:

"It is equally vital to note . . . that President Bush asked for the resignation of all U.S. attorneys at the start of his administration, and that (correctly) did not provoke any controversy because that action is routine and proper. "

As a matter of fact, even rightwinger blowhard Rush Limbaugh admitted in 1993 that it was proper for a new administration to replace all the US Attorneys. From Limbaugh's March 23, 1993 broadcast of his television show:

JANET RENO (US Attorney General): I haven't asked for Stephens' resignation. I've asked for the resignation of all the US attorneys as part of an orderly transfer to a new administration, so that the new administration can choose its US attorneys which it re--thinks is absolutely integral to the Department of Justice ought--and based on what we think the qualifications for US attorney should be.

LIMBAUGH: Now this happens. She's right. New administrations just come in and get rid of all the US attorneys.

And then, we have this from the New York Post in 2001 before Dubya's inauguration - regarding who might replace Clinton appointee Mary Jo White as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It seems they too thought that it was just a matter of routine for a new administration to replace the previous administration's appointees:

"It is anticipated White and the other U.S. attorneys around the nation will be asked to submit letters of resignation, standard operating procedure when the White House changes hands."

Back to Top