Gonzales explanation of firings called 'sorry excuse'

[nkdlunch]

damn! will this goverment beat Nixon's as the most evil goverment in US history??? :corn:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday "mistakes were made" regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and he accepts responsibility for the ordeal.

"My pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here,"he said at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. "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 justice, nor am I aware of all decisions."

"That is a sorry excuse," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said minutes later on the Senate floor.

Schumer said Gonzales should resign.

"Did the attorney general not know that eight U.S. attorneys were to be fired?" Schumer said. "If he didn't know, he shouldn't be attorney general, plain and simple. ... The buck stops with the attorney general."

However, Gonzales said he was not stepping down.

"I am here not because I give up," he told reporters. "I am here because I've learned from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility and because I'm committed to doing my job -- and that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people."

Democrats are examining e-mails they say prove the White House was far more involved in the firings than it has acknowledged.

The e-mails between the Department of Justice and White House were handed Tuesday to congressional committees investigating whether the dismissals, which happened last year, were politically motivated.

White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed it was former White House counsel Harriet Miers who came up with an idea to remove all the federal prosecutors and bring in "fresh blood" at the beginning of President Bush's second term. (Watch a congressman explain how e-mails suggest White House involvement in firings)

Meanwhile, the chief of staff to Gonzales has resigned, the Justice Department said Tuesday, as criticism grows over the firings.

D. Kyle Sampson, who also was a top lawyer under Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft, has been at the center of the storm. His resignation was effective Monday.

An e-mail from Sampson to Miers dated January 1, 2006, read, "You have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."

On September 13, 2006, Sampson e-mailed Miers lists of federal attorneys "In the Process of Being Pushed Out" and those "We Now Should Consider Pushing Out."

"Just when we thought our faith could not be shaken any further, it has been," Schumer said earlier. "At the very beginning, it was clear that something didn't smell right. But I had no idea how high it went."

He added: "The latest revelations proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been an unprecedented breach of trust, abuse of power and misuse of the Justice Department. And that is very serious and very important."

Schumer also warned the White House against making Sampson "the next fall guy."

"Today's staff resignation does not take heat off the attorney general. In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby," the senator added, referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury last week in an investigation into the exposure of a CIA agent. (Watch Schumer call for Gonzales to step down)

Gonzales spoke highly of Sampson in a news release.

"Kyle Sampson has served as a key member of my team beginning at the White House and continuing here at the Department of Justice -- first as my deputy chief of staff and then as my chief of staff," Gonzales said in a statement.

"I am very appreciative for his service, counsel and friendship during the last six years, and I thank him for his service to the department."

The Bush administration has said the firings -- seven in December and one months earlier -- were routine personnel matters that were the result of poor performances.

However, Democrats accuse the administration of trying to dictate to the prosecutors, who are supposed to be nonpartisan.

Gonzales said the lawyers should have been told why they were being fired and admitted the explanations initially given to Congress about the matter were "incomplete."

Allegations of pressure
Snow told reporters traveling with the president in Mexico that Miers made the proposal to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of Bush's second term.

Several of the prosecutors who were fired have said they were being pressured to move more quickly on investigations into voter fraud.

Miers resigned in January. President Bush had nominated her as a Supreme Court justice in October 2005 but she withdrew after conservatives and others questioned her credentials.

"We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"And we stand by the Department of Justice's assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed [in December] for performance and managerial reasons."

Snow said Miers' proposal was a suggestion, not a recommendation, to fire all the federal prosecutors. Bush made "no recommendations on specific individuals," he said.

"We don't have anything to indicate the president made any calls on specific U.S. attorneys."

[boutons_]

These Repugs in this Exec have no shame, and they will be an eternal, shameful shit stain on American history.

This is exactly the Enron defense, and same shit we heard from Gen Kiley.

"I'm "responsible", but I don't know what the fuck was going on, so I'm completely innocent and unaccountable."

But as long as no sex was involved, this Exec is totally acceptable to the clannies, the yonies, etc.

No right-winger sheeple/rabble gives a flying fuck about the 30K+ US casualties wasted in Iraq. But a blowjob? IMPEACH!

[ggoose25]

Big Al is letting me down.

[boutons_]

Big Al? More like El Poco Puto

[George Gervin's Afro]

I heard part of his press conference today. Basically he said he had no idea what was going on. Harriet Myers was more to blame than he was. His chief of staff was asked to resign.Nerer saw any type of paperwork.....oh and he took complete responsibility

[ChumpDumper]

Thank God that provision for replacing US Attorneys without congressional approval was put in the Patriot Act. That really saves us from terra.

[Nbadan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/cyberpj/captionthis.jpg
Good Job Gonzo!

[ChumpDumper]

You mean heckuva job.

Insert Sergeant Schultz quote under the AG and it's all good.

[PixelPusher]

I shudder to think how close this tool was to being nominated for the Supreme Court.

[Nbadan]

Hate to say I told ya so, but I told ya so...

[boutons_]

And Hairbran Myers wanted to fall ALL the US Atty's.

Dubya is dumbfuck dreck who collects dreck around him.

Now all the US Atty's that haven't been fired are slimed as doing the political bidding of the WH rather than upholding the Constitution and enforcing the law.

[boutons_]

Lawmakers Urge Investigation Into Administration's Prosecutor Purge In Abramoff Case

ThinkProgress.org

Tuesday 13 March 2007

In recent weeks, Congress has investigated the Bush administration's recent purge of qualified, well-respected U.S. attorneys. But one former prosecutor - Frederick A. Black - has received little attention. The administration fired Black shortly after he began investigating Jack Abramoff's dealings in Guam.

Today in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV) urge Congress to investigate "the potential political manipulation by Jack Abramoff and his allies in Congress and the Administration" in the Black case:

At the time, we viewed the replacement of the Acting U.S. Attorney as an example of the overly zealous and improper, if not illegal, conduct by the now disgraced and convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.

In light of more recent revelations about political interference with the work of other U.S. Attorneys, however, it is necessary now to re-examine the case as it may represent the beginning of a pattern of behavior by some members of Congress and officials in the Bush Administration to politicize the work of U.S. Attorneys and to quash their independence.

In 2002, Black launched an investigation into Jack Abramoff's "secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress." On Nov. 18, 2002, Black issued a grand jury subpoena to the Guam Superior Court to turn over all records involving the lobbying contract with Abramoff. The administration swiftly punished Black:

A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade.

An internal Justice Department investigation concluded that the White House did not improperly retaliate against Black for raising allegations against Abramoff. But the probe into Abramoff's activities in Guam died shortly after Black stepped down.

============

No man is above the law, but Jack Abramoff is, because he is protected by the WH/Repugs.

[Ya Vez]

ahh clinton can fire all 93 US attorneys without you going nuts..... sheesh


Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it.

[Ya Vez]

dam history is a bitch if your a liberal.... lol..



The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

[johnsmith]

Hate to say I told ya so, but I told ya so...

I'd like to see where you told us in the first place.

[ChumpDumper]

ahh clinton can fire all 93 US attorneys without you going nuts..... sheeshWhy is Bush firing Republicans? I know why Clinton did.

[xrayzebra]

What is the problem. He fired some blasted lawyers. Hell
Clinton was a lawyer and fired all of them. As well as the
Travel Office and a host of other people. An old "GI" saying.
"RHIP" Rank Has It Privileges" and the Prez has that Privilege.
So There!

[ChumpDumper]

ahh clinton can fire all 93 US attorneys without you going nuts..... sheeshahh political appointees always turnover when a new President takes over. Usually the appointees just resign en masse like the US Attorneys did when Bush took office. Acting like it's some kind of shocking revelation is predictably disingenuous.

In the period of 1981 to January 2006, the Congressional Research Service can only find two previous examples of US Attorneys being dismissed from their duties outside of the usual change-of-president turnover. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Bush's firing eight US Attorneys that he appointed himself in the middle of a presidential term is normal?

[ChumpDumper]

What is the problem. He fired some blasted lawyers. Why were they fired?

[xrayzebra]

Why were they fired?

Who really cares, except a few dimm-o-craps. Why did
Clinton fire the whole bunch? Who knows, you can only
speculate. You have idea. If you do, that would be a new
thing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did Clinton fire the whole bunch?Maybe they refused to resign like they are expected to when the office changes hands -- like the Clinton appointees resigned when Bush took office.

[ChumpDumper]

Who really caresIf it was politically motivated retaliation, you bet I care. Carter did this once and it was just as wrong then.

[xrayzebra]

politically motivated retaliation.


Gee, it is only retaliation when a Republican does it. Hell,
it is whatever, politics is politics. Always has been always
will be. My goodness, we have just seen a special
prosecutor file charges, get a conviction on someone on a
crime that wasn't committed. H E L L O. We are now
living in a never, never land. Cant we all just get along?

Oh and by the way, the spin on the conviction was it was
someone else's fault, but the person who did the deed
hasn't even been charged. Want to explain that to me?

[boutons_]

every new administration appoints his own set of US attorneys, who serve usually for all 4 or 8 years.

Carter would have fired/replacd Nixon's.
dubya replaced Clinton's.

dubya firing his own US Atty's, which are recommended by Repug Senators, is what wa weird.

we know dubya's US Atty's have opened many times more cases against Dems, than Repugs. They one that went after Repugs got fired (eg, in San Diego), or if they didnt indict Dem candidates before 2006 election (eg, NM).

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, it is only retaliation when a Republican does itYou didn't just read that I said Carter did it and was wrong? Your bot response proves you can't or won't read, xray.
My goodness, we have just seen a special prosecutor file charges, get a conviction on someone on a crime that wasn't committed.Of course a crime was committed.

Why are you trying to change the subject, x?

We're talking about the firing of US Attorneys in the middle of a presidential term -- something that is highly unusual since it has only happened twice in the preceeding 25 years and especially since the Justice Department itself said at least 6 of the 8 fired attorneys had positive job performance reviews. If you really don't care about it, why are you even in this thread?

[clambake]

He fired them because they refused to alter their legal ethics to coincide with his.

[ChumpDumper]

Wild-eyed hippie liberal John Sununu cares:

Republican Sununu Says Gonzales Should Be Fired Over Missteps

By Robert Schmidt

March 14 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire called for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be fired, the first Republican senator to demand his ouster over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership prosecuting the war on terrorism, running the Department of Justice, and working with the president and Congress on important homeland security matters,'' Sununu said in a statement.

Sununu also cited recent revelations that the FBI violated Americans' privacy by misusing powers given to it by Congress to fight terrorism.

"These failures have created a deep, widespread lack of confidence in the ability of the attorney general to effectively serve the president at a very important time,'' Sununu said.

President George W. Bush earlier today said he still had confidence in Gonzales and his ability to lead the Justice Department. Still, he expressed dissatisfaction that the dismissals were "mishandled.''

"Mistakes were made, and I'm frankly not happy about it,'' Bush said at a news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico. The attorney general is "going to go up to Capitol Hill to correct them.''

Bush said he talked to Gonzales this morning and asked him to explain to Congress what occurred in the process of firing the prosecutors. Bush said it "troubles'' him that lawmakers say they feel misled about the dismissals....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGDY8k648ng0&refer=home

[PixelPusher]

"Mistakes were made, and I'm frankly not happy about it,''
If only this administration could govern as well as it employs rhetorical sophistry.

[ChumpDumper]

Does Bush even believe his own bullshit?
There is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the presidents.Really? Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?

[gtownspur]

Does Bush even believe his own bullshit?Really? Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?


93 firings by Bill Clinton.


Pwned.

[gtownspur]

Maybe they refused to resign like they are expected to when the office changes hands -- like the Clinton appointees resigned when Bush took office.


They didn't choose to resign. They were given 10 days to get out.

Quit pulling shit out of your ass.

[gtownspur]

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm#3-2.120 (http://)



3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

[ChumpDumper]

They didn't choose to resign. They were given 10 days to get out.And?
93 firings by Bill Clinton.


Pwned.:lmao

RIF.

Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?

You just owned yourself by proving you can't understand simple sentences.

[gtownspur]

And?:lmao

RIF.

Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?

You just owned yourself by proving you can't understand simple sentences.


So had they been Clinton appointees who were unwilling, there would be no problem?

And, that argument is so weak.


"But he appointed them himself, therefore he can't fire them."

[gtownspur]

And?:lmao

RIF.

Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?

You just owned yourself by proving you can't understand simple sentences.


So is this a trivia thread, or a thread on ethics.

I thought we were arguing wether there was a crime committed.

But, like always your arguments are pointless.

Awnser the link i provided Master Baiter.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm#3-2.120 (http://)

[ChumpDumper]

That's not the argument.

It's a simple question.

Who was the last president to fire eight US Attorneys he appointed himself, seven of them at one time?

[ChumpDumper]

I thought we were arguing wether there was a crime committed.Wrong as usual.

[ChumpDumper]

So is this a trivia thread, or a thread on ethics.The answer to the question explains the ethics if you are smart enough to figure it out.

[Das Texan]

This administration never ceases to amaze me.

[Nbadan]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/images/carollam.jpg
Carol Lam, the fired US Atty who brought down Duke Cunningham, may
be the key to the whole scandal.

From Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall very well may have the key to bringing the whole house of cards down on Dubya. If so, this scandal could mushroom much bigger...

Josh cites a McClatchy Washington Bureau article which misses the connection to the Lam investigations of Cunningham and some very well placed GOPers, like CA-Rep Jerry Lewis. Josh suggests a theory that Dubya's goal may be more focussed than a few US attorneys who wouldn't prosecute Democrats for wrong-doing. There may be some real obstruction going on here.

From Josh's post: (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)


Lam's firing has always been at the heart of this. I've had a lot of people ask me why we devoted so much virtual ink to this story so early. But the truth is that by rights Lam's dismissal should have sounded alarm bells for everyone on day one.

What people tend to overlook is that for most White House's a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation. It's like hearing that Pat Fitzgerald was fired as Plamegate prosecutor for poor deportment or because he was running up too many air miles flying back and forth from Chicago.

I really think that this is the key to the whole affair. Lam was always a high visibility part of this. If the Senate doesn't subpoena her, and all those surrounding this case, they may hit a target, but they won't cut to the core of the matter. All the other firings may be mere frosting on the cake. This is the real meat.

Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Productions (http://www.madcowprod.com/11302005.html) may have had this one nailed in 2005.

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, today on CNN’s Situation Room, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) blew off White House signals that Karl Rove and other senior Bush officials may resist testifying before Congress on the U.S. Attorney purge...


“Frankly, I don’t care whether says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want,” Leahy said. “If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.” Asked whether he’ll subpoena Rove, Leahy answered, “Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him.”

Linky (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/leahy-rove-subpoena)

[PixelPusher]

Carol Lam broke the recently amended clause of the 11th Republican Commandment: "Thou shall not indict and convict a fellow Republican"

[BIG IRISH]

damn! will this goverment beat Nixon's as the most evil goverment in US history??? :corn:

Already has

If anybody cares to follow this story
http://judiciary.house.gov/

Two more years, than
somebody new to F the public over.

[Nbadan]

Gonzales says his future depends on Bush
By MERRILL HARTSON, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday it's up to President Bush whether he remains in the administration and said he wants to stay and explain to Congress the circumstances surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

"I work for the American people and serve at the pleasure of the president," Gonzales said. Defending himself amid an escalating political row over the replacement of a host of federal prosecutors, Gonzales said he had done a good job in the country's top law enforcement position.

"I think you can look at the record of the department in terms of what we've done ... going after child predators, public corruption cases," he said on NBC's "Today" show. "I think our record is outstanding."

~snip~

"I think we've done a good job in managing the department. .. Things are going to happen," he said. "We are going to work with Congress to make sure they know what happened. ... We want to ensure that they have a complete and accurate picture of what happened here."

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_prosecutors)

I hear a train a coming,.......a coming round the bend....

[Nbadan]

The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers is sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law.

On no other issue - not even the policies of torture, and rampant spying - have the neoconservatives made their contempt for the rule of law, and for the citizens of this democracy, more overt than this. Unless you are among the very few who are glad to see the entire apparatus of American Justice subverted to be used as a weapon against "enemies" of the Ruling Party, the time to begin impeachment proceedings is NOW.

[Nbadan]

http://www.anntelnaes.com/images/031307GonzalesPres.gif

[Nbadan]

Mark Fiore: Gonzo!! (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gonzo.html)

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.townhall.com/News/newsarticle.aspx?ContentGuid=d424833c-aeab-41af-892b-5add8d3f6651






The White House on Friday backed off its earlier contention that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys _ an act that led to a firestorm of criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"It has been described as her idea but ... I don't want to try to vouch for origination," said White House press secretary Tony Snow, who previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea. "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."


Then-United States Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, center and White House senior adviser Karl Rove, left, as they attend the swearing-in ceremony for the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings at the U.S. Dept. of Education, in this Jan. 31, 2005 file photo in Washington. The White House is being pulled further into the intensifying probe over federal prosecutor firings amid new questions about top political adviser Karl Rove's role and as Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales erodes. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File) Snow's comments came as e-mails surfaced Thursday night pulling the White House further into the intensifying probe over the firings of eight federal prosecutors. The e-mails raised new questions about top political adviser Karl Rove's role in the dismissals, and came amid eroding GOP support for Gonzales that put his job at risk.

Snow said it was not immediately clear who first floated the more dramatic idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after President Bush was re-elected to a second term.

"This is as far as we can go: we know that Karl recollects Harriet having raised it and his recollection is that he dismissed it as not a good idea," Snow told reporters. "That's what we know. We don't know motivations. ... I don't think it's safe to go any further than that."

Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ... but I don't think so." He said Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general.

"I want you to be clear here: don't be dropping it at the president's door," Snow said.

Bush's top legal aides were to tell congressional Democrats on Friday whether and under what conditions they would allow high-level White House officials, including Rove, to testify under oath in the inquiry into the firings.

Subpoenas could come as early as next week.

"The story keeps changing, which neither does them or the public any good," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday. "They ought to gather all the facts and tell the public the truth."

Another Republican on Friday suggested it might be time for Gonzales to go.

"It is ultimately the president's decision, but perhaps it would benefit this administration if the attorney general was replaced with someone with a more professional focus rather than personal loyalty," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., complaining of "a pattern of arrogance in this administration."

The e-mails, including a set issued Thursday night by the Justice Department, appear to contradict the administration's assertion that Bush's staff had only limited involvement in the firings, which Democrats have called a politically motivated purge.

The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys.

The one-page document also indicates Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In the e-mails, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, says that an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." But it concludes that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

Sampson resigned this week amid the uproar.


What will the bushbots say about this? Now the WH backtracked their story..ALberto's version is being revised as we speak..... should anyone be suspicious? If it was just business as usual as most Bush apologists say it is (remember they sat slick willy fired 93) then why not tell the truth from the beginning. This stroy would have just gone away but now the administration itself has brought this to the forefront. Nice job on GOP permanent majority karl :lol :lol

[boutons_]

These inveterate, incorrigible liars can't even lie competently.

Miers was in way over her head,

so is Poco Puto Gonzo,

as was John "aluminum tits" Ashcroft,

as was "you're doing a heckuva job" Brownie,

as is Chertoff ("I learned aobut New Orleans problems on CNN"),

as was Bremer, (I kicked Iraq down a shit hole, where it remains)

as was rummy ("I don't know what I know I don't know, do I?"),

as is/was ... the whole fucking dubya crowd is a bunch lying incompetents.

[johnsmith]

These inveterate, incorrigible liars can even lie competently.

Miers was in way over her head,

so is Poco Puto Gonzo,

as was John "aluminum tits" Ashcroft,

as was "you're doing a heckuva job" Brownie,

as is Chertoff ("I learned aobut New Orleans problems on CNN"),

as was Bremer, (I kicked Iraq down a shit hole, where it remains)

as was rummy ("I don't know what I know I don't know, do I?"),

as is/was ... the whole fucking dubya crowd is a bunch lying incompetents.



I just discovered why Boutons edits his posts so long after he actually posts them. Because they don't make any fucking sense the first time he posts them. How about that.

[Nbadan]

White house flip-flops on who originated the idea to go on a lawyer firing spree...

Probe heats up over fired U.S. attorneys
White House backs off earlier assertion that idea originated with Miers


WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday backed off its earlier contention that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys — an act that led to a firestorm of criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

“It has been described as her idea but ... I don’t want to try to vouch for origination,” said White House press secretary Tony Snow, who previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea. “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”

...

Snow said it was not immediately clear who first floated the idea of firing prosecutors shortly after President Bush was re-elected to a second term.

“This is as far as we can go: we know that Karl recollects Harriet having raised it and his recollection is that he dismissed it as not a good idea,” Snow told reporters. “That’s what we know. We don’t know motivations. ... I don’t think it’s safe to go any further than that.”

...

“I want you to be clear here: don’t be dropping it at the president’s door,” Snow said.

Kinda like he's really talking to Karl Rove...hmmm?

:hat

[Nbadan]

Wing-nut media spins the sacking..."Clinton did it!"

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

ed holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retainas their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.


See, the administration was only looking out after your voting rights...ungrateful biatches!

:hat

Almost all new Presidents fire most, if not all of the sitting US attorneys of their predecesser when they enter office. The job is a particularly powerful and juicy political appointment. Why do you guys have to drag Clinton in every Bush argument?

For a bit more info to show that Clinton was not alone in firing the majority of sitting US attorneys we have this from Media Matters:

Several media outlets have compared the Bush administration's controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys to President Clinton's dismissal of almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. Clinton's firing of the prosecutors was highlighted March 13 at Drudgereport.com, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge. Over the next 24 hours, several media outlets -- including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and MSNBC -- echoed the unfounded comparison between the Clinton and Bush dismissals.

In fact, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article -- headlined "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" -- further noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees."

Really, I think all this comparison to Clinton's behavior is a diversion from the real issue.

One - that there was inappopriate pressure and interference from Congress and the White House in attempting to influence ongoing investigations being conducted by the fired attorneys for the purposes of influencing elections. This is just plain wrong.

The other factor that bears looking into is this (again, from media matters):

On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson falsely claimed that under new rules governing the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration could appoint people to those positions, "but they couldn't stay there" without Senate confirmation. She added that "Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones if they didn't like them." In fact, a law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed "interim" U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation -- a change that lies at the heart of the current U.S. attorney scandal. If the president does not nominate a permanent replacement for his "interim" appointee, the appointee could serve at least until the end of the president's term in office, thus denying Congress the opportunity to "pull the plug" on Bush's appointee.

[boutons_]

March 19, 2007

Editorial Observer

It Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law.

By ADAM COHEN

The Bush administration has done a terrible job of explaining its decision to fire eight United States attorneys. Story after story has proved to be untrue: that the prosecutors who were fired were poor performers; that the White House was not involved in the purge. But the administration has been strangely successful in pushing its message that the scandal is at worst a political misdeed, not a criminal matter.

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

In law schools, it is common to give an exam called the “issue spotter,” in which students are given a set of facts and asked to identify all the legal issues and possible crimes. The facts about the purge are still emerging. But based on what is known — and with some help from Congressional staff members and Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University — it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.” http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.

But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.

Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.

Much more needs to be learned, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee, has been admirably firm about insisting that he will get sworn testimony from Karl Rove and other key players. It is far too soon to say that anyone committed a crime, and it may well be that no one has. But if this were a law school issue spotter, any student who could not identify any laws that may have been broken would get an “F.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?em&ex=1174536000&en=2ab3148a27631edc&ei=5070

[Nbadan]

Kiss of death?

Senate votes to cut Gonzales' power to appoint
Bush calls A.G. offering support; White House denies search for successor
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:57 a.m. PT March 20, 2007


WASHINGTON - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration’s ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Amid calls from lawmakers in both parties to resign, Gonzales got a morale boost with an early-morning call from President Bush, their first conversation since a week ago, when the president said he was unhappy with how the Justice Department handled the firings.

With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.

“If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The bill, which has yet to be considered in the House, would set a 120-day deadline for the administration to appoint an interim prosecutor. If the interim appointment is not confirmed by the Senate in that time, a permanent replacement would be named by a federal district judge.

White House: Replacement rumors ‘untrue’

The vote came as Gonzales and the White House braced for more fallout from the firings. The White House also denied reports that it was looking for possible successors for Gonzales. “Those rumors are untrue,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

Bush called Gonzales from the Oval Office at 7:15 a.m. EDT and they spoke for several minutes about the political uproar over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, an issue that has thrust the attorney general into controversy and raised questions about whether he can survive. The White House disclosed Bush’s call to bolster Gonzales and attempt to rally Republicans to support him.

"The president reaffirmed his strong backing of the attorney general and his support for him," Perino said. "The president called him to reaffirm his support."

Former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay had said earlier Tuesday that the scandal "is just a taste of what's going to be like for the next two years."

"And the Bush administration sort of showed their weakness when they got rid of Don Rumsfeld," the Texan said on NBC's "Today" show. "... This is a made up scandal. There is no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. ... They ought to be fighting back."

Sifting through material

Bush's call came as congressional investigators sifted through 3,000-pages of e-mails and other material concerning the dismissal of the prosecutors. Some of the documents spelled out fears in the Bush administration that the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys might not stand up to scrutiny.

The documents were not the end of the inquiry. House and Senate panels later in the week expected to approve subpoenas to White House aides Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and others. Miers' successor, Fred Fielding, was to tell the Judiciary Committees later Tuesday whether and under what conditions Bush would allow the officials to testify.

But the documents told more of the story of the run-up to the firings and the administration's attempt to choreograph them to reduce the bloodletting. It didn't work out that way -- the prosecutors were shocked and angered by the dismissals, the lack of explanation from the Justice Department and news reports that the administration fired the eight for performance reasons.



Discord bothers agency
The bubbling discontent worried Justice Department officials. Of particular concern, according to some references in the 3,000 pages of e-mails and other material released late Monday, was the prospect of former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins testifying before Congress.

"I don't think he should," Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, wrote in a Feb. 1 e-mail. "How would he answer: Did you resign voluntarily? Who told you? What did they say?"

Cummins was relieved as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., and replaced by Tim Griffin, a former assistant to top White House aide Karl Rove.

In his e-mail to colleagues, Sampson listed more questions that Cummins might have to answer if he were to testify to Congress: "Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. attorney? What did Griffin say? Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation? Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming? If not, then why?"



New documents released
The documents that Congress will focus on in the coming days show that Gonzales was unhappy with how Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty explained the firings to the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February.

"The Attorney General is extremely upset with the stories on the US Attys this morning," Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, who was traveling with Gonzales in South America at the time, wrote in a Feb. 7 e-mail. "He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate."

In a statement Monday night, Roehrkasse said he was referring to Gonzales' concerns over the firing of Bud Cummins in Little Rock, who he believed was dismissed because of performance issues. At the hearing, McNulty indicated Cummins was being replaced by a political ally.

Neither of the two most senior Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are stepping forward to endorse Gonzales, but likewise are not calling for his ouster. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said he will reserve judgment until he gets all the facts. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has not given interviews on the subject, his spokesman said.

Gonzales successors?

Speculation has abounded over who might succeed Gonzales if he doesn't survive the current political tumult. Possible candidates include White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein, federal appeals judge Laurence Silberman and PepsiCo attorney Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.

MSNbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17702224/)

[boutons_]

Gonzo is carbonized cabrito.

[boutons_]

March 21, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Why I Was Fired

By DAVID C. IGLESIAS

Albuquerque

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

[Nbadan]

Unfuckenbelievable...

Source: AP


MIAMI -- Federal prosecutors took the first steps toward reducing the prison sentence of former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, currently scheduled for release in 2011 for a Florida fraud conviction.

Documents filed in federal court say Abramoff has provided "substantial assistance" in a separate Washington corruption scandal investigation and continues to work with investigators from his prison cell in Cumberland, Md.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul F. Schwartz did not recommend how much Abramoff's sentence should be cut.

In the court papers filed Wednesday, Schwartz said prosecutors would recommend a reduction in his sentence and would file further documents describing the "nature, extent and value" of his cooperation.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200772.html)

See kids! Lawbreaking is subjective!


"on the firing of Guam US Attorney Frederick A. Black who had just launched a probe into the activities of Jack Abramoff. Black had been Attorney General for more than a decade but was fired the day after he issued subpoenas related to a series of $9,000 checks issued to Abramoff."

Digg (http://www.digg.com/users/tophert/news/dugg)

Nothing to see here folks! Move along...










































I said move along.....

[Nbadan]

Source: AP


WASHINGTON - Democrats, armed with subpoenas for President Bush's political guru Karl Rove and other top aides, are pressing the White House to allow the advisers to answer questions under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors.

The brokering has already begun. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania floated a compromise with Bush's counsel Fred Fielding, even as both sides publicly ratcheted up the standoff. The White House said Fielding would pass the proposal to Bush.

Bush's counsel discussed the dispute Friday in a meeting at the Capitol with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a close White House ally.

The two did delve into specific proposals for Bush's aides to testify, but Cornyn said he urged Fielding to release as much information related to the prosecutor firings as possible, warning that he wanted "no surprises" to emerge.

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,' " Cornyn said.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17758413)

Some Republican Senators are caving under the WH pressure and that morphes into 'negotiating' to the M$M. Don't count on Rove not testifying under oath to be part of those 'negotiations. Dems are in majority, it's time they acted like it.

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON - Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed tougher state voter identification laws and steered U.S. attorneys toward investigating voter fraud -- policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the “growing problem” of Democratic election fraud since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division when it was rolling back long-standing voting rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

... Taken together, legal experts and other critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

Real cities (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm)

[Nbadan]

Attorney general had been said not to have been closely involved


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.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week in the wake of the political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The Justice Department says Gonzales has ordered an internal investigation of the firings

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780)

These guys will continue to lie their asses off until Dubya can no longer provide prosecutional protection. This is the biggest reason Congress can not, and will not compromise on letting Miers and Rove testify while not under oath.

[Nbadan]

Even more evidence...

Gonzales Was Briefed on Prosecutors Before Firings (Update2)
By Robert Schmidt and James Rowley


March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was briefed on plans for the firings of federal prosecutors 11 days before the dismissals, the U.S. Justice Department disclosed as it began its own investigation into the matter.

Two Justice Department watchdog units will conduct a joint probe to determine why eight U.S. attorneys were removed and if Congress was misled by agency officials' testimony.

``The department needs a thorough and complete investigation into this matter,'' spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told reporters.

Several documents released by the Justice Department tonight, including Gonzales's appointment calendar, show that the attorney general and his deputy, Paul McNulty, participated in an hour-long meeting about the firings on Nov. 27. Another e-mail provided new evidence the White House was involved in the firings.

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHi4czdqtVFo&refer=home)

[boutons_]

Gonzo is a lawyer, his lips are moving, he's lying.

[Nbadan]

Instant Karma's gonna get ya...


One of the eight former U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration said today that White House officials had questioned his performance in highly partisan political terms at a key meeting in Washington last September, three months before his dismissal.

John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could undermine a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said that White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy William Kelley "actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."

McKay said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the question -- which he took as a challenge to his 2004 decision -- surprised him because the issue was reviewed by his office and supported by the FBI's office in Seattle. "We expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when me make tough decisions like that," McKay said.

He added that he took umbrage at the idea that he had other responsibilities beyond focusing "on the evidence and not allow(ing) politics into the work that we do in criminal prosecutions." Those involved in the scandal over the firings who acted unprofessionally "or even illegally" have to be held accountable for what they did, he said.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500860.html)

[Man of Steel]

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/clark101857/tower1med.jpg

[gtownspur]

Gonzo is a lawyer, his lips are moving, he's lying.

Clinton's lips always move?

I meant Hillary's :oops

[xrayzebra]

Gee you think maybe they were removed for political reasons?
Wonder why they were appointed? Political reasons..........
Just repeating what I heard on the Sunday shows.

[Nbadan]

Senator Edward M. Kennedy gets it....

Kennedy: Justice firings are keyed to '08 vote
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 29, 2007


WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday accused President Bush of using the Department of Justice to further his administration's "right-wing ideology," saying that veteran prosecutors were replaced by political operatives in key states to ensure that "reliable partisans" are in place in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Kennedy noted that the recent rash of firings among US attorneys put new top prosecutors in place in several presidential swing states, including Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Arkansas.

At least two of the eight US attorneys fired by the administration refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans, Kennedy said. Two of the new US attorneys, meanwhile, had documented records of pursuing GOP goals, one as a Justice Department official and the other as a top aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove, he said.

"The administration views our system of justice as merely another arena for furthering its right-wing ideology," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club. "The conclusion is inescapable that the administration has methodically placed reliable partisans in positions where they can influence the outcome of the 2008 election."

Boston (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/29/kennedy_justice_firings_are_keyed_to_08_vote)

Hmmmmmmmm.....I wonder which possible Presidential candidates the Neocons are supporting in 08? (cough)***********hitlary************************* **(cough)*****************hitlary***************** *************************(cough) Giuliani*************************************(coug h)********Giuliani******************************** ******(cough)*********

[boutons_]

Gonzo is a goner

===========

Ex-Aide Disputes Gonzales's Statements About Firings

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 29, 2007; 4:20 PM

D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, today disputed Gonzales's assertion that he was not involved in discussions about the controversial firing last year of eight U.S. attorneys, telling a Senate panel that those and other statements by his former boss were incorrect.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sampson, who resigned from the Justice Department earlier this month, also said that Gonzales and President Bush's former counsel, Harriet E. Miers, approved the firings after he and other staffers recommended that the federal prosecutors be removed.

"The decision-makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Sampson said in response to a question about the role of young, inexperienced Justice Department staffers in the firings. Miers resigned in January. Gonzales and the White House have not denied that they ultimately signed off on the dismissals.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900352.html?hpid=topnews

=============

dubya's long-time, beloved associates are as incompetent as dubya his own dumbfuck self. What a herd of assholes.

[Nbadan]

tick...tick....tick....

Sampson Refuses To Disclose Whether He Spoke To Rove About Firing Fitzgerald


The Washington Post reported recently that Patrick Fitzgerald — the special prosecutor in the Libby trial — was given a poor ranking by the Bush administration despite being described by his colleagues as a “legal star“:

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking was drawn up by Kyle Sampson, but the reference to Fitzgerald “is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress.”

During today’s hearing, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly asked Kyle Sampson whether he ever discussed drawing up this ranking with Karl Rove. On eight different occasions, Sampson refused to rule out that he had discussed firing Fitzgerald with Rove or his office.

TPM (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002915.php)

Oh....................this is getting good.....

:hat

[Nbadan]

THEN (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v47/ai_17839328) and NOW (http://www.suntimes.com/news/laney/302727,CST-EDT-LANEY19.article)

:hat