Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears to be losing support, with key Republicans expressing a loss of confidence in his truthfulness regarding his role in the eight fired U.S. attorneys.
Meanwhile, the Bush White House has circled the wagons and still refuses to budge on its refusal to allow Bush adviser Karl Rove and others to give testimony in public, under oath, with a transcript.
And Monica Goodling, an aide to Gonzales who was liaison between the Justice Department and the White House, reportedly will plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify in upcoming Senate hearings on the spreading scandal.
All of it reinforces the perception that the Bush administration has something to hide here. If it did nothing wrong, then why not lay it all out?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
205 Comments
Bush will now dump Gonzo, all of the time saying how sorry he is to see him go. Bush will blame the nasty Demos for running a good man out of office. But, make no mistake, Bush will dump him. GWB wants a place in history. He wants so badly to be remembered as a great president. He wants to be Eisenhower or Reagan. But, he’ll just be another Nixon. Bill Clinton is and always has been more popular than GWB. So, …..Bush find a Monica, quit causing American soliders to die in an Iraq civil war that you stared by killing off Saddam, quit surrounding yourself with political cronies that do your political dirty work and get caught lying about it. Or just quit. You’ll never be as well remembered and loved as Bill. And, remember, Bill wasn’t much to brag about. Oh,…on your way out take Gonzo with you, he won’t be missed.
Hopefully, this is only the beginning. It’s going to be a looong 2 years if you’re a Republican. Let the hearings and investigations begin.
When you are part of a continuious criminal empire, you have to expect trouble. I think the whole administration should be charged and tried under RICO because they are really no different than the Mafia.
He’s their lawyer, for crissake! it’s his job description to circumvent the law and lie about it. If he were a competent lawyer, he could do it all quite glibly and convincingly. He certainly hasn’t done that so far!
I’m sure the neo-cons have an answer for this:
WASHINGTON – Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.
“One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby,” he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure Goodling will be allowed to plead the 5th based on the reasoning in her lawyer’s letter. The Consitution provides a right to avoid self-incrimination. It does not provide a right to simply choose not to answer questions because you don’t like the people asking them.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you were a conservative in the 90s who supported the impeachment of Clinton and you’re not troubled by what Bush and Gonzales are doing to the Justice Department, then you are either a hypocrite or an idiot.
All we heard from conservatives in the 90s was that this is a country of laws, not men. Now suddenly the brainless Bush apologists have no regard for the law and will brainlessly support Bush no matter what he does.
What Bush did was all legal and above board. His timing is quite odd, but still well within his rights. Why is everyone so excited and lying? There is nothing to lie about. Those were appointed positions. He had the right to do whatever he chose.
The lies and attempted cover-ups will only cause more damage.
Sol – if everything was above-board then why did they lie about the reasons? And why take the fifth? Remember, Clinton wasn’t impeached for the BJ but for allegedly lying about it. “There is nothing to lie about.” How about the stated reasons for the firings? Bush’s agent said it was perforamnce when he knew it was political.
thinkfirst – Bush will not be ‘another Nixon.’ Nixon actually accomplished a number of good things while in office.
“When you are part of a continuious criminal empire, you have to expect trouble.” Very true kev. And one technique used to unravel such enterprises is to skerew a ’scapegoat’ and then use him to go after others.
HTThat was my point. Bush had every right in the world to drop the attorneys. They were appointed by Bush and served at Bush’s leisure. When the lies and cover ups came about, that is when it became a problem.
Of COURSE it was for political reasons. Bush didn’t have to justify himself to ANYONE. Those were his positions to appoint and govern. By trying to lie and cover up why he did it, he cooked his own goose. Instead of standing up to that, he is going to allow even more people to burn and maybe even himself. i.e. the BJ lie.
“Gonzales is in deep trouble”No,,, No,,, the American people are in deep trouble, these crooks are trying to set up a police state and many of the glib streetminders out there are supporting their efforts!
The Senate is on a witch hunt.
Bush is not going to play with them.
“the brainless Bush apologists have no regard for the law”
“I think the whole administration should be charged and tried under RICO because they are really no different than the Mafia.”
“When you are part of a continuious criminal empire”
“these crooks are trying to set up a police state”
These are all charges that I am certain you all believe. If you loved your country as much as you say you do, what now? Will you make the call to the leaders of the Democrat party demanding that something be done to stop this out-of-control administration?No, you won’t. You don’t have the stones to fight this countries enemies, much less fight what you term a corrupt president. Cowards.
“Now suddenly the brainless Bush apologists have no regard for the law and will brainlessly support Bush no matter what he does.”
So tell me Condor, what exactly are the laws that were broken in the Gonzales fiasco and how exactly does that compare with Clinton’s continuous 8 years of criminal behavior?
If you refer to me as an idiot or hypocrit maybe you should email me priavtely instead of hiding behind a nic.
You seemed to be upset with my use of retard yesterday, so who is the real hypocrit here?
Hank
Straight out of the dictionary of ‘Overstated, Unsubstantiated, Tripe.’
“”the brainless Bush apologists have no regard for the law”
“I think the whole administration should be charged and tried under RICO because they are really no different than the Mafia.”
“When you are part of a continuious criminal empire”
“these crooks are trying to set up a police state”"
The big lie they are pointing to is that Gonzales had a meeting planning the work flow in an DOJ meeting. Imagine that, a meeting to appoint who is charged to do what and when.
Yeah criminal…
Remember bosses,the next time you delegate, you could be performing a criminal act according to the Democrats.
It’s easier to investigate than legislate.Good job, Dems.
While they’re investigating they might look into that promise about raising the minimum wage.
How’s that looking?
Hank
Hank,
You’ve failed this morning’s reading comprehension quiz. I clearly said that I don’t mind if you call people retarded. But I’m concerned about Republican. He’s such a delicate flower! The poor man goes to pieces anytime there is even a hint of incivility. Unless, of course, he’s the one being incivil.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right:
Bush/Gonzales push through an amended PATRIOT Act, one that gives Bush the ability to appoint US attorneys without confirmation by that pesky Senate. Then Bush/Gonzales fire a couple handsful of those *Senate confirmed* US attorneys and appoint cronies who wouldn’t have made it through any kind of confirmation process.
Nevermind that the people being appointed are being done so not just for hypothetical “political reasons,” but so they can actively pursue a partisan political agenda. Nevermind that Bush/Gonzales are FEMA-ing the Justice Department.
People in this country depend on the Justice Department, through its US Attorneys, to prosecute real offenders of law and to protect us from those who seek to harm us. We don’t need a hyperpoliticized Justice that has been turned into the prosecutorial arm of whichever party happens to be in power.
If that’s not criminal, perhaps it should be.
pssst. The minimum wage bill already passed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2:
Methinks that there is a conspiracy among Bush haters to do any and everything to harm Bush, even though he hasn’t done anything wrong other than not agree with them. I hear outcries about violations of the law, but when one speaks of the cold cash in Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s freezer the sound of silence is deafening.
So tell me Condor, what exactly are the laws that were broken in the Gonzales fiasco and how exactly does that compare with Clinton’s continuous 8 years of criminal behavior?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I give you my first every post on this blog: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/gonzales_three_.html#comment-63324070
In that post I lay out just a couple of reasons why this is such a serious issue. And, I might add, Republican actually deigned to acknowledge the strength of my argument.
I guess that was before he got to know me and realized I was one of those hated liberals (or “neo-libs,” in Republican’s own non-sensical private definition of that term.)
So tell me Condor, what exactly are the laws that were broken in the Gonzales fiasco and how exactly does that compare with Clinton’s continuous 8 years of criminal behavior?
Fleetwood,
Yes, that’s right. Good governance is all about the size of one’s stones.
“So tell me Condor, what exactly are the laws that were broken in the Gonzales fiasco” How about lying to Congress for a start?
“Clinton’s continuous 8 years of criminal behavior” There is zero evidence to support that claim. All you ever had was a strictly partisan witch-hunt over a stain on a dress.
As for Jefferson – if the facts are as stated he should be getting free roon and board someplace. Maybe he could share a cell with Scooter!
Hank,
The integrity of the Justice Department is at stake here. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States has knowingly lied to Congress in sworn testimony. His deputies have knowingly lied to Congress in sworn testimony. Gonzales knowingly lied to the American people in his 5 minute press conference.
You’re obsessed with knowing what laws have been broken, but there are greater principles at stake here than just what section of what code in what jurisdiction happens to describe what’s going on here.
If we cannot trust that the US Attorney’s are operating free of political interference, how are we to function as a society? Keep in mind that all of these US Attorneys were appointed by Bush. And when they refused to file bogus charges against Democrats immediately prior to the mid-term election they were thrown under the bus. And now it’s a race among people in the Justice Department to see who can throw who under the bus first to save themselves.
I strongly supsect that Goodling’s lawyer is floating the 5th Ammendment idea as a way of getting the Judiciary Committee to grant her immunity. And if that happens, Karl Rove should start packing up his office. Remember that Goodling was the Justice Dept liason to the White House.
Hank, Bush was using the state security apparatus against his political enemies. To wit: pressuring U.S. attorneys to pursue cases against Democrats and drop cases against Republicans, and pressuring them to do so in time for elections.
Using the state security apparatus against your political opponents is illegal, that is why Nixon resigned, that is what dictators do in third world countries, and that is how they become third world countries (look at the once-prosperous Zimbabwae).
As for your claim about Clinton, I’ll use your own standard: exactly what laws were broken continuously for 8 years?
Zero evidence Mr. HardTruth? Really? Want to bet on zero evidence?
Hank
“Good governance is all about the size of one’s stones.”
Sometimes it is. The fact that you people have a shortage of them is why a Democrat will not be in the White House during wartime.
Anyone ever wonder what would have happened post 9/11 had Gore been in office?
“Hank, Bush was using the state security apparatus against his political enemies. To wit: pressuring U.S. attorneys to pursue cases against Democrats and drop cases against Republicans, and pressuring them to do so in time for elections.”
Really? That’s the assertion on the liberal BLOGs, but do you have any evidence? Even leaky Leahy admits Bush has done nothing illegal.
Fleetwood,
I had no idea eugenics was still alive and well. But here you are bravely – COURAGEOUSLY – setting out to prove that political affiliations and military competence can be determined by the size of one’s genitalia. Good luck with that.
Just what are these lies before Congress? Democrats won’t answer because they got nothing.
Dog and pony 101
Hank,
It really is simple. Just imagine Clinton and Reno fired 8 prosecutors under similar circumstances. What would your response be then?
This is not about being liberal or conservative. It’s about the foundational principles of our democracy.
Well tw,
You talk about using the “state security apparatus” (what ever that is).
I would assume it is similar to getting caught with over 900 FBI files on your political opponents.
Does that little tidbit of information jog yor memory?
Republican,
Your willful ignorance does not change the fact that Bush and Gonzales and many Republican Senators have all acknowledged that Gonzales and his deputies gave “inacurate and incomplete” testimony to congress concerning the circumstances surrounding these firings. What elevates their testimony above simply being “inacurate and incomplete” to the level of being classified as a lie, is that they KNOWINGLY gave “inacurate and incomplete” testimony. That’s known as lying.
The only dog and pony show here is the continual, day by day slow-motion self immolation of your own credibility.
Have you finally given up on using the term “neo-lib”?
“…military competence can be determined by the size of one’s genitalia.”
That’s all quite humorous, but I do note that my point still stands. You people cannot defend this country.I’m off to the plaque store. Be right back.
“It really is simple. Just imagine Clinton and Reno fired 8 prosecutors under similar circumstances. What would your response be then?”
It wouldn’t be a big deal. The republicans wouldn’t say much and the press wouldn’t cover it.
Hell I would plead the 5th as well,if they can’t find any laws were broken they just make up a crime.. like perjury..
so yes be afraid be very afraid..
BG,
Careful. You sounded a little whiny and scared there. Fleetwood will be back soon. You wouldn’t want to give him probable cause to measure your balls.
“It really is simple. Just imagine Clinton and Reno fired 8 prosecutors under similar circumstances. What would your response be then?”
It wouldn’t be a big deal. The republicans wouldn’t say much and the press wouldn’t cover it.
Posted by: Hank | March 27, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Hank, I have a feeling that so perfectly encapsulates your world view that it might be fitting to ask that it be carved on your grave stone.
Dog and Pony 101Democrats have nothing.
Well Condor,
The liberal apologists on this thread seem to want to ignore the reference I made to the 900 FBI files.
In your opinion, how does illegally obtaining 900 FBI files against your political opponents compare with the legal firing of 8 attorneys?
There was so much real crime going on every day in the Clinton Administration we didn’t need to get involved with trying to criminalize policy decisions.
I’ve already writtn what I want on my garave marker, you’re not even close!
Hank
Republican,
Just as with global warming, the more evidence you’re given, the more you retreat into your own self-contradicting preconcieved notions.
Jed – “He’s their lawyer, for crissake! it’s his job description to circumvent the law and lie about it.”
NO. The White House Counsel is their lawyer. The Attorney General is America’s lawyer.
” Asked why he would want to remain as attorney general amid so many calls for his ouster, Gonzales said he’s been asking himself lately whether it’s appropriate for him to stay in his job.
But, he said, “at the end of the day, it’s not about Alberto Gonzales. It’s about this great Department of Justice that does so many wonderful things for the American people.”"
Note that Gonzales does not refer to himself as working for Bush but claims he works for the American people.
Methinks that there is a conspiracy among Bush haters to do any and everything to harm Bush, even though he hasn’t done anything wrong other than not agree with them. I hear outcries about violations of the law, but when one speaks of the cold cash in Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s freezer the sound of silence is deafening.
What charges have been filed against jefferson.Thats right only dems a guilty until proven innocent
Hank,
Yes, the scandal around the 900 FBI files was popularly known as “Filegate,” and in direct contrast to your earlier assertion that Republicans and the media would ignore wrongdoing of the sort we’re discussing in this thread if it happened in the Clinton Administration, “Filegate” recieved ABUNDANT media coverage and the Republican Congress held many, many hours of sworn congressional testimony on the issue.
For those who may not know what we’re talking about, allow me to paste this brief synopsis:
Filegate: Under Bill Clinton, White House political staff obtained hundreds of confidential FBI files on prominent Republicans that had been created from extensive background checks designed to protect national security. The resulting “Filegate” scandal represented a serious abuse of an FBI security investigation process for political ends and was a major controversy that distracted attention from the President’s policy agenda. [end quote]
Just in case anyone missed it, I want to make sure Hank knows I’m focused on the meat of that paragraph, so here it is again: “The resulting “Filegate” scandal represented a serious abuse of an FBI security investigation process for political ends and was a major controversy”
Ok. Now. Want to know where I got that clear description of Clinton Administration wrongdoing, Hank? Brace yourself…
THE ACLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ll give you a moment to pick yourself up off the fainting couch before I give you the link.
Ready? Here it is: http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14499leg20040804.html
Now can we get back to talking about why all American’s should be concerned with the integrity of the Justice Department under Gonzales and Bush?
For your reading pleasue; an article about the testimony of the Deputy AG before the Judiciary Committee which seems to have been the “spark”.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2983066&page=1
Carol Lam:
Report: United States Attorney Carol C. Lam announced…the unsealing of a criminal indictment in federal court in San Diego, charging attorney Michael S., formerly a criminal investigator with the Internal Revenue Service, and Wendy H…arising from their participation in a scheme to defraud clients of S.’s law firm and two federally insured financial institutions. S. and H. were associated with Xelan, Inc. (the Economic Association of Healthcare Professionals), a financial and tax planning firm that specialized in “tax strategies” for its members. After July 2004, S. severed his relationship with Xelan, formed his own law firm, and hired H. to be his Chief Financial Officer.
S. and H. [are charged] with a scheme to defraud former Xelan clients and financial institutions in the following four ways. First, [the suspects] made false and misleading representations concerning distributions the clients would be receiving from Doctors Benefit Insurance Company (”DBIC”), a Xelan-affiliated entity. S. and H. falsely represented that 8% of the clients’ distributions were required by law to be placed in an Interest on Lawyers Trust Account and were only to be used for legal expenses. Instead, S. and H. converted these funds to their own personal use. In order to conceal the conversion of client funds, S. and H. caused fraudulent bank statements to be sent to the clients showing that the funds were still on deposit.
Second, the indictment charges S.and H. with obtaining the credit card numbers of former xelan clients and using those numbers to bill credit card companies for charges that were not authorized by the clients.
Third, the indictment charges S. and H. with defrauding Union Bank of California by depositing a stolen and altered check into a bank account created in a fictitious business name. [They] then used the Union Bank account to write checks to pay the mortgage on S.’s personal residence and the office rent for [his] law firm.
Fourth, the indictment charges S.and H. with defrauding Wells Fargo Bank by depositing over $200,000 in checks drawn on S.’s law firm account into H.’s personal bank account, knowing that there were insufficient funds in the law firm account to cover the checks. These funds were then used for S. and H.’s personal benefit.
Then, speaking of politicians, on March 1 and 2, the American Bar Association brings its White Collar Crime National Institute to San Diego for the first time ever, with U.S. Attorney Carol Lam — reportedly just ousted by the Bush administration in a behind-the-scenes coup — a star speaker. “Over 1,000 practitioners attended last year’s annual gathering of the national white collar bar,” says a note on the ABA’s website. Taxpayers who have faithfully followed the Cheetahs strip club scandal — whose participants Lam prosecuted — and the City of San Diego’s pension fund mess will find some of the topics painfully familiar, including “Lines between lobbying and corruption”; “Dealing with investigations for obstruction, perjury and making false statements”; “Finding the digital smoking gun”; and “Successful strategies for managing complex criminal fraud investigations.”
This year, word on the street has it that U.S. attorney Carol Lam is conducting at least one grand-jury investigation into city pension-fund mismanagement, possible misdealing in municipal bonds, and other alleged financial misdeeds. (For those who don’t know, San Diego’s city fund mis-management has just about put San Diego in the red big time. A major story.)
‘Anything Goes.” Cole Porter wrote the music and lyrics. But it became San Diego’s theme song. We don’t yet know if any city councilmembers solicited bribes or improperly took money from strip-club operators wanting looser laws. But we do know that in recent years, San Diego’s corporate/government power structure has been conducive to palm-greasing.
Government at various levels has sent out the message that it was not going to peer under the table to see what was passing from the fat-fingered to the sticky-fingered.
Pelf passer and pelf payee had few reasons to believe that they would be detected, and if detected, that they would be prosecuted. Apologists say the mentality grew out of the city’s desire to be known as business-friendly. Others blame law-enforcement lethargy. But the wise describe it as a rancid environment breeding corruption.
Two women new to their offices, U.S. Attorney Carol C. Lam and District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis, have a chance to reform this dirty old boys’ network. With luck, the next city attorney will straighten out that office, too.
Consider campaign-finance abuses. Earlier this year, the grand jury, citing a story by the Reader, said that between 1996 and 1999, a full 476 complaints on campaign finance were referred to the city attorney’s office, which managed to prosecute just one of them.
Now, such complaints are forwarded to the so-called Ethics Commission. The executive director of the purported ethics watchdog has said he wants to look into “bundling” of campaign contributions — that is, a bunch of employees of a favor-seeking company and its boss all giving the maximum amount to a political candidate. When the boss reimburses the employees, it becomes campaign money laundering.
Last year, civic activist Mel Shapiro gave the commission information on employees of a trash-hauling company all giving the same amount to two city councilmembers on the same day. The commission nonetheless described his complaint as “an expression of opinion,” not factual information. In replying to the commission, Shapiro cited one part of a long-running campaign money-laundering case that had already been ruled upon by the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
In this case, trash hauler James Mashburn and a company he co-owned, Refuse Services, in early 1999 agreed to pay the fourth-largest campaign-money-laundering fine in the commission’s history, $249,500.
Mashburn admitted that he reimbursed employees who made political contributions in cash — thus making discovery hard to trace. Through these maneuvers, he had given money to Mayor Susan Golding, five county supervisors, and politicians in North County such as Poway’s Mickey Cafagna. The fair practices committee passed on the information to the district attorney’s office, but then-DA Paul Pfingst decided not to prosecute.
Then there is the case of Gatlin Development, a real estate firm. According to the FPPC, between 1992 and 1994, the company made 107 campaign contributions to members of and candidates for city council and the board of supervisors, along with other politicians. At the time, the contribution limit was $250. Most of the contributions from Gatlin employees and their spouses, along with members, relatives, and business associates of Gatlin’s law firm, were for $250. When the word of the generosity got around, chief executive Frank Gatlin received calls from other politicians asking assistance in fund-raising, according to the fair practices commission.
Frank Gatlin reimbursed his employees for the gifts. Since the practice persisted for a year and a half, the FPPC said it “indicates a pattern of laundering activity, rather than an isolated incident.” Gatlin and the law firm were fined $420,000. The FPPC referred the matter to Pfingst, who kicked it to the city attorney’s office. They wouldn’t touch it.
Both cases “should have been prosecuted as criminal cases,” says former DA Ed Miller. “A lot of prosecutors don’t want to make waves with people who have a lot of clout.” But making such cases criminal would be a “significant deterrent” to campaign money laundering, says Miller.
And that’s the point. For many years, there have been very few deterrents to such activities. Deputy District Attorney Rupert Linley remembers being told, when he was transferred out of the DA’s environmental unit in 1997, “The DA’s office wanted to be more business-friendly.” That’s one reason he opposed Pfingst’s reelection bid. Linley says that Dumanis “wants strict enforcement.”
There are multiple examples of the symbiotic relationship of politicians and businesses wanting favors. In mid-2000, the locally based Corky McMillin Companies won the contract for development of the former Naval Training Center over a larger, much better-financed, out-of-town company that had been recommended by a special blue-ribbon selection committee. According to Save Our NTC Inc. McMillin got $1 billion of assets for a few dollars, as well as tax breaks and subsidies of more than $100 million. Records show that the McMillin firm donated heavily to local politicians.
In 1972, the city had voted a 30-foot height limit on coastal buildings. That cramped McMillin’s style. So the city attorney’s office came up with an — er, uh — novel interpretation: The limitation did not apply to NTC because the land was in federal hands when the citizenry voted in the limitation. Shockingly, both Superior Court and the Fourth Appellate District bought into this — er, uh — bizarre argument.
The most infamous signal-sending case was the Stallings-Moores scandal. Padres majority owner John Moores showered gifts on former councilmember Valerie Stallings. He stood to gain a city-subsidized ballpark as well as one-tenth of downtown at lowball prices.
He permitted her to get on the “friends and family” list of a hot stock Moores controlled, Neon Systems, as Matt Potter first revealed in the Reader. The initial reaction of City Attorney Casey Gwinn was that the gift was not a problem because Neon didn’t do business with the city. “Instead of a watchdog or an attack dog, he was a lap dog,” says attorney Michael Aguirre of Gwinn. Aguirre, an excellent attack dog, is running for the post.
Eventually, the Moores gifts were investigated by federal authorities. But Stallings got a wrist slap under state law, and Moores was not charged. Because the FBI did the investigation, the records were sealed. If it had been a state investigation, they could have been opened.
The authorities never did state the value of many of the gifts bestowed on Stallings by Moores. Former councilmember Bruce Henderson asked Superior Court to make it a condition of probation that she disclose the value of those gifts. The court nixed the idea.
In announcing the dubious deal, then-U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega said that there was nothing wrong with giving money to a politician — ignoring the big monetary gains Moores would make, partly through Stallings’s votes. After he left office, Vega was named to the purported Ethics Commission.
Shapiro won a lawsuit charging the city council with illegally holding 12 Padres-related closed sessions. After Shapiro also won at the appellate level, the city attorney’s office decreed that it would from then on take notes at closed sessions, instead of the city clerk, who had done it for years.
Viewing the foul-smelling activities through the years, Henderson sums it up: “Slime pays.”
If U.S. Attorney Lam succeeds in the investigation of possible strip-club bribes — as well as in her office’s probe of Peregrine Systems — the malefactors may find life, as Cole Porter intoned, “Too Darn Hot.”
San Diego is home to way too many criminal enterprises. Carol Lam did what she was appointed to do: Put corrupt people in jail. She did that and was fired for it. I know; I lived in San Diego for over twenty uears.
That’s all quite humorous, but I do note that my point still stands. You people cannot defend this country.
What a joke YOU PEOPLE are the gop dose not want to win this war.If they wanted to win this war(the defining moment of our generation i believe bush said)they would start the draft and attack the saudis you know the country that really attacked us on 9/11.What bush did was like attacking mexcio after pearl harbor
Hank, 8 years of criminal activity? I can’t find where Clinton was convicted of anything.Can you clue me in about what this 8 years of criminal activity includes?
Jay,
We don’t need a draft. We don’t need to invade Saudi.
The Saudi Government is not sponsoring terrorism or fighting Americans.
They have been more than cooperative.
The simple insanity of Democrats these days… Against the war in Iraq, but fully in favor of invading the Saudi’s with a draft no less?
LOL
Well Condor,
Do you agree that ‘filegate’ was a real crime? So how does that compare with the legal firings of 8 attorneys?
And who was prosecuted for this real crime?
Hank
Vaughn Toll,
Thanks for providing the link to that ABC story about McNulty. There are several things that are fascinating about that account. One is that it’s obviously an attempt by “White House Sources” to thrown McNulty under the bus. For an administration that prides itself on loyalty, they sure don’t hesitate to stab their own in the back when it suits their purposes.
But the more significant element of that story is that the emails that were obviously deliberately leaked by someone in the White House, are part of the communications that Bush is claiming fall under executive priveledge. But the White House can’t have it both ways here. They can’t selectively leak some of these emails and then claim priveledge on the rest of the less convenienct communications.
So not only does this story show how fractured the Bush team is becoming as they all scramble for personal advantage in the light of the oncoming train of Congressional oversight, but the leak may have severely weakened their own position with regard to executive priveledge.
And on that note, many of the emails in the recent document dumps that were coming to and from White House empolyees, were being sent to and from domains outside the White House. This is obviously an attempt on the part of Karl Rove and his crew to sidestep the official records act. So when they were using RNC email addresses for official government communications they were violating the law. And the whole comedy of errors may prove to be too clever by half because those outside email domains may not be protected under the terms of executive priveledge.
When they lost big in November it seems they got rattled and then got sloppy.
The simple insanity of Democrats these days… Against the war in Iraq, but fully in favor of invading the Saudi’s with a draft no less?
Just calling the bluff of the gop.so the state sponsored fundraiser the saudis apologized for really didnt happen Do some researchThe draft would make gop familes you know the haves and the have mores that bush talks about to share the cost of the war.Oh i am sorry you do the shopping for the good of the usa,my bad lol
By the way Nathan this dem is in favor of 100,000 more troops to really win the war on terror.So why do you gop nuts not want to really win the war,thats not very american
Jay,
The military is a great organization right now because it is an all volunteer one.
Once you start introducing a draft it introduces a whole new set of problems.
The simple fact is that being rich and having money gets you out of all sorts of jobs, not just the military.
Seems to me that those “rich” people are fullfilling enough janitorial jobs or garbage men. So we should make them do those jobs too?
It is a very simpleton idea to say that we must have a draft to make rich people share more of the burden of staffing the military.
What apology are you speaking of, please enlighten me.
Jay,
Last I checked it is the Republicans and Bush supporting the surge in troops and the continued war effort while the Democrats are trying to block a surge and just voted to bring the troops home.
Go talk to your party about winning the war, the Republicans are trying with the Democrats doing everything they can to give up.
Nathan, exactly which elected Democrat has gone on record calling for a military invasion of Saudi Arabia?
Or are you basing your opinion of Americans based on what you read in blogs?
And to say the Saudis have been “more than cooperative” is just plain ignorant.
And Hank, your double standard is showing. Filegate was investigated extensively. You are now arguing against investigating what you say is a similar situation.
I’m not saying either situation is a crime, only that both should be investigated and the truth should ocme out.
So far, we have White House and Justice Dept officials asking Republicans up for reelections what they can do to help, political pressure on the Justice Department to behave in a partisan manner. Neither was the case in filegate.
Nathan, we are talking about stopping terrorism, not “winning” the war in Iraq. You and your President do not understand the difference.
Nathan, can you or anyone else explain how putting 20,000 more troops in Baghdad (short on equipment and training) will prevent terrorists training in Pakistan from launching more attacks on cities like London and Madrid?
Unless you can, don’t tell us who “wants” to “win” the “war”
Several weeks after 9/11 the saudisgave a offical apology to the united states gov.for state sponsered telethons for bin laden and his followers.look it up
Well Infernal B,
Lets start with the FBI files, do you think that was illegal?
I’ve got about 40 more instances of illegallity in the Clinton administration so let’s take them one at a time, OK?
Hank
Hank,
I believe any abuse of power is wrong. So based on my understanding of the Filegate story, I believe at a minimum members of the Clinton administration were wrong to obtain those files. I find it hard to believe that Ken Starr and the hundreds of investigators that were crawling all over the story would have passed on the opportunity to prosecute anyone for this if they were able to obtain enough evidence to bring charges.
As for how it compares with the firing of these 8 US Attorneys, there isn’t much of a real comparison. In Filegate you have members of an administration improperly obtaining FBI records. And while that’s clearly wrong, it’s relatively isolated.
In the US Attorney firings you have members of the front line of our federal justice system, the most powerful law enforcement officials in their districts, being pressured to use their offices for partisan gain. You have members of the White House in direct communication with members of the Dept of Justice regarding who is and is not loyal to the President’s POLITICAL agenda and using this as the PRIMARY criteria for who to fire. The fired US Attorneys were involved in extraordinarily high profile corruption investigations involving members of the President’s own party. And never ONCE did anyone in any of the communications released thus far, express any concern over the continuity and integrity of those investigations. Why do you suppose they weren’t concerned with taking care to making sure justice was carried out in those corruption investigations? In my office, if my boss wanted to fire someone working on a crucial project that was central to the mission of the department, you can damn well bet that SOMEONE would at least mention their concern that maybe we should make sure that crucial project will continue unharmed if we fire the person leading it.
In all of the shifting, contradictory, increasingly unlikely excuses we’ve heard for why THESE eight prosecutors were fired, we’ve never seen ANY evidence that anyone thought about why they shouldn’t have been fired despite seven of them having spotless, often glowing performance reviews. And every excuse that has been offered has been shot full of holes by the facts. Iglesias wasn’t focused on voter fraud? Bullshit. He was recognized by the Justice Department for his expertise on the issue and twice chosen by them to train other US Attorney’s on the issue!
And as for those shifting excuses, Gonzales and several of his deputies have admitted giving “incomplete and innacurate” testimony to Congress while under oath. And the documents we have so far prove they KNOWINGLY gave “incomplete and innacurate” testimony. That’s more commonly known as LYING. You’re not bothered by the fact that they chief law enforcement officer of the United States lied under oath?
Finally, Several of the fired Attorneys report being pressured BY SITTING REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS to indict or at the very least announce investigations into prominent Democrats immediately prior to a crucial mid-term election. That is UNPRECEDENTED. And while all the focus is on Gonzales right now, don’t be suprised if the NM congressional delegation finds itself under a great deal of scrutiny in the near future.
In short, Filegate is a legitimate issue and you and I are both right to be appalled at any abuse of power by political figures. But so far, of the two of us, I’m the only one concerned about the rule of law under George W. Bush.
It doesn’t It would take at least 100,000 more troops to do the jobthats my point the gop doesn’t really want to win the war,they would then be unable to keep scaring people into voting for them
Condor you talk a lot like one of the crowd that went away. But, oh well…
You also ignore facts just as he did. Where were the inditements against the perpetrators of ‘filegate’? Your own Hillary was the one who hired Craig Silverstone, a bar bouncer, to protect the White House. His office was the one in which the files were found. This was a real felony and yet who went to jail? We can jail Libby for having a bad memory but can’t follow this one through enough to find the guilty parties. Maybe it let to the White House and the media who were in love with Bill couldn’t make themselves print the story. JMHO
In any event: This is a non-crime and after the fiasco of the Libby inditement I wouldn’t say anything either. If the AG had came out and said that they were fired for cause, a lawsuit would have resulted for privacy violations. Bush in my opinion is handling it exactly right.
Ksgrm
By the way Condor – what about the large number of IRS audits under Clinton. This was another obscure story that the star struck media forgot to mention. It was a long list and was made up of anyone who had ever made an accusation against Bill or Hill. It also included just about every conservative talk show host. Is that misusing your power for political purposes? Surely not Bill – tell me it ain’t so.
dance granny dance
What do you mean by that Joe? My grandkids don’t even call me that and you don’t know me so I don’t think you should either.
Or was this your lame way of not answering the points I raised?
So lying to a grand jury is alright if you are a member of the gop but you must be impeached for lying if you are a dem.As soneone you respect iam sure Britt hume said about libbyperjury is a pretty minor offense.Hmm how interesting
“I’m the only one concerned about the rule of law under George W. Bush”
Dearest Condor, what law has been broken in association with the attorney firings?
Hank
Jay how can you with a straight face respond with those words while completely ignoring the facts as laid out under Bill control?
I tried that logic with my kids:
If I ignore you will you just go away. They never did and I eventually had to take a long hard look, face them honestly and do my duty as a good parent(substitute: party member) and admit they weren’t perfect.
A quote I heard Sunday on the news shows just came back to me. When asked about what Pelosi and crew did with that bill they were so proud of passing, a retired general said, “They are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”. How appropriate.
ksgrm,
You and Hank are awfully damned concerned about Filegate for some reason. I think if you’ll read over my posts again I’ve provided no defense for it. Abuse of power is wrong, no matter what your party affiliation. That’s a pretty clear principle, isn’t it?
But Filegate is in the past. And it does not change the operating principle I defined above, that I thought conservatives shared. Abuse of power is wrong.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. During the 90s it was impossible to hold a conversation with a conservative without hearing the term rule of law, or some variant of the phrase “We’re a nation of laws, not men.” Silly me, I thought those foundational principles of conservatism would hold true through the Bush administration too. I thought that’s what all the talk of bringing honor and dignity back to the Oval Office was about.
I understand much of political opinion blogging is about trying to rub your opponent’s nose in his dog’s excrement. But for all the red-blooded conservatism I’ve seen on this blog, I’ve not seen much in the way of evidence that you have underlying principles that animate your partisan passions.
If conservatives don’t stand for the rule of law, then what do they stand for?
Condor,My point which you have cleverly evaded – Why are you NOW so concerned about the rule of law?
No law has been broken. When any employer is asked about the dismissal of an employee he can not talk about it. Privacy issues rule here. Try calling a past employer and asking about a dismissed employee. You will get the old ‘no comment’ 99 times out of 100.
It was legal to fire them. The AG should have said no comment knowing about the vitriol with which LIbby was persecuted – no I didn’t mean prosecuted.
What law was broken?
This whole AG flap is nothing but a “perjury trap.” The best way to avoid a perjury charge is to take the 5th.A grant of immunity would not necesarrily force testimony, either. Why? Because any immunity would require “truthful testimony” — which could become another, back door, perjury trap.Actually, I think the Republicans are in trouble for trying to be honest.Hillary simply said, “Sorry, I don’t recall” all the time, when she was asked pointed questions.My guess is, she DID “recall” on many of those questions, but it would be virtually impossible to prosecute someone for claiming to forget something that was not forgotten.—-A “bi-partisan” moment. Many pundits have been skeptical of the Independent Counsel rules and have been critics of our tendancy to prosecute people for political crimes. Novak is actually one of the people that doesnt like the witch hunts, no matter who is in power.Me? I have always wished that Starr would have gone after the Whitewater/Castle Grande schemes, because those Clinton ventures basically ripped off old people, and the Savings and Loan, Billing Records, FBI file stuff.Many in the Clinton White House did get into serious legal trouble for these things, but these were ACTUAL crimes, not political “crimes.”Statute of Limitations issues and other matters prevented Star from bringing many of these things forward.And of course, we couldnt nail Hillary for perjury.Isnt that how it all worked out?I admit:”I DONT RECALL!”
Econ I could not have said it better myself. The republicans should take a page from the democrat book ‘I don’t recall’ sounds so much better.
A little off topic sorry.I would like to wish tony snow good luck in his battle against cancer,hope he is not treated like rush and others in the gop treated Mrs.Edwards.
Good luck
Condor,
You are becoming tedious. I mention 8 years of continous criminality in the Clinton administration and I get responses from the libs such as “zero evidence”!
Of course you can believe “zero evidence” if you can ignore the over thirty felony convictions associated with the Clinton administration, not to mention at least a dozen of his close associates that fled the country to avoid being charged or testifying.
That is why I’m “fixated” on “Filegate”. I merely have a few simple questions I’m trying to get answered and then maybe we could go on to “travelgate”.
“Travelgate” is probably a way to compare the difference between the way the Bush adminstration clumsily fires someone legally and the way the Clinton administration illegally fires someone.
So Condor, you see, I’m not fixated on “filegate” (although that’s not as bad as being fixated on fleettwood’s testicals like you seem to be) I merely wish to see if you or any other lib can cite the law you think was broken in association with the attorney firings.
Hank
ksgrm,
I haven’t evaded your point. You want to cast me as your liberal bogey man, but I’m not the one refusing to state and stick to an operating principle, namely that abuse of power is wrong.
To your other point, the Justice Department is not just any employer and the Attorney General is not just any boss. Congress has the duty to oversee the operations of the Federal Government. When it appears, as it does in this case, that the Justice Department is being used for partisan political purposes, the Congress is right to ask questions. In a sense WE are the employers here. Given the evidence we have so far, no comment doesn’t cut it.
Each time you or Hank demand to know what specific law was broken you’re dancing around the foundational principles at stake here, which I have laid out in great detail in my posts on this thread and all of the others on this topic over the past couple weeks. I am not a lawyer and I won’t be able to cite case law for you. But I do know that when law enforcement officials are fired after resisting pressure to use their offices for partisan gain, we should all be concerned. I do know that when the Attorney General of the United States lies under oath about such firings, we should all be even more concerned.
At the very minimum Gonzales and the Bush Administration have so completely botched their handling of this issue that it makes you wonder how well they’re managing the Justice Department as a whole.
The fact that none of the conservatives who have posted on this topic are willing to admit to being concerned with any of these issues is very telling.
Finally, apparently you and Econ101 don’t recall that the phrase “I don’t recall” first gained widespread notoriety when it was used by President Reagan during the Iran Contra scandal. If you’d like to acknowledge your mistake in this regard you might want to use another of Reagan’s popular phrases: “Mistakes were made.”
Dear jay,
Thanks for your self rightous insincerity.
But Tony Snow has already been treated much worse on the liberal BLOGs over the weekend than anyone has treated Mrs Edwards.
Hank
Condor,Reagan had Alzheimer’s
Dear jay,
Thanks for your self rightous insincerity.——– Damn thats kinda harshi really wish tony well,politics isnt life or death
Unless your in the armed forces
Hank,
First, let me be clear that fleetwood is the guy with the genetalia size fetish, not me. A large (no pun intended) majority of his posts have to do with stones and balls and testosterone and such, and their relationship to party affiliation. To each his own.
And it’s amusing that I’m the one who’s becoming tedious when I’ve already granted you that Filegate was an abuse of power. Meanwhile you keep insisting on knowing what specific laws were violated so that you can avoid the larger implications of this situation.
I’m the one who’s tedious, when you’re the one who wants to revisit every Clinton era scandal before we can talk about the present?
Condor,Reagan had Alzheimer’s
So thats why he was allowed to still carry the football, how fricking scary
Dog and Pony ShowThe Democrats have nothing.
I brought up Snow’s check up before he went, I posted that link on one of the Edward’s threads.I dont think that this Blog, or anyone on it, has treated the Edwards unfairly.Any normal person would have very mixed emotions about both cases.—–CondorI actually think “Iran Contra” was a wonderful idea.I think Ollie North was fantastic in the Congressional Hearings and I think every Republican should WATCH tapes of North in his hearings if they want to learn how to do this right!Having said that, Reagan probably had the legal authority to do everything he did in regard to the Contras. That WAS a policy dispute.Reagan defeated Communism in Central America, and that was a great thing.As posted previously, by others on this Blog, many of Clinton’s friends and associates got into trouble for real crimes that had nothing to do with policy matters.
Dear jay,
Thanks for your self rightous insincerity.——– Damn thats kinda harshi really wish tony well,politics isnt life or death
Unless your in the armed forcesor are Vince foster just some meat for the gop (idiots have to eat too)
He didn’t know until 1994
Republican,
You once asked me if I’m a mockingbird. Are you a parrot?
What happened to all the huffing and puffing you did last night about staying on topic and contributing to the substance of the debate and not just letting this blog descend into anarchy?
I’m curious to know if you’ve officially given up on incorrectly using the term neo-lib, or if you’ve just temporarily retired it until I stop giving you a hard time for it.
“foundational principles at stake here”
Condor saying its so doesn’t make it so. Leahy is on a fishing expedition – pure and simple. Yelling outrage is just another way to take attention away from a congress that so far has done nothing but put a stumbling block in front of our military. For democrats this is easy to do. National security is never their major concern.
Ben Stein said it very aptly: ” A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked hishead into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met bya bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject SaddamHussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world. Areal star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to aroad north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off andkilled him.. A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day,is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with apiece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding astation. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as itexploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girlalive in Baghdad.”
These are our heros and this congress is trying to change the subject with their ploys. Smart people are seeing right through it.
I say let them keep fishing. The next election will tell the tale.
I dont think that this Blog, or anyone on it, has treated the Edwards unfairly.Any normal person would have very mixed emotions about both cases.No said anything about people on this blog,I refer to the talking points used by rush,beck,faux news and other gop pundits.Why would i have mixed emotions about tony snow or mrs edwards
Since your such a ben stein fan you wont mind a large tax increase on the wealthy that he supports to pay for your war
ksgrm,
Saying this is a fishing expedition doesn’t make it so.
As for the 2008 elections, in the words of your Dear Leader: Bring it on!
He didn’t know until 1994.Don’t read much, read nancy’s bookthey knew with at least 2 years leftin office that he was sickOr is nancy just a left wing nutjob
Econ101,
Since you’re a fan of Reagan’s Iran Contra policy, I just want to establish something. Since you supported the trading of arms to Iran during the 80s, I guess that means you don’t count yourself among the conservatives agitating for war with Iran now based on the theory that we’ve been at war with them since 1979?
And I’m not trying to be snarky. It’s an honest question.
Reagan…
http://www.thereaganlegacy.com/version2/speechesdetails.asp?sID=13
Paul and his ilk were also supporting Reagan’s supplying Saddam with chemicals to use against Iran at the same time. Also blocking UN action against the use of such weapons.
Jay and Condor I can’t say it hasn’t been fun but duty calls. One last quote from a democrat congressman, Pryor, from Arkansas.
“My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress,” Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, “who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave,” he said. “Then you’d have chaos and mayhem and instability.”
Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets “all the time.”
Typical demo logic. Keep it a secret from the military and tell congress who everyone knows can keep a secret.
When will they tell the military – or will they just sneak out under the cover of darkness some night when the senate and congress tell them to.
And these people want to be in charge of national security!!
ksgrm,
As for supporting the troops, you’re damn right we should be supporting them. And that means giving them the training, equipment and time at home with their families that they deserve. We’ve now been in Iraq for longer than we were involved in WWII.
I was watching Flags of Our Fathers the other evening and there’s an amazing shot of hundreds of battle ships filled with tens of thousands of men sailing to Iwo Jima. I see things like that and I can’t help but consider that we managed to build all those ships, enlist, train and equip all those men and fight a war on multiple fronts in less time than we’ve been in Iraq.
Think about that! We STILL haven’t up-armored all the humvees! We STILL haven’t managed to equip all our troops with proper, modern armor. We STILL haven’t replaced all the National Guard equipment that’s worn out or been destroyed in the sands of Iraq.
And then you read about the failure of leadership at Walter Reed… And you’re railing against Democrats? Who’s actually been in charge for the last six years while all of this was happening?
Harsh?
Well, maybe if you could wish Tony Snow well without a dig on Rush and Republicans. And maybe if you could show Mr. Snow the respect of capitalizing his name. Then maybe it would not come off as so insincere.
But..Good news! This BLOG is free! It won’t cost you anything to wish him well right!
Hank
Paul and his ilk were also supporting Reagan’s supplying Saddam with chemicals to use against Iran at the same time. Also blocking UN action against the use of such weapons.———————Thats how we got in too this war they thought it was safe to assumehe had wmd because bush 41 sold them saddam as cia chief,they didnt realize how good a job scott ritterand the rest of the un inspectorsdid.By the way for you idiots that say THE WHOLE WORLD thought they had wmd the people who were chargedwith that task Scott ritter for one said dozens of times well before the war there were no wmd.So what do the bushes do brand him a child molester.lol What great americans,dont like the message kill the messenger
Damn didn’t cap.mrs edwards must show bias what a joke
Condor,The libs have been non stop bitching about how much the war costs and now you’re bitching cause we didn’t spend MORE?????
Harsh?
Well, maybe if you could wish Tony Snow well without a dig on Rush and Republicans. And maybe if you could show Mr. Snow the respect of capitalizing his name. Then maybe it would not come off as so insincere.
Facts are facts mrs edwards was brutalized by rush and the right if your embarrassed by the gop quit supporting Everything they do or say
Well then, I apologize. You’re not insincere, just an equal opportunity jerk.
I want Tony to stay on the job, but I also want him to do what is best for him and his family.
Mixed emotions.
I want Tony to stay on the job, but I also want him to do what is best for him and his family.
Mixed emotions.
But..Good news! This BLOG is free! It won’t cost you anything to wish him well right!Hank how much clear channel stock do you own?Now will you defend david Stockman as well
I want Tony to stay on the job, but I also want him to do what is best for him and his family.
Why is it hard to find bush yes mananyone at fauxnews will do.Snow is arich man his family wont starve.
Well then, I apologize. You’re not insincere, just an equal opportunity jerk.
I was born like that but your a self-made man
David Stockman? Defend him from what?
Oh, that’s right! He served under a Republican President!
He’s obviously guilty! (of something)
Schizophrenic much Jay?
David Stockman? Defend him from what?
Oh, that’s right! He served under a Republican President!
He’s obviously guilty! (of something)
He has been charged with securitiesfraud its ok to read a little something other then newsmax and the drudge report
The father of trickle down(on my head)economics another former high ranking memner of the gop doing what they do best cheat, lie, and stealall the time having one hand on the bible how do they manage it all
sry should read (member) i am just a democat
Hank,It’s not that laws were broken, but all the lies told to justify the firings. But isn’t that what you pointed out you thought Clinton did? And was impeached for? He lied about a bj; This administrations lies get people killed. Big difference. So who swings for lying now?
Don’t bother hank with facts he has enough trouble wrapping his mind around his own lies.
Interesting comparison between allegations against AG Gonzalez and our own Kansas AG Morrison.
It is alleged that Gonzalez had political motivations when his department fired Republican US Attorney, who work for and serve at the pleasure of the President.
It is alleged that Morrison failed to follow up on the prosecution of abortionist George Tiller, a political and financial supporter of Morrison’s for violating restrictions in Kansas law on late-term abortions.
I think Morrison’s actions are clearly a much more serious violation of the public trust.
Come on Walker,
You’re smarter than that! The Ken Starr’s investigation resulted in over 20 felony convictions. Over 30 felony convictions all together associated with Clinton.
Nothing in the impeachment papers about lying about a blow job.
The democrats are doing just what they promised their left-wing-looney base they said they would do, investigate.
What’s the federal minimum wage now? How’s that going for ya?
Oh, and jay, you’re an idiot.
Walker, jay’s on your side!
Hank
Hank,
As I helpfully informed you this morning, the minimum wage bill has already passed.
“pssst. The minimum wage bill already passed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2:
Posted by: Condor | March 27, 2007 at 09:41 AM”
Here’s a tip. You know how they tell you to change the batteries in your smoke detector when you reset your clocks in the spring and fall? You might want to take that time to also update your pet issue you’ve chosen to mock your political opponents with.
I’m always here to help. Just ask!
Nothing to say about stockman hankdidnt think so.
You mean clinton didnt kill ron brown too he can make planes crash with his thought lol
“As I helpfully informed you this morning, the minimum wage bill has already passed.”
Very interesting, Condor. When does it become effective?
“Very interesting, Condor. When does it become effective?”
Just when did the prez sign it into law? I don’t seem to recall that ceremony. hmmmmmmmm?
H.R.2Title: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (222)Related Bills: H.RES.6, H.R.239, H.R.509, S.2, S.347Latest Major Action: 2/1/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 94 – 3. Record Vote Number: 42.
SEC. 101. MINIMUM WAGE.
(a) In General- Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
`(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than–
`(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007;
`(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
`(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
So Condor,
It’s passed? So, when do I have to start paying $7.25 an hour?
If it’s passed, surely you can tell me when the law goes into effect.
When did the president sign that particular piece of legislation?
Just wondering.
It’s not passed. It’s stalled. The Dems are all talk, no action.
Fleetwood,Hank,
The bill passed the House in January and the Senate on Feb 1.
Bush hasn’t yet signed it, but he actually did voice support for it in December.
So the lack of action is due to President Bush at this point.
Honestly, sometimes you guys remind me of the hyenas in the Lion King.
So, condor, it’s not law.Plaques for everyone! Except condor.
Hang in there, Condor, you’re raise is coming, and, it’s just one more way that Bush is keepin’ you down.
Condor~~~ That would be LAUGHING hyenas.
So Condor,
It’s the president’s fault? Has it been sent to him yet? Or is it stalled in the conference committee?
Just wondering.
Hank
By the way,
Condor is a perfect nic for a liberal.
Big, ugly vulture that would be extinct without government aid!
Hank
Hank~ you must play nice or the “Fists of Furry” will leave us.
Separately, supporters of an increase in the minimum wage readied an effort to attach the measure to the spending bill, along with companion tax cuts that Republicans have demanded. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the bill but have yet to reach a compromise.”
So, condor, pleased to be telling us wassup? More plaques!
Well,
I don’t guess it’s a lie if you say you’re going to do something, make a good effort and fail.
But if you promise something, don’t deliver and say you did….
Yep, all hat and no cattle!
Hank
people will beleive what ever nutty thing they want to believe and facts are just an inconveience to them. one thing we do know however is that Clinton according to the neo-cons is responsible for every evil in the world. Katrina… blame Clinton. 911… blame Clinton. original sin… blame Clinton. I mean that dang Clinton must be the antichrist or something. I just wonder where they stop blaming someone else. I thought the conservative mantra was self responsibility. But evidently I was wrong. Hey you bone heads over 3200 American parents will never sit down again with their kids again for dinner and no matter how you might want to blame that on Clinton, Iraq is all BUSH league. Lying is a way of life for a dry drunk and the incompetant sychophants that enable him. So go ahead and argue all you want about how pure honest and kind GWB and his band of thugs are, shift the blame, distort the record, fiddle away some more lives, but eventally the truth will out against every lie.
Hank – I think the pledge made by Pelosi was that the House would act on these bills and move them on. I don’t think she ever promised that Bush would sign them.
Yea Ben,
I’m pretty much aware of the BS Pelosi promised.
The Dems control congress. They haven’t sent the minimum wage bill to the president.
If they do, he’ll sign it, because it isn’t veto proof. (unless they send him something really strange)
Leadership. They have control, but no leadership.
Hank
Hank – as you know, their ‘control’ in the Senate is limited by the filabuster. Republicans there can block legislation.
That is not control. They have control of the House but not the Senate.
On a lighter note – how was Tommy’s?
Ben~ you are right, she promised and delivered.However, it’s erroneous for Condor to claim, without qualification, that it is passed.
Posted by: Tim_at _the_corner | March 27, 2007 at 05:03 PM:
“one thing we do know however is that Clinton according to the neo-cons is responsible for every evil in the world.”HUH???
“Katrina… blame Clinton. 911… blame Clinton. original sin… blame Clinton.”WHAT???
“Hey you bone heads over 3200 American parents will never sit down again with their kids again for dinner”Hey, Tom .. would that be the approx 3200 working, innocent Americans slaughtered by the highjacking, throat-slitting, cowardice terrorists??? You want to add in the Marine barracks, USS Cole, etc??
“Lying is a way of life for a dry drunk and the incompetant sychophants that enable him.”
WOWZA ~~~~~~ Tom, where does this anger come from?? I thought this post was discussing the minimum wage bill??
Yep, no doubt, the Furry Fists are back. Not because they disagree, but, because of the resorting to hyperbole, venom, and name calling.
By the way,
Condor is a perfect nic for a liberal.
Big, ugly vulture that would be extinct without government aid!
Hank
Posted by: Hank | March 27, 2007 at 04:49 PM
LOL Hank! :):) :)
Republican, you mean extinct without government aid, just like the American Bald Eagle? Look it up, dumbwad.
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/NorthAmerica/BaldEagleRefuge/SaveOurSymbol/default.cfm
Condor it is interesting that you are now concerned about proper equipment for the troops. We all are. I could be mistaken but most if not all Humvees are armoured now.
An interesting thing happened to the military on the way to this century. Our 42nd prez gutted our military. He got accolades for paying down the deficit. Look at his military spending for the 8 years he was in office.
The sad result of this shift in spending to domestic programs (re: welfare) left us with a military in the worst shape it had ever been in and soldiers and their families on food stamps. I know this because my son was in the military for 10 years, leaving in 1996 when his nuclear sub was put in mothballs. More than half of our fleet was mothballed and the rest were not updated. This was what happened in the Navy. Similar things happened in the other branches.
When we had to defend ourselves from an enemy we were left with a stripped military sorely prepared to go to war.Who paid that price? Our brave all volunteer military who were reduced to food stamps to feed their families.
If you wonder why some people are bitter at the Clinton years this is my reason. Nero fiddled and Rome burnt. I guess Clinton was blowing his sax.
It would appear that we go back and blame Clinton for everything. We simply lay the blame where it belongs.
I hope we can pull out of Iraq soon after achieving a victory w/stability for the Iraq people. This is a different kind of war that we have never seen before. We don’t have a uniformed enemy to point at as we have always had, we have a religious sect that hates all those who don’t support their idiology. Comparing this to WWII is just not logical.
This also is why I get so disgusted when Pelosi and crew posture and primp telling us how great they are when not supporting the troops in the field.
Oh, but lets go after some judges that were released legally by the justice dept.
tw,
It was a joke told by Hank not me.
May I suggest a flying bird of paradise…
ksgrm, your histor is a bit off. The biggest military cuts were under Bush 41 (when Cheney was Sec Def). And that “gutted military” as you put it performed above and beyond the call in Afghanistan. It was Bush who chose not to press the advantage in Tora Bora.
Clinton learned some hard lessons in Somalia and Bosnia, and our military adapted to the new kinds of threats out there. The Predator drone and small agile teams proved themselves a number of times.
Nuclear subs are not relevant to this new kind of threat. Small high-tech special ops teams are. And that is the direction Clinton was going. Sadly, Bush did two things: 1) he let Rumsfeld push back to the old pork-barrel big ticket battleship strategy, and 2) He got us all chewed up in the quagmire of Iraq.
Finally, you are mistaken. Most HMMWVs are not armored. We have big equipment shortages. National guard amphibious vehicles are being sent into the desert because that’s about all we have left at this point. It will take years to build back to the army we had in 2000.
If you wonder why some of us are bitter about the Bush years, that’s why.
Republican, my point is the same. You mock and ridicule environmental protections without considering the consequences if we let corporations to their own devices. No condors, no bald eagles. To say the least.
tw,
Let me explain something to you about my stance on the environment.
I am all for more green environment legislation, just not from the Kyoto Treaty or from the UN.
Why you ask?
Because I live in a Constitutional Republic where we vote for people to represent us that take care of things like taxes.
If Kyoto or UN get their greedy mitts on taxes paid by US citizens then what do we have?
What we would have would be people in power spending all that tax money that can’t be held responsible how they spend it.
Maybe that’s how you want to improve the environment, but not me.
Now back to your regularly scheduled blog on Gonzales and the’hanging judges’ Schumer and Leahy.
Hey Ben,
Tommy’s was pretty good, I had the full order baby back ribs and everyone else had the prime rib.
He still has the best prime rib in town!
Hank
Speaking of eagles, (a good patriotic conservative bird) ours is back!
He came back a few weeks ago. We thought he was gone, haven’t seen him all winter but Sunday morning I sat and watched him for about an hour as fished for breadfast.
Maybe he’s going to summer here instead of winter.
Hank
TW maybe your history is a little off or you have been reading the wrong history. The facts support the following take on Clinton and the military and knowing many who were in the military during this period they find it very factual.
“As part of his grand plan, Clinton proceeded to cut the military in half, citing no new threats, despite conservative pleas. But there was an emerging threat; Clinton just did not want to see it. Attacks on the World Trade Center, on our troops in Somalia, the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia, two U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the U.S.S. Cole, which killed 17 sailors, littered Clinton’s presidency. Yet the only one he retaliated for, as Ann Coulter has recently pointed out, was for the embassy bombings, which happened to coincide with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now that we are in a global war on terror, we’ve heard much talk, amazingly much of it from liberals, that our military is stretched too thin. Now who was it that thought we needed to cut it in half because we wouldn’t need a large force?”
http://therightside.squarespace.com/
TW some more facts for your digestion.
“Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.”
ksgrm, that is the most one-sided biased piece of “reporting” I ever saw. “According to Ann Coulter…?” She never let facts get in the way.
Retaliated… The perpetrators of the 93 WTC bombings were put in jail for life. Also the Pentagon shooting. The millennium bomber. The NYC tunnel bombers. The blind Sheik. As for the USS Cole, the investigation was complete in 2001 and Condi Rice explained in her own words why Bush — not Clinton — chose not to retaliate for that.
Cutting in half? The biggest cuts were under Bush 41 after the cold war. Clinton did indeed recognize new threats. He had boots on the ground and actively went after Bin Laden. Bush said he didn’t care about Bin Laden.
Our military was good enough to bring peace to the Balkans, driving al Qaeda out and bringing a dictator to justice without a single combat death. Can Bush claim the same?
No, your facts are way off. Your sources are wrong. The bias is blatant. 17 soldiers killed “littered” the Clinton presidency. What does 3,200 killed do to Bush’s?
There have been many attacks on our embassies and troops under Bush. Our Saudi embassy, Syrian embassy, and a navy ship in Beiruit to name a few.
I suspect you’re not looking at facts, only at the D or R after the name. Otherwise, you would be angry at the massive incompetence Bush has brought to the presidency.
“Clinton’s loathing of the military” is pure conjecture, not a fact.
When 18 soldiers died in Somalia, he fired his secretary of defense. Bush failed to show the same common sense. That suggests Bush is the one with loathing, not Clinton.
And if deployments were stretched so thin under Clinton, why is it only now we’re reaching the breaking point? Under Clinton did we have the kind of 3 deployments, national guard shortages, equipment shortages? You decry a 1.6 million man army as too small? Not if you use it wisely. If it was too small, what did Bush do about that? Nothing. He sent the national guard in for multiple deployments, stop-loss program, and no strategy. If 1.6 million soldiers is too few, why don’t the College Republicans sign up?
Maybe you think we need 2.1 million soldiers but face it, if Iraq had gone as well as Bosnia, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Tw I don’t think I am the one blinded by the D & R. Numbers don’t lie. No, I don’t think that Ann Coulter is a good source but I know the left wing media will never print the facts I just presented you. Before saying someone has their head in the sand look at the numbers. This is the same denial we are seeing over the AG debacle. The press says it so it must be true.
“Clinton’s loathing of the military” is pure conjecture, not a fact.
tw,
You are really too easy!
CLINTON’S DEC. 3, 1969 LETTER TO COL. HOLMES
(His notorious “draft-dodging” “I Loathe The Military” letter)
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary, but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
I had written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans for the demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to “participation in war in any form.”
From my work, I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case does not involve the peace and freedom of the nation.
The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for reasons stated above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country (I.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason; to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway.)
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the only way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas law school because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromises I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies because there were none but by failing to tell you all the things I’m writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them.
After that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept. 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn’t, and stating that I couldn’t do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn’t mail the letter because I didn’t see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or, if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me.
Merry Christmas
Sincerely,Bill Clinton
Hey fleettwood,
Where is the plaque store!
Hank
Thanks Hank for the backup. I had to leave for a little while and feared TW would think I had caved to his propaganda. Truth is a powerful weapon.
???????????
Any time!
Here’s the letter by Col Holmes, Col. Holmes is a highly decorated US Army officer. He survived 3 – 1/2 years as a prisoner of war of the Japanese and the Bataan Death March. After serving 32 years, he retired with one-hundred percent disability. Among other decorations, he was awarded two Legions of Merit, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and the Army Commendation Medal. Family members who were in the military include his two sons, and a brother, who was killed in action during W.W.II. Colonel Holmes headed up the ROTC training program at the University of Arkansas, and was involved in recommending Bill Clinton for participation in the program. Col. Holmes’ affidavit relates Clinton’s deceit, lies, and anti-Americanism, and reflects the scorn that all true Americans should justifiably feel for that filthy traitor in that thank God is now considered FORMERLY in the White House.
COL. HOLMES’ AFFIDAVIT REGARDING CLINTON(Written after Clinton ran for President in 1992)
There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton’s involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas. Prior to this time, I had not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of three and one-half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement. However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft-dodger becoming Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton’s evasion of the draft
This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft, “Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make.” Since I may be the only person living who can give a firsthand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love of country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.
Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.
The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton’s draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fulbright’s office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fulbright’s office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.
I was not “saving’ him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3, 1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer.
In retrospect, I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas law school. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford.
I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.
The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his antimilitary activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity.
When I consider the caliber, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended … When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against the military, should ever be in a position of Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces.
I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war.)
I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese, it is not enough. I’m writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being. I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have fought and died.
Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.
Eugene J. Holmes (Col. USA Ret.)September, 1992—–
This is a thread about Gonzales being in trouble and we’re rehashing Clinton’s career. Yup, that makes a heck of a lot of sense – especially if you’re pulling out all stops to avoid the thread subject.
Mr. Price you’ve asked all day long, what laws were broken? Well, where I come from – you investigate first, then determine if crimes were committed. If we can get your people to testify before congress, we’ll get back to ya on your questions of laws being broken, etc. Okay?
In the meantime, can we stop wasting bandwidth with the misadventures of Bill Clinton?
Thank you.
There is a difference between investigation and a fishing expedition. Or do you like to investigate like channel 4 did, blame a person and find out later he’s not the real BTK?
That kind of investigation? Whoops?
Holy shit.
Newsflash: Bill Clinton is no longer President. He hasn’t been President for SIX FRIGGIN YEARS!
No wonder their was a schism here. You’re all yucking it up and slapping each other on the back over matters that are of absolutely no relevance anymore.
Meanwhile, back in the present…
This is more than a fishing expedition. Try again.
Here is a comprehensive take on the various smelly aspects of the AG’s and others’ behavior – it is long, but you might get a clue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
“channel 4″
Huh? You mean Channel 3 – KSN?
Hopefully, Leahy will do a better job than you did there.
No Condor it was you saying it ‘was the principle of the thing’. You have carried this poor excuse for a man’s water since 1990 and now because some unsubstantiated allegations about a law that isn’t and so couldn’t be broken about the AG firing some judges – and you are screaming for blood. Scream on – you and Leaky Leahy. It isn’t going to happen. Thank goodness Bush has stood up and said “you won the congress not the presidency”. It isn’t going to happen.
Gonzo if you watched ‘Watch the Press’ on sunday you would have seen two of the dismissed judges. Even heavy handed Russert couldn’t get them to say they were wronged. They weren’t meeting their employers expectations and were let go. It happens. No laws were broken. This is some poor democrats trying to get their name in headlites for something other that writing legislation that is worthless.
ksgrm,
You keep telling me what I’ve done and thought and felt and I think I need to remind you that you don’t know me from Adam.
Love, Condor
Actually you said your name was Condor so why would I think you were Adam? I was merely stating that you jump on anyone who dares to mention that Clinton might have had feet of clay. That much I do know and oh yes, it is the principle of the thing.
Gonzo I never trust what I read in the Washington Post for several reasons. One is that they have to run lots of corrections but those are run in the back right after the classifieds eventhough the story ran on the front page.
Yeah, Channel 3, what I get for traveling to different states and watching NBC affiliates :)
ksgrm,
I do what? Have you read anything I’ve written here?
All I have ever advocated is sticking with the principle that ours is a country of laws, not men.
This was THE conservative argument in the 90s. Suddenly it’s not and I think that’s odd.
I also think its odd that more than SIX YEARS after he left office, the conservatives on this blog can’t get worked up into such a lather over the name Bill Clinton. Meanwhile back in the present…
One of the fired attorneys took out Duke Cunningham, guess that’s reason enough if you’re a Republican..
Steve in case you haven’t noticed we are the party that kick out those who break the law – or at any rate we give them the option to leave quietly.
The democrats not only don’t ask them to leave they give them plum committee appointments.
Condor I will say again what I have said before. The only reason Clinton is brought up is that we keep hearing from the media that these firings were unprecedented. A falsehood. NO LAW was broken so why have hearings unless you want to change the subject.
And actually Clinton is very much relevant. His wife is running for prez and she shares his loathing for the military.
Carol Lam one of the attorney was fired for performance standards. Here is the story:
Lam’s Performance as reported in San Diego Union Tribune
An independent research organization based at Syracuse University analyzed prosecution data and concluded that between 2001, before Lam took over, and 2005, prosecutions in San Diego declined to 3,261 from 5,266, or 38 percent. More recent statistics are not available.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070121/news_1n21lam.html
A 38 percent performance drop. I would call that significant.
KSGRM,
You don’t believe the WaPo? Okay, tell us what resources you do believe in. I am guessing it must be those that no thinking human would believe.
AG, AG will be thrown overboard by 04-13-07 in order to save Karl Rove – is my prediction. Present your alternate hypothesis, if you can.
I would further bet that Gonzo steps down on his own. Of course, he will be under no pressure to do so – yeah, right…
Interesting how Republican/kahn/golfnuts/golfguts,etc. posts links that dispute his claims. Shooting oneself in the foot must be his/her favorite game.
This from his/her link:
Lam’s legacy
U.S. attorney went for quality prosecutions over quantity – it may have cost her her job
By Greg Moran and Onell R. SotoSTAFF WRITERS*****January 21, 2007
NADIA BOROWSKI SCOTT/ Union-Tribune“Given the resources we had, I was very determined to do prosecutions more efficiently, more intelligently and obtain the maximum impact possible,” said U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who has refused to discuss the reasons for her Feb. 15 departure.By the close of 2005, amid a series of San Diego scandals, U.S. Attorney Carol Lam had quietly become one of the most powerful people in the region.
That summer, her office had secured the convictions of two City Council members on extortion, fraud and other charges in a bribery case involving a strip club.
A grand jury was wrapping up its investigation into the city’s billion-dollar pension deficit debacle and would hand down indictments at the start of 2006.
And in a case that reverberated across the country, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham of Rancho Santa Fe pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion charges. He admitted accepting more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
Lam’s work was widely hailed in a region weary of investigations and allegations. It was an appealing narrative: a fearless prosecutor taking on the local establishment.
That may very well be Lam’s legacy, even after the events of last week.
Graphic:
Prosecutions by the San DiegoU.S. Attorney’s OfficeOn Tuesday, barely 13 months since those high-flying days, Lam, 47, announced she was resigning. She leaves Feb. 15.
Democratic lawmakers speculate that the former judge, who took office in September 2002 after being appointed by President Bush, was forced out by politics. The Cunningham probe had spawned other investigations into Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
A San Diego grand jury issued subpoenas to Congress last month, indicating that the investigation continues. The subpoenas would be unaffected by a change in the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The precise reasons for her ouster are not known. Sources told The San Diego Union-Tribune that it was the result not of her high-profile white-collar investigations, but of something much more basic.
The prosecutor was not prosecuting enough cases, especially gun and border crimes.
If that is the case – and Lam has refused to discuss why she is leaving – then her fall can be traced to the unique pressures that exist for the U.S. attorney here.
“In this district, it’s hard to ignore the border,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez. “You can’t.”
Border crime prosecutions in the past had made San Diego the busiest U.S. Attorney’s Office in the nation. Lam tried to remake the office’s role along more traditional lines, where federal prosecutors go after big fish.
Advertisement But that policy may have alienated key law enforcement constituencies. The union that represents Border Patrol agents was outspoken in its dissatisfaction. Lam tightened the guidelines for deciding which smuggling and immigration cases her office would undertake, meaning fewer cases went to court. Instead of going after coyotes, the guides who bring illegal crossers into the United States, her office targeted the leaders of smuggling organizations. It also prosecuted corrupt Border Patrol agents and border inspectors.The result was predictable. Statistics show that prosecutions fell during Lam’s tenure.
An independent research organization based at Syracuse University analyzed prosecution data and concluded that between 2001, before Lam took over, and 2005, prosecutions in San Diego declined to 3,261 from 5,266, or 38 percent. More recent statistics are not available.
Data from Lam’s office reflect a nearly identical percentage decline, though the raw numbers of cases differ.
Crime and prosecution statistics do vary from year to year, depending on investigations and the arrests made.
Most people caught crossing the border illegally are deported; only those with long criminal records or who place people in danger are prosecuted in federal court.
Many federal drug investigations end up in state court, as do some violent crimes when the accused faces life imprisonment under California’s three-strikes law.
“Sometimes we have concurrent jurisdiction, but the biggest bang for the buck would be here” in state court, said San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis.
A shift in focusFrom the start, Lam said she would put more focus on white-collar crime cases, which can be more complex and take more time and resources.But even in that area, the number of cases went down. In 2001, according to the Syracuse study, there were 142 white-collar crime prosecutions. In 2005, the number was 82.
In an interview Friday, Lam said she chose to redirect the resources of her office to tackle cases that would have a larger impact. In effect, she said she emphasized quality prosecutions over sheer quantity.
“When you take on more difficult investigations, the number of prosecutions might not be as high, but you have a larger impact on crime in the community,” she said.
One corrupt Border Patrol agent could be responsible for letting hundreds of illegal immigrants into the country, Lam said. Investigating and prosecuting that agent – Lam’s office had seven such cases – could reduce illegal entries into the country but be counted only as a single effort.
She said she did not ignore the border cases, but tried to reallocate the office’s finite resources.
“It was not so much a shift of office resources away from the border, but a shift in the nature of border crimes we were pursuing,” Lam said. “More serious, more sophisticated and larger organizational rings.”*****
Gonzo or should I say a former Fister
I call you by your screen name and I expected to be called by my screen name, not someone elses.
If you can’t even respect that protocall, then you don’t deserve an answer from anyone.
In a follow up story, Lam was noted for going after High-profile cases for her reputation and not for the people in that district.
Border Coyotes were returning over and over to that area terrorizing the local population and nothing was done by Lam.
“Hey fleettwood,
Where is the plaque store!
Hank”
It’s at the corner of Smack and Down.
Did the liberal/Democrat/Bush Haters/Whatever ever figure out what law was broken yet?
Back to the topic; as I have posted several times here, there is nothing unlawful for the “firing” of a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President. The termination may be for any reason or no reason.
What troubles many is the assignment of a reason; performance. While that has different meanings dependent upon the context, the providing of this reason caused some of the fired U.S. Attorneys to kick back. The inconsistencies of testimony gives further weight to the perception that “hey, something’s not right here”.
Now, we have Monica Gooding asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege in a context that makes no sense to me. Her counsel’s statement speaking of a perjury trap, and citing cases where, in fact, the individual involved had knowingly given false testimony under oath, is not helpful to me in determining about what she is concerned in asserting the privilege. To my memory, she’s not testified under oath, given sworn affidavits, etc. to anyone in connection with the matter. Thus, my speculation turns to whether her giving truthful testimony, under oath before the Judiciary Committee, will be incriminating to her in any other regard. As those who have lurked at the WV site know, I have speculated about her knowledge of intent to block ongoing investigations by the “firings”; the potential violation of certain regulations and statutes by utilizing “nonofficial” computer servers for official emails, thwarting the archiving requirements; and other things. Without further investigation, these are unknown.
I have also posited that the AG is incompetent to hold the office he holds, and speculated he would likely resign at some point before his scheduled testimony on, IIRC, April 17. The incompetency thought is shared by others, including Charles Krauthammer, who are calling for his resignation.
I also wonder if Monica G. is in her position more due to being a loyal minion rather than her own competency. It seems to me her career in government service is over; I suspect she will have difficulty finding suitable employment as a result of this, as well as other reasons posted other places.
So, to me, the investigation needs to continue. Will this turn out to be a fishing expedition? I don’t know; but as any lawyer knows, one person’s fishing expedition is another’s use of discovery rules, etc., to obtain evidence material to proof of his/her case.
Paraphrasing a thought posted when this whole thing first came into the public eye, the “firing” of the U.S. Attorneys was not violative of any law; the assignment of a reason therefor, where no reason is needed, raises suspicion. I still hold to my thought that had there been a statement made in response to questions concerning the “firings” that the President had the right to do so; he did so; and, utilizing the power granted in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, interim appointments of qualified replacements had been made by the Attorney General, the entire media circus surrounding the matter would have been over in 24 to 48 hours. This did not occur, and we find ourselves where we are.
We are all aware that the appointment of a U.S. Attorney is political; however, once appointed, the performance of the job should be apolitical. From the volumes of emails, etc., produced to date in this matter, a perception of political pressure on certain of the “fired” individuals to carry out the duty of the office in a different way arises. This does not pass my “smell” test, whether lawful or not. I suspect others have the same feeling.
“Did the liberal/Democrat/Bush Haters/Whatever ever figure out what law was broken yet?”
No. Even vt admits that. All the Libs on TV admit that. It’s a political head hunt.
Vaughn,
You had me at: “The termination may be for any reason or no reason.”
Case closed, go start another pointless investigation.
Vaughn, Vaughn, Vaughn,
Don’t you know that Bill Clinton was once President? That one fact cancels out any wrongdoing by the current administration.
Even if you set that fact aside, I’m quite certain that Hank, Republican, ksgrm, Nathan and Fleetwood wouldn’t bat an eye if the Clinton administration had fired 8 US Attorneys and then lied about the political motivations. I’m sure they’d dismiss any investigation into such an occurence as a fishing expedition. I’m also sure that if members of the Clinton administration had been found to be using private email addresses for official White House business in an obvious attempt to circumvent the Official Records Act, that all of these fine upstanding conservatives would let it pass without comment.
Nothing to see here.
You see, Vaughn, the rule of law only applies to Democrats. Republicans can do whatever the hell they want.
Now, you want to talk about Hillary firing the White House travel planners… THAT’S a SCANDAL! Turning the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committe is child’s play compared to firing travel planners.
Nathan,If Bush had left it there, it would have been fine. If when asked why he ‘fired’ them he would have said ‘Because’ then it could have died quietly. But the attempted cover-up, giving a reason why he fired them, and lying is what is going to get everyone in trouble. Take Scooter for example. They wanted blood, they got it.
Biggest waste of time on the taxpayer dime ever.
Republican,
When you say it’s the biggest wast of time on the taxpayer dime ever, I’m guessing you’re not including the 10 year, $22 Million investigation of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros which resulted in a misdemeanor pleas deal.
Oh, and Cisneros pled guilty to the misdemeanor four years into the investigation.
Yes, that’s right. The independent counsel then spent another SIX YEARS investigating a MISDEMEANOR which he had already gotten Cisneros to plea to.
Care to see what your $22 Million bought besides a misdemeanor plea deal? Here’s a link to the 474 page report that was 10 FRIGGIN YEARS in the making (warning EXTREMELY large PDF file): http://barrett.oic.gov/finalreport/finalreport.pdf
Cisneros was the mayor of San Antonio – my home town then. Really good guy. did a good job as HUD too.
http://republikan.typepad.com/republikansan/us_politics/index.html
“If you can’t even respect that protocall, then you don’t deserve an answer from anyone.”
Condor is right, you *are* a very delicate flower…
Gonzo is a good name for you. How is Rex Knife doing?
Who’s Rex Knife?
Looks like the real reasons for the appointments are starting to come out. Or is it just coincidence that in 9 out of 11 states mentioned by rove in a speech on 2008 strategy, are involved in the shake up?
Evidence Suggests U.S. Attorney Firings May Have Been Part of White House Scheme to Help Game 2008 Election
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4324#more-4324
Karl Rove Associate and GOP Operative Tim Griffin’s Appointment in Arkansas — and Others Like it — Are Worth Noting as the Scandal Continues to Unravel…
Guest Blogged by Arlen Parsa
Details continue to drip out from the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal which seem to suggest that electoral politics — and perhaps the 2008 election in particular — may well have been at the heart of the White House/Dept. of Justice scheme to strategically place partisan operatives where they might be most useful prior to the next Presidential Election.
One such detail revealed itself on Tuesday March 20th when Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the recent purge of several US Attorneys by the Bush Administration. Host Chris Matthews opened the segment by asking Pryor how much he knew about the White House’s decision to replace the US Attorney in his state, Bud Cummins, with one of Karl Rove’s associates, a partisan operative named Tim Griffin.
Pryor criticized the Attorney General for firing Cummins and replacing him with Griffin, who had very little professional experience in Arkansas and had only recently moved there when Cummins was fired in December of 2006. Cummins, on the other hand, whom George W. Bush himself had appointed in 2001, had been well respected, competent, and non-partisan (despite personally being a Republican).
But the real bombshell came near the end of the interview….
Cummins told Matthews before going on the air that he had heard a “conspiracy theory” about why the Administration had chosen to replace Cummins with Griffin, and Matthews asked him about it a short time later when they were live. “Well,” Pryor said, slightly uncomfortable. “There’s kind of a conspiracy theory about that.”
“Some people have pointed to that, said isn’t that strange, here [the Administration is] putting in a maybe highly-political US Attorney in Hillary Clinton’s backyard… Isn’t that odd right before the Presidential race?” Pryor explained.
The implication was that if Republicans had a partisan prosecutor in Arkansas where the Clintons lived while Bill had served as governor during the 1980s, he would be able to drudge up old political dirt on the couple in time for the 2008 elections.
Pryor was quick to add that he didn’t personally subscribe to the theory, but that it was just speculation he had been hearing among political insiders.
But Griffin’s nomination wasn’t the only one with political and electoral undertones that might not bode well for Democrats in 2008. In fact, a report from the McClatchy Newspaper syndicate last Friday indicated that the Bush Administration has replaced US Attorneys in several key states, just in time for the 2008 Presidential election.
In April 2006, Karl Rove gave a keynote address to the National Lawyers Association, a partisan legal group. “He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in 2008,” McClatchy recalled in their report.
“Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005.”
Incidentally, during the same speech, Rove also acknowledged his friend, Thor Hearne, who had been both General Counsel to the Bush-Cheney 2004 election campaign and also Executive Director of the GOP front group “American Center for Voting Rights” or ACVR, which has engaged in voter suppression efforts via phony propagandistic reports on America’s non-existent “voter fraud” epidemic since 2004. (BRAD BLOG’s extensive coverage of ACVR can be found here. The group’s website has suddenly disappeared since the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal has come to light.)
“I ran into Thor Hearne as I was coming in,” Rove told the audience. “He was leaving; he was smart, and he was leaving to go out and enjoy the day.”
“I want to thank you for your work on clean elections,” he continued. “I know a lot of you spent time in the 2004 election, the 2002 election, the 2000 election in your communities or in strange counties in Florida, helping make it certain that we had the fair and legitimate outcome of the election,” Rove told the Republican attorneys.
He also compared elections in “some parts of the country” to those that take place in third-world dictatorships where the “guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses.” Whether he was aware of the irony of his comments is still unknown.
In any event, three of the US Attorneys Bush has nominated since the 2004 election were, remarkably enough, from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which has been criticized for implementing policies which unfairly disadvantage poor, often minority voters whose political tendencies historically favor Democrats.
And Griffin himself had allegedly been involved with voter suppression. Griffin, as investigative journalist Greg Palast discovered in 2004, was one of the RNC operatives that had thought up a complicated scheme to disenfranchise Americans who did not respond to letters sent to their home addresses. Victims of the scheme whose votes were thrown away, Palast reported, included homeless people, and black soldiers serving overseas who obviously could not respond to mail, marked with “do not forward” instructions, delivered to their home addresses.
The scheme Griffin played a role in also reportedly targeted predominately African American areas in swing states such as Florida.
Griffin recently dismissed Palast’s reporting in a radio interview. “I’m intimately familiar with [Palast's] allegations. That is a web article on the Internet. It’s patently false,” he pointed out, as if a “web article,” and “on the Internet” no less, might marginalize the facts of the report. Yet Griffin may not have been so intimately familiar with the allegations from that “web article on the Internet” after all: They were aired during a report by Palast, as filed on the television program “Newsnight” for the BBC. (A video of the original report can be found on YouTube).
When Justice Department and White House officials first tried to explain the US Attorney firings, they claimed that several of the prosecutors who had been forced to resign had refused to follow up on allegations of “voter fraud.” Some immediately recognized that “voter fraud” allegations have been the weapon of choice, of late, by Republicans attempting to make it more difficult for certain groups of Americans — particularly those in minority areas whose voters do not typically lean GOP — to vote, by pushing new regulations and disenfranchising Photo ID legislation as a “protective measure.”
The DoJ claims that the firings were “voter fraud” related raised some skepticism at BRAD BLOG and elsewhere, and even led to the New York Times editorial page to sharply criticize the supposed rationale for the firings. It is perhaps ironic that the public explanation the Administration has given for firing the prosecutors — specifically related to elections — may ultimately draw more attention to what some suspect is a deeper scheme to set up a system of disenfranchisement just in time for the 2008 elections.
At least one Arkansas newspaper has called for Griffin’s resignation since the US Attorney scandal began, and he has said that he would only stay until the Administration found a suitable replacement. The White House has privately worried that Griffin would not be able to pass muster in Senate confirmation hearings, which he would be required to undergo if he wanted to keep his current job. The loophole in the PATRIOT Act which allowed Griffin and others to bypass the normal confirmation process was recently closed by the Senate in a vote of 94-2. The House is expected to pick up the matter soon.
Steve~~ You et al….. cannot (refuse to) answer the question that has been posted on this thread for HOURS. And, that is ………… what law was broken??The answer is none.
Thanks for that long scroll over opportunity you gave me.
P.S. When you cut and paste from a different source, at least have the decency, Mr. Biden, to use quotation marks and proper source citing.
AG AG “doesn’t recall” being involved in the debate over the fired U.S. Attorneys:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/30/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html
This suggests to me that Mr. Sampson’s testimony yesterday created a problem for the AG.
Yes, create a crime where there wasn’t. I don’t think that is what the founders of the Constitution had in mind.
Perhaps, Mr. Tolle, you would like to be challenged on your recollection of what you’ve written here as opposed to what you say daily at your place of employment.
Unfair you say? Exactly my point.
Lying to Congress is a crime.
Parsing words out of someone statement that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when no crime was committed is a perversion of the Constitution.
The Lawyers could have been fired because they had freckles. And the AG could have said we fired them for political reason, then later modify his statement and say oh yes, they had freckles as well.
Leave out the Partisan rhetoric, it’s a very sad state when prosecution powers are abused.
“Parsing words out of someone statement that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when no crime was committed is a perversion of the Constitution”
Tell me again – just what was Clinton impeached for?
Exactly Mr. Huie, what happened to Clinton was idiotic too. I didn’t agree with it then and don’t agree with it now and what’s happening in the Congress.
There are nine people sitting in the Supreme Court thinking now, “What a bunch of partisan idiots on both sides.”
Unfortunately the ‘rules of engagement’ were written in many ways by Newt etc. I would note one big difference though – the allegations being made today are a lot more serious than a personal dalliance. I think it is going to be a very rocky spring for Gonzales and then Bush.
There are five Partisan Idiots sitting in the Supreme court, thinking what?
Creating a crime where none was involved previously, is exactly what Kenneth Star did at the behest of his bosses.