It’s tempting to shrug off the various battles between the White House and top House Democrats as so much pointless politics. For example, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, termed the House Judiciary Committee’s new lawsuit against the Bush administration over the firing of U.S. attorneys as “pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists.†But this lawsuit reportedly is history making — the first time Congress has been a plaintiff in a civil case against the executive branch over executive privilege. And the constitutional issues at stake — the power of the presidency and separation of powers — are bigger than one White House. Why don’t more Americans care?
-
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
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Good reviews for Obama’s war Cabinet
- donndublin on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- donndublin on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- BlueJay on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- Agnatha on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- Agnatha on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- Agnatha on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- ksfarmgrrl on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- ksfarmgrrl on Budget raid costing USD 259 about $119,000
- DavidB on Open thread 12/2
68 Comments
Because many Americans are too stupid, or too busy watching American Idol, to see any need to concern themselves. Also, another group just figures it’s partisan politics (which it is to some degree) and pays no attention.
Because it is all just more of the SSDD
from the United States Congress.
OK
So, should the Democrats win the White House —
Will Obama and Clinton both promise not to fire any US Attorneys? (This time?? Bill Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys when he had a chance!)
It’s difficult to accuse someone of firing those who don’t agree when they are all fired.
While the particulars of the suit may be new, the battle of wills and powers between the executive and legislative branches is as old as the republic. And yes, it will be very interesting to watch.
All presidents hoard power, and are extremely reluctant to give it up. They are jealous of the prerogatives of the office; indeed, the presidency today is carved out of 200+ years of precedent, with president after president carving out new authorities. FDR, in modern times, reshaped the office of president, becoming a virtual dictator. No president since has come close to wielding the amount of power he has, both in the economic realm and as a wartime president. Bush is a piker by comparison.
Legislatures too are jealous of their prerogatives. Witness Congress’ tantrum over the search of Cunningham’s Congressional offices (executing a duly issued search warrant, of course). In know of no Congressional exemption to search warrants, but that didn’t prevent Congress from attempting to assert one.
The first presidential impeachment, Andrew Johnson’s, was just that sort of battle over power between the branches.
Bottom line is it’s very interesting to us poli-sci types, but probably not of much interest to most Americans; it has little impact on them. It is, indeed, Beltway gamesmanship. And it is as old as the Republic.
I think the House Judiciary Committee needs multiple law suits file against them for wasting a massive amount of time on matters of relative unimportance.
What a bunch of self-suckling chuckle heads.
You know it might be nice if the democrat’s controlling congress just did their j.o.b..
They failed to pass the appropriation acts on time. In fact they combined them all into one big omnibus
bill without even reading them - in late December, long after 1 October… These are the same jokers who campaigned against republicans for the same thing.
They have increased the national debt, and failed to reduce spending, another forgotten campaign promise.
Their record pork barrel spending (earmarks)of 20 billion were nearly as bad as the republicans record earmark spending, another forgotten campaign promise.
And the list goes on and on.
And you wonder why the public doesn’t appear to care?
Question for VT -
Does Congress have standing to bring the suit? What is their actual injury?
GMC,
I was about to ask your thoughts on those questions, together with whether the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. While it appears to me under the language of the Constitution itself that this is not a case of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, it is hard for me to see where jurisdiction lies at all.
It is my opinion that there is a “real” question or controversy here over the scope of Executive Privilege as it may apply to the actions of the Congress. That said, I cannot (hearkening back to the Viet Nam war cases) find standing, no matter how hard I try. Without standing, the rest is moot, but forging ahead, the alleged injury would need to be framed in Constitutional terms, along the lines of a Separation of Powers argument. I just have a great deal of difficulty trying to frame an argument that does not go down in flames.
I speculate the litigation will be dismissed by the District Court on a “political question” basis.
Your thoughts, counselor?
Technically, this is litigation filed by the House Judiciary Committee against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten over their respective failures to appear after being subpoenaed, and the failure to produce documents also subject to a subpoena. It is not the Congress of the United States vs. the President of the United States.
That said, it does boil down to litigation brought by the Congress against the President; a dispute between two co-equal branches of government being played out between proxies. This still does not resolve, for me, the standing issue.
From memory, when all this was center stage, there is some provision somewhere for the Congress to bring an independent action in contempt to enforce a subpoena. In that sense, then yes, the members of the committee do have standing. The injury inquiry then becomes whether the individuals named in the litigation are in contempt, and if so, what the punishment should be for the contempt, and what the defendants will need to do to purge themselves of the contempt. Against this backdrop, the real questions of the application of the doctrine of Executive Privilege and the proper scope thereof will play out.
So, GMC, upon further reflection, I find my original response to your questions needs amendment, and I have attempted to so do herein. Standing to bring suit exists, IMHO, against the two individuals named. The injury is the alleged contempt. Answering my own question, the District Court would have jurisdiction. All that said, I still opine this will be dismissed as a “political question”, the court perhaps opining that use of the judiciary to settle this dispute is inappropriate, with the remedy of impeachment (as unrealistic as the same is, given the nature of the make up of Congress at present) being that available to Congress in such a matter.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/house_slaps_white_house_offici.html
Therein contained is a link to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, for anyone interested in reading the same.
Econ — It is fairly normal to fire leftover people from a previous administration, when a new administration takes over. That is what happened with Clinton… Probably a good reason why nobody thought anything of it!!
New President = New Staff…
Maybe nobody cares because the media splashes the headlines about washed up pop stars, Hillary Clinton’s pant suits, etc. Sadly it must be said for the stupidity of Americans that a front page story on today’s Eagle had to repeat the fact that Saddam had no link to 9/11.
For those of us who don’t care to get brainwashed by infotainment sources like Fox News, CNN, etc. and get news from in depth sources the facts have been known. A lot of corrupt people have been engaged in silencing any media that produces the facts. Case in point was the 60 Minutes blackout in Alabama when they went forward (against White House pressure) to air the Siegelman story. During the hype of the illegal Iraq war the only person able to get on the news to denounce the bad intelligence was Janeane Garafalo, anyone else was censored (and they tried to outshout her as much as possible).
Granted there are immensely stupid people out there. I just talked to a 21 year old college student who had no idea who Andrew Carnegie was, but I’m sure if I asked her which actress was pregnant I’d get a list of answers. However a consolidated media that cuts it’s investigative reporting budget and is more concerned with it’s own corporate interests is also to blame.
“Bill Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys when he had a chance!”
So did George W Bush, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc.
Get yer facts straight.
“However a consolidated media that cuts it’s investigative reporting budget and is more concerned with it’s own corporate interests is also to blame.”
Agreed, to a point. However, if more people were interested in the results of “investigative reporting” it would be in the interests of the corporation to supply same. As it is, because they are in business to make money, they supply what the populace seems to want. Mindless blather that does not require them to think
In the incident that GMC sighted, the Congress was sighting rules and rights of a Congressman office over due process. More a point of order than the defense of a member accused of wrong doing.
That is the sense I get too from the contempt citation issued in the Bolton and Meyers case. Its my understanding that neither even formally notified Congress of their refusal to testify or to provide the demanded materials. As what the case with President Clinton, it was not that he had sexual relations with a woman it was the fact he lied to a court proceeding. A point of order rather then what the action was.
This Administration has push so many boundaries and norms that it even leave said experts in such matter scratching their heads. Though it is not unheard of as once Bill Clinton used a signing statement to subvert a law. President Bush is now standing at over 900 such signing statements to negate laws both newly formed and old laws. He used them as “line item vetoes” which the SCOTUS ruled line item veto is unconstitutional. The administration using the claim of national security and executive privilege in matters that there is no clear and apparent association to either. And not willing to even attempt to explain why these matters fall into the realm of either national security or executive privilege.
To Quote Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) of Calf.,” Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious consequences. Tonight I will provide examples of how this administration, for the past 7 years, has undercut congressional investigations, had lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be informed”.
GMC,
Having now quickly reviewed the complaint, I am again amending my prior responses directed to you. The complaint is artfully framed in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for the District Court to avoid the same via the political question doctrine. It appears to allege enough to get by a 12(b)(6) motion, and, facially, raises sufficient questions of fact to get by a Motion for Summary Judgment. Now, saying this doesn’t mean the court won’t try to find a way to avoid a trial and ruling.
With respect to Ms Miers, and Mr. Boulton for that matter, it seems to me had they followed the advice contained in the memorandum written by the late Chief Justice Rhenquist while working in the White House at some point in the 1970s on how to properly assert Executive Privilege in response to a Congressional subpoena, namely to appear, provide name, address, etc. in identifying information, then decline to answer further questions by assertion of Executive Privilege, this litigation wouldn’t have the “legs” it appears to now have.
Both Bolton and Meirs should have responded to the subponea. Then refused to testify on the grounds of executive priviledge if that was their standpoint. The current action would have been nullified, in all likelihood.
This isn’t about a few attorneys losing their jobs, it’s about a presidency that assumes the power to supress dissent.
As Hitler said, “Everything is so much simpler when everyone has to do exactly what they’re told!” Unfortunately, getting Americans to do exactly what they’re told has been somewhat problematic ever since King George III’s Stamp Act. George II is giving it another go, but he hasn’t had any more success than the British Crown did, nor should he. This nation became all it did exactly because it is chaotic, rude and lippy- a testimony to the power of dissent!
GMC70,
“FDR, in modern times, reshaped the office of president, becoming a virtual dictator. No president since has come close to wielding the amount of power he has, both in the economic realm and as a wartime president. Bush is a piker by comparison.”
Really. Well, GMC70, perhaps you would care to comment on the extent of FDR’s use of signing statements to abrogate laws passed by the Congress, as well as his claim to be the final authority on what does and does not count as a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution. “Virtual dictator” is a strong accusation that I am now asking you to back up.
It is true, surely, that FDR was the most powerful Executive in modern American history. But what your claim ignores is that his power was exercised within the confines of an operative separation of powers. One sign of this is that when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, he was soundly rebuffed by many of his own political allies. To the extent that Roosevelt WAS as powerful as you claim, it is largely due to his massive popularity among the electorate, as well as the fact that he oversaw a national mobilization and war effort.
By contrast, George Bush has enjoyed no such popular or Congressional mandate. Thus, he attempt to assert a newly-empower Executive relies on the extra-Constitutional means such as I listed above.
So, GMC70, if you really want to assert what you’re asserting about FDR, let’s see the evidence.
As for the contempt citations, CF2K obviously is no lawyer. But the idea that blanket statements of Executive Privilege excuse aides from having to appear at all before the Judiciary Committee seems like nothing more than, well, tyranny.
And, finally, as for the “every President fires U.S. Attorneys” argument, I believe the prosecution and jailing of Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman begins to show us WHAT the Bush Administration has seen fit to do with its U.S. Attorney appointees. I’d say it’s a hell of a big deal that they fired New Mexio U.S. Attorney David Iglesias for refusing to use his office to politically prosecute two local Democrats in time for the 2005 election. Evidently 52 Republican former state Attorneys General think the same way.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/120393094486860.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
CF2K-
Was not Alabama Governor Don Siegelman found guilty by a jury? Are you saying he didn;t do what was charged? Or the fact that he was charged is evidence of the wrongdoing bu the BUSH administration. What is it that you are asserting here?
ATTENTION: Wichita Eagle Blog Editor
Can you please delete the post indicated below from the 3/10 Open Topic?
I hope the family does not see their son’s obituary mocked on this blog. I don’t know why they would read this blog or get the newspaper anyway, after today.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chas.
Posted March 11, 2008 at 12:11 am | Permalink
This looks interesting >>>>
littlejohn,
What I’m saying is that the prosectuion refused to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
“But it gets still worse. Bailey testifies that he saw a check change hands at a meeting at which Scrushy’s appointment to the oversight board was decided. This is the evidence that landed Siegelman in prison. And it was false. And the prosecutors knew that it was false.
JONES: They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no– there was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand.
PELLEY: So, Siegelman could not have had that check–
JONES: No.
PELLEY: –in his hand that Bailey–
JONES: It was–
PELLEY: –testified to seeing?
JONES: Absolutely impossible and they knew that, absolutely impossible.
PELLEY: That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case…
JONES: It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy whose credibility was going to be the linchpin of that case. It was a huge problem.
So the Justice Department’s silence in response to the charges was masked with a platitudinous statement. They stated that Siegelman’s case was pursued and developed by career prosecutors, that it was based on the law, and justified by fair evidence.”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002487
I’m also saying that the prosecution was personally ordered by Karl Rove, as Jill Simpson has testified UNDER OATH.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/In_exclusive_interview_Alabama_whistleblower_says_0225.html
Summary: Don Siegelman was railroaded by the U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and unjustly convicted and imprisoned. Karl Rove should be in jail, and George Bush should be impeached, for hijacking the U.S. Justice system as a tool for false and malicious prosecution.
You got nothin’, littlejohn. Sit down.
lj, the fact that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with potentially exculpatory evidence is enough for a new trial at the least. I know very little about this case other than what has been reported in the media and blogged about here and elsewhere. From what has been reported, I’d suggest that while Mr. Siegelman might not be the person one would select as a poster child for any cause, there are enough suggestions of irregularities and bad conduct on the part of the prosecution to warrant a new trial, assuming the allegations are true.
Generally, one does not see the show of support for a member of the other party as has been shown for his cause by the former Attorneys General. It is, admittedly, possible to pull the wool over such a group’s collective eyes, but not highly probable, IMO.
“What I’m saying is that the prosectuion refused to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.”
If true, then the prosecutor should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.
SO, you are alleging he in fact did not do what he was convicted of? Or are you simply alleging that he was chosen for prosecution because he was in the way. It is an important distinction.
However, if it can be shown, and according to the article it can be, that the prosecutors used evidence they knew to be false, and/or that they withheld exuplatory evidence, then the case should be thrown out, regardles, and retried or dropped.
“You got nothin’, littlejohn. Sit down.”
I wasn;t even arguing with you. I asked for you allegations. Your final comment makes it plain that you are solely on a partisan whine.
Shut up and sit down.
“
Vaughn Tolle-
Seems we were posting at the same time, or I was slow as I was already reading the referenced posts.
I agree, at the least, a new trial should be held. At the extreme, the prosecutors should be held over for trial. I do not know whether or not Rove could be charged, perhaps on conspiracy charges. Hey, if some prosecutor can make that stick, I say go for it!
Right, CF2K–
It is perfectly fine for the President to fire Federal attorneys for no reason. He just can’t fire them for bad reasons.
Refusal to break the law for instance would not be grounds for dismissal.
As for the RepubliCONs defending to the death the president’s superiority to Congressional subpeona, why did Clinton have to respond to his subpeona and testify under oath then?
“why did Clinton have to respond to his subpeona and testify under oath then?”
Clinton responded in meaningful ways?
“depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”
(chortles)
littlejohn,
My allegations regarding the Siegelman case were clear in the first lines of the link I provided.
Your rejoiner that Siegelman “was convicted by a jury” is precisely what one hears from the Justice Department in their justification of the conviction. Your use of this phrase suggested to me that you were pre-emptorily dismissing the claims made by Siegelman’s defenders, 60 Minutes, Jill Simpson, and others.
If I misconstrued the intent of your post, I am in the wrong and I take back my barbs. But the meaning of my allegations wasn’t far to seek, littlejohn.
And along the same lines, isn’t it interesting, Republicans, that the 60 Minutes report making and detailing these charges was BLOCKED from airing in Huntsville and Mobile? And that CBS in New York flatly denied the local affiliate’s claim that the disruption came from CBS headquarters?
Seems to me that it’s the GOP who have done the best job of emulating Soviet-era media tactics. “Pravda,” anyone?
“Your rejoiner that Siegelman “was convicted by a jury” is precisely what one hears from the Justice Department in their justification of the conviction. Your use of this phrase suggested to me that you were pre-emptorily dismissing the claims made by Siegelman’s defenders, 60 Minutes, Jill Simpson, and others.”
I have actually heard very little about this case. I asked you for your opinion, and your allegations. I read your links, and agreed that at the least a new trial was required, at the extreme, more trials with the prosecutor, and perhaps Rove, were required.
Yes, I used the words “convicted by a jury” Is that not a baseline of our judicial system? I was unaware of the prosecutorial errors and omissions. I have also read many posters, about various individuals, excuse the defendant based upon alledged miscounduct by someone else. Nothing new there. My questions were inline with establishing what your defense of the former governor was. My understanding of your position is that he didn;t do any wrong, it was all made up by the Bush administration and the prosecutor was complicit in denying access to information to the defense, and knowingly using false evidence. That about right?
CF2K-
I don;t know the reason for the blocking, but I suspect it is not as you suggest. The reason? Because it was accessible everywhere else, and thus could be “found out” by the locals involved. Not a very good attempt at hiding it, in my opinion.Now, if it had been killed nationwide, i would have to perhaps agree.
More importantly, the information was spread throughout the political capitols of the United States, including the halls of Congress, could do somehting about it. The citizens of Mobile and Huntsville likely could not.
The GOP backers blocked as much as they could, LJ.
The entire nation comes later, after they throw more decent leaders into prison on trumped up charges . . .
How about the voters of Huntsville and Mobile, LJ?
Seems like they could do something about it when they vote these b@st@rds out . . .
And the other curious thing about that 60 Mins blackout?
It only lasted for that ONE SEGMENT.
What a coincidinky!
No conspiracy or anything like that. Sunspots probably.
Which Bass turds are they going to vote out? Bush….already gone. Rove……aleady gone….the Attorney genreal for the state…..not within their power. And still, if may have been blocked, but the news of it being blocked surely was not. Come on,
the blocking theory is a nonstarter.
Yea, un unfounded or at least unsubstantiated conspiracy. I refuse to see conspiracies everywhere, from the time that many people I knew that claimed that the many CLinton shenanigans were going to result in a permanent Clinton monarchy under emergency powers. Didn;’t believe that, don;t believe this particular segment (the blackout part) of this ugly enterprise.
Soviet America
Now, let me tell you what has been going on. As 60 Minutes was putting its show together, the White House put pressure on CBS — the parent company — to kill the show. Over the last few days, as word got out that the 60 Minutes show would air tonight, Karl Rove’s associates began planting defamatory stories about journalists working on this story (see example here) and attacking the whistle-blower who came forward, Dana Jill Simpson. If you recall, Ms. Simpson testified, under oath, to Congress about Karl Rove’s involvement in politicizing the DOJ. What you may not know, however, is that her house mysteriously caught fire and she was run off the road in the weeks leading up to her testimony.
What you may also not know is that Governor Siegelman’s house was broken into twice during his trial as was his attorney’s office.
Yesterday, the attacks on Simpson and journalists increased with a series of emails from the Alabama GOP. See Here.
Tonight was something truly unseen in US history. During the 60 Minutes broadcast and ONLY during the Don Siegelman portion — the screen went black for Huntsville residents and Mobile residents. There are other reports of other locations, but I have not yet confirmed those.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/parts-of-60-minutes-bro_b_88218.html
Yup, nothing to see here. Just ordinary news blackout by RepubliCONs.
Business as usual.
I have been interested in that the 60 Minutes segment blacked out in Alabama, hasnt had more thorough coverage since it happened… It seems quite odd that the only place where it was blacked out, was in Alabama, where the man was a former governor… Strange…
And I’m sure, LJ, that Dana Jill Simpson’s house caught fire and she was run off the road purely by accident.
Happens all the time.
Just like how the Twin Towers got in the way of those stray airliners.
No conspiracy whatsoever.
:roll:
So Capn,
Now you are suggeting that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush Administration? Just to clarify.
Help refresh my memory… What was it that the former governor was convicted of??
VT -
Thanks. I was thinking out loud, taking a short brain rest from a jury trial. And you are the civil authority, I’ll defer to your analysis here (plus, the jury trial is still going on. Tomorrow - back before the 12!).
It is going to be an interesting dust-up, but unfortunately, probably not reported much, as it is simply outside the sphere of interest of most Americans.
Ya mean, Capn is a 9/11 truther? I’m shocked. And that explains a lot.
Crap,
I have already stated that the case should at the least be thrown out. If you got more than speculation, spit it out? Evidence speaks. I’ve heard all kinds of conspiracy theories, in the bush admin, and the Clinton admin. Most are bogus, none are provable. Big fng deal. Bring the evidence. I’ll support your cause. Speculation? Not so much.
It seems to me that the blackout was a local decision, made by the affiliates in Mobile and Huntsville. The reasons therefor are unknown to us. I would suggest that in addition to the reasons advanced by Capn and CF2K, there might have been advertiser pressure. Yes, before anyone jumps on me, that pressure might well have been a result of sinister forces; or it might just have been some folks in the area that buy ads on the local station that had it out for the former governor.
LJ, I’m not yet buying into any conspiracy. I do, however, have some questions about how this all happened and why. If, indeed, there was pressure put on CBS by the White House, this raises questions indeed. Same with the concerted email “attacks”. It is hard for me to believe that a story on 60 Minutes would draw that much concerted attention, given the history of that show and the various topics, over time, it has covered, and the low regard many have for it as a result.
Mr. Rove is an adult, quite adroit at defending himself if needed, without additional assistance, IMHO. The combination of the various things cited does provide a certain unpleasant aroma to the affair, but at this point doesn’t convince me of any conspiracy.
GMC, happy to oblige, although a bit embarrassed I didn’t do my homework before initially responding. Best on the jury trial.
“The combination of the various things cited does provide a certain unpleasant aroma to the affair, but at this point doesn’t convince me of any conspiracy.”
I agree. And I have already learned much more about this whole affair today than I knew yesterday. ANd 60 minutes wasn;t blocked out where I live. I just don;t watch it. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. O
Ya’all have a good night. I am out of here.
Seigelman was going to prison regardless of how innocent he was because the judge and federal attorneys were conspiring to put him in prison. Essentially what he did was the same as President Bush giving an ambassador position to a campaign donor. The only difference is that Siegelman’s donor donated to a charitable program and received an unpaid position that he held for years.
VT, littlejohn, and others,
When in doubt, CF2K is a fan of Occam’s razor: the most obvious explanation is usually the right one.
And in this case, it strains plausibilty to insist that the blackout on WHNT was, well, just a coincidence. Here’s some backstory that shows just how strained THAT explanation is.
“The station ran a trailer stating “We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a techincal problem with CBS out of New York.” I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “there is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama “could only have been an editorial call.” Channel 19 is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners…Oak Hill Partners represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party.”
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/update-on-the-m.html
And here are some facts about the Bass Family, owners of WHNT:
“The Bass brothers pumped $210,000 into Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns, via their PAC’s (Political Action Committees) and their personal donations of roughly $273,000. The billionaire Bass family is Bush’s number 5 career patron. As Governor, Bush appointed Lee Bass as Chairman of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Amazingly, Bush later received $202,000 from the organization. TPWD made news when it was found to be passing out brochures at park entrances that contained tobacco and alcohol advertisements. TPWD also granted permits for their land that allowed hunters to make money from killing wild deer on Texas lands.”
So, VT and littlejohn, I think this is a matter that, come November, ought to be referred to the FCC for a good sniffing over. Prima facie, looks like a pretty obvious partisan misuse of public airwaves.
As I recall the star witness, who’s testimony was critical, had been interviewed 70 times and changed his story so much, that the frustrated AG’s had him commit it to writing. A writing not shared with the defense. Also, the star witness was charged with multiple extortions, and given some deal, not sure if that little tidbit was shared with the jury.
The contributor to the gov.s’ educational program, had been appointed to the same position
3 times by both Republicans and Democratic gov.’s.
The gov. was clearly screwed over.
you should research your subject, econ 101, before you repeat the story that “clinton fired all u.s. attorneys.”
I’d stop at Wikipedia first.
littlejohn
Posted March 11, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
So Capn,
Now you are suggeting that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush Administration? Just to clarify.
*****
Of course not. BTW, GMC, you are completely wrong too, but hey, what else is new?
The Bush Administration couldn’t have pulled off 9-11–it took skill and planning.
But it was most definitely a conspiracy, was it not?
My point is that whenever the reich-wing wants to ridicule an obvious conspiracy, they call it a conspiracy theory.
The 9-11 Commission asked us to believe exactly such a conspiracy theory.
Sometimes, there really are conspiracies.
CapnAmerica-
Thanks for the clarification. That’s why I asked. I find it usually better to just ask, than to guess, hypothesisze, and come to the wrong conclusion.
In light of CF2K’s evidence, what sayest ye now, LittleJohn?
I say that there is sufficient reason for an investigation. The results of which I am not able to discern, nor do I wish to speculate upon.
Right.
And never mind that the same people (Bush operatives) who are alleged to have blacked out the story are the people who would do an investigation (FCC Bush operatives), if they had any motivation to do an investigation, which they do not . . .
Well,
what you propose then?
What do I propose?
A general strike. Marching on Washington, D. C. and shutting the city down, until Worst. President. Ever. resigns.
See, that’s the problem. When the people entrusted to enforce the law break the law by stealing elections and running rough-shod over the Constitution, you can’t ask the law for remedy.
what you propose then?
should have read
What would you propose then?
Sorry, I don;t buy your proposal. An investigation has to be done by some legal authority. Since you apparently trust no legal authorities, nothing can be done. I don;t trust “investigations” by journalists, either. Or bloggers. Or any others that do not have to stay within the law, or be held accountable for their so called errors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102800.html?hpid=topnews
And here’s another conspiracy theory that the right-wing can file in the “nothing to see here” drawer:
HUD E-Mails Refer to Retaliation
High-Level Officials Wrote of Punishing Philadelphia Housing Director
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 12, 2008; A03
After Philadelphia’s housing director refused a demand by President Bush’s housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.
“Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?” Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.
“Take away all of his Federal dollars?” responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, “:-D,” at the end of her January 2007 note.
Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: “Let me look into that possibility.”
The e-mails, obtained by The Washington Post, came to light as a result of a lawsuit provoked by HUD’s decision last September to strip the Philadelphia Housing Authority of as much as $50 million in federal funds. In December, it declared the agency in violation of rules that underpin its ability to decide precisely how it will spend federal housing funds. Kendrick was the official who formally notified the authority that she had found it in violation.
HUD has argued publicly that this decision was not related to the demands by HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson that Greene turn over a $2 million vacant city lot to Kenny Gamble, a friend of Jackson’s. HUD officials have said that Greene was not punished for his defiance.
But Greene and the Philadelphia authority have accused HUD and Jackson in a lawsuit of fabricating problems in the authority’s performance as a way to retaliate against Greene.
The e-mails suggest that HUD leadership sought to punish Greene by threatening the authority’s funding.
It fits the consistent pattern we see from the Bush Administration from even BEFORE day one–
ignore the law–seize power by any means necessary–use power to benefit yourself and your friends–silence and punish the opposition.
When you see this pattern played out time and time again, you don’t need a court of law to believe it.
WELL,
I Have a couple of things to say
1) It certainly looks bad on the surface
2) it certainly could have been retalion, and while not excusing it, that is not peculiar to officials in this, or any other administration
3) It could be that the Philadelphia authority really was in violation of many different things
4) An investigation should be started Of course, that is One that you won;t subscribe to because you deem it fruitless.
5) After an investigation, any individuals found to have violated the law, should be tried and convicted, and sentenced to jail time.
Hey, you wanna march on Washinton, I support your right to do so.
An investigation has started. That’s why there’s a lawsuit.
I just hope it’s under state jurisdiction and not federal.
Otherwise, Bush will just fire the federal attorneys like he’s done in the past.
And when he does, outlander and Regular and Max and Hank will be cheering him on.
Weak people love a strong leader, like El Duce Bush.