Here's a whiff of scandal; wonder if it's worth following up on...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/144721/085
Quote:Harriet Miers, Ben Barnes, and the $23M Big Bribe
by Jensequitur
Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 11:47:21 PDT
As you recall, Ben Barnes helped George Bush Jr. join the National Guard and serve his time here in the United States, rather than overseas.
Available evidence indicates that Harriet Miers, when she worked as commissioner for the Texas Lottery, conspired with the Bush family to pay off Ben Barnes to keep his mouth shut about the National Guard right before George Bush Jr. ran for President.
More crap below the fold.
Jensequitur's diary :: ::
As you recall, Ben Barnes helped George Bush Jr. join the National Guard and serve his time here in the United States, rather than overseas. He testified about Bush's National Guard record in 1999, when George II was running for presnit the first time.
Well, Ben Barnes became a young state representative at age 22. Three years later he was elected Speaker of the House. Then he became lieutenant governor of Texas. Then a stock fraud case stunk things up, and he fell from grace.
Next we see him working as GTech's lobbyist, working with Harriet Miers and the Texas Lottery Commission. GTech is a major lottery company that has contracts in 37 states. The Texas Lottery was losing money right and left, and Harriet Miers logically decides to rebid GTech's contract. GTech sues, and fires its lobbyist, Ben Barnes, providing him with a 23 million severance package. GTech keeps its contract with the Texas Lottery Commission, despite the falling numbers.
Miers then fired Nora Linares, because her boyfriend worked as a consultant for GTech. She filed a lawsuit against the Lottery Commission, then later dropped it and filed against GTech. She was eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing.
Nora Linares' replacement was Lawrence Littman, who after four months of employment was fired. He had initiated research of campaign finance records for 30 state and local officials.
Let's go back to Ben Barnes. Shortly before George W. Bush graduated from Yale, Sid Adger, a wealthy Houston businessman, asked Ben Barnes if he would find a place for George in the National Guard. He joined Lloyd Bentsen's son, two of the Adger's kids, and a couple of Dallas Cowboys in this safe haven away from the war.
So when George decided he wanted to run for President, he send Donny Evans to ask Ben if he would cover up for George.
Governor Bush personally thanked the former speaker: "Dear Ben: Don Evans reported your conversation. Thank you for your candor and for killing the rumor about you and dad ever discussing my status. Like you, he never remembered any conversation. I appreciate your help."
The Bush family claims they never asked Sid Adger for his help in getting George into the National Guard. Ben Barnes has told this story to lawyers under oath. And so this leaves the question of the 23 million GTech payoff. Did Harriet Miers, in collusion with GTech, pay off Ben Barnes to keep his mouth shut about the National Guard? Did GTech keep its contract because of the Big Bribe? Lawrence Littman thinks so.
Then the second lottery director fired by Miers filed suit. He claimed he was taking the fall for GTech, which, he alleged, kept its contract and bought out Barnes because he had the story on Bush.
Conclusive? Certainly not. But it gives us enough evidence to look further... Follow the money...
BBB
Daily Kos
10/3/05
According to The Dallas Morning News, Littwin's attorneys are trying to find out whether former Lt. Gov Ben Barnes, an ex-lobbyist for GTECH, helped Bush get into the National Guard in 1968.
Bush, facing questions from political rivals about his service in the reserves, and Guard officials who approved his application have continued to deny allegations that favoritism played a part in Bush's appointment as a Houston-based jet pilot.
In papers filed in a federal court in Dallas, Littwin said Barnes " . . . is alleged to have helped the current Governor George Bush avoid active duty during the Vietnam War."
Such domestic units were seen by many as way to avoid going to Vietnam.
Littwin's attorneys also have questioned whether Bush allies, in return for the Guard appointment, helped the state's lottery operator, GTECH, fend off efforts by Littwin that might have upset its lucrative contract.
An unsigned letter to a U.S. attorney in 1996 that Littwin's lawyers obtained in their case prompted questions about the Guard, The News said. The letter was sent after the three-member Lottery Commission voted unanimously to extend the GTECH contract for five years rather than seek new bids.
It alleged that GTECH was allowed to keep its contract in return for Barnes not revealing his help in getting Bush into the Guard, the newspaper said. A former top Bush aide who now lobbies for GTECH brokered the deal between the governor and Barnes, the letter said.
Both the former aide and Lottery Commission Chairwoman Harriet Miers denied the accusations.
Huh?!?!
Of the hundreds of conservative legal luminaries why pick a virtual no name? She was neither a judge, nor a distinguished appellate advocate, nor even an appellate (let alone S.Ct.) clerk. Experience at the DOJ or the Solicitor General's office? No. Of course she doesn't have any clear opinions on the major issues before the Court; no one has ever bothered asking her. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about; it's not the place for a sixty year old judicial novice to get her feet wet!
I like John Roberts. The Miers nomination, on the other hand, confuses the hell out of me!
breitbart.com wrote:Miers was among a group of lawyers from the Texas bar and elsewhere who had argued that the ABA should have a neutral stance on abortion.
I am not reassured by Miers' position for a "neutral stance on abortion". A true social conservative would have argued for an outright rejection of any neutral or favorable stance on abortion.
I am also very troubled by a woman who lived for 50 years as a democrat (no offense please to you democrats in the audience). Has anyone seen the reason she decided to switch parties? Was restricting abortion or gay marriage even in her thought process?
I am trying my best to trust Bush, but will worry unless she clearly outlines her position on these issues (which we all know she cannot).
au1929 wrote:Maybe the religious people are correct. We are aproaching armageddon. God sent his messanger to faciliate the process.
Dang it! Au just told a joke.
I'm confused too, Steppenwolf. Forgetting politics, if we can, we don't even know if she's competent, and it's a lifetime appointment. Okay, back to politics; I don't believe a Republican majority in the Senate is going to be enough. I kind of think the Democrates should forgo the filabuster, and get it to a vote.
Its not exactly at the level of Caligula appointing his horse Consul,... but close.
She's a Babs substitute for oedipal boy.
Acquiunk wrote:Its not exactly at the level of Caligula appointing his horse Consul,... but close.
Hey, I like that one!
Did you know that when Caligula became emperor, Tiberius had left the Empire a huge surplus? And that one of the first things Caligula did was to enact tax cuts? Which in turn eventually left the Imperial Treasury plundered?
The important difference, of course, is that Caligula was insane...
slkshock7 wrote:I am not reassured by Miers' position for a "neutral stance on abortion". A true social conservative would have argued for an outright rejection of any neutral or favorable stance on abortion.
That may be so, but then if I had been a member of the ABA at that time I would have supported a "neutral" stance on abortion as well, and I happen to favor abortion rights. The issue didn't simply rest on what side you were on in the wider debate over abortion.
slkshock7 wrote:I am also very troubled by a woman who lived for 50 years as a democrat (no offense please to you democrats in the audience). Has anyone seen the reason she decided to switch parties? Was restricting abortion or gay marriage even in her thought process?
Well, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, John Tower, and a host of other Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party, so it's not as if Miers is the first. Hell, Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat, and I didn't see a lot of people questioning his GOP bona fides.
slkshock7 wrote:I am trying my best to trust Bush, but will worry unless she clearly outlines her position on these issues (which we all know she cannot).
It's not true that her positions on issues are unknown. Indeed, they're probably quite well-known, albeit to a very small circle of people. One of those people just happens to be George W. Bush.
I think you are all misunderestimating.
This on the heels of the Brownie debacle. Amazing. I think Bush is now intentionally trying to screw up this country. I'm going to laugh my ass off if at the end of the Bush character's term he holds a press conference, peels off a rubber mask and reveals himself to actually be Saddam Hussein. Then I'd be all like, oh o.k. it makes sense now and I would laugh.
Debra_Law wrote:Do her words suggest that she's a "strict constructionist, original intent" judicial wannabe who will follow in Scalia's footsteps? Oh boy . . . we're in big trouble now.
Why? You think the originalists have it wrong, and you know Bush will nominate jurists inclined towards originalism. Wouldn't you rather see this agenda pursued by a weak, incompetent judge, rather than by a second edition of Robert Bork? I am asking because I favor the originalist approach myself, and because the nomination of such a legal lightweight leaves me rather depressed. Since you start from the opposite premise to mine, it would only make sense if you reached the opposite conclusion.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #76, offers this opinion on the role of the Senate in dealing with Harriet Miers:
Alexander Hamilton wrote:To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
Source
For all I can see, Harriet Miers is exactly that candidate. Her only apparent merits are that of coming from Texas, and of being the president's personal attorney, and of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render herself the obsequious instrument of Mr. Bush's pleasure. The 'advice and consent of the Senate' clause was put into the constitution specifically to prevent Supreme Court judges like Miers. I know it is terribly naive to ask that the Senate use its power for the purpose it was given it, not for ideological litmus tests for which it was
not given it. Still, it's their goddamn job! Is there really no hope?
I agree wholeheartedly, Thomas. If ever there were a clear cut reason to a reject (or seriously scrutinize) a nominee, it's to prevent such a nakedly under-qualified naïf from ascending to the Court. Even if this isn't raw cronyism, the appearance of such weakens the Court, and we deserve a hard look at such a nomination.
As a word to those who reject
Roe and its progeny - and I am in that camp - this may indeed be a stealth candidate, but perhaps not of the sort that you suspect. How many Souters, O'Connors, and Kennedys does it take to raise doubt about the sincerity of the GOP on this issue? There are presently seven Republican appointees on the Court. When Roe was decided, five out of seven of its supporters were Republican appointees --
Roe was not a liberal invention. Now the party crows endlessly about the right to life, and acts surprised when its nominees end up 'betraying' the GOP. Stealth indeed! The existence of
Roe is a very reliable way to drum up support from the religious right. Why kill it now?
For some surprising (if your eyes are closed) insight into Bush's views on this issue, see
here.
BBB
Everyone keeps asking the supreme court nominees the wrong questions. They focus on the abortion, gay marriage and religion issues. Abortion is not going to become illegal. It is too useful a wedge issue tool at election time.
The important questions to ask are about ideological pro-business philosophy. Both of Bush's nominees are pro-business, which does not bode well for the Common Good of the people. Bush's entire administration is pro-business as well as the majority in the congress.
We have more to fear from the corporate world than we do the federal government, especially when it links up with the military contract corporations.
The smartest thing a Democrat has done since Bush nominated Harriet Miers was the action by Democratic Minority Leader Reid. He recommended Miers to Bush and made a public statement supporting her after her nomination was announced.
Why was this so smart? Because he gave the kiss of death approval to Miers. Why? Because it will split the Republican Party. We already see evidence of the split by extreme right conservatives who were already suspicious. Reid's action only confirmed their fears.
Clever thinking Reid.
BBB
Miers Briefed Bush on Famous Bin Laden Memo
Miers Briefed Bush on Famous Bin Laden Memo,
But Newspapers Handle the AP Photo Quite Differently
By E&P Staff
Published: October 04, 2005
On its front page Tuesday, The New York Times published a photo of new U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers going over a briefing paper with President George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch "in August 2001," the caption reads.
USA Today and the Boston Globe carried the photo labeled simply "2001," but many other newspapers ran the picture in print or on the Web with a more precise date: Aug. 6, 2001.
Does that date sound familiar? Indeed, that was the date, a little over a month before 9/11, that President Bush was briefed on the now-famous "PDB" that declared that Osama Bin Laden was "determined" to attack the U.S. homeland, perhaps with hijacked planes. But does that mean that Miers had anything to do with that briefing?
As it turns out, yes, according to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency "Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks."
So the Aug. 6 photo may show this historic moment, though quite possibly not. In any case, some newspapers failed to include the exact date with the widely used Miers photo today. A New York Times spokesman told E&P: "The wording of the caption occurred in the course of routine editing and has no broader significance."
The photo that ran in so many papers and on their Web sites originally came from the White House but was moved by the Associated Press, clearly marked as an "Aug. 6, 2001" file photo. It shows Miers with a document or documents in her right hand, as her left hand points to something in another paper balanced on the president's right leg. Two others in the background are Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin and Steve Biegun of the national security staff.
The PDB was headed "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and notes, among other things, FBI information indicating "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."
One is reminded of ol' Abe Fortas and LBJ....
Cycloptichorn
Miers: Is She the Devil in the Blue Dress?
Miers: Is She the Devil in the Blue Dress?
By Walter Shapiro
10.03.2005
Business schools may design entire new courses around the Cheney-esque lesson of Harriet Miers' nomination: If you want a job, head the search committee.
Beyond this obvious moral, what are we to make of Miers? The relevant question is not whether she would be the most liberal jurist since William O. Douglas held down the left end of the Warren Court. Rather, the politically realistic standard is comparative: Do the signs and portents suggest that Miers would be a more moderate jurist than the person whom George W. Bush would pick if she were rejected?
Since Miers has never served on the bench and her current work as White House counsel is rightfully off limits to prying congressional eyes, she offers less of a paper trail than Tony Soprano's tax returns. But a pre-1995 NEXIS search did turn up a few intriguing nuggets:
In early 1992, just months after the Clarence Thomas nomination fight, Miers was a panelist at the American Bar Association convention debating this eerily prescient case study: "You've been elected president of the United States, in part due to your views on abortion. In picking a Supreme Court justice, would you ask a potential nominee how he or she will vote in abortion-related cases?"
(Miers was presumably on stage at the ABA convention only because the event was being held in Dallas and she was the incoming president of the State Bar of Texas.)
Miers' response to the abortion question is revealing because back in 1992 nothing was riding on it. As then reported by the Associated Press, Miers declared, "Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it." Miers then added that partisans who believe that such how-will-you-vote questions are appropriate misunderstand "the separation of powers by proposing that judicial nominees should mirror a president's views."
Miers' comments suggest that her natural bent (at least then) was as a judicial traditionalist rather than a litmus-test conservative. True, hers was a safe answer, the kind of wallpaper comment that would not raise hackles at an ABA convention. But it also encouraging that Miers felt, with a Bush in the White House, that a Supreme Court justice should be independent of the president who made the appointment.
The obvious counter-argument is that George W. Bush knows Miers better than anyone else he could have nominated, with the possible exception of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (Miers incidentally gave Gonzales his big break by pushing him for the counsel's job on Bush's staff as Texas governor). The president did not have to quiz Miers on her views when they dined together Sunday night because Bush already knew them. By this logic, if Bush really wants another Antonin Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court then Miers, for all her bland exterior, is the devil in the blue dress.
But this is where speculation gets so tricky. Does Bush truly want to roll back the social order in this country -- on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action and (insert your pet cause here) -- or has he been mostly posturing to win the support of easily gulled evangelical Christians? Even if Bush would prefer to appoint another Scalia, has he opted for clean-slate Miers as the best he can do at a time of political weakness? Assuming Bush does know Miers' heart better than he knew, say, Vladimir Putin's, can the president accurately predict how she will vote on the Supreme Court when she becomes an independent actor with a lifetime appointment?
Miers' public record is akin to a few pieces of sharpened bone found at a Neanderthal burial site: You can read virtually anything you want into the fragmentary evidence. So it is tempting to over-interpret Miers' leadership role in the unsuccessful 1992-93 battle to overturn an American Bar Association policy position upholding abortion rights. But Miers was not championing an anti-abortion constitutional amendment nor heading the legal defense team for clinic bombers; she was trying to return the ABA to a position of neutrality on abortion. In short, it is impossible to know whether Miers is personally opposed to abortion or merely was uncomfortable with the national ABA taking a position that was divisive among lawyers in her home state of Texas.
My tentative inclination, based on relief that Miers is not on the fire-breathing fringe of the Federalist Society nor a disciple of John Ashcroft, is to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it is because I find it laudable that Miers, after a decade of public service, is a near-pauper by Bush or Texas standards with a net worth between $220,000 and $595,000.
As a White House aide with a passion for anonymity and a graduate of the Karen Hughes Academy of Boring Utterances (see her robotic comments from her 2004 on-line chat on the White House website), Miers almost certainly will be polite, unflappable and non-revealing at her confirmation hearing. And the frustrating thing is that Miers' opaque facade is probably real. For, according to a 1992 clip from the Texas Lawyer, some of Miers' colleagues in the leadership of the state bar association likened her to none other than June Cleaver.
