0
   

Long knives out for Federal Prosecutors

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 03:03 am
E Pluribus Media brings together background stories on the seven "fired" US Attorneys: Kevin Ryan, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, HE Cummins, David Iglesias, John McKay and Daniel Bogden. These seven attorneys were all asked to step down by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and ePluribus Media investigates why.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/gonzales_7_backgrounds.html

Sure indicates that wicked uncle Ernie Gonzales lied through his yellow-stained teeth to Congress about the firings being non-political in nature.

Imagine the GOP noise machines bellowing and churning out their yellow toxic smoke had Clinton sacked US attorneys while they investigated sec of commerce Ron Brown or his ex-sec of HUD Harry Cisnoses.

Its not the fact that Bush is doing it, we know without doubt that the guy is an open, bold-faced lying crook in the first place, it's the lack of uproar from the press and people who would be screaming had this been done under a Democratic administration. and you wonder why I despise these hypocritical maggotboys as posionous to American democracy?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 05:09 am
Thanks, kuv.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 01:15 pm
Anticipation for tomorrow's hearings is high, and getting higher. Why?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002678.php

Quote:


Coincidence? What do you think?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 12:02 am
Story Heating up!

How many scandals can the admin. weather at one time? The cracks will deepen over the course of this year.

I've said for a long time - the administration can not stand up to the light of investigation.

Washington Post

Quote:
Firings Had Genesis in White House
Ex-Counsel Miers First Suggested Dismissing Prosecutors 2 Years Ago, Documents Show

By Dan Eggen and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; A01

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

Lawmakers requested the documents as part of an investigation into whether the firings were politically motivated. While it is unclear whether the documents, which were reviewed yesterday by The Washington Post, will answer Congress's questions, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more closely involved in the dismissals, and at a much earlier date, than they have previously acknowledged.

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7 and another was fired months earlier, with little explanation from the Justice Department. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.

Administration officials have portrayed the firings as a routine personnel matter, designed primarily to rid the department of a handful of poor performers.

But the documents and interviews indicate that the idea for the firings originated at least two years ago, when then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers suggested to Sampson in February 2005 that all prosecutors be dismissed and replaced.

Gonzales rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive, Justice officials said, but over the next 22 months Sampson orchestrated more limited dismissals.

"I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys," Sampson wrote to Miers in January 2006. A "limited number of U.S. attorneys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across the board firing."

Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism today from lawmakers who may feel misled by recent testimony from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general. Several Democrats have called in recent days for Gonzales to resign.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that "it doesn't appear the president was told about a list nor shown a list" of U.S. attorneys at any point in the discussions. She said White House political adviser Karl Rove had an early conversation with Miers about the idea of firing all chief prosecutors and did not think it was wise.

Bush mentioned complaints about voter-fraud investigations to Gonzales in a conversation in October 2006, Perino said. Gonzales does not recall the conversation, Justice Department officials said.

Bush "believes informally he may have mentioned it to the AG during the meeting discussing other matters," Perino said. "White House officials including the president did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney."

Rove and other White House officials also forwarded complaints that U.S. attorneys were not doing enough to prosecute voter fraud.

Since the 2000 presidential election ended in dispute in Florida, Republicans have repeatedly raised concerns about possible voter fraud, alleging that convicted felons and other ineligible voters have been permitted to cast ballots to the benefit of Democrats.

Congressional committees yesterday requested that Rove testify before them about the firings; the House Judiciary Committee also requested that Miers appear.

The e-mails show that Rove was interested in the appointment of a former aide, Tim Griffin, as an Arkansas prosecutor. Sampson wrote in one that "getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

At least a dozen prosecutors were on a "target list" to be fired at one time or another, the e-mails show.

Only three of those eventually fired were given low rankings: Margaret Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Bud Cummins in Little Rock; and Carol S. Lam in San Diego. Two were given strong evaluations: David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque, who has alleged political interference from GOP lawmakers, and Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco, whose firing has generated few complaints because of widespread management and morale problems in his office.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said last night that Gonzales will announce new ways of evaluating U.S. attorneys, but said the department still believes the firings were "based on performance-related considerations."

In January 2006, Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end: Chiara, Cummins, Lam and Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post.

In September, Sampson produced another list of firing candidates, telling the White House that Cummins was "in the process of being pushed out" and providing the names of eight others whom "we should consider pushing out." Five on that list were fired in December; the others were spared.

Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on that list. Justice officials said Sampson added him in October, based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed," Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. "It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.

"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," he wrote.

By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

"Kyle thanks for this," Miers wrote back. "I have not forgotten I need to follow up on the info. But things have been crazy."

On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, Miers's deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici's chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias.

A week later, Sampson wrote: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)."

Miers resigned as White House counsel this January.

The documents also provide new details about the case of Griffin, a former Republican National Committee researcher who was named interim U.S. attorney in Little Rock in December.

E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August. By mid-December, Sampson was suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term.

"f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" Sampson wrote to a White House aide.


Alberto Gonzales lied under oath. Straight-up.

Here he is taking the oath, right before - maybe twenty minutes before - he claimed that there was absolutely no politics involved in the firings of any of these attorneys, and that it was a purely internal justice department matter.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/ReZPqdDzXGI/AAAAAAAAAH4/UarH2wdY-gQ/s400/gonzoath.jpg

I expect Tuesday to be a big day for this in the news, given Sampson's resignation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 06:34 am
Yuppers. And now we've got internal justice emails mentioning "loyalty to the administration". What a big surprise.

Krugman and some others make the point that what we see here are the folks who gave the administration "trouble". What we don't see are those (in some unknown number) who allowed themselves and their departments to be bullied into compromising their justice duties.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 08:34 am
", Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party's own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats)."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk=
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:38 am
woiyo wrote:
", Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party's own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats)."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk=


Okay, this is just ridiculous.

Here's Josh Marshall explaining why:

Quote:
(March 13, 2007 -- 12:04 PM EST // link)

It appears that as all the top staff at the Bush Justice Department retains criminal defense counsel for the impending investigations, the reliable right-wing mouthpieces are dragging out the 'Clinton fired his US Attorneys' canard to deny the obvious. First, a note to readers: if you see reporters on the cable nets repeating this mumbojumbo, let us know. (Kevin Corke from NBC seems to be one good example so far.) But let's address why this is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the criminal conduct at the Justice Department.

First, we now know -- or at least the White House is trying to tell us -- that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush's second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always. In early 1993, since the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years a few US Attorneys signalled that they might not be tendering their resignations and the new Clinton Justice Department asked for and received the resignations of all 93 US Attorneys. Eager to whip up scandal, Republicans at the time tried to make this into something untoward. Claiming this is a big deal is like grandstanding with the claim that President Bush 'fired' Clinton's cabinet secretaries when he came into office in 2001. At worst, it's the difference between giving them all several weeks to resign and just asking for their resignations on day one.

The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired -- a) because they weren't pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that's a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
-- Josh Marshall


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012993.php

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:07 am
I have seen nothing but conjecture and hyperbole regarding this matter.

Nothing here to see yet.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:08 am
McGentrix wrote:
I have seen nothing but conjecture and hyperbole regarding this matter.

Nothing here to see yet.


I doubt you could have made a better statement supporting the fact that there IS something there if you'd tried.

I don't think that Sampson resigned for fun. Do you?

What about the fact that AG lied under oath, when he said the WH had nothing to do with this - as they clearly did?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/NoahJaymes/untitled-2.jpg

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:11 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
", Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party's own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats)."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk=


Okay, this is just ridiculous.

Here's Josh Marshall explaining why:

Quote:
(March 13, 2007 -- 12:04 PM EST // link)

It appears that as all the top staff at the Bush Justice Department retains criminal defense counsel for the impending investigations, the reliable right-wing mouthpieces are dragging out the 'Clinton fired his US Attorneys' canard to deny the obvious. First, a note to readers: if you see reporters on the cable nets repeating this mumbojumbo, let us know. (Kevin Corke from NBC seems to be one good example so far.) But let's address why this is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the criminal conduct at the Justice Department.

First, we now know -- or at least the White House is trying to tell us -- that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush's second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always. In early 1993, since the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years a few US Attorneys signalled that they might not be tendering their resignations and the new Clinton Justice Department asked for and received the resignations of all 93 US Attorneys. Eager to whip up scandal, Republicans at the time tried to make this into something untoward. Claiming this is a big deal is like grandstanding with the claim that President Bush 'fired' Clinton's cabinet secretaries when he came into office in 2001. At worst, it's the difference between giving them all several weeks to resign and just asking for their resignations on day one.

The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired -- a) because they weren't pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that's a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
-- Josh Marshall


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012993.php

Cycloptichorn


Why? This is purely political and EVERY PRESIDENT enjoyed this privilage. Just more Bush-bashing.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:02 am
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

Do I smell the usual clinton Double Standard?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:27 am
B-b-but, Clinton!

I hear he also brought in a brand new Cabinet!




It's SOP to clean house at the start of a new administration. Including federal prosecutors.

Reagan did the same thing. GWB did, too, but over the course of a couple of months.




How incredibly, incredibly lame.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 08:34 am
Nah, I see a lot of BS thrown up in the air to attempt to obfuscate the issue.
1. Clinton didn't fire any attorneys in the middle of his term.
2. Clinton never attempted to go around the confirmation process for his appointments of new US attorneys.
3. Paula Casey didnt' bring any WW indictments? Hell, Ken Starr didn't bring any indictments for WW and his job was to investigate it to prevent any conflict of interest in the justice department and for people like Paula Casey. It wasn't her job to investigate or bring charges.
4. It seems Clinton's "political" firing didn't protect Rostenkowski at all.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 09:27 am
Republicans will throw as much sand in the air as possible on this one, with allegations of 'Clinton did it!' and the like. But it won't work, no sir, not one bit.

Why? Because of the overwhelming evidence that political partisanship was behind the firings of these US attorneys, who aren't supposed to be politically motivated.

From McClatchy

Quote:
In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16897082.htm

What has happened to Republicans? Ethics, morals, none of that matters. All that matters is legality.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 09:54 am
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003616950_mckay14m.html

Quote:
Former Washington state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance acknowledged Tuesday that he contacted then-U.S. Attorney John McKay to inquire about the status of federal investigations into the 2004 governor's race while the outcome was still in dispute.

...

"Republican activists were furious because they felt that you had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still they saw the governorship slipping away, and they were just angry," Vance said.


Nah, there weren't any politics involved with firing these attorneys, the vast majority of whom had received positive performance reviews and evaluations.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 10:39 am
Frankly, I think this whole thing would have been over quickly if not for the statements that the WH had nothing to do with the firings.

Its the coverup. Its the coverup. Its the coverup.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 10:40 am
parados wrote:
Frankly, I think this whole thing would have been over quickly if not for the statements that the WH had nothing to do with the firings.

Its the coverup. Its the coverup. Its the coverup.


To a certain extent, I agree, though I maintain that the Bush admin is always hiding more behind the curtain.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 11:41 am
I am glad these liberal sympathizers have been shown the door. About some house cleaning has been done.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 12:34 pm
C-Span has a decent breakdown of events HERE!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2007 12:35 pm
"Liberal sympathizers"? The more you talk, McG, the more I picture you wearing an armband.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 10:29:49