Long knives out for Federal Prosecutors

So presidential advisors are no longer allowed to advise the president?

Did White House staffers violate Presidential Records Act by using outside e-mail addresses to conduct business?
Submitted by CREW on 15 March 2007 - 2:06pm. Bush Administration | Jack Abramoff | Justice Department | Susan Ralston
Did they? That's what CREW wants to know.

White House staffers who dealt with with Jack Abramoff and the U.S. Attorney firings sent e-mails from outside addresses linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC) to circumvent the mandatory record-keeping system. Today, CREW sent a letter to Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), asking for an investigation into whether the White House has violated its mandatory record-keeping obligation under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

Our letter to Chairman Waxman and the accompanying documents can be found here.

One email released by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, sent to Justice Department Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson from J. Scott Jennings, White House Deputy Political Director, uses an email account, [email protected], on a server owned by the Republican National Committee. This raises serious questions about whether the White House was trying to deliberately evade its responsibilities under the PRA, which directs the president to take all necessary steps to maintain presidential records to provide a full accounting of all activities during his tenure.

This isn't the first time. A number of other emails from Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff document Ms. Ralston's use of three outside domains: rnchq.com (used for the headquarters of the Republican National Committee), georgebush.com and aol.com. In many of these emails Ms. Ralston is communicating inside White House information to Mr. Abramoff in response to Mr. Abramoff's efforts to broker deals for his clients and place specified individuals in positions within the administration.

CREW has learned that to fulfill its statutory obligations under the PRA, the White House email system automatically copies all messages created by staff and sends them to the White House Office of Records Management for archiving. Given these development, it now appears that the White House deliberately bypassed the automatic archiving function of its own email system that was designed to ensure compliance with the PRA.

Melanie Sloan summed up CREW's position:

Now that we know that at least two White House officials have circumvented the law by using alternate email systems to discuss the U.S. Attorney firings and Jack Abramoff, we are asking Chairman Waxman to investigate whether the White House has continually violated its mandatory record-keeping obligation under the Presidential Records Act. This administration continues to disregard the law in favor of agenda-driven politics.

Well, show me an advisor that wasn't involved in making policy, sending emails, being involved, cyclops. If they aren't, they might as well quit and go home. What are they there for?

When the press is against you, you tend to have to play more defense. One thing on our side however, not everyone is as stupid as the press thinks they are.

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.

"We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution," he wrote. "This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise."

Your party has been out to destroy Bush from the very beginning. That is its platform, period. I see nothing else substantial. In fact, as Howard Dean has admitted in the past, their job does not include doing anything in terms of advocating policy, as it is all about defeating Bush's policies. No matter what they are, even if they voted for them, as in the case of the Iraq war, they will find a way to blame Bush for everything and attempt to have any of his policies fail.

I thought Pelosi was going to establish a new tone in Washington? By the way, where are the equal opportunity investigations.

The Democrats have done nothing, absolutely nothing, but try to tear down the military, the war on terror, national security, the country, and the administration. Anyone they think might be vulnerable, with the cooperation of a willing press, they will grasp at any straw to hound anyone until they quit or are fired.

Their ultimate goal is Bush himself, and they will not be content until they have tried everything imaginable in their bag of tricks. If one trick doesn't work, its on to the next.

Cyclops, I caution the Democrats however that the public may be growing tired of this. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but people will eventually see through this fasaud.

There are still a few people that care about their country, and they are growing weary of this nonsense.

People want to feel good about themselves, and they do not like being trashed on day after day. Some that hate the country and want it defeated might, but I hope those are still in the minority.

You know, okie, I think you come as close as possible to an American version of a Baathist dead-ender. Nothing will change those guys' minds and nothing will change yours. They are beset on all sides by enemies and fools, and so are you. They will hold to and fight for their singular party loyalty, and so will you. They will reject any notion that they might have it wrong, and so will you. They do not care what the rest of the civilized world thinks about them or their leaders, and you don't either. Negative evidences of their leader's failures and corruptions and deceits cannot penetrate their view of things, and you behave exactly in the same manner. There is not a single non-american on a2k (and only a handful of americans) who think as you do and who still support this administration and its leaders. But just like those Baathists, your embattled situation with so much of the rest of the world arrayed against your ideas and loyalties will only serve to prove to them and to you how much more fiercely you must defend their/your position and loyalties.

Sorry, Parados, actions speak louder than words.

But your words do betray your true mindset, in particular your last sentence. I think that says it all about you and your "politics," and that is putting it very kindly. No more explainin is necessary, Parados. Please check your blood pressure though.

A Justice Department report released Monday concludes that Sen. Pete Domenici was the "primary factor" in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico, and that Iglesias was not dismissed for poor job performance as some top department officials claimed.
Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced the hiring of a special prosecutor to pursue potential charges against former Justice Department officials and others involved in the firing of Iglesias and eight other U.S. attorneys.
The Justice Department report indicates that special prosecutor Nora Dannehy of Connecticut might also seek to determine whether Domenici or Rep. Heather Wilson, both New Mexico Republicans, illegally pressured Iglesias to bring indictments against New Mexico Democrats before the 2006 general election.

The Department’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. We believe that this investigation, and final resolution of the issues raised in this report, can help restore confidence in the Department by fully describing the serious failures in the process used to remove the U.S. Attorneys and by providing lessons for the Department in how to avoid such failures in the future.