0
   

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:27 pm
While he prez can fire them, congress has the right to look into the firings to determine whether the ones not fired were used improperly for political purposes. This is leading to legislation that might prevent such misuse.

Indeed, future presidents should learn from this matter.

Joe (who is often right) Nation is correct in his comments.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Please show me how mu post was authoritarian?
The President has the power to fire the US attorneys if he chosses.
EVERY President has had that power.
They do not have to explain their reasons for firing people.


The president has to explain to the American people anything they ask.

You don't seem to realize that he is a servant.

Cycloptichorn


So,if the American people ask the President why he used the bathroom in his office instead of going up to the one in the residence,he MUST answer them???
Get serious!!!!
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:43 pm
Okay, Mysteryman, now you're grossing me out.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:48 pm
MM:
The easiest way to stumble into authoritarianism is to refuse to question or even entertain the notion that questioning might be beneficial. Your remark about being careful what you wish for is pure obedient behavior.

I don't know how I can make my position any clearer. This issue, for me, is not only about who got fired but also about who didn't get fired and why. You say a president doesn't have explain the reason for firing a person, I say, any president who desires to be something more than a dictator owes the American people a transparent administration which, not to put too fine a point on it, they can be confident is preserving and defending the Constitution.

Mystery, my man, I really like your honesty, but this is about your Department of Justice being put in the hands of incompetents. You should be concerned for this nation. We cannot be a nation of laws, we cannot be the bastion of freedom we purport ourselves to be, if the chief legal officer is no more than an errand boy for Karl Rove and Republican National Committee.

And as for getting what I wish, I would not accept with any lesser degree of dismay similar actions as have been alleged if they had been done by a Democrat.

This is about removing partisan politics from the Department of Justice. The president and his cadre have been trying for eight years or more to pump as much GOP into the judiciary as possible in the belief that Republican judges will rule more in favor of conservatives. If I was a judge appointed by this administration I think I would be insulted to be held in such low regard.

Joe(Justice. You remember her? The blinded one with the scales.)Nation
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:55 pm
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8182/justpretendfb7.th.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:58 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Please show me how mu post was authoritarian?
The President has the power to fire the US attorneys if he chosses.
EVERY President has had that power.
They do not have to explain their reasons for firing people.


The president has to explain to the American people anything they ask.

You don't seem to realize that he is a servant.

Cycloptichorn


So,if the American people ask the President why he used the bathroom in his office instead of going up to the one in the residence,he MUST answer them???
Get serious!!!!


Rolling Eyes

The American people have the right to ask him anything they wish. You just don't seem to realize how the master-servant relationship works.

In this case, though, we're not talking about scatalogical expressions by the prez, but his official duties. For you to say that the American people have no right to question his decisions is Authoritarian in the extreme.

The fact is that Bush is in trouble, because neither he nor the department had good answers to these perfectly valid questions. They lied. Do you acknowledge that they lied?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 03:24 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Please show me how mu post was authoritarian?
The President has the power to fire the US attorneys if he chosses.
EVERY President has had that power.
They do not have to explain their reasons for firing people.


The president has to explain to the American people anything they ask.

You don't seem to realize that he is a servant.

Cycloptichorn


So,if the American people ask the President why he used the bathroom in his office instead of going up to the one in the residence,he MUST answer them???
Get serious!!!!


Rolling Eyes

The American people have the right to ask him anything they wish. You just don't seem to realize how the master-servant relationship works.

In this case, though, we're not talking about scatalogical expressions by the prez, but his official duties. For you to say that the American people have no right to question his decisions is Authoritarian in the extreme.

The fact is that Bush is in trouble, because neither he nor the department had good answers to these perfectly valid questions. They lied. Do you acknowledge that they lied?

Cycloptichorn


The American people have the right to ask,but he also has the right to not answer.

As for acknowledging that they lied,I acknowledge that someone did.
Who it was,I dont know.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 06:54 am
So MM, if someone lied then we and the congress should accept that they lied? Or should we find out why they lied? I vote we find out. You seem to vote we should let people lie as long as they are in a GOP administration.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 10:00 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Please show me how mu post was authoritarian?
The President has the power to fire the US attorneys if he chosses.
EVERY President has had that power.
They do not have to explain their reasons for firing people.


The president has to explain to the American people anything they ask.

You don't seem to realize that he is a servant.

Cycloptichorn


So,if the American people ask the President why he used the bathroom in his office instead of going up to the one in the residence,he MUST answer them???
Get serious!!!!


Rolling Eyes

The American people have the right to ask him anything they wish. You just don't seem to realize how the master-servant relationship works.

In this case, though, we're not talking about scatalogical expressions by the prez, but his official duties. For you to say that the American people have no right to question his decisions is Authoritarian in the extreme.

The fact is that Bush is in trouble, because neither he nor the department had good answers to these perfectly valid questions. They lied. Do you acknowledge that they lied?

Cycloptichorn


The American people have the right to ask,but he also has the right to not answer.

As for acknowledging that they lied,I acknowledge that someone did.
Who it was,I dont know.


A servant who refuses lawful and correct orders from his master deserves to be put out on the street with his walking papers.

As I do not personally have the authority to either demand an answer from the Prez and DoJ, or give him his papers, I defer to my duly elected representatives to do so - and they are doing exactly that.

If someone lied, don't we have a duty to find out who that person is? You are also ignoring the fact that there have been revealed serious faults within the DoJ and their interaction with the administration - these also bear further investigation. The DoJ does not serve the executive branch but the people of this country!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 10:19 am
Can't believe noone has posted this yet:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002992.php

Quote:
Today's Must Read
By Paul Kiel - April 12, 2007, 10:28 AM

Yesterday, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel spent about 80 minutes yesterday trying to explain to reporters how it was that the White House had "mishandled" Karl Rove's and dozens of other staffers' emails.

Despite all that explaining, the situation is crystal clear. 22 White House staffers also have an RNC-issued email account. Dating back to 2001, it's been about 50 staffers total. Through 2004, the RNC simply deleted all of those emails after 30 days -- that policy changed then, though that didn't stop the erasing. The staffers themselves could clean out their accounts. The White House only recently began preventing that.

Stanzel blamed the oversight on insufficient guidance. The rationale for the parallel email system, remember, is that it is a violation of the Hatch Act to use government resources for political purposes. The Clinton White House also had a similar parallel system. But since the distinction between politics and official duties is blurred beyond distinction in the Bush White House, many staffers have understandably erred on the side of politics. As Stanzel puts it:

"I can say that historically the White House didn't give enough guidance to staff on how to avoid violating the Hatch Act while following the Records Act. We didn't do a good enough job."

But it's apparent from emails that the White House avoided the governmental email system because it was vulnerable to investigators. The Hatch Act just provided a good excuse. In 2003, for instance, a lobbyist for Jack Abramoff Kevin Ring wrote him that emails about Abramoff's clients shouldn't be sent to White House addresses because "it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." That warning, Ring told The Washington Post, came from Jennifer Farley, a deputy in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. Susan Ralston, Rove's personal aide, used RNC provided email accounts when corresponding with Abramoff, her old boss.

And remember that Karl Rove reportedly uses his RNC-provided account for approximately 95% of his communication.

In other words, it was an open secret at the White House that the parallel system was to be used for everything you didn't want coming out later -- an understanding that was most likely never made explicit, but a situation that was carefully preserved by not providing apparently any parameters for what sort of communication should be done via the White House system.


The 'deleted email' aspect of this story is huge. The Bush WH has regularly been violating the Hatch act, knowingly, in order to keep their worst business off of the official books. There really is no telling how deep this will go - it impacts every oversight angle there is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 10:33 am
Leahy calls bullshit.

Quote:
Leahy: Bush Aides Lying About E-Mails

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's aides are lying about White House e-mails sent on a Republican account that might have been lost, a powerful Senate chairman said Thursday, vowing to subpoena those documents if the administration fails to cough them up.

"They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy shouted from the Senate floor.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."


Leahy is correct. It takes a huge effort to erase emails permanently. It isn't something that was done by accident.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 10:54 am
Missing White House E-Mails; Modern Version of Nixon' Tapes?
Will Missing White House E-Mails Be Modern Version of Nixon's Tapes?
E & P
Published: April 12, 2007

President Bush's aides are lying about White House e-mails sent on a Republican account that might have been lost, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Thursday, vowing to subpoena those documents if the administration fails to cough them up.

''They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!'' Leahy shouted from the Senate floor.

''You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers,'' said Leahy, D-Vt. ''Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary.''

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said there is no effort to purposely keep the e-mails under wraps, and that the counsel's office is doing everything it can to recover any that were lost.

''The purpose of our review is to make every reasonable effort to recover potentially lost e-mails, and that is why we've been in contact with forensic experts,'' he said.

Senate Democrats continued to toughen their stance against the White House over the firings of eight prosecutors over the winter.

After his speech, Leahy's committee approved -- but did not issue -- new subpoenas to compel the administration to produce documents and testimony about the firings.

Democrats say the firings might have been improper, but that probe yielded a weightier question: Whether White House officials such as political adviser Karl Rove are purposely conducting sensitive official presidential business via non-governmental accounts to evade a law requiring preservation -- and eventual disclosure -- of presidential records.

The White House issued an emphatic ''No'' to those questions during a conference call with reporters Wednesday, saying the Republican National Committee accounts were used to comply with the Hatch Act, which bars political work using official resources or on government time.

But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel acknowledged that 22 White House aides have e-mail accounts sponsored by the RNC and that e-mails they sent may have been lost.

Stanzel said the White House was trying to recover the e-mails and could not rule out that some may have involved the firings.The administration also is drafting new guidelines for aides on how to comply with the law.

Leahy was not buying that.

''E-mails don't get lost,'' Leahy insisted. ''These are just e-mails they don't want to bring forward.''

[He made another reference: "Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. "]

The revelation about the e-mails escalates a standoff between the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House over the prosecutor firings. The subpoenas come a few days before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to appear before Leahy's committee Tuesday to fight for his job.

Leahy's panel approved new subpoenas that would compel the Bush administration to surrender hundreds of new documents and force two officials -- Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella and White House political aide Scott Jennings -- to reveal their roles in the firings. The panel delayed for a week a vote on whether to authorize a subpoena for Rove's deputy, Sara Taylor.

Leahy has not issued any subpoenas, but permission by his committee Thursday would give him authority to require testimony from all eight of the fired U.S. attorneys and several White House and Justice Department officials named in e-mails made public as having had roles in the firings. The White House has refused to make officials such as Rove available to testify under oath.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 10:58 am
How McClatchy Reporter Cracked 'AttorneyGate' Scandal
How McClatchy Reporter Cracked 'AttorneyGate' Scandal
Her experience, and contacts, outside the Beltway helped Marisa Taylor break some of the key early stories in the still-evolving scandal involving the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
April 10, 2007

The current scandal swirling around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys first reached the mainstream media in a major way via a report from McClatchy Newspapers' Washington, D.C., bureau. That scoop had been fed by items that had appeared for weeks on political blogs. How is it that the resource-rich Washington Post and New York Times did not break the "AttorneyGate" story above ground?

One reason was that McClatchy's Marisa Taylor had only worked inside the Beltway for less than a year and had brought with her years of experience covering federal courts in distant parts of the country.

"It helped still being an outsider here," Taylor, 37, told me, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales facing the possible loss of his own job. "And as a bureau we are underdogs in terms of resources, and that can sometimes help us. It encourages us to maybe look outside the Beltway. We were willing to believe the Justice Department if it provided evidence that this was not political, but also willing to look at other explanations. We were willing to be a watchdog."

This sounded exactly like what Knight Ridder's Washington bureau ?- before it combined with McClatchy's office ?- did in taking an unusually skeptical view of the administration's claims on Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the war.

For weeks, reports of suspicious firings of well-qualified U.S. attorneys had been appearing on the blogs, particularly at Talking Points Memo. The Wall Street Journal eventually noted some of the dismissals. Taylor had been following it all, but also hearing a lot of "buzz" about this being a political deal from her contacts in the legal community across the country.

Her first bombshell appeared on Jan. 26, opening with: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is transforming the ranks of the nation's top federal prosecutors by firing some and appointing conservative loyalists from the Bush administration's inner circle who critics say are unlikely to buck Washington. ... With Congress now controlled by the Democrats, critics fear that in some cases Gonzales is trying to skirt the need for Senate confirmation by giving new U.S. attorneys interim appointments for indefinite terms."

She moved the story along in a Feb. 12 article headlined, "5 Ousted U.S. Attorneys Received Positive Job Evaluations." Then on Feb. 28 came: "Political Interference Alleged in Sacking of a U.S. Attorney." After several more scoops, she reported on March 16 that Gonzales, under fire, had called U.S. attorneys around the country to offer an apology.

So who is Marisa Taylor? After growing up mainly in New Jersey, she started her journalism career at an English-language paper in Mexico City. From there she returned across the border to The Monitor in McAllen, Texas, and then to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, where she focused on the federal courts. Later she covered the federal courts for four years at The San Diego Union-Tribune. Last year, she joined Knight Ridder's Washington bureau as its final hire before the sale to McClatchy. She suggests she may even have been KR's "last hire anywhere."

She was particularly attuned to the attorney-sacking story because she recognizes the importance of federal prosecutors staying above politics. Locals are continually suspicious that corruption charges are motivated by political considerations, "and prosecutors have to demonstrate that's not the case."

Early this year, as the buzz and the blogs drove her, she talked to Investigative Editor Jim Asher, and they both wondered: Why were these people fired ?- was it part of some larger strategy? So Taylor started calling her contacts, and "a lot of longtime pros were saying this was unusual, even though the administration was saying it wasn't," she recalls. She received help from her colleagues Margaret Talev and Ron Hutcheson, especially when she finally tied Karl Rove to the process.

At McClatchy, she explains, "we have to pick and choose. We don't have the resources to cover everything, but enterprise can be our strength. I can't beat the Post and Times on leaks, but I can look for enterprise that perhaps they are not covering at that very moment. We try to give our papers something different." She also declares that "anyone who tries to downplay the role of blogs in coverage of Washington is behind the times."

McClatchy's D.C. bureau chief, John Walcott, recalls a Justice Department official telling Taylor that she simply "had" to use certain information he had given her for a story. According to Walcott, Taylor replied: "I will decide what goes in my story. You won't."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 11:05 am
Missing RNC E-mails are like Nixon's 18-minute gap
Leahy: Missing RNC E-mails are like Nixon's 18-minute gap
04/12/2007 @ 9:35 am
Filed by Michael Roston

The top Senate Democrat leading investigations into the dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department is comparing e-mails lost by the Republican National Committee to President Richard Nixon's famous "18-minute" gap in White House tape recordings.

"Now we are learning that the 'off book' communications they were having about these actions, by using Republican political email addresses, have not been preserved," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor.

He added, "Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration's version of 'the dog ate my homework.'"

The senator was referring to the famous Nixon White House tapes subpoenaed during the Watergate investigation. On one tape, there was an 18 1/2 minute gap. The former president's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, claimed responsibility for "accidentally" erasing 5 minutes of the recording, but not the remainder of the gap. Further investigations raised questions about the veracity of her testimony.

The Associated Press also noted that when actually delivered, Senator Leahy raised further doubts about the Republican Party's explanation for the lost e-mails.

"They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" he proclaimed. "You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers."

Leahy threatened further action in response to the news, too "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."

The Vermont Democrat's speech took up the activities in the first 100 days of the Democratic-controlled Senate, particularly in the area of oversight.

"I come to the Senate today to thank the Majority Leader and those senators who have been working so hard to restore balance to our government, protect the liberties and rights of all Americans, and revive America's leadership in the world," Leahy said.

The prepared version of Leahy's speech, sent to RAW STORY this morning, is presented in full below.

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy Chairman, Judiciary Committee United States Senate April 12, 2007:

Today we mark the 100th day of the new Congress. While we have much more to do on behalf of the American people, much has already been accomplished. We have heard the American people's call for accountability and competence in their government and have started making those goals a reality. We have returned the focus to the rights and interests of the American people.

Just as I have commended the Members of the Judiciary Committee for their help and active participation in the work of our Committee, I come to the Senate today to thank the Majority Leader and those Senators who have been working so hard to restore balance to our government, protect the liberties and rights of all Americans and revive America's leadership in the world.

First and foremost, we are making progress restoring the Senate and the Congress to their proper constitutional role. From the FBI's illegal and improper use of National Security Letters to the politically motivated dismissal of so many of the Nation's U.S. Attorneys, there are concerns about the competence and independence of the Department of Justice. This pattern of abuse of authority and mismanagement causes me, and many others on both sides of the aisle, to wonder whether the FBI and Department of Justice have been faithful stewards of the great trust that the Congress and American people have placed in them. We need to keep our Nation safe, while respecting the privacy rights and civil liberties of all Americans. Last year in the former Congress, the Administration sought expanded powers in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, and to more freely use National Security Letters. The Administration got these powers, and they have badly bungled both.

The Judiciary Committee early oversight efforts included our January 18 hearing with Attorney General Gonzales. There we examined the change in course of this Administration, which had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law for years. Under the watchful eye of the new Congress, the President's program for warrantless wiretaps on Americans has been revised and the government is seeking approval for all such wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the law requires.

We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. The Administration's recent reversal of course and was a good first step.

Last month we held an oversight hearing with FBI Director Mueller in which we called him to task for the longstanding FBI abuses of national security letters. The Inspector General's report we insisted be provided included troubling findings of widespread illegal and improper use of National Security Letters to obtain Americans' phone, financial, credit and other records. Inspector General Glenn Fine testified that there could be thousands of additional violations among the tens of thousands of National Security Letters that the FBI is now using each year. The Inspector General also found widespread use by the FBI of so-called "exigent letters." These letters, which are not authorized by any statute, were issued at least 739 times to obtain Americans' phone records when there was often no emergency and never a follow-up subpoena, as the FBI had promised. Despite these extensive abuses, the top leadership at the FBI sat idly by for years, doing nothing to stop this practice.

We questioned the FBI Director about these matters and reports that the FBI has repeatedly submitted inaccurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its efforts to obtain secret warrants in terrorism and espionage cases -- severely undermining the Government's credibility in the eyes of the Chief Judge of that Court. These abuses are unacceptable. Director Mueller now knows that and knows that these abuses and violations can no longer be continued or repeated.

The Judiciary Committee is now in the midst of an investigation in which we are uncovering an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country and that undermines the trust and confidence of all Americans in federal law enforcement. We are examining the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and are trying to get to the truth in order to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening again.

I want the American people to have a Justice Department and United States Attorneys offices that enforce the law without regard to political influence and partisanship. I want the American people to have confidence in federal law enforcement and I want our federal law enforcement officers to have the independence they need to be effective and merit the trust of the American people.

Sadly, what we have heard from the Administration has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses and a lack of accountability or acknowledgement of the seriousness of this matter. The women and men replaced and whose reputations were then stained by those seeking to justify these firings as "performance related" were appointees of President Bush. Several had significant achievements in office and glowing performance reviews.

As we learn more details about the ousters of these U.S. Attorneys the story grows more troubling. Had we accepted the initial testimony of the Attorney General and other Department officials we would not have gotten to the truth. The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress's questions and ducked real accountability for years. In the past they counted on a rubberstamping Congress to avoid accountability. The American people have a new Congress, one that looks for answers.

The Attorney General has admitted "mistakes were made" without specifying what they were. He will have another chance to tell the whole truth next Tuesday at our next Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. The days when he could come by once a year and not answer questions are over.

I made no secret during his confirmation hearing of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush. The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be turned into a political arm of the White House.

For years preceding this new Congress, accountability has been lacking in this Administration. Loyalty to the President has been rewarded over all else. That lack of accountability, and lack of the checks and balances that fostered it, must end and, I hope, has ended.

We do not need another commendation for the "heckuva job" done by those who have failed in their essential duties to the American people. True accountability means being forthcoming, and it means there are consequences for improper actions.

The White House continues to stand by the firings of the U.S. attorneys and despite assurances by the President that we would receive cooperation, documents and access to witnesses, the White House has yet to produce a single document or make any witnesses available.

Now we are learning that the "off book" communications they were having about these actions, by using Republican political email addresses, have not been preserved. Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration's version of the dog ate my homework. I am deeply disturbed that just when this Administration is finally subjected to meaningful oversight, it cannot produce the necessary information. This Administration has worn out the benefit of the doubt and undermined whatever credibility it had left. The American people are right that they are entitled to full and honest public testimony of the White House staff responsible for this debacle.

We have asked for Administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry and I hope that they will. Through the Committee's oversight work so far, we know some of the answers to some of the questions we have been asking, and the answers are troubling. We have learned that most of the U.S. Attorneys that were asked to resign were doing their jobs well and were fired for not bending to the political will of some in Washington. Apparently, their reward for their efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is a kick out the door.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:04 pm
Quote:

White House lost 5 million emails.

"CREW learned that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) has lost over FIVE MILLION emails generated between March 2003 and October 2005. The White House counsel's office was advised of these problems in 2005 and CREW has been told that the White House was given a plan of action to recover these emails, but to date nothing has been done to rectify this significant loss of records." Read the full report HERE. 2:53 pm | Comment (55)


http://thinkprogress.org/

5 Million emails deleted. Throws a bunch of stuff into a new light.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:23 pm
What can one say? The WH has shown a complete and total disregard for the law and for Oversight. They were allowed to do so by a willing Republican congress who refused to question the prez in any way. They were supported in this by millions of Republicans who had dreams of a 'permanent majority.' Where will the defiance of the law end?

What will we do as a populace to ensure that people are held accountable for their lies? There have been major violations of many different written laws by the Bush WH. I'd love to hear the explanation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:33 pm
Quote:
April 12, 2007
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA

WASHINGTON, April 11 ?- Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped "Offender," when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff's or judge's races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

"There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election," Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: "If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent."

For some convicted people, the consequences have been significant. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility.

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver's license.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible.

The push to prosecute voter fraud figured in the removals last year of at least two United States attorneys whom Republican politicians or party officials had criticized for failing to pursue cases.

The campaign has roiled the Justice Department in other ways, as career lawyers clashed with a political appointee over protecting voters' rights, and several specialists in election law were installed as top prosecutors.

Department officials defend their record. "The Department of Justice is not attempting to make a statement about the scale of the problem," a spokesman, Bryan Sierra, said. "But we are obligated to investigate allegations when they come to our attention and prosecute when appropriate."

Officials at the department say that the volume of complaints has not increased since 2002, but that it is pursuing them more aggressively.

Previously, charges were generally brought just against conspiracies to corrupt the election process, not against individual offenders, Craig Donsanto, head of the elections crimes branch, told a panel investigating voter fraud last year. For deterrence, Mr. Donsanto said, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales authorized prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

Some of those cases have baffled federal judges.

"I find this whole prosecution mysterious," Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude's case. "I don't know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote."

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections.

Voter fraud is a highly polarized issue, with Republicans asserting frequent abuses and Democrats contending that the problem has been greatly exaggerated to promote voter identification laws that could inhibit the turnout by poor voters.

The New Priority
The fraud rallying cry became a clamor in the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election. Conservative watchdog groups, already concerned that the so-called Motor Voter Law in 1993 had so eased voter registration that it threatened the integrity of the election system, said thousands of fraudulent votes had been cast.

Similar accusations of compromised elections were voiced by Republican lawmakers elsewhere.

The call to arms reverberated in the Justice Department, where John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, was just starting as attorney general.

Combating voter fraud, Mr. Ashcroft announced, would be high on his agenda. But in taking up the fight, he promised that he would also be vigilant in attacking discriminatory practices that made it harder for minorities to vote.

"American voters should neither be disenfranchised nor defrauded," he said at a news conference in March 2001.

Enlisted to help lead the effort was Hans A. von Spakovsky, a lawyer and Republican volunteer in the Florida recount. As a Republican election official in Atlanta, Mr. Spakovsky had pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats say those laws disproportionately affect the poor because they often mandate government-issued photo IDs or driver's licenses that require fees.

At the Justice Department, Mr. Spakovsky helped oversee the voting rights unit. In 2003, when the Texas Congressional redistricting spearheaded by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was sent to the Justice Department for approval, the career staff members unanimously said it discriminated against African-American and Latino voters.

Mr. Spakovsky overruled the staff, said Joseph Rich, a former lawyer in the office. Mr. Spakovsky did the same thing when they recommended the rejection of a voter identification law in Georgia considered harmful to black voters. Mr. Rich said. Federal courts later struck down the two laws.

Former lawyers in the office said Mr. Spakovsky's decisions seemed to have a partisan flavor unlike those in previous Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.

"I understand you can never sweep politics completely away," said Mark A. Posner, who had worked in the civil and voting rights unit from 1980 until 2003. "But it was much more explicit, pronounced and consciously done in this administration."

At the same time, the department encouraged United States attorneys to bring charges in voter fraud cases, not a priority in prior administrations. The prosecutors attended training seminars, were required to meet regularly with state or local officials to identify possible cases and were expected to follow up accusations aggressively.

The Republican National Committee and its state organizations supported the push, repeatedly calling for a crackdown. In what would become a pattern, Republican officials and lawmakers in a number of states, including Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington, made accusations of widespread abuse, often involving thousands of votes.

In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings.

But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals.

The Path to Jail
One of those officials was Rick Graber, former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

"It is a system that invites fraud," Mr. Graber told reporters in August 2005 outside the house of a Milwaukeean he said had voted twice. "It's a system that needs to be fixed."

Along with an effort to identify so-called double voters, the party had also performed a computer crosscheck of voting records from 2004 with a list of felons, turning up several hundred possible violators. The assertions of fraud were turned over to the United States attorney's office for investigation.

Ms. Prude's path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years' probation.

Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary.

"I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it," Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation.

Of the hundreds of people initially suspected of violations in Milwaukee, 14 ?- most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters ?- ever faced federal charges. United States Attorney Steven M. Biskupic would say only that there was insufficient evidence to bring other cases.

No residents of the house where Mr. Graber made his assertion were charged. Even the 14 proved frustrating for the Justice Department. It won five cases in court.

The evidence that some felons knew they that could not vote consisted simply of a form outlining 20 or more rules that they were given when put on probation and signs at local government offices, testimony shows.

The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

In other states, some of those charged blamed confusion for their actions. Registration forms almost always require a statement affirming citizenship.

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

"We're foreigners here," Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station, had received a voter registration form in the mail. Because he had applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote, his lawyer said. Now, he may be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United States. "What I want is for them to leave me alone," he said in an interview.

Federal prosecutors in Kansas and Missouri successfully prosecuted four people for multiple voting. Several claimed residency in each state and voted twice.

United States attorney's offices in four other states did turn up instances of fraudulent voting in mostly rural areas. They were in the hard-to-extinguish tradition of vote buying, where local politicians offered $5 to $100 for individuals' support.

Unease Over New Guidelines
Aside from those cases, nearly all the remaining 26 convictions from 2002 to and 2005 ?- the Justice Department will not release details about 2006 cases except to say they had 30 more convictions?- were won against individuals acting independently, voter records and court documents show.

Previous guidelines had barred federal prosecutions of "isolated acts of individual wrongdoing" that were not part of schemes to corrupt elections. In most cases, prosecutors also had to prove an intent to commit fraud, not just an improper action.

That standard made some federal prosecutors uneasy about proceeding with charges, including David C. Iglesias, who was the United States attorney in New Mexico, and John McKay, the United States attorney in Seattle.

Although both found instances of improper registration or voting, they declined to bring charges, drawing criticism from prominent Republicans in their states. In Mr. Iglesias's case, the complaints went to Mr. Bush. Both prosecutors were among those removed in December.

In the last year, the Justice Department has installed top prosecutors who may not be so reticent. In four states, the department has named interim or permanent prosecutors who have worked on election cases at Justice Department headquarters or for the Republican Party.

Bradley J. Schlozman has finished a year as interim United States attorney in Missouri, where he filed charges against four people accused of creating fake registration forms for nonexistent people. The forms could likely never be used in voting. The four worked for a left-leaning group, Acorn, and reportedly faked registration cards to justify their wages. The cases were similar to one that Mr. Iglesias had declined to prosecute, saying he saw no intent to influence the outcome of an election.

"The decision to file those indictments was reviewed by Washington," a spokesman for Mr. Schlozman, Don Ledford, said. "They gave us the go-ahead."

Sabrina Pacifici and Barclay Walsh contributed research.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:37 pm
'Voter Fraud' is a code word for 'fixing elections.'

This just goes to show how fake the excuses for the fired prosecutors really are.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:39 pm
They spent a lot of time catching a few minnows.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 02:59 am
It must be fairly easy to lose stuff in the WH.
This admin seems to have "lost" all of those e-mails,the previous admin "lost" the Rose Law Firm billing records,and amazingly they showed up on a table after they werent needed.

Maybe the e-mails will show up on a table in the WH also,and everyone will admit it was all a simple mistake,like the billing records were.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 08:55:39