I was reminded this morning again of just how powerful a Federal Prosecutor is. From the always informative Dahlia Lithwick of Slate:
Quote:Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson gave a speech in 1940 in which he warned that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations." Jackson added that "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes. ..."
Here is the whole speech
LINK
Joe(They dare to fill these positions with toadies?)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:I was reminded this morning again of just how powerful a Federal Prosecutor is. From the always informative Dahlia Lithwick of Slate:
Quote:Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson gave a speech in 1940 in which he warned that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations." Jackson added that "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes. ..."
Here is the whole speech
LINK
Joe(They dare to fill these positions with toadies?)Nation
Yup, all we have to do is look at the three Duke lacrosse players as examples. And this guy was an elected DA.
parados wrote:I wonder if you agreed with this investigation MM?
Quote:The Justice Department announced Thursday it has opened a criminal investigation into how the White House failed to review thousands of e-mails that may have been under subpoena.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000324/ai_n13849722
Since everything should be equal, when will the DoJ open its criminal investigation into the Bush WH missing emails?
If the DoJ decided that there was enough evidence to investigate Gore,then yes I agree with it.
If the DoJ decides that a criminal investigation is warranted in the Bush e-mail case,then yes I agree with it.
mysteryman wrote:parados wrote:I wonder if you agreed with this investigation MM?
Quote:The Justice Department announced Thursday it has opened a criminal investigation into how the White House failed to review thousands of e-mails that may have been under subpoena.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20000324/ai_n13849722
Since everything should be equal, when will the DoJ open its criminal investigation into the Bush WH missing emails?
If the DoJ decided that there was enough evidence to investigate Gore,then yes I agree with it.
If the DoJ decides that a criminal investigation is warranted in the Bush e-mail case,then yes I agree with it.
It should be obvious to you that the 'DoJ' is ran by Bush's personal man Gonzales; you can't trust him to do an effective job policing Bush. His job is to
protect Bush, that's why Bush put him there.
Cycloptichorn
parados wrote:mysteryman wrote:
If the DoJ decided that there was enough evidence to investigate Gore,then yes I agree with it.
mysteryman wrote:
No,I did NOT agree with the investigations concerning the Clintons,and I have said so publicly on here and other forums.
Thats not a contradiction at all.
The link that was posted was to an investigation concerning Al Gore,not Clinton.
As for my statement about the various Clinton investigations,that includes Whitewater,Monica,Hillarys cattle futures,etc.
Those had nothing to do with the investigation concerning Gore that was referenced.
It was NOT an investigation of Gore. It was an investigation of the WH.
Quote:The Justice Department responded to the hearings by immediately launching a criminal
investigation of the White House's actions. At issue was the White House's response when
officials learned in 1998 that an archive had not been kept. "The core of this is we may have
subpoenas issued that were not fully complied with and people who may have been threatened
with retaliation to hide it," said a Justice Department official. "It's not the kind of thing you
should take lightly. And we don't" [6].
http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/efg/ethics/papers/ASEE02.pdf
Janet Reno had to be the worst Attorney General ever in history. And one of her top priorities was obviously to protect the Clintons.
I am not impressed with Gonzales, but for different reasons than he is being attacked for.
If Domenici was unhappy with the attorneys in New Mexico, there were probably legitimate and honest reasons, as I think Domenici is usually a reasonable man.
okie wrote:Janet Reno had to be the worst Attorney General ever in history. And one of her top priorities was obviously to protect the Clintons.
By all means, okie, don't let facts sully your pristine mind.
Quote:Clinton authorized 31 senior aides to testify under oath before Congress on 51 separate occasions. I testified before both House and Senate committees, and for each of my appearances, I went into a public hearing room, in front of television cameras, with a full transcript being kept; I raised my right hand, I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601409.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Bush, Gonzales reportedly discussed fired prosecutor
Bush, Gonzales reportedly discussed fired prosecutor
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
4/17/07
WASHINGTON - New details emerging from Justice Department interviews and e-mails suggest that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and perhaps President Bush were more active than they've acknowledged in the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys, lawmakers said Monday.
Gonzales will be under pressure to explain those contradictions when he testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the firings. The hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, but lawmakers delayed it after a shooting spree Monday at Virginia Tech left at least 33 people dead, including the gunman.
The attorney general also faced more pressure after a group of conservatives that includes former Reagan administration Justice Department official Bruce Fein sent a letter Monday to Bush and Gonzales calling for the attorney general's resignation "for the good of the country."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, told congressional investigators on Sunday that Gonzales remembered talking to Bush last October about concerns with then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico.
Iglesias was forced out last December. While the White House has said Bush passed along complaints to Gonzales last October about voter fraud in three states, including New Mexico, the White House cast it as a broad conversation, not a discussion about an individual.
Gonzales has maintained that he doesn't recall the conversation with Bush - a position contradicted by Sampson's statement to congressional staff.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday she knew of no conversation between the president and Gonzales about Iglesias. "The president has a vague recollection" of passing on to the attorney general "complaints he'd been hearing about prosecution of voter fraud cases, including in New Mexico," she said.
Congressional investigators also are focusing on e-mails and interviews that contradict Gonzales' statement in a March 26 interview with NBC that he wasn't involved in deliberations over whether particular U.S. attorneys should be asked to resign.
Schumer said Associate Attorney General William Mercer, who also spoke in recent days with congressional staffers, suggested that Gonzales was involved in a June 5, 2006, briefing about the future of then-U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego. Lam was fired in December.
That account could bolster an e-mail that was included in the Justice Department's release of roughly 6,000 pages, and first reported by ABC News, in which Sampson wrote to Mercer about Gonzales' state of mind and the need to insulate the Justice Department from political criticism over immigration enforcement.
The e-mail suggested that Gonzales supported in concept a plan to remove Lam if she didn't go along with changes in immigration enforcement in her district.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Monday that the June 5 meeting "was held to discuss improving immigration enforcement in the southern district of California," following complaints from Congress. As for the e-mail, Roehrkasse said, "Clearly the attorney general will be testifying to this issue in the coming days."
As for Sampson's recollection of what Gonzales remembered about his conversation with the president, Roehrkasse said he would "refer to what the attorney general has said in the past."
Schumer said Sampson also told investigators that former Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was forced out for performance-related reasons, but Sampson couldn't recall what the reasons were. That contradicts testimony in February from Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who said he knew of no cause for Cummins' removal other than that he was making room for a new U.S. attorney. That replacement, Tim Griffin, is a former aide to Bush's political adviser and deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove.
Sampson, through his lawyer, didn't return calls for comment. A Senate Judiciary senior aide familiar with Sampson's closed-door testimony over the weekend confirmed Schumer's account. The aide asked not to be identified because the testimony hasn't been made public.
In another development, the House Judiciary Committee on Monday asked that eight new Justice Department officials come forward for interviews. That includes the current U.S. attorneys in three states where the White House forwarded complaints about voter fraud to Gonzales - in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. It also includes the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, a young, former Gonzales aide handpicked to replace her predecessor. Her management team stepped aside recently in apparent protest of her job performance.
Quote:
The e-mail suggested that Gonzales supported in concept a plan to remove Lam if she didn't go along with changes in immigration enforcement in her district.
But, they never discussed any changes with her. At all. This whole story is bullshit.
McClatchy has been on top of this from day one!
Cycloptichorn
Strangely, the senate hearing with Gonzales has been postponed because of the killings at Virginia Tech. This will give him more time to memorize the words: "I do not recall."
Mike Nifong should not worry about his future. He will fit into the Bush Justice Department quite well.
Senate Ethics Confirms Domenici Probe Over Attorney Firing
Senate Ethics Confirms Domenici Probe Over US Attorney Firing
By John Bresnahan
Think Progress
Tuesday 17 April 2007
The Senate, thanks to a resolution it just adopted, has confirmed that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is the subject of "preliminary inquiry" over his involvement in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.
The Senate just adopted a resolution (S. Res. 153) stating that "for matters before the Select Committee on Ethics involving the preliminary inquiry arising in connection with alleged communications by persons within the committee's jurisdiction with and concerning David C. Iglesias, then United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and the subsequent action by the committee with respect to that matter, if any, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) shall be replaced by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown)."
The passage of the resolution confirms that Domenici is being scrutinized by the Ethics Committee over a phone call he made to Iglesias, prior to the November election, inquiring whether Iglesias was going to indict some New Mexico Democrats. Up until this point, the Ethics Committee has refused to state whether it is actually investigating Domenici.
Domenici has denied any wrongdoing in the matter, but he complained personally to President Bush about Iglesias, and Iglesias was removed from his post on Dec. 7. Iglesias told congressional investigators that he received calls on the issue from both Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).
It is unclear why Salazar asked to be recused from the Ethics Committee probe into Domenici. A call to Salazar's office was not returned by press time.
Chris Gallegos, a Domenici spokesman, said Domenici "would not comment on this at all because of the preliminary inquiry" by the Ethics panel, including whether the New Mexico Republican has met with or been interviewed by the committee. Domenici has retained attorney Lee Blalack to represent him during the probe.
White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush's lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.
Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they're covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.
Scott M. Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary, called the action "reasonable" and said that any review of the e-mails would "be conducted in a timely fashion, to balance the committee's need for the information with the extreme over breadth of their requests." Party officials declined comment, but a GOP aide familiar with the negotiations said the RNC would comply with the White House request.
In a related development, the House Judiciary Committee plans to grant immunity to a former Justice Department liaison to the White House to force her to tell Congress what she knew about the firings. A vote to grant Monica Goodling "use immunity" could come as early as Thursday. Goodling had refused to testify and said she would invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., who'd asked the RNC to turn over any applicable e-mails by week's end, characterized the White House's stance as an "extreme and unnecessary" effort to block or slow the release of the e-mails.
Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration Justice Department official who's been critical of the administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said the existence of the RNC e-mails is worrisome for the White House.
"The situation is very awkward for the administration because they don't know exactly what e-mails are there. What does seem very clear is that the e-mails did concern government business, which would include firing U.S. attorneys. Otherwise there would be no plausible claim," he said.
Fein said the administration might be considering seeking an injunction to prevent the Republican Party from releasing the e-mails to Congress.
Citing the leaking of the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers as an example, Fein said, "It's always more difficult to claim privilege after it's leaked out of your hands - or if it's never in your hands in the first place."
At the same time, Fein said, the White House is putting the Republican Party in a bind. "If you're the RNC, you're making yourself vulnerable to a claim you're impeding or endeavoring to impede a congressional investigation," he said.
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., general chairman of the Republican Party, said he wasn't involved in those discussions and referred legal questions to the RNC. "I'm sure they're going to try to do the right thing, but what that is I don't know. I'm sure they're burning the midnight oil with lawyers over there figuring it out."
The letter from special counsel Emmet T. Flood to the RNC's lawyer, Robert Kelner, said the White House must have an opportunity to review the documents to learn whether they must be preserved as part of the Presidential Records Act, but also to determine "whether the executive branch may need to take measures necessary to protect its other legal interests."
It's not known how many applicable e-mails exist dating back to at least 2005. The White House and RNC last week suggested some might have been lost, although experts say they likely can be retrieved.
But investigators know from documents already released by the Justice Department in the U.S. attorneys probe that some of the 50 current and former White House officials who had separate Republican Party e-mail accounts did send or receive e-mails related to the U.S. attorneys through their non-government accounts.
That includes Bush's deputy chief of staff and political adviser Karl Rove and a deputy of his.
The White House has yet to turn over internal documents and e-mails requested by Congress and has reserved the option of asserting executive privilege to protect internal communications. But Democrats say executive privilege doesn't apply to e-mails sent on non-government accounts. Some also have charged that White House aides might have purposely used non-government e-mail accounts for such communications in order to avoid scrutiny.
If the House Judiciary Committee authorizes immunity for Goodling, it would be the first granted in the congressional investigation into whether politics improperly influenced the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Goodling, through her lawyer, declined to comment on the House panel's plans. Her lawyer previously suggested that if Goodling testified, former colleagues under scrutiny might turn against her, or Democrats seeking political gain might twist her words.
Conyers said Tuesday that Goodling "clearly has much to contribute" to the investigation.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate's judiciary panel, said of the Democrats, "This is taking on the attributes not of a fishing expedition but a witch hunt. I just think it's driven by politics, and we ought to get serious."
Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate's panel on Thursday as to his role in the firings.
He and Bush have maintained that the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that there was nothing improper about the decisions to bring in some new top prosecutors. But they haven't offered consistent explanations about the reasons for the firings.
Quote:
The letter from special counsel Emmet T. Flood to the RNC's lawyer, Robert Kelner, said the White House must have an opportunity to review the documents to learn whether they must be preserved as part of the Presidential Records Act, but also to determine "whether the executive branch may need to take measures necessary to protect its other legal interests."
Excuse me, wtf?
They have no right whatsoever to be doing this. None.
Cycloptichorn
For those of you who haven't heard, Gonzales will testify before Senate Oversight tomorrow morning. I think it will be at 10 A.M. It should be pretty good political theater.
Here's the comments of a retired JD attorney who feels Gonzales is the worse AG in the last 30 years.
Quote:Since the day he arrived at the Department of Justice in February 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has "shattered" the department's tradition of independence and politicized its operation more than any other attorney general in more than 30 years.
Quote:Under Gonzales, though, almost immediately from the time of his arrival in February 2005, this changed quite noticeably. First, there was extraordinary turnover in the political ranks, including the majority of even Justice's highest-level appointees. It was reminiscent of the turnover from the second Reagan administration to the first Bush administration in 1989, only more so. Second, the atmosphere was palpably different, in ways both large and small. One need not have had to be terribly sophisticated to notice that when Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey left the department in August 2005 his departure was quite abrupt, and that his large farewell party was attended by neither Gonzales nor (as best as could be seen) anyone else on the AG's personal staff.
Quote:Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it.
Having seen this firsthand in a range of different situations for nearly two years before I retired, I found it not at all surprising that the recent U.S. attorney problems arose in the first place and then were so badly mishandled once they did.
Quote:But the process of agency functioning, however, became dramatically different almost immediately after Gonzales arrived. No longer was emphasis placed on accomplishing something with the highest-quality product in a timely fashion; rather, it became a matter of making sure that a "consensus" was achieved, regardless of how long that might take and with little or no concern that quality would suffer in such a "lowest common denominator" environment. And heaven help anyone, career or noncareer employee, if that "consensus" did not include whatever someone in the White House might think about something, be it large, small, or medium-sized.
In short, the culture markedly shifted to one in which avoiding any possibility of disagreement anywhere was the overriding concern, as if "consensus" were an end unto itself. Undergirding this, what's more, was the sad fact that so many political appointees in 2005 and 2006 were so obviously thinking not much further than their next (i.e., higher-level) position, in some place where they could "max out" by the end of Bush's second term.
Quote:Q: In your view, what needs to be done to repair the department?
A: Based upon my experience, it's very hard to imagine how the department can viably move forward now without a Watergate-style repair. By that I mean the appointment of a new attorney general, one who by reputation, background, and temperament is well-suited to at least begin the process of restoring the department's previous reputation for political independence and the reliably even-handed administration of justice.
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1176122643390
