NY Times calls for Attorney General's dismissal.

[southsider2k5]

So now you would have the best of both worlds . . .

 

The uber-ethical Dems have proven that they are exactly like the Repubs they lashed out at for so long. It comes as no surprise to me. To be honest, I full expect a legitmate attempt at an impeachment trial of someone soon. Heck how many times did we hear Cheney was being indicted already, and that was before they Dems had any power. But you keep telling me how evil the Republicians are, and how just the Dems are.

[Texsox]

The uber-ethical Dems have proven that they are exactly like the Repubs they lashed out at for so long. It comes as no surprise to me. To be honest, I full expect a legitmate attempt at an impeachment trial of someone soon. Heck how many times did we hear Cheney was being indicted already, and that was before they Dems had any power. But you keep telling me how evil the Republicians are, and how just the Dems are.

 

 

The uber-ethical REPs have proven that they are exactly like the DEMs they investigated for so long. It comes as no surprise to me. To be honest, I do not expect a legitimate attempt at an impeachment trial of someone soon. Heck how many times did we hear Cheney was being indicted already, and that was before the Dems had any power. But you keep telling me how evil the Democrats are, and how just the REPs are.

It was ok for the GOP to launch investigation after investigation and spending hundreds of millions on special prosecutors, but wrong for the Dems? I believe the phrase would be hypocrite. Of course I am being snarky.

 

It was a great strategy by the GOP. Launch a bunch of fruitless investigations, then when the Dems start to investigate something that may be tangible, call it politically motivated. I applauded both parties for investigating wrong doings and fulfilling their constitutional powers. I believe impeachment should be the last result and only in the most heinous of cases. As I've said in several threads, I do not see anything that would rise above my bar but do not think it is good that already some people are attacking any Dem attempts are fulfilling their responsibilities.

[southsider2k5]

Cute. I guess all that preaching about it not making a difference which side did what was made in a glass house. I am glad to see we are back to crimes mattering though, all though I am sure that will go out of vogue about the time of the first investigation of a Dem, as usual. And you are right about one thing, the phrase is hypocrite.

 

8 years ago all that mattered was their wasn't a reason to even start investigating, not that a crime was committed, and now, not so much... Whatever. It doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't expect anything more from here.

[Texsox]

Cute. I guess all that preaching about it not making a difference which side did what was made in a glass house. I am glad to see we are back to crimes mattering though, all though I am sure that will go out of vogue about the time of the first investigation of a Dem, as usual. And you are right about one thing, the phrase is hypocrite.

 

8 years ago all that mattered was their wasn't a reason to even start investigating, not that a crime was committed, and now, not so much... Whatever. It doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't expect anything more from here.

 

I'm honestly not following your logic.

 

The Dems aren't suppose to investigate anything now because they disagreed with the GOP investigations then? How about the GOP should welcome the investigations because they did the same thing? Why didn't the GOP investigate this with the same vigor as Whitewater and BJgate? It is a circular argument and would paint both parties as bad.

 

Go back and read what I wrote. I thought the GOP should investigate, just as I believe the Dems should. That's part of our system, and I don't have a problem with it. I've also written that I don't believe, based on what I read, impeachments are warranted. So I don't see where I've been hypocritical in this. You seem to be for the GOP investigations and against the Dems, or am I misreading your point?

 

And I am certain the GOP will be back to their special prosecutor loving ways as soon as the tables turned. You know this goes back and forth.

[Balta1701]

This thread started with the New York Times calling for the AG to leave. Unsurprisingly, not many people seemed to care, since after all, it was the NYT opinion page, and even I'll grant that it's a left-leaning page.

 

Today, I continue this thread by noting that the National Review is now also calling for the AG's removal.

 

Blasted Commies @ the NR...

[mr_genius]

This thread started with the New York Times calling for the AG to leave. Unsurprisingly, not many people seemed to care, since after all, it was the NYT opinion page, and even I'll grant that it's a left-leaning page.

 

Today, I continue this thread by noting that the National Review is now also calling for the AG's removal.

 

Blasted Commies @ the NR...

 

since when do you read the National Review?

 

[Balta1701]

since when do you read the National Review?

 

Since they started calling for the removal of Mr. Gonzalez.

 

Actually I stumble through there on occasion when someone points at something either interesting or absurdly stupid.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Goodling. She Gawn.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Justice Department official Monica Goodling, who had raised controversy by invoking the 5th Amendment in her refusal to testify before Congress, resigned her job as counselor to the attorney general late Friday.

 

In a brief letter to Alberto Gonzales, Goodling gave no reason for her resignation but said it was effective April 7th.

 

"I am hereby submit my resignation to the Office of the Attorney General, effective April 7, 2007. It has been an honor to have served at the Department of Justice for the past five years," Goodling said.

 

"May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America," she concluded.

 

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

 

far as I know, this doesn't change her legal jeopardy any. If she doesn't show up to testify before Congress she'll still be in trouble.

[Balta1701]

So in case anyone wanted to know the sorts of U.S. attorneys who weren't fired, here we go.

n a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt.

 

Attorneys on both sides of the case said the three-judge panel likely overruled the trial jury's conviction of former state purchasing officer Georgia Thompson within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence.

 

The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which will explain the judges' reasoning, was not immediately available.

 

During oral arguments Thursday, one of the members the three-judge panel said the charges against Thompson were unfounded.

 

"I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood told prosecutors. "I'm not sure what your actual theory in this case is."

 

The court heard arguments in the case Thursday morning and then ordered a trial judge to free Thompson from a federal prison in Illinois, which she entered in November.

 

Thompson was a civil service employee last year when she was convicted of fraud after being accused of steering a state travel contract to a firm whose top officials were major campaign contributors to Doyle.

 

Her attorney, Stephen Hurley of Madison, argued that prosecutors never proved Thompson had been pressured by her superiors to deliver the contract to a company run by a major contributor to Doyle.

 

Hurley noted that the appeals court acquitted Thompson rather than sending her case back to a trial court.

 

Federal prosecutors could appeal the decision - the acquittal was stayed for 14 days to allow them to ask for a rehearing - but said they probably would not do so.

 

"It's extraordinary for a U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the day of oral arguments without a written opinion," Hurley said. "What they're saying is, 'There's no evidence, she's acquitted.'"

 

Doyle comments

 

Thompson's conviction was used to batter Doyle during his successful re-election campaign last year. Republican challenger Mark Green and allies blasted the governor for the case in television ads.

 

Thursday, Doyle praised the appeals court ruling but saved his strongest words for what he called "sensationalized media reports and partisan attacks" on his administration that turned Thompson into a "political football."

Bush appointee builds a case against a state government employee that winds up being tossed out by an appeals court as "beyond thin", not even sent back for trial. Case gets used to batter Democratic candidate in election race. I wonder how good that guy's rating was.

[Balta1701]

The House Judiciary Committee has served a subpoena to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seeking documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys.

[NorthSideSox72]

Details

[Balta1701]

Gosh. I'm. So. Shocked. (via the AP).

The White House said Wednesday it had mishandled Republican Party-sponsored e-mail accounts used by nearly two dozen presidential aides, resulting in the loss of an undetermined number of e-mails concerning official White House business.

 

Congressional investigators looking into the administration's firing of eight federal prosecutors already had the nongovernmental e-mail accounts in their sights because some White House aides used them to help plan the U.S. attorneys' ouster. Democrats were questioning whether the use of the GOP-provided e-mail accounts was proof that the firings were political.

[NorthSideSox72]

Gosh. I'm. So. Shocked. (via the AP).

Perhaps there should be an archive somewhere, maintained by the GAO or OMB (whichever one is the executive - I always forget), of all email traffic in and out of the servers for the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Something encrypted and locked up, to be accessed only via warrant or properly legal congressional investigation. Military or security-sensitive information would still, as I am sure it is now, maintain its existing protections. But the files would always be there for recall.

 

I have little time for privacy issues in the business of government, which should rarely be private at all.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Perhaps there should be an archive somewhere, maintained by the GAO or OMB (whichever one is the executive - I always forget), of all email traffic in and out of the servers for the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Something encrypted and locked up, to be accessed only via warrant or properly legal congressional investigation. Military or security-sensitive information would still, as I am sure it is now, maintain its existing protections. But the files would always be there for recall.

 

I have little time for privacy issues in the business of government, which should rarely be private at all.

 

It's pretty much impossible to lose email in any permanent sense, which is what makes this 'dog-ate-my-homework' strategy so absurd and pathetic. Even if the all copies of these emails have been deleted from the personal computers involved and even if the RNC email servers have been destroyed and replaced, how many other servers did the emails bump into and and still possibly reside on? I think the White House saying the emails were inappropriately deleted is telling the cybergeeks out there that it's fair game to hunt the "lost" communications down. There will be little chance of claiming Exec privilege to keep their contents private since the supposed reasonfor using the RNC accounts and computers was that it was for non-Executive political communication. On top of that, how vital to our national interests could it be that the secrecy in these emails be maintained if officials decided they didn't warrant the high level of security the White House system would have afforded?

 

The country is being run by the friggin' Keystone Cops.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's pretty much impossible to lose email in any permanent sense, which is what makes this 'dog-ate-my-homework' strategy so absurd and pathetic. Even if the all copies of these emails have been deleted from the personal computers involved and even if the RNC email servers have been destroyed and replaced, how many other servers did the emails bump into and and still possibly reside on? I think the White House saying the emails were inappropriately deleted is telling the cybergeeks out there that it's fair game to hunt the "lost" communications down. There will be little chance of claiming Exec privilege to keep their contents private since the supposed reasonfor using the RNC accounts and computers was that it was for non-Executive political communication. On top of that, how vital to our national interests could it be that the secrecy in these emails be maintained if officials decided they didn't warrant the high level of security the White House system would have afforded?

 

The country is being run by the friggin' Keystone Cops.

Well its not impossible to delete them, but its certainly hard to do. No arguments there. I just think that single repository with legally-protected access would be a decent way to keep people just the slightest bit more honest.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well its not impossible to delete them, but its certainly hard to do. No arguments there. I just think that single repository with legally-protected access would be a decent way to keep people just the slightest bit more honest.

 

I don't disagree with you at all. And in fact, we all know that providers like Earthlink and AOL et all would be in a world of trouble if they couldn't provide any and all relevant emails if presented with a properly executed warrant regardless of end-user intent to permanently delete those communications. From a technical standpoint it is no different here. RNC, if they cared to, can produce any and all or the emails from the backup servers or the tape backups to those backups that are SOP in the IT industry.

[StrangeSox]

They just don't care any more. They know that no one is going to by this BS excuse, but they just don't care.

[Balta1701]

They just don't care any more. They know that no one is going to by this BS excuse, but they just don't care.

Either that...or they think that whatever is in said emails would bring a worse response if released than they would get by "losing" them and facing either obstruction or contempt of Congress.

[Balta1701]

Perhaps there should be an archive somewhere, maintained by the GAO or OMB (whichever one is the executive - I always forget), of all email traffic in and out of the servers for the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Something encrypted and locked up, to be accessed only via warrant or properly legal congressional investigation. Military or security-sensitive information would still, as I am sure it is now, maintain its existing protections. But the files would always be there for recall.

 

I have little time for privacy issues in the business of government, which should rarely be private at all.

That's actually what the law requires. The Presidential Records Act, or whatever it is called, requires that all emails incoming and outgoing from the White House and folks working there be saved for future reference if ever needed.

 

But of course...when we turn the law over to these people, we see the results. They make a deliberate effort to hide their emails from future scrutiny by trying to run everything through an RNC system that they claim is not covered by the law, even though that maneuver is probably not legal. The emails are then on a server that only they control and which they have the ability to delete things from without anyone noticing because there's a compliant Congress not bothering with oversight. They then casually claim that they have lost emails and can not comply with a subpoena.

 

Summary of the story, and even text of the rules that are given to employees of the EOP specifically stating that all emails must go through white house addresses and be preserved, can be found @ that wapo link.

[Balta1701]

This should make things even more fun...via the non-partisan ethics watchdog CREW.

Today, CREW issued a new report, WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and Violations of the PRA, and made the shocking new disclosure that the Bush White House has lost over FIVE MILLION e-mails in a two year period. The report also details the legal issues behind the growing controversy over the White House e-mail scandal.

 

Through two confidential sources, 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.

[FlaSoxxJim]

We posted the exact same topic at the exact same time in two separate threads.

 

Good to see someone else procrastinating on his real work.

[FlaSoxxJim]

One important new wrinkle for Abu G. The latest Justice document dump includes an email that directly contradicts Gonzo's so carefully parsed written testimony that was published this past weekend:

 

ABC: Gonzales contradicts his own testimony.

 

“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ assertion that he was not involved in identifying the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign last year is at odds with a recently released internal Department of Justice e-mail, ABC News has learned. That e-mail said that Gonzales supported firing one federal prosecutor six months before she was asked to leave.”

 

If they just begin the questioning on that point and go from there, letting Gonzo try to reconcile all the conflicting storylines under oath, then we may see the sort of legal jeopardy ABC's Paul Kiel suggested we'd see:

 

For Gonzales, More Than His Job is on The Line

By Paul Kiel - April 16, 2007, 5:08 PM

 

From ABC News:

 

Ignoring calls for his ouster over the firing of several U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is set to testify before Congress tomorrow. It's a move experts say could rescue his political career, or cost him his job -- even send him to jail.

 

"It's suicidal," said Stanley Brand, one of the top ethics defense lawyers in Washington, D.C. Given the conflicting stories from Gonzales, his aides and top Justice Department officials about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, and to what extent Gonzales was involved in the process, the attorney general puts himself in criminal jeopardy by testifying under oath, Brand said....

 

"I've seen it before. People get indicted for false statements and perjury and obstruction of justice," Brand told ABC News. Brand recently represented ex-Interior Department official Stephen Griles, who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal.

 

What's so dangerous about simply telling the truth? Isn't it true that, like the old adage, the truth shall set you free?

 

"Not in my world," Brand retorted.

 

Adit to add:

 

More info on the email from Sampson that conflicts with the written testimony:

 

That e-mail said that Gonzales supported firing one federal prosecutor six months before she was asked to leave.... In his prepared testimony, Gonzales said that during the months that his senior staff was evaluating U.S. attorneys, including Lam, "I did not make the decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."

 

But the recently released e-mail from Sampson, dated June 1, 2006, indicated that Gonzales was actively involved in discussions about Lam and had decided to fire her if she did not improve. In the e-mail to other top Justice Department officials, Sampson outlined several steps that Gonzales suggested, culminating in Lam's replacement if she failed to bolster immigration enforcement.

 

So, my question: If Gonzo is asked to read his written testimony into the record under oath on Thursday, and it turns out the Sampson email is corroborated, wouldn't that constitute perjury?

Edited April 17, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

So, my question: If Gonzo is asked to read his written testimony into the record under oath on Thursday, and it turns out the Sampson email is corroborated, wouldn't that constitute perjury?

You can only hope.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You can only hope.

 

When he's out of office it will already be four years too late.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Judiciary committee to vote on Goodling immunity.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has scheduled a vote tomorrow to consider granting immunity to former Alberto Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, in order to secure her testimony about the U.S. Attorney scandal. “Two-thirds of the Committee must approve immunity.” Conyers’ statement:

 

“As the White House Liaison in the Department while the US Attorney firings were planned and carried out, Ms. Goodling clearly has much to contribute to the Committee’s understanding of the surrounding circumstances,” Conyers said. “I am hopeful we can approve immunity so that we can schedule her to testify as soon as possible and begin to clear up the many inconsistencies and gaps surrounding this matter.”