US Attorneys 86'ed.

Point of Order · May 10, 2007

Fenian_Bastard said:

Still more fun.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070510nj1.htm
Click to expand...

W................. T......................... F.........................?

I'm really not imaginitive enough to comprehend the level of corruption here.

Flying Headbutt · May 10, 2007

Wow, there is simply no credibility coming from anyone there anymore. Ever.

Point of Order · May 10, 2007

This was only the beginning.

Point of Order · May 16, 2007

Apparently there was some inner-administration turmoil over (presumably) the NSA wiretapping program. It had been going on for 2 years when DOJ was asked to authorize it's legality. From DoJ's James Comey:

** DoJ, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, opposed authorizing the legality of unspecified program (presumably warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.) Ashcroft soon afterwards gets very sick and goes into hospital, naming Comey acting AG.

** On orders of the President, White House Counsel Al Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card raced to the hospital in the night to get the groggy, sickly Ashcroft, who had made Comey the acting AG because of Ashcroft's health problems, to sign off on the program that all the top leaders at DoJ said was illegal, Ashcroft himself included.

** Comey, other DoJ officials, and then FBI Director Robert Mueller all race to the hospital to keep the parasites away and try to get Ashcroft to figure out where the hell he is.

** AG and AC arrive, pitch their plan to the AG, and he tells them he's not going to sign off on their pesky scheme.

** Card calls Comey to the White House, who says, that after the conduct he just witnessed from AG and AC, he won't meet with them without a witness present.

** Top brass at DoJ threaten to resign, Bush relents to changes to the program that DoJ think makes it legal.

You'll probably just have to see the video:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014173.php

Fenian_Bastard · May 16, 2007

I did.

dog428 · May 16, 2007

Parts of a recent Time story:

But critics say, under Bush, the connection between the White House and Justice became so close that it had to be formalized. When Gonzales testified last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a former U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island, produced documents and charts showing that under Bill Clinton, a policy was carried out that allowed only four people at the White House — the President, Vice President, White House counsel and deputy counsel — to discuss pending criminal cases with anyone at Justice and only with the top three officials of the department. Under Bush, that policy was loosened so that 417 White House staffers had that authority and could contact more than 30 people at Justice.
Click to expand...

Justice Department officials say that changes were made after 9/11 to improve coordination of investigations in cases regarding national security and that contacts occur only on those cases. But there were no such issues at stake when the U.S. Attorney for Seattle, John McKay, was making the case to be nominated for a federal judgeship last August. McKay claims the first question he got from Miers was "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me." The answer, McKay believed, was that during a very tight Governor's race in 2004, he had decided there was no merit to voter-fraud accusations that Republicans had lodged against the Democrats.

McKay also believes his refusal to prosecute those claims is why he wound up on the list of U.S. attorneys who were fired. "We expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when we make tough decisions like that," McKay told Tim Russert in March on Meet the Press. McKay had every reason to be surprised by his dismissal. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, the tough-minded Bush appointee who supervised McKay at the Justice Department from 2003 to 2005, has described him as a strong performer. "I was inspired by him," Comey told a House Judiciary subcommittee. He had similar praise for most of the others who were fired. "One of the best," he said of Paul Charlton of Arizona. "Straight as the Nevada highway and a fired-up guy ... He was loved in that community," of Daniel Bogden in Las Vegas. "Very straight, very able," Comey said of Iglesias in New Mexico.
Click to expand...

An often forgotten piece of this little puzzle:

As the U.S. attorney scandal unfolds, it may point to some things that are much more long-lasting: a political transformation of the department from the bottom rungs up, including nonpolitical career jobs. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the civil rights division, which has historically been the most fiercely apolitical division in the department and where voting-rights cases, among other things, are handled. In 2003, the Administration changed the rules to abolish the hiring committees made up of veteran career lawyers and gave that job instead to political appointees. Last year the Boston Globe, analyzing hiring data it had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reported that the ranks of the division were being filled with lawyers who had strong conservative credentials but little civil rights experience. That has shown up in the direction the division has taken, says Joseph Rich at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law.

Rich, a former chief of the voting section in the civil rights division who worked at the Justice Department for 35 years before leaving in 2005, says that from 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African-American or Native American voters. Instead, he alleges, U.S.attorneys were told to give priority to voter-fraud cases, which civil rights groups have long contended are actually meant to depress voter turnout in minority communities.

"In all the years I was in the Department of Justice, there was nothing close to the type of politicization that's occurring in this Administration," says Rich. "Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the Administration."

Rich has been particularly critical of Bradley Schlozman, who was chief of the division until March 2006, alleging that Schlozman tried to suppress minority voting in Missouri by filing indictments of activists who were registering voters. Justice points out that two of those indicted have since pleaded guilty. Schlozman, who did not reply to requests for comment, has been called to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 15. Justice insists it has vigorously enforced civil rights laws. Spokesman Dean Boyd said evaluations of department personnel have long involved "the input of both career management and political appointees."
Click to expand...

2muchcoffeeman · May 16, 2007

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254

Log in or Sign up

US Attorneys 86'ed.

Point of Order Active Member

Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

Point of Order Active Member

Point of Order Active Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

dog428 Active Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

US Attorneys 86'ed.

Point of Order Active Member

Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

Point of Order Active Member

Point of Order Active Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

dog428 Active Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches