| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/5/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46515 Activity:moderate |
5/2 Add "tampering with witnesses" and violating Federal law to
Gonzales' crimes. Do you really want to keep standing up for this guy?
http://www.csua.org/u/ilo
\_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America,
one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and justice for
Republicans. Everyone else gets the shaft."
\_ "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of
America, one nation, under the Christian God, with liberty and
justice for Republicans. Everyone else gets the shaft."
\_ Who are you talking to?
\_ This has been an ongoing conversation on the motd. See:
http://csua.com/2007/03/12/#45944
http://csua.com/2007/03/23/#46065
Et al
\_ Yes, I know, but I haven't seen anyone on motd defending
Gonzales.
\_ "It happens all the time." "...standard enough politics
to not be worth looking into.. The Dems are playing
lame-o gotcha games with Bush..." "I guess I don't
understand why this is a story. Almost every
president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with
their own. W decides to just replace a few. Therefore W
is bad? huh?"
\_ No no no. Those are people saying that the firing of
US attorneys was okay, not people saying Gonzales
should stay. Once he came out saying "duh, I wasn't
involved" he became indefensible.
\_ He should have said, "their hiring was a political
decision, they serve at the whim of the President,
their firing was a political decision, tough". But
he was stupid and should get replaced now not
because he broke any laws or is unethical, etc, but
because he is stupid. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.csua.org/u/ilo -> news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/justice_prosecutors_17 AP Justice probes hiring of prosecutors By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Wed May 2, 9:42 PM ET WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether its former White House liaison used political affiliations in deciding whom to hire as entry-level prosecutors in some US attorney offices around the country, The Associated Press has learned. The inquiry involving Monica Goodling, a conservative Republican who recently quit as counsel and White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raises new concerns that politics have cast a shadow over the independence of trial prosecutors who enforce US laws. Justice spokesman Dean Boyd confirmed Wednesday that the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility have been investigating for several weeks Goodling's role in hiring career attorneys -- an unusual responsibility for her to have had. Investigators are trying to determine whether Goodling "may have taken prohibited considerations into account during such review," Boyd told the AP. "Whether or not the allegation is true is currently the subject of the OIG/OPR investigation." Three government officials with knowledge of the investigation said Goodling appears to have sought information about party affiliation while vetting applicants for assistant US attorneys' jobs. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Separately, senators subpoenaed Gonzales on Wednesday directing him to provide any e-mails related to presidential adviser Karl Rove and the firings of eight federal prosecutors. "I don't want to comment on it without going back and talking to folks within the department," Gonzales said. Additionally, new documents surfaced Wednesday showing that at least four of the eight targeted US attorneys reported being told to stay quiet about their dismissals by Mike Elston, the top aide to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. The documents also indicate that one of the fired prosecutors was told by Associate Attorney General William Mercer that the dismissals were to make room for others to gain experience so the Republican Party would have a strong bench of candidates for federal judgeships. President Bush 's backing -- has resisted calls for his resignation in the controversy over the dismissals, which Democrats say appear to have been politically motivated. Last month, Goodling quit the Justice Department after refusing to testify to Congress about her role in the firings of eight US attorneys. House Judiciary Committee has voted to give Goodling immunity from prosecution for her testimony -- an offer that is being reviewed by the Justice Department to make sure it does not interfere with any criminal investigations. Goodling and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, also had authority to hire or fire about 135 politically appointed Justice Department employees who did not require Senate confirmation. Asked if he had ever heard of the agency's White House liaison getting involved in hiring of career prosecutors, Dennis Boyd, the executive director of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, said: "No, never." Boyd, who is no relation to the Justice Department spokesman, declined further comment. The investigation of Goodling appears to focus on her role in reviewing applications for trial prosecutors for offices headed by temporary or acting US attorneys who had not been confirmed by the Senate. That responsibility is usually handled by the Justice Department's executive office of US attorneys. Goodling had served in the executive US attorney's office until she was transferred to serve as Gonzales' counsel and primary White House contact. The internal Justice investigation concerns Goodling's review of job applicants only after she joined the attorney general's office, the government officials said. An official using political affiliation in choosing such applicants would clearly violate traditional Justice Department policy and practice, said Joe diGenova, who was the US attorney in the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration. "Politics should play no role in the decision-making process of career prosecutors. And if it does, that's clearly improper, and clearly a violation of all of the traditional policies in the Justice Department." Federal law also bars discrimination against employees or job applicants on the basis of political affiliation. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary panel released new statements from three of the dismissed US attorneys contending they received calls from McNulty chief of staff Elston, admonishing them to keep quiet. "I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the attorney general's," wrote Paul Charlton, the former US attorney in Arizona, according to statements released by the House panel. John McKay, former top prosecutor in Seattle, said he perceived a "threat" from Elston during his call. And Carol Lam, who was US attorney in San Diego, said that "during one phone call, Michael Elston erroneously accused me of 'leaking' my dismissal to the press, and criticized me for talking to other dismissed US attorneys." Elston's attorney, Bob Driscoll, said, "There certainly was no intention to threaten anybody." Daniel Bogden, the former US attorney for Nevada, said he was told he was being dismissed because the Bush administration had a short window to get others into prosecutor jobs to bolster their resumes. US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, left, speaks during a news conference in Oklahoma City, Wednesday, May 2, 2007, following a meeting with law enforcement, mental health, and higher education officials to discuss ways to make college campuses safer in the wake of the shooting deaths at Virginia Tech last month. John Richter, US Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, looks on at rear. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| csua.com/2007/03/12/#45944 IMO, if it is the latter, Pelosi's home is an inappropriate place for a protest. If they're protesting her lack of action in her political office, then the Office is the proper protest site. I think Bush throwing away decades of my great country's army, money, good will and moral authority down a giant rat hole for reasons I STILL CANT FIGURE OUT is a big enough deal that I think Bush can put up with a bunch of annoying people camped a mile from his door. So I guess every administration fires \_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without Senate approval. But of course, no one in our government ever abuses the Patriot Act! Are they really that petty that they would devote a lot of time over firing a few federal prosecutors who weren't sufficiently anti-Democrat? Maybe this is better than Ashcroft's obsession with prosecuting porn, but I'm not sure. I like how they originally thought for a brief amount of time that they should fire EVERY SINGLE federal prosecutor and replace them with Bush friendly appointees. But of course, no one in our government ever abuses the Patriot Act! com) \_ I'm not the op, but what's wrong with posting a link to a blog? It's also worth noting that TPM isn't just some random blog, it has a readership that rivals some newspapers. TPM is clearly a liberal source, but, last I checked, having a variety of viewpoints strengthens debate. Why not post a link to a conservative source on the story? I took a look on little green footballs but he doesn't appear to have a post about this. Well, that or people impersonating tom being an asshole with NPD, which is equally amusing. Also, I am recovering from NPD, which is why I am able to admit I have it unlike Tom and also why I would like to help him. One usally have to eviscerate tom's points before he resorts to insulting you. Though being shockingly hypocritical is totally in character for tom since, in his head, it all makes sense. com) The Times notes that on 24 March 1993 AG Reno demanded the resignation of all US Attorneys for an arguably political reason - to stop the on-going investigation of Dan Rostenkowski. The accusation is that they were fired because they refused to open potentially politically damaging investigations of Dems for corruption just prior to the '06 elections. If they're being fired because of incompetence or failure to do their jobs, that's one thing; if they're being punished for not caving in to political pressure to open spurious investigations for political gain, that's something else entirely. BUSHCO won the 04 election, they can decide how they want to run the DOJ. If that means they want to get rid of US attorneys they don't like, that is w/in their executive discretion. I agree that BUSHCO acted in a potentially stupid and short-sighted manner and have set a very bad precedent for future administrations, but there isn't anything "wrong" w/ what they have done; it was completely w/in their discretion to act like a bunch of idiots. NOTE: I agree that if the new appointments are done w/o senate approval and by abusing the Patriot act, then the appointments are VERY suspect and maybe illegal, but I cannot agree that they dismissals rise to that level. Appointing cronies w/o senate approval, I think, crosses the line. So subverting the justice system for political gain is just hunky dory? Justice can't be subverted so long as the judiciary remains independent of the executive. The real issue here is merely whether BUSHCO acted w/in its discretion in dismissing attorneys who worked for it. ALGOR fired a bunch of US attorneys for failing to start politically motivated investigations against big oil, would it even be a "scandal"? BUSHCO, like every other administration, is also free to appoint whoever they want as replacement attorneys provided that they do not bypass the approval process. Bypassing the approval process is arguably subvertion of justice. It looks *really* stupid, but if BUSHCO wants to act like a bunch of idiots, that is w/in their discretion (and not really out of char- acter). |
| csua.com/2007/03/23/#46065 I keep hearing about Iran and heavy water but I have no chemistry fu and I don't understand how you can magically turn water molecules into the bomb. D2O has less neutron absorbtion cross-section, so reactors which use D2O as a moderator have more neutrons available for longer. SPECULATION: Because more neutrons are available for longer, perhaps it's possible to convert more U238 into plutonium in the reactor, which is prime bomb-making material. Deuterium is also a component in the more powerful hydrogen bomb. all this talk about fast and slow neutrons is just marketing. it was just a 1940s drink that became popular in germany. it's kinda like what norweigan VOSS WATER is today to with the paris hilton crowd. all this talk about fast and slow neutrons is just viral marketing chain reaction. Notice how the top 3/4's of the story spews so much irrelevant chaff, focusing on how Reagan/Clinton/Dubya fired most/all attorneys when they came to power. Only toward the end do you get: "When you have a transition between presidents - especially presidents of different parties - a US attorney anticipates that you will be replaced ... is that once you become a US attorney you have to leave politics at the door." com) The perversion of truth -- especially the willful, disingenuousness attitude that permeates the Republican Party today -- disgusts me. The Democratic party is absolutely in no way shape or form ethically or morally superior to the Republicans. And btw, how dare the LAT actually tell it's readers that all USAGs expect to be replaced? Let's not tell anyone anything that might soften the political damage to the evil Bush even if it is the truth and relevant to the story. I think both parties are guilty of stupidity and petty politics designed to keep them- selves in power; That said, the Bush Admin has done so in a much more blatant and egregious manner. I expect corruption, but I would prefer some decorum and a modicum of circumspection along the way. op \_ You have Democratics currently in office in positions of great power, even holding Chair positions who were caught red handed in bribery scandals, in land scams, in having $90k in cash stuffed in their fridge, using the IRS to punish political enemies, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Don't come on here and try to tell me the Bush Admin is more blatant and egreious about anything. I don't find bribery, theft, fraud, and fridge stuffing to be less corrupt or more circumspec or providing more decorum than what the Bush admin has done with the USAG firings. In comparison the USAG thing is trivial BS and I find it ridiculous and insulting anyone cares *at all* about this compared with everything else going on in *both* parties. Do any of the things I mentioned about the Dems upset you at all? Or would they only be worth mentioning if they were Republicans? And hey, how about stuffing that Iraq funding bill with Democratic pork? who's engaged in corruption, bribery, or abuse of power. How can your outrage over Dem corruption not spill over into the arena of egregious abuse of the US Atty system to punish political enemies? Before pointing out the mote in my eye, howzabout dealing with the beam in your own? I'd like to see a URL that says why they were fired and not from a NYT op/ed piece. Show me a reliable source that says they were fired for not punishing political enemies. You continue to weigh ethical violations much heavier than ethical violations even when the actual events don't match up like that. Canning a few prosecutors who server at your whim and aren't on the same political page (and understood the deal when they accepted the job) or stuffing bribe money in your fridge as an elected representative of the American people at the highest levels of government? Go ahead and say the fridge stuffing isn't as bad and we can stop right there. The firing is just hard ball politics and although unfortunate for the guys sacked, TS. for some level of orthodoxy among jews, to write the name of god on anything that might be erased, destroyed, damaged, etc, is profane. I appreciate that you're frustrated that the fridge investigation has faltered (and yes, it should be investigated fully), but it's not being held up just because Congress is investigating Presidential abuse of power (ie, firing USAtys for not pursuing political opponents). If fridge-stuffer is guilty of accepting bribes, jail his ass. If AG fired the US Atys because they wouldn't persecute the opposition, can his ass. Also, didn't the FBI say they had Jefferson on video taking a bribe? Right now, there appears to be more evidence of dickery in the White House than in Jefferson's fridge! Almost every president fires all the attorneys and replaces them with their own. An across-the-board replace wouldn't have raised eyebrows; demanding loyalty oaths to The Leader is another thing entirely. you can fire them for incompetence or if they are not "getting with the program" but the program cannot be political prosecutions. at this point there is probably nobody guilty of a legal crime in the executive branch, but certainly people can be tried in the court of public opinion for being mendacious, unprincipled sacks of shit. it is reasonable to hypotheteize "ALBERTO has made the DOJ a wing of the white house" ... i think people are free to hold that against BUSHCO just like they are free to hold CLINTON being a serial adulterer against him. much of this turns on the relatively simple distinction between political and partisan. the doj can have poltical priorities like going after sodomites and drug fiends instead of antitrust, but it cannot be a partisan enforcer like a party whip of chairman who withhold appointments or $$$ from you. Seems pointless to me, there are pleanty of actual things he's done wrong to hold against him. Your "firing the black people" analogy is obviously a completely false analogy. You think it's morally superior to fire everybody, then only rehire white people? If you only want to get rid of a few people, don't make everyone go through the unemployment ringer. yes, i commented early on it is odd congress is fixating on this when there is katerina incompetence, iraq incompetence, not catching osama, the plutocrati- zation of society etc. at least wrt to the iraq war, congress feels they have "clean hands" here. It implies an understanding that the appearance of propriety, while not sufficient in and of itself, is necessary. I can't argue with that, I just don't see any moral difference. I can't see anything wrong at all with using postage to send out mail as "Socks the Cat." That warranted 140 hours of testimony UNDER OATH to determine that nothing improper happened. Is there a moral difference between that possible impropriety and this? I can't even find this story, just dem blogs whining about it. I never said the lame-o Rep attempts to get Clinton were ok, so get off it. That's what you seem to be saying with "I guess I don't understand why this is a story." Somehow pulling out old D talking points I don't recall that then saying I'm too "short for this discussion" seems amazingly lame though. I don't like hardball politics to begin with, so I'm not going to say firings were 'proper,' but they aren't unusual. The Dems are playing lame-o gotcha games with Bush, just like the Rs did with Clinton. What you call "gotcha games" is what most people call "Congress's job". And then they're unusual in that the AG lied in his testimony on the subject. I think the Democrats obviously think they have a winner here or they would not be pushing so hard. There are people in both parties who don't get it, but I would say I have a tougher time selling those things to the Republicans." Anything that challenges that belief is automatically rejected like tissue from a donated organ ... Just like trying to convince an evangelical Christian about the validity of evolution. This is true regardless of whether human caused global warming is true or not -- it just can't be true even if it is true. it might be interesting to see if "structure over ideology" holds true over all the states or if in some states ideology wins out, say goldwater l... |