Number Of White House Officials Allowed To Intervene In DoJ Cases Jumps By 10,325 Percent
Number Of White House Officials Allowed To Intervene In DoJ Cases Jumps By 10,325 Percent
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House — the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel — who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.” There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department “be independent from” the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases. Watch it:
When asked to respond, Gonzales simply replied, “I do recall being concerned about that as White House counsel.”
Transcript:
WHITEHOUSE: Back to structure again, Attorney General Gonzales. I assume that we can agree with the proposition that in the enforcement of the laws the Department of Justice should be independent.
GONZALES: Yes, sir.
WHITEHOUSE: Can we also agree that one of the institutions of government that the Department of Justice needs to be independent from, in the enforcement of the laws is the White House?
GONZALES: No question about it, Senator. If you’re talking about prosecuting someone in the White House, yes, we should be independent from them when we’re making those kind of decisions.
WHITEHOUSE: And, indeed, over long history there have been concerns about influence from the White House to the Department of Justice, and people, indeed members of this committee, have expressed concern about the White House-Justice connection over many years. Is that not also correct?
GONZALES: I think that’s a legitimate concern. I think that’s very important. I think it’s one of the reasons, for example, that Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself in connection with the Plame investigation.
WHITEHOUSE: The documents that I have given you are two letters. One is from Attorney General Reno to Lloyd Cutler, the special counsel of the president, dated September 29th, 1994. It lays out the policy for contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice in the Clinton administration.
And to give credit where credit is due, it’s my understanding that the distinguished Senator Hatch, who was then the chairman of this committee, had substantial interest in this and viewed it as a significant area of oversight. And I want to commend him for that.
And what it does — the language is behind me — it says that, with regard to initial contacts involving criminal or civil matters, they should only involve the White House counsel or deputy counsel, or the president or vice president, and the attorney general or deputy or associate attorney general, period.
The more recent memorandum, the other document that you have in front of you is from April 15th, 2002. It represents the policy of the Bush administration regarding White House-Department of Justice contacts.
And there, in the highlighted part on the front, it says that these contacts regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases should take place only between the office of the deputy attorney general and the office of the counsel to the president.
And then, if you flip back to the very last page, there’s sort of an exemption paragraph that exempts further the president, the vice president, the counsel to the president, national security and Homeland Security officials, staff members of the office of the attorney general as so designated, and staff of the office of the president, the office of the vice president, the office of the counsel to the president, the National Security Council and the office of Homeland Security.
So I asked my staff to take a look at what the difference was between those two in effect, and if you could.
This is in effect during the previous administration. This is the Clinton protocol. And there were four people — the president, the vice president, the deputy White House counsel and the White House counsel — who could participate in these kind of discussions about cases and matters and initiate them with the Department of Justice.
And on the Department of Justice side, the only people who were qualified to engage in those discussions were the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general.
So they had narrowed very carefully the field of people who could have these discussions, which I think is a very important safeguard — to narrow that porthole, to police it. It’s almost like there’s an airlock there for those communications.
Now, here’s the result that I asked my staff to put together, if you count all the people who are eligible under the new program.
That, to me — your staff can check on exactly how accurately we’ve done it — but there are, I want to say, five — what were the numbers?
(CROSSTALK)
WHITEHOUSE: 417 folks in the White House who are eligible to have these contacts and…
(CROSSTALK)
WHITEHOUSE: About 30-some in the Department of Justice.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When asked to respond, Gonzales simply replied, “I do recall being concerned about that as White House counsel.â€
“We recognised the flaws. I was looking into ways to make sure that the number reached an even million….”
Cheers,
April 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pm“But… but… Clinton did it too!”
Um… no, he didn’t…
April 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pmThis was absolutely the best jaw-dropping moment of the entire hearings yesterday!
April 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pmYeah, well Jimmy Carter was responsible for scheduling the White House tennis court times while he was President too. Sounds like that bottleneck problem was finally resolved too.
BTW: every President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pmUm, yes he did, KRank.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pmYeah, well Jimmy Carter was responsible for scheduling the White House tennis court times while he was President too. Sounds like that bottleneck problem was finally resolved too.
BTW: every President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
So, it’s “michael” now, is it Jake? You got tired of pretending to be “Elizabeth”?
Too bad your arguments haven’t improved. Nor your reading comprehension. Ah, well, we’re used to it.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pmcheck the chart…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
April 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pmUm, yes he did, KRank.
Um, no he didn’t, moron.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:10 pmNote to michael: “Clinton did it, too…”, even though he didn’t, isn’t going to work here.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Cinton did it, too. So did Pelosi.”
April 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pmSo the Decider decided to neglect that part of the Republican party mantra that calls for less government. Another item to check off the list that the Republicans can’t stand for.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:15 pmOkay then, putting aside ALL of Clinton’s first term nominations for now, you are seriously claiming that NONE of the following were nominated as U.S. Attorneys based on “political consideration” at all:
1997 — Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, or Sharon Zealey?
1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, or Jose Rivera?
1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., Carl Schnee?
2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, or Audrey Fleissig?
How many were registered Republicans then?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI don’t know who Jake or Elizabeth are.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pmFamily values? ask Foley, Rudy, Newt or Wolfowitz about that. Less Government? just read this thread. Fiscal responsibility? too many to name here.
What will the republicans offer in 2008? What platform do they think they can stand on?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:17 pm“Michael”:
Do you think that it is better to have fewer people from the executive branch able to influence DoJ business? Or is it better to have more people with that authority?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pmSo, Clinton was a smarter and more organized President. That’s been crystal clear for a long time now.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:21 pmwe’re the “new” gop, and we spell “good government” “c-r-o-o-k-e-d c-l-u-s-t-e-r-f-*-c-k”
April 20th, 2007 at 1:21 pmMichael: “How many were registered Republicans then?”
The question is how many were involved in cases potentially harmful to his administration. That’s always been the issue with Bush’s prosecutor firings and it still is, dumbass.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pmTaking just the FIRST such nominee, here’s the Crowell & Moring announcement when Ms. Lewis eventually joined their firm:
“Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, will join the firm’s litigation practice as a Partner based out of the Washington, DC office, on June 1 . . . As the first presidentially appointed female and second African-American to hold the position of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ms. Lewis has managed and supervised the largest U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country, with over 700 attorney and support staff personnel.”
April 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pm“Clinton did it too.”
Shut the hell up. ALL politicians lie to the public. Does that mean that lying to the public is okay? Come on people. This is basic right/wrong stuff here you should have figured out in kindergarten. I was surprised when I heard that presidents routinely fire attorneys when they take office. What a way to not politicize the judicial branch. Who cares if it’s legal and everyone does it. I care if it’s right or not and firing any US attorney for political reasons is WRONG. If it happens to be legal, we need to change the rules as quickly as we can.
And as has been explained over and over again (apparently without some people even paying attention) these ‘routine’ firings of attorneys take place WHEN THE PRESIDENT TAKES OFFICE, no in the middle of his term. This is UNUSUAL and therefore demands scruitiny. My only problem is while the world is focused on this scandal, what else is the president doing that we DON’T hear about.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pmMore than those four, KRank.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pmOkay then, putting aside ALL of Clinton’s first term nominations for now, you are seriously claiming that NONE of the following were nominated as U.S. Attorneys based on “political consideration†at all:
1997 — Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, or Sharon Zealey?
1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, or Jose Rivera?
1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., Carl Schnee?
2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, or Audrey Fleissig?
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Nice try at moving the goalposts, “Michael”. The issue is not who was nominated as replacements. The issue is why there were vacancies to fill.
All but two of the names you cited above were chosen to fill positions that had been vacated by voluntary retirements, promotions to judgeships or voluntary moves to private sector positions.
Two USAs were asked to step down during Clinton’s term. One was caught on videotape choking a reporter, the other allegedly bit an exotic dancer in a strip club. I would say those firings were justified.
I know you don’t care, as you’ll just keep swinging this wet towel of a talking point as long as it’s still spraying a little bit of water. But when you come up with a new angle like this one, where you try to manipulate actual facts to create a false impression, you should be smacked down.
But all of this, of course, just distracts from the issue of the thread, which is your primary objective anyway. Remember the issue of the thread? The massive expansion of eligible contacts between the WH and DoJ?
And if you’re NOT Jake or Elizabeth, then you must have at least stumbled on the notes they left behind in the troll booth.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThat’s a good follow-up question, Bluedog49. Do you think Clinton will be asked EITHER question?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pmQ: how many high profile defectors from the republican party have their been in the last 6 years??
A: a large enough # that any republican with a conscience and a shred of common sense would be laying low right now, and wondering how to get the stink washed off.
our beloved trollies are nothing but comic relief – they’re sure as hell not representative of the republicans in general, least of all those who will be elected to office in coming years.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pmswordsbane:
Since when was 1997 to 2000 “not in the middle” of Clinton’s terms (or even the very end, as I recall, Ted McBride was nominated on August 5th, just 3 months before Bush beat Gore)?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pm“Michael” (aka Jake) is once again trying to derail the thread using one of the most potent weapons in his arsenal:
floating completely irrelevant, yet-easily-debunked talking points that appear as easy prey for well-informed individuals. They are designed to take the discussion off-track.
I took the bait once, please don’t make the same mistake I did. Let him go on about his merry way. Ignore him.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pmswordsbane:
Since when was 1997 to 2000 “not in the middle†of Clinton’s terms (or even the very end, as I recall, Ted McBride was nominated on August 5th, just 3 months before Bush beat Gore)?
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Two USAs were asked to step down during Clinton’s term. One was caught on videotape choking a reporter, the other allegedly bit an exotic dancer in a strip club. I would say those firings were justified.
Comment by KRank — April 20, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Michael… meet KRank. I never said appointing them was the issue.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pmYes, at the beginning of their term and NOT to stop investigations into the own party dumb fu*k.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm#26…thanks for the reminder.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pmThis is not surprising. Remember, Paul O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury Secretary said that in the Bush Whitehouse, it was ALL POLITICS, all the time; no policy discussions to speak of – just political.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pmKRank, didn’t the “massive expansion” issue come up in the context of the U.S. Attorney replacements? I don’t know what “notes” you think I found. I got those nominations right off the Clinton Library webpage. Do you think Clinton is going to answer YOUR question whether any were fired (rather than mine about nominated) for “political considerations”? How do you know the “voluntary” retirements, promotions, or moves to private sector positions were not based on White House initiated “political considerations”? I don’t. That’s why I want the questions asked.
Once we establish that’s been the Standard Operating Procedure, then I would be happy to discuss why more than four people in modern White Houses need to be able to talk to DoJ. Unless you think it was fine for President Carter to personally schedule tennis courts too?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:39 pmMichael, you didn’t answer Krank’s question: Is it better to have more people or fewer people in the White House who can influence the Justice Department?
All you said was, “more than those four”. Why? What principles guide your judgement? Why is 440 people better than 4? Seems to me like just more people that the AG can’t keep track of.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI’ll bet his memory would improve if they interrogated him using Gonzales approved questioning techniques!
April 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pmThis is not surprising. Remember, Paul O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury Secretary said that in the Bush Whitehouse, it was ALL POLITICS, all the time; no policy discussions to speak of – just political.
Comment by Bluedog49 — April 20, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Besides, when you have an Attorney General who has the kind of memory problems admitted to yesterday, it’s probably best to keep things as simple as possible for him.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pmSpudge_Boy,
Since when was 1997 to 2000 “not in the middle†of Clinton’s terms (or even the very end, as I recall, Ted McBride was nominated on August 5th, just 3 months before Bush beat Gore)? Putting aside the two cases KRank mentioned, that leaves 31 other Clinton replacements above. How do you KNOW none of those were to stop investigations into his own party? We know some of Clinton’s replacements at the beginning of his term stopped investigations.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pmBTW: every President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Then isn’t it amazing that this particular president could f*** it up so badly when the others all got off scot free? Heckuva job, Fredo. Heckuva job, Bush.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThe MSM is all over Gonzales. This is choice:
Comment by Byron York:
Judging by his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, there are three questions about the U.S. Attorneys mess that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants answered: What did I know? When did I know it? And why did I fire those U.S. Attorneys?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pmmikey r,
As you noted, Krank’s question was “Is it better to have more people or fewer people in the White House who can influence the Justice Department?” My response that MORE than those four named, I think, does answer that question.
To answer YOUR follow-up question, even before 9/11, I want as many people interacting between govenrment departments as it takes to effectively carry out their tasks. Obviously, either too few or too many can decrease that effectiveness. After 9/11, we definitely need more coordination, not less, to fight the terrorists. Now, I don’t know that 440 people is necessarily better than 40, to pick a random number, but I don’t see any way a war can be won by limiting such contact to four either. That’s why I answered Krank’s question as I did.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pmclinton this clinton that – what a WEAK and LAME bunch of pathetic excuse-making, from the world’s premier batch of lame and pathetic excuse-makers: Righties.
get a life trollies – go back to stalking children in the park or hangin at the gun range with your “down low” buddies or something – all you do in a place like this is make yourselves laughingstocks, and further contribute to the demise of your malignant political movement.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pmDumb a$$. “For political reasons” is not the problem. Stop repeating the same non-important, non-issue statement. That is not the issue here. You need new talking points. This one didn’t even need debunking, as it is not important.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pmVerbalKint,
Every President before Clinton got off (no pun intended) with adultery as well. I completely agree Bush is being held to a double-standard now though.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pmBecause there was a republican lead Congress that was willing to make this country the laughing stock of the worlld by impeaching for a blow job. You don’t think they would have gone after him for firing people investigating him? You are a moron.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pmFine, Spudge_Boy, if you will concede that every President replaces U.S. Attorneys for “political considerations” how do you that KNOW none of those were to stop investigations into his own party as well? As I said, we KNOW some of Clinton’s replacements at the beginning of his term involved investigations into Democrats, including Whitewater in Arkansas.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI don’t think there was a “republican lead Congress” until 1997.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:58 pmWhy, he hasn’t been impeached for getting a blow job from Jeff Gannon? Or was that giving. I think Gannon is a power bottom, according to his male prostitution web site, so that would mean Bush blew Gannon, not the other way around.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pmMichael, just because there’s a need to share information between security agencies doesn’t mean squat when it comes to contacts between the White House and Justice department. The reason the restrictions were in place during the Clinton administration were precisely to prevent this kind of taint on the Department from taking hold. Don’t you see? The Justice Department needs to be insulated from political influence in order to be effective. Security agencies need to NOT be isolated from each other in order to be effective. So your anaolgy doesn’t work.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pmmichael: “As I said, we KNOW some of Clinton’s replacements at the beginning of his term involved investigations into Democrats, including Whitewater in Arkansas.”
Say, what became of that $70 million Whitewater investigation? They must have really had the goods on the Clintons to spend that much money investigating a 20-year old land deal.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:01 pm“I don’t think there was a “republican lead Congress†until 1997.”
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Well then what was all that hoopla about a “Contract On America” in 1994? Jeezus, what kind of troll doesn’t even know his own party’s victories?
April 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pmIf a president didn’t fire every attorney at the beginning of their term for political reasons, I would think there is something wrong with them.
If I got a job working somewhere that was filled with people who had a completely different view of the world than I did and I had the power to get rid of them, I would do it in a heart beat. Like you for instance. I would bounce you on your a$$, as I would expect you to do the same with me.
But, you don’t get rid of people that you appointed, mid-term for investigating you and your friends. That is what is at issue here.
Now, post proof Clinton did it.
BTW: I am not a big Clinton fan. Either one of them and you have been posting here long enough to know that. So, prove me wrong or prove yourself right more importantly.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pmRepublcains took over in 1994, 1995 if you want to be technical.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI don’t think there was a “republican lead Congress†until 1997.
Forgotten the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 already?
The 104th, 105th and 106th Congresses, spanning from January 1995 until January 2001, were Republican-controlled.
Do some research, please.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI think there’s common ground here, and that is this:
The George W. Bush administration is the worst, dumbest, most incompetent, self-serving, over-politicized, radical, screwed-up, balls-to-the-wall, biggest bunch of moronic pieces of shit ever to call themselves a government. To call this administration a “government” is indeed to tarnish the word “government.” “Goatscrew-clusterfuck” doesn’t even come close.
There’s nothing this administration can’t fuck up and nothing it can’t fuck up more spectacularly than anyone ever imagined it could be fucked up. Airline security = little bottles of hand lotion — now THAT is an accomplishment.
Let’s just face the reality: George W. Bush and all of his minions, with a platoon of Boy Scouts, a GPS-receiver, a map, and a White House tour guide couldn’t find his own ass on the best day he ever had.
Gonzales is merely the latest manifestation of the world-historic catastrophe that was visited upon the American people by the so-called “Supreme” Court in 2000. The only word that comes close to capturing what this administration has done is the term the Germans used to describe the end of World War II, der Zusammenbrueck
But then, that’s what you get when you vote for a party that doesn’t believe in government — incompetent governing.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pmGood luck proving gay sex with the President, Spudge Boy.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pmP.S. you said “Congress” took over, not just the House, if you want to be technical.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pmmikey r:
Last time I checked, the FBI and ATF are part of the Justice Department. The U.S. Attorneys, in case you didn’t know, are also part of DoJ and would also prosecute any of those national security defendants.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThat conclusion on Whitewater is based on hindsight, Bluedog49. No one knew that in 1993 when Clinton dismissed the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas. He also dismissed the U.S. Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowski. How do we KNOW the mid and late-term replacements were for the very same reasons?
April 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pmTrekkie and charles, I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Senate turned GOP until 1997.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pmP.S. you said “Congress†took over, not just the House, if you want to be technical.
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
The Senate after the 1994 elections, was Republican-controlled, 54-46. The House was Republican-controlled 230-202. So even “technically” you are WRONG. I might add that you are also a BONEHEAD.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm“Last time I checked, the FBI and ATF are part of the Justice Department. The U.S. Attorneys, in case you didn’t know, are also part of DoJ and would also prosecute any of those national security defendants.”
Comment by michael
Thanks for taking the time to see my point — NOT! Are you really this dense or are you just determined to not give an inch no matter how stupid it makes you look? How does more people in the White House talking to the Justice Dept. help intelligence agencies coordinate their efforts? It doesn’t. Your point was about intelligence aganecies sharing information with each other, not with WH officials. Wouldn’t that poentially compromise investigations?
April 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm“And to give credit where credit is due, it’s my understanding that the distinguished Senator Hatch, who was then the chairman of this committee, had substantial interest in this and viewed it as a significant area of oversight. And I want to commend him for that.”
SNAP!
Nothing like throwing Hatch’s previous political hackery back in his droopy face.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThanks for the correction, charles. No need to get personal though. I do recall there were some Republicans upset about Clinton and Reno changing all U.S. Attorneys in 1993, but there was not anywhere near the same level of attention after 1995 regardless.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pm13 overnight stays is enough proof for me.
You are wrong. The republicans took over during the 1994 election and took their seats in 1995.
Now, are you ignoring the provide proof part of the debate we are having and now are focused on Bush being gay?
PS House Reps are called Congressmen and Senators are called, well Senators.
That doesn’t take away form the fact that you haven’t provided proof that CLinton did what Bush did.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHave you called your Senators and Representatives today? Please tell them to get Gonzo gone. And stop feeding the trolls, it just encourages them.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pmmichael: “No one knew that in 1993 when Clinton dismissed the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas.”
michael, you’ve already demonstrated that your memory is a little weak on the 90’s. Let me remind you: The Resolution Trust Corporation, run by mostly republicans, decided in 1994 that the Clintons had done nothing wrong with respect to Whitewater. The $70 million investigation was initiated after the RTC’s findings. So, you’re factually wrong – people did know by late ‘93 that there was nothing there.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pmmikey r:
Are you so dense to not realize that combatting terrorism takes more than the intelligence agencies coordinating their efforts? Catching them and prosecuting them afterwards is pretty important too. My point was about the thread “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.†As for poentially compromising investigations, even ONE person can do that. See, e.g. Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky . . .”
April 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWhy not? Your fu*ked up party affects me personally. So, why shouldn’t things be personal. This isn’t littel league soccer that people can ignore. This is the American Federal Government.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThere were more homosexuals (starting with David Geffin) who stayed overnight at the Clinton White House, and no one used that as “proof” Bill was gay. Nice try though. Now that I have the names of U.S. Attorneys that Clinton nominated after the beginning of his term, I am indeed looking into whether there were any pending investigations and why those were replaced. Even the ones who said they were “voluntarily” leaving. I will let you know what I find.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pmGood point, Moonbat Leah. I will stop feeding these trolls and go eat lunch myself. See you later.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pmMust have been a shift change for the Trolls, eh?
Hey KKKARL! Can you please send someone who’s not a complete idiot over here to spread feces & talk crap?
j.j. was bad, but Michael, apparently, never even got his G.E.D.
What’s that? Oh, you’re running out of any intelligent trolls. Spread a little thin, eh? I understand, it’s been a tough week for you Neoturds.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThere were more homosexuals (starting with David Geffin) who stayed overnight at the Clinton White House, and no one used that as “proof†Bill was gay. Nice try though. Now that I have the names of U.S. Attorneys that Clinton nominated after the beginning of his term, I am indeed looking into whether there were any pending investigations and why those were replaced. Even the ones who said they were “voluntarily†leaving. I will let you know what I find. Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I didn’t realize David Geffen (spell is name correctly, if you’re going to use it Jake*ss) was a male hooker! Nice try on the comparison though!
Dum bass.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pmGood point, Moonbat Leah. I will stop feeding these trolls and go eat lunch myself. See you later. Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
So you went to lunch – to feed the troll. Ironic! Dum bass.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:50 pmSo now Jake has taken on the name of michael.
Hey Jake, when will you be Zooey?
April 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pmTrekkie and charles, I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Senate turned GOP until 1997.
You’re wrong. Senator Bob Dole was Majority Leader from 1995 until he resigned from the Senate in June 1996 to run against President Clinton. Then Senator Trent Lott was Majority Leader from June 1996 until January 2001.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmSo, let me get this straight. You keep saying Clinton did it too and you are just now researching it? You don’t even know when your one party took over Congress? And you want people here to think you know what your talking about?
Jebus, that is insane!!!!!
April 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pmDear Michael,
April 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pmThe USA that was replaced by Clinton in Arkansas was Charles Banks. You should Google that name. If you did, you would discover that in 1990, after a referral by the RTC into Whitewater that Mr. Banks and the FBI concluded that the investigation didn’t “warrant any criminal investigation”. When pressured by USAG William Barr on the matter, Mr. Banks wrote in a memo “I believe it amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Dept. of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions…”
So the USA that you say was fired by Clinton after the election was his biggest supporter in terms the clearly political motivated investigation into Whitewater before the 1992 election.
Dumb fu*k, it is impossible for a progressive to be a troll at a progressive site. It is impossible for a Playstation fan to be a troll at a Playstation site. It is impossible for a monster truck fan to be a troll at a site dedicated to monster trucks.
Why don’t you go research the garbage you are spewing here and provide some proof to back up what you have been claiming all morning.
And while you are at it, Google “Internet troll” moron.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pmAre you so dense to not realize that combatting terrorism takes more than the intelligence agencies coordinating their efforts? Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Yeah, it takes competence. Something you, and your GOP friends always find yourselves severely lacking in. Too bad you didn’t pay more attention to those LIBRUL PROFESSORS that tried to teach you to think for yourself Jake*ss.
Catching them and prosecuting them afterwards is pretty important too. Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Yet how many prosecutions have we had since 2001? Clinton had more prosecutions – and unlike you *ssh*les – he caught the people that were responsible and successfully prosecuted them!
My point was about the thread “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.†As for poentially compromising investigations, even ONE person can do that. See, e.g. Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky . . .†Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
That doesn’t even make any sense Jake*ss. For one, Clinton wasn’t successfully prosecuted, and the *crime* wasn’t relevant to any ongoing criminal case by the government. More Clinton Derangement Syndrome – how sad. I’ll help you out michael/jake, Clinton is NOT the president, and hasn’t been for years. But if he were, he wouldn’t have been as incompetent, corrupt and as st*pid as this administration.
Then again, I think you like incompetent, corrupt and st*pid. Reminds you of yourself – doesn’t it Jake*ss?
April 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pmOne correction to my post. In 1990, Charles Banks prosecuted Jim McDougal for alleged bank crimes, but was acquitted. It was on Oct 16th 1992…3 weeks before the election, that Mr. Banks wrote his memo.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI’m back. Sorry I misspelled Mr. Geffen’s name, above, but my point was that more than 13 homosexuals spent the night at the Clinton White House. I have no idea how many have ever been paid for sex. I also have no idea who Jake or Zooey are. And yes, I looked that up on the Senate webpage myself and thanked someone for the correction already about Bob Dole — I’m not the first to forget Dole — but thank you as well, Trekkie. At least you didn’t call me a “bonehead” or “*ssh*les”
P.S. to Jospeh P — thanks for the info, I doubt Mr. Banks would say he was Clinton’s biggest supporter in that regard. As I said, above, I am still checking whether there were any other pending investigations and why those U.S. Attorneys were replaced. Even the ones who said they were “voluntarily†leaving should be looked at by the mainstream media. If these are the new rules, we should at least see what Clinton got away with. If Bush is going to be impeached over this, so can Clinton.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI’m back. Sorry I misspelled Mr. Geffen’s name, above, but my point was that more than 13 homosexuals spent the night at the Clinton White House. I have no idea how many have ever been paid for sex. I also have no idea who Jake or Zooey are. And yes, I looked that up on the Senate webpage myself and thanked someone for the correction already about Bob Dole — I’m not the first to forget Dole — but thank you as well, Trekkie. At least you didn’t call me a “bonehead†or “*ssh*les†Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Just because they didn’t call you one, doesn’t change the fact you are.
So you believe 200 nights by a paid hooker in the whitehouse is the same as a handful of large contributors staying a single night?
BAHAHAHA, you’re really st*pid aren’t you?
P.S. to Jospeh P — thanks for the info, I doubt Mr. Banks would say he was Clinton’s biggest supporter in that regard. As I said, above, I am still checking whether there were any other pending investigations and why those U.S. Attorneys were replaced. Even the ones who said they were “voluntarily†leaving should be looked at by the mainstream media. If these are the new rules, we should at least see what Clinton got away with. If Bush is going to be impeached over this, so can Clinton. Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Why aren’t you busy checking why a male hooker was staying at the whitehouse?
You’re an idiot.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pmI’m leaving the male hooker angle up to Uranus.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pmP.S. to Jospeh P — thanks for the info, I doubt Mr. Banks would say he was Clinton’s biggest supporter in that regard.
I am sure you are correct, but there seems to be a clear pattern of people in this administration who feel very comfortable serving the party above the constitution.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pmThe example of Kyle Sampson’s email to the WH about “the problem we have with Carol Lam” 24 hours after she filed search warrants for Dusty Foggo (#3 in the CIA) and Brent Wilkes (who bought Cunningham a 120k boat 3 weeks after he was given a 120k one month contract by the VP’s office) certainly stink of abuse of power.
Remember the investigation of Bob Menendez (D-NJ) a month before the election?. That investigation has been shelved. We have not seen this type of abuse of the Justice system for political purposes Since Richard Nixon.
The Troll Must Have Gone to Regency Univercity!He didn’t go to lunch,he went to give Jeff Gannon a Blow Job!
April 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pmCorrection to the last post. It was Mitchell Wade and a 140k boat,a 140k contract and they only waited 2 weeks to buy the boat after the contract was awarded. Best to stick to the facts and not engauge in personal attacks.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWell, Joseph P, I certainly don’t want the IRS or CIA used like Nixon did either. But, given the secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings, looking into what’s happened with those is a lot harder than arresting third-rate burglars at the Watergate. What if Menendez’s dealings are, in fact, dirty? Shouldn’t someone look into that, even if they are of the opposition party? I will grant you that Sampson’s e-mail has the appearance of impropriety if you do the same about Menendez.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI appreciate rising above the personal attacks. Here’s what I know about Menendez:
On August 27, 2006, two Republican state lawmakers filed an ethics complaint against Menendez, alleging he broke conflict-of-interest rules when he rented property out to a nonprofit agency which receives federal funds. Menendez helped the organization win designation as a federally qualified health care center in 1998. That designation allowed the agency to receive additional federal grants. Menendez maintains that he rented the property out below market-value because “he was supportive of its work”. The total rent collected over nine years was over $300,000.
In another controversy, a tape recording from 1999 became public, in which Donald Scarcini, a close Menendez advisor, can be heard pressuring a psychiatrist to give a contract to one of his supporters as a favor to Menendez. Shortly thereafter, Menendez cut all ties with Scarcini and denies any knowledge of Scarcini’s actions.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pmMichael,
April 20th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI did not even mention the worst case of them all. U.S. Attorney for Milwaukee Steve Biskupic was on the hit list until he brought a case against a civil servant to implicat the state’s Democratic governor. Suddenly he is off the hit list right before the election. This poor woman went to jail! and an appeals court had to throw the conviction out. Appeal Courts never do that!They always send it back to the prosecutor for reveiw. They just released their opinion today and found the indictment and conviction ” preposterous”…their word choice…Somebody needs to go to jail for this type of political manipulation of the justice system…with all do respect, I thought Bill Clinton was a scoundral because he exposed himself to blackmail, but you can go back and scower his two terms and never find anything like this….completely unprecedented.
Wow. Some people just really like to argue, huh? Seems like it’s our national pastime.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pmMichael,
April 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pmIf there was enough evidence to bring an investigation a month before the election, then by all means bring in the FBI…but Menendez has not even been subpoenaed in any federal investigation and the FBI does not want to touch it because Menendez obtained verbal clearance from the House Ethics Committee before entering into the lease agreement.
Nick, if Krank and swordsbane would simply agree that taking political considerations into account for the firing of U.S. Attorneys is completely proper, I would be just fine leaving it at that.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pmWhat a great discussion. As someone who was a little foggy on the facts, I found this to be quite enlightening.
Sorry, Michael, you loose. I find the evidence overwhelmingly negates your spin.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI think DoJ guidelines state that targets of investigations should NOT be subpoenaed. I have no insiode knowledge about FBI decisions on Menedez though. What about the close Menendez advisor pressuring a psychiatrist to give a contract to one of his supporters as a favor to Menendez? “Appearance of improporiety” or not?
April 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pmAs far as I am concerned…THIS IS THE WHOLE STORY…the reality of this situation is this: The MOT CORRUPT administration in 100 years has an absolute, life or death, need to CONTROL the D.O.J and it’s functions. Can you imagine where we would be..in terms of..”SCANDALS” if there were STILL only FOUR people that were allowed to influence cases before the Dept of Justice?
April 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pmAlso, it is fairly obvious, that Gonzales is..”FALLING ON HIS SWORD” in other words, this FIASCO..this most recent OUTRAGE…might be..THE ONE..the one that could actually begin REAL impeachment procedeings…that the Bush Regime has established the People, The Means, the channels.to influence the outcome of Federal Criminal investigations..and that when confronted by an investigation they could NOT WIN or INFLUENCE..they actually simply FIRED a whole group of US Attorneys…and so..now..rather than allow the Bush Regime to be taken down..Gonzales is going to take the rap…
Oh well…how many times are we foing to allow this regime to get away with breaking the law..??
Where are the Terrorists with the .50 calibers when we need em?
The only way we win is to allow Carol Lamm to continue her investigation, and if it leads to Rep. Jerry Lewis, so be it. We need to put the fear of sodomy into these corrupt bastards, or we will continue to waste so much of our tax dollars fighting useless wars to line the pockets of people like Mitchell Wade from MZM.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThis administration cares little about laws, protocol, or morality. It cares about getting what it wants and using almost any method is okay. Abusing the Justice Deparment is just one of those methods.
It’s about power and money to these guys. People who play the game can win and most everyone else will be victims.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:59 pmDid Michael come back in here to get his a%% kicked some more. Jebus dude, move on to a new thread. You have lost here.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThat’s the problem Michael. Menendez is no longer the subject of an investigation. That all ended after the election. The primary source the the information came from former Hudson County Executive Robert Janiszewski, who is serving time in federal prison in Kentucky on corruption charges. Kean researcher Chris Lyon interviewed him in jail in an effort to find damaging information about Menendez. No federal prosecutor who is independent would touch that….your only source in tainted.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:05 pmUS Attorneys Not Alone…
April 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pmThanks for your opinion, JWK.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pmjcrumb, I certainly hope you are not advocating bodily harm to any Administration official.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pmManipulationNation, do you have any evidence the the Bush White House used FBI files or the IRS to harrass political opponents?
April 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pmSpudge Boy, I like this thread just fine, thanks.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pmJoseph P, as I pointed out, we don’t KNOW if Menendez is under investigation since GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS ARE SECRET. As for the tape recording coming from Janiszewski, I didn’t know that, but what does it matter who the source is if that is in fact Donald Scarcini’s voice on tape? I mean, even Menendez cut all ties with Scarcini. Why are you defending him?
April 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pmAre you missing a verb or something else in that post, marcmaronrules?
April 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pmMichael,
April 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pmA grand jury has not been assembled because no federal investigator has referred it to a prosecutor. This is two Republicans who referred an ethics inquiry. As far as Scarcini…I don’t defend him, but I can’t indict Menendez because his voice shows up on a tape recorder mentioning Menendez’s name. Jack Abramoff’s level of corruption in is unworldly, but you can’t indict Bush because he lied about his relationship with him.
too many cooks spoil the broth….this is grounds for hindering prosecution and obstruction.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pmMichael,
April 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pmOne correction. NJ USA Chris Christie did initiate an investigation based on the ethics inquiry, but a grand jury was never assembled and the investigation is now considered closed.
Thanks for your opinion, JWK.
Comment by michael — April 20, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Ironic coming from you Jake*ss. The idiot that can’t tell opinion from FACT!!! I would call you st*pid, but it would be an insult to st*pid people everywhere to be compared to you…
April 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pmCome on folks, bottle the acid. This site is a great source of political reference…this is not Hannity & Colmes & Malkin & Coulter.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pmI hadn’t heard that a grand jury was never convened, Joseph P.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department “be independent from†the White House.”
…based on this statement alone…
…Abu Gonzo should be…
…Saddamized…
April 20th, 2007 at 6:54 pmSo, you like getting your a$$ handed to you all day long on a progressive blog?
Fine by me, I love playing whack-a-troll.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:55 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/20/us-attorneys-not-alone
April 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pmCome on folks, bottle the acid. This site is a great source of political reference…this is not Hannity & Colmes & Malkin & Coulter.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pmBoot The Troll!Is that ok with you,Joe P.??He’s a Troll.Don’t ya get it??He’s here to WASTE everybody’s time,and energy.He’s probably getting paid to do just that.Or he’s getting credits at Regency U. Boot the Troll…….
April 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pmWhy does anyone entertain the trolls? They are ideologically motivated, i.e., they are convinced that they are right about everything, that they have all the correct answers, and they simply won’t let facts get in the way of their ideology.
There is no point trying to debate people who are driven by ideology. By definition, they are unwilling and unable to consider any other position than their own.
So, please, would you stop entertaining the trolls? They are fanatics, just like the Taliban and Al-Qaida members. Reason and common sense do not work with these people.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:31 pmD A:You are so Correct!Listen to The Man,gang.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:38 pmSorry for giving you a hard time Joe P.My Bad…….But Trolls Don’t Deserve alot of civility.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:43 pmI am not trying to debate the trolls. I love whacking them. I have been coming here for years to do just that. They will not go away if you ignore them. I know, we have tried that. They will just come here with more trolls and have a big troll love fest. I have seen it.
I will continue to play whack-a-troll and you continue to ignore them.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pmCool.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pmAssimilated Press.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pmhttp://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/2007/04/justice-department-seeks-pardon-from.html
April 20th, 2007 at 8:11 pmI just read the link. That is hilarious, but I must admit I was not quite sure if it was real or not until I read the river of blood comment.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:38 pmThe White House and the DOJ should be separate “if you’re talking about prosecuting someone in the White House” and nowhere else?
April 20th, 2007 at 9:21 pm121. Glad you got a good laugh out of my post,Joseph P.Take care.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:11 am