Conyers blasts DoJ for cherry-picking U.S. attorney docs.
Conyers blasts DoJ for cherry-picking U.S. attorney docs.
In July, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and other members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting documents from U.S. Attorney’s offices that participated in prosecutions with political overtones. The Department has refused to turn over most of the documents. Now, Conyers and his colleagues want Gonzales to explain why DoJ is withholding the documents:
Since our original letter, even more evidence has come to light showing an aggressive effort run by White House political operatives to use the machinery of government for partisan advantage and establishing that top members of your staff attended political briefings led by Karl Rove. […]
The few materials that the Department has provided are clearly insufficient. You have offered approximately 350 pages of public pleadings, but even this production has been limited to pleadings that represent the Government’s position in those matters.
We understand that the Committee may obtain publicly filed documents from the courts without the Department’s assistance, but we question the value of the Department selectively providing those few pleadings supporting its arguments but not providing any responsive pleadings or court decisions that present contrary arguments and facts.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to “Conyers blasts DoJ for cherry-picking U.S. attorney docs.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Jake, your a “lawyer”, got any brillian legal insights into this matter?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pmStay on the hunt Conyers.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pmBin Laden supports a low, flat tax. You right-wingers agree, right?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pmThe Bush White House only needs to stonewall for 496 more days. Then they will leave and take the shreds of the GOP with them.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:21 pmI’m sure the commitee will give them an extention so that they have sufficient time to destroy the rest of the documents.
Does anybody other than the judiciary commitee think that giving the adminstration week after week of extensions is anything less that giving them time to complete their coverup?
Amazing! - Write another letter, or here’s an idea - enforce a subpoena and start putting people in jail as if they were in the private sector instead of the privledged sector…
September 10th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThat Conyers (read: mentally ill Demoncrat) still gets so uproarious and excitable over this harmless story of the US attorneys is an implication of how useless, braindead and utterly irrelevant Dems are to the running of this country. For any dumb-fucc progressives who dismiss precedent, every administration that’s every come into office has fired and hired US attorneys for political purposes. Conyers is at fault for being particularly assuming in his bit*hy letter to Gonzales because Conyers is grieving about the alleged, political overtones of some of the attorneys’ offices. Conyers is having a hissy fit because some US attorneys had the NERVE–the NERVE, I tell you!–to pursue investigations in which Dems were implicated! Conyers obviously wouldn’t be pissed off if a Demoncrat were in the WH and ordered US attorneys to go after Repubs if the evidence took them there. Conyers is planning to prevent US attorneys from going after Dems who had reason to be suspected.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pmCongress now has the power to investigate by saying that they will not confirm a new AG until Bush complies with all requests for documents and directs his minions to respect subpoenas. If the Democrats allow another AG to be confirmed before completing their investigation, it will just be another cave to the Rethugs.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pmComment by HaveyouseenNormanHsu’sshirtandshoes?
Off topic - ignored.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:26 pmhey conyers, go f*ck yourself…. meester boosh
September 10th, 2007 at 6:27 pmSEe- this is why I am witholding any further support both financial and physical support for the dems. Conyers is apparantly unwilling to do what hast to be dont. Pelosi is unwilling to do what has to be done. She even pulled it off the table.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:28 pmThe folks that wrote the Constitution knew what had to be included so that the future congress people would have the needed tool.
What the hell is conyers and pelosi and the rest of them afraid of???
Or are they bought off? Well ?
Justice is blind as it looks at weighs cases with a blindfold over its eyes.
Today, it reminds me of Fair and Balanced [yeh right] TV.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:29 pmomment by Dean CT — September 10, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Assuming facts not in evidence.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pmJakes lawyer advice; I dont recall.
Gonzo: I dont recall
September 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pmGeorge: I dont remember
Goodling: I dont recall.
Ashcroft: I dont recall
Rove: I dont recall. Nice try.
My “insight” is that Conyers got his pound of flesh from Gonzales, for something that both Carter and Clinton did with no Congressional subpoena or investigation, so the Demoncrats continue this witch-hunt at their own political peril.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pmCome on Conyers - there’s enough ground for impeachment proceedings right now! What the heck are you waiting for?? Maybe for the people to become totally disgusted with the Dems as well? If you continue to fail the people, they will become Independents whose numbers are nearing 40% at this point. These are typically dems in their world view and may have a few surprises for every Dem and Repuke in office right now - an Independent ticket headed by Bloomberg who needs no sycophants for their campaign money…..and could easily petition himself into the race this Spring.
If the Dems would play their cards right and move to impeach, just imagine what that would do to their numbers - 38% Dems and 35% I’s right now = 73% of the vote. The time for congress to move is right now or the I’s will find themselves forming a new party. After all, the Repukes are looking more like the Whigs right now as the “third party” in terms of numbers.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pmJake D: “witch hunt” implies looking for something which fails to exist. The Repukes are making headlines every week for one scandal or another and dropping like flies. So the term ‘witchunt” is totally inappropriate and irrelevant here. Time to get out old Webster and eduate yourself a bit.
The Repukes (pedophiles, enablers, liars and thieves) have so many skeletons in their closets that there will probably be a Senator a week dropping out of town due to scandal. Who will it be this week?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pmHsu shirt and shoes are not on topic
September 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pmComment by Jake D. — September 10, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
So why did Gonzo and Rove, both make a hasty dive off the plank of the good sinking ship LolliPop?
Can you say Hatch Act?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:40 pmWho will it be this week?
Comment by razzle — September 10, 2007
Is quite a few retiring and not planning on running. Has Stevens retired yet?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:41 pmbush and his gang of thugs, liars and incompetents are just running out the clock, folks.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pmBy November 2009, the g.o.p. stench will be endemic.
Can you say Presidential Pardon?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:46 pmrazzle:
This won’t get any media attention today. Not with Petraeus and Crocker testifying today. Nonetheless, it is a “witch hunt” looking for something wrong and/or illegal (i.e. nonexistent), especially when there was apparently nothing wrong / illegal when both Carter and Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys investigating Democratic Congressmen.
Oh, and I am registered Independent. As for why Conyers won’t start impeachment proceedings, I think that’s because Madam Speaker took impeachment OFF THE TABLE!!!
RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!
September 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pmI wish I had a mere nickel for every time a Bush licker claimed to be a registered Independent.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:54 pmCan you say 22 republic seats up in 2008?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:55 pmThey write letters.Wow
September 10th, 2007 at 6:55 pmCan you say President Barack Obama and Madame Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:56 pmI can and it sounds wonderful.
For anyone not old enough to know about previous Democrats doing the same thing with U.S. Attorneys: http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
September 10th, 2007 at 6:56 pmCan you say President Barack Obama and Madame Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?
I can and it sounds wonderful.
Comment by Warwhatisitgoodfor — September 10, 2007
Splendid. It does sound wonderful.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:01 pmConyers is ultra-senile. He could use a resignation for a change.
Comment by Dean CT — September 10, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
several resignations. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Betrayus, to start.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pmJake D Fake is not old, he is a known liar. Most likely 25-32 yrs old, and more than likely with the time he wastes here, a paid RNC troll.
How much you get per post Jakie?
September 10th, 2007 at 7:39 pmMy “insight†is that Conyers got his pound of flesh from Gonzales, for something that both Carter and Clinton did with no Congressional subpoena or investigation, so the Demoncrats continue this witch-hunt at their own political peril.
Comment by Jake D. — September 10, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Your “insight” isn’t familiar with the facts, as usual.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:39 pmFor anyone not old enough to know about previous Democrats doing the same thing with U.S. Attorneys: http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
Comment by Jake D. — September 10, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
that’s not attorneys, moron. That is ONE attorney, in 1976.
Nice try.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pmWhat do we want?
Responsive pleadings or court decisions that present contrary arguments and facts!
When do we want it?
As soon as reasonably possible given the adversary nature of the federal court system!
September 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pmJake likes to destroy his own talking points. Kind of makes him unnecessary, easily-duped and quite stupid. Makes my job easier.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pmkinda makes me wonder, still, why ANYone
September 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pmbothers to engage with him…
…
Conyers really did serve in the military, and really is a lawyer. Unlike the poser on the board.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pmKeep digging Mr. Conyers…..the dirty truth will out.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pmCan you say Presidential Pardon?
Comment by Jake D.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:09 pmWhy the need for a pardon if they haven’t done anything? You’re the “attorney”.
Draft dodgers fled to Canada during the Vietnam war — Nixon was never indicted or convicted for any crime either — they all got a Presidential Pardon too.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pmIf anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List” wants more examples of U.S. Attorneys who were investigating Democrats being fired by Democratic Presidents, let me know.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm>that’s not attorneys, moron. That is ONE attorney, in 1976.
Right, Jake is grasping at straws. For someone who claims to be a lawyer, jake seems to have no comphrenesion of the fact that “bu-bu-but your honor someone else did it too” isnt any sort of valid legal defense.
Also, jake mentioned ONE prosecutor in the carter administration..who was NOT pursuing any prosecutions that would have lead straight back to the whitehouse, like Carol Lam was. Jake, care to remind us exactly who Carol was pursuing, and who those people had close ties to?
Another thing jake the idiot didnt realize was that Carter didnt have the power to appoint a new prosecutor without congressional approval, like bush did because of some random line slipped into the “patriot” act.
And not only that, Jake, the supposed lawyer, doesnt understand whats involved with “at will” employment. Jake thinks that just because you can fire someone for no reason, that you can fire them because they are black.
Yes jake, even with “at will” employment, there are still illegal reasons to fire somone…
Thats how ignorant of the law jake the imaginary lawyer is.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:33 am>Draft dodgers fled to Canada during the Vietnam war.
Are you saying draft dodgers wernt breaking the law jake?
September 11th, 2007 at 2:34 am>wants more examples of U.S. Attorneys who
> were investigating Democrats being fired by
> Democratic Presidents,
actually I’d like examples of Democatic presidents firing Attorneys who were investigating people who did business with people in the whitehouse, who could possibly be implicated in thier crimes..
September 11th, 2007 at 2:36 amWhat? You actually expect them to turn over documents that they know will implicate them? From the outset they were expecting to have a Republican legislature that would provide no oversight. They weren’t expecting to have to be accountable.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:08 amAnyone else?
September 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am