Was Department of Justice Targeting Supporters of John Edwards?

A Harper's Magazine writer, Scott Horton, who has been following what he describes as the political prosecutions of the Bush Justice Department has an interesting article on the Harper's website dated September 22, 2007. This is the first paragraph of the article:

In the last two weeks, two sources, one of them inside of the Justice Department, have told me that a scheme was hatched in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration shortly after it took office in 2001 or early in 2002. The project identified John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as likely Democratic challengers to President Bush, and identified prominent trial lawyers around the United States as the likely financial vehicle for Edward’s rise. It directed that their campaign finance records be fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses.

Horton claims that prosecutions of trial lawyers for campaign finance violations have actually taken place, but that the lawyers involved don't want to call attention to them because it would adversely affect their law practices. Horton believes that Rove was behind this effort, but that both Gonzales and Ashcroft knew about it and signed off. It is both fascinating and chilling.

Gonzales Resignation Is Result of Democratic Control of Congress

If you read this article in the August 28, 2007 online edition of the Washington Post, you realize that Gonzales's resignation is the result of Democratic control of the Congress. Without the Dems taking control of the Congress, there wouldn't have been Congressional hearings about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. Without those hearings the country wouldn't have seen Gonzales lying under oath about his involvement in the firings, as well as his lying under oath about his pressuring Ashcroft during his infamous hospital visit. Without hearings, aides to Ashcroft wouldn't have had to testify under oath about the inner workings of the Justice Department.

There is a tendency these days for writers on various blogs to act as if the Democrats being in control of Congress has not changed anything. Well, if you think that things haven't changed, just ask good ole' Alberto. He probably has a much different perspective.

Dems Should Demand Gonzales Resignation as Price for Bush's Security Plan

Sixteen Democratic Senators joined 43 Republican Senators to pass the bill sought by Bush regarding FISA surveillance. This bill will allow the United States Government to intercept certain communications between foreign suspects even if the communications are intercepted inside the United States. This bill was made necessary by a decision of one of the judges of the secret FISA-established court that issue search warrants for intercepting communications.

One of the hang-ups was that Bush wanted the Attorney General to be given the power to authorize intercepts under the new law. Not surprisingly, Democrats balked at that provision. Under the Senate-passed legislation, both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will have to authorize such intercepts. After 120 days, the administration would have to get a warrant to continue intercepting the communications being tracked.

What the Democrats should have done is say to Bush "We don't trust Gonzales and if you want the AG to have that kind of authority, then you need to appoint a new AG." The public would have backed that position and it would have been easy to explain to the news media. Instead 16 Dems rolled over for Bush and got nothing back from him.

The Power of Passivity in American Politics

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Washington Post's account of Attorney General Gonzales testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 24, 2007. The story details how Senators from both political parties were frustrated and angry with Gonzales's testimony. Gonzales refused to answer questions from both Republican and Democratic Senators.

Based on his behaviour, the Post today editorialized once again that he should either resign or be asked to resign his position. Yet, nothing will happen. Why? Because to a great extent the American system of government is built on people doing what they are supposed to do and if one of the actors in that system, in this case the President, just refuses to take certain actions, the system has little means of forcing such an actor to do otherwise.

If Gonzales won't resign, which he won't, and if Bush won't ask him to resign, which he won't, that only leads the option of impeachment. Impeachment, though, is a slow mechanism and, even in this case, a very uncertain one. First Articles of Impeachment would have to be introduced in the House of Representatives. Then, they have to be assigned to a committee, in this case, probably Judiciary. Next the Judiciary Committee has to report out such Articles for the whole House to consider. Assuming that such Articles would get a majority vote on the floor of the House, the issue then goes to the full Senate for a trial. Finally, after a trial, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote for impeachment before he could be removed from office. Given the fact that Gonzales only has less then 17 months to go before he is replaced by a new President, it is doubtful that all the above could get accomplished in that period.

By the way, the power of passavity isn't just exercised by Republicans. During the Clinton impeachment process, the Republicans assumed that Clinton would be pressured by Democrats to resign and allow Gore to become President. They didn't do that and the Republicans found themselves impeaching a President but not being able to force him to leave office. In that situation, President Clinton also triumphed by just being stubborn in not doing what other actors in the political process expected.

Of course, we Democrats think that Clinton's position was justified and Bush's position isn't, but neither Bush nor the Republicans are bound to accept our version of reality, just as we weren't bound to accept theirs during the Clinton fiasco.

The bottom line? Never underestimate the power of just not doing anything in the American system.

Bush Administration Keeps Corrupting the Rule of Law

As this article from the Washington Post makes clear, the Bushies are appointing partisan hacks to be immigration judges. This is a quote from the article:

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

The rule of law can be corrupted so many ways. An obvious way to corrupt the rule of law is for judges to take bribes. Another way is to apply the law in ways that favor one group over another. A third way is shown here: appoint unqualified people as judges because of their party connections.

Deep down inside Bush doesn't believe in the idea that the law should be applied equally to everyone. He is a person who has benefited from a system that rewards those who are born into the right social class. He was raised by a mother and a father who truly believe that the rich are better than the rest of us. Then, he couldn't get into law school at the University of Texas. Not exactly Harvard or Yale. No wonder this guy hates people like the Clintons, people who got into Yale Law School on their merits and not on their connections.

Because Bush really doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't mind trashing the system by appointing unqualified judges. Alberto Gonzales, being a sycophant and all around Bush butt kisser, is more than willing to help him carry out the politicization of the Justice Department. This administration can't end fast enough and when it is over, Americans are going to have to do major repair work on the Department of Justice to remove the taint of corruption that Bush and Gonzales will have left behind.

John Ashcroft: Too Liberal for Bush

Let's admit it: didn't we all kind of snicker when John Ashcroft had the statutes of Lady Justice covered up at the U.S. Department of Justice? Didn't we think that this was just typical of Ashcroft, to be more concerned about a nude statute than the civil rights of Americans? Well, it turns out that John Ashcroft was an Attorney General who stood up to Bush, resisting this Administration's lawlessness on more than one occasion.

The Washington Post ran a story today about Ashcroft which points out that "Ashcroft also opposed holding detainees indefinitely at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without some form of due process. He fought to guarantee some rights for those to be tried by newly created military commissions. And he insisted that Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers, be prosecuted in a civilian court."

He clashed with Duck Hunter Cheney and Rumsfeld and for his loyalty to the Constitution he was considered expendable by the Bushies. His replacement was a man who was more than willing to turn the Department of Justice over to the likes of Karl Rove. The result is a Department of Justice that is shot through with dissension, has a low morale, and is seeing experienced attorneys leave and being replaced by radical, right-wingers.

So, like Senator Charles Schumer who is quoted in the Post article, we must admit that we have developed a grudging admiration for Ashcroft. Was he conservative? Sure. Would he have been our choice for Attorney General? Not at all. But in his own way, John Ashcroft was dedicated to the rule of law, and that dedication puts light years ahead of Alberto Gonzales.

Washington Post Reports 26 U.S. Attorneys Considered for Firing

At first it was eight, then nine, then ten, and now the figure is at 26. That's the number of U.S. Attorneys considered for firing by Ol' Alberto and his gang of radical, religious right conservatives at the U.S. Department of Justice. That number, by the way, is being reported by the Washington Post in a story that is linked to this entry's title.

Of course, no one claims to know how the names of any U.S. Attorneys got on the list. Gonzales claims that he didn't put the names on the list, his former chief of staff claims not to remember how names got on the list, and his former second in command claims not to know how names got on the list. So what we have is a Department of Justice in which over 25% of the total numer of U.S. Attorneys in the whole country were being considered for termination and no one supposedly knows how or why their names were selected.

People talk about impeaching Bush and/or Cheney. Actually Gonzales would be a much better target. He is demonstratably incompetent, he is not an elected official, so you don't have the argument about undoing the result of an election, and the mainstream media is inclined to believe that he should go. In short, impeaching Gonzales doesn't have the downside of impeaching either Bubble-Boy or Shotgun Cheney.

Video Links Regarding Comey's Senate Testimony

Tuesday, May 15, 2007, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held open hearings to discuss Justice Department policy under the Bush/Cheney administration. Their sole witness was James Comey, formerly Asst. Atty. General under John Ashcroft. Occurring on a busy news day, the hearings were not covered by C-Span, unfortunately (although both Lou Dobbs on CNN and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC dealt with the subject on their programs that evening, and video of part of the hearings is available at a link below)

Mr. Comey's testimony was not only riveting, but shocking in its content and import for anyone concerned about the future of our country. Comey's revelations make it clear that Pres. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping, knowing it to be illegal, and over the objections of his top two Justice Department officials. All signs point to this illegal decision continuing to guide policy today.

Please see video and commentary at the following links:

Firedoglake.com

Commondreams.org

Salon.com

Washington Post Reports that Gonzales Badgered Ashcroft in Hospital to Sign Executive Order Opposed by Justice Department

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read about how then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales went to George Washington Hospital in the dead of hte night. He went there to ask Gonzales to sign off on an executive order that reauthorized the administration's domestic survelliance program. The kicker is that the Justice Department under Ashcroft, who was at the time the Attorney General, had refused to certify its legality.

The article is a report on testimony that James B. Comey, who was acting Attorney General while Ashcroft was hospitalized, gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that testimony he recounted how top officials at the Justice Department were prepared to resign in mass if the Administration insisted on following the executive order. Apparently the threat of such resignations caused Bush to rescind the order and amend it to meet Justice Department objections.

Comey described how he received a call from Ashcroft's Chief of Staff that Gonzales and Andrew Card, who was then White House Chief of Staff, were on their way to the hospital to obtain a signature. Ashcroft's Chief was reporting to Comey about a call he had received from Mrs. Ashcroft concerning a call she got from the White House, possibly from the President himself. Comey then contacted the FBI Director who ordered the security detail at Ashcroft's room not to allow Card and Gonzales to order Comey from the room.

When Comey got there Card and Gonzales were not yet there, but arrived shortly after him. Ashcroft told Card and Gonzales what the Department's objections were but said that since Comey was Acting AG, they had to get his approval, which Comey refused to give. During their time at the hospital neither Card or Gonzales acknowledged Comey's presence.

And now, of course, Gonzales is Attorney General. You have to wonder if he was appointed to bring what must be to Bush a rogue agency, an agency that dared to tell Bubble-Boy that he couldn't have what he wanted, under control. Instead of talking about impeaching Bush or Cheney, progressives should talk about impeaching Gonzales. He shouldn't be in charge of the Justice Department and Bush won't remove him because he is doing exactly what Bush wants.

Was U.S. Attorney in Seattle Fired Because He Pushed for Murder Investigation of Pro-Gun Control Prosecutor

John McKay was one of eight U.S. Attorneys ordered to resign their positions with the Justice Department. Previously he was first thought to be on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in September of 2006. It has come out during hearings on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, however, that his name was on a list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in March of 2005. Now here is where it gets very interesting.

According to this story in the Seattle Times, McKay was pushing for the U.S. Department of Justice to devote more resources to investigating the murder of one of his assistants, Tom Wales. Wales was murdered in October 0f 2001, shortly before McKay assumed office. Wales was known as a person who was in favor of strong gun control. Because Wales worked as an attorney in the Seattle office, that office was recused from any involvement in the investigation of his death.

At a hearing on this scandal in Washington, Representative Mel Watt, (D-NC), raised the possibility that McKay's pushing for action on the Wales investigation led to his firing. This quote is from the Times article: "It was suggested that Mr. Sampson had concerns or that concerns had been raised ... relating to the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Wales, in which Mr. McKay had requested some action by the department."

So here's where we are with McKay: In March of 2005, he was pushing for this investigation and he was also in trouble with the White House because he didn't push for a bogus voter fraud investigation in the Washington state elections of 2004. So which is it? Was he put on the list because he thought that the murder of a pro-gun control Assistant U.S. Attorney should be investigated or because he wouldn't investigate bogus claims of voter fraud? Either way, it is another example of the perversion of the Justice Department under Gonzales.

GOP Congressional Corruption Probes Continue with FBI Raids

Lost in the news over the horrible events at Virginia Tech and the controversy over Alberto Gonzales was the fact that this week the FBI raided the home of one GOP Congressman, John Doolittle, and the business of another GOP Congressman's family, Rep. Rick Renzi. Doolittle is from California and Renzi is from Arizona. This entry's title has a link to a short article on the blog called Political Wire if you want some more information.

Did Regent's University Scrub Its Website After Goodling Resigned?

Earlier this month we posted a story about how Regent University posted on its website the fact that 150 of its alumni either worked or had worked for the Bush Administration. As one of our readers pointed out to us that information appears to be gone from the University's website.

Why was this done? The reader suggests three possible reasons: " Could they be embarassed that the public now knows where Bush's advice comes from? Or maybe the info has been removed because of the Gonzalez Attorneys General scandal? Or perhaps they withdrew the info because their claim was overblown/inaccurate?

It would be interesting if someone would call up Regent's University and ask them about this apparent change. If you do, let us know by posting a comment on our blog.

Insider's View of the Department of Justice Under Alberto

Law.com has an interesting article about the United States Department of Justice under Bubble-Boy's buddy, Alberto Gonzales. (Maybe we can start calling Alberto BBB). Here is a quote from the article: Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it.

The reason why young conservatives are so willing to trash government, even as they are profiting from it, is because they don't value government, have no regard for it, and think that its only purpose is to enrich them while they destroy it. It is way past time for these people to just go. Monica Goodling was a start, but many more need to depart.

Should Congress Impeach Gonzales?

The Boston Globe ran an opinion piece on Sunday that called for the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Gonzales. The piece was written by Robert Kuttner and you can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Kuttner points out that impeachment is not just limited to presidents and was used once before to impeach a cabinet official, Secretary of War Belknap in the Grant administration. It is an interesting suggestion and we are interested in what you think. Please read the article and then give us your thoughts in the comments section of this entry.

Why Bush Won't Let Advisers Testify Under Oath

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Washington Post article covering Bush's statements that he won't let Rove, Meirs, and apparently Gonzales, testify about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys under oath and in public. He is spinning this as a stand on principle, claiming that he is defending "executive privilege." He's not. There is a one word reason why he doesn't want his advisers under oath and it is spelled L-I-B-B-Y.

Libby was brought down because he lied to a Federal Grand Jury under oath. Republicans are stressing that a person can be charged with a crime for misleading Congress even if not under oath. That is technically true, but given that Bush controls the Justice Department, that is not likely to happen unless there is a public push for a special prosecutor. That won't happen unless the testimony is seen by the public and it can be fact-checked by websites such as www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

The Bush Administration just got a vivid lesson in the power of a special prosecutor. The Bushies don't want to go through that again. Hence, Bush will not agree to his advisers being under oath and testifying in public. Before that happens old Alberto will realize that he needs to return to Texas to gaze at the cattle grazing and the oil wells pumping.

Newsweek Poll: 58% Think U.S. Attorneys Fired Because of Politics

Newsweek magazine has a poll out which shows that 58% of all respondents, including 45% of Republicans, think that the seven U.S. Attorneys were fired for political reasons. Forty-seven percent agreed with the statement that the Bush Administration has introduced politics into too many areas of the Federal government. This U.S. Attorney scandal is a big problem for the Bushies because we Americans pride ourselves for having a "government of laws, not men." We take justifiable pride in our justice system. The sacking of U.S. Attorneys for not carrying out the political bidding of Gonzales and his political hatchet men is not sitting well and the only remedy that Bush has is to have Gonzales resign. The question becomes, though, what does Gonzales know about the Bush administration that Bush doesn't want exposed and what happens if you make old Alberto walk the political plank. (You can read the Newsweek story about its poll by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)

Surprise, Surprise, Rove Involved in Firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney

In the article linked to in this entry's title by the McClatchy Washington Bureau, the New Mexico Republican chairman admits to asking Rove to help get rid of the U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias. Rove was the person who told the Republican Chairman that Iglesias was going to be replaced. You just knew that somewhere, somehow, Rove's fingerprints would be on this mess.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times asked in a column this weekend about those U.S. Attorneys who weren't fired. Since we know that Gonzales and his puppets at the Department of Justice weren't above using the DOJ for political purposes, and since we know that most of them weren't fired, what was going on with the ones that weren't. How many politically inspired investigations did they start at the request of the Bushies? That is the question that Democratic Representatives and Senators should be asking next week when Congress reconvenes after the weekend.

Is Attorney General Gonzales on the Bubble?

The Associated Press ran an article by one of its political reporters in which he speculated that Attorney General Gonzales might have to leave following the revelation that the FBI abused powers granted it by the Patriot Act. (This entry's title has a link to the AP article) This news comes on the heels of the scandal involving the fired U.S. Attorneys. Both stories play into the theme of the politicization of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration.

It will be interesting to see if Gonzales can survive the take-over of Congress by Democrats. The vaunted Bush loyalty only works one way. Bushes expect loyalty but they don't feel like they have to give it. That's because they are better than other people and when it becomes inconvenient for them to have someone in their lives politically, they get rid of them. An example of this is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress, he was gone.

The same thing could happen to Gonzales and even Cheney. The only person who might be untouchable is Rove and that is only because he knows too much to dump.