Alberto steps in it...

[red states rule]

Tell us the truth, Bully--did it both you that the Department of Justice, under Janet Reno, became a political arm of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcemtn agency it was supposed to be?

I bet those confidential FBI files on Republicans that made their way to the White House made great reading over a cup of coffee first thing in the morning for Bill and Hill

I remember how Janet investagated that crime

 

[Bullypulpit]

Tell us the truth, Bully--did it bother you that the Department of Justice, under Janet Reno, became a political arm of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcement agency it was supposed to be?

Her botching of the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco and the DoJ involvement in the handling of the Elian Gonzales were utterly inexcusable. She was clearly not up to the task. But as for making the DoJ the political arm of the White House, not something she could be said to be guilty of. Goatboy's administration was the target of numerous oversight hearing and investigations, many initiated by the DoJ. Until the Democrats regained control of Congress in November '06, there was, effectively, no oversight of the Bush Administration.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I bet those confidential FBI files on Republicans that made their way to the White House made great reading over a cup of coffee first thing in the morning for Bill and Hill

I remember how Janet investagated that crime

Let's review our history, shall we.

On June 20, 1996, Janet Reno sought to have independent counsel Kenneth Starr appointed to investigate the matter, citing a "conflict of interest". That authority to investigate the matter was later granted to Starr by a three judge panel. She had no say so in the pursuit of the investigation.

She had planned to have the FBI initiate a "complete and thorough" investigation into the matter. REPUBLICAN protests over having the FBI investigate itself, and that such an investigation would lack credibility. Odd, seeing as that's how the Bush administration has been conducting it's internal investigations since its first months in office.

At the time Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) even stated that "It frightens me to think about the lengths White House officials will go to cover up illegal behavior..." The Bush administration, however, gets a free pass on illegalities under a Republican controlled Congress. Illegal actions which, I might add, make those of the Clinton administration seem like chump change in comparison.

 

[red states rule]

Another example of the "unbiased" liberal media


Salivating Washington Press Corps: 'Does This Bring Back Memories of Watergate?'
Posted by Brent Baker on March 20, 2007 - 21:41.
Some journalists are starting to project parallels between the media-fueled controversy over the Bush administration replacing eight of 93 U.S. attorneys and Watergate, what many reporters see as their glory days of the early 1970s. A brief video snippet in David Gregory's story on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News showed Fred Fielding, Chief Counsel in the Bush White House who worked in the counsel's office during the Nixon administration, walking down a Capitol Hill hallway as a male voice off-camera, presumably a reporter, asked: “Does this bring back memories of Watergate?” NBC didn't play Fielding's reply. And that most likely took place before President Bush's address at 5:50pm EDT in which he promised to turn over more documents, have Justice officials testify before Congress and to allow Senators to interview Harriet Miers and Karl Rove.

Bush's offer only antagonized a couple of media figures. On MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann proposed that “the President sounded awfully like President Nixon during Watergate.” Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter readily agreed: “That is a great point. You know if you go into executive privilege land, you do take us on a kind of a return trip to Watergate.”

Earlier, Alter reminded viewers of the special “bond” between Bush and Gonzales: “Remember that it was Gonzales who saved Bush's career when he was called for jury duty as Governor of Texas. Gonzales used a technicality to avoid public disclosure of Bush's arrest for drunk driving.”

The Watergate exchange on the March 20 Countdown:


Keith Olbermann: “This statement he made tonight upon returning to Washington, talking about free exchange of ideas being thwarted, being quashed inside a White House. He sounded, the President sounded awfully like President Nixon during Watergate and I can't be the only one to have made that comparison. Is that really a comparison he wants to invoke if the subpoenas come? Would it not be better to blink than look like you're covering up -- especially when it may be covering up makes this look bigger, perhaps, than it really is?”

Jonathan Alter: “That is a great point. You know if you go into executive privilege land, you do take us on a kind of a return trip to Watergate. Look, this idea that somehow presidential aides don't have to go up and testify under oath on Capitol Hill -- this is a very modern and really Nixonian notion. If you go back, say, to the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt's top aide Louie Howe, there were irregularities in the New Deal Congress wanted to know about, they called him up on Capitol Hill, a Democratic Congress interestingly, they grilled him. There wasn't even the slightest suggestion that somehow he shouldn't be required to testify. So this is a new idea. It will be shades of Watergate if they want to go to court to test it.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11548

 

[red states rule]

Let's review our history, shall we.

On June 20, 1996, Janet Reno sought to have independent counsel Kenneth Starr appointed to investigate the matter, citing a "conflict of interest". That authority to investigate the matter was later granted to Starr by a three judge panel. She had no say so in the pursuit of the investigation.

She had planned to have the FBI initiate a "complete and thorough" investigation into the matter. REPUBLICAN protests over having the FBI investigate itself, and that such an investigation would lack credibility. Odd, seeing as that's how the Bush administration has been conducting it's internal investigations since its first months in office.

At the time Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) even stated that "It frightens me to think about the lengths White House officials will go to cover up illegal behavior..." The Bush administration, however, gets a free pass on illegalities under a Republican controlled Congress. Illegal actions which, I might add, make those of the Clinton administration seem like chump change in comparison.

The U.S. Attorney Scandal, Explained!


Gwen Ifill: One more question for you, Doyle, on this point, which is there has been much back and forth about whether this is something which is unprecedented--this firing. Whether it is okay for the president to do it, because after all, as Tony Snow said repeatedly today, these people serve at the pleasure of the president. Is there a precedent for it?

Doyle McManus: Well, there is and there isn't. This one of those awful things where you go back into the history and everybody is still arguing about what the history means. Look, it's always been a bit of a tradition that when the White House changes in party, when Richard Nixon was succeeded by--who was that? No, that was Gerald Ford. When Gerald Ford was succeeded by Jimmy Carter, when Bill Clinton was succeeded by--when Clinton took over, and when President Bush took over from Clinton, at that point it's pretty much customary for the U.S. attorneys in place to submit their resignations. Now, Republicans are arguing that Janet Reno under Bill Clinton went farther and demanded the resignations, but even then Bill Clinton didn't fire everybody.

This is different. It's in the middle of a term. It's within the president's right to do it. That's technically true. But what even some conservative Republican legal specialists are worried about is this: are we sliding toward a politicization of that job of U.S. attorney? There's always been politics involved. Senators get involved. But are we sliding towards--and that was what was, of course, ugly in those e-mails.

Alexis Simendinger: Yes. And I think we should add, too, that we're talking about eight individuals who were appointed--politically appointed by the president of the United States. They were chosen by this president, so we're not talking about him being concerned about Democratic holdovers or some other president's choices. We're talking about his own choices.

To sum up:

1. It was OK for Bill Clinton to fire 93 U.S. attorneys, because he "didn't fire everybody." But it was not OK for Bush to fire eight of them.

2. Firing U.S. attorneys of the opposite party is fine, but firing U.S. attorneys of your own party is evidence of "politicization."

Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Her botching of the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco and the DoJ involvement in the handling of the Elian Gonzales were utterly inexcusable. She was clearly not up to the task. But as for making the DoJ the political arm of the White House, not something she could be said to be guilty of. Goatboy's administration was the target of numerous oversight hearing and investigations, many initiated by the DoJ. Until the Democrats regained control of Congress in November '06, there was, effectively, no oversight of the Bush Administration.

You disappointment me Bully. Waco was down to Koresh. Nobody else. Not Reno, not Clinton, not anybody, but David Koresh thinking he was god. As for Gonzales, are the same neocon freaks who were demanding her head on a platter the same folks demanding that illegal immigration is a blight on US society? Come on - Gonzales relatives Stateside were playing politics.They couldn't give two shits about the kid...

 

[red states rule]

THE ABSURD CONTROVERSY OVER THOSE U.S. ATTORNEYS

The Democrats and the leftist media are making quite the deal over the fact that the Bush Administration fired eight U.S. Attorneys. Nobody is saying that Bush didn't have the right to fire those attorneys. They're just upset that he actually did it.

This is part of the Democrat plan to make sure that there is always something they will call a "scandal" going on each and every single day until the 2008 elections. As soon as this U.S. Attorney thing goes away they will pick another one .. then another .. and then another. The media, ever hopeful of a massive Democrat win in November 2008, will be all too eager to go along.

You do know why Bush fired 7 of those attorneys, don't you? The story is that they refused or failed to pursue investigations of Democrat voter fraud. Now maybe you have a better idea of why the Democrats are so upset that they were fired.

Now why would the leftist mainstream press fail to hammer home the point that there was actually a reason behind the firings? Well ... let's cogitate on this one for a bit. If the media continues to tell you that these U.S. attorneys were fired because they wouldn't pursue investigations of Democrat voter fraud, then Democrat voter fraud would become part of the story, right? Do you really think that the predominately Democrat media wants Democrat voter fraud to become part of this story? Come on! Especially when they have the Bush administration and the attorney general on the run!

But then again .. there's talk radio.

That's why talk radio must be destroyed.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200703/03192007.html#controversy

 

[red states rule]

GMA's Cuomo Offers Visual Aid in Continuing Campaign Against Gonzales
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 20, 2007 - 11:54.
On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," anchor Chris Cuomo used a none-to-subtle visual aid to continue the program’s campaign to have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired over the Justice Department’s dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Early in the 7am hour, co-host Robin Roberts introduced Cuomo, who stood at the news desk with stacks of paper, meant to represent the 3000 pages of documents released on the case, piled half way to his shoulders:

Roberts: "Look at all that you have there, Chris." [Roberts points to a huge stack of papers that Cuomo has piled on his news desk.]

Chris Cuomo: "You see this stack of paper? Very relevant today. Good morning to you and good morning, everyone. The number of the day is 3,000. That's how many pages, just like this, the Justice Department handed out overnight. They offer an up-close look inside the controversial firing of eight federal prosecutors."

It’s more than a little odd to turn a news segment into show-and-tell.

The piece, which aired at 7:03am on March 20, featured an onscreen graphic wondering if the documents represented a "smoking gun," the third time in less than a week that GMA used such a phrase. Reporter Pierre Thomas, who last week hyperbolically described the Attorney General as "hunkered down with his closest advisors," and in "a fight for survival," reported on the story:

7:01am tease


Diane Sawyer: "Overnight news, too."

Robin Roberts: "Yes. 3000 new e-mails released by the Justice Department. A trail showing just how far reaching the concern was inside the Justice Department over those firings of U.S. Attorneys. More bad news for the Attorney General."

7:03am

Sawyer: "But let’s begin the morning’s news with Chris Cuomo at the news desk."

Roberts: "Look at all that you have there, Chris." [Roberts points to a huge stack of papers that Cuomo has piled his news desk.]

Chris Cuomo: "You see this stack of paper? Very relevant today. Good morning to you and good morning, everyone. The number of the day is 3,000. That's how many pages, just like this, the Justice Department handed out overnight. They offer an up-close look inside the controversial firing of eight federal prosecutors. Pierre Thomas joins us from the Justice Department now. Pierre, tell us about it."

ABC Graphic: "New Docs in Atty Firings: Is There A Smoking Gun?"

Pierre Thomas: "Hi, Chris. Those e-mails provide some insights into why those U.S. Attorneys were fired. But it is unclear whether they will help the Attorney General keep his job. Late last night, roughly 3,000 pages of Justice Department documents about the firing of U.S. Attorneys were provided to congressional investigators. The e-mails show one of the men at the center of the controversy appeared very concerned about Senators wanting to investigate the matter. Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's former chief of staff, allegedly wrote this e-mail about whether fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins should testify before Congress. Cummins was replaced as a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas by an associate of White House advisor Karl Rove. Sampson wrote, ‘I don’t think he, Cummins, should testify. How would he answer? Did you resign voluntarily? Were you told why you were being asked to resign?’ The documents suggest Gonzales was generally aware of the plan to remove U.S. Attorneys, but he maintains he was not intimately involved."

Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute): "The Attorney General was in a position where either he lied directly about his involvement or he was clueless about what his own chief of staff was doing right underneath his own nose."

Thomas: "The e-mails also make clear that, at least initially, the fired U.S. Attorneys were given no justification for their dismissals. Margaret Chiara, the U.S. Attorney for the Western district of Michigan, at one point wrote, ‘I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath.’"

Victoria Toensing (Fmr. Assistant Deputy Attorney General): "To mess this up by smearing the reputations of people who have dedicated a certain amount of years to public service is inexcusable."

Thomas: "Justice officials say the e-mails show that the firings were legitimate. But sources say the documents also show that some prosecutors were ranked based on loyalty to President Bush."

It’s also interesting to note that Victoria Toensing appeared in the piece to criticize Gonzales. Yet, last week, when Toensing testified against Valerie Plame in the CIA leak case, GMA simply ignored her. Perhaps GMA found criticism of a Republican administration more palatable than that of a liberal icon such as Plame.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11536

 

[Adam's Apple]

But as for making the DoJ the political arm of the White House, not something she could be said to be guilty of.

You can be quite humerous, Bully, in what you'd like to forget. As I am sure you are aware, we would have been lucky if Branch Davidian and Elian Gonzalez were the only unsavory incidents that took place during Reno's tenure as AG. I'll just assume that you were out of the country and had no access to newspapers or TV during Clinton's second term when Chinagate, Los Alamos, campaign fund-raising scandals, etc., reared their ugly heads. Reno became quite a hardballer and stonewaller during Clinton's second term; it was the only way he would let her keep her job.

 

[red states rule]

Another example of how the liberal media covers Republican scandals and Dem scandals

CBS's Bob Schieffer: Gentle on Dan Rostenkowski, Tough on Alberto Gonzales
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 21, 2007 - 14:45.
"The Early Show" continued its double standard treatment of Democrats and Republicans. "Capitol Bob" Schieffer added some analysis to the Alberto Gonzales situation. On the March 20 edition, Schieffer editorialized that Gonzales, who is not under any criminal investigation, "may not be a dead man walking right now, but he’s certainly a wounded man limping" and "there’s (sic) some very serious questions here to be answered."

In 1993, however, Schieffer interviewed then Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, who was under criminal investigation at the time, and later convicted. Schieffer only raised the concern in passing at the end of a long interview.

"I'd be remiss if I did not ask you, your office has been investigated, you've been investigated by a U.S. Attorney now for I don't know how many months. Can you tell us if you've been given any indication if that is about to conclude and do you feel in any way if that's going to impede your authority to work on these economic problems?"

The "Capitol Bob" transcript is below.

HANNAH STORM: Well, "Capital Bob," CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of "Face the Nation" Bob Schieffer, has been keeping a close eye on the Gonzales story. Good morning Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning Hannah.

STORM: So we just saw there that when asked the president did offer his support of Gonzales. But how meaningful is that? Do you think Gonzales is likely to be replaced?

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think he sort of, he may not be a dead man walking right now, but he's certainly a wounded man limping because the president gave him strong support and one of the president's closest friends swore to me yesterday that they're not looking for a replacement for Alberto Gonzales. But listen to this second paragraph of what the president said when he gave that show of support. He said that the attorney general is going to Capitol Hill and he is going to explain all of this. Now, because he is someone who is confirmed by the Senate, he is going to testify. He has no choice when the Senate calls him up there to testify. Basically, what the president is doing is leaving it to the attorney general to save his own skin here. And if he's unable to do that, then I think you will see the attorney general saying he has to spend more time with his family or something like that. The attorney general's not out of the woods. But this is a -- just a terrific mess for the administration, Hannah. The president's now trying to put it into the thing of "it's a partisan fight" and all that. There's some very serious questions here to be answered. But right now the White House has decided, you know, if they start cleaning house here, that the Democrats will then start going after some of the people on the staff, especially Karl Rove. So I think what you saw yesterday was just the White House playing for time basically.

STORM: Do you think that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will testify?


SCHIEFFER: At this point, I do not. But I think you'll probably see some kind of compromise. Perhaps there will be a transcript of the interview that they have. The president's offered to let them go up there and be interviewed in private. Basically, what the White House is trying to do here is keep it off television. This looks like there's nobody minding the store right now at the Justice Department whether any kind of criminal acts were committed or not. And that's what's really bothering the White House at this time, fighting this fight to try to convince people we don't have another FEMA here, that the whole thing is out of control. This is just a dreadful situation. It strikes right at the heart of the administration's credibility, when what they need to be doing is trying to build support, especially for the president's war effort. That's not going very well either. And this is hurting that effort as well.


STORM: So you don't think this will come down to subpoenas being issued then.

SCHIEFFER: Oh, I think they're going to issue the subpoenas, but I think they'll still try to strike some compromise here.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11562

 

[red states rule]

Her botching of the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco and the DoJ involvement in the handling of the Elian Gonzales were utterly inexcusable. She was clearly not up to the task. But as for making the DoJ the political arm of the White House, not something she could be said to be guilty of. Goatboy's administration was the target of numerous oversight hearing and investigations, many initiated by the DoJ. Until the Democrats regained control of Congress in November '06, there was, effectively, no oversight of the Bush Administration.

CBS Legal Analyst Admits He'd Love to See Rove Grilled in Senate Hearings...
Posted by Ken Shepherd on March 21, 2007 - 10:51.
...but being the gracious guy he is, Andrew Cohen helpfully offers a way for the White House to escape Washington's favorite three-ring circus: televised congressional hearings.

Silly me, I thought network legal analysts weren't paid for political strategy but for cogent analysis of, well, legal developments.

Cohen writes at the "Couric & Co." blog:

First, Congress should relent and allow these sessions to take place in private. Sure, I would love to see Rove grilled in public— who wouldn’t? I mean, watching Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, question Rove could be a pay-per-view event in many parts of the country. A long, savory public hearing would be good for my career, I suspect, and sure would beat talking more about the paternity hearing for Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. But I am willing to get behind private sessions if it gives the President a measure of comfort about releasing his subordinates to talk candidly about who did what to whom and why when it came to firing those eight federal prosecutors. So, Point One of my Plan is: Private Hearings.

There are four other points to Cohen's plan. Suffice it to say they do entail a drawn-out investigation by Congress, just one that's not a public spectacle.

For all his hard work finding a "compromise" for Democrats and the Bush White House, nowhere in his blog entry does Cohen question if there are ulterior motives behind liberal Democrats who have been pushing for Rove testimony or for Gonzales to step down. In fact, Cohen himself throws in his lot with Democrats and some Republicans who have called for the attorney general's head to roll:

And, finally, the Attorney General and his chief deputy, Paul McNulty, have to resign. Now. Today. If Alberto Gonzales is as loyal to President Bush as he has shown himself to be over many years, he needs to fall upon his sword one more time and just leave....

[...]

There you go. Easy as pie. A compromise that works, saves time and energy and a potential constitutional showdown, and gives us all some concrete results. No need to thank me, Mr. President and Sen. Leahy, just get to work on making it happen.

In a four-part "special report" at the Washington Post's "Bench Conference" blog, Cohen laid out his case against Alberto Gonzales, even suggesting he may well be the worst Attorney General in U.S. history.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11554

 

[red states rule]

Let's review our history, shall we.

On June 20, 1996, Janet Reno sought to have independent counsel Kenneth Starr appointed to investigate the matter, citing a "conflict of interest". That authority to investigate the matter was later granted to Starr by a three judge panel. She had no say so in the pursuit of the investigation.

She had planned to have the FBI initiate a "complete and thorough" investigation into the matter. REPUBLICAN protests over having the FBI investigate itself, and that such an investigation would lack credibility. Odd, seeing as that's how the Bush administration has been conducting it's internal investigations since its first months in office.

At the time Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) even stated that "It frightens me to think about the lengths White House officials will go to cover up illegal behavior..." The Bush administration, however, gets a free pass on illegalities under a Republican controlled Congress. Illegal actions which, I might add, make those of the Clinton administration seem like chump change in comparison.

Democrats Resort to Trying Death by a Thousand Cuts
By Mark Davis

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer has advice for the White House, surely motivated by sincere concern. Just fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he says, and everything will be all right.

As controversy brews surrounding the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it seems to him that sacrificing one of the last Texans who first accompanied President Bush to Washington would "restore faith that rule of law will come first and politics second in the Justice Department."

The New York Democrat is in such a helpful mood that he is dropping the names of possible successors, just so Mr. Bush won't have to burn the midnight oil once he throws his friend under the bus.

They call Mr. Gonzales "The Judge" in administration circles, referring to his brief service on the Texas Supreme Court from 1999 to 2001, when he was tapped as Mr. Bush's first White House counsel.

Now Mr. Schumer seeks to add another title to Mr. Gonzales' résumé: "Disgraced Ejectee from the Bush Cabinet."

That's because the senator and his Democratic colleagues have a goal beyond the one they cite. They may wish to bolster the credibility of the Justice Department, but while they wish to heal with one hand, they wish to destroy with the other.

What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.

Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.

Again, this is not to say that there is not some smell to the story. How on earth does a competent attorney general not know that nearly 10 percent of his U.S. attorney stable is about to get pink-slipped?

"Mistakes were made," says Mr. Gonzales, trotting out the phrase that is always preferable to the usually more accurate "I screwed up."

Well, no kidding. These U.S. attorneys were given the boot for a reason. There are two valid criteria to choose from: performance and politics. The attorneys themselves and members of Congress have apparently received varying answers on which was the cause for the firings.

The tricky thing is that the two can be related. Sometimes a U.S. attorney's prosecutorial priorities might not follow the ideological track favored by the administration.

And there's not a blessed thing wrong with that. Bill Clinton fired all 93 of them on his way in in 1993; he gets to do that. Mr. Bush's Department of Justice can unload eight of them this week, five more next week, 20 more at Christmas, and he gets to do that.

Throw in Scooter Libby's conviction for bad answers in the pursuit of a noncrime in the Valerie Plame case, and the atmosphere truly does thicken with the stench of a phenomenon you will hear more about: "the criminalization of politics."

The term refers to redefining practices usually accepted as part of the gritty political universe and elevating them to the level of offenses crying out for probes and even prosecution.

With no agenda for success in Iraq, coupled with an economy still doing well (anyone notice the stock market has completely rebounded in three weeks from the 400-point plunge Feb. 27?), the only page in the national Democratic domestic playbook is to attempt to impose the death of a thousand cuts upon this White House.

Along the way, someone may issue a criticism of Mr. Bush on an issue that will have potential merit and deserve rational consideration. Good luck. The ascendancy of the Democratic majority has sent its warriors into the streets with torches and pitchforks. Measured discourse is rare when there is a castle to storm.

Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. His e-mail address is [email protected].
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...rying_dea.html
__________________