When is a crime not a crime? When Bush's AG says so!

From The Carpetbagger Report:

It’s been about two weeks since the Justice Department’s inspector general released a report on the unprecedented politicization of employment practices at the Justice Department. The IG report concluded that disgraced officials such as Monica Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson “routinely broke the law” by applying political litmus tests, even when hiring prosecutors and immigration judges.

And, what does Attorney General Michael Mukasey have to say about this?

[snip]

"But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”

Wait, not every violation of the law is a crime? Isn’t that the definition of a “crime”?

I realize that prosecutors may consider extenuating circumstances and prefer leniency, but this laissez faire attitude on the corruption of the Department of Justice is more than a little discouraging, especially from an attorney general. An entire team of people broke the law, violated the public trust, and got caught. The evidence is unambiguous.

But not every violation of the law is a crime. Here’s hoping someone puts that on a bumper sticker and sells it at the Republican National Convention — it seems to be a slogan that summarizes the GOP attitude on law-breaking.

Remember, kiddies: IOKIYAR (It's OK if you are Republican)
.

Department of Injustice Scandal Roundup

Here's my list:

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denies that there's a right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution.

The DOJ approves the unlawful detainment of terrorist suspects and argues for the legality of extraordinary rendition.

The DOJ authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody.

The DOJ's investigation into eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without proper warrants was shut down to protect AG Gonzales.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has ruled in every case on the side of Republicans as "part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens."

The DOJ's selective prosecution of Democratic political figures.

DOJ job applicants were made to pass a political test ("What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?").

Even if a DOJ job applicant was a Republican, one could be rejected merely because they were married to a Democrat.

Of course even a rumor that you might possibly be gay could cost you your job at the DOJ.

And, even if you were a good Republican who was able to secure a job at the DOJ as a US Attorney, you would be fired if it was deemed you weren't acting sufficiently Republican enough.

All of which led to DOJ lawyers talking in code because they were afraid of being wiretapped by their own government and fired.

I'm sure I must have missed some -- hell, there's been nearly eight years of this shit.

Help me out!

What is your favorite Department of Injustice scandal?
.

First Rummy, then Turd Blossom, now Abu Gonzales

The rats are either fleeing the sinking ship or resigning in disgrace . . .

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If I hear one more talking head on TV spew how Alberto Gonzales embodies/lived "The American Dream" I'll start spewing chunks.

The American Dream does not include torture.

The American Dream does not include warrantless wiretaps on its citizens.

The American Dream does not include firing good US Attorneys because they won't play politics with justice.

The American Dream does not include lying to Congress.

The American Dream does not include advising the President of these United States that he can break any law and ignore the US Constitution.

Back on Friday, January 28, 2005, we published a post entitled "Unacceptable" at 2 Political Junkies that opened with:

It is simply unacceptable for the United States of America to have the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Dynasty as the Attorney General of this country.

A country founded on the rights of the individual cannot sanctify a person to be the Attorney General of these United States who sanctified torture as long as it wasn't "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

The US Attorney General's job is to function as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. In that capacity the US Attorney General provides assistance and guidance to the heads of executive departments of the Government.

We already know that Alberto R. Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions (which Gonzales views as "quaint") inoperative.

We know that Alberto R. Gonzales believes that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States.

These views are unacceptable in a US Attorney General.

For these reasons, the 2 Political Junkies blog opposes the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

Anyone with half a brain should have known back then exactly what kind of justice to expect from Abu Gonzales:


They should have known that he was the kind of guy, for example, who would go over the head of the acting Attorney General to harass a sick old man (Ashcroft) in the ICU to try to get him to allow Abu to keep spying on the citizens of this country -- and lie to the Congress about the whole sick, sordid episode later.

For some recent examples of Abu's problems as covered by 2pj, you can click here. Even many Republicans could no longer stomach the guy.

But, let's not forget that when you hear the MSM call Abu the last of Bush's "Texas Mafia" in the White House how accurate that description is.

The Mafia needs sleazy attorneys to keep them in business and Gonzales was exactly that from the start. After all, he's the guy who in 1996 got Bush out of jury duty so that his DUI wouldn't come out before an election.


Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush forgot that the United States Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. He's not supposed to be one of it's chief criminals.

But, it shouldn't end with his resignation. While Gonzales is now on his way out, he still must be held accountable for his illegal actions as must the rest of this gangland crew.

Three down,* two to go!**

* Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzales
** Cheney, Bush

Executive Privilege Trumps All

Via TalkingPointsMemo, I found this at the Washington Post:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

And:

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen." [emphasis added]

Legal criticism:

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

Legal praise:

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

The Imperial Presidency. So no matter if it's right or wrong, if dubya sez so, it's "the correct policy" for the US Attorneys. As another legal critic said in the piece, because the White House controls the enforcement process, it's just going to thumb its nose at Congress. All legal precedents aside. They don't matter because dubya sez so.

Remember a few years ago when the Republicans in Congress had their collective panties in a twist because "no one is above the law"?

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Is there any more evidence needed for how toxic this administration has become? Whether its lying the nation into war, or stonewalling Congressional oversight, or simplly disrespecting the Constitution, this administration has done so much damage it's difficult to imagine how long it will take to fix.

IMPEACH

Local Fallout From the US Attorney Firings

From Pamela Reed Ward in today's P-G.

You remember the US Attorney Firing scandal doncha? Ward writes:

The House and Senate judiciary committees are investigating the firings of nine federal prosecutors late last year. Some allege that the moves were politically motivated, and that prosecutors were forced out because of a reluctance to pursue Democratic officials or for moving forward in investigating Republicans.

And there's a Pittsburgh connection to all this: US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht. In a letter to AG Gonzales, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers wrote:

The prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht in the Western District of Pennsylvania by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has also engendered controversy. It has been alleged that the case of Dr. Wecht, a prominent 75-year old Democrat who was the coroner in Allegheny County, is indicative of other prosecutions in the Western District - since 2001, the U.S. Attorney has never indicted a Republican official, and has only prosecuted officeholders who are democrat.21 Dr. Wecht, a world renowned forensic pathologist and television commentator, was charged with misusing his office and personally enriching himself by, among other thngs, striking a deal with a local university to trade unclaimed cadavers for university lab space.22 Claiming Dr. Wecht was a flight risk, Ms. Buchanan advised his defense lawyers, including former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, that her office intended to arrest Dr. Wecht and subject him to a "perp walk," even though Dr. Wecht and his lawyers repeatedly offered to self-surrender and voluntarily appear in court to be arraigned.23 Reportedly only after former Attorney General Thornburgh spoke with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty did Ms. Buchanan agree not to arrest Dr. Wecht and subject him to a "perp walk." In court filings, Dr. Wecht alleges that Ms. Buchanan's office inflamed the press by making inappropriate statement.24 The U.S. Attorney's office urged the courts to set the trial in October, 2006, a month before the congressional elections; the case was postponed only after the federal appeals court agreed to hear motions by Dr. Wecht's attorneys. Yet U.S. Attorney Buchanan has not brought charges against at least two Republican officials who, like Dr. Wecht, are alleged to have misused their office staff.25

I included the footnote numbers (they're those teeny numbers after some of the sentences). You'll see why in about 10 seconds. Ward writes:

Though her testimony has not been made public, it is referred to in a footnote of the letter sent to Mr. Gonzales. In it, Ms. Buchanan told investigators that she has only prosecuted Democratic officeholders.

That's footnote 21:

Mary Beth Buchanan, Interview with House Committee on the Judiciary, at 145-6.

The footnote 25 in that section of Conyers' letter points to this Op-Ed in the P-G by Thomas J. Farrell. This is what Farrell wrote back in March:

Democrats do occupy most public offices in Allegheny County, but are the Republican officials in the 24 other counties of the Western Pennsylvania District all squeaky clean? Why apparently no investigation into Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy's use of government office staff to support his campaign -- which is not unlike what happened in the Allegheny County sheriff's office? Ms. Buchanan also left to local authorities the prosecution of Republican state Rep. Jeff Habay after similar accusations arose.

Attorney Farrell also points out ex-Senator Santorum's by now famous residency problems. Apparently no investigation there, either.

I can understand her only prosecuting only Democratic officeholders in Pittsburgh (show me the Repulicans holding office in this city and I'll change my mind) but she's prosecuted no Republicans in Western PA at all since 2001?

Something very fishy there.

She's certainly a loyal Bushie, isn't she?

Mary Beth Buchanan in the news AGAIN

I noticed this from my friend Bram at the Pittsburgh Comet. His posting deals mostly with this article from the P-G.

But our very own Mary Beth has a few more irons in the fire these days.

As we've posted here before, she's set to talk to Congress about her role in the US Attorney firings. It's been postponed until June 15, 2007.

Did you know she lawyered up for her meeting with Congress? According to the P-G, Buchanan's attorney is Roscoe C. Howard, partner of the DC lawfirm of Troutman Sanders (what, no one from BUCHANAN Ingersoll was available??).

My guess is that it's NOT usual for a US Attorney to get counsel when testifying with Congress:

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who has been following the U.S. attorney scandal, was surprised to learn Ms. Buchanan had hired an attorney.

"A number of the [Department of Justice] officials have [retained counsel], but my sense is that those were the people who are in trouble," Mr. Tobias said. "I wouldn't see any necessity or really much of a reason for her to have counsel, except out of an abundance of caution."

Out of fairness, we'll just assume it's an abundance of caution.

Did you know that her name popped up in an e-mail in yesterday's document dump from the DoJ? Yep, here it is. Here's how the McClatchy papers describe it:

A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list, according to a document released Wednesday.

The recommendation by the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, came before anyone outside of a tight group in the White House and Justice Department knew about a nascent strategy that ultimately led to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

It could not be determined whether a short e-mail, sent on March 7, 2005, making the recommendation meant that Leo knew of the plan to fire Carol Lam or whether his message was unsolicited and coincidental.

Out of fairness, let's just assume it's unsolicitied and coincidental.

Let's assume the Federalist Society had no idea far-right political appointees were purging Republican US Attorneys from their positions because they weren't "loyal Bushies." Leo Leo just happened to appoint a far-right attorney for a position he had no idea was being opened for the appropriate far-right attorney.

And the attorney Leo Leo suggested? Air Force General Counsel, Mary Walker. She shows up in this article at Law.com.

Mary Walker has endured more controversy in a three-year tenure as general counsel of the U.S. Air Force than most government lawyers do in a career. Last year a blue-ribbon panel headed by former congresswoman Tillie Fowler practically accused Walker of a cover-up after the GC issued a report absolving Air Force brass of responsibility in sexual abuse scandals at the Air Force Academy.

Now Walker, a former Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison lawyer appointed by President George Bush, is back on the hot seat. At issue this time is her role heading a U.S. Department of Defense group that issued a controversial report in March 2003 giving the administration enormous latitude in interrogating alleged terrorists. Once again, Fowler -- a partner with Holland & Knight -- is on retainer to review Walker's handiwork: In May, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed Fowler to a panel to review detention operations. (Walker declined to comment for this story. Fowler spokesperson Thomas Alexander says she won't comment until the work is complete later this summer. For updates on the report, go to www.americanlawyer.com.)

Nice folks, these Bushies.

On Voter Fraud

Maybe that should be voter "fraud" or maybe "voter fraud" - I'm not sure.

Anyway, I can recall as clear as day, my friend Fred Honsberger ranting time and time again on Honsberger Live! about the rampant voter fraud threatening the peace and stability of this great nation of ours. So threatening, of course, that it warranted some serious revamping of the way we vote, for surely no one would be in support of a system that allowed such rampant voter fraud, right?

Turns out that, as with many right wing rants, the "voter fraud" movement is itself a fraud.

By way of Slate.com.

The article by Richard Hasen is ostensibly about the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), an organization once front and center in the Republican war against voter fraud. It's gone now. Kaput. Disappeared. Vanished, as Gary Busey once said, like a virgin on prom night.

In case you couldn't see it coming, this is part of the US Attorney firing story. Those fired US Attorneys were being pressured to prosecute allegations of voter fraud and when they didn't, they were shown the door.

Too bad for God's Own Party, the rhetorical foundation upon which those allegations were based are all more or less an illusion. Here's Hasen describing how they did it:

ACVR's method of argument followed a familiar line, first set out by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund in his book, Stealing Elections. First, ACVR argued extensively by anecdote, pointing to instances of illegal conduct, such as someone, somewhere registering Mary Poppins to vote. Anecdote would then be coupled with statistics showing problems with voter rolls not being purged to remove voters who had died or moved, leaving open the potential for fraudulent voting at the polls. Finally, the group would claim that the amount of such voter fraud is hard to quantify, because it is after all illegal conduct, hidden from the public. Given this great potential for mischief, and without evidence of actual mischief, allegedly reasonable initiatives such as purging voter rolls and requiring ID seemed the natural solution.

That was more or less what I remember Fred doing.

And again, of course, there's little or no evidence of voter fraud at all.

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Didja catch that last part, Fred?