House panel defies Bush, votes for subpoenas

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/us.attorneys.firings/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats voted Wednesday to give their leaders the authority to force White House officials to testify on the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The House Judiciary subcommittee vote was to authorize subpoenas. It does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be if the four White House officials Democrats want to question do not voluntarily testify under oath.

But the act puts congressional Democrats on a collision course with President Bush. He said Tuesday that the four -- top political adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and their two deputies -- could be interviewed in the matter, but no oath could be administered and no transcript would be taken.

Rep. John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, said during Wednesday's debate that the committee needed more than a simple conversation with Rove, Miers and their deputies.

"We could meet at the local pub to have that kind of conversation," he said. "But in my judgment it would not advance us toward uncovering the simple truth in this matter."

Democrats say transcripts are necessary so any inconsistencies in testimony can be challenged.

GOP members of the committee urged more investigation before authorization of subpoenas was discussed.

"I would strongly prefer that we postpone the issuance of subpoenas until we've had a chance to get the White House, who has made an offer to comply, to review the Department of Justice documents," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida.

"And I for one would be prepared at the proper time to vote if there was any potential that misconduct occurred."

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the authorization of subpoenas Thursday.

The committees are considering issuing subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

Bush said sworn testimony by White House officials would breach executive privilege -- the right of the president to have confidential communications with his staff -- and vowed Congress would face a legal fight if subpoenas are issued.

The president can fire federal prosecutors without cause, but lawmakers are questioning whether the firings of several U.S. attorneys were politically motivated.

Justice Department officials say the dismissals of at least seven U.S. attorneys were based on performance or managerial problems, but acknowledged that one fired attorney was pushed out to make way for a Rove protege.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said Tuesday. "The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows that some are more interested in scoring political points than in understanding the facts."

'Erasing large portions' of 'selectively sent documents'
Bush said he will not allow Rove and the others to testify under oath because it would damage their ability to give the president "candid advice."

But, he said, "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons."

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, also complained about the 3,000 documents the Justice Department handed over to the committees late Monday, saying redactions in the documents make them unworkable.

"Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day," he said.

The president's offer also includes communications between White House staffers and the Justice Department on the firings, although not communications between various White House officials on the matter.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the administration could be expected to challenge any subpoena in court, meaning the legal proceedings could outlast the Bush presidency.

"It goes to the district court and then potentially the Supreme Court and you're talking about an administration with 21 months to go. You can do the math. Courts don't work that fast," Toobin said on CNN's "American Morning."

Critics say firings abused Patriot Act
Critics of the firing of the prosecutors said the administration abused the Patriot Act in circumventing the usual confirmation procedure in naming their replacements.

The Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to pass a bill that cancels a provision of the Patriot Act that allowed federal prosecutors to be appointed and serve without confirmation by the Senate.

The controversy over the firings has cost the job of Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and prompted several from both sides of the aisle to call for Gonzales' resignation. But on Tuesday, Bush said Gonzales has his full support.

"I am confident he acted appropriately," Bush said from the White House. "I regret that it turned into a public spectacle."

"There is no indication [after reviewing the matter] that anyone did anything improper," the president said.

[Rickypt]

Thank god for the November 2006 election.

[skcin]

This is good. I think. Right? Honestly, I've been trying to read the news, but I just can't keep up with all this stuff. Actually, it's more that I don't get it. Can someone explained to me what was done & by whom?

[The Tower]

BushCo is royally screwed. This is the beginning of the end for them. It's all over, people.

[gldstwmn]

This is good. I think. Right? Honestly, I've been trying to read the news, but I just can't keep up with all this stuff. Actually, it's more that I don't get it. Can someone explained to me what was done & by whom?

They fired , I think 7 or 8 federal prosecutors for politically motivated reasons. Now, these are presidential appointees if I'm not mistaken. It is not uncommon for a newly elected president to come in a clean house in his first term. My understanding is that President Clinton and others have done it. The sticky wicket here seems to be that Karl Rove got rid of at least one of them to make way for one of his trysts...I mean protoges. Let me see if I can find the origianl article when this story broke. There is more to it than I have mentioned here. But I, like you have been unable to keep up with the entire story.

[The Tower]

This is good. I think. Right? Honestly, I've been trying to read the news, but I just can't keep up with all this stuff. Actually, it's more that I don't get it. Can someone explained to me what was done & by whom?
Most administrations "clean house" at the Justice Dept when they come into office.

Gonzales stated under oath to congress that he would never fire a US attorney for political reasons (U.S. attorneys are supposed to serve the rule of law, not political ideology).

Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and Gonzales were all involved in the firing of eight US attorneys because they were unhappy that the attorneys were not "Bushies".

The Justice Dept. stated that the attorneys were fired for "performance issues"- when, in fact, all of the attorneys fired had received glowing performance reviews during their careers. Many of these US attorneys were prosecuting cases against republicans.

The Justice Dept. sneakily inserted language into the Patriot Act allowing the Bush administration to replace fired US attorneys without Senate review and confirmation.

[gldstwmn]

BushCo is royally screwed. This is the beginning of the end for them. It's all over, people.

This is going to be fun to watch. Conyers knows what he's doing. It's not his first time at this rodeo and Leahy isn't screwing around either. They're going to put the screws to them, executive privilege or no. Haha. My prediction is that they will end up ordering subpoenas on Thursday and these folks will end up testifying under oath as they should. How generous of Lord Pissypants to allow Congress to "have a conversation with them" not under oath. Who the f*ck does he think he's kidding? It's over babe.

[skcin]

Thanks for the briefing guys, I understand it more now. :nod:

[The Tower]

This is going to be fun to watch. Conyers knows what he's doing. It's not his first time at this rodeo and Leahy isn't screwing around either.
Chuck Schumer is so pissed off he nearly blew a gasket. You know they're in freeeeking trouble when conservative yahoos like John Sununu are calling for Gonzales to resign.

My prediction is that they will end up ordering subpoenas on Thursday and these folks will end up testifying under oath as they should.
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm seeing going to the Supreme Court. Scalito will finally get his chance to crown King George VII.

How generous of Lord Pissypants to allow Congress to "have a conversation with them" not under oath. Who the f*ck does he think he's kidding? It's over babe.
His hubris is disgusting. But, it's par for the course with this asshole. I wouldn't have expected him to say anything new.

[strandinthewind]

This is all fine and dandy and shame on W and his cronies. But, the sole issue is will this matter enough to people to get them to vote for:

1. Hillary

or

2. Obama

Maybe enough conservatives will not vote :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Here's a good article from the NYT giving an overview of the whole thing:

Gonzales Says ‘Mistakes Were Made’ in Firing of Prosecutors

WASHINGTON, March 13 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, under criticism from lawmakers of both parties for the dismissals of federal prosecutors, insisted Tuesday that he would not resign, but said, “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here.”

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales acknowledged during a news conference at the Justice Department today that "mistakes were made."
The mea culpa came as Congressional Democrats, who are investigating whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons, demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the firings.

With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president’s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January.

“The White House did not play a role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,” said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s counselor, referring to a roster of those who were fired.

Mr. Bartlett said it was “highly unlikely” that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress about any involvement he might have had. “But that doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information,” he said.

With Democrats vowing to get to the bottom of who had ordered the firings and why, the White House scrambled to put its own spin on the controversy by releasing a stream of e-mail messages detailing how Ms. Miers had corresponded with D. Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Mr. Gonzales who drafted the list of those to be dismissed. [Page 16.]

Mr. Sampson resigned Monday. On Tuesday afternoon, at a press conference in an ornate chamber adjacent to his office, Mr. Gonzales pledged to “find out what went wrong here,” even as he insisted he had no direct knowledge of how his staff had made the firing decisions. He said he had rejected an earlier idea, which the White House said was put forth by Ms. Miers, that all 93 of the attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their regions, be replaced.

“I felt that was a bad idea,” he said, “and it was disruptive.”

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, insisting that Mr. Gonzales should step down, his appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on sensitive national security matters, including terror prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.

Already, Democrats are pressing the case for revoking the president’s authority, gained with the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, to appoint interim federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation. The administration has argued that such appointments are necessary to speed the prosecution of terrorism cases. After the dismissals became a big political issue last week, Mr. Gonzales signaled that the administration would not oppose the changes being sought by the Democrats.

“We now know that it is very likely that the amendment to the Patriot Act, which was made in March of 2006, might well have been done to facilitate a wholesale replacement of all or part of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who serves on the Judiciary Committee. “Who authorized all of this? Who asked for that change?”

Questions about whether the firings were politically motivated have been swirling through the administration since January. But they reached a fever pitch on Tuesday with disclosures by the White House that Mr. Bush had spoken directly with Mr. Gonzales to pass on concerns from Republican lawmakers, among them Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, about the way certain prosecutors were handling cases of voter fraud.

The White House took the unusual step of having Mr. Bartlett conduct a hurried briefing with reporters in Mérida, Mexico. He said the president had “all the confidence in the world” in Mr. Gonzales and traced the idea for the firings to Ms. Miers, saying she had raised the question of whether the Justice Department should clean house in Mr. Bush’s second term, as is common when a new president comes into office.

“What Harriet Miers was doing was taking a look and floating an idea to say, ‘Hey, should we treat the second term very similar to the way we treat a first term?’ ” Mr. Bartlett said.

White House officials reiterated Tuesday that Mr. Bush had not called for the removal of any particular United States attorney and said there was no evidence that the president had been aware that the Justice Department had initiated a process to generate a list of which prosecutors should lose their jobs.

But inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

“They’re taking it seriously,” said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House’s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties expressed anger about the administration’s handling of the matter. While Democrats voiced the loudest criticism, several leading Republicans — among them Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and George V. Voinovich of Ohio — said Tuesday that they also had concerns.

Mr. Ensign, ordinarily a strong supporter of the White House, said he was “very angry” at how the administration had handled the dismissal of the prosecutors, particularly Dan Bogden, the United States attorney in Nevada. Mr. Ensign said he had been misled or lied to last year when he asked the Justice Department about the firing of Mr. Bogden and was told that it had been connected to his job performance.

“I’m not a person who raises his voice very often,” said Mr. Ensign, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the Senate. Of his decision to speak out, he said, “I think there are times where you just have to do what you feel is right, and this is one of those times.”

Mr. Coburn said the firings had been bungled, calling them “idiocy on the part of the administration.”

Mr. Specter, in a speech on the Senate floor, referred to another of the dismissed attorneys, Carol C. Lam, who prosecuted Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman now serving an eight-year sentence in a corruption case.

Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,” and he questioned the Justice Department’s initial explanation that those who had lost their jobs had received poor performance evaluations.

“Well,” he said, “I think we may need to do more by way of inquiry to examine what her performance ratings were to see if there was a basis for her being asked to resign.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13attorneys.html?ex=1174622400&en=9cfc8bca7867b11c&ei=5070

[gldstwmn]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm seeing going to the Supreme Court. Scalito will finally get his chance to crown King George VII.

The problem now is, if Gonzales does resign they will try to replace him with soemone equally gross. However, the nominee would have to be confirmed by the Senate. That could get very interesting.
What I would really like to see is Karl Rove with his (political) balls cut off. Harriet and the others are just collateral damage, now aren't they?

[gldstwmn]

This is all fine and dandy and shame on W and his cronies. But, the sole issue is will this matter enough to people to get them to vote for:

1. Hillary

or

2. Obama

Maybe enough conservatives will not vote :shrug:

That third dark horse hasn't entered the race yet. And we all know he's really no dark horse at all. :)
But really it's all about the pardons too. Will what Scooter's wife said the other day come true? ("We are going to f*ck them!") Or will they reward him for falling on his sword? I guess we'll have to wait until Christmas Eve 2008 to see. The apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.

[strandinthewind]

That third dark horse hasn't entered the race yet. And we all know he's really no dark horse at all. :)
But really it's all about the pardons too. Will what Scooter's wife said the other day come true? ("We are going to f*ck them!") Or will they reward him for falling on his sword? I guess we'll have to wait until Christmas Eve 2008 to see. The apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.

The pardons come after the election and right as the Pres. is leaving office - at least traditionally.

[skcin]

That third dark horse hasn't entered the race yet. And we all know he's really no dark horse at all. :)


Who? Edwards? Gore?

[estranged4life]

But, the sole issue is will this matter enough to people to get them to vote for:

1. Hillary

or

2. Obama

Maybe enough conservatives will not vote :shrug:


Man, we're forgotten faster than you can say "November Election Results are in" :rolleyes:


Hmmm, let's see:

Obama - Very possible I could vote for him

or

Hillary - I would rather never listen to another single musical note by anyone (!!!) than vote for her

[gldstwmn]

The pardons come after the election and right as the Pres. is leaving office - at least traditionally.

I'm talking about his father dear. Remember?

[strandinthewind]

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/privilege.html

Here is a lesson on Executive Priv.

Here is a cool article on pardons:

President Bush Pardons 14 People

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) President Bush granted pardons Wednesday to 14 people, including a member of the mineworkers union who was convicted for his role in bombings at a West Virginia coal mine, a counterfeiter and a bootlegger.

Jesse Ray Harvey of Scarbro, W.Va., was given a 25-month sentence in 1990 after his conviction for using explosives to damage Milburn Colliery. The mine had been the target of a long strike by about 45 members of a United Mine Workers local.

CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the pardons Wednesday bring to 58 the number of pardons granted by Mr. Bush.

By comparison, his father, former President George H.W. Bush, granted 74 in four years; former President Bill Clinton granted 396 in eight years; former President Ronald Reagan did 393 in eight; former President Jimmy Carter did 534 in four. And former President Richard Nixon, who got one of Mr. Ford's 382 pardons, granted 863, reports Knoller.

Some pardons, like the one Mr. Ford gave Nixon in 1974, protect recipients from going to jail or reduce their sentences. But Mr. Bush has granted clemency mainly to allow people who committed relatively minor offenses and served their sentences long ago to clear their names.

Others granted pardons Wednesday were:


Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind., conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, sentenced May 29, 1963, to five years probation.


Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas, misprision of a felony, sentenced Aug. 21, 1992, to 18 months in prison and a year of supervised release.


Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark., receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce, sentenced Aug. 22, 1989, to three years probation and a $5,000 fine.


Morris F. Cranmer Jr., Little Rock, Ark., making materially false statements to a federally insured institution, sentenced March 30, 1988 to nine months in jail.


Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn., making counterfeit money, sentenced April 26, 1991, to a year and a day in prison, two years supervised release and a $500 fine.


Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah, conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD, sentenced Nov. 23, 1992 to 30 months in prison and five years of supervised release, including 250 hours of community service.


Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga., possession of tax-unpaid whiskey, sentenced June 17, 1963, to two years in prison, possession and sale of tax-unpaid whiskey. He also was on May 28, 1970 to five years in prison, later reduced to two years probation.


Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn., conspiracy to distribute cocaine, sentenced Sept. 29, 1989, to 36 months probation and payment of $2,500 in restitution.


Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla., conspiracy to import marijuana, sentenced July 19, 1985 to three years probation.


Bobbie Archie Maxwell, Lansing, Mich., mailing a threatening letter, sentenced Sept. 6, 1962, to 12 months probation.


Denise Bitters Mendelkow, Salt Lake City, Utah, embezzlement by a bank employee, sentenced May 21, 1981, to two years probation.


Michael John Pozorski, Schofield, Wis., unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, sentenced Sept. 14, 1988, to four years probation and payment of a $750 fine.


Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark., selling Quaalude tablets, selling, using and possessing marijuana, sentenced Aug. 20, 1981, following Air Force court-martial to 30 months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of 30 months pay at $334 a month and a dishonorable discharge.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/28/politics/printable889049.shtml

_________________________

There is also a rather significant question of whether Libby can qualify for a pardon under the current DOJ guidelines

[strandinthewind]

Also:

March 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Albuquerque

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.


David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=ba4c169f19b2a2d5&ex=1174622400&pagewanted=print

[The Tower]

The problem now is, if Gonzales does resign they will try to replace him with soemone equally gross. However, the nominee would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Good luck with that one.

What I would really like to see is Karl Rove with his (political) balls cut off. Harriet and the others are just collateral damage, now aren't they?
I think Chubby Rove is already at that state at this point in the game. I think getting the scuzzy stuff that Miers did on the record is good for the country, though.

That third dark horse hasn't entered the race yet. And we all know he's really no dark horse at all. :)
I'm still not sure if Gore's gonna do it. I can dream, though.


But really it's all about the pardons too. Will what Scooter's wife said the other day come true? ("We are going to f*ck them!") Or will they reward him for falling on his sword? I guess we'll have to wait until Christmas Eve 2008 to see. The apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.

The pardons come after the election and right as the Pres. is leaving office - at least traditionally.
From what I've heard, no one in the administration wants Libby to actually have to serve any time. I don't believe his case will get beyond the initial appeal. So, BushCo may have to address the pardon issue before the 2008 prez election.

[gldstwmn]

Who? Edwards? Gore?

It's Gore baby. He's got to do it for the good of the country. I think he's playing it smart right now. He's got plenty of time to announce and not spend all of his money. There are a lot of key people betting he will be getting in this race. I hope to god they're right.

[strandinthewind]

It's Gore baby. He's got to do it for the good of the country. I think he's playing it smart right now. He's got plenty of time to announce and not spend all of his money. There are a lot of key people betting he will be getting in this race. I hope to god they're right.

He will lose. He cannot excite the base like Hillary or Obama. But, stranger things have happened :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

I think Chubby Rove is already at that state at this point in the game.

I think something like this might ease the pain (just a bit) of the last six plus years:

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a397/peekingsleeping/arrestedRove.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[gldstwmn]

He will lose. He cannot excite the base like Hillary or Obama. But, stranger things have happened :shrug:

He won't lose. He didn't lose in the first place. :lol: Al Gore is looking pretty good to a lot of those people who thought they were "sending a message" by voting for Nader. He's probably looking pretty good to some middle of the road Republicans too. I think we're (the voting populace) going to go for smarts this time and pretty much the polar opposite of what we've had for the last six years.

[gldstwmn]

Senate votes to end Gonzales' power to name prosecutors

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/305768,2_1_AU21_PROSECUTORS_S1.article

March 21, 2007
BY Pete Yost and Lara Jakes Jordan Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Click the link for the full article.

[strandinthewind]

He won't lose. He didn't lose in the first place. :lol: Al Gore is looking pretty good to a lot of those people who thought they were "sending a message" by voting for Nader. He's probably looking pretty good to some middle of the road Republicans too. I think we're (the voting populace) going to go for smarts this time and pretty much the polar opposite of what we've had for the last six years.

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.

If he ran an independant, all he can do is siphon votes from Hillary or Obama.

In any event, I do not think he is going to run.

But, time will tell.

[The Tower]

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

[gldstwmn]

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.


The Evangelicals ain't coming out for Rudy. That's at least 30% of their base.

[estranged4life]

If he ran an independant


I just blew chuncks on my keyboard from that statement ^^^^




Btw, not to nit-pick, but it's I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T


I will be honest, though I think Al Gore has the personality of a toothpick, I would prefer him over Hillary "I wonder if Tyson Foods' Chicken **** smells good in the Illinois River that runs through Tahlequah, OK?" Clinton

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

Je likely will get the R nomination. Who else so they have that can possibly beat Hillary? McCain is their only other shot and he cannot beat her.

[strandinthewind]

I just blew chuncks on my keyboard from that statement ^^^^




Btw, not to nit-pick, but it's I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T


I will be honest, though I think Al Gore has the personality of a toothpick, I would prefer him over Hillary "I wonder if Tyson Foods' Chicken **** smells good in the Illinois River that runs through Tahlequah, OK?" Clinton

Sorry to make you blow chunks :laugh:

Also, I cannot type for shiite :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

The Evangelicals ain't coming out for Rudy. That's at least 30% of their base.

If he is their only shot against Hillary - who IS the devil to them, they will support him. Maybe not publicly, but in the voting booth perhaps. Her best bet is to make RG look so liberal that they abstain, which will make her win, which was my original point in this thread.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

Don't forget he is for gun control and from New York City (NEW YORK CITY) :wavey:

[The Tower]

Je likely will get the R nomination. Who else so they have that can possibly beat Hillary? McCain is their only other shot and he cannot beat her.
There are no republican candidates capable of winning 2008. None. They would have to be of the highest calibur to overcome the shadow of Dubya and Iraq. And they don't exist. Chuck Hagel might have a shot (dark horse, at best), but he is stammering on the issue right now- and his shot would only be against the weakest of the Dems.

Any one of the current Democratic candidates would be able to beat Rudy, that idiot McCain, or that slime Mit Romney. Don't even get me started on the incredulous idea of Gingrich running. :laugh: :laugh:


Hey Cajun Jason- why you quotin' Longfellow's "Evangeline" in your siggy?

[strandinthewind]

. . . Hey Cajun Jason- why you quotin' Longfellow's "Evangeline" in your siggy?

Feeling that way lately.

Of course, I grew up around that poem and her oak was like 20 minutes from my house as the crow flies.

[gldstwmn]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

He also like to dress in drag, which isn't going to go over well with the church crowd either.

[gldstwmn]

Now this is interesting:

http://www.missouridems.org/newsroom/pressreleases/display.asp?prID=135

Fired U.S. Attorney Fears that Public Corruption Investigation of Gov. Blunt Cost him his Job

Jefferson City, MO — Fired U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins told the LA Times in a story today that he fears he was fired because we was investigating criminal charges against Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt concerning his awarding of lucrative motor vehicle fee offices.

Cummins began investigating public corruption charges against Blunt in January 2006. Most of the seven other U.S. Attorneys that were fired by the Bush administration were also leading public corruption investigations against Republican office holders. The politically fueled firings have led both Republican and Democratic lawmakers to call on President Bush to fire Attorney General Gonzales.

The story also reveals that a private attorney for Gov. Blunt contacted Cummins during the investigation and made it clear to the prosecutor that the investigation was hurting the Republican governor politically in Missouri. Cummins told the LA Times, “The attorney said it was creating a lot of media in Missouri about political pressure and other allegations that the governor was under investigation."

The story goes on to say, “He (Cummins) said the attorney wanted assurances that the governor was not the target ‘because we’d like to be able to say that.’”

“It now becomes clear that the Bush administration was willing to fire a U.S. Attorney just because he was doing his job and investigating corruptions charges against fellow Republican Matt Blunt,” said Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman. “The Bush administration has gravely endangered the integrity of our justice system all in an attempt to protect fellow Republicans like Matt Blunt and their potentially illegal behavior.”

The LA Times story reads:



Cummins fears corruption investigation led to his firing

By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer
March 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Still uncertain exactly why he was fired, former U.S. Atty. H.E. "Bud" Cummins III wonders whether it had something to do with the probe he opened into alleged corruption by Republican officials in Missouri amid a Senate race there that was promising to be a nail-biter.

Cummins, a federal prosecutor in Arkansas, was removed from his job along with seven other U.S. attorneys last year.

In January 2006, he had begun looking into allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state’s driver’s license offices. Cummins handled the case because U.S. attorneys in Missouri had recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

But in June, Cummins said, he was told by the Justice Department that he would be fired at year’s end to make room for Timothy Griffin — an operative tied to White House political guru Karl Rove.

In an interview Thursday, Cummins expressed disgust that the Bush administration may have fired him and the others for political reasons. "You have to firewall politics out of the Department of Justice. Because once it gets in, people question every decision you make. Now I keep asking myself: ’What about the Blunt deal?’ "

Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have cited the firing of Cummins and the corruption investigation he was supervising as evidence that the dismissals were politically motivated.

What happened to Cummins appears similar to the termination of U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. Iglesias, who was in the midst of a long government corruption case against New Mexico Democrats, has said he believes some GOP lawmakers in Washington wanted the probe speeded up to help the Republican candidate in a tight House race there.

"As we examine how these U.S. attorneys were fired, we must not lose sight of the real story," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Thursday. "The fired U.S. attorneys were aggressively investigating public corruption cases, and they were fired ostensibly for job performance — which in this White House means you’re guilty of doing your job."

The Missouri corruption allegations centered on a change in the law that allowed for privatization of the state’s license fee agencies. In 2005, Missouri newspapers began reporting that some of the contracts went to Blunt’s supporters, including the wife of the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Todd Graves.

When Cummins started investigating, he said, he followed Justice Department protocol by refusing to acknowledge whether his office had opened a probe. Policy also stipulates that when an investigation ends with no charges, it should never be publicly acknowledged.

As the months wore on, Cummins said, he "had no communication with anybody in any senior level" at the Justice Department in Washington.

But, he said, the governor had hired a private attorney who called and inquired about the status of the investigation. "The attorney said it was creating a lot of media in Missouri about political pressure and other allegations that the governor was under investigation," Cummins said.

He said the attorney wanted assurances that the governor was not the target "because we’d like to be able to say that."

Cummins said he did not comment to the attorney because the investigation was confidential. He declined to identify the governor’s lawyer.

In June, Cummins was notified that he was being fired. Around that time, he said, the investigation was nearly over. But he said FBI agents were tied up with other priorities and could not get to the remaining interviews right away.

In October, Cummins announced that the investigation was over. He broke with precedent, he said, because of all the media reports in Missouri.

"The matter has been closed with no indictments sought or returned," he said on Oct. 4. He added that "at no time was Gov. Blunt a target, subject or witness in the investigation, nor was he implicated in any allegations being investigated. Any allegations to the contrary are uninformed and erroneous."

In the Thursday interview, Cummins denied that he took that extra step as a favor to Blunt. "I didn’t know what the politics were up there in Missouri," he said. "I couldn’t pick Matt Blunt out in a lineup."

The announcement came just four weeks before the Missouri Senate vote in which Democrat Claire McCaskill very narrowly upset GOP incumbent Sen. Jim Talent. McCaskill’s office declined to comment about whether the closed investigation helped her campaign.

[GypsySorcerer]

Regarding Rudy G., I agree that initially, he won't appeal to social conservatives. His biggest challenge would be winning the primary. However, it he does take the primary, they'll vote for him. There is no possible way they'll vote for Hillary or Gore over him. Obama, maybe. Or perhaps they just won't vote at all. One could hope.