|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 6, 2007 4:21:23 GMT -5
//Joe: I mean whatever documentary evidence PT was talking about. If it was solid enough to make Libby acknowledge that he first heard about Plame from Cheney, it should be solid enough to use at trial. Present it to a jury, if there was a crime in Cheney's talking to Libby.//
The documentary evidence was solid but insufficient. Libby's silence on the question of Cheney leaves us in the dark as to the extent of Cheney's involvement in using leaks of classified information to burn a covert agent in order to punish her husband.
//There is no case to be brought to a grand jury.//
Fitzgerald brought his case against Libby, such as it was, to both a grand jury and a jury. And he won convictions.
//Cheney wanted to discredit Wilson. That is not a crime.//
If Cheney directed his subordinate to burn a covert agent in order to "discredit Wilson," that's an impeachable offense, at the very least.
//PT tells us that in furtherance of that desire, Libby told three people about Valeries Plame, one of whom subsequently published the information. Obviously that is not a crime, since if it were, Libby would have been prosecuted for it.//
It's not "obvious." In fact, Libby's disclosures may, or may not, have constituted crimes under the law. This determination hinges on Libby's knowledge of Plame's covert status. On this issue, Fitzgerald found the record to have been muddied by Libby himself:
"While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson include, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. On the other hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice would could be prosecuted in a relatively straightforward trial. [Fiztgerald Sentencing Memo]"
//Armitage is the first person who outed Valerie Plame. Clearly that was not a crime, or he would have been prosecuted. Novak first published the information. Clearly that was not a crime, or he would have been prosecuted. If it was not a crime for Armitage to leak nor for Novak to publish nor for Scooter to talk to the reporters, this is all much ado about nothing.//
You're missing the bigger picture. If Libby was aware of Plame's covert status, then his unauthorized disclosures to reporters were, in fact, criminal. This is what Fitzgerald was attempting to determine when the sand was thrown. And if it could be conclusively demonstrated that Cheney knowingly directed Libby to burn a covert operative in order to discredit her husband, Cheney would be immediately subject to impeachment, in addition to possible prosecution.
//Predictable ado from Bush-haters and Cheney-haters, but driven by emotion and politics.//
I'm not emotional at all. Please note that even Bush did not use a pardon to invalidate the work of the jury that convincted Libby of multiple felonies. Bush accepted the verdict and objected merely to "excessive" punishment. Now we wait anxiously for our president to extend his "principle of excessive punishment" to other worthy convicted perjurers whose applications for commutation await him (equal justice under the law being such a high priority).
//People seem to think that it can be the crime of disclosing the identity of an undercover agent if you speak of it privately within the government, but it is not that crime if you give the information to the press or if you publish it. It makes absolutely no sense. The disclosure is not when somebody in government talks to somebody else in government, but when somebody gives it to somebody outside government.//
No. A criminal disclosure occurs when somebody in government with authorized access to classified information gives this information to person or persons without such authorized access, whether inside or outside government. Thus, when Libby told Bush's press secretary about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment he was risking a criminal offense. In general, presidential press secretaries do not have access to CIA employment histories, although, with the Bush Administration, anything can happen.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 6, 2007 15:02:54 GMT -5
… If someone had come along after us and wiped out the effects of our work, I would have been absolutely incensed. What a joke. And Bush will get away with yet another rape of the system because "politics" dictates that it wouldn't be expedient to deal with him justly. "Politics" seems to do nothing but screw over the people it's supposed to be serving. But in this case, nobody has come along and wiped out the effects of the jury's work. The guilty verdict is still there. What has been wiped out is part of the judge's sentence, not the verdict. And it is not a rape of the system. Executive clemency is part of the system. You may think Libby did not deserve the clemency. I believe that in light of his peripheral role, he did not deserve such a stiff sentence, and the clemency was justified. Joe, the jurors are actually instructed NOT to consider or ponder the possible sentence or punishment that will result from their verdict. I am aware that Bush did not "throw out" the work of the jury from a legalistic or letter of the law standpoint. Still, a jury deliberates seriously, I would hope, and with the expectation that their work will be taken so. That means, that the judge will hand down a sentence appropriate to the crime, the law, and the verdict, and the defendant will serve that sentence. Wiping out a part of the sentence is, in effect, wiping out some of the effects of the jury's work, telling them, "I don't care what you decided on the basis of the evidence, I am going to have my own way in this." "Having one's way" is a type of rape. "Executive clemency" may be a part of the system. That does not mean than the executive who exercises it does not disgust me thoroughly. It also doesn't mean that he has any respect at all for the work of the jury or, in fact, the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 6, 2007 18:51:43 GMT -5
Ha! Oh, but there is a Great Pumpkin. I'm certain he'll come next year.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 8, 2007 4:19:06 GMT -5
Imprisoning convicted felon Scooter Libby for a single day: "Excessive."
Executing mentally retarded people and juveniles: Not so "excessive."
//In commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, Mr. Bush said he had found it excessive. If Mr. Bush employed a similar calculus in Texas capital cases, he did not say so. Even in cases involving juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people, Mr. Bush allowed executions to proceed, saying that he was satisfied of the inmates’ guilt and that they had received a fair hearing.
The United States Supreme Court has since barred the execution of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.// [From the NYT]
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 8, 2007 11:11:37 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 8, 2007 17:42:08 GMT -5
Don't give up, gk. Let me restate my basic idea with regard to Bush and Cheney haters. It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who are very interested in prosecuting and punishing people in the White House and the Vice-President's office, including, if possible, the Vice-President, over the Plame affair. They profess to be concerned about the disclosure of her status. But they evince absolutely zero interest in prosecuting the journalist who first published the information or the State Department official who gave him the information. From this I infer that the matter is of interest to such people only as a way of getting at the President, the Vice-President, and their staffs.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 8, 2007 17:52:06 GMT -5
/… //Armitage is the first person who outed Valerie Plame. Clearly that was not a crime, or he would have been prosecuted. Novak first published the information. Clearly that was not a crime, or he would have been prosecuted. If it was not a crime for Armitage to leak nor for Novak to publish nor for Scooter to talk to the reporters, this is all much ado about nothing.// You're missing the bigger picture. If Libby was aware of Plame's covert status, then his unauthorized disclosures to reporters were, in fact, criminal. This is what Fitzgerald was attempting to determine when the sand was thrown. And if it could be conclusively demonstrated that Cheney knowingly directed Libby to burn a covert operative in order to discredit her husband, Cheney would be immediately subject to impeachment, in addition to possible prosecution. … Your response has nothing to do with my point about Armitage and Novak. It is a complete evasion of the point. The unresponsive points you make are reasonable enough, but they are not "the bigger picture," unless, as I have suggested elsewhere, the only purpose of the whole exercise is to "get" Cheney and his subordinates. But to my mind, the bigger picture must include Novak and Armitage. Lack of interest in them signals political motivation.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Jul 9, 2007 0:04:15 GMT -5
joew wrote:
Let me restate my basic idea with regard to Bush and Cheney haters. It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who are very interested in prosecuting and punishing people in the White House and the Vice-President's office, including, if possible, the Vice-President, over the Plame affair. They profess to be concerned about the disclosure of her status. But they evince absolutely zero interest in prosecuting the journalist who first published the information or the State Department official who gave him the information. From this I infer that the matter is of interest to such people only as a way of getting at the President, the Vice-President, and their staffs.
Nah, it's not just Libby. It's the total subversion of the Constitution that gets me. And believe me, the Constitution has been subverted by this group. Let's start with the war on terror that ended up in Iraq; and then there's the little matter of the Patriot Act, which, yes, does effect me personally. And where does the VP belong in the branches of government? That's just highlighting. No, I don't like Cheney. I don't like his politics. But his and his younger mentee have gone beyond the pale. They have no place in a republican democracy. Clinton lied about a sexual act; these guys lie about everything.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 9, 2007 6:32:52 GMT -5
//JoeW: Your response has nothing to do with my point about Armitage and Novak. It is a complete evasion of the point... But to my mind, the bigger picture must include Novak and Armitage. Lack of interest in them signals political motivation.//
Novak is irrelevant. How can he be prosecuted when it's senior officials in the Bush Administration giving him information? Armitage is a different case. He went to Fitzgerald on his own accord and admitted that he had spoken to Novak about Mrs. Wilson's employment; I believed he denied knowing that she was covert. (Novak picked up that tidbit elsewhere.) I'm confident that Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's statements thoroughly; in the end, he chose not to indict him.
Armitage goes to Fitzgerald and confesses his involvement. Libby must be dragged before the Grand Jury where he repeatedly lies about his involvement. Tell me you don't see a difference.
I'm tired of this meme of yours, i.e., "the Bush and Cheney haters." It implies, somehow, that it's irrational for a majority of Americans to believe this country is on the wrong track; that the Iraq War was initiated on false premises and bungled from the start; that America's finest are dying in Iraq needlessly. It's not irrational. There exists a mighty case against the Bush regime's foreign adventures; the fact that it fails to sway you is evidence not of "Bush hate" in others, but of a perverse blind loyalty in you.
So let's stop personally characterizing each other one way or the other. Stick to facts and arguments, if you please.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 9, 2007 7:01:46 GMT -5
So let's stop personally characterizing each other one way or the other. Stick to facts and arguments, if you please. Okay. Up till now I could just read and be amazed but this one ... I laughed so hard, coffee almost came out my nose. The position posed by PTC, Gailkate and Dand is so lacking in facts and so full of mock rage it is to laugh at their postings. "You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts." _E_
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 9, 2007 9:24:54 GMT -5
PT and joew have both posted quite a few facts, though I have found PT's much more detailed and therefore, more persuasive.
I am not a knee-jerk "Bush-Cheney hater;" in fact, I am a registered Republican who has previously discussed my sincere initial hopes for for their administration when they took office in 2001. There has been disappointment, and now revulsion, on my part at the way Bush has prosecuted this Global War on Terror (among other things). Much of my negative impression has been formed by actually working on the scene in Afghanistan.
That is my opinion, but it is based on facts such as those cited by PT.
I regard my characterization as a "Bush-Cheney hater" as an unwarranted personal characterization, not a fact.
I don't see a lack of facts in most posts here, although individuals are entitled to interpret those facts as they choose - including joew, PT, dand and gailkate .
What are your facts edsfam? I see a personal characterization of "mock rage" in your post, but I do not read anything but a sincere belief in the posts you criticize (as well as facts).
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 9, 2007 10:36:56 GMT -5
Why would I bother posting facts?
The Facts have been ignored, mis-reported, stretched, redefined and so fully tainted that those that do not wish to believe the "true facts" have their own set of "true facts" to refute any claims.
I have been burned before: "I think it has been previously esteablished in this forum that we all acknowledge that Saddam had, and used, chemical weapons. Some time ago, I believe we also established that the particular concern was nuclear "WMD," and that is the commonly understood meaning of "WMD." Such nuclear weaponry was the object of Hans Blix and company's search."
Redefining "WMD" to make the statements made by others fit the desired set of "facts"?
I won't fall into that trap again. So good luck to you all and enjoy your "facts".
_E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 9, 2007 12:13:38 GMT -5
… Nah, it's not just Libby. It's the total subversion of the Constitution that gets me. And believe me, the Constitution has been subverted by this group. Let's start with the war on terror that ended up in Iraq; and then there's the little matter of the Patriot Act, which, yes, does effect me personally. And where does the VP belong in the branches of government? That's just highlighting. No, I don't like Cheney. I don't like his politics. But his and his younger mentee have gone beyond the pale. They have no place in a republican democracy. Clinton lied about a sexual act; these guys lie about everything. I presume the highlights you give are the worst examples. How does the bringing of the war on terror into Iraq subvert the Constitution? The Patriot Act, of course, was enacted by Congress, so you can't blame it simply on the Bush Administration. And whether any of it is unconstitutional is a matter of opinion: yours and others' against the legislative branch of our government. Of course, it was ridiculous of Cheney to claim not to be part of the executive branch. As I've made clear, I'm less than enthusiastic about the war in Iraq, and I think the Administration has been incompetent in other areas as well. I just think the characterization of him as the man who destroyed constitutional government in the United States goes over the top.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 9, 2007 14:11:53 GMT -5
Why would I bother posting facts? The Facts have been ignored, mis-reported, stretched, redefined and so fully tainted that those that do not wish to believe the "true facts" have their own set of "true facts" to refute any claims. I have been burned before: "I think it has been previously esteablished in this forum that we all acknowledge that Saddam had, and used, chemical weapons. Some time ago, I believe we also established that the particular concern was nuclear "WMD," and that is the commonly understood meaning of "WMD." Such nuclear weaponry was the object of Hans Blix and company's search." Redefining "WMD" to make the statements made by others fit the desired set of "facts"? I won't fall into that trap again. So good luck to you all and enjoy your "facts". _E_ Fair enough. I don't care for that particular definition myself, but it was given to me by a physician colleague who is a highly placed political appointee who reported directly to Paul Wolfowitz. Subsequent perusal of the Washington Post and other publications (including the trade journal serving the defense industry which is edited by my daughter) indicates that this is, indeed, the "Inside the Beltway" standard definition of WMD = weapons that destroy buildings and infrastructure, not '"just" people. It seems also to have become the "standard" definition elsewhere in print and broadcast media, as well as common usage. So it's originally a DoD definition. This is probably the same crowd that declared the neutron bomb was not WMD, because it only killed living beings, no destruction of property, buildings, roads, etc. I see no sign that the military industrial complex is inclined to alter this just because sensible people (not limited to health professionals) can easily see that chemical weaponry which kills hundreds or thousands at once is a weapon of mass destruction. I believe the PC terminology for that is "mass casualty situation." FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 9, 2007 14:53:12 GMT -5
joew I thank you for your gentlemanly persistence in your explanation of your views. Even if at the end, there are some areas where we shall agree to disagree in our opinions and interpretations.
I feel the actions of the current administration have at the least posed a threat to constitutional principles, but I agree that our entire constitutional government is not being brought down by one man, George Bush, even with the help of the likes of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
I believe much too strongly in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And messy as our democracy might be, I've had the opportunity to see many other governments that are much worse.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jul 9, 2007 21:46:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jul 9, 2007 21:47:16 GMT -5
Hey, it's blue! Maybe I did make the link!
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Jul 9, 2007 22:23:10 GMT -5
joew, thanks for your reply. I disagree, of course. I think the whole concept of an unitary executive implies an extra-constitutional position. Signing statements that describe what portions of a Bill will be enforced and those that will be ignored. The hubris involved in decision making. Shop till you drop, ignore what we're doing, because we're protecting you. Government non-bid contracts. Nothing happens in Iraq without Haliburton's approval. The usual stuff.
It isn't politics as usual, is my point. I don't think I'm over the top. I think the administration is.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 9, 2007 22:47:52 GMT -5
Thanks, Jane. From time to time people object to C&P, so we now feel we must give links rather than actual text. I'm tempted to copy this whole essay because it documents many of the reasons some of us see Bush and Cheney as guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. I do not hate Bush and Cheney. I was taught that is a sin. I do hate their actions and their criminal hubris.
In case anyone is unwilling or too lazy to follow your link, I quote just a few lines that summarize some of their most egregious offenses, perhaps most important being violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments.
"...Cheney has been the intellectual author and bureaucratic facilitator of the crimes and misdemeanors that have inflicted unprecedented disgrace on our country’s moral and political standing: the casual trashing of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions; the claim of authority to seize suspects, including American citizens, and imprison them indefinitely and incommunicado, with no right to due process of law; the outright encouragement of “cruel,” “inhuman,” and “degrading” treatment of prisoners; the use of undoubted torture...."
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 10, 2007 2:38:36 GMT -5
As I've made clear, I'm less than enthusiastic about the war in Iraq, and I think the Administration has been incompetent in other areas as well. I just think the characterization of him as the man who destroyed constitutional government in the United States goes over the top. If you're Jose Padilla, an American citizen, who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and held until 2005 in military custody as an "enemy combatant," with no official charges being brought against him until the winter of 2005 (fair and speedy trial anyone?), it doesn't seem so over the top. But then the government arrested him so he must be guilty, right? Where's the harm in that?
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 10, 2007 7:39:54 GMT -5
Fair enough. I don't care for that particular definition myself, but it was given to me by a physician colleague who is a highly placed political appointee who reported directly to Paul Wolfowitz. Subsequent perusal of the Washington Post and other publications (including the trade journal serving the defense industry which is edited by my daughter) indicates that this is, indeed, the "Inside the Beltway" standard definition of WMD = weapons that destroy buildings and infrastructure, not '"just" people. It seems also to have become the "standard" definition elsewhere in print and broadcast media, as well as common usage. So it's originally a DoD definition. This is probably the same crowd that declared the neutron bomb was not WMD, because it only killed living beings, no destruction of property, buildings, roads, etc. I see no sign that the military industrial complex is inclined to alter this just because sensible people (not limited to health professionals) can easily see that chemical weaponry which kills hundreds or thousands at once is a weapon of mass destruction. I believe the PC terminology for that is "mass casualty situation." FWIW. I suck at DoubleSpeak. Maybe that is why all this "Scooter Pardon" outrage is a mystery to me. Usually for a continuing "crimnal investigation" there needs to be an unsolved crime, not just a political vendetta. Usually a "covert agent" needs to be covert and not just a desk agent that is openly known to be employed at CIA. Usually when people don't know something or don't say what is expected it is not automatically a sign of complicity in a crimnal activity or a cover-up, it is a sign of lack of knowledge. I know so little about DoubleSpeak, I could mis-write a book. _E_
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 10, 2007 11:14:53 GMT -5
I think I said earlier that the CIA requested an investigation of this matter by the FBI: they thought it was a serious breach. I've also mentioned that my relative worked for the CIA but his work was not discussed even in the family. There are different levels of security and a great deal has been written about why telling one or more reporters about Plame's job could have been dangerous to others and could blow her career. No point in going over all of that again.
I don't understand what seems to me like a determination to focus as narrowly as possible on this case. Joe says we evade the question of Armitage, while we keep saying the Bush/Cheney defenders are ignoring the broader crime of destroying a dissenter and then covering it up. This is exactly like Watergate in that Nixon didn't burgle the Democratic offices. Neither did Mitchell, Haldemann, et al. As became famous in that inquiry, the issue was "What did the President [Vice President} know and when did he know it?"
Most important, the reason for destroying the dissenter (Wilson) was that he revealed evidence that the administration had known their case against Saddam was weak but they stated it forcefully in order to justify invading Iraq. The intelligence guys had said part of Bush's SOTU address in 2003 should be excised and it was intentionally put back in. We were duped into a war that's now killed more than 3600 Americans and uncountable innocent Iraqi civilians.
This small, insignificant case with insignificant players is how we come to know that we were misled. If I were a supporter of this administration, I would feel betrayed.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Jul 10, 2007 13:09:00 GMT -5
"I think I said earlier that the CIA requested an investigation of this matter by the FBI: they thought it was a serious breach."
The simple act of requesting is not an indication of level of seriousness, focus or reason. This statement seems to make an assumption not based in fact.
"I've also mentioned that my relative worked for the CIA but his work was not discussed even in the family."
This statement is an anecdote with limited scope. It does not prove anything one way or the other.
"There are different levels of security and a great deal has been written about why telling one or more reporters about Plame's job could have been dangerous to others and could blow her career. No point in going over all of that again."
If Plame thought her security was vital and exposure was dangerous to others, why did she pose for pictures to be published in national magazines and go on TV for all to see?
"I don't understand what seems to me like a determination to focus as narrowly as possible on this case. Joe says we evade the question of Armitage, while we keep saying the Bush/Cheney defenders are ignoring the broader crime of destroying a dissenter and then covering it up."
There are easier ways to destroy dissenters than convoluted ploys of leaks and insinuation. Also, how does having a wife exposed as an employee at the CIA "destroy a dissenter"? This has always seemed to be an illogical leap to an un connected conclusion. It sounds real serious, but does not follow a cause-effect path.
"This is exactly like Watergate in that Nixon didn't burgle the Democratic offices. Neither did Mitchell, Haldemann, et al. As became famous in that inquiry, the issue was "What did the President [Vice President} know and when did he know it?""
It is not exactly like Watergate unless you have inside info (possibly from your relative in the CIA). The Plame incident may be likened to the President Clinton/Billy Dale incident where a career was deliberately destroyed by a White House assault.
"Most important, the reason for destroying the dissenter (Wilson) was that he revealed evidence that the administration had known their case against Saddam was weak but they stated it forcefully in order to justify invading Iraq. The intelligence guys had said part of Bush's SOTU address in 2003 should be excised and it was intentionally put back in. We were duped into a war that's now killed more than 3600 Americans and uncountable innocent Iraqi civilians.
This small, insignificant case with insignificant players is how we come to know that we were misled. If I were a supporter of this administration, I would feel betrayed.[/quote]"
I am not a supporter of this administration or of any other. I am a big supporter of truth and logic. I do not make assumption of the motives of others without some basis in fact. I do not assume that people I did not vote for are criminally guilty until proven innocent. I do not leap to illogical conclusions to feed my soul just because I am still angry at perceived injustice from many years ago. I do watch for subtle bias and overt propaganda in all media. My greatest weakness may be that I dismiss from serious consideration the opinions of those that do not seem to be judicious in expressing their opinions. _E_
(If this looks choppy, it took three attempts to post. I got tired of re-writing the same thing over and over.)
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 10, 2007 20:40:52 GMT -5
… I don't understand what seems to me like a determination to focus as narrowly as possible on this case. Joe says we evade the question of Armitage, while we keep saying the Bush/Cheney defenders are ignoring the broader crime of destroying a dissenter and then covering it up. This is exactly like Watergate in that Nixon didn't burgle the Democratic offices. Neither did Mitchell, Haldemann, et al. As became famous in that inquiry, the issue was "What did the President [Vice President} know and when did he know it?" Figuratively destroying (i.e., discrediting) a dissenter is not a crime. It is politics, every bit as much as the dissent is politics. What complicated matters in this instance was the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame. What Wilson "revealed" was that Saddam did not succeed in his attempts to get yellowcake uranium from Niger. Bush never claimed that he did. What was significant, as one element of the case that Saddam represented a serious danger to the stability of the region, was that he clearly was trying to produce atomic bombs. If we were duped into the war, it was Saddam who duped us by pretending to have or to be developing WMD.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 10, 2007 21:22:59 GMT -5
dand —
It seems to me that the concept of unitary executive makes perfect sense as a way of understanding the first sentence of Article II Section 1. of the Constitution. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 10, 2007 21:50:55 GMT -5
I've admitted I'm not a good history student, and my knowledge of government has focused on healthcare programs, but here goes. What about the balance of power?
Is there not supposed to be a balance of the three powers: executive, legislative, and judicial?
Congress has spent some time asleep at the wheel instead of attending to its responsibility of oversight. Excessive partisanship has played out a picture of majority Republican lapdogs, now dominated by Democrats who may want to engage in oversight, or seek vendettas, depending on one's viewpoint.
There is evidence to suggest that the federal judiciary has been politically pressured to take partisan action, though this is not completely investigated at this point. From the viewpoint of a Western Washingtonian close to one of the disputed judgeships, it appears highly likely that Republican appointee John McKay was forced out of office for "failing to adequately investigate" the narrow loss of the Republican gubernatorial candidate Rossi to the Democratic candidate Gregoire in 2004. The investigation was extremely thorough, and election results were certified by (elected) Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed.
Though President Bush is my president, and I hope/wish he would do a good job, it seems to me that dand's point regarding the unitary executive is well-taken, and his behavior beyond that intended by Article II of the constitution.
Inquiring minds really do want to know.
BTW, I was leafing through my address book this afternoon, and noted my Nov-Dec 2000 contact for the "Bush-Cheney Transition Team" (email, address, and phone number) to which I was recommended, applied and considered/was considered for appointment to one of the "political appointee" healthcare positions I alluded to earlier.
Still a card-carrying Republican, but badly disillusioned...
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 10, 2007 23:50:20 GMT -5
//Edsfam: My greatest weakness may be that I dismiss from serious consideration the opinions of those that do not seem to be judicious in expressing their opinions.//
Yeah. I'm suffering from that weakness, too. Must be going around.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 11, 2007 18:56:33 GMT -5
doctork —
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of government. Unlike the judiciary, they are not independent of the President. What this means is that the department, including the U.S. Attorneys, is constitutionally supposed to follow the pollicies of the President, not behave like independent centers of authority doing their own thing. One President may want resources directed heavily to fighting organized crime; another may want to go after white-collar crime and corporate malfeasance. One may target illegal aliens, another, the drug trade. Resources are limited, and U.S.Attorneys cannot possibly prosecute every possible case. Choices have to be made, and ultimately the President, who has the constitutional duty, and therefore the constitutional authority, to see that the laws be faithfully executed, must be able to decide how to allocat the llimited resources of the Department of Justice. If a U.S. Attorney won't pursue the cases which the President makes a priority, he or she is not fulfilling the duties of the office under our constitutional system, and ought to be fired.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 11, 2007 20:39:44 GMT -5
But priorities of the administration should have no connection to elections. The US atty in our state, who didn't know he was on a list, quit in part because he pursued rights for American Indians and was urged to drop those pursuits. The critical one, which brought him to the Party's attention, was his objection to our sec'y of state's order that voters had to present a driver license at the polls. We permit many forms of ID, including a utility bill, neighbor's vouching for your address, etc.
Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver’s licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes’ photo IDs
The issue was politically sensitive because the Indian vote can be pivotal in close elections in Minnesota. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has one of the largest urban Native American populations in the United States. Its members turn out in relatively large numbers and are predominantly Democratic. … The GOP blamed what it said was fraud on Indian reservations for the narrow victory of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson over Republican John Thune in 2002.
...Goodling said she had heard Heffelfinger criticized for “spending an excessive amount of time” on Indian issues.
But newly obtained documents and interviews suggest that what displeased some of his superiors and GOP politicians was narrower and more politically charged — his actions on Indian voting.
Kiffmeyer lost the election in 2006. The concern about the firing of fed attys is the timing and their refusal to pursue or drop politically charged cases. Many former US Attys have said the Bush administration's actions were insupportable.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 11, 2007 22:16:18 GMT -5
But priorities of the administration should have no connection to elections. … I disagree. The federal government can certainly take an interest in insuring honest elections by preventing disenfranchisement or voter fraud. As a supporter of states' rights, I prefer to have elections treated as a responsibility of the several states, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a legitimate assertion of federal authority under the Civil War Amendments.
|
|