SubpoenOWNED

[Rosotar]

What was up with the Republican's trying to shut down Kyle Sampson's testimony yesterday? Didn't that seem kind of fishy in the middle of the hearing for them to pop up and try to stop it?

It was almost as though once he started talking they said "Oh shit!" this is not going to go as planned so they made a last minute, desperate attempt to stuff the stopper back in before the genie was completely out of the bottle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[red states rule]

What was up with the Republican's trying to shut down Kyle Sampson's testimony yesterday? Didn't that seem kind of fishy in the middle of the hearing for them to pop up and try to stop it?

It was almost as though once he started talking they said "Oh shit!" this is not going to go as planned so they made a last minute, desperate attempt to stuff the stopper back in before the genie was completely out of the bottle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

so what "crime" was committed? The fired DA's were not enforeing the law so they were let go

 

[jasendorf]

What was up with the Republican's trying to shut down Kyle Sampson's testimony yesterday? Didn't that seem kind of fishy in the middle of the hearing for them to pop up and try to stop it?

It was almost as though once he started talking they said "Oh shit!" this is not going to go as planned so they made a last minute, desperate attempt to stuff the stopper back in before the genie was completely out of the bottle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Republicans want ANYTHING except the facts and the truth to come out.

They're hiding something... hard...

 

[Rosotar]

so what "crime" was committed? The fired DA's were not enforeing the law so they were let go

Firing the attorneys wasn't a crime in itself but obstruction of justice and using the Justice Department to rig elections is.

 

[pegwinn]

Firing the attorneys wasn't a crime in itself but obstruction of justice and using the Justice Department to rig elections is.

Source?

 

[red states rule]

Source?

Keith Liberalman, Chris Matthews, and the liberal media

They were fired for not enforcing the law and that is it plain and simple

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I am not in favor of retaliation, nor have I ever said as much.

You just implied it. What the hell do you think "payback" is.

and republicans whine about democrats doing a little payback?

This implies that there is a retaliation.

whitewater paula jones gennifer flowers travelgate filegate vince foster monica blue dress impeachment ...

These were valid investigations that were handled inappropriately. But they were warranted nonetheless.

 

[Rosotar]

Source?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901962_pf.html

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sought more information yesterday about a presentation by a White House aide given to political appointees at the General Services Administration that discussed targeting 20 Democratic congressional candidates in the next election.

In a letter to White House political affairs director Karl Rove, the committee chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), asked about the Jan. 26 videoconference by Rove deputy J. Scott Jennings, which was directed to the chief of the GSA and as many as 40 agency officials stationed around the country.

Jennings's 28-page presentation included 2006 election results and listed the names of Democratic candidates considered beatable and Republican lawmakers thought to need help. At a hearing Wednesday about the GSA, Waxman said the presentation and follow-up remarks allegedly made by agency chief Lurita Alexis Doan may have violated the Hatch Act, a law that restricts federal agencies and employees from using their positions for political purposes.

I realize that this in itself doesn't constitute "proof" of anything. Not yet. However it does warrant a thorough investigation.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.


Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You just implied it. What the hell do you think "payback" is.



This implies that there is a retaliation.



These were valid investigations that were handled inappropriately. But they were warranted nonetheless.

The fact of the matter is that this, and other Congressional investigations of the Bush administration and the activities of its members are neither "pay-back" nor "retaliation" at all. Had the Republican controlled Congress of Bush's first six years in office actually taken up the responsibilities of its oversight functions, rather than ABDICATING them and giving this administration a carte blanche, many of these issues would have been addressed already. ANY elected official who sets loyalty to party and President above the duties of their oath of office and serving their electorate DO NOT deserve the offices they hold, regardless of party affiliation or ideological bent.

 

[red states rule]

So you are STILL having a temper tantrum over the administration firing attorneys who did not enforce the law?

Did not go after the death penalty, did not go after illegals, and did not go after drug smugglers?

I guess the kleft only wants those laws they agree with to be enforced

 

[maineman]

So you are STILL having a temper tantrum over the administration firing attorneys who did not enforce the law?

Did not go after the death penalty, did not go after illegals, and did not go after drug smugglers?

I guess the kleft only wants those laws they agree with to be enforced

and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?

 

[red states rule]

and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?

Sicne they serve at the pleasure of the President, and they were not doing their job - they were fired

I know that is a new idea for Dems to fire any government worker who is not doing their job - but that is the reason they were let go

 

[maineman]

Sicne they serve at the pleasure of the President, and they were not doing their job - they were fired

I know that is a new idea for Dems to fire any government worker who is not doing their job - but that is the reason they were let go

and you failed to answer my question. same old same old.

"and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?"

try again

 

[red states rule]

and you failed to answer my question. same old same old.

"and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?"

try again

If you work at the pleasure of the President he can fire you at any time for any reason

If there are others who are not doing their job - fire them now and really watch the libs go into full boil

 

[red states rule]

ABC's Silent Expert
Stephanopoulos knows more than he lets on about firing U.S. attorneys.

BY MARK LASSWELL
Sunday, April 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

How does "World News with Charles Gibson" do it? For the fifth time in seven weeks, the ABC newscast the week before last drew the biggest audience on average (8.4 million) of the three network evening-news shows. Marveling at the newscast's ascendancy after two years of turmoil in ABC's anchor ranks, media observers tend to dwell on the unexpected old-shoe appeal of Mr. Gibson. But there may be another explanation. Facing up to the reality that, alas, many folks these days like to get their news from "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," ABC News has added comedy to the mix.

How else to explain those hilarious skits when Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reports on the brouhaha over the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys while the proverbial elephant in the room is lurking just off-camera?

Mr. Stephanopoulos doesn't mention his own valuable expertise on the subject of fired federal prosecutors, the kind of expertise that might help place the current mess in context. Mr. Stephanopoulos was the Clinton White House communications director in 1993 when the Justice Department cleaned its slate of all 93 U.S. attorneys, and he was central to the administration's finessing of the episode--just the sort of insider experience, presumably, that prompted ABC News to hire Mr. Stephanopoulos fresh out of the White House in 1996.

And yet even when Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos engage in the sort of exploratory anchor-reporter chitchat that is a staple of network news nowadays, somehow the two manage not to crack up as they rake over the latest sinister developments in the fired-prosecutors "scandal" without acknowledging that one of the newsmen knows a good bit more than he lets on about how these things work.

Mr. Stephanopoulos remains just as sober when working solo on Sunday mornings as the host of "This Week" or helping out on "Good Morning America." There hasn't been this much stone-faced comedy in circulation since Buster Keaton's heyday.

It's a pity, because Mr. Stephanopoulos might be able to help viewers understand why the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in the Bush administration has been by far the biggest television-news story lately, and yet when dozens of federal prosecutors were fired during the Clinton administration, it was barely noticed by network newscasts. According to the Tyndall Report, which tracks this sort of thing, during the week of March 12-16, the three network evening newscasts spent a total of 45 minutes on the prosecutors story, with the war in Iraq placing second at 16 minutes. "World News with Charles Gibson" logged 13 of those 45 minutes on the prosecutors.
By contrast, in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno's wholesale firing of U.S. attorneys appointed by George H.W. Bush was a non-story on the ABC evening news--literally a non-story, according to records kept by the Vanderbilt University Television News Archive, as in zero coverage. CBS also skipped it; NBC gave it 20 seconds.

At the risk of putting a damper on all the fun, here's a primer on the sort of White House experience that ABC's chief Washington correspondent could draw on to enlighten viewers.

First of all, misleading messages from a hapless attorney general can be corrected: Janet Reno had only been on the job for a matter of days when she announced the blanket dismissal of U.S. attorneys in March 1993, and she bungled the job, letting word get out that prosecutors involved in significant investigations would be allowed to complete them. As was noted at the time, this would have meant that an ongoing investigation of the powerful House Democrat and vital Clinton ally, Dan Rostenkowski, by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jay Stephens, would continue uninterrupted.

The White House, or rather Mr. Stephanopoulos, quickly torpedoed that idea. In a press briefing, he announced that among the prosecutors whose resignations had been demanded, "there are at least some people who are in the middle of trials right now who will not be replaced." Trials, he specified, not investigations. "Interestingly," a Hartford Courant editorial noted back then, "Miss Reno didn't explain the impending dismissals. The president's personal spokesman, George Stephanopoulos, did the fast talking."

Lesson number two: When the White House comes under suspicion of politicizing the process of replacing federal prosecutors, don't deny it. In 1993, when a reporter asked Mr. Stephanopoulos about the origins of Ms. Reno's decision to jettison all the U.S. attorneys, the exchange went like this:


Mr. Stephanopoulos: I assume she was in discussions with the White House counsel, but it is her decision.
Q: Can you tell us whether the White House counsel may have suggested the idea?

Mr. Stephanopoulos: I don't know if he specifically suggested it, but I am certain that he was consulted.

Q: Would it be fair then to say that after consultations with the White House she decided to do this?

Mr. Stephanopoulos: It would be fair to say that she consulted with the White House before making the announcement.

Q: And the White House approved.

Q: The decision or the announcement?

Mr. Stephanopoulos: The White House did not disagree.

Q: I want to thank you for your persistence--(Laughter).

Finally, keep an eye on the aftermath: Jay Stephens put his U.S. attorney job behind him and was soon hired by the Resolution Trust Corp., an independent regulatory agency, to investigate claims stemming from the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. For those who have filed away their memories of the Clintons' Arkansas years, Madison Guaranty was connected to the Rose Law Firm, Hillary Clinton's former employer, and the firm would be an area of interest for any investigator.
Then, in February 1994, according to the Dallas Morning News, the RTC got an irate conference call from Harold Ickes, the White House deputy chief of staff, and George Stephanopoulos, by then President Clinton's senior advisor, to protest the hiring. Amid reports that they tried to have Mr. Stephens fired--it would have been his second pink slip in less than a year--the White House issued a statement that Mr. Ickes and Mr. Stephanopoulos had "no recollection" of making such a request.

Mr. Stephanopoulos long ago changed jobs, too, but plenty of members of Congress remain right where they were in 1993. And that may be the only lesson we need regarding the nature of the fired-prosecutors "scandal": Then as now, Democrats control both houses, but in 2007 they have a Republican administration to make miserable.
Mr. Lasswell is deputy books editor at The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009882

 

[maineman]

If you work at the pleasure of the President he can fire you at any time for any reason

If there are others who are not doing their job - fire them now and really watch the libs go into full boil

why can't you answer my questions?

"and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?"

try again.

 

[red states rule]

why can't you answer my questions?

"and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?"

try again.

Ten Years Ago, Subpoenas Drew TV Yawns
Posted by Tim Graham on March 31, 2007 - 10:33.
With the Democrats back in power, network anchors are dwelling lovingly on congressional hearings now with liberal stars like Al Gore and Valerie Plame. They've shown no loss of appetite for hearings on the U.S. Attorney-firings scandal, deemed a “constitutional crisis” by NBC Wednesday night. But ten years ago, when a Republican Congress prepared subpoenas for the Clinton White House on receiving political contributions from China, viewers heard the networks sing a very different tune.
ABC wondered whether subpoenas and hearings weren't democracy in action, but a waste of America's resources. On the April 10, 1997 World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings promoted a story: “When we come back, two investigations of fundraising abuse, two of them on Capitol Hill. Is it a waste of time and money?” Reporter John Cochran underlined the problem of GOP partisanship: “Dan Burton is a hard-charging partisan and has resisted investigating anyone but Democrats.”

ABC’s Linda Douglass insisted there was public boredom at the end of a story on the July 18, 1997 World News Tonight: “Democrats gripe that the hearings are too partisan, so next week the committee will focus on foreign contributions to Republicans, all the while wondering if the public is paying attention to any of this.”

CBS cast the House subpoena plans as a partisan food fight. On the April 11, 1997 CBS This Morning, substitute anchor Cynthia Bowers began: “Not long ago, there was a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about returning a sense of civility to congressional debate. Remember that? Well, forget it. When the debate is over money and politics, the gloves come off in the House of Representatives.”

Reporter Bob Schieffer warned: “The House committee trying to investigate campaign irregularities has broken into complete partisan disarray over how much power to give Republican Chairman Dan Burton....Democrats did everything but throw food when Burton laid out ground rules for the investigation, under which he could subpoena witnesses and documents without the Democrats' permission....Democrats say Burton is destroying the committee's credibility by concentrating only on Democratic irregularities....Democrats fear the probe is already out of control.”

On July 31, 1997, the Senate committee probing the Asian money scandal voted unanimously to subpoena the White House after they took months to release documents about illegal donations to the DNC. The only network mention came from Bob Schieffer on the July 30 CBS Evening News – but nothing after subpoenas were issued.

NBC theorized that the media were too Clinton-scandal obsessed in 1997. On June 17, 1997, Today co-host Katie Couric asked reporter Bob Woodward: “But are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

On August 1, even as the Senate moved to subpoena the White House, co-host Matt Lauer professed: “But there aren't any major storm clouds on the horizon for Bill Clinton, other than maybe Medicare reform.” Newsweek's Jonathan Alter replied: “Yeah, but of course there are these possible scandals, but when the economy is doing well, the public really doesn't seem to care much about anything else.”

On October 8, Today co-host Katie Couric framed the hearings for Sen. Arlen Specter: “Perhaps this is an intentional effort to embarrass the Democratic Party?” On the November 7 Today, NBC's Lisa Myers pressed Senator Fred Thompson: “Your hearings clearly reinforced the public's already low opinion of politicians and politics. Beyond that, what did it accomplish?”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11734

 

[maineman]

why can't YOU answer my questions?

"and you are suggesting that the attorneys that were fired were chosen because they were the worst offenders on those issues. Would it surprise you to learn that many other US attorneys had much worse records on those issues than the nine who were fired?"

try again.

there are two questions there.... requiring you to answer twice.... the first one starts out: "are you suggesting...." and the second one starts out: "would it surprise you...."

try just typing your answers.... one word answers if you like...to those two questions.... then we will be having what is quaintly known as "a conversation". try it.

 

[red states rule]

ABC's Comedy: Stephanopoulos Plays Dumb About His Own Role In U.S. Attorney Firings
Posted by Tim Graham on April 1, 2007 - 21:12.
Over at Opinion Journal, Mark Lasswell has an article about how ABC seems to be competing with The Daily Show for political comedy, at least when George Stephanopoulos talks about U.S. Attorney firings:

How else to explain those hilarious skits when Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reports on the brouhaha over the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys while the proverbial elephant in the room is lurking just off-camera?

Mr. Stephanopoulos doesn't mention his own valuable expertise on the subject of fired federal prosecutors, the kind of expertise that might help place the current mess in context. Mr. Stephanopoulos was the Clinton White House communications director in 1993 when the Justice Department cleaned its slate of all 93 U.S. attorneys, and he was central to the administration's finessing of the episode--just the sort of insider experience, presumably, that prompted ABC News to hire Mr. Stephanopoulos fresh out of the White House in 1996.

And yet even when Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos engage in the sort of exploratory anchor-reporter chitchat that is a staple of network news nowadays, somehow the two manage not to crack up as they rake over the latest sinister developments in the fired-prosecutors "scandal" without acknowledging that one of the newsmen knows a good bit more than he lets on about how these things work.

Mr. Stephanopoulos remains just as sober when working solo on Sunday mornings as the host of "This Week" or helping out on "Good Morning America." There hasn't been this much stone-faced comedy in circulation since Buster Keaton's heyday.

Lasswell notices what we've reported. ABC and CBS skipped U.S. Attorney firings entirely when Bill Clinton did it in 1993, and notes that Andrew Tyndall's numbers underline the dramatic contrast:

According to the Tyndall Report, which tracks this sort of thing, during the week of March 12-16, the three network evening newscasts spent a total of 45 minutes on the prosecutors story, with the war in Iraq placing second at 16 minutes. "World News with Charles Gibson" logged 13 of those 45 minutes on the prosecutors.

By contrast, in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno's wholesale firing of U.S. attorneys appointed by George H.W. Bush was a non-story on the ABC evening news--literally a non-story, according to records kept by the Vanderbilt University Television News Archive, as in zero coverage. CBS also skipped it; NBC gave it 20 seconds.

Lasswell also hints at what happened next with Stephanopoulos and Jay Stephens, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia fired by Clinton before he could indict Democrat Rep. Dan Rostenkowski. Stephens and his law firm was hired by the Resolution Trust Corporation to investigate the financial sheananigans of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, the corrupt bank at the center of the Whitewater scandal. Stephanopoulos demanded Stephens be fired, which landed him before congressional investigating committees. Ironically, when the Stephens law firm later found no serious criminal offense in Whitewater, the Clintonistas began touting it everywhere -- and still do to this day.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11752

 

[maineman]

cut and paste....

it's easier than actually thinking.