Document Dump Embarrassing to DOJ

Interesting about Fitz – They say he was among those who had ”not distinguished themselves,” yet according to TPMMuckraker, in 2002 they awarded him the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service.

Back to Top

Gonzales Replacements Considered

Pretty good reporting on the Gonzales death watch by Ron Hutcheson and Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers.

“”We’ve seen the e-mails now. They’re damning,” said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who called for Gonzales to step down. “He has a credibility problem, he has a trust problem and he has a growing national scandal problem. … It’s time that we restore justice at the Justice Department.”"

Back to Top

Gonzales Replacements Considered

Pretty good reporting on the Gonzales death watch by Ron Hutcheson and Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers.

“”We’ve seen the e-mails now. They’re damning,” said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who called for Gonzales to step down. “He has a credibility problem, he has a trust problem and he has a growing national scandal problem. … It’s time that we restore justice at the Justice Department.”"

Back to Top

POST Double Standards

Media Matters blasts the Post for glaring double-standards. When no credible charges had been made against Clinton, the Post called for a special counsel. Not so with Bush, even though clearly his administration lied to congress about the purge of US Attorneys.

“Considerably less surprising is that the Post’s editorial page once again refuses to hold the Bush administration to the standard it applied to the Clinton administration. In 1994, the Post insisted on a special counsel to investigate the Clintons even in the absence of a single credible charge against them because the Post thought it impossible for a Justice Department to conduct a credible investigation of a president. But today, faced with a burgeoning scandal that involves not only the president and top White House aides but also the Department of Justice itself, the Post still does not demand the appointment of an outside investigator.”

Back to Top

POST Double Standards

Media Matters blasts the Post for glaring double-standards. When no credible charges had been made against Clinton, the Post called for a special counsel. Not so with Bush, even though clearly his administration lied to congress about the purge of US Attorneys.

“Considerably less surprising is that the Post’s editorial page once again refuses to hold the Bush administration to the standard it applied to the Clinton administration. In 1994, the Post insisted on a special counsel to investigate the Clintons even in the absence of a single credible charge against them because the Post thought it impossible for a Justice Department to conduct a credible investigation of a president. But today, faced with a burgeoning scandal that involves not only the president and top White House aides but also the Department of Justice itself, the Post still does not demand the appointment of an outside investigator.”

Back to Top

More Lies from the Culture of Corruption

ABC reports more on the lying from the WH and the Bush DOJ.

“New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.”

Where will it all end?

Back to Top

More Lies from the Culture of Corruption

ABC reports more on the lying from the WH and the Bush DOJ.

“New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.”

Where will it all end?

Back to Top

Whitewater Redux

This apparently isn’t the first time a Bush WH has pressured a US Attorney to step-up a half-baked “criminal investigation” for purely political purposes. Seems that Daddy Bush’s WH wasn’t above putting the hammer on Charles Banks, the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney in Little Rock back in 1992 – just in time for the presidential election. See this piece by Mollie Dickenson writing in The Consortium:

“But Banks had already concluded — and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed — that “no action should be taken on the referral at that time.” Banks had prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes and lost.

Banks said further that he believed “no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses,” most notably the Clintons.

In a report to the Justice Department dated Oct. 16, 1992, Banks indicated that Barr’s desire to expedite the Whitewater investigation smacked of improper political use of the federal judicial system.

“I know in investigations of this type,” wrote Banks, “the first steps, such as issuance of … subpoenas … will lead to media and public inquiries of matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions about such an investigation all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize what can’t be proven.’

“I must opine that after such a lapse of time, the insistence for urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene into the political process of the upcoming presidential election. …

“For me personally to participate in an investigation that I know will or could easily lead to the above scenario and to the possible denial of rights due to the targets, subjects, witnesses or defendants is inappropriate.

“I believe it amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions and believe that such would be detrimental to the Department of Justice, FBI, this office and to the President of the United States,” George Bush.”

The acorn didn’t fall too far from the tree, eh?

Back to Top

Whitewater Redux

This apparently isn’t the first time a Bush WH has pressured a US Attorney to step-up a half-baked “criminal investigation” for purely political purposes. Seems that Daddy Bush’s WH wasn’t above putting the hammer on Charles Banks, the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney in Little Rock back in 1992 – just in time for the presidential election. See this piece by Mollie Dickenson writing in The Consortium:

“But Banks had already concluded — and the FBI in Little Rock had agreed — that “no action should be taken on the referral at that time.” Banks had prosecuted Jim McDougal in 1990 for alleged bank crimes and lost.

Banks said further that he believed “no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses,” most notably the Clintons.

In a report to the Justice Department dated Oct. 16, 1992, Banks indicated that Barr’s desire to expedite the Whitewater investigation smacked of improper political use of the federal judicial system.

“I know in investigations of this type,” wrote Banks, “the first steps, such as issuance of … subpoenas … will lead to media and public inquiries of matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions about such an investigation all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize what can’t be proven.’

“I must opine that after such a lapse of time, the insistence for urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene into the political process of the upcoming presidential election. …

“For me personally to participate in an investigation that I know will or could easily lead to the above scenario and to the possible denial of rights due to the targets, subjects, witnesses or defendants is inappropriate.

“I believe it amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions and believe that such would be detrimental to the Department of Justice, FBI, this office and to the President of the United States,” George Bush.”

The acorn didn’t fall too far from the tree, eh?

Back to Top

WSJ: DOJ Tales Don’t Add Up

Even the Wall Street Journal can no longer ignore the lying done by the Bush DOJ:

“WASHINGTON — Emails between White House aides and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff show an orchestrated effort to fire several U.S. attorneys, counter to Mr. Gonzales’s previous assertions that the firings weren’t instigated by the White House.”

They appear to contradict testimony offered by Gonzales and other top DOJ officials.

Tick, tick, tick…….

Back to Top