Rove Interviewed by Prosecutor Investigating Criminal Wrongdoing in US Prosecutor Firings

Our good friend Brad of BradBlog let us know yesterday that Karl Rove has been called to be interviewed today as part of the criminal investigation into the firings of U.S. Prosecutors. According to the Washington Post, Connecticut prosecutor, Norah R. Dannehy, was appointed in February to look into the role of administration officials in the firings of nine U.S. prosecutors and the questionable political motives and timing of those firings.

SigurdsonLaw describes it thusly:

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the
pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper
reasons. Bush administration officials at first claimed the
attorneys were let go because of poor performance.

The internal Justice investigation recommended a criminal
inquiry, saying the lack of cooperation by Rove and other senior
administration officials left gaps in their findings that should be
investigated further

Prosecutor Dannehy has been quietly working through the scant information out there, subpoenaing testimony and documents not forthcoming, and interviewing the players, working her way up the ladder. Of interest are Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton, former Bush aides; and of course, Karl Rove, the turd blossom himself.

The Justice Department's report that was released last February, which is thought to lack pertinent information due to the department's inability to compel testimony from members of the Bush Administration, improper criminal conduct. This investigation is to determine if charges will be brought against former Bush aides...hmmmm...



The meeting this morning happened in Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin's, office, and I'm guessing that little real information was exchanged. It would be nice for the fired prosecutors if this investigation could at least clear up the cloud caused by the claim that they were fired because of poor performance....at least we could get some clarity in this issue despite the difficulty posed by the Bushie wall of silence, broken only by propaganda pushes now and again. Someone has to hold these people accountable.

c/p RIP Coco

...bitter, bitter end (continued)

Is there some kind of contest as to how vile they can get before they leave town? Now, my good friend Tata is usually given to blogging about delicious cooking and fabulous decorating and about her highly colorful family and her Coolest Cats in the Known Universe. But you know that a politically-related story is important when Tata gets her umbrage on, and this one takes the proverbial cake:

The Bush Administration's Department of Justice announced Monday that they are suing the city of Gary, Indiana for discriminating against white people.



On Monday, the Justice Department announced a lawsuit against the Indiana city, alleging that six EMT technicians appear to have been hired on the basis of race alone in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- which was passed to combat discrimination against African Americans.



The suit alleges that the city told applicants that offers of employment would be based on the order they were ranked. But the city seems to have ignored their own ordering and instead hired several African American applicants who placed lower than the white applicants.



Each of the six who were hired ranked lower than the highest-ranking white applicant, the Justice Department wrote.



"Federal law guarantees equal access to employment opportunities without regard to race," said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a release. "The Department is committed to enforcing all the federal civil rights laws, including Title VII, under its jurisdiction."



Gary's corporate counsel, Hamilton Carmouche, told a local paper the list was prepared by the city's previous mayor, and gave preference to applicants who lived in Gary.



"We hire not on the basis of any race, but on the basis of residency," Carmouche said.



Use of the Civil Rights Act to protect against discrimination against whites is not unprecedented, but it is a novel tactic by the Bush Administration's lawyers.

One last blow for white privilege by the Bush Administration before the black people move into town, eh?

OK, so now what is Congress going to do about it

I've long talked about a "tipping point of evil" in government -- a point at which the lawbreaking and the atrocities committed by an American administration become so egregious, so heinous, that the perpetrators become unaccountable because the sheer volume of crimes is too huge to be prosecuted.

When I think Congress having impeachment hearings for a president who lied about an affair while under oath, and has allowed this bunch to carry on, I despair for our entire system of government and wonder why we even bother to participate.

Yesterday the entire country found out what many of has known for a long time -- that the entire Justice Department was stocked with ideologues, and those not toeing the Official Party Line were purged:

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, centered on the misconduct of a small circle of aides to Mr. Gonzales, including Monica Goodling, a former top adviser to the attorney general, and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff. It also found that White House officials were actively involved in some hiring decisions.

According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”

The report focused its sharpest criticism on Ms. Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly in the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

Before a crush of cameras, Ms. Goodling testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the uproar over the firings of nine United States attorneys, admitting that she may have “crossed the line” at times in using politics in hiring decisions. But Monday’s report catalogued an effort much more systematic than Ms. Goodling described, leading some Democrats to charge that she, Mr. Sampson and Mr. Gonzales should be investigated for perjury.

Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs.

The report released on Monday goes much further in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career positions, including immigration judges, assistant United States attorneys and even senior counterterrorism positions.

So now there is a report. Is Congress going to do anything about this, or is this report the equivalent of another "sternly worded letter"?

A nation of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations

If you're an American corporation, you no longer have to worry about trials for wrongdoing. Under Michael Mukasey's justice department, justice is an admonition, a wink, and a handshake:

In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.

Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.

Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws.

Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because “clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.”

Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. “Some companies may bear the risk” of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said.

Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations.

Gee, ya think?

It's interesting how you haven't heard Republicans run on the "tough on crime" platform in a long time. You may see "Willie Horton"-type ads today, but instead of fearmongering about criminals, they're more likely to take the form of casting doubt on That Scary Dark-Skinned Candidate Who May Be A Muslim And Even If He Isn't His Pastor Is a Very Mean Guy. Fear of terrorism has been effective for them, as has fear and loathing of immigrants. But you haven't seen them connect either of their boogeymen of choice to murders and rapes and property crimes. They haven't had to, when they can connect them to the toppling of buildings and "taking your job."

But it's understandable that they'd be cautious about playing the crime card, because when you have this stern Republican history of "actions have consequences", combined with the special exemptions for corporations and other Friends of Republicans, pointing out this discrepancy might cause people to ask questions. And you can't have that.

Would someone please check and make sure George W. Bush is still married?

After all, we all know that Teh Gayz are a threat to marriage, and one of Bush's judicial appointees has resigned after being arrested for a DUI while, shall we say, dressed to kill:

A Boston-based federal judge was found guilty yesterday of driving drunk on Elm Street last week after striking a plea deal with the city that enabled him to avoid trial.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, 63, pleaded no contest in Manchester District Court to a misdemeanor first-offense driving while intoxicated charge. Under the plea deal, Somma agreed to a 12-month license suspension, which could be reduced to six months if he successfully completes an alcohol awareness program, according to court records. He also paid $600 in fines and penalties.

Somma's Mercedes-Benz E320 sedan hit a pick-up truck from behind about 11:29 p.m. on Feb. 6, the police report said. No one was hurt.

Somma, who lives in Newbury, Mass., fumbled in his purse for his driver's license before handing it to the officer who later arrested him, the police report shows.

"He had a difficult time locating his license in his purse. He passed over it multiple times before removing it," officer Paul J. Thompson wrote in his report.

The officer offered no other details with regard to the judge's attire or accessories. Nor would representatives of the Manchester Police Department or the city solicitor's office, which worked out the negotiated plea agreement with Somma's lawyer, John J. Cronin III of Bennington. Somma initially was set to be arraigned on the charges Feb. 25.

"I won't comment on the attire, either," said Gregory T. Muller, an attorney with the city solicitor's office.

Somma told police he had been at the Breezeway Pub where he had one gin and tonic about two hours earlier, the police report reveals. He later said he drank two gin and tonics.

The Breezeway Pub, at 14 Pearl St., bills itself as "New Hampshire's favorite gay and alternative bar," according to its web site.

Trish at Pensito Review adds more details:

But lots of other people did offer those details, of which Audrey Hepburn would have been proud.

When authorities removed him from the vehicle, they said he wore a black women’s cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels.

(h/t: Steven Reynolds)

...same as the old boss: the sequel

Ted Olson, Larry Silberman, and George Terwilliger have emerged as the leading contenters for the Attorney General job, each one worse than the one before:

President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations.

Susie Madrak on each of these guys' history of insane wingnuttery:

As assistant attorney general to President Reagan from 1981 to 1983, Olson advised the president to claim executive privilege to block an investigation by congressional Democrats into the scandal-plagued Superfund program, based on assertions that later proved fatally false -- largely because Olson, apparently eager to force a political fight with Congress, failed to double-check key information.

And of course, both Olson and Silberman were closely involved in the Arkansas Project, the proverbial right-wing conspiracy to take down Bill Clinton.

Larry Silberman? Overturned Oliver North's conviction on what is seen as very shaky legal grounds, part of the illegal arms-for-hostages deal that helped Reagan win the 1980 election, and coordinated the attacks on Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. (I'd love to see Media Matter's David Brock testify against his character if nominated.)

Terwilliger isn't as famous a wingnut, which makes him the most likely nominee. They do like their unknowns, don't they? And after facing the twin specters of Olson and Silberman, the oh-so-predictable Democratic Congress will heave a sigh of relief and roll over on this nomination.

I wish I could say Susie is wrong or being overly dramatic. But given how the Democrats rolled over for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and with Joe Biden's words to Alberto Gonzales, "I like you...you're the real deal" -- etched into my brain with battery acid for all eternity, you can bet that there will be a show hearing, a quick confirmation, and more Unitary Executive Theory, more stonewalling, more torture, and a continue of the Bush Administration's depressing and relentless march towards a complete police state -- with absolutely no opposition of any consequence.

Justice Department Fails to Comply with House Judiciary Subpoena

Surprise! Surprise! The Bush administration just doesn't give a damn about oversight and certainly won't have anything to do with it.

Today, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued the following statement in response to the Justice Department’s failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena response deadline of 2 p.m. today. The subpoena seeks information the Department has continued to refuse to provide or has provided only in redacted (read conspiratorial) form.

“We are disappointed that the Justice Department failed to produce the documents and other materials for which we issued a subpoena last week. While we understand that the Department considers this effort a priority and we plan to continue working with them, we will review all available legal options to secure compliance with the subpoena.” [emphasis mine or Eli's]

I guess they forget who's holding the reins now.

Each day it seems the Democrats are becoming more like stallions than geldings. They seem to be capable of growing balls.

(read more)

H/T Eli