Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

How exactly? In order for there to obstruction of justice there has to be a crime. What is the crime? All AGs work at the pleasure of POTUS he can fire them if he wants to for what ever reason.

Its the REFUSEL to turn over document communications between the white house and the justic department. Not the internal communication with the Bush administration. Apparently Bush administration has turn over documents however there is a LARGE SUBSTANCLE GAP with in emails and communications.

as pointed out there is no crime YET. But wheres theres smoke there fire


miers_email.JPG
 
Its on


Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case


The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government's tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and Keisler's deputy at the time, Dan Meron.

News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.

High-ranking Justice Department officials said there was no political meddling in the case, and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concurred after an investigation.

Yesterday was the first time that any of the government lawyers on the case spoke at length publicly about what they considered high-level interference by Justice officials.

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

McCallum, who is now the U.S. ambassador to Australia, said in an interview yesterday that congressional claims of political interference were rejected by the OPR investigation, for which Eubanks was questioned. He said that there was a legitimate disagreement between Eubanks and some career lawyers in the racketeering division about key strategy and that his final decision to reduce the proposed penalty to pay for smoking-cessation programs was vindicated by the judge's ruling that she could not order such a penalty.

"Her claims are totally false in terms of [us] trying to weaken the case," McCallum said. "Her claims were looked into by the Office of Professional Responsibility and were found to be groundless."

In June 2006, the OPR cleared McCallum, concluding that his "actions in seeking and directing changes in the remedies sought were not influenced by any political considerations, but rather were based on good faith efforts to obtain remedies from the district court that would be sustainable on appeal."

"The political people were . . . ordering us to say what we said," lawyer Sharon Y. Eubanks said.

Keisler and Meron did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled last August that tobacco companies violated civil racketeering laws by conspiring for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of their product. She ordered the companies to make major changes in the way cigarettes are marketed. But she said she could not order the monetary penalty proposed by the government.

The Clinton Justice Department brought the unprecedented civil suit against the country's five largest tobacco companies in 1999. President Bush disparaged the tobacco case while campaigning in 2000. After Bush took office, some officials expressed initial doubts about the government's ability to fund the prosecution, Justice's largest.

Eubanks said McCallum, Keisler and Meron largely ignored the case until it became clear that the government might win. She recalled that "things began to get really tense" after McCallum read news reports in April 2005 that one government expert, professor Max H. Bazerman of Harvard Business School, would argue that tobacco officials who engaged in fraud could be removed from their corporate posts. Eubanks said she received an angry call from McCallum on the day the news broke.

"How could you put that in there?" she recalled him saying. "We're not going to be pursuing that."

Afterward, McCallum, Keisler and Meron told Eubanks to approach other witnesses about softening their testimony, Eubanks said.

Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was one of the witnesses whom Eubanks asked to change his testimony. Yesterday, he said he found her account to be "the only reasonable explanation" for what transpired.

Two weeks before closing arguments in June, McCallum called for a meeting with Eubanks and her deputy, Stephen Brody, to discuss what McCallum described as "getting the number down" for the $130 billion penalty to create smoking-cessation programs. Brody declined to comment yesterday on the legal team's deliberations, saying that they were private.

During several tense late-night meetings, McCallum repeatedly refused to suggest a figure, Eubanks said, or give clear reasons for the reduction. Brody refused to lower the amount. Finally, on the morning the government was to propose the penalty in court, she said, McCallum ordered it cut to $10 billion.

The most stressful moment, Eubanks said, came when the three appointees ordered her to read word for word a closing argument they had rewritten. The statement explained the validity of seeking a $10 billion penalty.

"I couldn't even look at the judge," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7/03/21/AR2007032102713.html?nav=rss_politics
 
How many were working on Dukes case? Could there have been any other reason to fire them? This couldn't be a ploy by a jilted AG and his political friends making a big stink abuot nothing?
Well, yeah, of course.

But they had good performance reviews. Most of the time, people who get good performance reviews can expect to keep their jobs. And while they serve at the whim of the POTUS, we all know that he's probably not involved in their day-to-day lives and assigns authority to their managers to hire and fire ... and they would do so based on fairly standard reasons (i.e., performance reviews).

This is why some of them are crying foul: they weren't fired until other politicians tried to exert political pressure on them, and they wouldn't buckle. And when the pressures were about things that the Reps would want to hide .... well ....

Anyway, you'll note that your opinion was defaulted to "it's a non-story". If you're listening to the news today, pay attention to who is trying to convince you that it's a non-story.
 
It's now more or less common wisdom that, whatever press release comes out of the Justice Department, it will be revealed that the exact opposite is true in less than 72 hours.

Justice Department claim: Iglesias and other attys didn't share "the administration's priorities" on "key issues" like immigration. Two days later we found out that, to the contrary, Iglesias was one of the nation's top attys for immigration prosecutions and convictions.

The Justice Department claimed that there was no political pressure for the firings. Less than a day later we found out that Iglesias received two phone calls from Republican Congressmen asking him to press phony charges in time for election season, then turned around and complained to the WH when he refused to prostitute his office.

Then Gonzales & Co. made a vague and general claim about how the attys were "poor performers." The reality? If you've caught on to the pattern by now, it's the exact opposite.

The fired attorneys were in the TOP of the rankings.

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

WASHINGTON — Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

As a slight tangent, let's talk about Patrick Fitzgerald who is widely regarded as one of the best prosecutors in the country, which is exactly why he was recommended for the job and named by Bush.

Senator Fitzgerald [ed: no relation], who as the state's senior Republican had the right to recommend a candidate to the White House, went to one of Hoover's successors for advice.

"I called Louis Freeh and said, 'Who's the best assistant U.S. attorney you know of in the country?' He said, 'Patrick Fitzgerald in the Southern District of New York.' " The senator then called Mary Jo White, who ran the New York office. Same question. Same answer.

Yet what grade did Fitz get in the rankings list the Admin drew up prior to purging the attys?

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.

And what do actual people working in law think of that?

Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."

"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation -- certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."

Fitzgerald has been widely recognized for his pursuit of criminal cases against al-Qaeda's terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and he drew up the official U.S. indictment against Osama bin Laden. He was named as special counsel in the CIA leak case in December 2003 after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself.

Fitzgerald also won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002 under Ashcroft.

The ratings atty's received and the way they were lined up for the chopping block had NOTHING to do with their performance.

It had EVERYTHING to do with what political grudges the "loyal Bushies" had against them.

Imagine if they had fired Fitzgerald in the middle of his investigation of the executive. But that's exactly what they were doing - working up the balls to fire him.
 
Lou Dobbs on the scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dobbs.March22/index.html

His statement at the end is wrong in my opinion. He connotes that Congress should respect the president. That's wrong since the president deserves no respect.

I like this quote from him the best:
This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.
 
Lou Dobbs on the scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dobbs.March22/index.html

His statement at the end is wrong in my opinion. He connotes that Congress should respect the president. That's wrong since the president deserves no respect.

I like this quote from him the best:

Of course the President deserves respect. Even Bill Clinton deserved respect after lieing under oath - he was still the president....as is GWB today.

Hell, if people had more respect for our duly elected leaders this country wouldnt be so polarized today.
 
I think that the most damage has been done (in a polarising-scale) by people who were willing to act immorally to get their way. There are groups that are perfectly willing to obfuscate and misinform in order to maintain (or gain) power. And those people have done massive, massive harm.
 
If you're given 'full' respect by default, then you can only lose respect from there. I can sympathise with the theme of that concept, because I apply it elsewhere (in unrelated fields).

x-post with Pleg: I disagree, of course, the President has certainly done many things that deserve respect. At that point, you issue a balance of effect whilst judging the man.
 
Nope. The respect is earned by being elected but i certainly have the right to lose all respect for a president who doesn't live up to the office and Constitution.
 
Presumably, MobBoss, you would have been a Loyalist in 1776, with respect for the majesty of the king's office and whatnot. Is it fair to say you'd sympathise with Benedict Arnold?
 
Presumably, MobBoss, you would have been a Loyalist in 1776, with respect for the majesty of the king's office and whatnot. Is it fair to say you'd sympathise with Benedict Arnold?

Someone is on record stating that [Godwin] should have been loyal to [Godwin]
 
Presumably, MobBoss, you would have been a Loyalist in 1776, with respect for the majesty of the king's office and whatnot. Is it fair to say you'd sympathise with Benedict Arnold?

That is quite a clever argument on the very fact that all government in its beginning is rooted by usurpation in some sense from an already precedent government.:lol:
 
Of course the President deserves respect. Even Bill Clinton deserved respect after lieing under oath - he was still the president....as is GWB today.

Hell, if people had more respect for our duly elected leaders this country wouldnt be so polarized today.

The President deserves respect, if you are a citizen of the United States. George W. Bush may or may not, depending on your personal opinion. Ditto Bill Clinton.

I personally believe that Bill Clinton was a wife-cheating man-whore with a gift for politics, a lot of charisma, and good intentions. I believe that George W. Bush has good intentions, piss-poor management skills, and a lack of understanding of the basis of the US Constitution. I certainly respect the office that he holds, but that doesn't require me to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to potential unethical actions that his subordinates may commit with or without his blessing.

Sidenote, I heard someone say on the radio that 100% of the time when Executive Privilege has been invoked, later events have proven that it has been invoked to cover unethical or illegal activity. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom