06/24/2007 @ 8:13pm | Suppressing the Vote
Thanks to rigorous work by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, it is clear that the US. Attorney scandal – as outrageous as it is on its own – is part of a much broader effort by the Bush Administration to use government institutions for partisan gain.
In their report – Using Justice to Suppress the Vote – the two pro-democracy, pro-civil rights organizations demonstrate that the Administration used federal agencies charged with protecting voters' rights to promote voter suppression, influence voting rules, and gain advantage in battleground states. This was achieved through a four-pronged strategy: dismantling the infrastructure at the Department of Justice; fomenting a fear of rampant voter fraud (which has subsequently been disproved – it actually occurs "statistically…about as often as death by lightning strike"); politically motivated prosecutions; and restricting registration and voting.
The actions of two Bush appointees who recently testified on the Hill – Hans von Spakovsky and Bradley Schlozman– are illustrative of the effort to restrict voter turnout in a manner that favors Republican candidates. In January 2006, von Spakovsky was given a recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission (the agency charged with enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act – he's now having one helluva time in his confirmation hearing). Prior to that, he worked for three years as the appointed Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at Justice. ...
Monday, June 25, 2007
allegations that Republicans had sent a mass mailing to mostly Democratic-leaning minorities ... ["caging" t challenge voter registrations]
'Vote caging' allegations arise in probe of U.S. attorney firings | By Greg Gordon - McClatchy Washington Bureau | Last Updated 12:32 am PDT Monday, June 25, 2007
Critics say top Justice official's '04 letter to Ohio judge was a partisan maneuver.
Four days before the 2004 election, the Justice Department's civil rights chief sent an unusual letter to a federal judge in Ohio who was weighing whether to let Republicans challenge the credentials of 23,000 mostly African American voters.
The case was triggered by allegations that Republicans had sent a mass mailing to mostly Democratic-leaning minorities and used undeliverable letters to compile a list of voters potentially vulnerable to eligibility challenges.
In his letter to U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati, Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta argued that it would undermine the enforcement of state and federal election laws if citizens could not challenge voters' credentials.
Former Justice Department civil rights officials and election watchdog groups charge that his letter sided with Republicans engaging in an illegal, racially motivated tactic known as "vote-caging" in a state that would be pivotal in delivering President Bush a second term in the White House.
Acosta's letter is among a host of allegedly partisan Justice Department voting rights positions that could draw scrutiny on Capitol Hill in the coming weeks as congressional Democrats expand investigations sparked by the firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys. ...
...
The tactic entails sending mail stamped "do not forward" to voters' homes and requiring a return receipt. Voters who do not sign for the letters or postcards can then be challenged at the polls or in pre-election hearings on grounds such as whether they meet legal residency or age requirements.
Critics say top Justice official's '04 letter to Ohio judge was a partisan maneuver.
Four days before the 2004 election, the Justice Department's civil rights chief sent an unusual letter to a federal judge in Ohio who was weighing whether to let Republicans challenge the credentials of 23,000 mostly African American voters.
The case was triggered by allegations that Republicans had sent a mass mailing to mostly Democratic-leaning minorities and used undeliverable letters to compile a list of voters potentially vulnerable to eligibility challenges.
In his letter to U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati, Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta argued that it would undermine the enforcement of state and federal election laws if citizens could not challenge voters' credentials.
Former Justice Department civil rights officials and election watchdog groups charge that his letter sided with Republicans engaging in an illegal, racially motivated tactic known as "vote-caging" in a state that would be pivotal in delivering President Bush a second term in the White House.
Acosta's letter is among a host of allegedly partisan Justice Department voting rights positions that could draw scrutiny on Capitol Hill in the coming weeks as congressional Democrats expand investigations sparked by the firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys. ...
...
The tactic entails sending mail stamped "do not forward" to voters' homes and requiring a return receipt. Voters who do not sign for the letters or postcards can then be challenged at the polls or in pre-election hearings on grounds such as whether they meet legal residency or age requirements.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
[Bush] "is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."
Clinton Assails Bush to Win Liberals | NEDRA PICKLER | June 20, 2007 07:47 PM EST | AP
WASHINGTON — Trying to win over her party's liberal activists, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused President Bush of disregarding the Constitution and promised to bring a new progressive vision to the White House.
Bush's government has "a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok," she said in one of the more partisan speeches of her campaign. "It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent." ...
WASHINGTON — Trying to win over her party's liberal activists, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused President Bush of disregarding the Constitution and promised to bring a new progressive vision to the White House.
Bush's government has "a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok," she said in one of the more partisan speeches of her campaign. "It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent." ...
“The Administration is thumbing its nose at the law,” .. federal agencies failed to execute, public law in ... 30 percent of the cases
GAO Report on Presidential Signing Statements | June 18th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
From the Judiciary Committee:
GAO Report Shows Power Grab in Presidential Signing Statements
From the Judiciary Committee:
GAO Report Shows Power Grab in Presidential Signing Statements
GAO researchers found signing statements in 11 of 12 appropriations acts in fiscal year 2006 and examined a sample of 19 provisions with which the President expressed concern in his signing statements. The President objected to, and federal agencies failed to execute, public law in six of those cases - 30 percent of the total sample.
“The Administration is thumbing its nose at the law,” Conyers said. “This study calls for an extensive review of these practices, something the Administration has so far refused to do.” ...
There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC.
Monday, June 18, 2007 | Administration Oversight, White House Use of Private E-mail Accounts | The Use of RNC E-Mail Accounts by White House Officials
The Oversight Committee has been investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act by using e-mail accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications.
...
The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007 ... only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. ... In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. ...
White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. ...
There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. ... there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. ....
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. ...
The Oversight Committee has been investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act by using e-mail accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications.
...
The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007 ... only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. ... In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. ...
White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. ...
There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. ... there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. ....
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. ...
violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive
Investigation Uncovers ‘Extensive Destruction’ Of RNC Emails, Violations Of Records Act
House investigators have learned that the Bush administration’s use of Republican National Committee email accounts is far greater than previously disclosed — 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove alone — and that the RNC has overseen “extensive destruction” of many of the emails, including all email records for 51 White House officials.
House investigators have learned that the Bush administration’s use of Republican National Committee email accounts is far greater than previously disclosed — 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove alone — and that the RNC has overseen “extensive destruction” of many of the emails, including all email records for 51 White House officials.
For the last several months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been “investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act” by using email accounts maintained by the RNC and the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications. Today’s findings confirm that the accounts were used “for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.” The report adds:
Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.
[Promise to uphold the Constitution] Signing statements ... nullifying the law in about 30 percent of cases ... e.g. torture law
Revealed: Bush's Presidential Signing Statements Have Been Used to Nullify Laws | By Brian Beutler, Media Consortium. Posted June 18, 2007
...
Well, it's official: President Bush doesn't much respect the laws Congress passes. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- commissioned by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and released today -- confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements are, in fact, utterly without precedent.
...
Though the GAO report makes no claims about the legitimacy of Bush's statements or of the use of statements in general, it indicates that, in practice, the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. The issues are important: They include accounting for Iraq war funding and security measures for the border patrol.
...
The report was conducted fairly simply. GAO officials surveyed 19 of last year's 160 objections to determine how the statements had impacted the implementation of laws. According to the report: "We contacted the relevant agencies and asked them how they were executing the provisions. After evaluating the responses we received, we determined that agencies failed to execute six provisions as enacted."
Alongside the failures of law, the reports also list the rationales that the president used to strike down the provisions. For instance, GAO found that, by citing the Unitary Executive Theory, Bush allowed the Department of Defense to exclude "costs for any other contingency operations, such as those in Iraq" as Congress had mandated.
Indeed, it's the Unitary Executive Theory -- another Constitutionally dubious concept -- that has made Bush's use of signing statements especially damaging. Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) inserted a provision into the Department of Defense emergency supplemental bill that would have criminalized the use of torture by U.S. military interrogators. In order to protect the measure's effectiveness, McCain included a provision that aimed to stop all interference by the President, save for a veto of the entire package. "The provisions of this section," it read, "shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section."
But upon signing the law, President Bush declared his intent to interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." ...
...
Well, it's official: President Bush doesn't much respect the laws Congress passes. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- commissioned by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and released today -- confirms that Bush's use of presidential signing statements are, in fact, utterly without precedent.
...
Though the GAO report makes no claims about the legitimacy of Bush's statements or of the use of statements in general, it indicates that, in practice, the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. The issues are important: They include accounting for Iraq war funding and security measures for the border patrol.
...
The report was conducted fairly simply. GAO officials surveyed 19 of last year's 160 objections to determine how the statements had impacted the implementation of laws. According to the report: "We contacted the relevant agencies and asked them how they were executing the provisions. After evaluating the responses we received, we determined that agencies failed to execute six provisions as enacted."
Alongside the failures of law, the reports also list the rationales that the president used to strike down the provisions. For instance, GAO found that, by citing the Unitary Executive Theory, Bush allowed the Department of Defense to exclude "costs for any other contingency operations, such as those in Iraq" as Congress had mandated.
Indeed, it's the Unitary Executive Theory -- another Constitutionally dubious concept -- that has made Bush's use of signing statements especially damaging. Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) inserted a provision into the Department of Defense emergency supplemental bill that would have criminalized the use of torture by U.S. military interrogators. In order to protect the measure's effectiveness, McCain included a provision that aimed to stop all interference by the President, save for a veto of the entire package. "The provisions of this section," it read, "shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section."
But upon signing the law, President Bush declared his intent to interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." ...
SWIFT) violated the Fourth Amendment and financial privacy rights ... when it collaborated with [Bush's] 'Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.'
Judge gives go-ahead to lawsuit against Bush's bank transfer spying program | Michael Roston | Published: Tuesday June 19, 2007
A federal judge in Chicago last week rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against a Belgium-based bank transfer clearinghouse that collaborated with an anti-terrorism spying program led by the US Department of Treasury. The judge's decision will allow two plaintiffs to press their case that the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) violated the Fourth Amendment and financial privacy rights of bank customers throughout the United States when it collaborated with president George W. Bush's so-called 'Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.'
...
"Unfettered government access to the bank records of private citizens [is] constitutionally problematic," the judge wrote in his decision, in which he allowed two of the four complaints to continue to be considered.
...
"Our plaintiffs are average Americans with checking accounts and credit cards," he said of Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse, who were named in the suit. "We're alleging that basic routine transactions were vacuumed up in a big data mining program. Some people may be fine with it because they think it may help catch a terrorist, but I think just as many people are uncomfortable with having their records sifted through in that manner." ...
A federal judge in Chicago last week rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against a Belgium-based bank transfer clearinghouse that collaborated with an anti-terrorism spying program led by the US Department of Treasury. The judge's decision will allow two plaintiffs to press their case that the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) violated the Fourth Amendment and financial privacy rights of bank customers throughout the United States when it collaborated with president George W. Bush's so-called 'Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.'
...
"Unfettered government access to the bank records of private citizens [is] constitutionally problematic," the judge wrote in his decision, in which he allowed two of the four complaints to continue to be considered.
...
"Our plaintiffs are average Americans with checking accounts and credit cards," he said of Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse, who were named in the suit. "We're alleging that basic routine transactions were vacuumed up in a big data mining program. Some people may be fine with it because they think it may help catch a terrorist, but I think just as many people are uncomfortable with having their records sifted through in that manner." ...
Monday, June 18, 2007
"Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," ... necons act like he's sent to Guantanamo ...
Begging His Pardon | 139 Comments | Posted June 15, 2007 | 04:14 PM (EST)
We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites -- the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.
It is well known that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- once Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser-has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places-including his boss Dick Cheney-outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton-a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush-called the evidence "overwhelming" and threw the book at Libby.
You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to "free Scooter." ...
We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites -- the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.
It is well known that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- once Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser-has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places-including his boss Dick Cheney-outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton-a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush-called the evidence "overwhelming" and threw the book at Libby.
You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to "free Scooter." ...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Lawmakers ... allege Wholley destroyed the DVD recordings specifically to obstruct an ongoing Congressional investigation.
Congressional panel calls for investigation of NASA lawyer | RAW STORY | Published: Thursday June 14, 2007
Members of a Congressional subcommittee called for an investigation of NASA general counsel Michael Wholley, alleging he deliberately obstructed justice in destroying video recordings of the space agency's administrator and its inspector general.
Reps. Brad Miller, D-N.C., and James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting the criminal obstruction probe.
Wholley testified last month that he had destoyed records of an April 10 meeting betweenn NASA Administrator Michael Griffin and the agency's inspector genereal, Robert Cobb. The lawmakers, who are the chair and ranking member of the House science committee's oversign panel, allege Wholley destroyed the DVD recordings specifically to obstruct an ongoing Congressional investigation.
Talk of a criminal probe against Wholley arose soon after his May 24 testimony. ...
FBI ... potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times .. [or up to 10,000 if extrapolated!]
FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data | By John Solomon | Washington Post Staff Writer | Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A01
An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.
The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling. ..
An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.
The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling. ..
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Will any candidate touch election reform? ... "voter fraud" abuse, voter ID laws, conflicts of interest, intimidation ....
Will any candidate touch election reform? | by clammyc tc3 | Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 12:01:56 PM EST | I'll be brief.
...
... Hopefully they know about the Pulitzer Prize worthy work being done by McClatchy's Washington Bureau about the tie in between the US Attorneys and the issues of "voter fraud" against Democratic party voters or officials.
...
...I'm talking about voter suppression, especially anything that is done with the sanctioning of or funds from a local or national political party. I'm talking about stricter and more immediate penalties for such violations, and for intimidation on or around Election Day.
I'm talking about blatant conflicts of interest being outlawed. There should never be the same individual holding a campaign position for any candidate (especially the Presidential candidate) and a top position with respect to how elections are run. With Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Katherine Harris in Florida BOTH having such close ties to Bush/Cheney, even without the highly controversial results and pre-Election Day tactics used by those officials this would be an unacceptable conflict of interest.
I'm also talking about (and while there may be logistical issues here, something must be done) no recess appointments of FEC Commissioners, like vote suppressing Hans von Spakovsky. And I'm also talking about some methodology whereby the egregious acts we have seen by Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Paul McNulty, Robert Popper, Brad Schlozman, Tim Griffin and the rest of those who were responsible for violating laws regarding political affiliation in hirings, pursuit of bogus fraud cases while ignoring destroyed voter registrations, narrow interpretations of the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act to purge voter rolls as opposed to making it easier for people to cast a ballot all can not happen again.
Would this involve a nonpartisan election oversight committee that operates independently from the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department? Maybe. Would this involve basic changes to election laws to ensure that no party has even the appearance of a conflict of interest (and maybe not a hidden or relatively tenuous one but certainly not one like Blackwell or Harris had)? Absolutely?
Would this make those who engage in such acts think twice? Possibly but maybe not. However, if Blackwell was not in a position to do what he did with respect to voter registration cards, the distribution of voting machines and stonewalling the vote count/recount and if Harris was not in a position to take the actions she took with respect to certifying the vote before it was truly counted in 2000, then some (not all, but some) of this wouldn't have happened.
And if there was some mechanism whereby voter ID laws such as the one engineered and supported by von Spakovsky in Arizona and Georgia, or that was overturned by decree in Minnesota or the one that is now being pushed for in Mississippi would not be enforced until proven constitutional (as opposed to being enforced until proven unconstitutional), then that could help as well.
...
After all, messing with elections cuts the heart right out of a democracy. Somebody has to take the first step. And that someone - even without touching on supposedly "tin foil" ideas can get the ball rolling so that there is somewhat of a fair election process in this country.
This country deserves nothing less. Hell, it should DEMAND nothing less.
...
... Hopefully they know about the Pulitzer Prize worthy work being done by McClatchy's Washington Bureau about the tie in between the US Attorneys and the issues of "voter fraud" against Democratic party voters or officials.
...
...I'm talking about voter suppression, especially anything that is done with the sanctioning of or funds from a local or national political party. I'm talking about stricter and more immediate penalties for such violations, and for intimidation on or around Election Day.
I'm talking about blatant conflicts of interest being outlawed. There should never be the same individual holding a campaign position for any candidate (especially the Presidential candidate) and a top position with respect to how elections are run. With Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Katherine Harris in Florida BOTH having such close ties to Bush/Cheney, even without the highly controversial results and pre-Election Day tactics used by those officials this would be an unacceptable conflict of interest.
I'm also talking about (and while there may be logistical issues here, something must be done) no recess appointments of FEC Commissioners, like vote suppressing Hans von Spakovsky. And I'm also talking about some methodology whereby the egregious acts we have seen by Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Paul McNulty, Robert Popper, Brad Schlozman, Tim Griffin and the rest of those who were responsible for violating laws regarding political affiliation in hirings, pursuit of bogus fraud cases while ignoring destroyed voter registrations, narrow interpretations of the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act to purge voter rolls as opposed to making it easier for people to cast a ballot all can not happen again.
Would this involve a nonpartisan election oversight committee that operates independently from the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department? Maybe. Would this involve basic changes to election laws to ensure that no party has even the appearance of a conflict of interest (and maybe not a hidden or relatively tenuous one but certainly not one like Blackwell or Harris had)? Absolutely?
Would this make those who engage in such acts think twice? Possibly but maybe not. However, if Blackwell was not in a position to do what he did with respect to voter registration cards, the distribution of voting machines and stonewalling the vote count/recount and if Harris was not in a position to take the actions she took with respect to certifying the vote before it was truly counted in 2000, then some (not all, but some) of this wouldn't have happened.
And if there was some mechanism whereby voter ID laws such as the one engineered and supported by von Spakovsky in Arizona and Georgia, or that was overturned by decree in Minnesota or the one that is now being pushed for in Mississippi would not be enforced until proven constitutional (as opposed to being enforced until proven unconstitutional), then that could help as well.
...
After all, messing with elections cuts the heart right out of a democracy. Somebody has to take the first step. And that someone - even without touching on supposedly "tin foil" ideas can get the ball rolling so that there is somewhat of a fair election process in this country.
This country deserves nothing less. Hell, it should DEMAND nothing less.
Monday, June 11, 2007
So it appears they decided to detain him in order to torture him. That's not constitutional. ...
Al-Marri and the Torture Regime | 11 Jun 2007 03:55 pm
Marty Lederman homes in on the critical detail in the al-Marri case: the Bush administration moved him from criminal to military detention solely in order to torture him, it appears. Money quote from the court:
The Government’s treatment of others [in the criminal justice system] renders its decision to halt al-Marri's criminal prosecution - on the eve of a pre-trial hearing on a suppression motion - puzzling at best. Al-Marri contends that the Government has subjected him to indefinite military detention, rather than see his criminal prosecution to the end, in order to interrogate him without the strictures of criminal process. We trust that this is not so, for such a stratagem would contravene Hamdi’s injunction that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized." 542 U.S. at 521.
We note, however, that not only has the Government offered no other explanation for abandoning al-Marri's prosecution, it has even propounded an affidavit in support of al-Marri's continued military detention stating that he "possesses information of high intelligence value." See Rapp Declaration. Moreover, former Attorney General John Ashcroft has explained that the Government decided to declare al-Marri an "enemy combatant" only after he became a "hard case" by "reject[ing] numerous offers to improve his lot by ... providing information." John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice 168-69 (2006). [My italics].
So it appears they decided to detain him in order to torture him. That's not constitutional.
Marty Lederman homes in on the critical detail in the al-Marri case: the Bush administration moved him from criminal to military detention solely in order to torture him, it appears. Money quote from the court:
The Government’s treatment of others [in the criminal justice system] renders its decision to halt al-Marri's criminal prosecution - on the eve of a pre-trial hearing on a suppression motion - puzzling at best. Al-Marri contends that the Government has subjected him to indefinite military detention, rather than see his criminal prosecution to the end, in order to interrogate him without the strictures of criminal process. We trust that this is not so, for such a stratagem would contravene Hamdi’s injunction that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized." 542 U.S. at 521.
We note, however, that not only has the Government offered no other explanation for abandoning al-Marri's prosecution, it has even propounded an affidavit in support of al-Marri's continued military detention stating that he "possesses information of high intelligence value." See Rapp Declaration. Moreover, former Attorney General John Ashcroft has explained that the Government decided to declare al-Marri an "enemy combatant" only after he became a "hard case" by "reject[ing] numerous offers to improve his lot by ... providing information." John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice 168-69 (2006). [My italics].
So it appears they decided to detain him in order to torture him. That's not constitutional.
"to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution," ...
Court rules US can't detain enemy combatants without charges | RAW STORY | Published: Monday June 11, 2007
The normally conservative 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the US can't detain enemy combatants without filing charges, in a case involving "an immigrant [the US] believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent."
"In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court," Associated Press reports. "It ruled the government must allow him to be released from military detention."
The court panel said that "to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution," and sanctioning "such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country." ...
The normally conservative 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the US can't detain enemy combatants without filing charges, in a case involving "an immigrant [the US] believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent."
"In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court," Associated Press reports. "It ruled the government must allow him to be released from military detention."
The court panel said that "to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution," and sanctioning "such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country." ...
Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge of voters' right to cast ballots. .... heavily weighted with minority vote
Conyers Requests Palast's "Vote Caging" Evidence | By Brad Friedman | t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor | Monday 04 June 2007
House Judiciary chair tells Palast in interview: "We're not through with Griffin by any means."
Indicates caging operation could not have been done without knowledge of Rove, according to Palast team.
As reported previously [1], investigative journalist Greg Palast was scheduled to meet with Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) this evening for an on-camera interview for the BBC. His team, just out from the interview, sends this dispatch to The BRAD BLOG [2]:
Rove Pick for US Attorney Resigns After Conyers Seeks Evidence From BBC
Tim Griffin, formerly right-hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television "Newsnight" reported that Congressman John Conyers [had] requested the network's evidence on Griffin's involvement in "caging voters." Greg Palast, reporting for both BBC "Newsnight" and "Democracy Now," obtained a series of confidential emails dating from the 2004 presidential election, in which the GOP operative transmitted so-called "caging lists" of voters to state party leaders.
Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge of voters' right to cast ballots. The caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters, including African-American homeless men, students and soldiers sent overseas.
Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin's resignation, "We're not through with him by any means."
Conyers indicated that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive caging operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove. ...
House Judiciary chair tells Palast in interview: "We're not through with Griffin by any means."
Indicates caging operation could not have been done without knowledge of Rove, according to Palast team.
As reported previously [1], investigative journalist Greg Palast was scheduled to meet with Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) this evening for an on-camera interview for the BBC. His team, just out from the interview, sends this dispatch to The BRAD BLOG [2]:
Rove Pick for US Attorney Resigns After Conyers Seeks Evidence From BBC
Tim Griffin, formerly right-hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television "Newsnight" reported that Congressman John Conyers [had] requested the network's evidence on Griffin's involvement in "caging voters." Greg Palast, reporting for both BBC "Newsnight" and "Democracy Now," obtained a series of confidential emails dating from the 2004 presidential election, in which the GOP operative transmitted so-called "caging lists" of voters to state party leaders.
Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge of voters' right to cast ballots. The caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters, including African-American homeless men, students and soldiers sent overseas.
Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin's resignation, "We're not through with him by any means."
Conyers indicated that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive caging operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove. ...
cite the inaction by the Justice Department as further evidence that politics drove the Bush administration
Wed, Jun. 06, 2007 | U. S. ATTORNEYS | Complaints abound over enforcement of voter registration law | By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Representatives of three liberal-leaning groups came to the Justice Department in 2004, armed with evidence that hundreds of public-assistance agencies had illegally failed to offer voter registration to their mostly poor and minority clients.
Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, which imposed the requirement, in 1993. But after these agencies registered 2.6 million people to vote in 1995-1996, the total registered plunged to about 1 million in 2003-2004.
Michael Slater, the Oregon-based deputy director of the national registration group Project Vote, said officials of the Justice Department's civil rights division showed little interest in enforcing that part of the law.
Officials for the three groups, as well as former lawyers in the division, cite the inaction by the Justice Department as further evidence that politics drove the Bush administration's operation of the nation's chief law enforcement agency.
The Bush Justice Department, they said, has largely ignored the voter registration sections of the law while aggressively using a narrower provision to sue or threaten to sue states that have failed to purge the names of allegedly ineligible people from voter rolls. ...
WASHINGTON - Representatives of three liberal-leaning groups came to the Justice Department in 2004, armed with evidence that hundreds of public-assistance agencies had illegally failed to offer voter registration to their mostly poor and minority clients.
Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, which imposed the requirement, in 1993. But after these agencies registered 2.6 million people to vote in 1995-1996, the total registered plunged to about 1 million in 2003-2004.
Michael Slater, the Oregon-based deputy director of the national registration group Project Vote, said officials of the Justice Department's civil rights division showed little interest in enforcing that part of the law.
Officials for the three groups, as well as former lawyers in the division, cite the inaction by the Justice Department as further evidence that politics drove the Bush administration's operation of the nation's chief law enforcement agency.
The Bush Justice Department, they said, has largely ignored the voter registration sections of the law while aggressively using a narrower provision to sue or threaten to sue states that have failed to purge the names of allegedly ineligible people from voter rolls. ...
CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured
Secret CIA prisons confirmed by Polish and Romanian officials | Stephen Grey | Thursday June 7, 2007 | Guardian Unlimited
The CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured, an official inquiry will conclude tomorrow.
Despite denials by their governments, senior security officials in Poland and Romania have confirmed to investigators for the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.
None of the prisoners had access to the Red Cross and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation methods. These included water-boarding which leads detainees to believe they are drowning, which critics have condemned as severe torture.
Although suspicions about the secret CIA prisons have existed for more than a year, the council's report, which has been seen by the Guardian, appears to offer the first concrete evidence. It also details the prisons' operations and the identities of some of the prisoners.
The council has also established that within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, Nato signed an agreement with the US that allowed civilian jets used by the CIA during its so-called extraordinary rendition programme to move across member states' airspace.
The report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories." ...
The CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured, an official inquiry will conclude tomorrow.
Despite denials by their governments, senior security officials in Poland and Romania have confirmed to investigators for the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.
None of the prisoners had access to the Red Cross and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation methods. These included water-boarding which leads detainees to believe they are drowning, which critics have condemned as severe torture.
Although suspicions about the secret CIA prisons have existed for more than a year, the council's report, which has been seen by the Guardian, appears to offer the first concrete evidence. It also details the prisons' operations and the identities of some of the prisoners.
The council has also established that within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, Nato signed an agreement with the US that allowed civilian jets used by the CIA during its so-called extraordinary rendition programme to move across member states' airspace.
The report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories." ...
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Tim Griffin resigned as the U.S. Attorney ... after evidence ... alleged voter suppression in the 2004 elections
Rove’s Mini-Me Tim Griffin Resigns after Evidence Ties Him to Alleged Voter Suppression | Posted by Jon Ponder | Jun. 3, 2007, 8:44 am |
The White House installed Griffin as U.S. Attorney without Senate approval using a provision they’d slipped into the Patriot Act.
Big media is ignoring the story that former White House Deputy Communications
Director — and former RNC Research Director — Tim Griffin resigned as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas last week after evidence revealed he was directly involved in alleged voter suppression in the 2004 elections.
This may be the first time you’ve heard of the illegal tactic of “caging” voters, but if BBC investigator Greg Palast is correct, it will not be the last.
Caging is a form of voter suppression involving registered mail. Typically, campaigns will select voters from the opposing party who are unlikely to respond to a registered letter — soldiers serving overseas, for example. They send registered mail to the addresses listed in these voters’ registration files and then compile a list of the voters whose mail was returned marked undeliverable, or “caged.” On election day, when the people on the list arrive to vote, campaign workers challenge the legitimacy of their voter registrations, thereby delaying or preventing their votes. Palast says caging is a felony.
Palast recently obtained hundreds of emails sent by White House officials to Bush-Cheney operatives during the 2004 campaign. Among these were emails containing caging lists sent by Griffin, apparently in his as communications deputy. Late last week, Palast agreed to show Griffin’s emails to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. On Thursday, Griffin abruptly announced his resignation in Little Rock, citing an urgent need to work in the private sector. (Some sources say Griffin is in negotiations to join Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign; while one wag suggests Griffin resigned “to spend more time in jail.“) ...
The White House installed Griffin as U.S. Attorney without Senate approval using a provision they’d slipped into the Patriot Act.
Big media is ignoring the story that former White House Deputy Communications
Director — and former RNC Research Director — Tim Griffin resigned as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas last week after evidence revealed he was directly involved in alleged voter suppression in the 2004 elections.
This may be the first time you’ve heard of the illegal tactic of “caging” voters, but if BBC investigator Greg Palast is correct, it will not be the last.
Caging is a form of voter suppression involving registered mail. Typically, campaigns will select voters from the opposing party who are unlikely to respond to a registered letter — soldiers serving overseas, for example. They send registered mail to the addresses listed in these voters’ registration files and then compile a list of the voters whose mail was returned marked undeliverable, or “caged.” On election day, when the people on the list arrive to vote, campaign workers challenge the legitimacy of their voter registrations, thereby delaying or preventing their votes. Palast says caging is a felony.
Palast recently obtained hundreds of emails sent by White House officials to Bush-Cheney operatives during the 2004 campaign. Among these were emails containing caging lists sent by Griffin, apparently in his as communications deputy. Late last week, Palast agreed to show Griffin’s emails to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. On Thursday, Griffin abruptly announced his resignation in Little Rock, citing an urgent need to work in the private sector. (Some sources say Griffin is in negotiations to join Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign; while one wag suggests Griffin resigned “to spend more time in jail.“) ...
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
This ban and a similar one imposed later on unions prevents these wealthy entities from buying elections and elected officials.
A Test for the Roberts Court Published: April 25, 2007
The campaign finance system is like an overburdened dam: it holds back a flood of special-interest money, but there is a constant struggle to keep it from springing leaks. The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could determine whether a major new leak opens up, one that would allow corporations and unions to pour unprecedented amounts of money into political campaigns. It is important that the court continue to keep this money out.
Corporations have been prohibited since the early 1900’s from contributing to political campaigns. This ban and a similar one imposed later on unions prevents these wealthy entities from buying elections and elected officials. The Supreme Court, in upholding these bans, has recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in preventing the “corrosive and distorting effects” of corporate and union contributions.
Corporations and unions have, not surprisingly, tried to get around the ban. One tactic they have used is bankrolling phony “issue ads”: commercials that purport to educate the public about a policy issue, but are actually intended to elect or defeat a particular candidate. Today’s case involves phony issue ads run on radio and television by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which accepted major contributions from corporations against Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.
The ads attacked Mr. Feingold and Wisconsin’s other senator, Herb Kohl, for blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, and urged the public to contact the two men to complain. Clearly the ads’ purpose was to try to prevent Mr. Feingold’s re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life had made it clear that it was targeting him for defeat. Mr. Feingold’s opponents were using the issue of judicial nominees against him. The ads ran shortly before the election, while the Senate was in recess and no votes on judges were being held. And they did not provide contact information for Mr. Feingold and Mr. Kohl.
The court ruled in 2003 that bogus issue ads like these were the “functional equivalent” of campaign ads, and upheld Congress’s ban on the use of corporate and union money to pay for them. That case should be controlling, but since 2003, two new members — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — have joined the court. Today’s case will be a test of their respect for Congress’s authority to regulate campaign finance practices, and for the court’s recent precedents.
The campaign finance system is like an overburdened dam: it holds back a flood of special-interest money, but there is a constant struggle to keep it from springing leaks. The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could determine whether a major new leak opens up, one that would allow corporations and unions to pour unprecedented amounts of money into political campaigns. It is important that the court continue to keep this money out.
Corporations have been prohibited since the early 1900’s from contributing to political campaigns. This ban and a similar one imposed later on unions prevents these wealthy entities from buying elections and elected officials. The Supreme Court, in upholding these bans, has recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in preventing the “corrosive and distorting effects” of corporate and union contributions.
Corporations and unions have, not surprisingly, tried to get around the ban. One tactic they have used is bankrolling phony “issue ads”: commercials that purport to educate the public about a policy issue, but are actually intended to elect or defeat a particular candidate. Today’s case involves phony issue ads run on radio and television by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which accepted major contributions from corporations against Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.
The ads attacked Mr. Feingold and Wisconsin’s other senator, Herb Kohl, for blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, and urged the public to contact the two men to complain. Clearly the ads’ purpose was to try to prevent Mr. Feingold’s re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life had made it clear that it was targeting him for defeat. Mr. Feingold’s opponents were using the issue of judicial nominees against him. The ads ran shortly before the election, while the Senate was in recess and no votes on judges were being held. And they did not provide contact information for Mr. Feingold and Mr. Kohl.
The court ruled in 2003 that bogus issue ads like these were the “functional equivalent” of campaign ads, and upheld Congress’s ban on the use of corporate and union money to pay for them. That case should be controlling, but since 2003, two new members — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — have joined the court. Today’s case will be a test of their respect for Congress’s authority to regulate campaign finance practices, and for the court’s recent precedents.
"Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."
Fri, May 18, 2007 6:00pm EST | "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser | Lawlessness ... and fecklessness
...
Lawlessness: that's how the Post editorial board described the Bush administration in Wednesday's editorial about Comey's testimony -- "Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."
...
Lawlessness: that's how the Post editorial board described the Bush administration in Wednesday's editorial about Comey's testimony -- "Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."
And that's the way the Post has described the Bush administration several times in the past.
- On March 11, the paper described as a "lawless practice" the FBI's use of "exigent letters" to assure telephone companies that federal investigators needed access of phone records due to "an emergency situation and that subpoenas or national security letters would follow," though the "exigent letters" were in fact often used when there was no urgency and no subpoenas followed.
- On September 7, 2006, the Post ran an editorial headlined "Ending the Lawlessness; President Bush wants congressional action on detainees. That's good -- as long as he doesn't get the bill he wants."
- On June 20, 2006, the Post editorialized that, despite passage of "the McCain amendment, which prohibits 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading' treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody ... the administration has not accepted that ban as the last word. ...
- On June 18, 2006, a Post editorial declared "the Bush administration's lawless practices have so discredited it that it has lost support even for legitimate anti-terrorist measures."
- On March 23, 2006, a Post editorial described the Bush administration's efforts to implement an EPA policy that the District of Columbia Circuit Court had "already rejected" as "simply lawless."
- On December 16, 2005, the Post wrote "Thanks to a belated White House retreat, Congress is on the verge of taking an important step toward curtailing the systematic human rights violations committed by the Bush administration in its handling of foreign prisoners.
- ...
"This is the latest attack in a systematic war to gut the environmental whistleblowers' statutes,"
Ruling throws cold water on environmental whistleblowersBy David Goldstein | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The sentence was buried deep within a recent Labor Department ruling, but the message was clear:
Whistleblowers, beware.
More specifically: Whistleblowers relying on the protections against official retaliation contained in several major environmental laws, proceed with caution.
The sentence was in a footnote at the end of a ruling against a federal whistleblower. It said the Labor Department recognized only the protections written into the clean air and solid waste-disposal acts, not laws governing clean water, drinking water, toxic substances and hazardous waste.
"This is the latest attack in a systematic war to gut the environmental whistleblowers' statutes," charged Tom Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit watchdog group. "They are a lifeline so government workers can challenge illegality without engaging in professional suicide." ...
WASHINGTON - The sentence was buried deep within a recent Labor Department ruling, but the message was clear:
Whistleblowers, beware.
More specifically: Whistleblowers relying on the protections against official retaliation contained in several major environmental laws, proceed with caution.
The sentence was in a footnote at the end of a ruling against a federal whistleblower. It said the Labor Department recognized only the protections written into the clean air and solid waste-disposal acts, not laws governing clean water, drinking water, toxic substances and hazardous waste.
"This is the latest attack in a systematic war to gut the environmental whistleblowers' statutes," charged Tom Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit watchdog group. "They are a lifeline so government workers can challenge illegality without engaging in professional suicide." ...
Commerce Department's inspector general ... committed "egregious violations" of the federal law ... by retaliating against two whistleblowers
Commerce Inspector General Broke Whistleblower Law, Report Finds | By John Solomon and Joe Stephens | The Washington Post | Thursday 17 May 2007
The Commerce Department's inspector general, who is supposed to look into complaints of wrongdoing by government officials, committed "egregious violations" of the federal law that protects whistleblowers by retaliating against two subordinates, a government investigation has concluded.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Inspector General Johnnie E. Frazier wrongly demoted the two employees during an investigation of his spending, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. It concluded that Frazier's actions violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.
The report recommended that President Bush discipline Frazier and suggested that dismissal may be appropriate. ...
The Commerce Department's inspector general, who is supposed to look into complaints of wrongdoing by government officials, committed "egregious violations" of the federal law that protects whistleblowers by retaliating against two subordinates, a government investigation has concluded.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Inspector General Johnnie E. Frazier wrongly demoted the two employees during an investigation of his spending, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. It concluded that Frazier's actions violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.
The report recommended that President Bush discipline Frazier and suggested that dismissal may be appropriate. ...
{US Attornies: Obstruction]:
Congress demands e-mails; Justice says ask Rove camp | POSTED: 12:34 a.m. EDT, May 17, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department on Wednesday told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.
Instead, it said, Rove's lawyer must have them. Rove is the chief political adviser for President Bush.
The response from a top Justice Department official came just hours after the chairman, Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chastised Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter for ignoring the subpoena's Tuesday deadline. (Read full story)
"You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents, and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance," the two senators wrote in the letter, sent Tuesday night.
"The committee intends to get to the truth." ...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department on Wednesday told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.
Instead, it said, Rove's lawyer must have them. Rove is the chief political adviser for President Bush.
The response from a top Justice Department official came just hours after the chairman, Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chastised Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter for ignoring the subpoena's Tuesday deadline. (Read full story)
"You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents, and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance," the two senators wrote in the letter, sent Tuesday night.
"The committee intends to get to the truth." ...
[US attornies / vote-suppression agenda]: tougher voter ID laws, .. struck down as Jim-Crow era poll tax
U. S. ATTORNEYS | Sun, May. 20, 2007 | Efforts to stop `voter fraud' may have curbed legitimate voting | By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
...
Writing as "Publius," von Spakovsky contended that every voter should be required to produce a photo-identification card and that there was "no evidence" that such restrictions burden minority voters disproportionately.
Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.
"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him.
He and other former career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots.
In interviews, current and former federal officials and civil rights leaders told McClatchy Newspapers that von Spakovsky:
-Sped approval of tougher voter ID laws in Georgia and Arizona in 2005, joining decisions to override career lawyers who believed that Georgia's law would restrict voting by poor blacks and who felt that more analysis was needed on the Arizona law's impact on Native Americans and Latinos.
-Tried to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter ID laws - research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda. ...
...
Months after its publication, he participated in the department's review of Georgia's photo ID law, as required under the 1965 Voting Rights Act for election laws passed in 16 Southern states. After the department approved it, a federal judge struck it down as akin to a Jim Crow-era poll tax on minority voters. ...
...
Writing as "Publius," von Spakovsky contended that every voter should be required to produce a photo-identification card and that there was "no evidence" that such restrictions burden minority voters disproportionately.
Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.
"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him.
He and other former career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots.
In interviews, current and former federal officials and civil rights leaders told McClatchy Newspapers that von Spakovsky:
-Sped approval of tougher voter ID laws in Georgia and Arizona in 2005, joining decisions to override career lawyers who believed that Georgia's law would restrict voting by poor blacks and who felt that more analysis was needed on the Arizona law's impact on Native Americans and Latinos.
-Tried to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter ID laws - research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda. ...
...
Months after its publication, he participated in the department's review of Georgia's photo ID law, as required under the 1965 Voting Rights Act for election laws passed in 16 Southern states. After the department approved it, a federal judge struck it down as akin to a Jim Crow-era poll tax on minority voters. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)