Tillman killing ... Murder? backtracking, misinformation, deliberate withholding of documents [by White House] -- cover-up of massive proportions?

July 30, 2007 | Who Killed Pat Tillman? | And why?

There was just one problem: Tillman wasn't a gung-ho warmonger. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"A side of Pat Tillman not widely known – a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought, and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books … to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author."
...

Mary Tillman has long suggested that her son was deliberately murdered by his fellow soldiers. After initially dismissing her allegations as a case of grief-gone-over-the-edge, I've come to believe that there is something awfully fishy about this whole incident.

After all, why were Army attorneys sending "congratulatory e-mails" to each other for fending off criminal investigators on the case? The general who kept the details of Tillman's death from the Tillman family and the public claimed that he was having a problem with his memory, and that's why he just couldn't recall any important details of how Tillman's death was handled. Doctors who tried to reconcile the forensic evidence with the official account urged that a criminal investigation be pursued, but they were rebuffed. What's really suspicious, however, is that evidence of enemy fire at the scene was singularly lacking: no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any equipment damaged. According to numerous reports, there were no Taliban in the area.

...

The backtracking, the misinformation, the deliberate withholding of documents that required a FOIA request in the first place, and now the demotion of a general involved in the "investigation" – all point to a cover-up of massive proportions. Tillman had been keeping a journal since the age of 16, and he took it with him to Afghanistan. Two days after his demise, the journal, along with most of his personal property, mysteriously vanished. Adding another layer of murk, the White House is claiming "executive privilege" in refusing to release documents dealing with Tillman's death. But who is being protected?

First they told us Tillman was killed by hostile fire fighting for Bush's crusade to export "democracy" to Afghanistan. Then they said he was felled by "friendly fire," i.e., by his own troops. These new revelations suggest – although they don't conclusively prove – that this fire may not have been all that friendly.

What I want to know is this: how could someone who was apparently killed from 10 yards away – and was hit by three bullets in very close proximity
on the forehead – be a victim of "friendly fire" from 90 yards away, as claimed?

All of which raises another, increasingly troubling question: Who killed Pat Tillman – and why?

But Bush-Cheney’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” tower in scope and diversity over those earlier Presidents

Weekend Edition | July 28 / 29, 2007 | Gonzales and the Democrats' Dance of Evasion | Rotten Justice | By RALPH NADER

Most readers of /The Washington Post/ probably missed it. But probably not Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Fifty-six of his law school classmates (Harvard Law School, class of 1982) bought space for an open letter in mid-May that excoriated his “cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again.”

It read like an indictment, to wit:

“Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women;

“Witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections;

“Witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration’s stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and

“Witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with other more ‘loyal’ to the President’s politics, as merely ‘an overblown personal matter.’

“In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize ‘disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.’”

By now you’re expecting something like a conclusion by his classmates, such as a demand for resignation or a call for Gonzales’ impeachment. No such logic.

Instead, these intrepid classmates punted, urging Gonzales and President Bush “to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law
...
Compare the many impeachable offenses of Bush-Cheney with the certain impeachment of President Richard K. Nixon that was rendered moot by his resignation in 1974.

Compare the actual impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1998 for lying under oath about sex. ... But Bush-Cheney’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” tower in scope and diversity over those earlier Presidents. ...

[Bush] royalist attitude: has treated federal law as a menu from which he picks and chooses those laws he likes... denying Congress access to courts

Bush asserts a king's prerogative | With showdown over Iraq looming, president courts constitutional crisis | Published on: 07/25/07

In theory, President Bush is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In reality, he has treated federal law as a menu from which he picks and chooses those laws he likes, while ignoring those that do not suit his taste.

That royalist attitude may soon inspire a constitutional confrontation unrivaled in U.S. history.

At the moment, the president's penchant for ignoring laws he finds inconvenient is best displayed in the standoff with Congress over subpoenas. Congress has demanded the sworn testimony of White House officials as part of an investigation into the Justice Department; the White House is refusing to allow that testimony, citing executive privilege.

In itself, that conflict is hardly unusual; it continues a traditional contest of wills between presidents and Congress that goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. The conflict is so standard that federal law lays out a clear process for resolving it. If witnesses refuse to honor congressional subpoenas and are found in contempt, the matter is referred to the U.S. attorney from Washington, D.C., "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

The wording of that law doesn't give the U.S. attorney any leeway. It doesn't say that he or she "can" or "may" bring it before the grand jury. It says he or she "shall" bring the matter to the grand jury, so the courts can resolve the conflict between the other two branches of government.

Bush, however, claims the right to ignore that law. He not only refuses to allow his aides to testify, he refuses to allow the U.S. attorney to refer the matter to the grand jury, as the law says he must. In essence, Bush is denying Congress access to the courts as an impartial arbiter of their dispute. ...

restoring checks and balances among the three branches ... Congress is now being Swift Boated by the Bush Administration.

Friday, July 27, 2007 by CommonDreams.org | Congress, Bush and The Real Constitutional Crisis | by Glenn W. Smith

America is in the midst of an authentic constitutional crisis as the Bush Administration moves to reduce Congress to little more than an irrelevant focus group and achieve what no U.S. President has ever achieved: a true above-the-law presidency.

These are the stakes: Will the United States save what is left of its constitutional democracy by restoring checks and balances among the three branches of government?
...
But, there is now no other choice. Bush’s drive to place permanent barriers between the people and their government, to lift the presidency above all laws, must be stopped.

Earlier this week I wrote about the dangerous cultural narrative that frames Congress as an inept community . Our hero myths often include an inept community that must be saved by the lone hero. This cultural narrative has led to a broadly held view that Congress is just such a community.
...
Congress is now being Swift Boated by the Bush Administration. ...

The Bush gambit is to permanently derail progressive policy goals by building an impenetrable wall between the people and their government and by asserting ultimate and absolute presidential authority. These ambitions are made obvious by the Administration’s actions: Bush’s unprecedented veto threats; the obvious “we-don’t-really-care-what-you-think” attitude of Gonzales during his committee testimony; the Administration’s questioning Senator Hillary Clinton’s patriotism when she asked for details of Bush’s Iraq plans; the refusal to disclose details of the Administration’s emergency government plan. ...

"There are constitutional rights, free speech rights and petition rights at issue"

Are Voter Registration Drives Being Put Out of Business? | By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted July 25, 2007.

After the wave of successes in 2004 voter registration drives by groups like ACORN, a half-dozen states passed severe laws that scared off voting activists -- and now the Senate is weighing in

In 2004, Floridians overwhelmingly voted to raise their state minimum wage after low-income advocates collected ballot petition signatures, registered thousands of new voters and turned out the vote. The following spring, Florida's Republican-majority Legislature reacted. It passed a law that so severely regulated voter registration drives that, before the 2006 primary, Florida's League of Women Voters stopped registering voters for the first time in its history. The league feared mistakes on just 14 voter registration forms could result in penalties equal to its entire $70,000 budget.

Florida's actions were not unique. In Ohio, where the 2004 presidential election lingered as its Electoral College votes were challenged in Congress, Ohio's Republican-majority legislature passed a series of election reforms, including tough new rules and penalties for voter registration drives. In 2006, that law stopped the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, and community and church groups from registering voters in the state.

"In Florida, it absolutely shut down voter registration by all groups going up through the primary election of 2006," said Wendy Weiser, deputy director of the Brennan Center, a New York-based public-interest law firm that challenged the Florida and Ohio laws. "In Ohio, before there was an injunction in the case, voter registration was halted."

Both Florida's and Ohio's voter registration laws were challenged in court and were enjoined, or suspended, before the 2006 election, allowing voter registration to resume. Federal judges found they violated First Amendment rights and were hurting efforts to sign up new voters. But the trend of regulating voter registration drives did not end there. Between the 2004 election and today, six other states adopted similar laws -- Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Missouri and Washington -- and like-minded bills have been proposed in New Jersey, Arizona and elsewhere, according to the Brennan Center.
...
... On Wednesday, July 23, the Senate Rules Committee will hold a hearing on sections of an election reform bill (The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 or S. 1487) that would ban states from passing laws that would negatively impact voter registration drives.

"I think it is a real serious concern," said Dan Tokaji, assistant professor of law at Ohio State University and an election law expert. "There are constitutional rights, free speech rights and petition rights at issue. What has a lot of voting rights activists concerned is states with GOP-dominated legislatures are going to put a lot of voter registration groups out of business." ...

American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday said it is "do or die time" to save the U.S. Constitution

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- The American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday said it is "do or die time" to save the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU in a statement urged the U.S. Congress to "vote to hold White House officials in contempt for refusing to cooperate with legitimate congressional subpoenas."

The ACLU statement said the issue had become "a constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the separation of powers."

"Presidents have tried in the past to overreach in claiming executive privilege," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "However, Congress has long served as a check to such abuses of power, slapping the president's hand when needed and pursuing contempt or enforcement actions that eventually resulted in the release of crucial information. Today's Congress must do the same if it wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of government."

The ACLU said it "rejected claims that Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight or investigate executive misconduct was somehow less important than its legislative function and therefore not worthy of compulsory enforcement."

"It's do-or-die time for the separation of powers," Fredrickson said. "Congress is facing a historic moment when it can fight for its rightful place in our Constitution or accept the president's continued and sweeping claims of supremacy." ...

[Gonzales] Patriot Act 2005 testimony: "no violations" ... FBI had notified him [6 times] of hundreds of abuses, and one deliberate case

With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice | Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor | By John Solomon | Washington Post Staff Writer | Saturday, July 28, 2007; Page A03
...
The FBI concluded that the actions of the rookie agent amounted to "intelligence activities that . . . may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive," according to a declassified memo from Oct. 21, 2004.

The incident was deemed serious enough for the bureau to notify both the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and the Justice Department, and to consider punishing the agent.

The violation was the only one after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI has specifically flagged as intentional. But it has attracted fresh attention because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified six months later that no "verified case of civil liberties abuse" had occurred since the USA Patriot Act was enacted.

Gonzales told senators this week that his use of the word "abuse" was meant to narrowly refer only to intentional violations. "My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act," he testified Tuesday in explaining his 2005 remarks.
...
The issue of what Gonzales knew of FBI violations and when arose this month, when The Washington Post reported that the FBI had sent him at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations before he gave his 2005 testimony.

In total, the FBI has told the White House and the Justice Department about a few hundred instances since 2001 in which its agents violated procedures or laws designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. Most of the problems involved paperwork mistakes, the inadvertent collection of phone data for the wrong person or the collection of data past a legal deadline, officials have said. ...

[Voter caging] "reprehensible ... unethical ..,unlawful" ..."possibly criminally incriminating evidence" [in White House emails]

7.27.07 | Voter Caging & Housing Works

Was there a White House plot to illegally suppress votes in 2004? Is there a similar plan for the upcoming elections? This week NOW examines documents and evidence that points to a Republican Party plan designed to keep Democrats from voting, allegedly by targeting people based on their race and ethnicity with key battleground states like Ohio and Florida of particular interest. "It was a partisan, discriminatory attempt to challenge voters of color," Eddie Hailes, a senior attorney for The Advancement Project, a civil rights group, told NOW.

Was the White House involved? David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, thinks so: "It's reprehensible. It's unethical, it's unlawful. It may very well be criminal." Iglesias told NOW he was repeatedly urged by his superiors at the Justice Department to investigate allegations of false voter registrations. After his investigations came up short, Iglesias said Republican officials got angry and complained to White House aide Karl Rove. Soon after Iglesias lost his job. As a result of allegations by Iglesias and others, Congress is investigating whether the White House acted unlawfully.

While Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to answer many questions about the controversy as he testified before the Senate this week, Iglesias told NOW he believes the White House is keeping documents from Congress to protect the Bush Administration. "That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda," he said.
...
Related Documents and Links:

E-mails between National Republican Party headquarters and Ohio State Republican Party officials about plans to challenge voters in Ohio [pdf]

List of people in the Cleveland, Ohio area who the Republicans planned to stop on Election Day, 2004 [pdf]

Guidebook for Republicans interested in becoming poll monitors[pdf]

The Brennan Center: "Truth About Voter Fraud"

BBC: "New Florida vote scandal feared" by Greg Palast

"White House political operatives were focused on ... partisan voter fraud and corruption cases, ... firings ... cover-up ... stonewallling”

Leahy issues subpoena for RoveBy Klaus Marre | July 26, 2007

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday issued a subpoena for top White House adviser Karl Rove to compel him to testify about the firing of several U.S. attorneys.

“The evidence shows that senior White House political operatives were focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases,” Leahy said. “It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”
...
The Judiciary Committee chairman concluded that the investigation has “reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year.”
...
... “I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.”

Emails Detail RNC Voter Suppression in Five States ...

Exclusive | Emails Detail RNC Voter Suppression in Five States | By Jason Leopold and Matt Renner | t r u t h o u t | Report | Thursday 26 July 2007

Previously undisclosed documents detail how Republican operatives, with the knowledge of several White House officials, engaged in an illegal, racially-motivated effort to suppress tens of thousands of votes during the 2004 presidential campaign in a state where George W. Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

The documents also contain details describing how Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign officials, and at least one individual who worked for White House political adviser Karl Rove, planned to stop minorities residing in Cuyahoga County from voting on election day.
...
Another set of documents, 43 pages of emails, provided to Truthout by the PBS news program "NOW," contains blueprints for a massive effort undertaken by RNC operatives in 2004, to challenge the eligibility of voters expected to support Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Pennsylvania.

One email, dated September 30, 2004, and sent to a dozen or so staffers on the Bush-Cheney campaign and the RNC, under the subject line "voter fraud strategy conference call," describes how campaign staffers planned to challenge the veracity of votes in a handful of battleground states in the event of a Democratic victory.

Furthermore, the emails show the Bush-Cheney campaign and RNC staffers compiled voter-challenge lists that targeted probable Democratic voters in at least five states: New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Voting rights lawyers have made allegations of so called "vote caging," against Republicans previously. These emails provide more evidence. One Republican operative involved in the planning wrote "we can do this in NV, FL, PA and NM because we have a list to run against the Absentee Ballot requests, and should." ...

Gonzales's memo ...seems to authorize discussion about pending DOJ cases to hundreds of White House officials, ... perhaps high-profile cases scuttled

Gonzales Memo: White House Granted Extraordinary Access to DOJ Files | By Jason Leopold | t r u t h o u t | Report | Thursday 26 July 2007

A new wrinkle over the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) emerged on Tuesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when a freshman Democratic lawmaker revealed the contents of a May 2006 memo. The memo, signed by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, granted Vice President Dick Cheney extraordinary authority to review active federal civil and criminal investigations at the DOJ.

At the time the memo was signed by Gonzales, Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was preparing his defense on obstruction of justice and perjury charges involving the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's name. Also, the special prosecutor who secured an indictment in the case on behalf of the government was reportedly trying to determine whether Cheney and numerous other White House officials also unmasked Plame's identity to reporters and lied about it to a grand jury and FBI investigators. Cheney had been interviewed about his role in the leak in 2004.
...
The issue is of particular concern to lawmakers and the legal community because the DOJ historically operates independently of the administration and without political interference of any kind. A similar memo was signed by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002, but limited discussions between the DOJ and the White House to the office of the counsel of the president.

Gonzales's memo, on the other hand, seems to authorize discussion about pending DOJ cases to virtually hundreds of White House officials, and it seems to lend credibility to the assertion that perhaps some high-profile public corruption cases involving Republican lawmakers were scuttled due to interference by the Bush administration.

Elizabeth de la Vega, a former assistant US attorney and author of the book "US v. Bush," said Gonzales's memo is troubling because it supports claims the DOJ's first priority was to adhere to White House policies, as opposed to upholding the law.

"Alberto Gonzales's May 6 memo is nothing less than a subterfuge to open the doors of the Department of Justice to a seemingly endless number of people in both the president's and the vice president's offices, while purporting to shut those same doors," said de la Vega ...

simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option ... committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt.

Defying the Imperial Presidency | Article Tools Sponsored By | Published: July 26, 2007

The House Judiciary Committee did its duty yesterday, voting to cite Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, for contempt. The Bush administration has been acting lawlessly in refusing to hand over information that Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed. If the White House continues its obstruction, Congress should use all of the contempt powers at its disposal.

The committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. When she was subpoenaed to testify about the administration’s possibly illegal purge of nine United States attorneys, she simply refused to show up, citing executive privilege. Invoking privilege in response to particular questions might have been warranted — the courts could have decided that later. But simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option. ..

Bush acknowledged publicly that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative ... would fire ... now commutes sentence

Bush admits administration leaked CIA name | President seeks to put Libby issue to rest | Updated: 11:47 a.m. CT July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case. ...

Welcome to America's "elected kingship," ... Constitution can't save us from Bush

Constitution can't save us from Bush | By RUPERT CORNWELL | THE INDEPENDENT

Imagine Britain had had a U.S.-style president in the dark times of May 1940. If Neville Chamberlain hadn't decided to step down after an unfavorable vote by the legislature, could he have been forced out within 48 hours, and replaced by a man who could lead a country at war?
...
Had Bush been elected under a parliamentary system, as a prime minister at the head of the majority party or a majority coalition, he would have long gone the way of Chamberlain -- or most lately Tony Blair. Fearful of disaster in the next election, his erstwhile followers would have forced him out. Under the U.S. system, that is not possible.
...
One way and another, the current political mess in the U.S. makes you see the virtues of our British system. Yes, the monarchy, with its foibles and its scandals and the stultifying class system it embodies, is a sitting target. It is fashionable as well to lament the elected dictatorship that single-party majority government in Britain, unfettered by the rules of a Constitution, has become. Oh for the egalitarian discipline of a republic, underpinned by a written Constitution that is almost 220 years old. Alas, this Constitution is now a large part of the problem in the U.S.

Welcome to America's "elected kingship," where Bush serves as both head of state and head of government. Ironically, what respect he commands today stems mainly from the monarchical side of his job. Despite Iraq and his many other incompetences, he remains "the president." His office represents the entire country, not a single party. This, too, is why even a president as bad as Bush gets kid-glove treatment here compared with an occupant of No. 10 in Britain.
...
Yes, the Constitution, with its separation of powers, and checks and balances, is a remarkable document. But even the Founding Fathers thought it should be overhauled from time to time. ...

Justice Department is pressuring 10 states to purge their voter rolls, while states are ignoring laws to help low-income Americans register to vote

Bush Government to Poor Voters: We Don't Want You to Vote | By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted July 17, 2007.

The Justice Department is pressuring 10 states to purge their voter rolls, while states are ignoring laws to help low-income Americans register to vote.

State welfare offices across the country are not offering millions of low-income Americans the opportunity to register to vote when applying for public assistance despite a federal law requiring them to do so, according to an analysis of a recent federal voting registration report and experts who say the Department of Justice and states are to blame.

"It's huge. It's another area where the administration is failing us," said Donna Brazile, chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, speaking of the Department of Justice's oversight of the nation's voter registration laws. "They are not pushing states to recognize their voter registration responsibilities."

At the same time, the Justice Department's Voting Section, which enforces voting rights and supervises elections in some states, is pressuring 10 states to do more to purge voter rolls -- or remove ineligible voters -- before the 2008 presidential election, according to letters sent to state election officials this spring.

"We conducted an analysis of each state's total voter registration numbers as a percentage of citizen voting age population," wrote John Tanner, the Department of Justice Voting Section chief, in an April 18, 2007, letter to North Carolina's top election official. "We write now to assess the changes in your voter registration list ... and the subsequent removal of persons no longer eligible to vote."
...
"I think it's pretty clear the Justice Department is pursing a partisan agenda to get states to purge voters while ignoring requirements to get states to register voters," said Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote, a national nonprofit specializing in voter registration drives targeting low- and moderate-income families. ...

hardly the first time Mr. Gonzales has played so free and loose with the facts in his public statements and Congressional testimony.

Overprivileged Executive | The New York Times | Editorial | Wednesday 11 July 2007

It is hardly news that top officials in the current Justice Department flout the law and make false statements to Congress, but the latest instance may be the most egregious. When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wanted the USA Patriot Act renewed in the spring of 2005, he told the Senate, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." But The Washington Post reported yesterday that just six days earlier, the F.B.I. had sent Mr. Gonzales a report saying that it had obtained personal information it should not have.

This is hardly the first time Mr. Gonzales has played so free and loose with the facts in his public statements and Congressional testimony. In the United States attorneys scandal - the controversy over the political purge of nine top prosecutors - Mr. Gonzales and his aides have twisted and mutilated the truth beyond recognition.

Congress and the American public need to know all that has gone on at the Justice Department. But instead of aiding that search for the truth, President Bush is blocking it, invoking executive privilege this week to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove, from telling Congress what they know about the purge of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush's claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Mr. Bush - and even Mr. Gonzales - was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.

Even if Mr. Bush was directly involved, Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case, its major pronouncement on the subject, that the privilege does not apply if a president's privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity. Congress has already identified many acts relating to the scandal that may have been illegal, including possible obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.

The White House argues that its insistence on the privilege is larger than this one case, that it is protecting the presidency from inappropriate demands from Congress. But the reverse is true. This White House has repeatedly made clear that it does not respect Congress's constitutional role. If Congress backs down, it would not only be compromising an important investigation of Justice Department malfeasance. It would be doing serious damage to the balance of powers. ...

July 14, 2007 at 10:01:54 | Unimpeachable Conservative Calls for Bush/Cheney Impeachment | by background n015e Page 1 of 2 page(s)

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE TAKE HOME TALKING POINTS:

1. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It is the CURE for constitutional crisis. (Nichols)
2. Let unchallenged, these powers will be lying around like loaded weapons for future presidents. (Fein)

These are just some of the highlights I caught as Fein defends "The Fighting Constitution": He compares Bush to Nixon, King George III, and Hitler! There are several other gems I missed (e.g. Nichols' points comparing the US and Roman Empires)
...
About Sarah Taylor's oath to the President: I was there at the time of Watergate. That was like the oath to the military in Germany. An oath to the Fuhrer.

Bush is totally heedless of any honor for law and accountability. He has special rules for him and his cabinet.

This is a sneering attitude. "I am king." Bush is over reaching and making claims that even George III would not make.

About congress giving up it's powers: It is not an option... they have walked away from their responsibilities. If you abandon that , you abandon the ship of state and it capsizes.

There is nothing to stop them from shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal operations. ILLEGAL OPERATIONS... his words.

We cannot trust the reins of power to these people they are unreliable.

"What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all." [Clear conflict of interest in enforcement of Justice ]

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings | By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein | The Washington Post | Friday 20 July 2007

White House Says Hill can't pursue contempt cases.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
...
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
...
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."
...
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence - without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

President Bush, in a constitutional showdown with Congress, claimed executive privilege Thursday and rejected demands for White House documents .. .

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents | TERENCE HUNT | June 28, 2007 11:13 PM EST | AP

WASHINGTON — President Bush, in a constitutional showdown with Congress, claimed executive privilege Thursday and rejected demands for White House documents and testimony about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

His decision was denounced as "Nixonian stonewalling" by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush rejected subpoenas for documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. The White House made clear neither one would testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas.

Presidential counsel Fred Fielding said Bush had made a reasonable attempt at compromise but Congress forced the confrontation by issuing subpoenas. "With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation." ...

pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas

White House contempt | By Susan Crabtree | June 22, 2007

House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.
...
One of the contempt motions would likely be directed at Presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, to whom the subpoena for documents was addressed, according to a Democratic aide.

Others who could face contempt motions include ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena testimony from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel voted to subpoena testimony from Taylor.

“The House and Senate judiciary committees have issued subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony,” said Conyers. “We’re still hopeful they may cooperate. But it’s still possible that enforcement action may be taken.”

Democrats have been unsatisfied with the testimony they’ve heard so far from top officials and former officials at the DoJ, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Under questioning, all have said either that their roles were limited or that they were not directly responsible for suggesting certain U.S. attorneys be placed on the firing list. ...

Papers detail decades of FBI surveillance: "Unfortunately, we've become used to surveillance."

Papers detail decades of FBI surveillance | By Colin Moynihan | Published: June 25, 2007
...
In 2004, the FBI issued a subpoena to Drake University in Iowa seeking records about an antiwar conference held by a guild chapter there. And surveillance documents by the New York police relating to the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, which were recently unsealed by a federal judge, included references to the guild.

"We work with the assumption that everything we do is being monitored by the government," Boghosian said. "Unfortunately, we've become used to surveillance."

Election Assistance Commission ...is investigating the agency's research into voter fraud, voter intimidation and voter identification laws

Panel Faces Partisanship Allegations | By Zachary A. Goldfarb | Special to The Washington Post | Friday, June 22, 2007; Page A17

In late 2003, the first four commissioners of the newly formed, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission were given a tall order: Help states overhaul their election procedures so that the acrimony that followed the contested 2000 presidential election would not be repeated.
...
Activist groups have raised questions about whether, in response to pressure from the Justice Department, the commission altered or delayed research to play down findings on sensitive topics such as voter fraud and voter identification laws that many Republican figures and appointees would have found objectionable.

"There has been increasing evidence of improper attempts to exert political pressure on the EAC to influence the agency's decisions on election-related matters," said Wendy Weiser, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the liberal Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, who has reviewed thousands of pages of the commission's internal documents.

Meanwhile, the agency's inspector general, Curtis Crider, is investigating the agency's research into voter fraud, voter intimidation and voter identification laws.
...
Facing multiple open-records requests, the panel released its voter intimidation and fraud report in December. The report said that "there is a great deal of debate" about the topic. Later, it was revealed that the original report had been changed; it had said that voter fraud was virtually nonexistent. Commissioners say the original report went too far in reaching its conclusions about voter fraud. ...

Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center ... press for restrictive [voter] ID laws

U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS | GOP links to vote-fraud push | Two nonprofits had a major role in Republican electoral strategy that included lobbying U.S. attorneys over alleged fraud in voter rolls. | By GREG GORDON | ggordon@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON --
A New Mexico lawyer who pushed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.

Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed.

Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.

He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as ``obsessed . . . convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it.''

Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the nonprofit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund -- an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.
...
McClatchy has found that this election strategy was active on at least three fronts:

• Tax-exempt groups such as the American Center and the Lawyers Association were deployed in battleground states to press for restrictive ID laws and oversee balloting.

• The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division turned traditional voting rights enforcement upside down with legal policies that narrowed rather than protected the rights of minorities.

• The White House and the Justice Department encouraged selected U.S. attorneys to bring voter fraud prosecutions, despite studies showing that election fraud isn't a widespread problem.

Nowhere was the breadth of these actions more obvious than at the American Center for Voting Rights and its legislative fund.
...

Sweeping federal measures, have robbed Americans of privacy, due process of law, even freedom of movement. Warrantless wiretaps, e-mail surveillance,

Liberties lost Originally published July 4, 2007
...
... On this 231st anniversary of Jefferson's eloquent Declaration of Independence from British rule, the United States is desperately in need of restoring the rights and freedoms surrendered in a false bid for security that has perversely put the nation at greater risk.

Consider what has been lost.

Sweeping federal measures, most of them heavily cloaked in secrecy, have robbed Americans of privacy, due process of law, even freedom of movement. Warrantless wiretaps, e-mail surveillance, national security letters secretly demanding information on thousands of citizens and, soon to come, the equivalent of national ID cards - all would be abominations to Jefferson.
America's suspected enemies have fared worse. They have been tortured, held indefinitely without charge and spirited away to secret prisons abroad so no one knows who they are or what has happened to them.

The United States has been fortunate to have suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but there's little evidence that any of these extraordinary measures have had anything to do with that. What they have done is to further isolate the United States at a time when the war in Iraq has left America with no global good will to spare. And Iraq has now become a proving ground for development of terrorist weaponry, such as the roadside bomb, and tactics.

In the weeks and months after 9/11, when the Bush administration was paring back civil liberties through the cynically named Patriot Act and travelers were coping with what would become increasingly burdensome restrictions, fearful Americans were persuaded to accept the sacrifice in return for a greater measure of safety.

But Jefferson would argue that was a false choice. Liberty is the source of security. An open, accountable government is the best protection against tyranny and incompetence. Travel restrictions in the form of identity papers - aimed not at terrorists but at illegal immigrants - represent the cost of unchecked power on the quality of American life.

The portrait now emerging of Vice President Dick Cheney as the unseen hand behind many of the more outrageous violations of civil liberties, aided in part by Alberto R. Gonzales, the lapdog of an attorney general, powerfully underscores Jefferson's point that the time has come to retrace these missteps and get back on the road to peace, liberty and safety.

Congress, now in Democratic hands partly because of a backlash at these heavy-handed tactics, should begin the process by getting out all the facts. Americans have a right - and a responsibility - to know what's being done in their name and what effect it's having. ...

"this plan will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years."

The Suffrage of I. Lewis Libby Posted July 5, 2007 12:07 PM (EST)
...
Libby makes his home in the tony Washington D.C. suburb of McLean. And in the commonwealth of Virginia, those convicted of felonies are automatically barred from voting for life. You may be asking yourself what interest a state would have in keeping criminals who have completed their sentence from casting a ballot. Wonder no more in the case of Virginia -- when the state Constitutional Convention met in 1902 to pass a ban on felon enfranchisement, a delegate spoke approvingly of the new law, saying "this plan will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years." Scooter finds himself caught up in a plan that was never meant to involve him.

In post-Reconstruction era, many other U.S. states constructed similar bans. But only Virginia and neighboring Kentucky have made it to 2007 with a total ban on ex-felon suffrage. (Scooter well may be wishing now that he had chosen a place in Chevy Chase instead.)

Commutation Because Of Fear ... [Libby] could expose Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld as war criminals, and destroy the careers of dozens of others in minute

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/commutation-bec.html

One aspect of the commutation of Libby's sentence has been overlooked. Libby knows a very great deal about the war crimes of the president and vice-president and even more about the vagaries of the use of WMD intelligence before the war. By commuting his sentence, Bush is obviously trying to ensure that Libby doesn't talk. He is making sure that there's no pressure on Libby to cop a plea and give Fitzgerald more evidence of malfeasance in the White House. A reader explains:

The commutation of this felon's sentence was not a result of arrogance or indifference to the notion of accountability. It was motivated by fear. Libby knows it all, and I mean the whole story. He could expose Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld as war criminals, and destroy the careers of dozens of others in a matter of minutes. You can be sure that he was told at the outset that he would never see the inside of a jail. The court ruling that packed him off to the slammer immediately triggered the inevitable. It was just a matter of timing.

Another way of seeing this is: obstruction of justice. But, hey, he's the king. According to Addington and Cheney, the president is the justice system.

[Bush] refused to commute the death sentence of a 33-year-old mentally retarded black man with an IQ of around 60 ... sets record with 152 executions

What If Libby Was Black Or Mentally Retarded? Posted July 2, 2007 11:16 PM (EST)
...
What's excessive? President Bush, who suddenly hates excessive punishments, once refused to commute the death sentence of a 33-year-old mentally retarded black man with an IQ of around 60 and the functional skills of a 7-year-old boy.

10 years ago last May, President Bush and Alberto Gonzales received a request for clemency on the day Terry Washington was to be executed for killing a college student in 1987. President Bush skimmed Gonzales' incomplete summary and denied clemency.

Terry Washington was dead before the sun went down.

Regarding the record 152 executions during his two terms as governor, Bush "wrote" in his autobiography, A Charge To Keep, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own."

[For Bush] untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the right-wing Americans .

Soft on Crime Published: July 3, 2007

When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, “politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.”

Not so for Mr. Bush, the president. Judging from his decision yesterday to commute the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. — who was charged with perjury and convicted — untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base. ...
...
Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.

Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were “harsh punishment” enough for Mr. Libby. ...

Environmentalists and officials in California, Washington blame federal policy [Cheney?], which critics say violated the Endangered Species Act ...

Did Dick Cheney kill 70,000 salmon? Committee to probe Nick Juliano Published: Friday June 29, 2007

A Congressional committee is preparing to investigate Vice President Dick Cheney's role in water-management decisions that killed more than 70,000 salmon in Oregon.
Three dozen West Coast Democrats requested the Resources Committee investigation after the Washington Post reported of Cheney's involvement in managing flows from the Klamath River in 2002.

The Post reported that Cheney personally contacted the Interior Department official in charge of the program to push for more irrigation water be delivered from the river to drought-striken farmers and ranchers.

Environmentalists and officials in California and Washington blame the federal policy, which critics say violated the Endangered Species Act, was responsible for the deaths of 70,000 salmon, whose corpses lined the banks of the river. The Post said the plan was enacted "because of Cheney's intervention."

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., told the Associated Press that the committee is investigating the Bush administration's "penchant to favor politics over science in implementation of the Endangered Species Act." ... ...

After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing ...

Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations | After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing | By John Solomon | Washington Post Staff Writer | Tuesday, July 10, 2007; Page A01

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. ...

Files show talks on 'vote caging' ... Republican leader Mike Hightower ... he had never heard "of that" [Libby syndrome: intelligent but no memory .]

Originally created 070807 | Files show talks on 'vote caging' | Discussions with elections chief were prior to '04 election | By J. Taylor Rushing, Capital Bureau Chief

TALLAHASSEE - Internal city memos show the issue of Republican "vote caging" efforts in Jacksonville's African-American neighborhoods was discussed in the weeks before the 2004 election, contradicting recent claims by former Duval County Republican leader Mike Hightower - the Bush-Cheney campaign's local chairman at the time.

"Caging" is a longtime voter suppression practice by which political parties collect undeliverable or unreturned mail and use it to develop "challenge lists" on Election Day.

The contradiction comes to light as the U.S. Justice Department continues to consider a June 18 request from two U.S. senators for an investigation into potential illegal voter suppression tactics in Duval County three years ago. A department spokeswoman said last week that the request is still being reviewed.

Hightower, in a Times-Union interview last month, said the controversial voter suppression tactic of "caging" was never raised in daily meetings hosted by former Duval County Supervisor of Elections Bill Scheu, and he had never heard "of that expression or that practice." Hightower said last week he stands by those recollections.

City officials have disputed that, saying Scheu's daily pre-election meetings with local Republicans, Democrats and African-American community leaders repeatedly included the topic. The city also released attendance records showing Hightower was present.

"This issue was raised during the 2004 election; the supervisor of elections and his counsel were aware of the allegations, discussed them at times during daily meetings with both political parties, and did not have any instances of challenges based on caging," Cindy Laquidara, chief deputy general counsel for Jacksonville, said in a June 20 e-mail to Duval County elections officials. The elections office was responding to a Times-Union public record request; the e-mail was obtained through a similar request.

Scheu told the Times-Union last week the caging issue "probably" came up during repeated discussions over vote challenges.

Hightower, however, stuck by his denial.

"I've never heard the phrase or the practice. I don't care what anybody says," he said. "That's their opinion. Mike Hightower doesn't remember that. Call it a senior moment." ...

{Bush] Tough enough to execute Karla Fay Tucker -- and then laugh about it ... But if you're rich and right-wing and Republican ..

George W. Bush is One Tough Hombre | By Paul Begala

07/03/07 "Huffington Post" -- -- Tough enough to execute Karla Fay Tucker -- and then laugh about it. Tough enough to sign a death warrant for a man whose lawyer slept through the trial -- and then snicker when asked about it in a debate. Even tough enough to execute a great-grandmother who murdered her husband -- after he abused her. A friend of mine at the time asked Bush to commute her sentence, telling him, "Betty Lou ain't a threat to no one she ain't married to." No dice.

Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. Tough enough to sanction torture. Tough enough to order an American citizen arrested and held without trial.

But if you're rich and right-wing and Republican, George is a real softie. As George W. Bush demonstrated in giving Scooter Libby a Get Out of Jail Free Card, he is only compassionate to conservatives. ...
...
... Scooter Libby is a Bush-Cheney operative who may well have been doing Bush and Cheney's bidding when he obstructed the investigation into how and Valerie and Joe Wilson were smeared. ...

[Libby] The Godfather took care of the consigliere ... Scooter might sit down and write a book ... or he just remembered something ...

WND Commentary How Scooter skated | Posted: July 6, 2007 | 1:00 a.m. Eastern
...
Why did he suddenly barge into the legal process and erase the entire 30-month sentence of Scooter Libby?
...
Bush indicated no disagreement with the verdict.
...
But why did Bush rush to spare him even one day behind bars?

Three explanations come to mind.

The first is that Bush capitulated to intense pressure from the neoconservative commentariat led by the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep's office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam's WMD, Saddam's nukes, Saddam's ties to 9-11 and al-Qaida to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East.
...
The second explanation is that Vice President Cheney went to Bush, closed the door and asked, as a personal favor, that he spare Cheney's faithful friend and loyal aide the disgrace and pain of prison. And Bush did this distasteful and shameful act at the behest of a vice president to whom he feels an immense debt.

The third explanation is that Cheney, and perhaps the president, fears that if Scooter goes to prison, and is staring at disgrace and 30 months away from friends and family, he may think he has been abandoned by people whose secrets he kept at the cost of reputation and freedom. An idle mind being the devil's workshop, Scooter might sit down and write a book, or phone "Bulldog" Fitzgerald and tell him he just remembered something.
...
The act reeks of cronyism. The perception is that Scooter Libby got preferential treatment, a get-out-of-jail-free card because he was chief of staff to Cheney and assistant to Bush.

That perception is correct.

Because of whom he knew, Scooter got preferential treatment, big-time. The Godfather took care of the consigliere.

"In every aspect of the rule of law, and respect for the Constitution and checks and balances ... it's impossible to exaggerate how bad they have been

Pelosi On Bush Lawlessness: "The American people really don’t even know the half of it"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held another one of her regular conference calls with Progressive bloggers on Thursday, addressing topics across the national agenda and emphasizing her commitment to keeping pressure on Republicans to do the right thing on Iraq, bolstering national security and forcing George W. Bush to start obeying America's rule of law.

Asked by writer Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest about the blatant lawlessness of the Bush administration and their apparent belief that they're above the rule of law, Pelosi reinforced the difference a Democratic Congress has made on executive-branch oversight and said that we only see part of just how bad the Bush White House really is.

"The American people really don’t even know the half of it," said Pelosi in discussing what further oversight efforts might ultimately uncover. "In every aspect of the rule of law, and respect for the Constitution and checks and balances and how they conduct themselves, it's impossible to exaggerate how bad they have been."

"But we are trying to build the record and that's what we have to do. They had been going for six and a half years with no oversight, just absolutely zero accountability. And when people talk about this Congress, they have to recognize that there's a big distinction between this Congress and previous Congresses in terms of shedding the light of oversight and accountability on this administration. But with many of these things, you have to build a record so the public sees what it is." ...

Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby

Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby | Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 4, 2007, 4:41 pm

Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush Justice Dept., ruling against Rita’s appeal for a reduced sentence based his exemplary military service.
...
Sen. Joe Biden:

Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.”

Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.”

Pres. Bush cited Libby’s “years of exceptional public service” in commuting his prison sentence. But Libby is the classic Bushie chickenhawk — a neocon bureaucrat with no service record whose fingerprints are all over the worst military planning in American history.

Conversely, Victor Rita is the real deal:

Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems.

The Supreme Court ruled on the case last month:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly. ...