United States Attorney's

[michaeledward]

Yesterday, the Attorney General contradicted himself, several times, during an interview with ABC (an interview in which Pete Williams allowed Mr. Gonzalez to ramble on, without asking a challenging question or a follow up question by the way - it was like a wet kiss).

The recently retired Attorney General's chief of staff is going to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. His prepared remarks have been leaked.

Now, in these prepared remarks are more damning to the Department of Justice. Mr. Sampson is telling us the United States Attorneys are tools of the Executive Branch of government; to be used to forward political agendas.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective … is unsuccessful.

I must imagine that career civil servants within the Department of Justice will be none-to-pleased with this view of their service.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Id say "charge me" or "fire me", screw being put on show for political gain.

 

[michaeledward]

I am in the middle of a training class today, so I can be sitting in front of CSPAN.

I just read the notes from FireDogLake concerning Senator Feinstein's questioning of Mr. Sampson - former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General.

Mr. Sampson's leaked statements and some of the notes I have seen during lunch break indicate his belief that everything about the dismissal of the United States Attorneys has been above board. Comments by others in the Department of Justice indicate that Mr. Sampson was the lead actor in deciding which Attorneys were going to be asked to resign (to be fired).

Senator Feinsteins questions, and Mr. Sampsons answers look interesting.

Were you aware that Cummins was investigating Missouri GOP governor Blunt? Sampson "doesn't recall being aware of that."
Were you aware that NV USA Bogden opened an investigation of GOP governor of NV? Sampson says he does not recall being aware of that.
Were you aware that McKay declined to prosecute a case in Seattle? Sampson doesn't recall being aware of that.
Were you aware of a case being opened against Renzi? Aware through news accounta that there was some preliminary investigation.
Were you aware that Iglesias declined to prosecute case/investigation of state Democrats? Sampson not aware that calls had been made to him, and not aware of particular concerns.

Mr. Sampson claims to be ignorant of the activities within the individual offices of the fired United States Attorneys - as they relate to the Republican Party.

This begs the question, if he is so ignorant of what is happening in the offices, how could he possibly come to a reasoned decision to ask for the dismissal of the United States Attorneys?

 

[mrhnau]

*warning!* Parody following!

Michael, that reminds me of one of my favorite Rush paradoies... I must admit, it sounds better on the radio Seems many people have memory problems...

QUESTIONER:
Uh, welcome to the Grand Jury, Mrs. Clinton. How are you?
MRS. CLINTON:
I'm sorry. I don't recall.
QUESTIONER:
How's the book tour?
MRS. CLINTON:
I'm sorry, I don't recall.
QUESTIONER:
Uh, well let's get started.
[singing]
Try to remember when you were a member
Of Rose Lawfirm and worked Whitewater.
MRS. CLINTON:
[singing]
I don't remember that big money launder.
I was, um, baking cookies for my daughter.
QUESTIONER:
But Mrs. Clinton,
[singing]
Don't you remember that illegal tender
And your shady friend that McDougal fellow?
MRS. CLINTON:
I'm sorry,
[singing]
I can't remember; my brain's in a blender.
It's Jell-o!
QUESTIONER:
Ha ha, that's pretty good.
MRS. CLINTON:
Could we get on with this, please? I, I have to get back to my book tour.
QUESTIONER:
Okay, Mrs. Clinton, try to remember--and don't blame your gender--
[singing]
For missing all this high corruption.
MRS. CLINTON:
Well, excuse me,
[singing]
I don't remember--and don't blame my gender.
I'm not just some bimbo irruption.
QUESTIONER:
Uh uh, well, no, I didn't mean to imply that, but, but,
[singing]
Come next November your Bill the big spender
Could come to his end for this peccadillo.
MRS. CLINTON:
Well, I don't think so, because
[singing]
I can't remember; my brain's in a blender.
It's Jell-o! ["Jell-o" echoing four times]
QUESTIONER:
Uh, are you getting tired? Would you like to recess?
MRS. CLINTON:
I'm sorry, I don't recall.
QUESTIONER:
[quickly]
Who's president of the United States?
MRS. CLINTON:
Uh, I'm not sure I can remember that.
QUESTIONER:
This is very troubling.
MRS. CLINTON:
Well, pardon me.
QUESTIONER:
Oh, your husband could do that.

 

[michaeledward]

In a seemingly unrelated case ... some interesting occurances are taking place in the Minnesota US Attorney's office.

A US Attorney's office has several dozen 'assistant US Attorneys' investigating and prosecuting cases for the office. In March 2006, a new US Attorney was appointed to the Minnesota office.

Recently, several senior Assistant US Attorney's tendered their resignations from this office. The Department of Justice has petitioned these Assistant US Attorney's and convinced them to remain on staff with the office, by accepting positions as prosecutors, rather than managers. The resignations were offered, apparently, in protest over the U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose's management of the office.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1104033.html

Deputy Assistant Attorney General McNulty has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the eight U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign over 'performance issues'. One must wonder how having three senior managers of an office resign impacts 'performance evaluations' of the United States Attorney.

 

[michaeledward]

Monica Goodling, the liason between the Department of Justice and White House has tendered her resignation from the Department of Justice.

Ms. Goodling (Photo included above), has been on leave from the DoJ for some time now. There has been some comment that she had incompletely advised Assistant Attorney General McNulty for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That committee has requested that Ms. Goodling appear for testimony related to the firing of the eight United States Attorneys. Ms. Goodling has indicated that she will not submit to the request of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Through her lawyers, she has informed the committee that she will invoke her 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

The Judiciary Committee has said that Ms. Goodling needs to appear before the committee, and if she chooses to exercise her 5th Amendment rights, she needs to do so on a question by question basis.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General of the United States is holding extensive, private practice sessions for his appearance before the Judiciary Committee on the 17th.

Further, the Attorney General met before the Senate Committee in January of this year. From that session, a series of follow up questions and documentation was requested of the AG, and Department of Justice. AG Gonzales has indicated that he would respond in an 'ongoing basis' to those requests. Chairman Leahy has indicated that there has been no response on those follow ups.

The Department of Justice has enshrined itself in a bubble, and is acting with 'Bunker Mentality'. Very little good can come from this.

 

[michaeledward]

In these last two posts, I commented that they are "seemingly" unrelated .... well, as time passes, and more light shines, the relatedness is becoming more apparent.

U.S Attorney Paulose of Minnesota, has been reported to be - "best buds" - with Council to the Attorney General, Monica Goodling.

What good is being the Attorney Generals attorney, if you can't get your friends a job for which they are unqualified.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S39867.shtml?cat=1?cat=1&v=1 - I imagine the bandwidth hit this video is going to get will shortly get the video pulled.

And, some might think that Ms. Paulose received a full endorsement of the Senate under the 'Advice and Consent' clause. Well, not exactly. The Judiciary Committee did not review Ms. Paulose' nomination. The Judiciary Committee did not foward their review on to the full Senate. Instead, on the last day of the 109th Congress, Senator Bill Frist, submitted a discharge resolution for "unanimous consent" that included Ms. Paulose' nomination, along with more than 100 other nominations.


P.S. - Did I mention that Ms. Goodling abruptly resigned earlier this week?

 

[jazkiljok]

Et tu, Newte?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-08-gingrich-gonzales_N.htm

 

[michaeledward]

For the truly curious .... who is Monica Goodling.

[yt]9MzQyUEqRHU[/yt]

 

[Shuto]

Et tu, Newte?

That's funny. :asian:

edit

I come to bury Gonzales, not to praise him.

 

[michaeledward]

Oops ... The Dog ate the Administrations Homework ...



It appears that as many as 20 White House officials were using Republican National Committee Supplied email addresses and equipment to conduct official White House Business (Like discussing firing United States Attorneys).

This violates the law in several ways.

All communication within the White House must be maintained, and eventually released publicly; Presidential Records Act or Hatch Act.

What Security Protocols are in place on RNC email servers?

Users who deleted emails from their inbox, were also deleting the messages from the Servers, erasing all copies. In fact, the servers, at one point, had a 30 day auto delete.

Wonderful.

And now, they can not comply with Congressional oversight requests.

 

[michaeledward]

This from the Washington Post article

One White House lawyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the ground rules of the briefing, said staffers are now being advised that if they have any questions about whether an e-mail is political or official, they should use their private accounts but preserve a copy for review by White House lawyers to see whether it needs to be saved under the Presidential Records Act.

It seems to me, this is exactly backwards. These persons work in the White House, shouldn't the default position be, use the White House provided accounts?

We assume the White House email system hass White House level security against ciber-crime/hackers as well as appropriate retention properties and rules.

At this point, and with the demonstrated track record, I would prefer to have White House officials unknowingly violate the rule that prevents 'political activity' on 'official government systems', than to unknowingly violate the rule that preserves the history of decision making in the White House, don't ya think? Especially since we know they do political activity on the official government systems already.

 

[Ray]

It seems to me, this is exactly backwards. These persons work in the White House, shouldn't the default position be, use the White House provided accounts?

In the private sector email and other tools that are owned by and provided for the benefit of the business entity are for business purposes. Any personal email, etc becomes the property of the business and in some cases, using business provided tools for personal business, can be cause for termination.

We assume the White House email system hass White House level security against ciber-crime/hackers as well as appropriate retention properties and rules.

And the appropriate retention times and rules for email are?

 

[michaeledward]

In the private sector email and other tools that are owned by and provided for the benefit of the business entity are for business purposes. Any personal email, etc becomes the property of the business and in some cases, using business provided tools for personal business, can be cause for termination.
And the appropriate retention times and rules for email are?

They must be retained forever.

http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

This link connects to one of the laws governing retention of White House emails. And this following quote comes from one of the links off of the page above.

In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which changed the legal status of Presidential and Vice Presidential materials. Under the PRA, the official records of the President and his staff are owned by the United States, not by the President.

• The Archivist is required to take custody of these records when the President leaves office, and to maintain them in a Federal depository.
• These records are eligible for access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) five years after the President leaves office.
• The President may restrict access to specific kinds of information for up to 12 years after he leaves office, but after that point the records are reviewed for FOIA exemptions only.
• This legislation took effect on January 20, 1981, and the records of the Reagan administration were the first to be administered under this law.

So, White House emails are our property, not the property of the senders. They must be maintained and preserved for posterity's sake. To delete them is illegal. They must be retained forever.

One of the first actions by President George W. Bush was to sign an executive order extending the period of time Presidential records may be kept restricted from the public. The suspicious among us believe this action was done to keep the secrets of George H.W. Bush's involvement in Iran Contra hidden from public view.


* * * * *

On a seperate note, and related legal point, the Hatch Act of 1939, mandates that government officials not participate in 'Political' activity while performing official duties. This was done to prevent the 'Office' from engaging in partisan politics.

It is a delicate balance.

You can't use the 'Office Computer' to send an email asking for donations to the Political Party. This is why the RNC gave White House officials computers, cell phones and blackberries.

If you watched the "West Wing", you would occassionally see Josh make leave the White House, and go to the park across the street to make a phone call .... because the phone call was 'political' in nature, not 'official'.

 

[Ray]

[/list]So, White House emails are our property, not the property of the senders. They must be maintained and preserved for posterity's sake. To delete them is illegal. They must be retained forever.

One of the first actions by President George W. Bush was to sign an executive order extending the period of time Presidential records may be kept restricted from the public. The suspicious among us believe this action was done to keep the secrets of George H.W. Bush's involvement in Iran Contra hidden from public view.

....

You can't use the 'Office Computer' to send an email asking for donations to the Political Party. This is why the RNC gave White House officials computers, cell phones and blackberries.

If you watched the "West Wing", you would occassionally see Josh make leave the White House, and go to the park across the street to make a phone call .... because the phone call was 'political' in nature, not 'official'.

All the more reason a person in the employement of another whether it be the gov't, a privately held firm, or a publicly held firm, make sure that they use their own means for communicating non-work related stuff.

But I don't see what "west wing" has to do with anything...it's fiction.

 

[michaeledward]

All the more reason a person in the employement of another whether it be the gov't, a privately held firm, or a publicly held firm, make sure that they use their own means for communicating non-work related stuff.

While your statement about personal use of company owned equipment is correct ... the corollary is also true ... According to the PRA, they can not use personal accounts to conduct business work.

But I don't see what "west wing" has to do with anything...it's fiction.

The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law.

In the story, it was a telephone call political in nature. According to the Hatch Act of 1939, those calls can not be made from government property or on government telephones.

Complying with the Hatch Act of 1939 is often difficult for members of the White House. For instance ... as the President was campaigning for Republicans prior to the 2006 elections, he would often make 'official' comments as he travelled. Using Air Force One to travel to Arizona for a McCain campaign event requires the President to reimburse the country for political use of Air Force One. By rolling in an official policy event to his Arizona trip, he did not need to have his campaing or McCain's campaign, or the RNC to pay for Air Force One's travel.

 

[Ray]

The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law.

Still it is not a good thing to use as an example. I can likewise point to Little Red Ridinghood and feed my grandmother to the wolves.

For instance ... as the President was campaigning for Republicans prior to the 2006 elections, he would often make 'official' comments as he travelled. Using Air Force One to travel to Arizona for a McCain campaign event requires the President to reimburse the country for political use of Air Force One. By rolling in an official policy event to his Arizona trip, he did not need to have his campaing or McCain's campaign, or the RNC to pay for Air Force One's travel.

Assuming that the pres was guilty of travelling for the purpose of campainging (instead of travelling for work with visits while he happened to be in the area), I cannot recall any pres NOT doing the same---dem or gop. It probably just sounds like you don't like republicans.

 

[crushing]

While your statement about personal use of company owned equipment is correct ... the corollary is also true ... According to the PRA, they can not use personal accounts to conduct business work.


The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law.

In the story, it was a telephone call political in nature. According to the Hatch Act of 1939, those calls can not be made from government property or on government telephones.

Complying with the Hatch Act of 1939 is often difficult for members of the White House. For instance ... as the President was campaigning for Republicans prior to the 2006 elections, he would often make 'official' comments as he travelled. Using Air Force One to travel to Arizona for a McCain campaign event requires the President to reimburse the country for political use of Air Force One. By rolling in an official policy event to his Arizona trip, he did not need to have his campaing or McCain's campaign, or the RNC to pay for Air Force One's travel.

Is there a 'controlling legal authority' nowadays for this type of thing?

"If there had been a shred of doubt in my mind that anything I did was a violation of law, I assure you I would not have done that. And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law." -A Convenient Untruth

Hold their feet to the fire Michael, don't let these guys off as easily as the previous ones did!

 

[michaeledward]

Is there a 'controlling legal authority' nowadays for this type of thing?

Hold their feet to the fire Michael, don't let these guys off as easily as the previous ones did!

Yes, there is a controlling legal authority.

The Presidential Records Act. It is not new.

 

[michaeledward]

Still it is not a good thing to use as an example. I can likewise point to Little Red Ridinghood and feed my grandmother to the wolves.

Assuming that the pres was guilty of travelling for the purpose of campainging (instead of travelling for work with visits while he happened to be in the area), I cannot recall any pres NOT doing the same---dem or gop. It probably just sounds like you don't like republicans.

It is a perfectly good example .... It demonstrates how an employee within the White House can stay within the law.

And, yes, all Presidents have behaved in the same way with Air Force One. I choose the 2006 election because it is the most recent, and quite probably most easily in someone's mind.

As for whether I like Republicans or not, it is irrelevant to the behavior within the law, or not within the law.