Comments (60)

skaren wrote on March 9, 2007 3:32 PM:

Can anyone tell me why they would just hand over any incriminating documents.

Your basically asking them to hand over stuff. I would think most bad stuff would just get "lost" in the shuffle.

Does anyone know how this works ?

I just can't imagine it,.. unless it is leaked out.

drew wrote on March 9, 2007 3:34 PM:

yeah! that's what i want to see. fight hard dems. i've emailed my local news outlets and push for information. i've asked if US attorney(s) are willing to go on the record about getting any phone calls or political pressure from washington DC. they seemed very interest to follow-up. i urge everyone who cares about USAgate to do the same.

drew wrote on March 9, 2007 3:35 PM:

they have to know about the docs to ask for them. i'd say someone is leaking.

Barbara wrote on March 9, 2007 3:40 PM:

I ask again is anyone following up with those who were not fired? What bogus indictments came down before the election? What investigations were dropped?

Charles wrote on March 9, 2007 3:44 PM:

I guess we can expect a fleet of document shredding trucks to arrive at the White House any minute now, if they haven't already been parked there since November.

Styve wrote on March 9, 2007 3:45 PM:

Set a computer forensics team on these crooks!! Bush thinks he can just ignore facts and justice.

I doubt he will be able to ignore incarceration!

Go team go!!

Mooser wrote on March 9, 2007 3:48 PM:

Can anyone tell me why they would just hand over any incriminating documents.

Fear of Federal Prison may have something to do with it.

jayjaygray wrote on March 9, 2007 3:50 PM:

Josh posted an entry about the conveniently timed court proceedings against Menendez, the Democratic candidate in NJ, on TPM yesterday.

David wrote on March 9, 2007 3:52 PM:

Scooter Libby did this one too.

Bearpaw wrote on March 9, 2007 3:54 PM:

One of the things about destroying documents is that the guilty party rarely knows whether some of the docs have been leaked, and it's harder than ever to be sure you've gotten all the copies, computer backups, etc. So if you can't be sure you can get rid of everything, it's often better to try and bury the good stuff in boxes and boxes of irrelevant material, and/or prepare spin for the incriminating evidence.

henk wrote on March 9, 2007 3:56 PM:

I'm with Barbara: What about the USA's that didn't get fired? Weren't there some convienently time indictment anouncements prior to the '06 elections?

Anonymous wrote on March 9, 2007 3:57 PM:

The reason you comply with these requests is a pesky little thing called federal law. The White House can't just blow off these types of requests. What they can do is assert one or more privileges to explain why they don't think they have to turn them over, but they have to respond.

JoyceH wrote on March 9, 2007 3:57 PM:

Here's something I think would really bear investigating - how did that provision that allowed the administration to appoint US Attorneys to indefinite terms without Senate confirmation get slid into the Patriot Act?

I know Specter said it was a staffer and he hadn't known about it, but that explanation just isn't good enough. WHICH staffer? And WHY? - who put him up to it? Because just as soon as that bill with that secret provision passed, a bunch of US attorneys suddenly got the axe, and one of the was replaced by Karl Rove's oppo research guy. So the provision was put into the bill on purpose, so that these firings and replacements could happen, and could be done without oversight. This was a carefully laid plan - by WHOM?

Legalize wrote on March 9, 2007 4:02 PM:

I would put my money on a leak. Absent that, White House counsel can't just NOT turn over the documents if they are relevent, or otherwise not privileged without facing ABA discipline. My guess is that they will argue that the documents are irrelevant, or privileged attorney/client or work product material, or even privileged executive materials.

That said, if there IS a leak, all of this will come out anyway, and the WH is likely to hand over the documents and simply argue that they don't say what ever the Committee says they say - same old stuff they always do.

Cufford wrote on March 9, 2007 4:06 PM:

I'm sorry, but as for the Dem's getting tough...

Why never on the major issues that American's voted them into office on!

No tangible "brining our troops home from Iraq"!
No movement on Health Care!
Etc., etc., etc...

Sure, they always pile on isolated issues they know they can be vocal about without upsetting their big money supporters, but never on the big issues that their big money supporters would kick their butts on; those which Americans overwhelming want to see them working on the most.

Sure, I'm happy to see them doing something -- 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing -- but will our elected officials ever take on the real big issues of our time like Iraq and Health Care.

Nothing in sight yet!

Cufford
Fresno, CA

PS: Kudos to the blogosphere for giving voice to and informing the people, and bringing pressure upon our elected officials to do something about stuff like this. If it wasn't for TPM this wouldn't even be a story anyone knows about.

Crust wrote on March 9, 2007 4:10 PM:

Cufford writes:

"I'm sorry, but as for the Dem's getting tough...

Why never on the major issues that American's voted them into office on!"

Oversight was definitely one of the major issues. We need to rein in an executive that is out of control. (Yup, I want to see progress on health care and Iraq too.)

Faber wrote on March 9, 2007 4:11 PM:

The White House email system is Lotus Notes -- which I wouldn't wish on a dog, but it has one delightful property for our purposes: it is next to impossible to find all the places that Notes caches copies of a particular document. If a forensics team does go over those servers, there's no telling what they might turn up!

Uncle Don wrote on March 9, 2007 4:13 PM:

Posted by: JoyceH

JoyceH:

The staffer who slipped the provision into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act was Michael O'Neill, then the Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. O'Neill reportedly acted at the request of the Department of Justice and the White House.

Search for "Specter U.S. Attorneys Patriot Act" and read the stories in Salon.com and Slate.com for more info.

Uncle Don wrote on March 9, 2007 4:18 PM:

Cufford:

Perhaps you missed the news conferences yesterday in which the Democrats in Congress announced plans to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by September 2008 at the latest and by the end of this year at the earliest.

Democrats have had the majority in Congress for two months and one week. It's really unrealistic to expect them to repair six years of misadministration and malfeasance in that length of time.

Meanwhile, consider all of the hearings Democrats have conducted and are conducting into the Bush administration's attempts to override/ignore the Constitution.

Only 682 days left Bush's Reign of Error.

wishIwuz2 wrote on March 9, 2007 4:21 PM:

I'm watching out the window, keeping an eye on our front yard. If anyone comes around here looking to fire any Fed. judges, they're asking for trouble.

bboop wrote on March 9, 2007 4:25 PM:

CT had a hiccup of a USA switch back a few years ago that was rather interesting. John Danaher III, USA for CT supervised the prosecutions of former Bridgeport mayor Joseph Ganim and former Waterbury mayor Phil Giordano. Danaher also served as interim U.S. Attorney in 2001 and 2002. Appointed by George W. Bush, Kevin J. O'Connor was sworn in November 2002 as United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. He wasn't even 40 years old. O'Connor, a Republican, first entered public service with a campaign against Congressman John Larson and lost. As CT's USA, he first recused himself from prosecuting Governor John Rowland, who was well on his way to being impeached when he resigned from office. AG O'Connor's wife worked for the Rowland administration and her family has owned the cottage right next to Rowland's at Bantam Lake for many years. Since then, O'Connor has been on the fast track and is considered one of CT GOP's top prospects. O'Connor has been promoted to Associate Deputy Attorney General. O'Connor, will retain his position of CT US Attorney for six months.This latest appointment raises O'Connor's political stock yet again.
"I have no plans of stepping down as CT U.S. attorney unless circumstances lead me to conclude doing two jobs is having a negative effect on either one," O'Connor said. "I would not have accepted this offer from the deputy attorney general if I was not fully confident my leadership team could manage this district very effectively in my absence."
O'Connor spends less and less of his time in CT, supervising this state from afar.

EH wrote on March 9, 2007 4:33 PM:

Barbara and Henk:

If you like tpmmuckraker.com, you should also like the parent site, talkingpointsmemo.com, which posted a story germane to your questions before this one appeared.

r€nato wrote on March 9, 2007 4:43 PM:

Can anyone tell me why they would just hand over any incriminating documents.

um , because they are legally required to when subpoenaed.

Of course they can destroy or hide papers but that usually leads to worse trouble.

Ian wrote on March 9, 2007 4:46 PM:

From Krugman today in the NYTs:

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

Pretty clear the USA's have been turned into a Rethuglican cudgel.

AC-n-nc wrote on March 9, 2007 4:48 PM:

Democratic advancements so far are really quiet remarkable . I also thought it was taking way to long for them to stop the Bush atrocities and start fixing the corruption problems but when everyday is a new criminal and each committee hearing uncovers another needed investigation into matters reviled in the hearing. The disregard Republicans have for "The rule of law " is really laid bare if you compare it to what they were saying about it when it had to do with President Clinton.

eCAHNomics wrote on March 9, 2007 4:54 PM:

I have been worried about W destroying documents for several years. Nice to hear their cockamamie email system makes this hard to do. Also, they have so far not felt the need. We've just discovered that their ability to cover up under pressure--USA massacre--has laughable results.

Actually I've got the mental drools over this. Can't wait to watch Meirs testify.

ray reynolds wrote on March 9, 2007 4:55 PM:

Why turn over documents?

Contempt of Congress. They have a nice jail.

squirm wrote on March 9, 2007 5:08 PM:

Seriously, any lawyers want to weigh in on this? Because, my first thought was, "executive privelege".

DallasNE wrote on March 9, 2007 5:16 PM:

It will be interesting to see what the Whitehouse says regarding Harriet Miers. For non-Cabinet officers they generally use Executive Priviledge as an excuse for blocking such testimony.

Anonymous wrote on March 9, 2007 5:40 PM:

They (special prosecutor/Congress) forced Bruce Lindsey to talk and he was Clinton's personal counsel.

Expect the same courtesies from the Democratic Congress.

Cufford wrote on March 9, 2007 5:43 PM:

Uncle Don writes:

"Cufford: Perhaps you missed the news conferences yesterday in which the Democrats in Congress announced plans to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by September 2008 at the latest and by the end of this year at the earliest."

Oh, I certainly didn't miss that. A plan that not only essentially gives this all another year and a half (Americans want the needless death and destruction to end NOW!), but which leaves it up to Bush to define what's progress and what isn't.

At best it's a typically weak and rhetorical plan. It has no substantive action at all, and what action it does propose it allows Bush to define.

Not to mention that they know Bush will veto it anyway.

It's little more than the same old rhetoric.

I do agree with Crust that "oversight" is indeed a very good, much needed step in the right direction and I shouldn't have trivialized it. My point is simply that the Democrats have thus far shown no significant movement on the biggest threats to our country as defined by their constituents in the last election. Only the same old get tough rhetoric.

Talk is cheap, and actions speak MUCH louder than words.

Cufford
Fresno, CA

belch wrote on March 9, 2007 5:52 PM:

You gotta admit, the Thugs got cojones. When they conduct a putsch, they go full-bore, fly under the radar, and harbor major long-term strategic objectives.

bjobotts wrote on March 9, 2007 6:02 PM:

Something is not right with the WH or DOJ responses to all of this USA purge. They are just barely putting up their usual response of deny, impede, stall, block and denounce. It makes me paranoid...extremely...as if they somehow know that it will make no difference soon. As if they know that something else will occur that will make all of this seem insignificant. Like it's only there to get us to take our eye off the ball. What do they call it when you are paranoid of your own government. This paranoia has an 8yr. history too.

Arknansan wrote on March 9, 2007 6:24 PM:

"Something is not right with the WH or DOJ responses to all of this USA purge. They are just barely putting up their usual response of deny, impede, stall, block and denounce. It makes me paranoid...extremely...as if they somehow know that it will make no difference soon. As if they know that something else will occur that will make all of this seem insignificant. Like it's only there to get us to take our eye off the ball. What do they call it when you are paranoid of your own government. This paranoia has an 8yr. history too.

You're right.

bjobotts wrote on March 9, 2007 7:05 PM:

To Joyce: It was Specters chief of staff who claims he did it at the insistence of the DOJ. Who in the DOJ he did not mention but you can be sure it was from Gonzales who got it from Rove, the architect of the provision who obtained Bush's and Cheney's approval. The provision had to be "prepared" and then it was "secretly" slipped into the Patriot Act. Gonzales couldn't have thought that one up, he was just the 'go along' guy. Because it was directly related to the political arena and done underhandedly it had Rove's brand all over it. It was Cheney who sold it to Bush. To support this idea just consider that Rove is commenting on it...why? He doesn't comment on much of anything. In my mind all fingers point to Rove as the man who orchestrated the provision, and implemented the purge to try to politicize the DOJ.

justintime wrote on March 9, 2007 7:16 PM:

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a loyal stooge of the Bush administration.

He's an accomplice to the corruption of the Federal Government and chief operative in the Bush administration assault on the United States Constitution and our precious freedoms.
Gonzales is directly responsible for the Bush administration's contempt of international law, the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, the rule of law and the truth itself.
Gonzales has repeatedly perjured himself before Congress and now says he's too busy to respond to a subpoena to answer for his criminal activity.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers should be strongly encouraged to file articles for impeachment of AG Gonzales.

johno wrote on March 9, 2007 7:40 PM:

I'm waiting for Fred Black to come up in this story. He's the US Attorney that Abramoff got fired in the Northern Marianas.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001052.php

borussky wrote on March 9, 2007 8:41 PM:

The late Walter Karp divided people in politics into "hacks" and "reformers". Hack Ds include Clintons, DLC, Lieberman etc. Reformers include Carter, Dr Dean, Bill Bradley, Paul Wellstone. When Cufford talks about the "Democrats" we need to think about which "Democrats".

The Hacks are not pushing nothing against Bush, some of the Reformers are beginning to push hard.

Talking about "the Democrats" is like talking about "the National Interest". My interests are different than EXXON's interests".

Around here we talk about Lieberman Democrats as "Vichy Democrats".

rlogan wrote on March 9, 2007 10:57 PM:

Gosh, look how fast the dems move when they're not complicit in the act or agree with the malfeasance. The white house lied us into war, suspended the constitution, tortured, spied on us illegally, kidnapped, spent funds illegally in Iraq, brought down a real CIA front organization collecting genuine intel in order to crush a whistleblower exposing fabricated "intelligence"... an endless list of obvious, outright felonies Bush has in at least two cases explicitly and proudly defended.

And how fast are they moving on any of that?

I don't mean to trivialize firing U.S. attorneys in order to plant more friendly republican stooges. But it sure shows us what motivates democrats. Party first. Party last. Party on, Wayne...

stephen wrote on March 9, 2007 11:23 PM:

Barbara regarding those attorneys not fired and their actions see Krugmans piece today. THere is an interesting story about charges agaisnt Senator Bob Menedez of NJ. THese cahges came out just before the election. They proved to be bogus.

stephen wrote on March 9, 2007 11:33 PM:

Barbara regarding those attorneys not fired and their actions see Krugmans piece today. THere is an interesting story about charges agaisnt Senator Bob Menedez of NJ. THese cahges came out just before the election. They proved to be bogus.

Ann in AZ wrote on March 10, 2007 12:14 PM:

I guess we can expect a fleet of document shredding trucks to arrive at the White House any minute now, if they haven't already been parked there since November.
Posted by: Charles
Date: March 9, 2007 03:44 PM

And that would qualify as Obstruction of Justice!

Ann in AZ wrote on March 10, 2007 12:17 PM:

Did I mention that if the White House is caught Obstructing Justice, that could also be considered Contempt of Congress. I believe both charges would qualify as impeachable offenses. Not to mention Abuse of Power. I love it!

Ann in AZ wrote on March 10, 2007 12:28 PM:

Cufford writes:

"I'm sorry, but as for the Dem's getting tough...

Why never on the major issues that American's voted them into office on!"

Oversight was definitely one of the major issues. We need to rein in an executive that is out of control. (Yup, I want to see progress on health care and Iraq too.)
Posted by: Crust
Date: March 9, 2007 04:10 PM

Baby steps, guys, baby steps. Patience is the key!

ahem wrote on March 10, 2007 2:37 PM:

It's interesting how the presumed underlying motive for the purge -- put GOP patronage hires in place so they can get judicial appointments later -- has turned into an investigation of whether the purged US Attorneys weren't indicting enough Dems and laying off GOPpers.

No matter how calculating and partisan you think the White House is, it's probably worse than you think.

Ann in AZ wrote on March 10, 2007 4:22 PM:

"Something is not right with the WH or DOJ responses to all of this USA purge. They are just barely putting up their usual response of deny, impede, stall, block and denounce. It makes me paranoid...extremely...as if they somehow know that it will make no difference soon. As if they know that something else will occur that will make all of this seem insignificant. Like it's only there to get us to take our eye off the ball. What do they call it when you are paranoid of your own government. This paranoia has an 8yr. history too."
Posted by: bjobotts
Date: March 9, 2007 06:02 PM

Personally, I think they're getting ready to shed Gonzales as a pre-emptive strike, just as they did with Rumsfeld. Then they'll blame everything that went wrong with the AGs office on him. In fact it's their way of saying STFU to us. That will also neutralize the following:

"House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers should be strongly encouraged to file articles for impeachment of AG Gonzales."
Posted by: justintime
Date: March 9, 2007 07:16 PM

and keep us from pursuing Rove, because they think it will make a pursuit of Rove moot.

"Gosh, look how fast the dems move when they're not complicit in the act or agree with the malfeasance. The white house lied us into war, suspended the constitution, tortured, spied on us illegally, kidnapped, spent funds illegally in Iraq, brought down a real CIA front organization collecting genuine intel in order to crush a whistleblower exposing fabricated "intelligence"... an endless list of obvious, outright felonies Bush has in at least two cases explicitly and proudly defended.

And how fast are they moving on any of that?

I don't mean to trivialize firing U.S. attorneys in order to plant more friendly republican stooges. But it sure shows us what motivates democrats. Party first. Party last. Party on, Wayne..."
Posted by: rlogan
Date: March 9, 2007 10:57 PM

I further think that the Democrats not moving on ending the war, suspending the Constitution, etc., etc., is far more self-serving than just for the sake of the party. I think it has more to do with risking their own personal careers. They are putting career considerations ahead of the lives of the soldiers that are fighting the war. What they don't seem to understand yet is that their stalling is giving them ownership and responsibility for the war. The risk they incur in the form of name calling due to the potential failures in this military action is less than the risk they incur by not doing all they can to end it. That means, they should pull the purse strings closed.

nshla byrtnl wrote on March 12, 2007 10:32 PM:

kgnbj swhac mnaobp pigcvt swmgxlnh vsgcqto kpntr

yzmbhin qkmgez wrote on March 12, 2007 10:32 PM:

fqxtjpwg jeyt hxei xagy ycfg voipahlsm dpanhlyex http://www.rhnjcbskw.xcit.com

twvfhomu cwdr wrote on March 12, 2007 10:33 PM:

nzdp kxdbfmiln pwyemko klyedzfb udgqxl kqxzdy rpvcoz [URL=http://www.ocjtbm.mvte.com]ofyzbgv xvncbf[/URL]

clar@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 11:51 PM:

justin berfield penis

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 2:04 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:59 PM:

hello

jimmy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 6:32 AM:

hello

jimmy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 6:33 AM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 6:31 PM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 6:32 PM:

hello

LIMEWIRE wrote on September 26, 2007 9:55 AM:

Hi boys!1df7834d52e914638a5d51456bb519f2

{file:01.homepages.txt} wrote on September 26, 2007 5:32 PM:

Hi boys!ec582b2d0c4b648c0dfe62c0364e7357

music downloads free wrote on October 7, 2007 10:50 PM:

Hi, there!..b735f427fbb932d0fbbba80d85725066

careybagsbon wrote on November 20, 2007 11:21 PM:

Greetings to all.

Prompt the best online shop on sale of Books.