Comments (66)

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 25, 2007 10:36 AM:

From the first doc dump(link below):

#2-38

9/13/06

From: Harriet Miers
To: Kyle Sampson
Subject: USA Attorneys

Kyle, any current thinking on holdover U.S. Attorneys? Any recent word on [name blanked out] intentions?

Whose intentions is Miers referring to and why is the name blanked out?

KCinDC wrote on March 25, 2007 10:40 AM:

Don't forget Laura and Barney.

elrapierwit wrote on March 25, 2007 10:41 AM:

So, Hatch is not annoyed that the executive branch tried to usurp the Senates role by transferring the power to appoint USA's to the AG and by passing Senate confirmation altogether?

Why is that? Why is Hatch supporting AG? What bones are in the closet. Is he feeling especially generous because he beat Rove back on his choice (Sampson) for the USAG in UTAH with the help of Senators Frist, McConnell and Spector to prevail with their choice of Tolman, who was the very individual who placed the change in the PATriot Act that transferred the power to the Executive Branch.

What there is no 'clear evidence' of is that Hatch is anything other than a liar with nefarious reasons to make this outrageous lie.

This is checkmate between Hatch and Rove.

VietVet67 wrote on March 25, 2007 10:46 AM:

Can someone please tell me why Harriet Miers should not testify under oath? She doesn't work in the WH anymore. What am I missing?

JW1141 wrote on March 25, 2007 11:17 AM:

I believe Orrin Hatch when he says Gonzalez has always been straight forward and honest with him, after all, why would Gonzales lie to Hatch, or Cornyn for that matter?

Gonzales saves his lies for the Democrats and the public.

Anonymous wrote on March 25, 2007 11:17 AM:

So he didn't deliberately lie.

But did he half-assedly lie? Did he indiscriminately lie? Did he lie with qualifications?

Ignorance of law does not allow impunity. If you break a law, even if you didn't know there was a law there, then you're accountable.

Mary wrote on March 25, 2007 11:18 AM:

"He has always been straightforward and honest with me," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress, I see no reason to call for his resignation."

Evidently, what Abu is telling Hatch is something different than what he is telling the rest of the committee? Perhaps Hatch can spill the beans on why the firings then?

TomInMaine wrote on March 25, 2007 11:24 AM:

I would like to thank all the TPM has done to bring this latest administrations highjacking of the constitution to the forefront and to continue to keep it there.

It shows what the grassroots movement is all about.

What I would like to know is what will it take to energize the people out there to convince the Democratic leadership that taking impeachment off the table was the wrong thing to do and that the first place to start with impeachment is with Gonzales.

Once the administration see's that happening then this whole game that there are playing with who can testitify, who and where will fall like a stack cards.

IMPEACHMENT NOW!

Legalize wrote on March 25, 2007 11:25 AM:

Miers is a witness with personal knowledge of relevant material, VietVet67. This makes her competent to testify.

Anonymous wrote on March 25, 2007 11:25 AM:

JW1141 asks why Miers is being kept from testifying now that she no longer works for the White House. Note well that Gonzales' number 2, Sampson, has "resigned", but he still works for the Justice department in a different capacity -- I'm sure for exactly that reason.

Thad

Cheryl wrote on March 25, 2007 11:32 AM:

Sen. Orrin Hatch has always been a laughable loyal Bushie. JUST ask Dick Cheney what Orrin Hatch thinks, cause it will always be whatever Cheney tells Hatch to think.

Orrin Hatch doesn't represent the people of UT but rather Cheney's office. This whole flap is about loyal Bushie sickness and how the public can clearly see it and doesn't particularly like it. This is why Broder's GOP is headed off a clift.

I see that Broder is begging the Dems to NOT implement ANY checks and balances. According to Broder, it just ain't a natural thing for congress to do, except of course when four (uncommon) GOP members pretend to care about Bush's torture issues but really don't could care less.

1970cs wrote on March 25, 2007 11:33 AM:

One of the reasons Rumsfeld didn't get fired during the Nixon administration was that during the final months before Nixon's resignation, Rumsfeld was one of the only Republicans who would publically support Nixon.

pol wrote on March 25, 2007 11:39 AM:

"He has always been straightforward and honest with me," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

So, Gonzales is always "straightforward and honest" with Hatch and all other Republicans. Some word parsing there. That's not saying he's "straightforward and honest" with everyone else...

Legalize wrote on March 25, 2007 11:44 AM:

Yes, pol. "Straightforward and honest" with Republicans = lying to everyone else in order to protect one's hide.

How appropriate that my security code word for this post is "snake."

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 25, 2007 11:48 AM:

Could you imagine the uproar during the Lewinsky scandals from the right, if Clinton, had said, I'll have my people talk to you behind close doors, no transcript and not under oath...."

rasher wrote on March 25, 2007 11:49 AM:

Just watched Sen. Specter on Meet The Press. Transcript not yet available, but I'm sure I heard a variation of the following. Specter responded to a question regarding the USA purge by revealing that he spoke with AG Gonzales "yesterday." A little later, in response to a question about his confidence in the AG's ability to lead the Justice Department, he said that there were questions he needed to answer in order to earn Specter's confidence. My question is-- if he met with Gonzales yesterday, why the hell didn't he ask him those questions? It seems to me if you have doubts about a man's credibility and you have the opportunity meet with him, you would logically ask those questions in order to ease your worried mind. What does Specter know that he refuses to reveal?

Security Code: shame

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 25, 2007 11:58 AM:

Remember last year when it came out about the NSA spying scandal and only 8 senators (Intelligence Committee?) were briefed on what was really going on. Hatch and Rockefeller for sure. Who were the others? Remember where Rockefeller pulled that letter out of his safe regarding his concerns of the legalities to Cheney? Also, what committee was it that Specter was on when he didn't swear in Gonzales?

Dennis wrote on March 25, 2007 12:09 PM:

No one has denied the presidential authority to replace AGs. Regardless of political party, it is unfortunate that they are customarily replaced with each new electorate - especially when they are doing a good job.

The big deal about this current replacement round is that fact that it was done with the intention of deliberately establishing AGs as a "political base" to be used for political purposes.

A lot of correspondence, emails and letters, have shown this to be the truth behind the matter of replacing certain AGs.

Moreso, it shows a contempt for the law not only by those who are behind the replacements, but contempt for the law by the proposed AGs who would accept such assignments under the disclosed circumstances.

All of these people should be disbarred.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Cheryl wrote on March 25, 2007 12:10 PM:

Was it just me or did professional, ethical attorney, Mr. John McKay just show all Americans Alberto's unethical nature and true incompetent as one of those many loyal Bushie style worthless attorney employ for reason other than competence, and the biggest reason why Alberto needs to resign.

Alberto's "yes man" status is usually the first indication that he is probably a piss poor lawyer since he compensated by kissing ass. AND his completely poor preformance in from of congress. Could Alberto EVER win any cases? So I have to wonder why Alberto was stupid enough to take on the professional guys. Attorneys like McKay can hand you your ass in 5 seconds flat, and John McKay pretty much did exactly that to Alberto Gonzales today on Meet the Press. I notice that even loyal Bushie Tim Russert looked properly self-conscious and I also noticed Russert didn't try to spin or play McKay like he does everyone else. Russert was out of his league, and I guess Russert isn't quite as stupid as Alberto.

TomInMaine wrote on March 25, 2007 12:12 PM:

Senators Specter, Hatch and Graham's appearance on the this week's Sunday talk shows just reaffirms what they really are. Administration "Butt Boys" willing to sell their souls for the sake of the Republican parties latest talking points of the week.

oldtree wrote on March 25, 2007 12:14 PM:

the arlen must be very, very nervous. the probe must be in his pockets about now, and he needs abu there to protect him at all costs. they only people that are trying to protect abu are those he has been shielding

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 25, 2007 12:21 PM:

thanks oldtree - you just answered my question about Specter - he's a potential target if not already being targeted. I think this goes back to the few Senators that were briefed on the true and real content of the NSA spying.

Dab wrote on March 25, 2007 12:23 PM:

Where are the papers with Bush's signature firing these USAs? If President Bush didn't sign off on these firings, then how can he claim executive privilege when he supposedly didn't know anything about it? He talks about candid advice. But if he didn't know anything about the firings, then there was no candid advice. If USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, then I would think the President would make the ultimate decision on hiring and firings and would have official papers with his signature on the hirings and firings. If these papers do not exist, then he was not consulted and there, it would seem to me, be no executive privilege.

Quite confused here.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 25, 2007 12:35 PM:

Mr. Bush, like a leaner and more fit McKinley, has always "governed" only for the people that voted for and make cash contributions to his coffers. So, it's no surprise that Mr. Gonzales might have told Sen. Hatch the truth. He fits into that category. (How do these men distribute their talking points and stay on "message", if none of them use e-mail?)

Nor is it surprising that Sen. Hatch should be so astoundingly hypocritical, and attempt to mislead the citizens of his state and this country by blatantly misstating the obligations of those who run our government. What would be surprising is if anyone believed him.

Ponds wrote on March 25, 2007 12:37 PM:

Dab makes an excellent point. If the USA's serve at the "pleasure of the President," how can Bush and Fredo claim that they played no role in this. Seems to me you can't have it both ways. "Can't anybody here play this game?"

caj wrote on March 25, 2007 1:00 PM:

Dab, My question exactly!

"If USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, then I would think the President would make the ultimate decision on hiring and firings and would have official papers with his signature on the hirings and firings."

IF the USAs serve at the PLEASURE of the President, then you would think the only person that they could DISPLEASE would be the president, who then would replace them.

The battle cry from the dark-side reminds us that Clinton replaced all 94 (note: not replaced by Clinton's people but, CLINTON).

kentuck wrote on March 25, 2007 1:26 PM:

You people make absolutely too much sense.

Yes, if Specter met with Gonzales yesterday, why didn't he get the answers he wanted then? What role did Hatch play in getting the new US Atty a job in Utah? Was it Hatch or Specter that slipped the little nugget into the Patriot Act that permitted Gonzales to appoint USA's without Senate approval?

Just how big of a role have some Republican Senators played in this scandal? Of course, the Democrats cannot rat out their comrades in the Senate but the press could. If we had a press worth its salt?

Finally, it should be noted that the USA's do not "serve at the pleasure of the President" - that are "appointed at the pleasure of the President". They serve at the pleasure of the law and the Constitution once they are appointed. I wish someone would point this out to Rep. Cannon and this White House.

Wretched Refuse wrote on March 25, 2007 1:53 PM:

Durbin said it best on MTP.
It is not the fired 8 that we wish to question Rove about, but the other prosecutors that bent to his will to be "loyal bushies" that we now question their oath's and abilities to objectively meter out investigations and prosecutorial powers.
We (the people) want Rove, and we want him under oath, in front of Congress and with transcript.
And since when can ANYONE in government stop someone who the tax payers of this country pay from testifying. I can see Dumya saying that Kristol could not testofy or the oil company execs not testify for energy policy, and we have no ability to expect them to testify because we do not pay them, but we DO PAY ROVE. So get yer ass up the hill and testify, along with ANYONE else we pay.

Security code is crush.

ifthethunderdontgetya®© wrote on March 25, 2007 1:56 PM:

Orrin Hatch is in this scandal up to his neck. It was Bret Tolman who slipped the dodgy provision into the Patriot Act. Bret Tolman was on Senator Spector's staff at the time, but he was recommended for that position by Hatch.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640196822,00.html

In my opinion, neither Hatch nor Spector can be considered credible on this issue.

kentuck wrote on March 25, 2007 2:04 PM:

Bret Tolman? Interesting connection. From Utah? As was Kyle Sampson, right? There seems to be an unusual amount of Utah connections in this scandal?

The above poster is correct: Neither Specter or Hatch can be trusted on this issue.

cjop wrote on March 25, 2007 2:08 PM:

Look. In the eyes of the Republicans there is nothing wrong in trying to cement a permanent Republican majority. They have managed to steal two presidential election so far. They hold a very narrow minority in the Congress. They just want to make sure they don't lose any more ground no matter what the voters think.

You cannot do as many favors for your friends being in the minority. This will cost you great personal wealth and maybe some high end hookers to boot.

It also makes it harder to bleed the treasury dry. If your political philosophy is to shrink government to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub there is no better way to do it then break the bank. I.e. a costly war and tax cuts too. They need to get control of Congress again. When you control all three branches of government and the media I really don't see how it could get any worse.

Constitutional crisis? We are already in a Constitutional crisis.

Anonymous wrote on March 25, 2007 2:20 PM:

Check out this link:
http://search.isp.netscape.com/nsisp/boomframe.jsp?query=US+Attorney+appointments+in+Utah&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1b57bf6489c08595%26clickedItemRank%3D15%26userQuery%3DUS%2BAttorney%2Bappointments%2Bin%2BUtah%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.realcities.com%252Fmld%252Fkrwashington%252Fnews%252Fnation%252F16555903.htm%253Ftemplate%253DcontentModules%252Fprintstory.jsp%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSISPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realcities.com%2Fmld%2Fkrwashington%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F16555903.htm%253Ftemplate%253DcontentModules%2Fprintstory.jsp

Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

========================================

I see that one of the USA's appointed was a "senior associate counsel" to President Bush? Can Bush continue to pretend ignorance of the scandal and continue to distance himself from this mess?

David L Steinhardt wrote on March 25, 2007 2:26 PM:

Actually, Hatch left himself the perfect out: Gonzales DID deliberately lie and mislead Congress, thus he can call for his resignation soon, without contradicting himself.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 25, 2007 2:45 PM:

@ March 25, 2007 02:20 PM

Re: Jeff Taylor

From a 1/4/02 Robert Novak column:

"NEARLY THREE years ago,career federal prosecutor Charles LaBella became a hero for Republicans, martyred by the Clinton administration's politicized Justice Department. Because he sought independent prosecution of Clinton-Gore campaign abuses, LaBella was denied promotion to be U.S. attorney in San Diego. But now that Republicans are in power, why has he not been named to the post he still wants to fill?...

White House staffers, uninterested in the women, really wanted Jeff Taylor -- a Justice Department lawyer who has been working in the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Kyle Sampson, a former Hatch aide who now works in the White House, along with Berenson has kept the LaBella nomination from getting to the president's desk.

Hatch himself, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied to me that he is supporting Taylor or blocking LaBella. But he has told others that Justice Department professional staffers report that LaBella is not a team
player. Hatch has also suggested in private that a solution might be making LaBella the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, perhaps on the theory that team
players are less needed there..."

Carol Lam got the job that Kyle Sampson and Orrin Hatch wanted for Jeff Taylor.

I would guess Jeff Taylor is the USA in charge of prosecuting Jack Abramoff and investigating Curt Weldon.

We already know Taylor covered up the Steve Griles investigation. Jack Abramoff wasn't the only one paying off Griles's girlfriend, Italia Federici, based on 990s filed by her organization, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Presumably, anyone else paying off Federici was doing it to gain access to Griles and Norton.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 25, 2007 3:01 PM:

I already posted this comment from the Wampum website (link below). I have no way of verifying the information but if true, it sheds some light on the ties between Sampson, Hatch, Griles and Norton.

From Wampum website:

"So here's the summary of the Slonaker affair...

In July, 2002, Special Trustee for American Indians Tom Slonaker (a Clinton appointee held over by Bush) testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (chaired then by Sen. Inouye) that the Interior Department's handling of the Individual Indian trusts was pretty much as fucked fouled up as it had ever been, despite a federal court order that a "full accounting" take place. Slonaker had submitted his proposed testimony to his Interior superiors, namely Dep. Sec. J. Steven Griles and Gale Norton, who summarily demanded that he change most of it. Two Justice Department attorneys as well as Kyle Sampson, White House advisor to the President, also called Slonaker and demanded he change his testimony.

Slonaker did not submit his statement, but testified in person, saying that an accounting as Norton et al. were proposing would not meet the Court's requirement. After he appeared before SIAC, Slonaker was fired. Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in TAP, asserted at the time Sampson was involved, "Slonaker claims he was forced out, and sources close to the case say Griles and White House counsel Kyle Sampson barred Slonaker from telling the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that the Interior Department was unable to live up to its trust responsibility because documents had been destroyed."

Pete Dominici was at that SIAC hearing, as was Orrin Hatch, for whom Sampson was a top aide before being placed at the White House. Sampson used to work for Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless, many of whose clients are leasors of federal and Indian land, thus potentially affected by Slonaker's testimony, i.e., if the government doesn't have the docs for a complete accounting, then they need to get that info from the lessors.

I know it's complicated, but I've argued for years that Interior and DoJ were in collusion to try and subvert the Court's order on a full accounting, as it could cost the government and/or the resource extraction industries many billions (Gonzales testified recently that it could be upwards of $200 billion - that was just before he and Kempthorne offered a paltry $7 billion to settle all the cases.)"

JPT wrote on March 25, 2007 3:02 PM:

Given that Sampson worked for Hatch before the Gonzo job--as does the current U.S. Attorney for D.C.--a guy who was appointed on September 29th, 2006 under the new Patriot Act provision was another Hatch protege--I am not surprised at his stance.

Hatch's hands may be more than a little dirty in this scandal as well.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 25, 2007 3:02 PM:

Please don't Pleasure this presnit any longer. All this legal mumbo jumbo and Hatch and Specter talking about ME ME ME, abu never lied to ME.
For Alberto is an honest man..To paraphrase Portia, Brutus's wife, in Julius Ceaesar:
Dwell I but in the suburbs of your good pleasure? If it be no more, these attornies are but Bush's harlots and his attorney general, Alberto, merely his madam.

oddjob wrote on March 25, 2007 3:23 PM:

Hatch, dependable Republican lapdog for all seasons, proves once again why he is indispensable to American fascism.

Oh, and my "code" to enter this comment into thread is "shame".

Some coincidences are just eerie, you know?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 25, 2007 3:37 PM:

Just what the hell happened to Hatch in the early farging 90's?

Yes . . . He was a Republican & he was from a ass-backward state, BUT he appeared to be sane and respected the law of the land and folk on both sides of the isle as far as I can remember . . . In 80's.

Now there are grape Kool-aid stains on his lips . . .

chuckles wrote on March 25, 2007 4:00 PM:

Hatch is hilarious. I feel his Pain. Maybe DW can get his approval ratings above 35% when he fires the Mexican.

Berkley wrote on March 25, 2007 4:35 PM:

If the masses understood the stranglehold the LDS Church-R has on the politics of Utah and the majority of its minions, they would understand Hatch supporting Gonzales. I have learned to ignore any opinion Hatch espouses, other than his stance on stem cell research. If his daughter has not needed a kidney transplant, with he being the donor, he would most likely be against that as well.

visitor wrote on March 25, 2007 6:46 PM:

From Hatch:"So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress,....."

Why is there this new republican mantra of lies now being "misspeaking" or "deliberately lieing" rather than just "lie"? If you know you had a meeting for over an hour to discuss the plan of firing these attorneys and then you say you had no discussions nor saw any plans.. I would say that is a deliberate lie or lie or baldfaced lie or any other word for lie when you know you did the opposite of what you are stating?
First lies become misspeakings.
Now lies have to be deliberate to count.
Do republicans ever hold themselves accountable for anything they do or say without playing word games?

nofltwlt wrote on March 25, 2007 7:15 PM:

Orin Hatch is a dick head and is obviously deranged.

Isn't it terrible that ass-wipes like Orin Hatch now measure the ability to serve as whether or not we could convict Bush, Cheney, Gonzales or fifty other members of this administration.

The slightest hint of untrustworthiness should disqualify the president, the V.P. or the AG. To suggest that we must have absolute proof, as in a criminal trial, is a criminal mindset.

Robert L wrote on March 25, 2007 7:19 PM:

I can't conceive that Miers hasn't retained counsel yet. I'm sure that WH lawyers are attempting to maintain contact with her and possibly engage her in some kind of dialog. Harriet Miers is a very smart lawyer and, whether you chose to believe it or not, she's honest. Rove is a proven lier, and if they depose him without counsel, he'll wind up in the slammer. If they ever get Harriet on the stand, with or without counsel, Shrub is finished.

IraqVet wrote on March 25, 2007 7:31 PM:

Hey, I didn't deliberately have sex with an underage girl. She just happened to be 12.

It was a coincidence.

utahliberal wrote on March 25, 2007 7:53 PM:

Berkley: A lot of liberals are too quick to generalize the politics of Utah and (especially) of its residents. In plenty of cases, the stereotypes are true. But our largest city has voted in Democratic mayors since the 1970s, including the very liberal current mayor (see, among other things, his growing campaign to impeach Bush).

The direct influence of the LDS Church on Utah politics is debatable, and I can't say too much, considering I'm no insider. But it's certainly wrong to generalize Mormons as... well, as we're often characterized. Based on my years here, including two at the LDS Church's university in Provo, plenty of us "minions" are not blind followers of the Republican party.

jimbo92107 wrote on March 25, 2007 8:17 PM:

We all remember that Orrin Hatch was a used-car salesman, right?

Well, now he's trying to sell a junkyard Chevy as a brand new Cadillac.

Any buyers?

Delia wrote on March 25, 2007 8:41 PM:

Utahliberal: I was born and raised in Utah. I still have family there and I still have family who are Mormon (though not repub). I actually have a great deal of affection for the state, and I visit about once a year. BUT . . . . even though the mayor of SLC is a liberal dem, I also know that the LDS Church has an inordinate influence on local politics and not for the best.

And it sounds to me like Hatch should just take up an outright defense of honest graft.

chuckles wrote on March 25, 2007 8:55 PM:

Who will save Monkey-Boy now?

justthetruth wrote on March 25, 2007 9:17 PM:

Orrin Hatch is simply defending the GOP and th administration. He will continue to do so until hard evidence appears of wrongdoing. So far, the only crime that the available evidence supports is that Gonzales and other Justice Department offials committed perjury in their testimony to Congress. However, the available evidence certainly implies that much more serious crimes such as obstruction of justice have occurred. Time will tell.

I am curious as to why there hasn't been more of a todo over the accusations that former U.S. Attorney Sharon Eubanks made regarding interference in the Tobacco Case. There was an article about this in the Washington Post article last week. Does anyone know why this issue hasn't been more of an issue?

skogie wrote on March 25, 2007 11:32 PM:

In the first dump, OAG005, there is a note from Miers to Sampson that she got a call from Hatch about the "9th cir". If that means the 9th circuit, well thats the southern district of California. His is the district of Utah.

Curious

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 26, 2007 12:09 AM:

I still argue the Hatch was crap load saner a decade plus or so ago. What the crap happened?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 26, 2007 12:10 AM:

I still argue the Hatch was crap load saner a decade plus or so ago. What the crap happened?

utahliberal wrote on March 26, 2007 12:14 AM:

Delia: I honestly can't say I know the extent to which the LDS Church influences politics. Plenty, I'm sure. I also think SOME of it can be attributed to the fact that so many state and local officials are members of the church. It seems that many are quick to blame the church for the actions of LDS legislators. And while I can't say that it doesn't happen, I also don't think it's fair to automatically assume that they're acting on behalf of the church.

And like I said and like you acknowledged, SLC's mayor is quite liberal. And when he was voted into office, it was against ANOTHER Democrat. If the church really has such an "inordinate" influence in state politics, why isn't it doing something about the capital city mayor?

I'll also note that publicly, the LDS church does not endorse candidates or parties. It's pretty rare that the church publicly speaks out on political issues. It seems that whenever Mormon Republicans do something, people attribute it to their religion. When Mormon Democrats do something, it is in spite of their religion. So why does the church only get "credit" for their Republicans?

connectthedots wrote on March 26, 2007 12:21 AM:

It's all about San Diego.

LaBella's is Padres owner John Moores defense lawyer in the Peregrine shareholder fraud lawsuit.

Former Dem State Senator Steve Peace (wrote the energy deregulation that led to California energy crisis which made Gonzales millions working for Enron) also works for Moores.

Peace takes Dem money as political consultant and makes sure the Republican candidates win, which has allowed Reps to control SD.

Jeff Taylor was Ass. US Attorney in San Diego during Peregrine investigation. Has been working to get AG position for years.

Peregrine is getting ready to go to trial and all but Moores has been indicted.

Reps need Peace and Moores and don't want the AG to cut deals to get Moores, who also bankrupted SD to build his ballpark...all done via Reps.

LaBella or Taylor save the day for everyone.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 26, 2007 2:22 AM:

Somebody should remind Hatch about the Marston Affair, when Jimmy Carter fired a US Attorney for political reasons.

The Justice Department probers promptly announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair. But the Republican partisans on Capitol Hill had no intention of letting the Administration off so easily. Thundered Utah's Orrin Hatch: "That two-day whitewash [the Justice Department's inquiry] isn't going to satisfy anybody!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941-3,00.html

tank wrote on March 26, 2007 3:09 AM:

Senator Hatch, you're an asshole and have been one for quite some time now.

Sit down and shut the fuck up.

Lib in VA wrote on March 26, 2007 3:44 AM:

Hatch is a repub butt-boy and always has been. He's almost sickening in his kissing up to them. It doesn't matter if they're convicted murderers, if they're repubs, Hatch will stick up for them. I find it amazing he gets relected every time. I guess it says a lot about those Mormons in Utah. Hatch is more of a puppet than bush is, when it comes to following the leaders.

utahliberal wrote on March 26, 2007 9:28 AM:

Lib in VA: I wish I didn't always find myself in the position of defending Utah and Mormons, since that's not really what this story is about. Hatch's support reflects not on "those Mormons in Utah" but on those that voted for him. I'm a "Mormon in Utah", and Hatch doesn't say anything about me, because I voted against him last year. So did many others.

And keep in mind that many of "those Mormons in Utah" are just as easily deceived by Republican chicanery as the rest of the general populace. I think it's way too easy to pass the hatred of dirty Republicans on to their supporters. Honestly, I think a lot of Republicans would lose a lot of support all over the country if more citizens were politically aware. But... most people aren't (Democrats, indepedents included), not even a little bit. And politicians (esp. Repubs) are really good at covering up their misdeeds from the general populace that doesn't bother looking into them.

We all know plenty of decent and good people that vote Republican, some of them our friends. And we probably don't always assume that the actions of those they vote for "says a lot about" them. I find it unfair to make a blanket statement about Hatch's actions being a mirror of all Mormons in Utah.

Michael King wrote on March 26, 2007 11:16 AM:

Orrin Hatch has been and remains one of the penultimate GOP hypocrites of all time.
He will defend the Admin. every time, no matter how grevious or undemocratic their misdeeds.
He and a few other Repugnants were responsible for amending Joseph Wilson's record of testimony before the Senate to imply it was not credible, and cast Mr. Wilson as a liar, when Hatch, in fact was doing the deceiving. And wasn't it Mr. Hatch who went out of his way to slander Anita Hill to save Clarence Thomas. I've always considered Hatch an extremist hypocrite who is very representative of what the Repugnant party has become in recent decades.
IMPEACH Gonalez first, for lying to Congress and the american people. Then just move up the line.
There are ample crimes and plenty of evidence.
Congress, do your job, remove the liars and criminals.
Charles M. King

Shamane666 wrote on May 10, 2007 2:29 AM:

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/

Shamane666 wrote on May 10, 2007 4:02 AM:

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/

Shamane666 wrote on May 11, 2007 6:21 PM:

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/

Shamane666 wrote on May 11, 2007 7:05 PM:

What role of the Forex in the modern world?
http://free.hostultra.com/~mummy21/

forex21 wrote on May 24, 2007 1:48 PM:

The new solutions of FOREX earnings
and there is much new you will find on the site:

http://www.alldigest.info/forex/index.html

greatly I recommend. Will not cut that I I have from this the scoop :-))

xgbmo wdxinvul wrote on August 3, 2007 9:59 AM:

ckyw ukcphrtw ajtylh yhen zscdly tpzbwhv qduic