Comments (53)

parrot wrote on May 2, 2007 1:20 PM:

"Here are your winnings, sir."

Thucydides Jr. wrote on May 2, 2007 1:26 PM:

Congress: "Did you not think your phone calls would be interpreted as intimidation or aquid pro quo? If not, what was their point?"

Elston: "Dee da dee!"

profmarcus wrote on May 2, 2007 1:28 PM:

stepping through the looking glass into bushworld...
-----
Alice: If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
-----

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

RR wrote on May 2, 2007 1:28 PM:

on a related note, I have long wondered why John Ashcroft resigned the position of Attorney General. His stated reason was that victory over crime had been accomplished.

However, he was a defeated Senatorial candidate and ex-governor;and I didn't see a better place for him to go after his stint as AG. It seemed strange at the time for him to leave.

Then, we get word from David Iglesias, the fired US Attorney from New Mexico, that during his private interview with John Ashcroft, he was told in no uncertain terms to keep politics out of the US Attorney's Office, even though he was a political appointee. From Iglesias' Op-Ed in the New York Times:

"Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political."

Now, I'm wondering if Ashcroft left because "someone like Karl Rove" had convinced him that the Department of Justice was in line to become politicized in the White House's attempt to secure the Republican Revolution.

I never had much interest in Ashcroft as a pilar of virtue (since he is forever blighted by the farcical specter of draping Art Deco statues naked women at the Department of Justice); however, his stature has grown in light of David Iglesias's comments.

Now, I wonder...

tony sanders wrote on May 2, 2007 1:28 PM:

Er? Couldn't that be considered extorsion?

RandyR wrote on May 2, 2007 1:34 PM:

The question still remains how are we going to fix it. How is the next administration going to find the moles left by these dirtbags.

If we used this story but substituted a Central American Nation for America it would sound like a CIA deal. We are not a banana republic. Without some resolution to the defiling of the DOJ we are no better than those we invade.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 2, 2007 1:34 PM:

Some quid pro quo. Keep quiet about why we fired you and we won't say anything bad about you either. Elston should have offered something better like an all-expense paid trip to Tahiti or a Cadillac Escalade.

C 92 wrote on May 2, 2007 1:37 PM:

Mrs. P @ 1:34 pm

The Colin Powells, for example, got a used Jaguar sedan from the Saudis.

Of course, Elston isn't Saudi.

Tom Betz wrote on May 2, 2007 1:39 PM:

profmarcus;

John Ashcroft left to take up his charge, his holy duty, preparing the next generation of Monica Goodlings for the Permanent Republican Theeocracy's Justice Department.

Click on my name for the press release.

http://www.regent.edu/news/_press_releases/march_2005/ashcroft.cfm

P J Evans wrote on May 2, 2007 1:40 PM:

Three times now, hm?

Once is accident.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.

'You may fire when ready, Gridley!'

JEP wrote on May 2, 2007 1:43 PM:

Between Goodling and her mean-girls club, and Elston's intimidating strong-arm tactics, it would seem that Gone-Zo (or should I say Rove?)had a penchant for handing-out authority to the worst bean-counting bullies available...

In Goodling, the office bitch and Elston, the class bully we have a moral snapshot of The Bush Administration's underpinnings...

osage wrote on May 2, 2007 1:54 PM:

Because there are self-promoting, intellectually dishonest sycophants who, even after seeing and hearing Gonzales' clearly implausible and evasive false testimony before Congress, still try to defend Gonzales and Bush without gagging on their own bile, it's evident to me that there is no moral ethics or sense of honor in today's Bush/Rove poisoned GOP cult of politically ambitious evil doers. These miserably maladjusted men and women are not only deplorably unethical, they are spiritually unredeemable tools of Satan. They would indeed sell their souls for thirty pieces of silver.

wrb wrote on May 2, 2007 1:59 PM:

"We are not a banana republic."

were not

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 2, 2007 2:00 PM:

I wouldn't make the claim too strongly that we are not a Bannana Republic.
Lately, having a military coup to rid us of the administration that recognizes no authority beyond itself sounds pretty appealling.
What goes around may just come around. Generals and soldiers get tired of lies and venality too.

Mrs P wrote on May 2, 2007 2:02 PM:

C 92, I remember reading about Alma Powell lunching with Prince Bandar's wife in Lloyd Grove's old WaPo column after 9/11 so the Bandars and the Powells have socialized for quite awhile.

A small gift of a favorite Jaguar car for the Powells - I can imagine what Prince Bandar has given the Bush family.

Bandar and his father, btw, are big Carlyle Group investors.

Lloyd Grove knows a lot of really interesting stuff.

The Dark Avenger wrote on May 2, 2007 2:03 PM:

Elston should have offered something better like an all-expense paid trip to Tahiti or a Cadillac Escalade.

Is that what 30 pieces of silver can buy in todays' world?

Security word: Keep, as in Keep your powder dry.

marblex wrote on May 2, 2007 2:05 PM:

simple solution:

Pass legislation limiting recovery by federal employees who contend they have been "wrongfully" discharged, say to 5k a head.

Then... FIRE EM ALL

Rehire only after screening for COMPETENCE.

CLEAN SWEEP 2008

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 2:06 PM:

Squid pro quo, with a one week delay on the tarmac in Miami before delivery.

paul lukasiak wrote on May 2, 2007 2:09 PM:

the Q&A with the fired attorneys are now up on the House Judiciary Committee website...

http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=534

I found this answer (from Cummins) very interesting...

'Finally, I expressed concern that the AG’s statement that DOJ would seek a presidential nomination for the USA in every district was
going to cause trouble here in Arkansas because it appeared to me that there was no intention to put Tim Griffin through a nomination. Elston
rejected that notion and assured me that every replacement would have to be confirmed by the Senate. I told him if that was the case, then he
had better gag Tim Griffin because Griffin was telling many people, including me, that officials in Washington had assured him he could stay in as USA pursuant to an interim appointment whether he was ever nominated or not. Elston denied knowing anything about anyone’s intention to circumvent Senate confirmation in Griffin’s case. He said that
might have been the White House’s plan, but they “never read DOJ into that plan” and DOJ would never go along with it. This indicated to me that my removal had been dictated entirely by the White House.'

and this...

"I contacted Tim by email when he was in Iraq in
June 2006 to advise him that Mike Battle had directed me to be ready to resign in favor of an unidentified person. I knew Tim intended to succeed me when I left, and assumed Tim or the White House or both had become impatient and
was taking these steps in his favor. If that proved to be the case, I was resigned to accept the decision even though I found it somewhat insulting that they would presume to execute the plan in that way instead of simply consulting me
and asking for my cooperation to afford Tim the opportunity...... When contacted, Tim professed to know nothing about the matter and said he had not been contacted. '

This latter bit contradicts the assertion made in the letter to Harry Reid that Miers claimed that Griffin had expressed an interest in the job, and wanted to know if there would be an opening. The whole thing had been pre-planned from the start, according to Cummins.

Nina Katarina wrote on May 2, 2007 2:09 PM:

I wonder how many actual crooks being brought up on federal charges are talking to their lawyers about claiming they're only being prosecuted because they once gave $50 to a Democratic candidate.

Nina Katarina wrote on May 2, 2007 2:10 PM:

ISTR (and I could be very wrong) that there were some post-firing emails by Chiara that sounded very much like she was pressuring them to get her a job in exchange for her silence...

Baldrick wrote on May 2, 2007 2:18 PM:

Beyond parody, beyond belief. And it barely makes the news.

I am losing my mind, I'm now sure of it.

RR wrote on May 2, 2007 2:19 PM:

I seem to remember that most attorney positions in the US Federal Government serve at the pleasure of the President - not just the US Attorneys but also the "regular" hires at DOJ, so it may be easier to rid the DOJ of implants - easier than most of the new hires in the other Federal Departments. Someone may know more about this.

Ian wrote on May 2, 2007 2:20 PM:

Is Griffin still on the job in Arkansas? Is he going to go through a confirmation process? What about Paulose or any of the other confirmation-free appointees? Is anyone even talking about this?

Bugboy wrote on May 2, 2007 2:24 PM:

Now, I wonder...

Posted by: RR
Date: May 2, 2007 01:28 PM

Ashcroft said POLITICAL, he never said anything about RELIGIOUS. I've been saying all along that there was a religious undertone to all this.

Ashcroft and Goodling were inseperable, he "loved" her brownies, no joke there. Ashcroft is the one that gutted the USA peer review employment process, by hiring the human recources flack from Biblethumper U that Pat Robertson runs. Coincidence? Guess where Ashcroft now enjoys a kooshy job? No less than the same Biblethumper U. So, he did his job and his conscience is clear, plus he got his golden parachute.

There is more to this than simply elections tampering, or Pat Robertson wouldn't be involved up to his eyeballs.

EdNsted wrote on May 2, 2007 2:37 PM:

Karl Rove and his Sniveling Sycophants of Subjugation

Two words: Keep digging.

.

iggy wrote on May 2, 2007 2:40 PM:

I haven't heard the term 'quid pro quo' since the Bush 1 term, from Bush 1 himself

thevineyard wrote on May 2, 2007 2:40 PM:

I wonder if, as much as the permanent Republican majority, it was ordinary fear that prompted this concerted effort to stack the DoJ, and then judgeships, with 'loyal Bushies." Fitzgerald had been working on his investigation since Jan of 2004 and no doubt making Bush, Rove, Cheney very nervous. They must have known they had broken several "quaint" laws. There were no internal investigations. What better way to stay out of jail than to luck out and happen upon a sympathetic judge?

balzar wrote on May 2, 2007 2:49 PM:

I too have wondered, like RR previously, what is being done about Paulose or the 150 Regent College employees. They should be looked at, maybe 1 or 2 of them are good at their job so mass sackings may not be the answer.

pmretep wrote on May 2, 2007 2:59 PM:

By telling him to be silent, when he had an obligation to testify and to tell the truth, isn't that subornation of perjury on Elston's part.

freepatriot wrote on May 2, 2007 3:02 PM:

straight up definition of EXTORTION

I think we're well into the land of RICO prosectuions here

wmholt wrote on May 2, 2007 3:03 PM:

Although it may be true that Ashcroft thought it was a good time to get out, the lure of money as a lobbyist ensured that he could make many times what he was making as a public servant.

From Wikipedia:

n May 2005, Ashcroft laid the groundwork for a strategic consulting firm which bears his name. The Ashcroft Group, LLC[13] officially opened its doors in the Fall of 2005 and as of March 2006 had lined up 21 clients, turning down two for every one accepted.[14]

In 2005 year-end filings, Ashcroft's firm reported collecting $269,000, including $220,000 from Oracle Corporation, which won Department of Justice approval of a multibillion-dollar acquisition less than a month after hiring Ashcroft. The income totals that Ashcroft has reported so far represent in some cases only initial payments.

According to government filings, Oracle is one of the Ashcroft Group’s five clients which seek his help in selling data or software with homeland security applications.

Another client, Israel Aircraft Industries International, is competing with Chicago's Boeing Company to sell the government of South Korea a billion-dollar airborne radar system. [9] The Ashcroft Group is also registered to represent ChoicePoint, eBay, Exegy, Alanco Technologies, LTU Technologies and Trafficland, Inc.[15]

In March 2006, the New York Times reported that Ashcroft was setting himself up as something of an "anti-Abramoff", and that in an hour long interview, Ashcroft used the word integrity scores of times.[16].

In May 2006, based on conversations with members of Congress, key aides and lobbyists, The Hill magazine listed Ashcroft as one of top 50 "hired guns" that K Street had to offer.[17]

In August 2006, the Washington Post reported that Ashcroft's firm had 30 clients, many of which made products or technology aimed at homeland security, and about a third of which the firm has not disclosed, to protect client confidentiality.

The firm also had equity stakes in eight client companies. It reported receiving $1.4 million in lobbying fees in the past six months, a small fraction of its total earnings.[18]

Charles Bowman wrote on May 2, 2007 3:15 PM:

I'm looking forward to steamed cubed Conyerized Gonzales! We only gained official Third World status last year based on export-import ratio data. I think that we have probably lost that status by now. We are probably some nation's colony by now, or Herr Bush may have sold the U. S. to Russia, China, or India as is his Royal prerogative. He would have cleared that little Texas-sized land deal with Alberto before he signed the contract in Las Vegas. On the otherhand, contrariwise, if the rumor is true the Russians have purchased Exxon, then we are a Russian colony. Check and see what the legions of thirty year old attorneys in the DJ are studying, Russian or Chinese?

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 3:24 PM:

Duke douchebag. I remember McNulty saying "Go Heels" to him in a email on the day of the Duke/Carolina bball game. Those two made quite the team. Go Deacs!

thromulese wrote on May 2, 2007 3:26 PM:

I guess the republiCON slogan is going to be changed from "Mission Accomplished" to:

"...I don't recall remembering..."

Charles Bowman wrote on May 2, 2007 3:28 PM:

I think that we're getting warmer with "quid pro quo." So many of the Christian politicians seemed to want the succor of mammon to the succor of justice! The Abramov scandal proved that they were convertible to any coin as long as it was provided in large denominations.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 3:29 PM:

Once is accident.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.

'You may fire when ready, Gridley!'
Posted by: P J Evans

Damn straight.

thromulese wrote on May 2, 2007 3:33 PM:

straight up definition of EXTORTION
I think we're well into the land of RICO prosectuions here
Posted by: freepatriot

Or…obstruction of justice, which is a FELONY. It’s long past time to get these criminal fascists OUT of our white house. And that includes king George and the dick in whose name all of this happening.

Scott Roberts wrote on May 2, 2007 3:50 PM:

Yep, threatening retalitation or promising a quid-pro-pro seems like at least reasonable cause to explore obstruction charges against Elston.

el ranchero wrote on May 2, 2007 4:19 PM:

There is no "quid pro quo" here. A quid pro quo implies that both sides gained something; here, one side was threatened with character assassination if they didn't keep a secret.

That's called blackmail, or perhaps extortion, since the offending party doesn't have actual "dirt" on the victim, but is just threaten to make up something with which to tar them.

PMad wrote on May 2, 2007 4:58 PM:

I'm exhausted...and my husband is muttering about an "intervention" about my "computer addiction" because I try to hit the hightlights about important government goings-on every day. The scandals just don't quit. Gonzogate is my major obsession, since I'm a retired prosecutor, but the war, (including infinite subsets of malfeasances); separation of church and state (ditto); the environment; food and drug safety; everything this bunch touches turns to shit. The only reason I can think of for not rioting in the streets is that, like me, we're all too shellshocked to move.

Dan Chay wrote on May 2, 2007 6:03 PM:

I've been seeing too much possibly-tongue-in-cheek language about the possible benefits of a military coup.

From my perspective, the military industrial and military intelligence complex has far too much influence and control as it is. As evidence, look at national spending fractions. Let's be clear. No military coups, please.

Code: army

Nestor wrote on May 2, 2007 6:05 PM:

If they were simply bad attornys and managers, then there was no reason to worry about why they were fired; everyone would have been on board with that. However, since most if not all were solid performers, the obvious reason was politics, and that is pure wrong.

Security code; snake, as in 'Fredo is a snake in moron's clothing.'

MRO wrote on May 2, 2007 7:28 PM:

RE: military coup..
We don't need another one.
the military/corporation machine has already "couped"... long time ago.
Over the past few years, Bush has been more blatant about it, is all.
Cheney still pretends, in public, it is about T.W.O.T. ( The War On Terror).
The last shield between us and them is the power of the internet to keep folks connected, and THAT is one of the targets listed in the infamous Project for a New American Centry plan ( still on the web) that Cheney and etc. wrote years ago.
They have a step by step plan and are following it.
and it is working.
Attorneygate serves as a timely distraction from other neferious manuevers.
Yeah, I do believe with some of you that the provision about sanctioning elections in the Act
is there for a future plan. 2006 shook Rove and if he thinks they canot game enough of the 2005 election, they DO have plan b in the Act.

So hoping I am wrong about the above....

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 7:30 PM:

typo, of course I meant 2008 election.

mellifluous wrote on May 2, 2007 11:33 PM:

P J: I prefer Christopher Stasheff's take--
once is concidence;
twice is enemy action.

Whistler wrote on May 3, 2007 8:25 AM:

Quoting from the introduction to Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" from 1849 ... but with a twist. I took out the words "Mexican War"; and in their place, inserted "occupation of Iraq". It's sickening that the names of conflicts may change, but the Status Quo remains just that.

----------------

"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present occupation of Iraq, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will."

jakebob wrote on May 3, 2007 9:51 PM:

Me too, PMad! Somebody puh-leeeze do us an intervention so we can get off the net and get on with our lives....
Don't mean to just externalize the problem, but I think a regime change would do the job just fine.

ofygpm xrjlemk wrote on September 12, 2007 11:23 PM:

labw myjx feqidnjc yvgp eipt ripn kzmqd

ofygpm xrjlemk wrote on September 12, 2007 11:23 PM:

labw myjx feqidnjc yvgp eipt ripn kzmqd

ofygpm xrjlemk wrote on September 12, 2007 11:24 PM:

labw myjx feqidnjc yvgp eipt ripn kzmqd

ofygpm xrjlemk wrote on September 12, 2007 11:25 PM:

labw myjx feqidnjc yvgp eipt ripn kzmqd

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:29 AM:

Hi
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night