Comments (42)

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 5:22 PM:

We certainly have a priviledged Executive here...

Steve5117 wrote on July 16, 2007 5:24 PM:

I wonder how much Gonzo would talk and what he would remember with a rope around his neck?

Kevin wrote on July 16, 2007 5:27 PM:

And their stated reasoning is? We know the obvious one (hide the bodies), but what are they possibly claiming?

JMOHR wrote on July 16, 2007 5:41 PM:

There should be a standard protocol for handling this type of refusal from DoJ and other departments. The committee ought to simply issue a subpoena with a 48 hour turn around. It then should note the number of previous officials that have been refused and state that the Congress will simply start issuing subpoenas for every appearance the next time a subpoena is required. I would imagine that they are concerned with the appearance of this gentleman. He may tell the truth.

JMOHR wrote on July 16, 2007 5:42 PM:

There should be a standard protocol for handling this type of refusal from DoJ and other departments. The committee ought to simply issue a subpoena with a 48 hour turn around. It then should note the number of previous officials that have been refused and state that the Congress will simply start issuing subpoenas for every appearance the next time a subpoena is required. I would imagine that they are concerned with the appearance of this gentleman. He may tell the truth.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 16, 2007 5:43 PM:

So what's the next step, after Congress says yes a few times and the DOJ still says no?

I want to see some frog-marching, dammit!

(Oh well..the Miers deadline is tomorrow..maybe we'll get lucky - inherent contempt, anyone?)

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 5:52 PM:

LOL -- if Miers gets a contempt of Congress charge tomorrow, I will stop posting -- that's how confident I am that the Dems have ZERO spine!

litigatormom wrote on July 16, 2007 5:57 PM:

Schlozman has already testified about these prosecutions -- so what possible basis does DoJ have for refusing to let this guy testify?

Motive, I understand. Basis? Or is the DoJ just in complete bunker lockdown now?

johnnydoughey wrote on July 16, 2007 6:02 PM:

Congress: A branch of government (legislative) added because the two real branches of government (executive and judicial) just didn't flow right when spoken aloud. It has no other purpose.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 6:41 PM:

I AM STILL AT A LESS AS TO WHY CONGRESS DOESN'T ISSUE A CONTEMPT CITATION AND HAVE A U.S. MARSHAL GO IN AND GET THE PERSON IN QUESTION. THEN, WITH THE CAMERAS ROLLING, WE WILL SEE HOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REALLY WORKS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT EVEN GO TO THE SUPREME COURT, BUT IT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CONGRESS FROM DOING SO. THIS TO ME SEEMS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO END UP WITH A CONVICTION OF THE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE OFFICALS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF A LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL ORDER.

On the Clock wrote on July 16, 2007 6:45 PM:

Congress is going to have turn the Capitol Hill mess into an overflow hoosegow at this rate. If the flow of Navy bean soup is interrupted, I expect GOP defections.

steambomb wrote on July 16, 2007 7:21 PM:

Department of WHAT?

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 7:34 PM:

Department of Selective Justice

bb wrote on July 16, 2007 7:35 PM:

It's become quite clear that Congress needs a police force or law enforcement entity of its own to enforce accountability over the Executive.

It is not fair that the executive branch has an unchecked, unaccountable, exclusive hold over its personal army and the legislative does not and futhermore has no oversite over the executive!!

Harriet wrote on July 16, 2007 7:44 PM:

Oh, Jake, you'd do that for me?

I'm dying for it, Jake!

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 7:48 PM:

LOL -- if Miers gets a contempt of Congress charge tomorrow, I will stop posting -- that's how confident I am that the Dems have ZERO spine!

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 16, 2007 5:52 PM

The Republicans have the "spine" of snakes: they reject the rule of law on the lie that they are morally superior.

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 7:53 PM:

LOL -- if Miers gets a contempt of Congress charge tomorrow, I will stop posting -- that's how confident I am that the Dems have ZERO spine!

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 16, 2007 5:52 PM

First, a contempt of Congress "charge" would have to first be voted in the Committee. That hasn't happened. Then would have to be voted on by the full House.

When will the Republicans remember to put rule of law and country before party? When their ears are burned off during the recess by their constituents. Get in your gloating now, uxultant ass, because the opportunity to do so won't last much longer.

Meanwhile, this thread is not about Miers; it is about the head of the Voting Rights unit in the DOJ.

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 7:59 PM:

"Congress: A branch of government (legislative) added because the two real branches of government (executive and judicial) just didn't flow right when spoken aloud. It has no other purpose."

READ Article I. of the the Constitution, in which the authorities and powers of Congress are detailed.

Posted by: johnnydoughey
Date: July 16, 2007 6:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I AM STILL AT A LESS AS TO WHY CONGRESS DOESN'T ISSUE A CONTEMPT CITATION AND HAVE A U.S. MARSHAL GO IN AND GET THE PERSON IN QUESTION. THEN, WITH THE CAMERAS ROLLING, WE WILL SEE HOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REALLY WORKS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT EVEN GO TO THE SUPREME COURT, BUT IT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CONGRESS FROM DOING SO. THIS TO ME SEEMS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO END UP WITH A CONVICTION OF THE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE OFFICALS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF A LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL ORDER.

Posted by:
Date: July 16, 2007 6:41 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 8:03 PM:

"I AM STILL AT A LESS AS TO WHY CONGRESS DOESN'T ISSUE A CONTEMPT CITATION AND HAVE A U.S. MARSHAL GO IN AND GET THE PERSON IN QUESTION."

It's called "votes". The Democrats don't (yet" have sufficient votes because of the foot-dragging REPUBLICANS.

It's also called "strategy": there are several ways by means of which to accomplish the results sought -- which is not arrest and incarcertaion but the facts.

". . . . THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT EVEN GO TO THE SUPREME COURT, BUT IT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CONGRESS FROM DOING SO."

No, it would not.

"THIS TO ME SEEMS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO END UP WITH A CONVICTION OF THE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE OFFICALS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF A LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL ORDER."

Typing in all-CAPS is annoying.

Posted by:
Date: July 16, 2007 6:41 PM

FloridaDemocrat wrote on July 16, 2007 8:07 PM:

As a career employee, the Bush loyalists have no control over him. He could show up and tell the truth.

That is why DOJ doesn't want him up to the Hill until they can find some dirt on him to use as blackmail to ensure his silence.

electricphoto wrote on July 16, 2007 8:10 PM:

It's clear that what they are covering up is a vote rigging operation of a national scale. From mandating electronic voting machines with software that was designed to be hacked, to voter list purges, to voter intimidation, to US attorneys charging Democrats, phone jamming, cover up's everywhere you look, Republican officials in every key position...

The Republican's have installed themselves in office for the past decade via this machine and the evidence is everywhere - A crime so massive that the firewall of denials, attacks and stonewalling is popping up everytime you demand documents.

Wait until the subpoenas are enforced and a Bush appointed federal appeal judges toss the case.... This is a big a crime as you can commit in a Democracy and they are not going to give up easily.

Think big - they did.

Bob wrote on July 16, 2007 8:55 PM:

18 USC § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

The Democrats haven't gotten the cojones to create a new Independent Counsel, because they're afraid of what they would do once a Democrat is President. It's a double edged sword and neither party has a history of being very law abiding for very long. They will continue to hold meetings on TV and talk until they're all blue in the face. What a bunch of self-indulgent, corrupt idiots we have on our payroll.

nofltwlt wrote on July 16, 2007 9:18 PM:

Just promise me that these guys will be brought to justice when the Dems take over in 2008.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 9:25 PM:

Close your eyes, click your heels three times, and repeat after me: "Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction of Justice."

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 9:30 PM:

DoJ New Name, DOSMBWFAC: "Department of Obfucation, Selective Memory, and Buffoons Working For A Clerk."

Jillian wrote on July 16, 2007 10:12 PM:

The Department of Obstruction of Justice strikes again!

via wrote on July 16, 2007 10:30 PM:

Inherent Contempt. Send out the House's Sargeant at Arms.

JGabriel wrote on July 16, 2007 10:47 PM:

Paul Kiel: "... the Justice Department has refused to allow the chief of the section, John Tanner, to testify."

Why?

Did DoJ give any reason at all? Or did they just say, "No, you can't talk to Tanner. You don't need no steenking reason!"

It doesn't seem like DoJ would be allowed to do that. What is there reasoning? Is there any privilige they are claiming/abusing?

?

yathink wrote on July 16, 2007 10:50 PM:

Block, obstruct, gum it to death, hide everything. Something is very wrong here. Could there be serious questions of election fraud here? Like stolen elections? What a surprise that would be. They are obviously hiding something very impeachable. As if we don't already know. A certain KR must be in a fetal position on the WH floor saying over and over "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore!" I only hope that Kansas knows they aren't in Bush country anymore.

JGabriel wrote on July 16, 2007 10:54 PM:

JNagarya: "The Republicans have the 'spine' of snakes: they reject the rule of law on the lie that they are morally superior."

Now, now, there's no call for that kind of crude comparison. What has a snake ever done to you that would merit associating them with Republicans?

Voting Section Employee wrote on July 17, 2007 12:10 AM:

Subpoena his ass, cotton tie and all.

Tanner has the map to the graveyard.

Mien In Black wrote on July 17, 2007 1:11 AM:

Tanner won't be available because Agent K's "flashy memory eraser stick thingy" is in the shop for a tuneup.

When it's recalibrated, we can expect this testimony:

Conyers: Mr. Tanner. "Can you tell us why ACORN workers were prosecuted in Missouri days before the November election, despite Justice Department policy to the contrary?"

Tanner: "I can only tell the committee that I don't remember."

Conyers: "What don't you remember?"

Tanner: "I can't remember what I don't remember."

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 17, 2007 2:08 AM:

Amazing.Almost everything is amazing these daze.
Most amazing are the words used to describe all this.
It's like doing everything imaginable to keep from saying the truth out loud.Going to every lenght to say words that have no.......anything.Just some noise coming out from the required individuals mouths.Amazing.
What's trully amazing beyond the maening of amazing (wherever that may land us)is: why does the media and most others still refer to the doj as doj?Is it from habit?Or do you think if you call it doj it may return to that?
Do you need it pointed out that a real doj and this_ _ _ _are not even .......mmmmmm well, now you can fill in what you like.Hard to even find a definition of what goes on in that dark hole or what to name that activity.

cmg wrote on July 17, 2007 2:55 AM:

Are you freaking KIDDING ME? Under what principle/law/rule are they claiming they won't "let" Tanner testify? You can't just not answer. You have to say why.

parrot wrote on July 17, 2007 2:57 AM:

Issue subpeonas with inherent contempt proceedings predicated on non-compliance. It's pretty simple. And the Committee should use that tool sooner rather than too late.

LimaBN wrote on July 17, 2007 6:27 AM:

So why are we continuing to pay for this Administration? Stop the spending, stop the borrowing, stop the flow of tax dollars.

Start with de-funding the salaries, benefits, and pensions for people who refuse to comply with Congress. Take away Gonzo's bi-weekly paycheck and health insurance, strip away Cheney's network, empty out the White House political affairs offices.

Let BushCo pay their own way and we'll see how long this coup lasts.

ronbyers wrote on July 17, 2007 8:42 AM:

Did they give any reason for refusing to produce Tanner? I have looked everywhere and I can't find the email telling the committee the DoJ intended to substitute witnesses.

Anonymous wrote on July 17, 2007 11:05 AM:

There's no justice on the voting section plantation....!

Sam Lipari wrote on July 17, 2007 12:13 PM:

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Investigation of General Electric
"Evidence disclosed in Medical Supply Chain civil litigation discovery revealed GE's failure to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."
Kansas City, Mo 07/17/07 - Medical Supply Chain's founder Samuel Lipari learned today that General Electric (GE) had initiated the three actions required to resolve the parallel federal government investigation of GE's anticompetitive conduct which is the subject of Samuel Lipari's private civil litigation. GE announced on July 17th its intent to divest the commercial credit division GE Capital, a defendant in Samuel Lipari's lawsuit Lipari v General Electric, et al, Jackson County Missouri 16th Circuit Court Case # 0616-CV07421

The government initiated its investigation of General Electric because of GE Capital's underwriting of Novation LLC's sale of medical supply marketplace Neoforma, Inc. (NEOF) to GE's electronic marketplace GHX in an effort to conceal Neoforma's financials from an ongoing US Justice Department investigation of Novation LLC's monopolization of the hospital supply market reported in the London Times on July 31st 2006. Two assistant US Attorneys linked to the Novation investigation were found dead and three more were fired.

Evidence disclosed in Medical Supply Chain civil litigation discovery revealed GE's failure to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, anticompetitive conduct in the Aluminum market through GE Capital's underwriting of Alcoa in the takeover of McCook Metals, LLC and General Electric's pattern of extortion and obstruction to influence outcomes in state and federal courts that included GE Capital's efforts to influence the United Airlines (UAL) bankruptcy proceedings so that union workers would be deprived of pension health benefits.

The False Claims Act investigation of the McCook Metals take over was terminated by the USA Patriot Act appointed US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Bradley J. Schlozman.

General Electric satisfied the government investigation by canceling its planned purchase of Abbott Laboratories Inc. (ABT) for $8.3 billion dollars on July 12th 2007, abandoning plans to further the monopoly in key aluminum product segments by withdrawing underwriting for Alcoa, Inc. (AA) to purchase Alcan, Inc. (AL) against mining giant Rio Tinto's bid of $38.1 billion dollars on July 13th 2007. Finally, General Electric and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt on July 16th 2007 signaled their intent to sell off GE Capital, the General Electric unit most directly involved in the misconduct. GE Capital will retain liability for any conduct injuring United Airlines employees.

General Electric's alleged co-conspirator in Medical Supply Chain's civil litigation, US Bancorp (USB) was forced to divest its subsidiary US Bancorp Piper Jaffray February 19th 2003 when Lipari's civil litigation exposed Piper Jaffray's continuing role in extortion and monopolization of securities underwriting for healthcare technology companies allowed to enter the hospital supply market controlled by Novation LLC.

Samuel Lipari cautions that General Electric's bargain may satisfy US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales but does not stop Samuel Lipari's private civil litigation claims or Samuel Lipari's False Claims Act investigation of General Electric's role as a co-conspirator with Novation LLC and US Bancorp to artificially inflate healthcare costs paid by Medicare and Medicaid.

Novation LLC is a hospital supplier in Irving, Texas and was created in 1998 by two networks of non-profit hospitals, VHA Inc, of Irving, Texas, and University Health System Consortium of Oak Brook, Illinois. Between them they control more than 2,000 hospitals and health care facilities.

http://www.prbuzz.com/us-attorney-general-alberto-gonzales-investigation-of-general-electric-4486.html

molly wrote on July 17, 2007 12:45 PM:

ELECTRICPHOTO...Bingo

molly wrote on July 17, 2007 12:50 PM:

Sam...Was an assistant US att. murdered over this?

molly wrote on July 17, 2007 12:53 PM:

Sam Lipari...Was an assistant US attorney murdered in this case in Texas?