« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales Memo Widened Cheney's Office Access to DoJ Case Info
Yet another dispiriting revelation from Alberto Gonzales' hearing today.
During Gonzales' last hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) questioned him about a memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002 that had substantially increased White House officials' access to information about Justice Department cases. Under Clinton, only four White House officials had been authorized to discuss pending criminal investigations or cases with only three top Department officials. Ashcroft's 2002 memo had blown the door off that arrangement, raising the number of officials who could discuss such cases from seven to 447 (417 on the White House side). Under Whitehouse's questioning, Gonzales had professed to have been "concerned about that as White House counsel.”
Apparently not so much.
Whitehouse questioned him today about a May, 2006 memo which Gonzales himself had signed while attorney general. You can see it yourself here.
The memo widened White House access to case information even more and seemed to have been crafted with special attention to enabling the Vice President's staff, specifically his chief of staff and counsel, to have the unambiguous authority to discuss ongoing cases with Department officials. Given Cheney's chief of staff David Addington's extraordinary reach into the Justice Department (and the prosecution of Cheney's former chief of staff), that's cause for a raised eyebrow.
Gonzales seemed to have been taken off guard by Whitehouse's questions:
Whitehouse: "What-on-earth business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, and ongoing matters?"Gonzales: "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."
Whitehouse: "Why is it here, then?"
Gonzales: “I’d have to go back and look at this.”
"The memo that has your signature makes it worse," Whitehouse said. As Whitehouse plowed on, Gonzales admitted of his own memo, "I must say I'm troubled by this." Gonzales cautioned, however, that he didn't know whether officials from the vice president's office had indeed taken advantage of such access.
Whitehouse ended by observing that it was difficult to take seriously Gonzales' promise to "restore the Department of Justice," seeing as how he'd apparently worked to help make the Department vulnerable to politicization.
Here is the text:
WHITEHOUSE: Now, I then showed you the letter that Attorney General -- the memorandum that Attorney General Ashcroft prepared. And that's the document that, sort of, kicked open the door from seven to hundreds of people to be involved and have discussions about ongoing criminal/civil investigative matters. And that's what led to our discussion about all of this.Now, you've had some time to think about this. You've indicated desire to clean up the mess at the department. I would like to bring to your attention a May 4th, 2006, memorandum that is a subsequent document to the Ashcroft memorandum. This one is signed by you.
Here's what concerns me. In the Ashcroft memorandum, which was a subject of concern before, at the very, very end of the Ashcroft memorandum, as you'll remember, there was that paragraph under asterisks that changes the whole memorandum in front of it. It says, "Notwithstanding any procedures, limitations set forth above, the attorney general may communicate directly with the president, vice president, counsel to the president, assistant to the president for national security affairs, and various others." And then it provides who the staff members can consult with: "directly with officials and staff of the Office of President, Office of the Vice President, Office of the Counsel to the president, National Security Council" and so forth.
Now, I took the position that that was pretty much kicking down a very important door that had protected the department from political influence, but I see in your May 4th, 2006, memorandum a number of things that concern me even more.
The first is at the bottom of the first page where there is an asterisked footnote, which says at the bottom, "For convenience, the executive functions of the vice presidency are referred to in this document as the Office of the Vice President or OVP, and the provisions of this memorandum that apply with respect to communications with the EOP" -- Executive Office of the President, I assume that is -- "will apply in parallel fashion to communications with the Office of the Vice President."
WHITEHOUSE: Let me ask you first, what on Earth business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, ongoing matters?
GONZALES: As a general matter, I would say that that's a good question.
(LAUGHTER) WHITEHOUSE: Why is it here then?
GONZALES: I'd have to go back and look at this.
WHITEHOUSE: I'd like to know where this came from and how that addition was made. Then, if you look at the very back, the very last paragraph, once again there's a final paragraph set off by asterisks that pretty much undercuts everything that was said in the previous enumerated paragraphs.
And here, you can see the difference. It's almost identical with the previous memorandum, only it adds some things: "Notwithstanding any procedure or limitations set forth above, the attorney general may communicate directly with the president, vice president" -- so far, same as the Ashcroft memorandum. Then you add, "their chiefs of staff, counsel to the president," then you add "or vice president." Somebody took the trouble to write in "counsel to the vice president" and provide that individual access to ongoing criminal investigations, ongoing civil investigations and ongoing other investigative matters.
GONZALES: Which -- I don't know whether or not that, in fact, has happened, so I want to -- I want to (inaudible)...
WHITEHOUSE: Part of what we do around here is to prevent things from happening.
GONZALES: Exactly, exactly.
WHITEHOUSE: And when you kick down doors, you invite people to do it whether or not it's been done.
GONZALES: And I agree.
WHITEHOUSE: OK.
GONZALES: And on its face, I must say, sitting here, I'm troubled by this.
WHITEHOUSE: Yes.
GONZALES: I will say...
WHITEHOUSE: And if you can continue -- just let me finish, because we're not done with the paragraph.
GONZALES: All right.
WHITEHOUSE: If you go further on down, what was the staff of the Office of the President has become the staff of the White House Office and the entire Office of Management and Budget has been thrown in.
So you come here today with, I think, to put it mildly, highly diminished credibility, asserting to us that you want to bring -- to restore the Department of Justice. And yet here, where there is something that you could do about it, since our past discussion, nothing has been done, the memo that has your signature makes it worse, and we've agreed that this connection between the White House and the Department of Justice is the most dangerous one from a point of view of the potential for the infiltration of political influence into the department.
How, in the light of all those facts, can I give you any credibility for being serious about the promises you've made that you intend to clean up the mess you've made?
GONZALES: Well, because we have taken -- I've taken several steps to clean up, to address some of the mistakes that have been made, Senator.
I can say that I have directed my staff to try to understand what happened with respect to the Ashcroft memo, what was the genesis of it. And in fact, we went back and talked to a former member of the Ashcroft leadership team to understand what was the basis of the change? What caused this to happen? And so we have been looking at this issue because I am concerned about it.
And with respect to this memo, quite frankly, I'd have to look at it. And I would be concerned about inappropriate access to ongoing investigations. And it's something that -- if that's encouraged by this kind of memorandum, I think it's something that we ought to rethink.
Comments (94)
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:28 PM:It would be better to go back to FDR's arrangement where Vice-President Truman didn't even know we had the A-bomb? I'm sure Gonzales will be able to confirm that nothing untoward happened.
Mike Conwell wrote on July 24, 2007 4:33 PM:For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.
p winslow wrote on July 24, 2007 4:37 PM:It would be better for the country if all trolls were herded into guantanamo and given the same treatment as some of the innocent people who've been released. Poor sad Jake, it's like a nightmare that won't end isn't it? The unraveling of the PNAC. Hitler at least lasted 12 years.
jane wrote on July 24, 2007 4:37 PM:So now we know how OVP and Rove knew that it was time to get rid of Carol Lam.
1oldlady wrote on July 24, 2007 4:39 PM:I think that Gonzo was more surprised that Sen. Whitehouse had a copy of the document! He new about it, he was just wondering how he got hold of it!
When I saw that interchange between the two Sen. Whitehouse and Gonz...I spit out what was in my mouth!! No Sh#t! I new that was a smoking gun...But now it raises more questions about the VP's involvement, if any in the Scooter case and maybe others..
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:44 PM:Look, guys, I understand this testimony is the lede story here at TPM and warrants dozens of threads, but I just checked the main page at CNN.com -- Gonzales is not even listed -- Lyndsay Lohan and some female doctor from way back during Katrina are though. Good luck getting traction on this after Gonzales has cooperated and testified repeatedly.
tomH wrote on July 24, 2007 4:45 PM:What stage had the Libby case reached as of May 2006? One interesting follow-up question would be to ask whether the counsel to the vice-president made contact with any DoJ staff subsequent to this memo, and if so, regarding what topics.
The OMB piece is downright weird. I can't even figure out the hidden agenda there. Thoughts?
breakspear wrote on July 24, 2007 4:46 PM:Of course Cheney's office was looking at DOJ information for political reasons, Al! At this point, with all that we have seen of Bush and Cheney and their partisan machinations, no one (except blind stupid idiots) will think that it was anything other than politics working here.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:48 PM:I mean, you do realize less than 1% of 1% of us Americans actually watched this on C-SPAN, right? Again, good luck with that . . .
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:51 PM:Not only that, 1oldlady, but I think that Cheney was the other shooter on the grassy knoll -- it's all starting to make sense now -- wait a second, I need to get another tin-foil hat on.
p winslow wrote on July 24, 2007 4:52 PM:ever heard of cspan jake? do you get paid to make an idiot of yourself or does it just come naturally? tell us again how that PNAC is working, will ya?
Pontius wrote on July 24, 2007 4:52 PM:The way Alberto so willingly takes the abuse from this committee, one has to wonder if he has had a lot of practice at it from the hands of GWB.
Electricphoto wrote on July 24, 2007 4:52 PM:The VP wanted access to the Justice department to keep aware of and stop any investigations into crimes that the Whitehouse were behind.
Now they have Gonzolas who is the bought and paid for lackey to see to it that no prosecutions take place. He has already lied and lied and lied - just the kind of justice department you want to shield you.
Jake D. gets his points from the V.R.W.C. (google it)... no brians or opinions needed, just skawk the party cover stories like a good servant - like Gonzolas.
tomg wrote on July 24, 2007 4:53 PM:do I hear the cry of executive privilege? that would be a hoot since the OVP claims he is not part of the executive branch.... hahahahah 'what a tangled web we weave'
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 4:54 PM:Clinton did it first! Clinton did it first!
Exect. priv. Exect. priv.
Wow that IS fun!
>>Under Clinton, only four White House officials had been authorized to discuss pending criminal investigations or cases with only three top Department officials. Ashcroft's 2002 memo had blown the door off that arrangement, raising the number of officials who could discuss such cases from seven to 447 (417 on the White House side).<<
I'll be Frank wrote on July 24, 2007 4:54 PM:Jake
Tell us, what does Truman's vice-presiency have to do with the price of tea in china?
Random irrelevance your strong suit?
If you aren't being paid, you need serious help. Just a guess, but I'd venture that you also post in response to yourself, contra of course.
Helen Rainier wrote on July 24, 2007 4:56 PM:Is it just my imagination or is Gonzo getting worse with each subsequent appearance in front of the Committee?
He has gone from dumb to dumber to dumbest.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 4:57 PM:Yes, p winslow, I have heard of C-SPAN (which is why I brought it up in my post) and was, in fact, watching it all day while surfing the Net here. I am not paid to post here, but then again, I don't think I've made an idiot of myself. If you want to know how that PNAC works, may I suggest Wikipedia.org for you as well?
1oldlady wrote on July 24, 2007 4:58 PM:After reading the memo with the *** and the inserted
1oldlady wrote on July 24, 2007 5:01 PM:wording...I think just maybe, maybe Gonzo did not know about it, because his signature is next to his name on the first page, and someone inserted the *** wording with out his knowledge. Now, if that is true who was that person. and why? Date checking with legal cases should be noted and that may lead to the person who inserted the language that gave the VP access to on going investigations.
why do people engage in dialog with people who want you to get pissed at!? Just dont engage! This is serious stuff and not to be made a mockery of...JERK
EH wrote on July 24, 2007 5:01 PM:TomH: I just did a little poking around early May and the most relevant piece was that Fitzgerald had won a graymail battle in the Libby case for ex-parte CIPA reviews. This means that Fitz could share/discuss classified evidence without the public being present.
As for the OMB: Josh Bolten?
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:04 PM:Frank:
I'm asking where would isolating Vice-President Cheney end? The man is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office and, more so in this modern world of ours, cannot be sidelined on anything of importance in the federal government, just in case he has to hit the ground running after some terrible tragedy. See the relevance now?
As for being paid, I am not; not sure how you think I post to myself though.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:08 PM:1oldlady:
Who wants to get whom pissed?
Fed Up wrote on July 24, 2007 5:20 PM:Sing to you are my sunshine...and feel free to copy/alter :)
My name is Jake D
1970cs wrote on July 24, 2007 5:27 PM:a local troll-y
Really am Dick Cheney
Not some toad-y
I am a Bushie
And just as dopey
Please don't respond to Jake D.
This exchange with Whitehouse is the only time during the hearing that the 'smirk' was missing from Gonzales' face.
He's going to have to explain to Dick how this memo saw the light of day and he seems just a bit nervous about that. Other than that he did his job perfectly from a Bush perspective, contempt, no problem that's what pardons are for.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 24, 2007 5:27 PM:1oldlady
AGAG did seem to be caught off guard by Whitehouse's question about the OVP's involvement with the DoJ.
AGAG >> "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."
That was not one of his boilerplate remarks. It was previously established that wording had been slipped into one official document after closure (Specter's staffer secretly inserting the special provision in the Patriot Act). It is not unreasonable to suspect that AGAG got Spectered here by a Cheyney mole.
johnnydoughey wrote on July 24, 2007 5:29 PM:What I see over and over again is a total disregard for the law and constitution, followed by discovery from others, then an excuse of memory or misunderstanding (all the while smiling do to the masses of grants received for Covey training so they can all be polite while lying to your face, knowing all too well that the most that can happen is they stop breaking that specific law until your back is turned).
T. Barr wrote on July 24, 2007 5:31 PM:Next week, they can start breaking the same law again until, once again they are caught and have to repeat the process all over again.
Oh... and guess who has to pay for their attorneys?
Wow! This is dynamite!!
Now we know their plan to take over our country was to work....sad!
>>Under Clinton, only four White House officials had been authorized to discuss pending criminal investigations or cases with only three top Department officials. Ashcroft's 2002 memo had blown the door off that arrangement, raising the number of officials who could discuss such cases from seven to 447 (417 on the White House side).<<
1oldlady wrote on July 24, 2007 5:32 PM:Billy Pilgrim
Date: July 24, 2007 5:27 PM
So, I assume you think the same reason? But who, and when did this happen?
Darberic wrote on July 24, 2007 5:36 PM:Of course Cheney was consulted about whether to grant clemancy to Scooter Libby. I think the bigger question is whether Cheney availed himself of the opportunity, while he was president this weekend (when Bush was getting probed), to actually pardon Scooter, with every intention of making this pardon public after Scooter loses his appeals and after the 2008 election. This would take the heat off of Bush, who may still be worrying somewhat about his legacy.
monkey breath wrote on July 24, 2007 5:36 PM:it is my understanding from when i earned a degree in poli sci in '76 that Truman prior to being VP in '45 had been on or was the senior democrat on the committee that financed the manhatten project. so jake stop jaking us off
Mary wrote on July 24, 2007 5:40 PM:Folks,
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:44 PM:JakeD is a retarded troll.
At this point in our country's history, these braindeads are merely an annoying minority. Just don't even read his post, and don't respond.
DON'T FEEL THE TROLLS, guys.
Ouch, mary.
P.S. monkey breath: since I lived though WWII, I'll trust my own memory over your political science course.
dpkesling wrote on July 24, 2007 5:46 PM:I would still like to get the 'yes' or 'no' answer from JakeD of a question asked a little while ago in another thread on this site:
Gonzo himself wouldn't answer yes/no whether waterboarding of a US citizen by a foreign power would constitute 'torture'. JakeD appears ready to follow the leader in weaseling.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:47 PM:On a brighter note, I see that the Attorney General's birthday is next week -- hopefully, he spends the day a little happier than today -- Gonzales was born August 4, 1955.
nanlichi wrote on July 24, 2007 5:50 PM:So this is where Jake went. He was an ignorant sycophant on the Think Progress site until he was thoroughly debunked by anyone with intelligence,and now he is spamming this site.
A true believer and brownshirt defender of Bush and the Boyz, not worthy of any response.
The whole administration will go down in history as the worst black mark in our history. How anyone could defend the actions of these evil crooks is beyond belief. In an earlier day, they would be strung up for the coyotes and buzzards.
nanlichi wrote on July 24, 2007 5:50 PM:So this is where Jake went. He was an ignorant sycophant on the Think Progress site until he was thoroughly debunked by anyone with intelligence,and now he is spamming this site.
A true believer and brownshirt defender of Bush and the Boyz, not worthy of any response.
The whole administration will go down in history as the worst black mark in our history. How anyone could defend the actions of these evil crooks is beyond belief. In an earlier day, they would be strung up for the coyotes and buzzards.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:54 PM:dpkesling:
I will take a look around and see if I missed the question. I would be happy to answer "yes" or "no" if you tell me whether the "foreign power" in question is an unconditional signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Convention(s).
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 5:58 PM:Hi, nanlichi (I would agree with you, but since I'm an ignorant sycophant, that would make you one too : )
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 5:59 PM:"Given Cheney's chief of staff David Addington's extraordinary reach into the Justice Department (and the prosecution of Cheney's former chief of staff), that's cause for a raised eyebrow."
Not really.. there has been much information on Addison, described as Cheney's pit bull, and the stench of Addison's tortured legal reasoning has been on most of the DOJ opinions and most of the Patriot Act, signing statements, etc.
Mary wrote on July 24, 2007 6:00 PM:Is it still any secret that Cheney is the shadow government???? THAT "secret" is what is behind the WH stonewalling. Think about it....this refusal to give an inch on information, resistance to even a modicum of accountability...that's pure
"Secrets and Shadows" Cheney.
Good GAWD.
Basically, this means that slimy, lying Gonzales, while trying to blame Ashcroft for the increase of White House access to DOJ discussions, INCREASED the access himself by adding the Office of the VP and OMB with a memo showing his own signature.
And that means, from the MOMENT Gonzales became Attorney General, the Office of the Vice President, including his chief of staff (Scooter Libby) and his legal advisor (David Addington) had access to every single bit of evidence, discussion, decision-making done in the DOJ about Scooter Libby's own trial, with Patrick Fitzgerald having no clue such was being done.
Not much different than Nixon's FBI director sending him and his staff summaries of Watergate investigations, people, while the they were ongoing. It is why the Asst. FBI Director became Deep Throat.
Special Prosecutor clearly needed now. Gonzales is compromised beyond all redemption, no questions asked.
Stunning dishonesty.
PJ White wrote on July 24, 2007 6:04 PM:Jake D. is an attention-seeking troll. Why does anyone feed him?
Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 24, 2007 6:06 PM:Do not feed the trolls!
Gonzo provided the committee with so much to follow up on. I am hoping to see him called back to "explain" the context behind this memo, after the SJC subpoenas emails and internal docs relating to this memo, wherein we will finally see Gonzo forced to plead the 5th.
Samsara wrote on July 24, 2007 6:07 PM:August 4, 1955 was also the birthday of Antonio Gonzales, Alberto's evil twin brother. It was he who lied to Congress and allowed the Vice President to run the Justice Department. He made the call on the USA firings and all the rest. Sort of like Samantha’s identical cousin Serena on Bewitched.
I can’t decide if this whole thing is a soap opera or a situation comedy. I am sure it is not good government, and that’s a tragedy.
dpkesling wrote on July 24, 2007 6:10 PM:Many thanks, JakeD, for your reply. You've earned me money on a 'double down' bet.
Not only did you refuse to answer 'yes' or 'no' to a simple question... (front part of the bet), but your answer contained not even a hint or shred of human decency (double or nothing part of bet).
I am a bit distressed as I missed the trifecta... your using -exactly- the same verbiage as Gonzales, but I am disputing this ruling as you came damn close.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:10 PM:Mary:
Too bad the Independent Counsel law expired, huh?
Security Code: screw
Mary wrote on July 24, 2007 6:11 PM:For those of us ALL who lived through WWII, let's have a fun discussion of what George Patton would have felt about the chickenhawks currently in the White House. I for one think Patton would have have slapped the crap out of little Dubya, and found the prancing flightsuit on an aircraft carrier with color-coded Navy T-shirts an INSULT to real military men and women who actually fought in France and Germany, and whose families have the burial flags to prove it.
But let's leave ole Jake the troll out of the conversation, ok?
Understanding obstruction of justice by manipulating the DOJ through a spineless AG is a bit beyond Jake's possibilities.
carollt wrote on July 24, 2007 6:11 PM:Cheney, Bush and Gonzales all should be hauled into the world court and charged with war crimes. Torture is not okay.
After these criminals have left office and we all get to see what has really gone on these last seven years, it would not suprise me to see these criminals charged. And they should be charged with war crimes because they have committed such crimes.
What a great day it will be for the entire world.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 6:13 PM:IMPEACHMENT VS. CONTEMPT: Enforcing supboenas
OLC Opinion: President would most likely attempt to block effort of Congress to enforce subpeonas:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002277.html?nav=rss_politics
Problem with the assertion/effort: OLC silent on information already disclosed, outside executive privilege.
Hoever, the President's position on the subpoenas does not apply to impeachment: The power of the House to punish those who defy the Congress. If Contempt is not used, and impeachment is not pursuied. the COngress has assented to illegalities, non-cooperation, and unresponsiveness about _already disclosed information_ connected with the WH Counsel's office.
The Genie cannot be put back into the bottle; the horeses, once they leave, cannot be forced into a burning barn; Congress is hiding inside the bottle which remains inside the burning barn.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:14 PM:You're welcome, dpkesling. When can I expect my cut?
anon wrote on July 24, 2007 6:17 PM:Seems to me that a case can be made for _someone_, be it Cheney or Rove, having deep access to the DoJ files. Just take a look at the documents and articles that, say, the Mobile Register ran on the Siegelman case. (They have recently removed most of the Siegelman documents but you can find traces in google and wayback and their articles are still mostly available.) In retrospect, it's clear that reporters (for lack of a better word) at the paper had deep access to the Siegelman files, the grand jury, the prosecutor, etc. At the time, I just assumed that the AL USA office was leaking and while that's probably true, it seems likely that many of the leaks/documents were coming from other sources as well. In this case, GOP operatives at the Register laundered the materials through the paper which, I assume, is part of the current GOP strategy--put someone in place who will not question the source and the larger institution handles the laundry without being fully aware of what's going on. There are cases other than Siegelman that have similar DoJ leaks--the Orange Beach developer bribes, for example--but I suspect it was a nation-wide problem. Going back over coverage of high profile DoJ prosecution of politicians over the last several years might be eye-opening, I suspect the same players/methods will show up again and again.
Mary wrote on July 24, 2007 6:24 PM:Somebody explain to Jake the difference between an Independent Counsel and a Special Prosector. It's not my turn to explain things to him.
PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 6:27 PM:"I don't think I've made an idiot of myself"
ROFL... Trust us, Jake, you have.
PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 6:30 PM:"So this is where Jake went. He was an ignorant sycophant on the Think Progress site until he was thoroughly debunked by anyone with intelligence,and now he is spamming this site."
Yup, and before that, he was a regular on WashingtonMonthly.com. And he was just as much a fool there as he is here, which is why we named him "Chuckles."
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:32 PM:We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Paul.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:36 PM:I've never posted at Washington Monthly. Two for two, so far, PaulB.
JAKED wrote on July 24, 2007 6:46 PM:Republithug trolls visit these sites and spend all day trying to get people to respond to their stupid comments. I have read that trolls get $100 when people respond to them. That's why they act so stupid so you will respond to them. Better just to let people like J lie and lie and lie some more. ANYBODY that is proud of our Department of Justice and the criminal Abu Gonzales is too stupid to respond to. Thanks to the RNC these trolls fill these pages with feces and expect you to swallow.
regular lurker wrote on July 24, 2007 6:47 PM:Tip for Firefox users:
Ctrl + F will opn the "find" feature for the page you are viewing. Enter the word "Jake" without quotes. Click "higlight all" and then simply read the page skipping over all of the Jakes. It makes reading comments much easier.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 6:51 PM:But, regular lurker, how does Firefox skip over all those who respond to me? As "JAKED" pointed out, that's where the real money is . . .
EMPY wrote on July 24, 2007 7:07 PM:Important cases involving the following I'm sure needed tending by White House staff:
Scooter
Joe wrote on July 24, 2007 7:15 PM:Rove
Jack Abramoff
J. Steven Griles
Will Heaton
Michael Scanlon
David Safavian
Bob Ney
James Tobin
Susan Ralston
Tom Delay
Randy Cunningham
Mitchell Wade
Brent Wilkes
Dusty Foggo
Mark Foley
Bob Ney
John Doolittle
Tom Feeney
Richard Pombo
Jerry Lewis
Halliburton
KBR
Blackwater
Exxon/Mobil
Chevron
BP
Phizer
and on...and on....and on.....
This appears to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. It would come as no surprise that a former Nixon staffer is violating a law created because of the misdeeds of the Nixon White House.
Why don't they subpoena the Justice Department officials giving access to the Vice President's staff and ask them whose files were accessed and when. I bet there are some interesting names on that list.
Jock Strap wrote on July 24, 2007 7:16 PM:If you must reply to Joke ( and we don't recommend it), don't use his name. Use a suitable synonym like "wanker" and then the Firefox Ctl F trick will work nicely :-()
Joe wrote on July 24, 2007 7:18 PM:By the way, the Privacy Act falls within the domain of the Office of Special Counsel. This could give Patrick Fitzgerald another run at Tricky Dick.
dpkesling wrote on July 24, 2007 7:19 PM:It's worth $100 of RNC money to get an answer to this.
Waterboarding is torture. Y/N
Jake, before you answer... I want you to consider the following:
As a friend of the family, I was recently invited to be the dedication speaker for a new high school athletic facility. The complex is named in memory of a graduate of the school who was a US Marine killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb. Not only was it extremely difficult to face a grieving family, but my thoughts were also affected by my own son presently serving with the Marines in Iraq.
As I read your snotty, pseudo-tough comments I can't help but wonder precisely what stake YOU have in all this. If it's truly only about the RNC 100 bucks, I'm sure we'd all like to get our money's worth for a simple, straight answer to the question without any evasion. You gotten your money, give us an answer.
Waterboarding is torture. Y/N
Punk.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 7:21 PM:JAKED:
I realize that Gonzales doesn't testify every day, but assuming I could get just an average of 10 responses on 10 threads per day, that would be a cool $10,000 per day. That's $3.65 MILLION per year!!!
Where do I sign up?
regular lurker wrote on July 24, 2007 7:24 PM:The liabilities of the asbestos cases were enormous. And how convenient that NAM's Tort "reform" legislation took care of a lot of those. The settlement in the Tobacco case was interfered with...
Could the White House have interfered with which cases the Supreme Court chose to hear as well as signal to SCOTUS what the desired outcome of such cases should be? Specifically, there was a recent case involving the Sherman Act that overturned a 96 year old ruling on price fixing between manufacturers and retailers.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 7:26 PM:dpkesling:
If the "foreign power" in question is an unconditional signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Convention(s), then "yes". Now your turn, YES or NO, have you stopped beating your wife?
sanfelipe bob wrote on July 24, 2007 7:30 PM:Hey guys, just started reading this great stuff. As far as Jake the trool, why don't you all do as I do with all trools. IGNORE HIM.. Buy responding to his drivel you are giving him what he wants...
sanfelipe bob wrote on July 24, 2007 7:30 PM:Hey guys, just started reading this great stuff. As far as Jake the troll, why don't you all do as I do with all trolls. IGNORE HIM.. Buy responding to his drivel you are giving him what he wants...
PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 7:31 PM:"We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Paul."
ROFL... No, dear, we won't. Q.E.D.
"I've never posted at Washington Monthly. Two for two, so far, PaulB."
Chuckles, dear, lying really won't improve your reputation around here.
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 7:49 PM:Personally, I love beating my wife. And children. And kittens. Oh, crap. I guess the proverbial cat's out of the bag now. You must all know now that I am in fact Tricky Dick Cheney.
Seriously, people, if you ignore him, he'll eventually slither away. All it takes is a little will power.
dpkesling wrote on July 24, 2007 7:55 PM:Thank you, finally, for answering my question. Even more appreciated as it makes significant portions of your Gonzo defense untenable.
As to the second part of your response, since my wife is merely ill and not expired... your attempted humor is distasteful rather than totally intolerable.
Find a rock... crawl under it.
Marc Smith wrote on July 24, 2007 8:15 PM:I rarely post to blogs, but I just had to here.
About Jake D.
I sit home all day with a computer in front of me on my right and a TV on my left. I'm almost 60 and retired for all intents and purposes. I have a business standards internet web site online and have since January 1996. Part of my main site is a forum. The nice thing is there is a setting where you can filter all posts by any posters you don't want to bother even seeing their posts. You folks need that here. It's amazing how, when you filter out the idiots, the conversation stays on track because people put them on their 'ignore' list and the idiot poster never gets responses to his/her posts. I've never seen it fail where they finally went away because everyone was totally ignoring the idiot's posts. I will say that although there is no way to put a poster here on an 'ignore' list, you respond to him/her and when you do you are doing nothing but getting the idiot to post more garbage.
Not to mention - If Jake D. has all this time to write garbage posts in message blogs like this, and isn't getting paid for it, either Jake D. isn't doing what s/he is aid for or is retired or is independently wealthy.
As to Gonzales and all that is going on, he's a supported idiot robot just like all of bush's 'people'. Lie, steal, cheat. It doesn't matter. Concentrated power without oversight is everything.
champ wrote on July 24, 2007 8:27 PM:I like reading comments here on tpm - but i may stop because of the insults thrown back and forth.
too much space given to jake d.
PJ White wrote on July 24, 2007 8:34 PM:My eternal gratitude to the poster with the advice about how to screen on morons like JJaakkee. Now we can get the conversation back up on the level where it should be. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
anon wrote on July 24, 2007 8:46 PM:...Why don't they subpoena the Justice Department officials giving access to the Vice President's staff and ask them whose files were accessed and when...
Interesting. Didn't the DoJ switch to system where everything is digital? Perhaps all Cheney's office needed was passwords? Perhaps there are server logs some place? Perhaps the server logs were deleted? I'm not sure congress will be able to figure out what Cheney and Co were looking at. I wonder how many of the 470 odd people with newly found access were, say, working at the RNC?
I bet someone here knows how the DoJ files are managed and what the OVP would need to have full access to them without anyone knowing what they looked at.
***
As for the Jake business. Yeah, he's annoying. Seems to me that ignoring him is best. However, I'd like to point out that he doesn't seem to have figured out that a significant number of readers here are (or were) kinda conservative, kinda old skool Republicans, kinda moderate, and so on and the usual bait doesn't work. The replies to his posts tend to be from the kinda people who might have been his friends a few years ago. That part of it is amusing. Okay, enough food for the troll. And, yeah, unfed, they tend to move on, so to speak.
Denali wrote on July 24, 2007 8:57 PM:Jake,you wouldn't be the same Jake from my high school years
dono wrote on July 24, 2007 9:24 PM:that sat alone every lunch period talking to himself?
Wow, Gonzo is busted yet again. I mean you would think he was in charge of the office supplies rather than the management of the U.S. Dept of Justice. He is a lawyer, right. Yet he doesnt seem to read memos under his own name. As Judge Judy says 'if it doesnt make sense, it isnt true...'
Al in Austex wrote on July 24, 2007 9:36 PM:There is much more to be revealed , and sooner rather then later- Yes Abu Gonzales looked extremely startled by the Sen Sheldon Whitehouse question regarding the VEEP's involvement with on going DOJ investigations. Whitehouse had a copy of the original Addington documents- I betcha! And you can count on moles in the Cheney Operation , and you can counton more not less copies of documents that incriminate the OVP /Congressional /Contractors w/bribes RICO that has been ongoing. Cheney gave out some juicy contracts to Brent Wilkes & Mitchell Wade. This is all one piece of larger narrative of corrupted politicians being bought off by Abramoff & others.But it particularly pertains to corrupt official selling off lucrative contracts to the highest bidders.KBR in Iraq for one example.There are many known & unknown deals that have been cut by convicted felons to give up there fellow War Profiteers- Cunningham , Abramoff and many ,many others.Why the OVP wanted access to the OMB -because maybe thats where a lot of what Lam was looking at was coming from - I betcha.
JimmyLaSalle wrote on July 24, 2007 9:50 PM:This is starting to look like one really big RICO indictment that will come crashing down on BushCo.
Smart prosecutors never ask questions that they do not have the answers for already . Fitzgerald,Lam, Leahey , Whitehouse, Feingold and many others are all smart prosectors -at one time in their career or another.
And its not just the prosecutors -don't forget that the Chief of Station FBI San Diego has already said that the USA 's firings were political. There are many careers that have been destroyed by Turd Blossom's Plot -these individuals are giving testimony against BushCo - I betcha !
This whole corrupt enterprise known as BushCo is shaking at its very foundations now. Stay tuned this is going to be real fun to watch -like one of those high rise buildings being taken down with precison - FIRE IN THE HOLE !
That little man is guilty. I hope he gets hit by a bus.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 10:11 PM:JakeD: "... whether the "foreign power" in question is an unconditional signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Convention(s)."
Totally irrelevant.
The question isn't whether torture is prohibited or illegal; it is whether waterboarding is torture.
As usual, you cannot answer with a straight "yes" or "no" without trying to change the question and add conditions.
Just like Gonzales.
So, here is the question again: would waterboarding of an American citizen by a foreign enemy of the US be torture?
"Now your turn, YES or NO, have you stopped beating your wife?"
Not the same type of question by any stretch of the imagination.
Boy, the standards at "Stanford Law" must have been especially low the years you were (allegedly) in school.
Roberta wrote on July 24, 2007 11:56 PM:Since I couldn't follow the hearings today, I watched all the posted videos one after another, no time in between.
Aside from all the outrage, astonishment, fear, and worry that I share with those who have expressed them above, there's something huge that hit me about 15 minutes into the clips: Gonzales thinks he's going to get away with it.
I certainly deeply hope that he WON'T get away with anything, but his tone of voice, the smirking expressions, the condescension in his responses--there's something in him that makes him think this is just an exercise, and as soon as they're finished with these pesky hearings, Bush, Cheney, and he can get back to business as usual with the rest of the gang.
Simple denial, sociopathology, psychopathology, or merely idiocy makes him come across as if he's going to skate on this. And I really think he believes it. The mind is a scary thing.
anon wrote on July 25, 2007 12:07 AM:...This is starting to look like one really big RICO indictment that will come crashing down on BushCo....
Please. Stop with RICO stuff. Sure, maybe they deserve RICO indictments but other than the Key West Police department, I can't think of any successful RICO cases. They law isn't written or interpreted to deal with widespread political corruption and it's notoriously hard to get a conviction. I don't think we should pin any hopes on a RICO investigation. And, hey, who's going to handle a multi-year RICO investigation/prosecution? Gonzales? Please.
Yes, I think there's lots of Bush/Cheney criminal activity. Yes, I think they are organized somewhat like a mafia family (or a rouge CIA department.) But, no, I don't think RICO laws are going to take them down. In fact, at this point, I suspect _they_ would be in favor of a long term RICO investigation run by the current DoJ.
rickdog wrote on July 25, 2007 1:51 AM:Yes, Gonzales signed the cover page and the rest was inserted afterwards. It's the same process that happened with the Justice Dept's manual on voting laws - all of the rules that were broken pertaining to the bogus investigations of Dem wrong-doing leading up to the election were stricken. Gonzales really looked surprised when confronted with this, he really didn't know, it wasn't his work. The OVP are writing the rules and they are serving Gonzo up on a silver platter to shield their own culpability.
Al in Austex wrote on July 25, 2007 5:49 AM:Anon
Kat wrote on July 25, 2007 11:28 AM:Okay I am not a lawyer - (don't even play one on the "Internets") But whay couldn't a Special Prosecutor /Independent Counsel be appointed by the Congress to pursue RICO against BushCO? It seems that Fitzgerald already has implicated the OVP in the Brewster Jennings outting by Libby. Didn't Sen Specter suggests an independent prosecutorial entity look at this whole stemy, stinking ,pile of corruption ?This whole mess has common criminal threads -connect the dots -as it were,
Please do not waste time and space with questions and answers to the one and only.
Just the Facts Maam wrote on July 25, 2007 1:39 PM:Haven't you folks figured it out yet?
If anything, against all odds, happens to Gonzo, Bush will just pardon him.
So why should he worry?
Vulture Breath wrote on July 25, 2007 1:55 PM:We need to clone Sheldon Whitehouse stat. The dude obviously has moles planted at DOJ. We need to populate the government with Sheldons.
voter wrote on July 25, 2007 2:17 PM:Interesting and insightful comments from those of you take politics seriously.Thank you!
voter wrote on July 25, 2007 2:17 PM:Interesting and insightful comments from those of you take politics seriously.Thank you!
voter wrote on July 25, 2007 2:18 PM:Interesting and insightful comments from those of you take politics seriously.Thank you!
Bill wrote on July 25, 2007 3:42 PM:How could any US Attorney taking calls from multiple US Departments have any time left over to focus on legal proceedings? Over four hundred people were authorized to meddle with US Attorneys? That's a prescription for ruining the effectiveness of DOJ, nothing less.
OMG wrote on July 25, 2007 6:01 PM:Sheldon Whitehouse/Chuck Schumer were fantastic; I did not know Arlen Spector changed parties; on Fox Noise; he had (D) listing? Remember how the administration sold Gonzo as the first and how could anyone not confirm him; slap in the face to all of the first.
OMG wrote on July 25, 2007 6:02 PM:Sheldon Whitehouse/Chuck Schumer were fantastic; I did not know Arlen Spector changed parties; on Fox Noise; he had (D) listing? Remember how the administration sold Gonzo as the first and how could anyone not confirm him; slap in the face to all of the first.