Attorney-gate could get interesting

<p>Defense-contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty with Congressman Duke Cunningham in the bribery investigation spear-headed by fired US Attorney Carol Lam.</p>

<p>Guess what Mitchell Wade’s very first government contract was? A $140,000 contract in July 2002 to supply “software development services” to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.</p>

<p>A month later, Wade purchased a $140,000 yacht for Congressman Cunningham.</p>

<p>Two months later, in Sept 2002, he made his first big score: a $250 million GSA contract.</p>

<p>Congressman Henry Waxman has asked the White House for information regarding Wade’s contract with Cheney’s office:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=179787[/url]”>http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=179787&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What’s that little phrase in the Constitution, racking my brains, ah, yes, “high crimes and misdemeanors”? :)</p>

<p>Nah! Only lying about sex counts as a high crime and misdemeanor.</p>

<p>Oh well, Hill will be Pres before all this gets resolved, so I wouldn’t get too all hot and bothered…</p>

<p>Yes, obstruction, delay, and trying to run out the clock is a favorite Republican combo these days. It’s being noticed.</p>

<p>“It’s being noticed”–well, that’s great then: I’m sure the 50% of people who say they will never, under any circumstances, vote for Mrs. Clinton will surely change their minds once they get wind of the delay tactics in the Gonzales scandal.</p>

<p>Attorney-gate is only the tip of the iceberg. As a result of it, people are finding out how much White House business (some of it highly questionable) is being done through non-government servers in apparent violation of the laws regarding presidential records. </p>

<p>It’s going to hurt the Republicans badly. If they try to get around the records laws by claiming all these communications are personal, not work-related, they waive any right to executive privilege over them…and have to explain why people are spending so much time on personal/political email during work hours.</p>

<p>I love how the self proclaimed political geniuses think they are so clever by adding the suffix “gate” to the end of any current political controversy. This somehow allegedly elevates the situation to a partisan deal breaker in the upcoming election. Somehow anything the liberals come up with that is aimed directly at the current administration will magically erase or trump all the Clinton"gates" from the past. ;)</p>

<p><a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIyNGU4MjdhYWIzNWE1ODNlMWQ3NzQwMzdiOGU3YmE=[/url]”>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIyNGU4MjdhYWIzNWE1ODNlMWQ3NzQwMzdiOGU3YmE=&lt;/a&gt;
This is a lengthy article analyzing the issue with regard to Carol Lam. It’s clear from the documentation that her performance was considered below par long before the Cunningham case. I’m sure that the Democrats would love to find a “smoking gun” but I think they’ll have to look somewhere else in this case.</p>

<p>I’d like to add that I find it pathetic that both Representatives and Senators are spending so much time on this kind of political issue when there are real problems this country is facing. I don’t feel that the people should be paying their salaries for this kind of gamesmanship. They should be doing something real or get a job. If they have so much spare time, why don’t they volunteer to clean up facilities at Walter Reed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow. Just for kicks I googled the word “Clintongate”. Try it. This will be hard to trump…:)</p>

<p>(Many of the gates were open to both Bill and Hill.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, duh. Not in the first 3000 copies of the same e-mail released by Justice. We’ll have to see where this leads as the Bush administration drips out the documents.</p>

<p>BTW, even the first relesase, there was a e-mail saying that “we have a real problem with Lam”. Date of the e-mail? The day after she notified Justice of her search warrantes for Foggo and Wilkes.</p>

<p>BTW, in addition to not prosecuting enough migrant workers, I understand that she also violated administration policy by not prosecuting enough gay people.</p>

<p>There is enough of a paper trail since 2004 to demonstrate that Lam was dismissed for not meeting the expectations of the job – as opposed to the notion that she was dismissed for pursuing Cunningham – to take the “gate” out of “attorney-gate.” This is a political position, and if an appointee does not meet the political expectations of the role, he/she should not expect to remain in the position. The main premise of this thread is that there is a scandal brewing which would further tank the administration. That’s a false expectation, imo.</p>

<p>Might be a false expection. Might not.</p>

<p>We have to see what is contained in the missing 18 days of e-mails. What is contained in the White House e-mails. What information is held by DOJ officials taking the 5th Amendment.</p>

<p>It is probably just a coincidence that six of the eight fired Attorneys had criminal corruption cases against Republicans underway or had failed to bring indictments against Democrats.</p>

<p>You’re right, idad. We also have to find out why Gonzales felt the need to tell bald lies about his involvement in this “non-scandal.” It’s very weird that he would deny that he was involved if indeed there was nothing untoward going on…especially given that the documents revealed that he WAS involved.</p>

<p>The part that mystifies me is why one of the senior members of the AG’s office, Goodling, says she would take the 5th if called to testify. You can’t just take the 5th because you don’t want to testify, or because you might say something that would reflect badly on a colleague. The
5th is supposed to protect us from having to participate in our own prosecution, right? What on earth could she be afraid of being prosecuted for? </p>

<p>She is perfectly within her rights to take the 5th. But if she believes she may have committed a crime, why should we allow her to continue to be employed by - of all offices! - the Justice Department ??</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>With respect to the US Attorney positions, in a word: bullfeathers.<br>
The history and tradition of these positions is that partisanship stops outside the office door, for USA’s of both political parties, many of whom have served presidents from both parties. One of the administration’s chief complaints with at least one of the fired attorneys is that he didn’t pursue bogus “election fraud” charges. Feh. </p>

<p>Hanna, I agree. They keep changing their stories as new information comes out rendering the previous story line untenable. The stench of corruption is unmistakeable. And all roads lead to Rove.</p>

<p>“What on earth could she be afraid of being prosecuted for?”</p>

<p>Conspiracy to obstruct justice would be my first guess. She was the liaison between the DOJ and the White House (aka Rove). So even though she was too junior to make decisions, she may have been smack in the middle of the information exchange. </p>

<p>“But if she believes she may have committed a crime, why should we allow her to continue to be employed by - of all offices! - the Justice Department ??”</p>

<p>Isn’t she on leave? I’m pretty sure she isn’t working there right now.</p>

<p>A more interesting question is why this administration puts such young people with such unremarkable credentials right into the nerve center of Washington power. They did that in Iraq, too.</p>

<p>“Conspiracy to obstruct justice would be my first guess. She was the liaison between the DOJ and the White House (aka Rove).”</p>

<p>Yup. And now we know (according to Sampson) that plans for the firing were approved at least as high up as Harriet Miers, the President’s counsel, and the e-mails say Rove. So IF there was a conspiracy to obstruct justice, we know for certain that the conspiracy reached the upper echelons of the White House.</p>

<p>I would add that forcing Alberto Gonzales to resign from the federal government would, in itself, make these hearings worthwhile. </p>

<p>Mr. Gonzales has been at the epicenter of some of the most dangerous policy decisions in the history of our constitutional government. Authorization of torture. Authorization of warrantless search and seizure of phone and financial records of US citizens. Firing US Attorneys to derail political investigations.</p>

<p>Gonzales may play Mickey the Dunce, but his performance in office suggests a very dangerous public official. Good riddance.</p>

<p>Actually, Hanna, Ms. Goodling’s credentials are quite remarkable. Undergrad degree from Messiah University, followed by law school at Regent University (founded by Pat Robertson). </p>

<p>But maybe not so remarkable for this administration. According to their website, there are 150 Regent U grads serving in the Bush administration:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm[/url]”>http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;