« Heffelfinger, Native Americans, and Voting Rights | Main | Shorter Fitz: No One Is Above the Law »

May 25, 2007

Comments

Marcy,

Have fun with Jane! Hug the poodles, too.
(Now to read your post.)

Marcy,

Have fun with Jane! Hug the poodles, too.
(Now to read your post.)

I do not think Harriet calling Pryor first is by itself demonstration of WH leadership on the Griffin appointment. It would have been possible that she and Gonzo talked between themselves and she just called Pryor first about their agreement.

However, it does demonstrate WH involvement in the process, which gets more interesting as more witnesses make their way up the Hill.

Per my count, the following people in the DoJ did NOT create a list of USAs to be fired:

Gonzales
McNulty
Goodling
Sampson

(that is, the AG; the DAG, who traditionally handles USA personnel matters; and the 2 evil flying monkeys who were designated in Gonzo's secret order to conduct purges/handle personnel)

So that means the DoJ personnel tasked with personnel matters did not create a list, but we have Harriet in the room when the implementation happens. As Leahy has been saying, we are forced to conclude the USA purge was a White House operation.

TO posters here at next hurrah (and ew of course), thanks for answering the FISA judge question a few posts back, I also have another question:

If Monica says she asked potential AUSA's about their political affiliations why did not one of the applicants who was not hired come forward and file suit for unfair hiring practices, or if they did, why have we not heard about it from them?

as an aside- ready your post abert fall- if you have not seen john stewart's daily show on this "chain of denial," check it out, it is really funny.

Harriet didn't fare too well with the Senators during her embarassing, abortive "appointment" to the Supreme Court. I bet she has even less affection for that body than the rest of the loyal Bushies and the Prez himself.

But telling Senators of your own party to buzz off? And the kind of Dems who could usually be counted on to vote with the GOP on many bills? After the Dems had won Congress?

These people aren't nearly as bright as they are made out to be, and that inclused Rove.

Speaking of Rove, what's he up to? Priming the pump for a recess AG appointment?

Eyesonthestreet--We actually have heard from some USA candidates. I remember reading that, probably in some of the McClatchy papers' reporting.

And of course the people who answered "Republican" or put GOP election experience on their resume knowing it would give them a leg up aren't going to be talking to anyone.

In addition, with some Dems she just went on what she had "heard" or what she gleaned from FEC contribution records, so in those cases the person wouldn't have known why they were passed over.

What is the justification for withholding those two emails between Sampson and Oprison?

Deadline Looms for Libby Sentence Recommendations

By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun
May 25, 2007

Prosecutors and defense lawyers for a former White House aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., face a deadline Friday to give their final recommendations on the sentence he should receive for his conviction on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the FBI.

However, the real cliffhanger at the sentencing hearing, set for June 5, is not what punishment Judge Reggie Walton imposes, but whether he allows Libby to remain free while pursuing his appeal.

[snip]

Libby faces a maximum possible sentence of 25 years in prison. However, lawyers not involved in the case said federal sentencing guidelines seem to call for 15 to 21 months of incarceration. Mr. Berman said there could be "a lot of flex" in the calculations, but not enough to allow the judge to impose probation instead of jail. "I would be shocked if the guidelines add up to allow for a non-prison sentence," the professor said.

Under a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Judge Walton has to consider the guidelines, but is not obligated to follow them. "He'd have to say, ‘I don't think the guidelines are appropriate under the circumstances,' and he'd have to explain," Mr. Berman said. Prosecutors would be free to appeal a sentence below the range and the defense could appeal one above it.

link

Mimikatz, thanks,

I guess I read that it is the AUSA candidates that should not have been asked the questions of "loyalty," because the AUSA's are under different hiring standards. This is a hiring issue, and ties into what is on the blogs about the hiring of Immigration Judges this morning.

I just can't believe there might not have been several "on-the-fence" candidates for the AUSA's positions that where not smart enough to know that being asked "loyalty" questions was against the law. In fact, I would guess that the really smart candidates were passed over. I hope we hear from them.


OT - but will you be live blogging Libby's sentencing (fingers crossed). Thanks EW.

EW, I think this is now about right. $64,000 question is why the hell did they go through these Rube Goldberg machinations? For the life of me, I can't figure it out. As youy know, I never bought off on the criminal process theory, they clearly didn't seem to give a tinker's damn about Pryor and Gonzales was on board even if his physical signature was not as of yet. There was an extreme amount of bizarre actions that they would have to know would look suspicious upon examination, especially when they already knew Dem control of Congress was on their doorstep. I am not sure this is a critical piece of the puzzle; but it is a fascinating one.

bmaz

The stories about Rove's early success as a political op in disqualifying voters makes me think that running the DoJ out of the White House was part of the 1000-year Reich/permanent Republican majority playbook.

If Rove controlled the authority to determine who could vote, or could raise credible threats that would discourage darker skinned and older voters, I believe he would regard that as a positive way to advance his agenda.

Albert Fall - Oh, I absolutely agree. I was perhaps a bit obtuse above. When I wondered why they went through the machinations, I was referring specifically to the Friday to Monday contretemps in relation to the Griffin appointment. EW and I kind of went back and forth for a couple of days as to the reason behind the Friday/Monday bogosity. I had just returned home from the longest and most mentally draining day I have spent in years down at the courthouse. As I look at it now, I was pretty vague and apologize about that. You are, of course, dead on about the grand diabolical plan.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad