Could Pete Domenici Be The Next Ted Stevens

As Alaska and much of the nation is well aware of, ex-Sen. Ted Stevens is now a convicted felon, thanks to his undisclosed bribes from the oil industry. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) isn't as well known outside his homestate, but that could soon change if a Federal Grand Jury's probe of him turns out to find what many observers suspect he may be guilty of in association with the politically-motivated firings of several U.S. Attorneys.

From TPM Muckraker:

The federal grand jury is investigating whether Domenici and other political figures attempted to improperly press Iglesias to bring a criminal prosecution against New Mexico Democrats just prior to the 2006 congressional midterm elections, according to legal sources close to the investigation and private attorneys representing officials who prosecutors want to question. Investigators appear to be scrutinizing Iglesias' firing in the context of whether he was fired in retaliation because Domenici and others believed that he would not manipulate the timing of prosecutions to help Republicans.

Previously, Domenici was severely criticized by two internal Justice Department watchdog offices, the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), for refusing to cooperate with their earlier probe of the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In part because of their frustration that Domenici and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, as well as several senior White House officials, would not cooperate with them, the Inspector General and OPR sought that a criminal prosecutor take over their probe. It is unclear whether Domenici will now cooperate with the criminal probe. Domenici's attorney, Lee Blalack, in an interview, declined to say what Domenici will do when he is contacted by investigators.

Domenici will most likely fight tooth and nail to avoid the clutches of the recently redeemed Justice Department. Pete wanted nothing to do with the initial report and by the way Iglesias' testimony went, it is likely because he doesn't want to confront the consequences of his actions. Everything was about partisan gain and combating Democrats with any and all means possible, even if it was illegal. The rule of law wasn't respected during the Bush years, so Domenici probably felt secure in what he was doing. Unfortunately for him, justice has a funny way of catching up with you, just ask Ted Stevens.

Pentagon Tells Interrogators To Shred Evidence

While President Bush and his minions have constantly told us that the United States does not torture, many of us know better. The international community certainly knows better. The Bush Administration should know better, but chooses to torture those they capture anyway. Now we have news that the Pentagon told its interrogators to destroy evidence of what exactly they did with their prisoners.

From The Huffington Post:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The Pentagon urged interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify about potentially harsh treatment of detainees, a military defense lawyer said Sunday.

The lawyer for Toronto-born Omar Khadr, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, said the instructions were included in an operations manual shown to him by prosecutors and suggest the U.S. deliberately thwarted evidence that could help terror suspects defend themselves at trial.

Kuebler said the apparent destruction of evidence prevents him from challenging the reliability of any alleged confessions. He said he will use the document to seek a dismissal of charges against Khadr.

Now I am all for prosecuting those that do harm against our soldiers and our country, but torturing them or those that are alleged to have done harm is highly unnecessary. It has already been proven over and over again that it doesn't work. Not only is it ineffective, but the practice goes against human decency and was outlawed by the Geneva Conventions (something Bush has no regard for). If there was evidence covered up, it shows that the Pentagon is fully aware of their actions and the consequences if definitive proof surfaced about their policy on torture.

Welcome To The Light Congressman Rohrabacher

I could hardly believe I was reading an epiphany of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's (R-CA) this weekend. The Congressional record, as it always records, took down his speech from February 26th of last month. Now for the most part, Republicans tend to commend their party's President, for the war, the economy and whatever else they see as good in their deluded little heads. Yet, on February 26th, something different happened for one deluded head, it saw a little bit of light.

From AfterDowningStreet:

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a
heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this
administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this
administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude
that the American people need to know what is being done and what
precedents are being set.

In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative
subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush
administration which I find deeply troubling.

The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has
shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious
that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence
or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that
this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
constitutional duties.

Obstructed Congress you say? Violated the separation of powers clause in the Constitution you say? Well Congressman, congratulations, you have entered the realm of reality. Do you have anything else to add while you are rightfully condemning George Bush?

In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the
bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to
that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly,
both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years
apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the
first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a
coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in
1995.

By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the
15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade
Center.

These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for
planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in
our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an
off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have
to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly
worth looking into.

I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry
Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to
see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had
foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City.

In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both
in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist
attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee
to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt
quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was ``case closed,
don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should
simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-
Yousef connection. ``Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic
laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for
congressional investigations and authority.

During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone
records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he
was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993.

The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone
calls to a row house in Queens, New York.

Well how about that, someone in the GOP Congressional caucus wanted to conduct an investigation into a possible link for the GWOT and was denied by the White House. Denied. I disagree with your first premise Congressman about the laziness. I do agree with your second premise however, that the White House has a disdain for Congressional authority because they believe that the Executive branch should be higher than the Congress and is not co-equal. You could be a Democrat, Republican or a Communist, but they aren't going to treat as their equal if you are anywhere but inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Even then, some people can be disregarded as well.

I don't know what kind of connection Ramsey Yousef had with Terry Nichols, but if the White House has their way, we'll never know. Now Congress, you should know what to do about this (*cough* impeachment *cough*) but I'm not holding my breath.

More Obstruction Of Justice From The White House

As we learn that one man in the White House has given up his appeal of being found guilty of obstruction of justice, another count can be levied against the White House. The last one was for uncovering the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame. This one is for destroying evidence of torture, despite being told by a judge not to erase the tapes.

From The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics[...].

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books _ and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."

Now President Bush is claiming that he only heard about the matter last week. This proves yet again that George is either lying or cannot control his White House. I'm gonna go with the former on this, the President had to know what was going on. His track record for telling the truth is far too f%*ked up to believe him now. I'd believe that he quit drinking cold turkey for twenty years before I'd take his word on not torturing people.

What Does Kerik Have On Giuliani?

That is the question in my head this morning. That common sense bug keeps biting me on the subject and I just can not figure it out. Despite claims from Kerik that the two don't talk much anymore (in public at least) Kerik is still using Giuliani and in more ways than one. With Bernie now known as an indicted man, he is raising money for his legal defense as one facing a criminal trial might try and do. It is the way he is going about that is just a little bit suspicious.

From The New York Times:

Mr. Kerik, in the face of his troubles, has carried himself with what many would view as characteristic hubris, making frequent television appearances over the last year to speak as an expert on a range of subjects, from fighting terrorism to the war in Iraq. And despite public statements that he has stayed away from Mr. Giuliani, he has done little, it seems, to distance himself from the former mayor or President Bush; there are several pictures of him with both men on the Web site for his consulting business and he has used a photograph of himself with the former mayor on a separate site set up to raise money for his legal defense.

Indeed, a section of the fund-raising Legal Defense Trust Web site titled “About Bernard Kerik” begins by citing Mr. Bush’s nomination of him to serve as Homeland Security secretary, but does not mention his quick, embarrassing withdrawal. And the consulting firm’s home page gives prominent placement to a remark from the president that predated the public humiliation that followed:

“Bernie Kerik is one of the most accomplished and effective leaders of law enforcement in America.”

Accomplished my ass, Kerik is shady figure at best. His strongest asset is that he knows how to utilize his ties to a media-branded 9/11 hero, Mr. America's Mayor. Kerik did absolutely nothing for New York and less than that when it comes to helping fight the ridiculous war in Iraq. He is a mob-connected, corrupt, lying criminal with absolutely nothing on his plate besides trying to save his hide in the face of the law.

Kerik's angle is that he and Rudy are buddies and nothing more. So what is it that allows Kerik to continue to promote their friendship without any resistance from Giuliani? What does he have on the Presidential aspirant?

Victor Rita Vs. Scooter Libby, Its All About Who You Know

Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, that is a fact. So was Victor Rita. A decorated soldier who served in Vietnam and the Gulf War got caught by lying to investigators, which led to a 33 month sentence in jail. He is still there, however Libby never saw the inside of a prison before Bush commuted his sentence. According to the President, the sentence was excessive, Libby had a lifetime of service to his country and his family had paid enough already and blah blah blah. So what about Victor Rita?

From Sentencing Law and Policy:

1. The parallel nature of the crimes. Like Lewis Libby, Victor Rita got caught up in a criminal investigation and ultimately was indicted on five felony counts based on allegations that he lied under oath as part of the investigation. And, like Libby, Victor Rita asserted his innocence and exercised his right to a jury trial. (Victor was convicted of all five counts at trial; Libby's was acquitted on one of five counts, but that may not matter much for sentencing purposes.)

2. The parallel personal history. Like Lewis Libby, Victor Rita is an atypical federal defendant because of his career in government service. Rita served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, received over 35 military metals and awards. Libby's pre-conviction resume is (equally?) impressive. The federal guidelines do not provide any formal breaks for government service or prior good works. But, with Booker making the guidelines advisory, federal judges have more discretion to consider these matters at sentencing (though Rita's sentencing judge decided just to follow the guidelines).

Since Victor Rita's crimes seems, in context, to be less serious than Lewis Libby's crimes, I view Rita's 33-month sentence as a possible benchmark for Libby's sentence. Moreover, I have heard that Judge Walton has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge, and so Victor Rita's 33 month sentence might even be viewed as just a floor for considering Libby's fate.

This post is from March and the author was wrong in the fact that Libby would get more time, he got three months less. Yet Bush deemed the sentence was excessive. Wouldn't that mean that Mr. Rita's term was also a bit too much? Obviously he does not have the connections to the President....and that is really all that counts.

Impeach Gonzales Now!

As Robert Greenwald's film points out, he is guilty of several crimes due to his testimony in front of Congress. False statements, perjury and obstruction of justice can be prosecuted in a court of law. Congress can take the first step and kick his ass to the curb.

Gotcha Goodling!

It was easy to see that Monica Goodling was up to no good as the liaison between the White House and the Attorney General's office. Pleading the fifth to avoid questioning by Congress was a dead giveaway, but it wasn't definitive proof. Just as she got an immunity deal to testify on the Hill, emails in the weekly document dump on Friday show she was possibly committing obstruction of justice.

From Crooks and Liars:

Another Friday, another document dump from the DOJ. As I was scanning through this set, I came across this one from Monica "I plead the Fifth" Goodling. Notice the instruction in boldface (see below the fold for full size image):

Yes, that's an instruction to delete documents. And notice the date: February 12, 2007. That's well after Congress began investigating this matter. I don't believe any subpoenas or document requests had yet been issued (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that), but it was pretty clear by then that document requests were likely.

It is possible that she was just careless and sloppy, but as a senior legal counsel....give me a break. She knew what she was doing. We are talking about the Bush Administration. Nothing is done by mistake when covering up their mess. That does not include foreign and domestic policy blunders of course. Since this was most likely deliberate while knowing that they were under investigation by Congress, it constitutes obstruction. I may not be a lawyer, and Goodling may have gone to a fourth tier law school, but I know, she knows and any lawyer does as well that Goodling committed a serious error.