When the justice system is used to promote political careers

When political operatives decide who gets prosecuted, what do we have? We have a government that is deeply corrupt, with no checks and balances.

In 2006 New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican, wanted Rep. Heather Wilson to be reelected. He figured it would be helpful if the US Attorney prosecuted some Democrats, but US Attorney David Iglesias said there wasn't enough evidence to pursue the voter fraud prosecutions desired by Domenici and Wilson. Domenici sent word to Karl Rove through Rove aid Scott Jennings.

Rove got the job done. A total of eight US Attorneys were fired, including San Diego's Carole Lam.




Karl Rove, Bush Officials Deeper in U.S. Attorney Firings Than They Admitted
August 12, 2009
By Robert Schlesinger
US News and World Report

So Karl Rove and the White House staff were more deeply involved with the infamous firings of federal prosecutors than they had previously acknowledged. Quel supris. I did get a nice chuckle from the New York Times story on the matter, though, where Rove's attorney is quoted as saying that there was "absolutely no evidence" that Bush's Brain and company did anything improper. That assertion is belied by the White House staff's actions and by logic.

The Times notes an internal White House E-mail noting plans to deny that New Mexico prosecutor David Iglesias had been fired because of Republican irritation over his pursuit of voter fraud cases and also to deny that any member of Congress had contacted the Justice Department to make such complaints. Both statements were flatly untrue. So if the Bush folk weren't doing anything wrong, why lie about it? (I suppose one answer is: They were talking to the public, they didn't know any better.)



Rove involvement in US attorney firing detailed

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House political adviser Karl Rove played a central role in the ouster of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, one of nine prosecutors fired in a scandal in 2006 over political interference with the Justice Department, according to transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday. Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was "very agitated" over U.S. Attorney David Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."



Testimony puts Rove at center of Justice firings
AP
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The U.S. attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., didn't see enough evidence when asked to prosecute some voter fraud cases in his state.

In Washington, however, then-White House political adviser Karl Rove was getting a different message and acting on it.

Transcripts of closed-door congressional testimony indicate that Rove played a central role in the ouster of David Iglesias, who was one of nine federal prosecutors fired in a series of politically tinged dismissals in 2006.

Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was "very agitated" over Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."

The committee released more than 5,400 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Miers and Rove. Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said the documents reveal that White House political officials were deeply involved in the firing of Iglesias and the other U.S. attorneys.

The documents show that staffers in Rove's office were actively seeking to have Iglesias removed after Republican figures in New Mexico complained that he was not pursuing voter fraud cases they wanted. In 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent an e-mail to another Rove aide saying, "I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY."

Miers testified that Rove relayed to her complaints about Iglesias from political figures in New Mexico but added that she could not recall whether Rove told her specifically that the prosecutor should be fired.

"My best recollection is that he was very agitated about the U.S. attorney in New Mexico," Miers testified. "It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem."...

Presidential Advance Manual--Let's just say we're both wrong

Nicole and Jeff Rank

The following is from a Slate.com August 20, 2007 article by Dahlia Lithwick regarding "tips for dealing with demonstrators from the Presidential Advance Manual."

"Late last week, the federal government settled a lawsuit with a pair of Texans who were arrested in 2004 for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July event in Charleston, W.Va. That's right, friends, $80,000 (of your taxpayer dollars) will be paid out to Jeff and Nicole Rank, whose suit against Gregory J. Jenkins—former deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance—has been dismissed.

"White House spokesman Blair Jones managed to turn lemons into lemonade with the statement last week that "the parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct." This is, of course, vintage Bush, gloriously reminiscent of that Simpsons episode in which Homer arrives late to collect Bart in the pouring rain after soccer practice, then lectures: "I know you're mad at me right now, and I'm kinda mad, too. I mean, we could sit here and try to figure out who forgot to pick up who till the cows come home. But let's just say we're both wrong, and that'll be that."

"...Lest you believe that the Big Brother sheet represents the full extent of the speech suppression, however, the manual provides that, "As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event."

"The Advance Manual's finest moments come in its urgent, earnest drive to protect not just the television cameras but also the president himself from the ugliness of the dread "demonstrators." Certainly, "if it is determined that the media will not see or hear" demonstrators, event staff can ignore them. But event staff must involve themselves in "designating a protest area preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route." In other words, all this suppression of dissent isn't just to create a puppet show for the cameras. It's also about sock puppets for the president, who—if he could just be shielded from the mean T-shirts—might still believe his approval ratings soar into the mid-90s. The Ranks' peaceful protest at the West Virginia state capitol somehow became an act of "trespassing" only because the president was there.

"It's disturbing enough to learn from the Advance Manual that the White House has adopted an official policy of shouting down or covering up dissenting viewpoints with large sheets in order to deceive Americans at home into believing the president is universally adored. But that this official policy also exists to protect the tender sensitivities of the president himself is beyond belief..."

http://www.slate.com/id/2172500/?GT1=10346