A "no confidence" vote won't accomplish anything

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

The planned no confidence vote scheduled for next month on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is, quite frankly, an incredibly short sighted and timid response to one of the most destructive and corrupt members of the Bush administration. In addition to giving the Democrats a reason to say that they did something (which won’t result in a resignation or removal from office), it also gives republicans a reason to say that they distance themselves from the Bush administration without really accomplishing anything.

Now, of course it is ridiculous to us that any republicans can convince ANYONE that they are distancing themselves from the very administration who they (1) enabled (2) were the biggest cheerleaders for and (3) voted in lockstep with for nearly seven years now. And it is just as ludicrous for anyone to think that if Gonzales hasn’t resigned or stepped down yet that another symbolic and nonbinding vote will suddenly make him “see the light”.

Which makes it all the more imperative that nothing short of impeachment proceedings be commenced against Gonzales – and done quickly.

I have already stated the myriad of reasons why Gonzales not only will never resign but also why his removal from office is the biggest repudiation of everything this administration stands for. Even more than Rove, Gonzales is inextricably tied to Bush. Gonzales’ failures and actions are those of Bush. Period. From their days in Texas to his time as White House Counsel to Attorney General. As he goes, so goes Bush. As he goes down, so does the rationale for just about everything that this administration has done and has stood for (or against).

A “no confidence” vote gives republicans an easy way out, while impeachment is a win-win for the Democrats. It forces republicans to either stand with Mr. 28% or to take a meaningful stand against his closest advisor (whose popularity has got to be even lower than Bush’s). It also gives a bit of confidence back to the Democrats who, despite the excellent personal story told by my good friend thereisnospoon, still have much to prove in terms of standing up to the crimes, stubbornness and lies of the Executive Branch.

There certainly are enough reasons to impeach. There would certainly appear to be enough evidence to convict. And nothing short of conviction will remove Gonzales from office, and failure to convict would reflect poorly on the republicans, NOT the Democrats. Whether it is lying to Congress about warrantless wiretapping or lying to Congress about Senate Confirmations for US attorneys, or the recent revelations by Monica Goodling that he was “more involved than he let on” about his involvement with the US attorney firings – all are lies under oath.

All of the information that is just starting to come to light about HIS Justice Department’s potential obstruction of justice or helping to game the electoral system from the inside, these are things that should have him thrown out of office immediately. Alternatively, if he was “truly unaware” of what was going on, then he should be thrown out for being incompetent.

A new poll in Newsweek (currently 85,000 responses) has 85% indicating that he should have to step down. Clearly, there is overwhelming support to have him out of office. A “no confidence” vote will be scoffed at by him and by Bush. An article in the current Newsweek talks about the “politicizing of the Justice Department” (which is a start) after 9/11, and actually paints then Attorney General Ashcroft (and 30 other top DOJ officials) as one who stood up to the Bush administration. Those who are put in a very poor light? Gonzales and John Yoo.

Yoo’s Wikipedia and SourceWatch pages have dozens of links to his “work” and his ties to Gonzales regarding the torture memos. The Newsweek article goes on to indicate that it was Ashcroft who was advised what Yoo was advocating to Gonzales and Bush regarding the warrantless wiretapping program that led to the late night hospital raid by Card and Gonzales:

Yoo was increasingly seen as a rogue operator inside the Justice Department. Officials were suspicious of his ties to David Addington, counsel to Vice President Cheney. The vice president's office took a hard-line view that the executive branch should not be trammeled in the war on terror by legislators and bureaucrats. Yoo was "out of control," recalled a former Ashcroft aide.

---snip---

The bad feelings seemed to come to a head in 2003, when there was a vacancy to head OLC. At the White House, Gonzales wanted Yoo, and was so insistent that he took the matter to Bush. According to the former Ashcroft aide who did not want to openly discuss matters involving the president, Bush was surprised to learn that Ashcroft opposed Yoo as a renegade. A compromise was reached: a conservative lawyer named Jack Goldsmith was put in charge of OLC.

But the fight was really just beginning. Carefully reviewing Yoo's carte blanche memos, Goldsmith became convinced that the Justice Department had been signing off on memos approving initiatives, like wiretapping and water boarding, that were not legally supportable. Goldsmith took the matter to Ashcroft's deputy, Comey, and to Patrick Philbin, Comey's No. 2. Philbin's sterling conservative legal résumé tracked Yoo's—they had both clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas at the U.S. Supreme Court. But Philbin and Goldsmith were adamant. The Justice Department could no longer sign off on the wiretapping program, which had been expanded to wiretap more U.S. residents. "This was not ideological," recalled a former Ashcroft aide. "This was about the difference between pushing the limits to the edge of the line and crossing the line."

Once again, Gonzales’ hand was in on this. Torture, wiretapping. “Not legally supportable”. We know that Bush and Gonzales don’t care about suggestions, letters, warnings and calls for resignation. We can be assured that a “no-confidence” vote will be met with derision and scoffed at. And it will give republicans cover without having to be accountable on any meaningful level

Nothing short of impeachment will do. Nothing short of it is acceptable.

In memory of whom and what we have lost

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

Tomorrow is a day that most Americans will stop and remember those who have died serving our country. Even if it is in between hot dogs, beers or while firing up the grill, most will (hopefully) think of tomorrow as more than the “unofficial start of the summer” or another long weekend.

Just around 1,000 US troops in Iraq have died since last Memorial Day – 1,000 more people who have given their lives for what has become most obviously based on greed and lies, not to mention an unmitigated disaster on every level with no plan or end in sight. And as so eloquently done in Doonesbury, there will be many lists, memorials, thoughts, speeches and prayers given to not only those 1,000 fallen soldiers, but also the roughly 2,500 others before them, and (hopefully) the countless wounded troops, civilians and civilians who have lost their lives.

Sadly, there will be scant notice of the other things that we have lost – the other things that have served to defend this country for over 200 years and have been casualties in this disgrace of a “War On Terror™”. And what I want to do is pay tribute to these things – these ideals, these tenets, these basic fundamental issues that have been sacrificed so willingly (just like the troops) by those who treat the United States Constitution as mere suggestions.

Let us remember habeas corpus, which our very own Commander Guy felt wasn’t really necessary.

We should mourn the loss of our world standing, which right after 9/11 was probably at record highs. Now, thanks to “fighting them over there”, we are now looked upon as arrogant hypocritical aggressors.

We should also not forget our once high moral ground, which was lost with a whimper as then-White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (and his underlings) crafted ways that this administration could torture detainees.

Also lost is hope that our government will be there in our time of need. We no longer can assume that in a national emergency, even one that was predicted and clear as day, an entire region was destroyed, leaving people hungry, stranded and left for dead.

Privacy is another casualty that we should remember this weekend. Whether it be the right to make personal private medical decisions without government intervention, or whether it is the knowledge that we can’t peacefully protest without being subject to illegal wiretapping.

For the first time in generations, we can long wistfully for the days when people thought that they would be leaving a world for their children that would give them an opportunity for a better lifestyle. Add this to the fact that we can look fondly on the days when people actually thought that this country was on the right track as opposed to the wrong track.

And one of the most recent casualties, we should bow our heads in a moment of silence for the faith that their elected leaders would do the right thing when it comes to truly supporting the troops in Iraq.

Let us hope for two things this weekend – first that these ideals and basic tenets that we have lost are not lost forever. And second, that each and every one of our troops stays safe and returns quickly (unfortunately, not soon enough).

Are you going to let them bomb Iran too?

Now that the troublesome fight over Iraq funding is safely behind you, at the expense of three months wasted that could at least have gone towards some semblance of a domestic agenda (you know, so at least you have something that you can say that you accomplished), Iran is now back in the news.

Cheney reportedly wants to bomb them again. Bush wants tougher sanctions again.

Are you going to sit back and let this happen too?

Frankly, on the heels of the most stunning of capitulations, why shouldn't Bush and Cheney push the envelope more? They just won first prize in the 2007 Iraq sweepstakes, and figure that they should see what more they can get here.

Are we going to hear "oh, well....we tried to stop them, but there was nothing that we can do"?

Are we going to hear "they shouldn't be doing this and we will make them get approval after they rain hell on Iran"?

Are we going to hear anything at all? That is, anything other than, "all options are on the table"?

Are you going to stop them from doing this?

Or will you tell us that "it really isn't as bad as it seems" once we are too far gone with another country that we can't handle armed and military conflict with?

Don't fuck this one up too.

Not "misled" or "inaccurate". LIED.

Front paged at My Left Wing

Republicans had absolutely no problems saying it about Clinton. Remember how “Clinton lied under oath” was all that we heard for the better part of two years (and the past 7)? So please – we can stop dancing around these terms. They are powerful terms, and should not be used lightly. But they are accurate terms. Deadly accurate.

McNulty didn’t “mislead” the Senate – he knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and exactly what he was hiding. And if he didn’t lie, then Goodling lied today. And I am pretty sure that lying should destroy her immunity deal.

Gonzales didn’t give “inaccurate” statements to Congress. The man spent the better part of a week being coached on his answers. And yet he still knowingly gave answers that he knew were untrue. He “didn’t recall” being in a meeting that was only the most important meeting about the US Attorney purge? These are only the top 93 US prosecutors who report to Gonzales. He “didn’t know”? Bullshit!! He LIED. To Congress. Not once but twice (at least).

Five million emails were “misplaced”? All by one Karl Rove – the same man who is knee deep in the US Attorney purge, the caging scheme run by his protégée Tim Griffin (who was pushed through as US Attorney), the outing of a CIA agent and her front company, the firing of David Iglesias, author of election fraud, THE math, connected to Jack Abramoff and lord knows what other scummy criminal acts. No – they were deleted. On purpose. While there was a document preservation order from Patrick Fitzgerald. That is lying about obstructing justice. Not “deleting”. Not “misplacing”.

Condi Rice didn’t make “misleading statements” to Congress about Iran’s overtures back in 2003. She knew damn well what was going on. And knowing that something is true yet willfully saying the opposite in order to convince those who you are talking to is a big fat lie. No other way to put it.

Mushroom clouds? Lies. Iraq linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda? Lies. Making progress? Lies. “Nobody would have thought….? Lies Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush. All Liars. Mark Foley. Dennis Hastert. Bill Frist. Tom DeLay. Jack Abramoff. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar and liar. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer, George “Slam Dunk” Tenet. Every single one of them, liars.

It’s time to stop pussy footing around and step up to the plate. There were no “misstatements” or “misunderstandings” or even “miscommunications”, “errors”, “misplacements” “misleading” or anything other than lies.

Period. Start calling it, and them, what they are.

The story that should bring down the republican party

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

But only if it gets told, gets told loudly, clearly, simplistically and repetitively. It is still unfolding, even though it has been happening for years. It is pervasive, deep, goes against the very first and most basic premise of democracy and is a concerted effort by many individuals and organizations throughout the republican party, its affiliated “associations” as well as many levels of government whose primary purpose is to ensure that this most basic premise of democracy is not subverted.

The story, of course, is election fraud. Gaming the electoral system from the inside. To unfairly favor republicans. Favors and promotions for those who go along. Demotions, firings and blacklisting of those who don’t. Nonexistent charges of voter fraud and threats or coercion for these charges to be investigated. Illegal redistricting. Petty lawsuits against the Voting Rights Act. Voter ID laws that border on illegal, if not overtly illegal. Conflict of interest between party “reelection officials” and Secretary(ies) of State. Get accustomed to hearing about it, prepare yourself to say it. And not just things that can be dismissed such as exit poll discrepancies or hackable voting machines. The real deal. The whole enchilada.

It doesn’t get any lower than this. Using any means necessary to get and remain in power.

I first mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, and then again in much more detail last week. And even since last week, there has been a detailed piece from ePluribus Media on the DOJ’s Voting Rights Section’s Special Litigation Counsel Robert Popper and his major conflicts of interest with respect to voting rights, the Help America Vote Act and the Voting Rights Act.

There has been an article by McClatchy about Hans Von Spakovsky and his connection to voter ID laws, his attempts to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter ID laws - research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda, as well as other actions and campaigns to suppress voter rights of minorities. Oh, by the way, Hans Von Spakovsky was a civil rights lawyer in the Justice Department and a recess appointment to the Federal Elections Commission.

And that is in just three days. Who knows what the rest of this week will bring in terms of surprises.

There is still talk about the US Attorney purge being “political”. And even though that is, on the most basic level, true – it goes way way beyond that. To describe it as mere politics is to justify it as sleazy but legal. However, to describe it as it is blatant and concerted actions to promote those who helped and punish those who hindered efforts to suppress minority votes or influence the election in favor of republicans is more powerful, more truthful – and more scary.

The evidence is mounting at a furious pace. We have someone (Von Spakovsky) who is linked to voter suppression efforts within the republican party not only put in a position as a civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department, but on the goddamn Federal Elections Commission.

You have Robert Popper – an attorney with a notorious and detailed history of bringing (many times baseless) lawsuits in order to target minority voters and districts as the Voting Rights Section’s Special Litigation Counsel. You have little to no cases or investigations into voter suppression since 2001, yet numerous suits and investigations into voter rolls that weren’t properly purged.

You have Tim Griffin, a man who was responsible at the Republican National Committee for “caging” activities that suppressed minority voters who were stationed in Iraq, which he is currently under investigation for, promoted (at Karl Rove’s request and hidden from Congressional investigations) to US Attorney.

You have not one, not two, not three but at least four US attorneys OTHER THAN GRIFFIN whose jobs depended on whether they brought charges of voter fraud or charges in general against Democrats close to Election Day 2006.

You have the White House itself - the Big Cheese, home of both “the Decider” AND “Commander Guy” – including Karl Rove’s office AND Alberto Gonzales’ office discussing the desire to pursue voter fraud cases against Democrats in New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania a mere few weeks before the 2006 elections.

It goes back even further than this. Phone jamming in NH tied to Abramoff, the NH Republican Party and Tom DeLay. Redistricting in TX in between census periods and violations relating to the redistricting. Voting machines that were used even after they were decertified as unsafe. Willful acts to destroy and disqualify Democratic voter registration cards and applications – by the Secretary of State of the state that “swung” the 2004 election, by voter registration groups associated with the republican party. Thousands – tens of thousands purged from voter rolls in Georgia, Florida and other states.

None of this being investigated.

Who knows how many votes were cast but not counted. I have heard numbers that were in the millions, but I can’t vouch for the accuracy of these numbers. Who knows how many people did not get the chance to vote because of being purged, suppressed or illegally challenged by republican party operatives? Again, none of this investigated.

We do know one thing. A very strong pattern has emerged and continues to emerge. A pattern that touches state republican party officials, national republican party officials, the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the very groups whose purpose is the HELP voting rights and ensure that all votes are counted – the Voting Rights Section, the Civil Rights Section, the Federal Elections Commission.

All of this done by design. By the republican party. At all levels.

It is a simple story to tell, as ugly and complicated as it is to untangle. The republican party has used its power to undermine and suppress the votes of those most likely to vote Democratic in order to keep power. It should spell doom for the republican party for decades to come.

Is anyone brave enough to call a duck a duck, take this story and give it the exposure it deserves?

Election Fraud. Or as Rove says, "THE Math"

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

I apologize up front for the length of this post. However, I decided that if I were to try and tackle this issue in a serious and relatively comprehensive manner, that I would do it right. This by no means is exhaustive and I am sure there is much that I have not included here, but I think that it certainly gives a large enough framework to support my views and provide “food for thought” for others.

And yes, I know that I left some stuff out, and that I am not highlighting exit polls or the hacking of Diebold machines – that is by design. I am looking bigger picture than that. If you are looking for “proof that Ohio was stolen”, then you will likely be disappointed. However, if you are looking into how Ohio 2004 could have happened and how it nearly happened again in 2006, then you will hopefully enjoy this.

***************

After 2000, I thought something was up (as did many others). But I thought it was more related to the butterfly ballot and a horrific Supreme Court decision that couldn’t even be cited as precedent and would ultimately be the impetus for change in the right direction. Man was I wrong. As the next few years passed, I became more and more suspicious, but after the 2004 election, there were too many others that said, “move along, nothing to see here” or “it’s always been like this, so what are you going to do about it?”

And as more and more information came out, whether it was through the most excellent Brad Blog, Talking Points Memo, ePluribus Media or even through Black Box Voting (which, while certainly far from perfect, it did keep this issue out in the open) and the reports of exit polls being so far off for the first time ever that it defied all logic and reason, there was more and more suspicion.

But it was really just that – suspicion and a growing suspicion. However, the US Attorney purge has really opened the door to a number of, frankly shocking, issues, events and “coincidences” that certainly go a long way towards confirming a concerted effort by the republican party (as well as the RNC itself), this administration, the Department of Justice, Diebold and republican linked organizations to either manipulate the votes, disenfranchise large numbers of probably Democratic voters, change the makeup of voting districts, purge the voting rolls and otherwise skew the elections or give the republicans a distinct advantage.

Hence, I am not using the terms “voter fraud” or “voting fraud” – but am consciously using “election fraud” – which to me indicates that there was intent to skew the actual election process in favor of republicans. I will try to keep the tin foil hattery to a minimum and not provide any of my personal thoughts or assertions. But what I hope to do here is to provide some of the major pieces to a puzzle that to me would certainly give a large amount of evidence that something massive was going on with respect to ensuring the “permanent republican majority” that Tom DeLay and Karl Rove envisioned.

The US Attorney Purge

I’ll start with this, because it is the most recent, and instead of the allegations and statistics that have been used in the past, this shows (at least to me) a more than coincidental connection between the replacement of US Attorneys and their willingness to pursue voter fraud cases and other cases that would “assist” republicans in certain elections which were thought to be close. I am not going to provide the background of the purge, but will indicate that there were a few things that should be noted:

• This was truly unprecedented. According to an article in Salon, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that indicated that between 1981 and 2006, only five of the 486 U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms, and none were fired for political reasons.;


• There were numerous options being considered between 2005 and 2006 with respect to the US Attorneys. At different points, there was talk about dismissing all 93 US Attorneys, dismissing 26 attorneys, other lists dismissing thirteen, nine, five, eight and seven attorneys;


• Approximately nine “battleground states” had their US Attorney on the list at some point, and as McClatchy reported earlier this week, ” In at least seven states, it now appears, U.S. attorneys were fired or considered for firing as Republicans in those states urged investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud.”;


• The PATRIOT ACT reauthorization in 2005 allowed for a change into how interim US Attorneys would be appointed, resulting in the ability for replacements to bypass Senate confirmation and serve until the end of the President’s term.

Let’s look at a few of these Attorneys:

Washington District Attorney John McKay, a man who received excellent performance reviews, was fired. And coincidentally, his dismissal is widely speculated to have been related to his not bringing (nonexistent) voter fraud charges in the 2004 Gubernatorial election.

New Mexico District Attorney David Iglesias was added to the list of attorneys to be fired on Election Day 2006 after being threatened by NM Senator Pete Dominici (a republican) for not bringing corruption charges against a Democrat before the 2006 election (specifically public corruption charges of Albuquerque's Metropolitan Courthouse construction). Dominici reached out to Karl Rove directly in order to have Iglesias dismissed after both he and NM Representative Heather Wilson leaned on Iglesias to bring indictments before Election Day 2006.

Arkansas District Attorney Bud Cummins, the one US Attorney that Alberto Gonzales and his team backtracked from earlier assertions of "performance related dismissal", was replaced with Tim Griffin, who worked under Karl Rove at the Republican National Committee. Griffin had a large role in “caging” during the 2004 elections:

Another of the most important reasons why Griffin's appointment deserves a harder look is from his involvement in "caging," which "appeared to be" a Republican Party effort to challenge the ballots of thousands of voters in largely African American communities through mailings targeting those who were serving in Iraq. Since they were stationed out of country, they were not at the address to which the mailings were sent, and the letters were returned as "not deliverable," establishing "cause" to strike the intended recipients from the voter roles. Who sent the originating email with respect to this caging "program"? Tim Griffin.

Griffin is now being investigated FOR VOTER FRAUD for his role in the caging scheme. Additionally, Murray Waas recently reported that the White House was concealing emails that linked Rove to Griffin’s hiring:

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

New Jersey District Attorney Chris Christie was only on the November 1, 2006 list, which would appear to be a “cover” for other US Attorneys that were to be fired. Christie seems to be one who wouldn’t make any list that would be penalizing those who weren’t “loyal Bushies”, since he was a "Bush Pioneer" in 2000, “raising” over $100,000 for Bush. Additionally, the 2006 NJ Senate race was a pretty close one for much of the year, and during September 2006, there were leaks to the press about a corruption probe into Democratic Senator Menendez. While this was meant to give Kean a push, it was not only largely dismissed by the Philadelphia Inquirer at the time but nothing ever came of the probe. My guess is that Christie was put on the list as a cover for some of the other attorneys and there was little to no intention to ever fire him, but it could also be due to the fact that his probe into Menendez didn’t result in Kean winning the election.

Western Missouri District Attorney Todd Graves was dismissed in March 2006, replaced by Bradley Schlozman (a man with no prosecutorial experience). Schlozman was a political appointee to the Justice Department’s Voting Rights Section (remember this group as I will discuss it in detail below) before being appointed as replacement for Graves. The reason behind this change? Voter fraud prosecutions:

Then, in March 2006, Graves was replaced by a new US attorney -- one who had no prosecutorial experience and bypassed Senate confirmation. Bradley Schlozman moved aggressively where Graves had not, announcing felony indictments of four workers for a liberal activist group on voter registration fraud charges less than a week before the 2006 election.

Republicans, who had been pushing for restrictive new voting laws, applauded. But critics said Schlozman violated a department policy to wait until after an election to bring voter fraud indictments if the case could affect the outcome, either by becoming a campaign issue or by scaring legitimate voters into staying home.

Also recently reported by the McClatchy Washington Bureau was a story indicating the White House was urging the Justice Department to pursue voting fraud cases against Democrats in three states BEFORE the 2006 elections:

Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.

In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.

All in all, these are five examples of situations where the US Attorneys were directly involved in some actions around an election which had the potential to swing or impact an election. Those that went along kept their jobs or were promoted while those who did not were removed and replaced.

********************

The Voting Rights Section at the Department of Justice

I mentioned this above with respect to Western Missouri’s Attorney Bradley Schlozman. The issue here involves Schlozman, the Voting Rights Section’s (“VRS”) Special Counsel, Robert Popper and a host of others. But, consider that the Voting Rights Section is supposed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, protect minority rights in redistricting, make sure that voters are not disenfranchised and are able to have their votes counted. Makes sense, yes? Now consider the following (much of this can be found in a prior diary of mine):

In the Boston Globe article linked above, there was the following quote about Schlozman’s tenure at the Voting Rights Section:

There, he came into conflict with veteran staff over his decisions to approve a Texas redistricting plan and a Georgia photo-ID voting law, both of which benefited Republicans. He also hired many new career lawyers with strong conservative credentials, in what critics say was an attempt to reduce enforcement of laws designed to eliminate obstacles to voting by minorities.

"Schlozman was reshaping the Civil Rights Division," said Joe Rich , who was chief of the voting rights section until taking a buyout in 2005, in an interview. "Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."

With respect to Special Counsel Robert Popper, consider the following:

• Popper has vast experience with redistricting cases – but in a way that challenges old district lines in order to redraw them “more fairly” – focusing almost exclusively on redrawing largely minority districts (a 1996 case deals with the largely minority 12th district in New York;


• Other cases being pursued by the Voting Rights Section (signed by Alberto Gonzales and Robert Popper) target districts for “not properly eliminating ineligible voters from the voting rolls”. As opposed to making sure that voters CAN vote – they are focusing on cleansing (my word) the voting rolls – again, in districts that have had a large increase in Democratic registrations or are largely minority districts. This includes a questionable case in Alabama, cases in New Jersey, in Maine and Indiana all dealing with the purging of voter rolls or not using electronic voting machines;


• Over 50% of the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have been forced out in one way or another over the past two years;


• These attorneys were replaced largely with people affiliated with the Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association; and


• Less than half of these “new attorneys” have little to no experience in civil rights cases at all.

There are more examples in an excellent ePluribus Media story, including the following quote from one of the career attorneys who was forced out:

"Political appointees made it quite clear that they did not wish to draw on the expertise and institutional knowledge of career attorneys. Instead, there appeared to be a conscious effort to remake the Division's career staff."

A recent editorial in the LA Times contained this observation of the Justice Department under the Bush administration:

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

Given the numerous instances of reports asserting the destruction of Democratic party voter registrations in numerous states, as well as the numerous reports of irregularities around the country, none of these were pursued by the VRS. Yet, the VRS, under Popper, Schlozman and Gonzales, chose to pursue cases where it would curtail the rights of people to have their votes counted.

************************

2002 - New Hampshire Phone Jamming and Georgia’s “Miracle Win By Chambliss”

In 2002, John Sununu won a close Senate race. On Election Day 2002, there were charges of “phone jamming” the Democrats’ get out the vote efforts. While Sununu probably would have won even without this, there was ultimately the conviction of three NH Republican Party officials of violating Federal Communications Law:

[Charles] McGee and two other participants -- Republican National Committee regional political director James Tobin and GOP consultant Allen Raymond-- have been found guilty of criminally violating federal communications law. Tobin will be sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H.

It should be noted that right before the phone jamming scheme, there were two $5,000 contributions from Jack Abramoff clients as well as another $5,000 from Tom DeLay’s “Americans for a Republican Majority” PAC.

********************

This paled in comparison to what went on in Georgia in 2002. An article in the September 21, 2006 Rolling Stone by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. contained a discussion with a Diebold consultant who was involved with the Georgia election in 2002. Now, this was one of the first in which the Diebold machines were used, and was also the election where Saxby Chambliss came from a five to six point deficit the week of the election to win by seven points – a near statistical impossibility. While this was dubbed a “miracle”, there was much more to it than met the eye.

Essentially, as described by Christopher Hood (the former Diebold consultant), Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox basically “outsourced” the entire 2002 election process – the training, setting up of machines, counting the votes, etc. to Diebold. As Hood described, there were unapproved and unauthorized software patches put in around the time of the Georgia primary:

Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

---snip---

"It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

---snip---

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

All emphasis here is mine.

During 2003, A number of reports and presentations were made throughout the United States showing why the Diebold machines should not be certified for use in elections. I’ll also point out that California unanimously voted to have the Secretary of State decertify the machines in 2004, and was considering bringing charges against the firm related to use of these machines. However, the machines were still widely used during the 2004 elections.

*********************

2004 Texas Redistricting

For those who forget the gerrymandering of the Texas House Districts which was engineered by Tom DeLay, I’ll make brief mention of it here. Through DeLay’s two PACs (Texans for a Republican Majority and Americans for a Republican Majority), the newly republican Texas Legislature in 2003 tried to ram through a redistricting plan which was hotly contested by the Democrats.

The the redistricting case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, who partially overturned in 2006, and there were two walkouts by Democrats in the Texas Legislature – precluding a quorum from existing and allowing the redistricting to occur. The Justice Department ruled that this violated the Voting Rights Act. Republicans gained 4 or 5 seats from this redistricting alone.

2004 Election – Ohio. The “fruits” of their labor

Without beating this to death, there were so many issues with the 2004 election, I’ll just make mention of them – mainly since this is already getting long, many people already know of most of these and they really are more symptoms than the root cause of the larger point of the diary. But, I will provide links to these and a brief description of the “issues and irregularities” – pretty much all of which favored Bush and the republicans.

There was Ohio, and anything related to Ohio is not complete without Georgia10’s excellent writeup from January 2005 and eRiposte’s roundup of overall voter suppression/intimidation/suppression items from 2004.

I want to point out here that the following issues with Ohio may not be the “proof” that the election was stolen, and I am not really interested in giving my opinion of this here anyway. What I want to do with Ohio is to provide a summary of the major issues that have been pointed out in the past. As I also said in my opening, I am also not discussing the exit poll discrepancies in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania or any other states, as even though I think it is highly fishy, there are a number of postings and people who doubt the methodology and accuracy, or don’t think this rises to a level of “fraud”. Needless to say, I think that the exit polls aren’t really as pertinent to the larger picture of what I am laying out here. They are quite possibly “proof” or support for the “fruits of the larger picture” of election fraud. However, for my purpose here, the following merely serves as examples of what this effort could produce on election day.

That all being said, consider the following:

Extremely long lines in minority and predominantly Democratic districts. Nearly 100 voting machines staying in storage when they were desperately needed in such districts (I’ll point out that there was very little waiting time in republican districts). So many “errors and issues” that would necessitate a recount, just based on the number of issues alone. Widespread voter suppression tactics, including “Democrats vote on November 3” flyers. The nonexistent terror threat in Warren County that precluded anyone from watching the votes be counted. Secretary of State Ken Blackwell’s connection to Florida 2000, the decision regarding voter registrations being on a certain weight paper and his being co-Chair of Bush’s reelection committee. The incredibly high voter turnout (131% in the Clyde precinct) in republican counties and just as incredibly low turnout (as low as 7%) in Democratic counties. The “fixed Ohio recount”, where the tallies and counties were pre-selected. There are many more, but I don’t want this to become a rehashing of what happened in Ohio.

Again, this is not to say that every one of these (1) are related or (2) indicative of a centralized effort to commit voter fraud. However, nearly all of the irregularities and issues favored Bush and the republicans. This also doesn’t provide proof that there was hacking of the voting machines either. Yet, there were still 4,000 votes for Bush in a precinct that had 600 total voters, and too large of a number of widespread issues that were all targeting Democrats. This is not something that can all be the result of isolated incidents. Again, these are more “suppression” tactics that can be linked back to decisions made by Blackwell, who was linked to Bush’s re-election campaign.

********************

Conclusion

Of course, there was the comment made by Rep. Peter King in the fall of 2004 indicating that “it’s all over but the counting, and we’ll take care of the counting”. There were the exit poll discrepancies, and while there has been much debate over whether there was a problem with the way the exit polls were conducted, it is interesting to note that exit polls have been as close to the best indicator of a fair election for decades in scores of countries. The same exit polls that led to allegations of fraud and massive protests in the Ukraine right after our own 2004 elections.

There was also the proclamation by Diebold Executive Walden O’Dell that he would deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to Bush.

But the hundreds of instances of irregularities, suppression, disenfranchisement and possible fraud in the 2004 election are merely symptoms of the larger issue. Maybe Peter King was kidding when he uttered those words on the White House lawn and maybe O’Dell was just saying this as a Bush supporter – but sometimes the truth comes out in jest as well.

From my perspective, the whole “permanent republican majority” meme was something that really resonated. What is happening at the Voting Rights Section in the DOJ, and what has happened with the voting machine security issues, especially in light of them being run by businesses that are very cozy to the republican party. There are also other things that can not be explained at this time which may play a part as well. For example, what was in those missing emails that Rove deleted? What was the purpose of the wiretapping program that even had Ashcroft not want to recertify it? What was being done with the data mining rooms at AT&T and other facilities? Maybe it had nothing to do with keeping the “permanent republican majority”. Maybe it did – but either way, there is ample evidence that the republicans over the past six years have put many things into place that “had the appearance” of tilting the scales in favor of republicans – not just on or around election day, but all throughout the Justice Department, the RNC, the Secretary of State in “key battleground states”, through destroying voter registrations and through Political Action Committees (at least in NH and Texas, if not other states as well).

As I said last week, this cuts right to the heart of our democracy.

Don't play dumb, Mr. Christie

Front paged at Blue Jersey

As noted in today's News Roundup, US Attorney Chris Christie was on an initial list of attorneys to be dismissed (along with 25 others) but was then ?pulled off the list? before the decision was made to fire, ?replace? at least eight US Attorneys late last year.

According to the Washington Post article linked above (emphasis added):

The same e-mail also listed prosecutor Christopher J. Christie in New Jersey, a major GOP donor who has undertaken several high-profile public-corruption probes -- including one into the real estate deals of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- and who announced indictments in a terrorism case last week.

---snip---

I was completely shocked. No one had ever told me that my performance had been anything but good," Christie said. "I specifically asked him why he put my name on the list. He said he couldn't give me an explanation."

He added that Elston apologized and that he refused to accept the apology. "I still to this day don't know how I got taken off the list," Christie said.

Now, now, Mr. Christie. You don?t know how you got taken off the list?

Well, let's take a look at a pattern that seems to have emerged with respect to the US Attorney firings. Washington District Attorney John McKay, a man who received excellent performance reviews, was fired. And coincidentally, his dismissal is widely speculated to have been related to his not bringing (nonexistent) voter fraud charges in the 2004 Gubernatorial election.

New Mexico District Attorney David Iglesias was added to the list on Election Day 2006 after being threatened by NM Senator Pete Dominici (a republican) for not bringing corruption charges against a Democrat before the 2006 election.

Arkansas District Attorney Bud Cummins, the one US Attorney that Alberto Gonzales and his team backtracked from earlier assertions of "performance related dismissal", was replaced with Tim Griffin, who worked under Karl Rove at the Republican National Committee, and was responsible for a "caging" scheme to disenfranchise minority voters who were stationed overseas during the 2004 election:

A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.

Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.

One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.

Here's how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, "Do not forward", to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as "undeliverable."

The lists of soldiers of "undeliverable" letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters' registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballot being counted.

Hmmmmm...participate in a scheme to disenfranchise voters, you get a promotion to US Attorney. Don't play along? You get fired.

So when there were leaks to the press about a corruption probe into Democratic Senator Menendez just two months before the 2006 election (mind you, the race was pretty close for much of 2006), one had to wonder if politics were involved. Add that to the fact that Christie was a "Bush Pioneer" and the fact that this was not only largely dismissed by the Philadelphia Enquirer at the time but nothing ever came of the probe.

Gee, Mr. Christie...do you still have no idea why you were taken off the list of US Attorneys that were to be fired? I can think of at least $$100,000 little reasons, as well as one big favor other reason why you were taken off the list.

Do they have to be caught eating puppies?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

I was originally going to call this diary So, did you call Mrs. Ashcroft, George? but then Kagro X posted another front page story about the NSA program which, as much as I can’t believe I am saying it, is moving me from the “it would be great if he/they were impeached” camp into the “they did WHAT? Are you fucking kidding me???” camp.

While I still think that Gonzales, for all of the lines he has crossed, for all of the acts that he has sanctioned, laws he has disregarded, treaties he has rendered as “quaint” and collusion with others in this administration – he is the last line of defense for Bush and the republican party as a whole. My gut feel is that all of this goes back to election fraud and while there may be more egregiously illegal acts, that is the one that will resonate further with the electorate if and when enough comes out.

However, the events of the past few days, especially Comey’s testimony on the illegal recertification of the NSA program, despite objections by Comey, Ashcroft and the DOJ have made me think that we have more than Bush “just” admitting to an impeachable offense. What about direct involvement in obstructing justice, exerting pressure on a critically ill Attorney General (who was reported to be “out of it” at the time) to certify a program that was already deemed to be illegal, then continuing the illegal program and, here is the kicker, selectively blocking investigations while allowing investigations of those who reported this illegal act.

No, none of this is “breaking news” other than the testimony by Comey (which isn’t even breaking to us). But it does raise some specific points that hit to plausible deniability. This has been the “get out of jail free card” (literally) for Reagan in the Iran-Contra fiasco, among others. And it is something that this administration knows and uses well – especially since Cheney’s hero, Richard Nixon didn’t have it.

As ridiculous as it may sound (and as much as it would make Gonzales look even worse than he already looks), Bush could, in theory, have indicated that he relied on Gonzales (as White House Counsel) and Card (as his Chief of Staff) with respect to the certification process – did he at the time know that DOJ refused to sign off on it? Or could Gonzales have said to Bush – even after his and Card’s late night raid of Ashcroft’s hospital room – yes, we were able to get the verbal approval that the program was legal? I know, it sounds absolutely insane, and would mean one of two things: (1) Gonzales lied in telling Bush that the program was legal when he knew that DOJ wouldn’t sign off on it, or (2) Gonzales didn’t lie to Bush, but Bush lied about being advised that it was ok.

Now, #2 would seem to be extremely difficult to prove, except for one thing: Comey’s testimony that he “had some recollection that the call” [to Ashcroft’s hospital room to Mrs. Ashcroft] “was from the president himself”. This of course begs the question - Did Bush make that call to Mrs. Ashcroft, and if so, what was the purpose?

If Bush made the call, then plausible deniability goes “bye-bye” and we have absolute proof that Bush himself intervened to make an incapacitated Attorney General (who gave up his post temporarily to Comey anyway) sign off on a program that he and his Deputy both deemed to be illegal – and then went ahead with the illegal program anyway. If he didn’t make that call, then there is still “plausible deniability” – as scummy as that is. But if he did make that call, then I don’t see how he escapes the proof that he broke at least a few laws willingly.

Move forward to Kagro X’s other front page post. In this post, there is the point that the investigation into whether Gonzales or others broke the law in recertifying the illegal program was being thwarted and blocked, all while an investigation into how the New York Times found out about this program was being pushed forward. In the comments section, I asked whether Bush himself stepped in here or someone else would have been responsible for granting or denying security clearances related to the investigations. And as Kagro X replied:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today that President Bush personally halted an internal Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales and other senior department officials acted within the law in approving and overseeing the administration's domestic surveillance program. (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0718nj1.htm)

I highly recommend reading the Waas post that is linked. But essentially, what this means is not only did Bush (presumably) personally intervene by calling Ashcroft’s hospital room but he personally thwarted the investigation into the events surrounding the recertification process (also presumably by denying security clearances in what was called an “unprecedented manner”) all while pushing for an investigation into those who “spilled the beans” on this illegality. Additionally, as Kagro X points out as well – who was the one who had Bush nix this investigation, and did he (or did Gonzales) know at the time that Gonzales would be under investigation. But I’ll leave that to those who are more well versed in that aspect.

To me, I learned a few huge things today:

• If Bush made the call to Ashcroft’s hospital room (as Comey suggested), that puts him square in the middle of this and removes any plausible deniability;


• The hospital confrontation would have been a major part of the investigation that Bush himself thwarted – all while allowing an investigation into those who reported the truth about the recertification; and


• Either Gonzales lied to Bush or BOTH Bush and Gonzales lied about obstructing the investigation.

All of the loose ends that have been reported over the past year or so by Murray Waas, by Kagro X and by all of the others who have been following this are starting to tie together. And they look like they are tying together into a noose for this administration.

It can’t get any more blatant or simple than this.

• Bush, his Chief of Staff and White House Counsel intervened to make something deemed illegal by his own DOJ certified as legal;


• When it was not declared legal, they did it anyway;


• Bush personally blocked the investigation into (i.e., obstructing justice) something that he, his Chief of Staff and his Counsel did which was illegal.

Now, Congress MUST do something with this noose. And I don’t mean hang themselves.

Disbar Gonzales

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I am married to one. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well (ok, that part isn’t true...)

Unless there is a special exemption that would allow this nation’s top ranking prosecutor the right to, well, break laws and run afoul of any of the ethical and other conduct codes by the American Bar Association (which all other attorneys must follow), how does Alberto Gonzales still have a license to practice law?

This past week, members of his own Harvard Law School class came pretty close to asking him to step down. But, if impeachment isn’t going to happen (and it certainly is warranted for him), and if he isn’t going to step down (mind you, my prediction from almost exactly two months ago is still holding up), and he isn’t going to be fired, then why can’t he be disbarred for his actions?

And wouldn’t that be a fine mess – our own nation’s top lawyer being disbarred and not allowed to practice law? Actually, it would be fitting, and probably make him even more qualified in Bush’s mind to hold the position he holds….But, I digress.

It is clear that, at a minimum, even if we lower the bar to “egregiously illegal” with respect to Gonzales’ actions, as opposed to what you can “get away with” - clearly there were violations that would result in many MANY other attorneys receiving punishment, whether it be sanctions, suspension, warnings, reprimand, probation or even disbarment.

From the American Bar Association’s own standards for sanctions (warning: .pdf), here are the four general factors that are considered when deciding on sanctions for an attorney:

• The duty violated;


• The Lawyer’s mental state;


• The potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct;


• The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

Now, there are also a number of different violations which are laid out in the ABA’s standards, coupled with the types of violations that would warrant disbarment, suspension, reprimand, etc. I’ll post some pertinent ones below:

Lack of Candor: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases where the lawyer engages in fraud, deceit or misrepresentation directed toward a client:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potential injury to a client.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes serious injury or potential injury to a client.

Now, this is tough to prove but I wanted to point this out here. The question with the Attorney General is really who his client is – is it “We the People”? Is ANYONE really his client? However, there was clearly an attempt to deceive when Gonzales lied to reporters or most likely lied to Congress.

Failure to maintain the public trust: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving public officials who engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly misuses the position with the intent to obtain a significant benefit or advantage for himself or another, or with the intent to cause serious or potentially serious injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.

Bingo!!! At a minimum, suspension should be considered here. illegally re-certifying the wiretapping program certainly seems to fit this bill. As does the firing of US Attorneys who weren’t “loyal enough Bushies” and just so happened to be investigating prominent republicans or not chasing after bogus cases against Democrats. Obstructing justice? That remains to be seen at this point, at least from a legal perspective. But certainly this caused potential injury to the integrity of the legal process

False statements, fraud and misrepresentation: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation to a court:

Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

Again, this one may only apply to “legal proceedings” or issues that are before a court. I am not sure whether Congress would fall under this. However, Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame outing seems like it would qualify. And we do remember the 12 hour window that Gonzales and Card were involved with when it came to document preservation over the issues surrounding the outing of Plame’s identity. While there may not have been any actual injury as a result of this, there certainly appears to be a “potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding”.

Now, these are three of the roughly dozen or so that are in the ABA’s standards publication. I am not sure if there are others. However, he has ignored subpoenas. Additionally, if he wasn’t outright lying to protect himself and others in the Administration (which I think would be grounds for disciplinary action), then he CERTAINLY isn’t fit for duty as he doesn’t even know what is going on in his own Justice Department when it comes to acts that are virtually unprecedented and documented to cause a political uproar. That seems to fall under the “unfit for duty” category (ok, a bit of an exaggeration but still….)

There were many many injured parties as a result of Gonzales’ actions – not just the generic “We the People” or the Constitution. People were tortured. People had habeas corpus taken away from them. US citizens were illegally spied on. US Attorneys were fired for political and certainly questionable if not outright nefarious reasons. Documents were hidden, lost, purged, “misplaced”; emails were deleted (I know, “mistakes were made”…).

Even if these actions don’t rise to the level of disbarment, they certainly seem to appear to rise to the level of suspension. At an absolute minimum, there should be some sort of warning or reprimand from the American Bar Association.

Which would not send a political message as those on the right would cry if impeachment charges were to be brought. It would be a strong message from the nation’s ethical and professional standard setter for attorneys – a message that this nation’s top attorney is engaging in conduct that, to many, give a clear appearance that he is unfit to continue being an attorney.

Note to CBS: It's Katie, not "a woman" who we dislike

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

In an attempt to dig CBS out of the gawd knows how many millions of dollars mistake it made by hiring Katie Couric to anchor its Evening News, CBS seems to have hit a new low – a low that is even lower than Couric’s ratings. Blaming it on the assumption that “people don’t want to get their news from women”.

I kid you not. Sean McManus, the president of CBS News, had this to say in an absolutely disgraceful article that gives CBS a pass but attempts to shift the blame towards a “bias against women”:

“It was almost a watershed event to have a woman in that chair.” He added, “There is a percentage of people out there that probably prefers not to get their news from a woman.”

No, jackhole, there is a percentage of people who want to get their news from news shows. Not who want to get fluff from news shows. Don’t blame “women” or set up strawmen (clearly not “straw women”) to cover for hiring someone with little to no serious journalistic experience – someone who was known as a “personality” as opposed to someone who could deliver news in an adult manner – someone whose interview skills weren’t completely lacking and someone who is a complete lightweight compared to serious women journalists.

There is a reason why the CBS Evening News ratings are at a 20 year low - that is the person who is delivering the news. The news which is being “delivered” isn’t much different than the news being “delivered” by Brian Williams or by Charles Gibson. It isn’t different from the other networks. It is the PERSON not the sex of the person that people don’t like. Plain and simple.

It was just about a month ago when I wrote a diary called Save Face, CBS. Dump Katie. Since then, the ratings for CBS Evening News have fallen further behind NBC and ABC. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault when CBS decided to go for “flair” just when everyone in America was starting to wake up from their slumber and (GASP) wanted to get REAL news. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault when the ratings for “talking meatsick punditry” was dropping faster than Mark Foley’s pants when a Congressional page logged onto AIM, yet it was CBS’ decision to throw close to $15 million per year at someone controversial AND unproven.

No, it is the fault of CBS for hiring someone that was in over her head way before she even started. It is Couric’s fault for not taking the job of Evening News anchor seriously. For her double standards towards Democrats, for being unsympathetic bordering on rude in her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards, for having Rush Limbaugh on one of her initial shows without challenging him.

As for the whole “maybe people don’t like watching women” thing, well I have news for you – people don’t like their intelligence insulted. People don’t like when “credible journalists” plagiarize. People don’t like lazy journalism and allegations of “some people say”.

People watched Connie Chung and Barbara Walters. People watched Elizabeth Vargas and Jessica Savitch. People would watch Lara Logan, Christiane Amanpour, Amy Goodman, Campbell Brown, Judy Woodruff, even Rachel Maddow – just for starters. It isn’t about wanting to watch a woman read or deliver the news - it is about someone credible and unbiased reading or delivering the news. Period.

Sadly, in my diary from last month, I predicted (as did others) that the mistake by CBS to hire a clearly unqualified hack (whether it was male or female) would be used as an excuse to bash “women anchors”. So not only did Katie Couric completely ruin CBS’ Evening News – one of the most venerable Evening News shows in history, but also now has led to a doubting of women’s capability to anchor the Evening News.

Nothing could be further from the truth – but in under a year, Couric has destroyed CBS Evening News even worse than anyone could have imagined. Her complete lack of focus, attention to delivering real and not sensationalized news and seriousness in her approach to the job now has network executives publicly wondering whether it is a “women in general” problem.

Nice work, Katie – you may very well have destroyed the chance for many highly qualified women to advance in the field of journalism. And the sexist bosses at CBS News now have a convenient scapegoat for their colossal lack of foresight and planning. Knowing that there would be a spotlight on this “first woman solo anchor ever” situation, there was more than a responsibility to viewers and to journalistic integrity. There was a responsibility to serious women journalists that you wouldn’t screw this up so bad that it would threaten the opportunity for others after you.

And that responsibility was shirked in a massive way. By CBS and by Couric. That is nobody’s fault but CBSs’ and Couric’s.

Big F***ing problems in Pakistan

Front paged at Booman Tribune. Recommended at Daily Kos

Back in December, I posted a diary called ”The bubbling disaster that is Pakistan”. And while I wasn’t as concerned about the lack of exposure my diary got at the time, I was a bit concerned about the lack of exposure that the issue was receiving in general. And just like LithiumCola points out in his diary about Afghanistan getting little exposure in the US media, we have a real problem on our hands with respect to Pakistan.

You remember Pakistan – our “bestest friends in the WarOnTerror™”. The same Pakistan that has recently been called the new “haven” for al Qaeda. The same Pakistan that not only already has nuclear weapons, but has sold their secrets to Iran, North Korea, Libya and other countries (and whose mastermind got off real easy, all things considered). The same Pakistan that John Negroponte himself accused of helping (or turning a blind eye to) bin Laden and his followers in their country.

Well, as I have said in the past, it is “shit meet fan time” in Pakistan.

President Musharraf is fighting for his political (and actual) life lately, as there have been numerous protests and a “healthy” amount of violence over the past few months. However, this past week has been particularly bad. Over the past 2 days alone, violence and protests have killed nearly 40 and wounded around 130. Reports called this the “worst political violence in Pakistan in years.

Musharraf has already survived two or three assassination attempts and just a couple of weeks ago, a suicide bomber killed 28 in an attempted assassination of a senior government Minster. Oh, have I mentioned that Pakistan ALREADY has nuclear weapons and has sold its secrets to not one but TWO “Axis of Evil” members?

In trying to keep his tenuous hold on his position, Musharraf recently dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry for “misconduct and nepotism”. In turn, Musharraf has been accused of manipulating the election process and setting the stage for him to retain power in the upcoming elections (well, maybe there is a reason why he is so close to the Bush administration).

The dismissal back in March obviously led to outrage by the Judiciary as well as opposition parties, and most of the people killed or wounded over the past couple of days were rallying in favor of the dismissed Chief Justice, or were members of opposition parties who were rallying against Musharraf.

What makes this worse is the following quote from The Moderate Voice:

“New York-based Human Rights Watch said the government and its allies had apparently ‘deliberately sought to foment violence in Karachi’, and police stood by as ’silent spectators’.”

One of the greatest problems with the US administration is that it seemingly loves to put all its eggs in the basket provided by tin pot dictators (military and civil), while in the same breath keeps a running commentary about the virtues of democracy.

Recent polls have Musharraf at a low approval rating, and only 30% support him holding both positions of President and Army Chief. Add this to the fact that he is in a very precarious position with respect to pleasing his US masters in quelling the violence and cracking down on the Taliban or al Qaeda and not running afoul of his citizens who are not really big fans of his (to say the least).

But he is being blamed by many for allowing this violence and for instigating it with the dismissal of the Chief Justice. Couple this with the fact that there have already been numerous attempts on his life, and a recent attempt on the life of another top government official, and we could be closer than we thing to staring at a situation that is worse than what we are being led to believe about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan AND North Korea COMBINED.

That being a country with nuclear weapons, a track record of selling those secrets, a haven for BOTH the Taliban and al Qaeda – allowing them to plan or launch attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan, right in the backyard of our troops, a reason to actually hate the US, and the means, desire and ability to overthrow its leader.

Does anyone think that the Bush administration has thought of how to deal with this very likely scenario, let alone have the ability to deal with it?

That is the 800 pound gorilla in the Middle East.

It's not a tax increase if you don't vote to increase taxes

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and Swords Crossed

Ugh.

In a conversation with my (conservative but Bush hating) dad today, I got this line thrown at me:

”Well, this Democratic Congress is responsible for the single biggest tax increase in history”

Of course, this relates to the spin put forth by republicans who are counting the lack of renewal of the obscene Bush tax cuts from 2001 AND 2003 which were purposely made to sunset in 2010 so that rosy “balanced” budget estimates could have been made by the administration and the republican controlled Congress during 2001 and 2003.

Couple this with the fact that the same republican Congress didn’t extend these “temporary” tax cuts at the end of 2004 or 2005 (or 2006) either, but nobody was calling it a tax increase back then. But hey, IOKIYAR, right?

Unfortunately, the truth of not extending temporary tax cuts that were only made “temporary” was to falsely reduce the budget deficit projections at the time really didn’t matter in my conversation. Nor does it seem to matter, now that the new fiscal year budget talks are starting again.

Yet, as reported recently by the most excellent McClatchy Washington Bureau, this lie is starting to seep out now about those “crazy tax and spend Democrats”:

"Regrettably, the Democrats' budget plan amounts to the largest tax hike in American history," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee.

"When you take everything away, this bill is a classic Democratic tax-and-spend bill," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Senate budget panel's top Republican.

This should be a no brainer. Yet, Bush is going virtually unchallenged on this, despite the very republican Congresses not extending these tax cuts or making the “sacred” tax cuts permanent when they had the chance in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 AND 2006.

And here is the most basic of premises turned right on its’ head - how can something be a tax increase if nobody voted to increase taxes? Nothing stopped the same republican majority from passing anything they (or Bush) wanted, even if it meant excluding Democrats from every step and bit of the process. And Democrats are saying that they are repealing the tax cuts before they are set to expire either – at least not yet.

And it certainly isn’t like there haven’t been massive tax cuts (mind you, the first time there was a “war” and taxes were cut:

Since 2001, Bush has been able to practically dictate tax policy to Congress. Tax cuts have passed each of the past five years, totaling $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

And it isn’t like republican Senators haven’t ALREADY balked at extending these cuts when they were in the majority. From December 2005:

But even a more modest White House request to extend them until 2010 is in trouble. The Senate balked last month at extending the dividend and capital gains tax cuts even a single year.

Jeez, those tax and spend republican majorities from 2005. And what did they do right before voting as to whether to continue the capital gains tax cuts?

House leaders will try again for a vote Thursday, but moderate Republicans in the House have expressed deep misgivings about approving a measure so beneficial to affluent investors so soon after they approved a budget-cutting bill that would cut people off food stamps, squeeze student lenders, impose new fees on Medicaid recipients and slash federal aid for child-support enforcement.

Food stamp, student lender, Medicaid recipients, child support enforcement for cuts in the capital gains tax for the wealthy who can afford to invest in the market. Now THAT sounds like a good trade off. Fortunately, the republican Congress DIDN’T extend these cuts, although all of those people who are on food stamps AND have capital gains must have been REALLY pissed....

Now that the budget discussions are coming up again, there is no doubt that those on the “right” will start with this “largest tax increase ever” nonsense. But the fact remains that (1) the republican majority took EXACTLY the same actions to not extend these cuts and (2) nobody, I repeat nobody is proposing to vote for a capital gains tax increase or any “largest tax increase in the history of forever”.

Anyone who actually believes and repeats this is either insane, uninformed or woefully hypocritical. And we should be prepared to call them on it.

Messing with elections cuts to the heart of a democracy

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Yes, there has been much discussion over the past few years about the suddenly "way off base" exit polls (2004) and shady "recounts" (Ohio 2004), last minute massive shifts in polls (Georgia 2002), "irregularities" (2000, 2002 and 2004), general voter disenfranchisement, jamming of phone banks (New Hampshire) or destruction of voter registrations. But most of the country explains that away as something that happens every election (frequently citing Chicago, 1960 as one example) and something that, while pretty crappy, happens.

But what if the American public is presented with not just these statistics, general allegations, anecdotal stories of vote flipping or easily hackable voting machines and other first or second hand accounts of experiences by voters on election day, but also specific examples of a massive effort conducted by the highest levels of the Bush administration with tacit approval by the republican Congressional majority that the entire election system was being gamed from the inside?

Because, folks, this is the big enchilada - this is the most basic premise of a democracy - the ability of We the People to vote for our leaders (however flawed the nominating process is), to know that our votes will be counted and to not have the government working ACTIVELY against that premise. However, this is what we have here - the Bush administration, the Justice Department, its' Voting Rights Section and the Republican National Committee (among others) using its power to subvert the electoral process.

No, this isn't news to us. In fact, there have been a number of posts here about this over the past few years. Georgia10 had an excellent series of posts about Ohio and the 2004 election. Jesselyn Radack has had a number of posts on the US Attorney scandal which focused on election fraud, this one on Missouri. In fact, if you do a quick search, you will find over 25 diaries in the past 2 weeks alone with the tag "election fraud".

The coordinated effort is massive. It is actually way more than massive. And if the whole sordid story ever makes it into the public consciousness, then it could doom the republican party for a generation. Back in February, I did a story with ePluribus Media regarding Bud Cummins and his replacement, Tim Griffin. In it, we noted Griffin's ties to Rove and his role in "caging" during the 2004 elections:

Another of the most important reasons why Griffin's appointment deserves a harder look is from his involvement in "caging," which "appeared to be" a Republican Party effort to challenge the ballots of thousands of voters in largely African American communities through mailings targeting those who were serving in Iraq. Since they were stationed out of country, they were not at the address to which the mailings were sent, and the letters were returned as "not deliverable," establishing "cause" to strike the intended recipients from the voter roles. Who sent the originating email with respect to this caging "program"? Tim Griffin.

This is someone who was appointed as US Attorney under the "new" Patriot Act clause (and even admitted that he wouldn't make it through Senate Confirmation), and right on cue, is being investigated FOR VOTER FRAUD for his role in the caging scheme. We also found out from Murray Waas this week that the White House was concealing emails that linked Rove to Griffin's hiring:

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

Yesterday, the phenomenal McClatchy Washington Bureau reported that the White House was urging the Justice Department to pursue voting fraud cases against Democrats in three states BEFORE THE 2006 ELECTIONS:

Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.

In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.

There were wide reports and more than speculation that fired Washington US Attorney John McKay didn't please his bosses by not pursuing the electoral fraud that didn't exist in the 2004 Gubernatorial race - a very close race that was won by the Democratic Party candidate.

But a very interesting and large piece to this puzzle that has gotten way too little exposure is the Justice Department's own Voting Rights Section. ePluribus Media has a great background story on this and I am working on them with one on Robert Popper - the Voting Rights Section's Special Counsel which you can look for over the next week or so.

But, consider that the Voting Rights Section is supposed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, protect minority rights in redistricting, make sure that voters are not disenfranchised and are able to have their votes counted. Makes sense, yes? Now consider the following:

• Popper has vast experience with redistricting cases - but in a way that challenges old district lines in order to redraw them "more fairly" - focusing almost exclusively on redrawing largely minority districts;



• Other cases being pursued by the Voting Rights Section target districts for "not properly eliminating ineligible voters from the voting rolls". As opposed to making sure that voters CAN vote - they are focusing on cleansing (my word) the voting rolls - again, in districts that have had a large increase in Democratic registrations or are largely minority districts;



• Over 50% of the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have been forced out in one way or another over the past two years;



• These attorneys were replaced largely with people affiliated with the Federalist Society or the Republican National Lawyers Association; and



• Less than half of these "new attorneys" have little to no experience in civil rights cases at all.

There are more examples in the ePluribus Media story, including the following quote from one of the career attorneys who was forced out:

"Political appointees made it quite clear that they did not wish to draw on the expertise and institutional knowledge of career attorneys. Instead, there appeared to be a conscious effort to remake the Division's career staff."

There was also this editorial in the LA Times which, in addition to mentioning the Missouri story linked above (by Jesselyn Radack) has this stunning observation of the Justice Department under the Bush administration:

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

The rot and stench is deep and strong. But this story isn't picking up much steam.....yet. The right to elect your leaders or representatives is the most basic tenet of a democracy. The "purple finger" is frequently cited as an example of "freedom on the march in Iraq". Yet, here at home, many have been quick to explain away each and every instance of potential fraud, each case of intimidation or disenfranchisement, each irregularity or exit polls that defy all logic and reason.

Now we are staring straight at a growing mound of evidence that there was a clear and concerted effort to undermine that most basic premise of a democracy by those who wrested control of our government in 2000. The party's national committee was actively involved. The Justice Department was actively involved - both from the prosecution side and the defending of rights side. The Executive Branch was involved in making the decisions of who to appoint, what cases should be prosecuted and how.

It is rotten to the core. And it begs the question of whether a democracy is still a democracy when one party is looking to take away the very right to a fair and free election.