Comments on: Tales From The Department Of Justice http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:01:46 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: dude http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723244 dude Mon, 28 May 2007 13:05:46 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723244 <p>I have been wondering about this: suppose 30 DOJ officials had resigned over points of law when confronting the President. Ashcroft, it seems, did exactly that when he got well enough to see his days were numbered, as did others. So what did the President do? He puts Gonzales in position. Almost as bold and baldfaced as nominating Harriet Miers. My point is this: 30 DOJ officials resigning probably would have generated headlines for a week, but it would have altered nothing. I do not know Mueller’s political history, but everything I read suggests these sterling 30 were principled, but Republican to the core for the most part, and would have simply kept their mouths shut and let it all play out on Bush’s watch without uttering a word. Look, they’re doing it NOW. Why is it we still don’t know who authored the language inserted in Homeland Security at Specter’s office and whose brainchild it was? Why is it USA’s are still reluctant to speak to the Press about what went on during their tenure? Why is it everyone is being so polite to Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson? Why is it Gonzales is still in office? For all this hand-wringing about how what we know is only the tip of scary iceberg, you have to ask what all these principled neo-heroes think they are doing by zipping their lips.</p> I have been wondering about this: suppose 30 DOJ officials had resigned over points of law when confronting the President. Ashcroft, it seems, did exactly that when he got well enough to see his days were numbered, as did others. So what did the President do? He puts Gonzales in position. Almost as bold and baldfaced as nominating Harriet Miers. My point is this: 30 DOJ officials resigning probably would have generated headlines for a week, but it would have altered nothing. I do not know Mueller’s political history, but everything I read suggests these sterling 30 were principled, but Republican to the core for the most part, and would have simply kept their mouths shut and let it all play out on Bush’s watch without uttering a word. Look, they’re doing it NOW. Why is it we still don’t know who authored the language inserted in Homeland Security at Specter’s office and whose brainchild it was? Why is it USA’s are still reluctant to speak to the Press about what went on during their tenure? Why is it everyone is being so polite to Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson? Why is it Gonzales is still in office? For all this hand-wringing about how what we know is only the tip of scary iceberg, you have to ask what all these principled neo-heroes think they are doing by zipping their lips.

]]> By: dude http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723225 dude Mon, 28 May 2007 12:52:43 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723225 <p><a href="#comment-721758"><em>Phoenix Woman @ 124</em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-721756"><em>pwrlght @ 123</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Goodling is not a “girl”. She is a women who in her own words was <strike>a Type A</strike> too bitchy to work with another strong and formidable female attorney.</p> <p>I find it incredibly sexist that Isikoff & Thomas describe Goodling as <em>shy and a little overwhelmed</em> . . . <em>Christian girl</em>. This lets her off the hook. For political reasons she derailed or “delayed” (her own words) the career of professional and competent attorneys. And she didn’t do this because she believed that she was strengthening the quality of attorneys at DOJ; she did it because she knew what would advance her own career. Pack the DOJ with people more comminted to GOP / “Christian” causes then rule of law and be rewarded by BushCo.</p></blockquote> <p>Uh-huh. Over at TPM, persons from DoJ who know her describe her as tough as nails and utterly dedicated to her cause. Imagine Dick Cheney in a wig and after a crash diet.</p></blockquote> <p>NO, imagine Anne Colter after she gained 40 lbs.</p> Phoenix Woman @ 124

pwrlght @ 123

Goodling is not a “girl”. She is a women who in her own words was a Type A too bitchy to work with another strong and formidable female attorney.

I find it incredibly sexist that Isikoff & Thomas describe Goodling as shy and a little overwhelmed . . . Christian girl. This lets her off the hook. For political reasons she derailed or “delayed” (her own words) the career of professional and competent attorneys. And she didn’t do this because she believed that she was strengthening the quality of attorneys at DOJ; she did it because she knew what would advance her own career. Pack the DOJ with people more comminted to GOP / “Christian” causes then rule of law and be rewarded by BushCo.

Uh-huh. Over at TPM, persons from DoJ who know her describe her as tough as nails and utterly dedicated to her cause. Imagine Dick Cheney in a wig and after a crash diet.

NO, imagine Anne Colter after she gained 40 lbs.

]]> By: The Oracle http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723156 The Oracle Mon, 28 May 2007 08:31:42 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723156 <p>I just wonder what Ashcroft’s doctor was doing the night of March 10, 2004? Did the White House call him, too? Did George W. Bush personally call him? Did Mrs. Ashcroft call him to let him know that visitors from the White House were about to descend upon her gravely ill husband in his intensive care hospital bed?</p> <p>For this to remain a secret for over three years, the doctors and nurses at the hospital must have been ordered not to discuss what happened that night. Many, on other floors and in other departments, would not have known about Gonzales’ and Card’s visit, but any on duty at the time of their visit to ICU would have been witnesses to Gonzales’ and Card’s arrival shortly after the arrival of Comey and apparently a bunch of FBI agents. They would have known who Ashcroft was and definitely would have realized something significant was happening with all these “after-hours” visitors showing up.</p> <p>Of course, there is the issue of hospital confidentiality, but one still has to wonder what role Ashcroft’s doctor played in this, or the hospital administrators, for that matter.</p> I just wonder what Ashcroft’s doctor was doing the night of March 10, 2004? Did the White House call him, too? Did George W. Bush personally call him? Did Mrs. Ashcroft call him to let him know that visitors from the White House were about to descend upon her gravely ill husband in his intensive care hospital bed?

For this to remain a secret for over three years, the doctors and nurses at the hospital must have been ordered not to discuss what happened that night. Many, on other floors and in other departments, would not have known about Gonzales’ and Card’s visit, but any on duty at the time of their visit to ICU would have been witnesses to Gonzales’ and Card’s arrival shortly after the arrival of Comey and apparently a bunch of FBI agents. They would have known who Ashcroft was and definitely would have realized something significant was happening with all these “after-hours” visitors showing up.

Of course, there is the issue of hospital confidentiality, but one still has to wonder what role Ashcroft’s doctor played in this, or the hospital administrators, for that matter.

]]> By: tripod_x http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723153 tripod_x Mon, 28 May 2007 08:06:17 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-723153 <p>Here’s an idea. Can’t congress, through the power of the purse, simply suspend Gonzalez’ salary? As in, while he may serve at the “pleasure of the president” he works for the American people. He’s taken “responsibility” and “accountability” Surely our representatives can say, fine, this is your disciplinary action. And to Bush, you can keep him, but we ain’t paying for him….</p> Here’s an idea. Can’t congress, through the power of the purse, simply suspend Gonzalez’ salary? As in, while he may serve at the “pleasure of the president” he works for the American people. He’s taken “responsibility” and “accountability” Surely our representatives can say, fine, this is your disciplinary action. And to Bush, you can keep him, but we ain’t paying for him….

]]> By: mnlurker http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722368 mnlurker Sun, 27 May 2007 23:57:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722368 <p>the thing that slays me and never seems to be mentioned is the sheer audacity of Bush. Ashcroft in intensive care stands up to Bush in favor of the rule of law.<br /> What happens after that..???<br /> Ashcroft ends up resigning and Bush appoints in his place<br /> the guy who was sent to Ashcrofts hospital room!!!!<br /> What a gigantic F*** you from<br /> Bush to Ashcroft and to the American people.</p> <p>By this appointment Bush has told us in no uncertain terms that to him the rule of law means nothing….</p> the thing that slays me and never seems to be mentioned is the sheer audacity of Bush. Ashcroft in intensive care stands up to Bush in favor of the rule of law.
What happens after that..???
Ashcroft ends up resigning and Bush appoints in his place
the guy who was sent to Ashcrofts hospital room!!!!
What a gigantic F*** you from
Bush to Ashcroft and to the American people.

By this appointment Bush has told us in no uncertain terms that to him the rule of law means nothing….

]]> By: Mrs. K8 http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722319 Mrs. K8 Sun, 27 May 2007 23:15:35 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722319 <p>Am getting here way too late, as usual, but just want to mention this.</p> <p>Did y’all notice how the Newsweak (misspelling intentional) <b>article neglected to call Comey by his proper name at the time of the hospital visit, namely ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL?</b> </p> <p>Instead, they just keep calling him “Deputy” — and neglect to tell readers of this article the final word uttered by the deathly ill Ashcroft:</p> <p>“It doesn’t matter anyway. I’m not the Attorney General, he (Comey) is.”</p> <p>Why would the authors want to avoid highlighting yet another HIGHLY ILLEGAL aspect of this nefarious mafioso bullying episode?</p> Am getting here way too late, as usual, but just want to mention this.

Did y’all notice how the Newsweak (misspelling intentional) article neglected to call Comey by his proper name at the time of the hospital visit, namely ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL?

Instead, they just keep calling him “Deputy” — and neglect to tell readers of this article the final word uttered by the deathly ill Ashcroft:

“It doesn’t matter anyway. I’m not the Attorney General, he (Comey) is.”

Why would the authors want to avoid highlighting yet another HIGHLY ILLEGAL aspect of this nefarious mafioso bullying episode?

]]> By: Lynn Lightfoot http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722298 Lynn Lightfoot Sun, 27 May 2007 23:01:58 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722298 <p>Christy at 32,<br /> Somewhere in comments to blogs in the last couple of weeks I read someone speculating that perhaps the reason Specter talks up his outrage at the administration’s illegal practices but then never translates that into a vote against them is that “they” (read Rove and his minions) have something on him and he’s being blackmailed. It makes sense to me! That’s exactly how Rove got this clown into the White House in the first place. Correction, that’s exactly how Rove got this clown to be governor of Texas. Dig up dirt on your opponents if you can; if you can’t find any dirt, fabricate smears; stoop to anything to win, no matter how low; just make sure you can’t be connected to the lies and dirty tricks.</p> Christy at 32,
Somewhere in comments to blogs in the last couple of weeks I read someone speculating that perhaps the reason Specter talks up his outrage at the administration’s illegal practices but then never translates that into a vote against them is that “they” (read Rove and his minions) have something on him and he’s being blackmailed. It makes sense to me! That’s exactly how Rove got this clown into the White House in the first place. Correction, that’s exactly how Rove got this clown to be governor of Texas. Dig up dirt on your opponents if you can; if you can’t find any dirt, fabricate smears; stoop to anything to win, no matter how low; just make sure you can’t be connected to the lies and dirty tricks.

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722145 selise Sun, 27 May 2007 21:09:12 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722145 <p><a href="#comment-722036"><em>looseheadprop @ 199</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>I agree, and I think I am closer to Kirk Murphy here.</p> <p>Most people gravitate toward one or the other of these paths in their attempt to lead a life of integrity. Very few can do both methods well. Or consistently</p></blockquote> <p>lhp - many, many thanks for your response!</p> <p>….</p> <p>of course. i’m describing the goal we strive towards as we aspire to live with integrity. i wasn’t saying that it was achievable (mostly, i think i fail miserably).</p> <p>what i took issue with was your statement “People of integrity are rule followers”…. which you said, i think, was the point you were trying to make.</p> <p>if we look to examples of people who exemplify the highest level of integrity - it is those who <em>knew exactly when</em> to break the rules… and when <em>not</em> to.</p> <p>that is the standard, i think, integrity requires we aspire to - regardless of which path we might reflexively choose if we were to act without reflection.</p> <p>if we agree on this point… then i think i’m still not getting something.</p> looseheadprop @ 199

I agree, and I think I am closer to Kirk Murphy here.

Most people gravitate toward one or the other of these paths in their attempt to lead a life of integrity. Very few can do both methods well. Or consistently

lhp – many, many thanks for your response!

….

of course. i’m describing the goal we strive towards as we aspire to live with integrity. i wasn’t saying that it was achievable (mostly, i think i fail miserably).

what i took issue with was your statement “People of integrity are rule followers”…. which you said, i think, was the point you were trying to make.

if we look to examples of people who exemplify the highest level of integrity – it is those who knew exactly when to break the rules… and when not to.

that is the standard, i think, integrity requires we aspire to – regardless of which path we might reflexively choose if we were to act without reflection.

if we agree on this point… then i think i’m still not getting something.

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722107 selise Sun, 27 May 2007 20:42:04 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722107 <p><a href="#comment-721840"><em>looseheadprop @ 178</em></a> -</p> <p>some follow on thoughts to my reponse to you <a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-721881">above</a>…</p> <p>with regard to “rule followers”, you write:</p> <blockquote><p>They get hamstrung and occasionaly paralyzed by indecision trying to figure out how to do the right thing without preaking the rules.</p></blockquote> <p>i know you’re right on this because i have experienced the paralysis you describe - in a situation that is slightly similar involving intellectual dishonesty in science (actually i’m still struggling with it).</p> <p>i don’t have a problem with speaking up within the organization, but i was manipulated just as you describe… and even though my stupid/ feeble attempts only corrected the problem once out of the 5 different times it happened - i didn’t blow the whistle externally… maybe i should have, indeed maybe i still should (in an effort to make amends). so, i’m still trying to figure this out - but i don’t think following the rules laid down by one’s boss and mentor is always the right thing to do.</p> <p>and i sure hope comey is angsting about what to do as much as (or preferably more than) i am.</p> looseheadprop @ 178 -

some follow on thoughts to my reponse to you above…

with regard to “rule followers”, you write:

They get hamstrung and occasionaly paralyzed by indecision trying to figure out how to do the right thing without preaking the rules.

i know you’re right on this because i have experienced the paralysis you describe – in a situation that is slightly similar involving intellectual dishonesty in science (actually i’m still struggling with it).

i don’t have a problem with speaking up within the organization, but i was manipulated just as you describe… and even though my stupid/ feeble attempts only corrected the problem once out of the 5 different times it happened – i didn’t blow the whistle externally… maybe i should have, indeed maybe i still should (in an effort to make amends). so, i’m still trying to figure this out – but i don’t think following the rules laid down by one’s boss and mentor is always the right thing to do.

and i sure hope comey is angsting about what to do as much as (or preferably more than) i am.

]]> By: newtonusr http://firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722090 newtonusr Sun, 27 May 2007 20:31:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/tales-from-the-department-of-justice/#comment-722090 <p><a href="#comment-722083"><em>Harriett @ 201</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Hello Congress? When does Mrs. Ashcroft testify under oath???</p></blockquote> <p>I’m trying to remember if Chimpy has cited ExecPriv to prevent it… *<b>g</b>*</p> Harriett @ 201

Hello Congress? When does Mrs. Ashcroft testify under oath???

I’m trying to remember if Chimpy has cited ExecPriv to prevent it… *g*

]]>