PDA

View Full Version : Bush’s New US Attorney a Criminal?


dharmabum
03-16-2007, 09:25 AM
The fact Bush fired US attorneys for politcial reasons in mid-term is only half the story. The other half is who he is replacing them with that he didn't want to go to the Senate for approval on. This is just one of them.

BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide. (http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/)
Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by Greg Palast

There’s only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That’s replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush’s firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn’t bend to political pressure.

griffin-caging.pngBut the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn’t mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails — potential evidence of a crime — to email addresses ending with the domain name “@GeorgeWBush.com” he sent them to “@GeorgeWBush.ORG.” A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns “GeorgeWBush.org.” When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called, “Caging” lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.

tim-griffin.jpgThe Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not forward.” Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.
We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn’t living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.

Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn’t even know it.

And by the way, it’s not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas — even if they’re Black.

But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting. So several lawyers told us, including Ralph Neas, famed civil rights attorney with People for the American Way.

Griffin himself ducked our cameras, but his RNC team tried to sell us the notion that the caging sheets were, in fact, not illegal voter hit lists, but a roster of donors to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. Republican donors at homeless shelters?

Over the past weeks, Griffin has said he would step down if he had to face Congressional confirmation. However, the President appointed Griffin to the law enforcement post using an odd little provision of the USA Patriot Act that could allow Griffin to skip Congressional questioning altogether.

Therefore, I have a suggestion for Judiciary members. Voting law expert Neas will be testifying today before Conyers’ Committee on the topic of illegal voter “disenfranchisement” — the fancy word for stealing elections by denying voters’ civil rights.

Maybe Conyers should hold a line-up of suspected vote thieves and let Neas identify the perpetrators. That should be easy in the case of the Caging List Criminal. He’d only have to look for the guy wearing a new shiny lawman’s badge.

Travh20
03-16-2007, 09:38 AM
quick question. Can Bush or has Bush ever done anything you didnt take offense to?

Also, is there some law that says a president cant fire an attorny? Is it unprecedented in US history for a president to do such a thing? I mean, since when is dictrict attorney for the western district of Arkansas a lifetime appointment?

dharmabum
03-16-2007, 09:55 AM
quick question. Can Bush or has Bush ever done anything you didnt take offense to?

Yes, he once signed some Rape Victim protection legislation that I openly praised him for on my blog.

I also supported him going into Afganistan after 9-11. I support going after radical Islam which is why I have always said that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time.


Also, is there some law that says a president cant fire an attorny?

That's not the point.

The point is why he fired them and who he is replacing them with. Purposely interfereing with the proper fuctioning of the government is a violation of the President's oath of office.


Is it unprecedented in US history for a president to do such a thing?

Yes.


I mean, since when is dictrict attorney for the western district of Arkansas a lifetime appointment?

I don't know of anyone who claimed it is.

Travh20
03-16-2007, 10:10 AM
so you are unaware of a president firing attorneys?

dharmabum
03-16-2007, 10:10 AM
so you are unaware of a president firing attorneys?

Not 8 of them in the middle of his second term.

Travh20
03-16-2007, 10:12 AM
so if he did it at the beginning it would be OK. you dont even try anymore do you?

dharmabum
03-16-2007, 10:52 AM
so if he did it at the beginning it would be OK.

Bush did do it at the beginning and nobody said anything because it was normal. What he did now in the middle of his second term is not normal.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

Do you get it yet? I doubt you would admit it if you did.


you dont even try anymore do you?

You make it so easy, I don't really have to.

Travh20
03-16-2007, 04:31 PM
OK, well what is the problem exactly? did he break a law?

DarkFantasy96
03-16-2007, 05:06 PM
It's just a tiny bit suspect that he wants to bypass the required Senate approval for his new appointees... If true.

Brooks
03-16-2007, 07:43 PM
did he break a law?
Will you please, PLEASE stop bringing up that inconvenient truth.

500lbguerilla
03-18-2007, 12:17 AM
OK, well what is the problem exactly? did he break a law? yup. Its called Obstruction of Justice. Bush is free to fire attorneys at will. However when he fires attorneys to stop a case from proceeding he is obstructing justice.

Freethinker
03-18-2007, 09:14 AM
yup. Its called Obstruction of Justice. Bush is free to fire attorneys at will. However when he fires attorneys to stop a case from proceeding he is obstructing justice.

True. Excellent point, 500lb.

But I guess you KNOW what the excuse of the flag-waving Reichwing apologists will now be;


"Well, <sniff sniff>you can't prove he fired them to stop a case from proceeding!"

They have myriad ways to blind themselves to the truth.

___________________________

A large segment of American society seems utterly brainwashed, accepting the "truth" relentlessly fed to them by the Corporate Media. They desperately want to believe the slogans about the "Land of the Free", the "American Way", "God Bless America" and "American Democracy".

Vilepagan
03-18-2007, 09:16 AM
Will you please, PLEASE stop bringing up that inconvenient truth.

Why is it inconvenient?

I have some concerns as to why the Bush administration decided to fire eight US attorneys in the middle of his second term. This action is at the least somewhat unusual. Add to that the fact that at least one of the attorneys had reason to suspect he was being pressured to issue an indictment of a democrat right before the last Congessional election, and was fired shortly after he refused. This calls into question the motives for the firing, and even if no law was broken, I don't think our society benefits from having Federal prosecuters who are afraid to antagonize the sitting administration.

When the attorney General was asked if the White House was involved with the firings, he initially said they were not. Subsequent e-mails that have been released show that at the least, the White House and the Attorney General weren't completely accurate in their statements about this affair. Why? It does make one think they might not be telling us everything.

The Attorney general originally said that the people were fired for "performance reasons" and yet six of the eight had recently received "glowing" performance reviews. Again, why?

The only reason I can think of for the administration to fire these eight people in the way that they did was to send a message to the remaining prosecuters. These people were all appointed by President Bush, and he sent them before Congress for approval and had effectively vouched for their honesty, competence, and integrity six years ago when he chose them for their positions. If these prosecutors had been accused of some wrongdoing it would make sense to fire them publically, but if they were truly just inept, I have to believe they would have been ushered quietly out the back door so as not to be an embarrassment. Rather than be fired, they would have been offered some other asignment as the Special Counsel to the Assistant Deputy Under-Secratary for Economic Affairs in the Federated States of Micronesia, or some similarly obscure post.

As has been said, even if no law was broken, that doesn't mean this action was the right one, nor does it mean we shouldn't demand answers. Until Bill Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica he hadn't broken any laws as far as I know, yet that didn't stop many from considering his actions "wrong" and investigating to try and find out what really happened.

Vilepagan
03-18-2007, 09:17 AM
True. Excellent point, Dop.

Err...pretty sure you quoted Guerrilla. :)

Freethinker
03-18-2007, 09:36 AM
When the attorney General was asked if the White House was involved with the firings, he initially said they were not. Subsequent e-mails that have been released show that at the least, the White House and the Attorney General weren't completely accurate in their statements about this affair.

Translation;

Bush is once again exposed as a fucking LIAR.

dharmabum
03-18-2007, 09:40 AM
It's just a tiny bit suspect that he wants to bypass the required Senate approval for his new appointees... If true.

If what is true? That the patriot act allows him to bypass the senate?
We know for a fact that is true. It was put in by an aide to Arlin Spector, and Arlin says he didn't even know about it.

dharmabum
03-18-2007, 09:42 AM
As has been said, even if no law was broken, that doesn't mean this action was the right one, nor does it mean we shouldn't demand answers. Until Bill Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica he hadn't broken any laws as far as I know, yet that didn't stop many from considering his actions "wrong" and investigating to try and find out what really happened.

They key difference to the Reichwingers seems to be that Bill Clinton had a (D) after his name.

Vilepagan
03-18-2007, 09:49 AM
Translation;

Bush is once again exposed as a fucking LIAR.

Thanks for the clarification FT, but I like my words better. :)

DarkFantasy96
03-18-2007, 11:02 AM
If what is true? That the patriot act allows him to bypass the senate?
We know for a fact that is true. It was put in by an aide to Arlin Spector, and Arlin says he didn't even know about it.
Oh, okay. I did not know that. Stupid Patriot Act.

dharmabum
03-18-2007, 11:05 AM
Oh, okay. I did not know that. Stupid Patriot Act.

"This deal just keeps getting worse all the time." - Lando Calrissian

:)