Fight Corporate Media Liars


August 7, 2007

The CORRUPTION UPDATES posts corruption news stories from California, the Nation and the World, and gives you the straight story.



Previous Corruption Updates: Page 98

Next Corruption Updates: Page 100

Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org

1) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

Bush, Democrats Struggle for Spy Deal

Friday, August 3, 2007

(08-03) 18:02 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) –


Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.

Democratic leaders cleared the way for votes on different measures — at least two in the Senate and one in the House.

In the Senate, Democrats prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House after getting a vote on their own measure. Both were debated Friday night.

The House, meanwhile, moved toward a vote on a Democratic-written bill opposed by Bush and expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority needed there to pass.

It would require a review by the FISA court within 15 days after intelligence agents get the newly expanded powers for eavesdropping on terrorists abroad without warrants and end that authority in four months.

The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before the eavesdropping began. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:

_Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

_FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.

_The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.


Dems fail to defend Constitution against Bush Terror Attack

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

The Article below was written January 19, 2007 for CU 32_3

The specific words of the Fourth Amendment of The Constitution are:

...and No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Neither the President nor Congress has any legitimate authority to interfere with, or alter the Constitution's specific standard defining legal searches. Nor can the Courts strike down our Constitution.

Each branch of our government is required to remain within its Constitutional bounds, while ensuring that the other branches also keep within their limits.

All of the branches of our government are failing both these tasks.

As things stand now, Congress thinks its duty is to divide the wealth of our nation among themselves and their corporate sponsors. The President is openly consolidating and exercising the powers of a dictator. The courts have been working on a decades-long devolution of our Constitutional and civil rights.

It is way past the time when honest citizens, let alone our dishonest politicians, should have stood up against these crimes and corruptions which threaten our Constitution, the rights of our citizens, and the safety of our country.

Our corrupt Congress and our criminal President are a clear and present danger to the shredded remnants of our democracy and our few remaining civil liberties.

We voted out the last Congress, and like magic, nothing has changed. This Congress continues to feed at the trough of corruption, and the President continues to assault our Constitution. Nothing has changed.

Congress and President must be removed from office and prosecuted for openly violating our laws and betraying our Constitution.

The only solution to controlling political corruption requires that we change who funds the candidates. Any meaningful reform to our elections must make all the candidates, and the results of all of our elections, reflect power of the local voters, rather than the power and interests of the corporations who sponsor our politicians.

Local voters must be put back in charge of their representatives. This can only be done if we make the local voters the primary source of funding for local candidates.

The funding and contributions that support every candidate in every election must come only from the voters in that election.

Today, the outcome of local elections-all elections-are decided by which candidate can raise the most outside money. The dependency of candidates on vast sums of outside money assures voters that the final winner of the election will be more dependent on the corporations and special interests who bribed them, than the support of their own voters.

The reason we are suffering under a criminal Congress and President is that elections today are a function of wealth and power, not of democracy.

As deeply as our elections are corrupted by wealth and power, so too is the depth of corruption of our representatives. These corrupted politicians are only capable of emitting legislation and policy that serves the interests of their corporate sponsors.

Restoring control of our elections to the local voters is only the first step in restoring our democracy. We still face the tasks of restoring the individual rights that have been eroded in recent decades. We are faced with the task of restoring the free press from its corporate captivity. And finally, we will have to drive Congress and the President back within the bounds of our Constitution.

Pelosi's Congress just "gave" Bush a "law" that suspends the Constitution just to his tastes, while at the same time dividing up earmarks between themselves, and our national wealth between their corporate sponsors.

Rather than making Bush's warrantless wiretapping programs legal, Congress' passage of this vile law joins them to the President as enemies of our rights, and the Constitution of the United States.

Draft Articles of Impeachment

Bush has led us to war on false pretexts.

Bush has made rules for captures, which the Constitution grants exclusively to Congress.

Bush has claimed the power to practice the use of torture, a clear violation of repeatedly affirmed domestic and international laws.

Bush has created secret prisons beyond law or oversight.

Bush and Congress have, in concert, attacked habius corpus, and pretended the right to diminish the fundamental rights of all persons held under legitimate American authority.

Bush has kidnapped and unlawfully detained numerous individuals in sovereign countries far from any war, exceeding the lawful exercise of war powers by any legitimate President of the United States, violating the sovereignty of these nations, as well as the laws of war, and the rule of law itself.

Bush has claimed and exercised unlimited power to search all Americans without warrant, a clear violation of the Constitution and law of this country.

Bush and Congress have, in concert, repeatedly attacked the right of every American to be secure in their possessions and their effects by repeatedly passing laws in violation of the Constitution allowing secret warrantless searches of American's homes, their possessions, and records, or as the Constitution defines it, their effects.

Bush has claimed the power to set aside law and the Constitution using signing statements, an innovation not named in the Constitution, in clear violation of the process for creating laws defined by the Constitution.

Bush has refused the lawful oversight of Congress, claiming that national security concerns put him above and outside of the Constitutionally checked and balanced duties of the office of the President.

And Congress sits idly by, collecting their wages of bribery as its powers, and our protections are stripped away, Constitutional right by Constitutional right.


Also See:

Corruption Updates 23, 9th article on the page, "TIMES SOFTPEDALS PRESIDENTIAL WAR CRIMES AND DOMESTIC CRIMES"



Corruption Updates 36, 5th article on the page, "White House Confirms Americans Have No Constitutional Protections"

Corruption Updates 41, 5th article on the page, "FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says:HOW DO YOU SAY ILLEGAL SEARCH? “National Security Letter"

Corruption Updates 51, 9th article on the page, "Administration Seeks to Expand Surveillance Law"


Search the Corruption Database under

Illegal Searches (35 Abstracts)

Unconstitutional Presidential Power (58 Abstracts)

Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

2) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

Senate Passes Bush Spy Bill

Friday, August 3, 2007

(08-03) 20:30 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) –


The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority for six months.

The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.

In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government would ensure its spying would not target Americans.

"The rule of law is still critical in this country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said before the losing...

. "It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance."

"We can have security and our civil liberties," Tierney said.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy — not the executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control — it's mind-boggling."


Illegal Bush Search Bill ok with Senate Dems

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

See Commentary  and Links above.


Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

3) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

House Approves Wiretap Measure
White House Bill Boosts Warrantless Surveillance

By Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 5, 2007; A01


The Democratic-controlled House last night approved legislation President Bush's intelligence advisers wrote to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law...

The original statute was enacted after the revelation of CIA abuses in the 1970s, and it required judicial oversight for most federal wiretapping conducted in the United States.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions of the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve the legislation sought by intelligence officials could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attacks.

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the monitoring, under certain conditions, of electronic communications between people on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens, and people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States," without a court's order or oversight.

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."

Last night, several Democrats said the bill would undermine the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said lawmakers were being "stampeded by fear-mongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned that the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."

Under the administration's version of the bill, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general could authorize the surveillance of all communications involving foreign targets. Oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, composed of federal judges whose deliberations are secret, would be limited to examining whether the government's guidelines for targeting overseas suspects are appropriate. The court would not authorize the surveillance.

"I'm not comfortable suspending the Constitution even temporarily," said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a member of the House intelligence committee. "The countries we detest around the world are the ones that spy on their own people. Usually they say they do it for the sake of public safety and security."


Pelosi, Dems, Betray Constitution Again

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

Rather than impeaching Bush, as patriotism, duty, and our Constitution requires, Pelosi and the Dems have instead joined him in his domestic and international crime spree.

Domestically, the Dem Congress just passed this patently unconstitutional domestic spying bill, which is a crime on its face, and an abomination in its details.

The Dems tolerated Bush's domestic spying when they were in the minority, and have not just continued to fund it, but have given Bush's criminal claims the pretense of legal cover.

These traitors must be taught that neither party, no matter how rich or powerful they are, has the right to suspend, or make any law that contravenes the Constitution.

Internationally, the Dems continue to fund Gitmo. The Dems continue to fund the system of secret CIA prisons around the world, where Bush is doubtlessly authorizing the torture of his kidnap victims until they admit their already pre-determined guilt.

Following Bush's incompetent lead, all the Dem candidates for president have agreed that American troops are going to be in Iraq for a long long time. And the Dems in Congress continue to fund a war without any goal or foreseeable end.

Remember, the Dems started, and perpetuated the Vietnam War from beginning to end. Not a ray of sunlight can pass through the difference between the Dems and Repugs on illegal domestic spying, funding the war, globalism, and most importantly, on funding their parties and elections with vast amounts of corporate special interest money. Neither party is financed by the voters, neither party runs our country for the welfare of its citizens, and both parries are equally responsible for the breakdown in our democracy.

The policies that emanate from both parties are closer to each other that to the needs or beliefs of the American people they are supposed to represent.

Today, the greatest threat America faces is domestic, not Osama or the "terrorists." The enemy can be easily identified in this country, and around the world.

Just look for the people who say, "We are taking away your rights to protect you."

See Commentary  and Links above.

Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

4) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

This is an important abstract from late 2005 that gives context to the latest degradations of our rights:

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts


December 16, 2005, Friday


(NYT); Foreign Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 3754 words



WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

...most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

...intelligence agencies...were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials. In response, President Bush significantly eased limits on American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the military.

...last year, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's claim that those labeled "enemy combatants" were not entitled to judicial review of their open-ended detention.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

...the agency ordinarily operates under tight restrictions on any spying on Americans, even if they are overseas, or disseminating information about them.

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks...

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.

Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

A White House Briefing

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply.

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant - intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups - and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

The N.S.A. domestic spying operation has stirred such controversy among some national security officials in part because of the agency's cautious culture and longstanding rules.

Widespread abuses - including eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists - by American intelligence agencies became public in the 1970's and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil. Among other things, the law required search warrants, approved by the secret F.I.S.A. court, for wiretaps in national security cases. The agency, deeply scarred by the scandals, adopted additional rules that all but ended domestic spying on its part.

Concerns and Revisions

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.

For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.

A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.

A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping.

According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.

Several national security officials say the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act, which is up for renewal.

President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said.

The Legal Line Shifts

Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds.

The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.

For example, just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Mr. Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer, wrote an internal memorandum that argued that the government might use "electronic surveillance techniques and equipment that are more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies in order to intercept telephonic communications and observe the movement of persons but without obtaining warrants for such uses."

Mr. Yoo noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."


Five Years of Criminal Presidential-Congressional-Judicial Illegal Domestic Spying Program prove

Government Illegitimate

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

The above is an abstract from the original NY Times article revealing the existence of a super-secret program to survaile Americans without warrants using the NSA.

The NY Times article describes how the President authorized the NSA program to run without warrant or any type of oversight until mid 2004, when "probable cause" determination was determined by a "checklist," rather than an independent judge.

This cursory, in house "check" did nothing to restrict the President's illegal domestic spying program. During this time the President was bringing on line the high tech program that would allow the NSA to monitor all domestic digital and voice communications.

It was during March of 2004 that Gonzales and Card tried to bulldoze the hospitalized and incapacitated into signing off on  a new program.

Ashcroft held his ground, and refused to sign off on the legality of a new "second" NSA domestic spying program. Ashcroft was soon replaced by Gonzales, who views presidential powers as unlimited and unchecked.

Notable about the NY Times article is not just their delay in reporting these presidential crimes, but their inability to even conclude that crimes were committed, or to draw any conclusions about the balance of evidence in contrast with the clearly written words of the Constitution.

...and No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Despite these clear words the Times is quoting government officials describing clear violations of the 4th Amendment as something that, "...once may have been seen as crossing a legal line...," without measuring these statements and actions against the bare words of the Constitution and calling a crime a crime.

The Times reported Yoo's assertion of unlimited presidential power without balancing, or measuring Yoo's fascist theories of power against a proponent of the Constitution, or the Constitution itself. This is a glaring omission, and yet another troubling failure of the Times.

This leads me to believe that either the Times is incompetent, or they are biased against our Constitutional rights. It is clear that the Times does not base their political analysis of the government's actions against the plain words and clear meaning of the Constitution.

So far the Times has assisted this Administration in his assault on the Constitution by helping him to start a criminal war, and now the Times is soft-pedaling, if not justifying, Bush's criminal spying programs,

The Times was a handmaiden of the Bush Administration's march to war, a proponent of the "Patriot" act, and has continually failed to analyze this administration's claims and use of power against the plain words of our Constitution during the past seven years.

The Times is a handmaiden of tyranny, the servant of wealth and power, not a watchdog of liberty.

See Commentary  and Links above.

Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

5) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

This is an important abstract from early 2006 that gives context to the latest degradations of our rights:

Bush could bypass new torture ban

Waiver right is reserved

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

David Golove, a New YorkUniversity law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a GeorgetownUniversity law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks

[on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."


Bush Traitor against Duty to Constitution and Country, Threat to World

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

A brief guide to recent links and stories on Bush's domestic crimes:

Read an analysis of the genesis of the President's Illegal spying programs in Corruption Updates 104, 1st article on the page.

See a comprehensive list of links concerning the president's criminal spying programs.

The torture, kidnapping, and warrantless detention links listed below are presented below because torture, warrantless spying, and warrantless detentions all emanate from the same claims of unlimited power by the president, who claims to be above American law, let alone the limits of humanity and decency.

Sadly, Congress has already said they would not stop him, and the candidates are drooling to wield Bush's dictatorial powers. so it seems to have fallen to us, the people, to reject and remove these blatant corruptions that have overgrown our Constitution, and our once Democratic Republic.

Stand up...Don't give up your rights.

Also See:


Corruption Updates 34, 4th article on the page, "Germany issues CIA arrest orders"

Corruption Updates 36, 4th article on the page, "IRAQI GOV FOLLOWS AMERICAN EXAMPLE: KIDNAPPING-TORTURE"

Corruption Updates 37, 8th article on the page, "Corporate Media Humiliates itself, Again:War,WMD,Kidnapping,Torture,and Plame..."

Corruption Updates 37, 4th article on the page, "Public Recognition of Criminal President Rising"

Corruption Updates 38, 2nd article on the page, "Gitmo:THE KANGAROO COURT IS OPEN: ENTER AND BE CONVICTED"

Corruption Updates 41, 6th article on the page, "BUSH LAWLESSNESS SPREADS TO KENYA:Kenya defends transfers, absolves U.S."

Corruption Updates 57, 9th article on the page, "GOP candidates divided on detainees' treatment"

Corruption Updates 69, 1st article on the page, "Rights Groups Call for End to Secret Detentions"

Corruption Updates 70, 3rd article on the page, "First CIA rendition trial opens"

Corruption Updates 71, 1st article on the page, "CIA rejects secret jails report"

Corruption Updates 80, 1st article on the page, "CIA Lawyer who Justifies Toture-Kidnapping-Endless Detention Appears before Congress"

Corruption Updates 80, 4th article on the page, "Abu Ghraib: Taguba fired for Probing too Deeply"

Corruption Updates 82, 3rd article on the page, "CIA Crimes Revealed"

Corruption Updates 83, 1st article on the page, "Cheney the Torture mastermind"

Corruption Updates 84, 1st article on the page,"Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table"

Corruption Updates 43, 6th article on the page, "Hagel: Bush impeachment on the table"

Corruption Updates 85, 1st article on the page, "Cheney: Angler, A Catalog of Cheney Crimes"

Corruption Updates 91, 4th article on the page, "In Intelligence World, A Mute Watchdog: Bush Above the Law"

Corruption Updates 99, 5th article on the page, "Bush Could Bypass new Torture Ban"

Search the Corruption Database under

Torture (41 Abstracts)

Illegal Detentions

Illegal Trials

Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

6) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.


Same Agencies to Run, Oversee Surveillance Program


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; A02


The Bush administration plans to leave oversight of its expanded foreign eavesdropping program to the same government officials who supervise the surveillance activities and to the intelligence personnel who carry them out, senior government officials said yesterday.

The law, signed Sunday by President Bush after being pushed through the Senate and House over the weekend, does not contain provisions for outside oversight...

But the officials, who spoke to reporters on the condition that they not be identified, said surveillance activities would require a sworn certificate and affidavit, which would be reviewed for accuracy by inspectors general from the Justice Department or intelligence agencies.

The controversial changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were approved by both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Congress despite privacy concerns raised by Democratic leaders and civil liberties advocacy groups.

Central to the new program is the collection of foreign intelligence from "communication service providers," which the officials declined to identify, citing secrecy concerns. During congressional debates last week, however, both Republicans and Democrats referred to global communication networks that route foreign phone calls and e-mails through wires, cables and switching stations owned by U.S. companies and located on U.S. soil.

Under the new law, the attorney general is required to draw up the governing procedures for surveillance activity, for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which supervises the warrantless collection of eavesdropping inside the United States when it involves foreign intelligence.

Once the procedures are established, the attorney general and director of national intelligence will formally certify that the collection of data is authorized -- a determination based on affidavits from intelligence officials. But the certification will be placed under seal "unless the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the acquisition," according to the law signed by Bush.

It is left to the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to "assess compliance with such procedures" and report their assessments to the House and Senate intelligence panels, the statute states.

Gonzalez is also required to provide semiannual reports to the House and Senate intelligence and Judiciary committees, which are to include any accounts of abuse or noncompliance that Justice and intelligence officials discover in their internal reviews.


Liar Gonzales Runs Unconstitutional Searching Program

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

Notice that the key feature of this new "law," and I use that term loosely, is that it has zero oversight. There are no external, independent checks on the President's searching powers. This is completely unconstitutional. Authorizing illegal searches is beyond the authority of Congress.

The fact is that Congress has no power to pass laws which modify the Constitution. Any law that pretends to suspend the Constitution and authorize Presidential crimes is a crime itself.

See Commentary  and Links above.

Also see this list of links directly reporting on Gonzales' repeated lying to Congress and the American People:

Corruption Updates 43, 2nd article on the page, GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS

Corruption Updates 43, 4th article on the page, Gonzales Met With Top Aides On Firings: GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS

Corruption Updates 46, 1st article on the page, Gonzales Caught Lying, AGAIN: Gonzales, Miers Approved Firings, Ex-Aide Says

Corruption Updates 48, 5th article on the page, Justice Department In New Fight Over Papers on Firings: Gonzales a Liar

Corruption Updates 48, 9th article on the page, Gonzales a Liar: Ex-Justice Official's Statements Contradict Gonzales on Firings

Corruption Updates 51, 3rd article on the page, Gonzales Aide Floated Replacements Early On

Corruption Updates 54, 1st article on the page, A Root and Branch Survey: Gonzales allowed aides some hiring power, records show

Corruption Updates 91, 7th article on the page, Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say: US Attorney General a Liar

Corruption Updates 95, 4th article on the page, Gonzales testifies in firings row: And Lied to Congress about the hospital assault

Corruption Updates 96, 1st article on the page, FBI director contradicts Gonzales on wiretaps: Noose of Lies Tightening around Gonzales Neck


Search the Corruption Database under

Illegal Searches (35 Abstracts)

Unconstitutional Presidential Power


Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

7) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

Judiciary Pushes Bush Probe

Thursday, August 2, 2007

(08-02) 17:41 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) –


The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday scored its first public interview with a currently-serving aide to President Bush about the firings of federal prosecutors.

But the session with White House political aide J. Scott Jennings yielded little more than an appeal for sympathy and a citation of Greek mythology.

With top presidential aide Karl Rove skipping the hearing on Bush's orders, the committee had to make do with a Rove underling who made clear he was appearing only to signal goodwill and to avoid a contempt of Congress citation.

"I will be unable at this time to answer any questions concerning White House consideration, deliberations or communications related to the U.S. attorneys matter," Jennings, deputy director of Bush's White House political shop, told the panel. He made that assertion after initially noting at the outset that he is only 29 years old.

Jennings' former boss, Sara Taylor, took a similar approach last month when she testified with a lawyer by her side and for several hours tried to pick and choose which questions to answer and which to refuse — citing executive privilege.

Congressional Democrats for seven months have been investigating whether the Justice Department's purge of several federal prosecutors over the winter was done at the White House's direction, for improper political purposes.



President Defies Congress, Constitution, to Cover Illegal Tampering with Federal Prosecutions-Prosecutors

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

Despite Bush's attempts to stonewall the investigation into the politicization of the US Attorneys Office, enough information has come out to get a broad outline of a vast conspiracy to subvert justice and replace the rule of law with a system of law determined by political loyalty and expediency.

The article below is crude, and is still a work in progress, but it lays out the basic outlines of the plot.

The US Attorney Scandal:

A Root and Branch Survey

Originally written May 1, 2007, for CU 54_1

Bushies Ascendant

On May first, 2007, The LA Times reported that in March of 2006 Gonzales delegated hiring for political appointments to his chief of staff, Sampson, who was to work with the White House liaison to the Justice Department. Goodling.

This delegation of political appointment authority to Sampson and Goodling in March 2006 coincides with Sampson's email of May 06, naming potential replacements for 4 US Attorneys.

It is clear that by May of 2006 the responsibility to hire and fire US Attorneys and political appointments was now consolidated and delegated to the staff level, in the hands of Sampson and Goodling. It is also clear that Sampson and Goodling used highly partisan political standards to vet and hire both career Justice employees and US Attorneys.

This meant that political crimes committed in hiring US Attorneys or making political appointments could be blamed on the staff, rather than the political leadership.

The Administration's program to politicize the rule of law in the United States has three immediate goals. The first is to pursue political prosecutions against political enemies using corrupted US Attorneys. The second goal is to dismantle the Civil Rights Division and use the remnants to suppress minority voting rights. The third goal is to pack career Justice Department positions with pliant tools of corruption to forestall rebellions, such as the one that broke out during March of 2004 in the Justice Department against Bush's criminal spying programs.

The goal is the complete subversion of the rule of law to the will of Bush, and the service of his party. This power is currently being used to manipulate the outcome of elections, indemnify their faction from political corruption prosecution, and protect their use of illegal police state powers from prosecution.

Making staff level employees responsible for hiring and firing meant that the crimes committed in firing US Attorneys who refused to politicize their office, and hiring US Attorneys and career personal who would, could be blamed on the staff, rather than on the political leadership.

The evidence indicates that a uniform standard, loyalty to Bush before the rule of law, was employed to select candidates for both career and political positions by May of 2006, when Sampson and Goodling took over. Violating this rule became grounds for dismissal. This is always unethical, and became criminal when used to guide the selection of US Attorneys.

The following narrative defines the basic outlines of the conspiracy.

The First Steps

The politicization of career employees began in earnest during Ashcroft's tenure as the Attorney General. Ashcroft shifted the authority to select successful candidates for the Department of Justice's "honors" program, a highly sought after path for top law students to start their careers at Justice, from career employees to political appointees.

This was a forerunner of Goodling and Sampsom's program to fill career positions, political appointments, and US Attorneys in the Justice Department based on the candidate's ideology, and the candidate's willingness to put their ideology before the rule of law itself.

This change in how and why honors candidates were chosen is unquestionable unethical and arguably illegal. But this was only the starting point of the US Attorney Scandal.


The Executioners Two Year Plan

By May of 2006 when Goodling and Sampson were delegated the mechanics of filtering out US Attorneys who put the rule of law before loyalty to Bush and the Repugnant Party, emails indicate that Sampson already had his sights on replacing at least four uncooperative US Attorneys when he was delegated the hiring and firing authority, despite his lies to Congress to the Contrary.

Despite Gonzales' lies to the contrary, he and top level Justice officials met on Nov. 27 of 2006 to review the plans to fire US Attorneys,

This indicates that the Administration's plan to politically control US Attorney prosecutions had been in the planning stages for quite some time before Sampson was officially delegated the authority to name replacements in May of 2006.

Sampson referred to the December 2006 firings as the result of, "a two year plan" to replace US Attorneys with "Bushies."


The Massacre and its victims

The first public indications that the firings were more than a normal change of US Attorneys came out of New Mexico, in March of 2007, when the public learned about Domenici's repeated attempts to pressure one of New Mexico's US Attorneys, David Iglesias.

We subsequently learned that Domenici's dissatisfaction with Iglesias' failure to prosecute his political enemies reverberated through the White House and Justice department in March of 2006.

Domenici's complaints echoed far and wide. N. Mexico's Repub party chief, Weh, echoed Domenici's anger to Karl Rove, who assured him that their uncooperative US Attorney would be replaced.

Rove knew Iglesias would not play ball, and use his office to influence elections, reward friends, or punish enemies. Domenici's dissatisfaction was communicated to the highest levels of the White House, even getting Bush to call Gonzales about Iglesias.

This was an active attempt to use the power of the white house to drive forward a prosecution for political reasons. This is a crime, and this represents a conspiracy to subvert justice extending downward from the President, to Gonzales, Domenici, Rove, and on down to Weh.

Bush's call to Gonzales puts him at the center of the crime. Bush directly participated in pressuring Gonzales on behalf of Domenici. Domenici's pressure on Iglesias was clearly illegal, as were the subsequent attempts by almost everyone in the White House to act on Domenici's complaints.

The final act was when played when Rove moved on Domenici's complaints, contacting both Gonzales and Miers about removing Iglesias.

This lack of ethics became criminal when the Sampson-Goodling team's hiring and firing practices became subject to political pressure. acting with the authority of both the President and the Attorney General, developed a list of US Attorneys who had obstructed partisan political prosecutions against political enemies, or even worse, had the audacity to pursue political corruption prosecutions against the President's allies, and fired them.

This has not been limited the the US Attorneys, but extends the length and breath of all of the executive branch departments.

Iglesias is clear about the nature of the situation : Domenici and Wilson pressured him for political prosecutions. Iglesias believes, and the evidence indicates, that Domenici and Wilson used all of their formidable political powers to first, force him to pursue political prosecutions, and when that failed, to have him removed from office.

The matter ended up on Goodling's desk, and Iglesias was added to the list of US Attorneys marked for political extinction.

The message these firings sent is clear: Fuck with us and die.


Rove's Conspiracy to Steal Elections

Rove's involvement in the firings goes much deeper than participating in Iglesias' firing. Rove had his sights set on influencing the '08 presidential election by politically manipulating federal prosecutions in key election states.

Rove identified 11 key states for winning the '08 presidential election. Since '05, the Administration has replaced 9 of 11 US Attorneys in those states with "Bushies" willing to pursue political prosecutions. Rove identified Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, and New Mexico as the key states.

Rove in Arkansas

Rove first set his sights on the US Attorney's office in Little Rock, where he orchestrated the ouster of "Bud" Cummings and installed one of his political aides, Tim Griffin. A two year effort was orchestrated by Sampson to fire Cummings for daring to be an independent prosecutor, and hold an office desired by one of Rove's sidekicks.

Griffin was a perfect agent to execute Rove's plan to steal the election in Arkansas. Griffin stands accused of suppressing Dem voters during the '04 presidential election in Florida. Perfect.

Rove, as mentioned above, identified the key states where politicized US Attorneys would be vital to steal the next presidential election by bringing trumped-up charges against political enemies, and using law to suppress Dem voters in states where the election would be close.

To make it work, they needed to know which US Attorneys in the key states would not play ball, and replace them with someone who played hardball, like Griffin.

Rove in Minnesota

In Minnesota, one of the key states for the next presidential election named by Rove, Rachel K. Paulose, an under-experienced, and unqualified former Gonzales aide was appointed as US Attorney to replace Thomas B. Heffelfinger, who resigned after appearing on the firing list. Heffelfinger was on Sampson's hit list for replacement for refusing to suppress the Indian vote in Minnesota, who vote heavily Democratic.

Heffelfinger has not himself cited political pressure as the cause of his resignation, but the pressure put on the others was likely put on Heffelifinger as well. It looks like Heffelfinger has a strong case of being pissed off, but is still loyal to the crooks who pissed him off.

Paulose stepped into an office which had used Federal Law as a political weapon, as demanded of loyal "Bushies," under Steven Biskupic, another Minn. US Attorney. Biskupic pursued a shabby prosecution that convicted an innocent Democrat state employee, which was overturned for the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

Paulose was appointed in the wake of this imploding political prosecution. It looks like the appointment of Paulose was the final straw of prosecutorial corruption for three senior career prosecutors in Minnesota: they resigned, rather than work under Paulose. Paulose's arrival apparently complimented Biskupic, and created an unacceptable level of partisanship that honest Attorneys could not tolerate.

Rove in Nevada

In Nevada, another key "Rove" state, Daniel Bogden worked hard to prosecute political corruption, rather than push corrupt political prosecutions. That, and his willingness to pursue a corruption investigation against Repug Gov. Jim Gibbons, was enough to get him fired.

Rove in Washington

In Washington State the US Attorney, John McKay, refused to use his office for political prosecutions, and he too was fired.

Mckay was pressured to use his office to intervene in the hotly contested 2004 Governor's election. McKay was pressured by Ed Cassidy, Chief of Staff for Doc Hastings, (R- Washington) who is also senior Republican on the Ethics Committee.

McKay's refusal to play political hard ball brought him to the attention of Harriet Miers, Bush's White House Counselor, for not pursuing political prosecutions. Mckay was chastised for angering Washington State Republicans, then he was fired.

Cassidy is now a top aid for Repub. House leader Boehner of Ohio. Cassidy's role in pressuring McKay is to be investigated by Hastings, who is the Senior Republican on the Ethics Committee, and will be a judge for the ethics case against Cassidy, despite the fact that Cassidy is being investigated for acts he committed while working for Hastings.

Hastings was was Cassidy's boss when Cassidy pressured McKay to initiate prosecutions against Democrats in Washington. It is highly unlikely that Hastings was not aware of, and in on, the attempt to politicize McKay's office.

Rove in California

Carol Lam, US Attorney in Southern California, caused such a stir in the Justice Department, if not the halls of Congress, with her expanding prosecutions of Duke and his friends, that on May 11, 06, Sampson emailed Gonzales, writing that, "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam...leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four year term expires." Lam marked herself for political execution by honestly prosecuting Duke, Wilkes, and Foggo, some of the best connected men in Congress. Before Lam started hanging them out to dry. (use the database for abstracts on these three)

The Veil of LIes

As the clamor over the political firings increased, Congress invited Justice Representatives to appear and provide information on the firings. Goodling prepared McNulty, second in charge at Justice, to testify before Congress in early Feb. '07, where McNulty lied to Congress about the nature of the firings, allegedly based on information provided by Goodling.

In March, 07, Sampson testified to the Senate Judicial Committee that,"I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign." This contradicts his Emails of Jan. and May, 06, to the White House, naming four potential replacements for the to-be-fired US Attorneys. Sampson openly lied to Congress.

Gonzales' denials that he was involved in the firings, and his statements that he had "No Discussions" about the firings, and he had no intentions of avoiding Senate confirmation for the new US Attorneys were bald-faced lies. Gonzales' compounded these lies when he repeated them to the American People during his March 13 press conference.

Gonzales' lies have been exposed by the testimony of his former chief of staff, Sampson, and by the emails and Justice Department documents released to Congress. The evidence clearly exposes Gonzales as a liar.

Sampson's testimony was clear: Gonzales was "regularly briefed about the evolving two-year plan to oust the attorneys," proving Gonzales lied to Congress and the American People.

Sampson's testimony was reinforced by M.A. Battle, former head of the US Attorney's Office in the Justice Department. Battle's statements confirm Sampson's testimony that Gonzales lied about not participating in the firings. Battle also directly contradicts Gonzales' statement that the Attorneys were fired for "performance problems."

Battle stated that 7 of the 8 fired Attorneys had "no performance problems." Battle complimented the fired US Attorneys for being among the top attorneys in the country.

James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005, and a Republican, recently testified before Congress about the performance of the fired US Attorneys. He ranked them "among the department's most able prosecutors," with the exception of one. (Ryan of SF was apparently the sole "performance problem" in the group fired) The charges of "performance problems" the Administration threw at their own US Attorneys were false, and dishonorable.

Chickens were quiet when the wolf was in the hen house, only Squaking After the Wolf Ate them,

The revelations about the political pressure on the prosecutors would have remained secret, if the prosecutors were not fired. Not a peep came out of the US Attorney's mouths when they were pressured by politicians to pursue political prosecutions while they were in office.

The US Attorneys only started squawking afterwards, only after they were fired.Duty, Honor and respect for the rule of law should have compelled them to report and prosecute the clear attempts by crooked politicians and this corrupted Administration to manipulate prosecutions by the US Attorney's Office.

You can expect no better than this when the US Attorneys who were fired had the balls to resist, but not report, the clearly criminal political pressures they were subjected to.

As these US Attorneys were appointed by the same crooked administration that was demanding illegal prosecutions of political enemies, it is encouraging that they did not cave. But that's was not good enough. All these US Attorneys allowed loyalty to silence them in the face of crime.

The Results

Bush, despite the clear conspiracy in his Administration to politicize the rule of law, and his specific call to Gonzales to encourage a political prosecution on behalf of Dominici, is still the President.

Gonzales, despite his being caught in repeated lies about the firings of the US Attorneys, still disgraces the Office of the Attorney General.

Rove, despite his repeated manipulations of the power of government for partisan uses, has failed to be charged for any of his crimes.

The political execution of the non-partisan US Attorneys is an indication of a deeper politicization pervading the whole Department of Justice. The Bush Administration's criminal and unethical manipulations have badly damaged the credibility and reputation of the Department of Justice, the Office of the US Attorney, and the rule of law in the United States.

Bush Wins

Despite the scandal and loss of reputation, Bush and Gonzales have succeeded. It is now an openly acknowledged fact that Bush has filled our US Attorney positions with biased, unqualified political insiders who are incompetent to be US Attorneys. And he got away with it.

But don't worry. Apparently many of these US Attorneys never really do the job they were appointed to do. Gonzales is keeping a flock of US Attorneys in the Justice Department, where he uses them as his Officeboys, only sending them to their district offices to carry out the Administration's political will.

Gonzales has so damaged the reputation of US Attorneys that the Justice Department is finding it difficult to fill empty positions.

This represents total victory for the Administration: Empty Positions and incompetent political hacks present no threat to the Administration's illegal spying, kidnapping, and torture programs.

America Loses

Despite the clear and compelling evidence of a vast conspiracy to subvert federal prosecutions, there is no indication that these crimes will be independently investigated, let alone prosecuted.

It is obvious that Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling, Miers, Domenici, Wilson, Weh, and a vast web of dozens co-conspirators used their political offices to influence federal prosecutions, and fire uncooperative prosecutors.

I would suggest that Congress establish a special prosecutor to track these crimes to their root, but our newly elected Democratic Congress is in no mood to pull its head out of the trough of corruption and protect any of our rights.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table, in October of 2006, knowing full well about Bush's use of warrantless searches, kidnappings, and torture. The Dem Congress just violated the Constitution by passing a moot law that authorizes Bush's criminal warrantless search program. The Dems continue to fund the kidnapping, torture, and secret prisons.

Hell, the Dems continue to fund this illegal and immoral war. All the major Dem candidates for President say we will remain in Iraq.

I expect that Pelosi and her Democratic Congress will not do a damn thing about Bush's crimes in the Department of Justice, as they have assisted him with every one of his previous crimes.

Also See:


Corruption Updates 38, 1st article on page, “Fired U.S. attorney's testimony raises broader concerns”

Corruption Updates 39, 3rd article on page,Rove's role in firings is focus

Corruption Updates 39, 5th article on page, “GOP official urged Rove to fire prosecutor”

Corruption Updates 39, 7th article on page, “Gonzales is urged to quit 'for the nation'

Corruption Updates 42 , 2nd article on page, “Tobacco prosecutor says administration interfered"

Corruption Updates 42 , 5th article on page,U.S. suggests cutting Abramoff sentence"

Corruption Update 43 2nd article on the page, "GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS"

Corruption Updates 46, 8th article on the page, "Prosecutor Posts Go To Bush Insiders: Bush packing US Attorney posts with biased insiders"

Corruption Updates 47, 2nd article on the page, "Gonzales has US Attorneys in Babylonian Captivity"

Search the Corruption Database under

US Attorney (64 Abstracts)

Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Home All Archives

Top of Page

8) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.



Gonzales Now Says Top Aides Got Political Briefings

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Saturday, August 4, 2007; A05


Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that he did not believe that senior Justice Department officials had attended such briefings. But he clarified his testimony yesterday in a letter to Congress, emphasizing that the briefings were not held at the agency's offices.

Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department and sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directly in election campaigns or other political activities, a Justice official said yesterday.

At the July 24 hearing, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked Gonzales whether any of "the leadership of the Department of Justice" had participated in political briefings, pointing to examples involving employees from the State Department, Peace Corps and U.S. Agency for International Development.

"Not that I'm aware of. . . . I don't believe so, sir," Gonzales said.

Justice officials attended 12 political briefings at the White House, and another held at the Department of Agriculture, from 2001 to 2006, according to the list sent to Waxman. At least five were led by Rove or included presentations by him.

The list compiled by Justice did not include many details about the kind of information presented at those briefings. One March 2001 meeting included a "political update" from Rove and a discussion on "how we can work together to advance the President's agenda."

Political briefings by White House aides have become a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill in recent months. Waxman is investigating whether the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity on federal government property.

. Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director, and J. Scott Jennings, the current deputy political director, have testified that the briefings were designed to thank such appointees for their service to the president.

Other briefings given by Taylor and Jennings have included detailed PowerPoint presentations, including district-by-district analyses of critical House races. Top ambassadors in early January learned from Rove and Taylor the top 36 targets among House Democratic incumbents in the 2008 races, while State Department employees at a White House meeting in 2001 learned what the most critical media markets were for Bush's reelection in 2004.

The Office of Special Counsel, conducting its own investigation, has ruled that a briefing at the General Services Administration in late January violated the Hatch Act.

Meanwhile, Congress has questioned the role that political considerations played inside Gonzales's Justice Department in both the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year and in the hiring of career employees, the latter an apparent violation of civil-service laws.

Most of the Justice briefings were attended by the department's White House liaisons, including Monica M. Goodling, who left that post earlier this year amid the controversy over the firings of U.S. attorneys. Others present included D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former chief of staff, and several people who held the top or deputy positions in the department's legislative affairs office.

Gonzales's letter was part of a broader set of correspondence with senators in which he clarified some of his remarks of July 24 but stood by the accuracy of his testimony on a number of major issues, including his characterizations of a warrantless surveillance program and of abuses under the USA Patriot Act.



Gonzales Adds yet Another Lie to His List of Crimes and Lies:

Defends Politicization of Justice in America

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

This is yet another lie to add to Gonzales' long list of lies that litter his tenure as the top lawman in the country.

The fact that Rove was directly offering political guidance to Senior Justice Officials at the same time he was working to pack the Justice Department with political operatives is ironic.

Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if he was busted for pep talking the Justice Officials, and let off for hiring partisan hit men and firing independent prosecutors?

A Partial list of Gonzales Recent Lies:

Corruption Updates 43, 2nd article on the page, GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS: justice planned to manipulate confirmation free US Attorney power

Corruption Updates 43, 4th article on the page, Gonzales Met With Top Aides On Firings: GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS

Corruption Updates 46, 1st article on the page, Gonzales Caught Lying, AGAIN: Gonzales, Miers Approved Firings, Ex-Aide Says

Corruption Updates 48, 5th article on the page, Justice Department In New Fight Over Papers on Firings: Gonzales Lied about internal discussion to replace US Attorneys

Corruption Updates 48, 9th article on the page, Gonzales a Liar: Ex-Justice Official's Statements Contradict Gonzales on Firings

Corruption Updates 51, 3rd article on the page, Gonzales Aide Floated Replacements Early On: Gonzales said it didn't happen

Corruption Updates 54, 1st article on the page, A Root and Branch Survey: Gonzales allowed aides some hiring power, records show

Corruption Updates 91, 7th article on the page, Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say: US Attorney General a Liar

Corruption Updates 95, 4th article on the page, Gonzales testifies in firings row: And Lied to Congress about the hospital assault

Corruption Updates 96, 1st article on the page, FBI director contradicts Gonzales on wiretaps: Noose of Lies Tightening around Gonzales Neck

Corruption Updates 99, 8th article on the page, Gonzales Now Says Top Aides Got Political Briefings


Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!

Submit Comments Here

Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)

Home All Archives

Top of Page

9) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

Senators Planning Ways to Oust Gonzales

Thursday, August 2, 2007

(08-02) 14:40 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) –


Senators in both parties concede they don't have enough evidence to make a perjury charge stick against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But that doesn't mean they're going to quit trying to pry him from office.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is considering asking the Justice Department's inspector general to examine whether Gonzales' answers to questions from lawmakers amount to misconduct.

"I am deeply concerned about the seriousness of his misleading testimony and the pattern that has developed with regards to the attorney general's testimony over the years," Leahy said Thursday. "At the very least, I am considering sending his answers as they stand to the inspector general for review."

Ranking committee Republican Arlen Specter doesn't sound like he'd stand in the way.

"I think we need to finish this (the committee's) investigation and find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales," Pennsylvania Sen. Specter said Thursday at a hearing.

In the House, a group of Democrats have introduced a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee there to impeach Gonzales. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who has called for a new attorney general, said the measure had merit but was not atop her list of priorities.

Both the Senate and House committees have been investigating the firings of several U.S. attorneys, abuses of the anti-terrorism U.S. Patriot Act and Gonzales' role in electronic eavesdropping and other intelligence gathering efforts.

Several current and former Justice Department officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, have contradicted Gonzales' sworn testimony.



Gonzales Like a Tick in America's Ass: Hard to Grip and Rip

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

The notable element of the above article is Pelosi's sinking any chance of making Gonzales' pay for his crimes, not the least of which is his betrayal of his duty to our country.

By saying that impeaching Gonzales was not "atop her list of priorities," she has effectively shut down the impeachment of Gonzales.

What could be higher on her list of priorities than restoring the rule of law in our country?

It is obvious that the priorities of the Dems and Repugs are almost exactly the same. Their corporate sponsors are virtually identical. Their positions on the war are identical. Their use of earmarks is identical. Almost nothing has changed since the Dems took Congress.

So we are stuck with Bush and Gonzales, no matter what crimes they commit. I can't wait to see what Bush and Gonzales have in store for us next.

You can bet their last act will be their best. I fear that Bush will soon get blood flowing in Iran, complimented by a Gonzales administered "state of emergency" here.

And of course the Dem Congress will immediately pass moot laws authorizing Bush's war with Iran, and his declaration of a domestic "state of emergency."

Also See:

Corruption Updates 43, 2nd article on the page, "GONALES CAUGHT IN OPEN LIES TO CONGRESS"

Corruption Updates 46, 1st article on the page, "Gonzales Caught Lying, AGAIN:Gonzales, Miers Approved Firings, Ex-Aide Says"

Corruption Updates 48, 5th article on the page, "Justice Department In New Fight Over Papers on Firings:Gonzales a Liar"

Corruption Updates 48, 9th article on the page, "Gonzales a Liar:Ex-Justice Official's Statements Contradict Gonzales on Firings"

Corruption Updates 51, 3rd article on the page, "Gonzales Aide Floated Replacements Early On"

Corruption Updates 63, 8th article on the page, "Hispanic Groups Reconsider Their Support for Gonzales"

Corruption Updates 90, 1st article on the page, " White House says it won't hand over documents on attorney firings: BUSH REFUSES OVERSIGHT"

Corruption Updates 91, 7th article on the page, "Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say: US Attorney General a Liar"

Search the Corruption Database under

Gonzales (69 Abstracts)

Our readers would love to hear what you think about political Corruption:

Submit Your Comments Here

Please limit comments or essay to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number that you are referring to. Example: (82_1.)

Home All Archives

Top of Page

10) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.

Bill Walsh, Innovator of West Coast Offense, Dies at 75


NYT, July 31, 2007




Bill Walsh, who coached the San Francisco 49ers to three Super Bowl championships in the 1980s and became one of professional football’s most influential figures, devising passing strategies that were emulated long after the decline of his dynasty, died yesterday at his home in Woodside, Calif. He was 75.

Walsh’s 49ers teams won Super Bowl titles in 1982, 1985 (after losing only one game all season) and 1989. They captured six National Football Conference West championships.

Walsh had a regular-season record of 92-59-1 with the 49ers, serving as offensive coordinator in addition to head coach and, at varying times, as the general manager and the club president. His lineups featured the future Hall of Famers JoeMontana at quarterback and Ronnie Lott at defensive back and the league’s career receiving leader, Jerry Rice. Walsh was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993.

He cited several factors for his extraordinary success.

“I think we’re willing to settle for a little less yardage on passes than some teams are,” he said after the first Super Bowl triumph. “Two, our willingness to throw to the second and third receivers. And three, to look downfield for the great individual play.”


Bye Bill

Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., August 7, 2007

As a fifth generation San Franciscan, I was born and raised on a few simple facts. Only out-of-towners call it "Frisco." Everybody nods, or says hello, except for New Yorkers, who you could see and hear coming from quite a distance. The Mission is Irish. The Golden Gate Bridge costs two-bits each way, and will be free when it's paid off. And John Brodie is a Bum (My old man repeated this endlessly, although he knew I really liked Brodie), and Sunday afternoons were spent sitting on Gramp's lap on the 40 yard line at Kezar watching somebody different beat the hell out of the Niners every week.

When Bill came along, all of these things were under fire, or gone. Kezar was gone. The Mission was changing. I think the bridge was up to a buck, and you paid in one direction. Brodie had been golfing for years. One thing remained the same: Somebody different was kicking the hell out of the Niners every Sunday.

You wouldn't have know things were changing during Walsh's first two years, when the Niners did two 2-14 seasons. (I may be a little fuzzy, it was a long time ago...) During the second 2-14 season they almost won all the games they lost. It was a heartbreaking season.

You could tell something had changed, although the results were the same. We had a team of rookies who were PLAYING. On the Defense we had The Raw skill of Ronnie Lott and Eric Wright on the outsides, with the the hard headed play of Bunz combined with the Raw Genius of Walsh

The next season I saw Clark catch the catch. I shouted so much that I couldn't speak for a week afterwards.

Unknown fact that won us the Championship, and led to our first Superbowl: Dwight Hicks kicked Tony Dorsett in the head, spiking him so severely above the right eye (If I remember clearly) that he required stitches, and could not see well enough to return to the game until late in the 3rd quarter, I believe it was.

It was in the first quarter, and Dorsett was running a sweep right, when the fateful assault occurred.

The Niners could not stop Dorsett. He cut through our defensive line like a hot knife through butter. It looked like it was going to be a long, sad afternoon.

This particular right sweep easily broke the Niner's defensive line, penetrated the linebackers, and engaged the safeties. Dorsett made about 7 yards, easily, and Hicks was blocked down close to the tackled Dorsett.

Hicks looked down the length of his body, and seeing Dorsett's helmeted head right next to his foot, he took the opportunity, and stuffed his foot between Dorsett's grill and hood.

I was sitting in the Southeast corner of the stadium, and I watched the team doctor stitch Dorsett up right there on the South end of their sideline. They didn't even go into the training room.

The Cowboys still had a better team, on paper, even with Dorsett gone from the game. Montana, Hicks, Clark, and the rest of the Niners had not proven themselves. They had barely made it into the playoffs, and only a few had recognized the uncut genius that Walsh and Montana were refining.

Walsh made up for the significant holes in his team's offence and defense with a flexible application of tactics that demanded instant analysis and response from his players. The team rose to the occasion, keeping themselves in the game to the end. And the end was good.

The Niner's legacy as losers ended that day, with that catch.

Bill Walsh took a fundamentally flawed team to victory in the Superbowl, and football itself to a whole new level of sophistication.

But few had seen the potential of Walsh or the Niners. Until that day. Until that catch.

And the rest is history.


Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting:

Submit Comments Here

Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)


Previous Corruption Updates: Page 98

Next Corruption Updates: Page 100

Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org

Home All Archives

Top of Page




Corruption Database



Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
vPage 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29


Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46