Mueller Dances as Crediblity Burns

Well, finally I'm getting mail from a congressperson, rather than the other way around. That's the good news. What's the bad news? That this raw transcript won't BE news unless citizens "get it out of the blogs" and into the mainstream media. Yeah, well, good luck with that, Sir. But we will give it a shot anyhow.

Congressman Bob Wexler states: "This morning, during a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, I questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller on his agency's response to claims - made by his own FBI agents - that the CIA was torturing prisoners. I wanted to find out why, if the FBI's own agents had alleged illegal actions were taking place, there was no investigation into the CIA's illegal and immoral practices."

Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.

RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…

RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?

Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.

RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.

RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?

RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.

RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?

RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.

RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?

RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.

RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?

RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.

RW: And what was the result?

RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.

RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?

RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.

RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?

RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.

RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?

RM: I am the Director of the FBI.

RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?

RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.

RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?

RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.

RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

RM: I’m not certain what you mean.

RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.

RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….

(talking over each other)

RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.

RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.

RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.

Yep, the director certainly did adhere to his protocol throughout. Why does this remind me so much of fifties-era hearings into the existence of racketeering and organized crime? "I am informed by da fixer dat I should not answer dis question as it might tend to incraminamate me."

I'm sure many will forward your transcript to local media, Congressman Wexler. But I'm a blogger and I believe in my own media. So I'll actually be forwarding this to the attention of bloggers with reach as good or better than mine. And to newspapers with blogs.

Department of Justice Policy "No Fags or Democrats Allowed"

At points like this, it's kinda apt to remember that phrase - attribution forgotten, paraphrase probable - "A black man to vote for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders."

That applies to the sweet corn and baked beans, too.

Crooks and Liars » At DoJ, being gay is ‘even worse than being a Democrat’: "Justice Department e-mails obtained by NPR show that Gonzales’s senior counsel Monica Goodling had a particular interest in Hagen’s duties. A few months before Hagen was let go, according to one e-mail, Goodling removed part of Hagen’s job portfolio — the part dealing with child exploitation and abuse. […]

[B]y all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist. So, what was Goodling’s problem with Hagen?

The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian. As one Republican source put it, “To some people, that’s even worse than being a Democrat.”"

Of course, the stunning irony of Goodling's overt civil rights violations is unapparent to most Repugnances. (I use the term now to distinguish between Goodling's sort of psudostalinist toady and actual decent, upright ethical citizens of rightward bent.)

Even now, it seems to escape the peroxide brained Goodlingoids that if loyalty is valued over competant performance, all you will get is incompetant loyalists, and worse yet, those who's only competance is pretending to be loyal.

The extremely competent (purportedly) Democratic (rumored to be) uber-dyke will be on the other side of the argument, and she will be wearing MUCH better shoes.

As C&L observed, squabbles 'twixt two superbly qualified candidates are a lot easier to tolerate in the light of routine fuckuppetry from the Other Side.

If you were thinking of voting for McCain, anyhow - remember how little he would be able to do about getting rid of all the carpetbagging douche-bags, con-men and frauds appointed to critical positions for reasons completely unrelated to their qualifications. (Unless you count baksheesh and sucking up to be qualifications.)

Someone is going to have to put the whole government infrastructure back into running order, and the only people who will have the political capital to do that would be a Democrat.

Me, the thought of Hillary being given the post of Attorney General and a cast-iron broom handle just amuses the hell outta me. I can hear the quiet rustle of terrified testicles retracting all over DC just thinking of that happy day.

Not that she'd have to abuse her position to target political enemies. Nope. It pretty much looks like just doing her job would eliminate the vast bulk of them.

So there's another reason to vote for Obama. I want Hillary to be the Red Lensman in this storyline.

TPM Via Firedoglake - The AG Scandal Money Quotes

Just when I think I'm done for the day, I run into this:

TPM - Last week, we learned that prosecutor purge scandal had wreaked so much havoc at the Justice Department that no one wants to apply to replace Paul McNulty as the Deputy Attorney General. ("I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla," joked Viet Dinh, a former senior Justice official under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.)

This week, we learn that no one wants to be a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney, either.

Well, now; ain't THAT a fine kettle of fish. Whoda thunk that being a US Attorney could be a bad thing to have on your resume. Today, it seems, it means you are either a completely unethical Bush hack, or so desperate for a job, you'll do anything for money.

Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Tales From The Department Of Justice: "The fact that even conservatives are running away from the Bush-tainted DoJ in droves, and refusing to be considered for positions either at the Department itself or as USAs ought to be of great concern to all of us. (H/T TPM.) Prosecutions for criminal conduct must be undertaken with seriousness, and where positions remain unfilled, the communities that are meant to be served suffer. Everywhere. After reading through all of this, and considering that Rep. Conyers has asked for more testimony from Moschella and McNulty, and has expressed concerns about testimonial veracity questions about AG Gonzales as well, I can only say: more of this openness from folks who are fed up and disgusted, please. It is about damned time — because only full and complete sunshine on all of this is going to save the DoJ. "

Gee, I wonder what would happen should it become apparent there was equivalent unrest at the Pentagon and CIA.

Ashcroftgate 2004: Explained Fully On the Daily Show

The frightening thing here is that this incident actually makes John Ashcroft look principled by comparison.

Vote-Fraud in Nevada meant Voting other than Republican

Or so it seems, as the AG scandal unravels. But this isn't about the widespread corruption of the vote, as many might think, including the extremely dubious 2004 election results, results that seem to have been left to independent investigators to question when even quite blatant patterns of fraud benefited Republicans.

So we have a new and specifically Republican definition of "fraudulent votes." Those are votes that are not for Republican candidates. Failure to accept this newspeak redefinition of reality is grounds for dismissal.

Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals - washingtonpost.com:

Last October, just weeks before the midterm elections, Rove's office sent a 26-page packet to Gonzales's office containing precinct-level voting data about Milwaukee. A Justice aide told congressional investigators that he quickly put the package aside, concerned that taking action would violate strict rules against investigations shortly before elections, according to statements disclosed this week.

That aide, senior counselor Matthew Friedrich, turned over notes to Congress that detailed a telephone conversation about voter fraud with another Justice official, Benton Campbell, chief of staff for the Criminal Division. Friedrich had asked Campbell for his assessment of Rove's complaints about problems in New Mexico, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, according to a congressional aide familiar with Friedrich's remarks.

The notes show that Campbell also identified Nevada as a problem district. Daniel G. Bogden of Las Vegas was among the nine U.S. attorneys known to have been removed from their jobs last year.

Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who runs an election law blog, said that 'there's no question that Karl Rove and other political operatives' urged Justice officials to apply pressure on U.S. attorneys to pursue voter-fraud allegations in parts of the country that were critical to the GOP.

Obviously - to ordinary ethical beings of all political views - fraud is fraud is fraud, and should be prioritized according to the seriousness of the crime - and not according to who the fraud may benefit.

But in the Republican universe, clearly fraudulent actors - Katherine Harris leaps to mind - are rewarded instead of prosecuted.

The article continues, making the reason for the odd differentials clearer:

Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who runs an election law blog, said that "there's no question that Karl Rove and other political operatives" urged Justice officials to apply pressure on U.S. attorneys to pursue voter-fraud allegations in parts of the country that were critical to the GOP.

So we now see the term "prosecutorial discretion" is seen to have an explicitly political dimension. For instance, I've found no evidence that the Sproul & Associates have been seriously investigated or prosecuted despite blatant registration frauds, including Nevada. Oddly, one of the fired prosecutors was from the las Vegas office.

Meanwhile, a Deputy AG has jumped ship, according to Wonkette:
Paul McNulty, who we think was also Philip Marlowe’s incompetent cop friend, is quitting the Justice Department to… wait, we don’t really understand his reason at all.

McNulty announced his plans to leave in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, citing the financial pressures of having children entering their college years, one official said.

Allow me to explain. As it would compromise future employment to be too direct about his reasons and he did not wish to cite "personal reasons," which is code for "I'm having to enter rehab" these days, he cites a socially inarguable reason that is going to cause twitters of disbelief.

He’s not making enough as a deputy attorney general? How many goddamn kids does he have? Is he married to Michele Bachmann?

Well, rich people might actually consider it plausible. And certainly if he wishes to send his kids to the Sorbonne to study Art History, he might just need the sort of job a man with his connections could get by picking up the phone and opening the bidding wars. However, it does put a crimp in his political - I mean, "public service" - career, and therefore, many will speculate as to the real reason.

And I presume that's his intent - to distance himself from this administration before it sends both private and public careers circling the john, sparing him the awkwardness of apologies, explainations and quite possibly supoenas down the line.

A Stained Blue Fifth Amendment.

Meet George Bush's "Monica," just the sort of shiny-eyed, blond and Bushie-tailed fanatic loyalist that you'd need to help you betray your country. And after a few years of "all Monica, all the time," is the irony not palpable?

Hullabaloo:

"[W]hat were the Pat Robertson' U grad Monica Goodling's primary qualifications before joining the Department of Justice? She worked with Barbara Comstock and Timothy Griffin (the US Attorney from Arkansas who Rove pushed through under the patriot act) at the Bush Cheney oppo research department in 2000.

It doesn't automatically make her a criminal, but it sure stinks of unethical politicization of the Justice Department.

I heard Orrin Hatch filibuster for what seemed like hours this morning on Meet the Press about how there wasn't a 'shred of evidence' that there was any wrongdoing. Well, except for the totally unethical phone calls by Domenichi and Iglesias and the US Attorneys' publicly stated suspicion that they were let go for partisan political reasons, I suppose not. But they need to lay off the tequila if they actually expect to get the benefit of the doubt about their good intentions after they populated the Justice Department with dirty tricksters in extremely sensitive jobs.

Many of us were told to pipe down when we complained that the Justice Department and the NSA had been involved in spying on Americans with no oversight. But now that we know that Barbara Comstock, Monica Goodling and Tim Griffin, Karl Rove's personal smear artists, were promoted to the highest reaches of the federal police agencies with access to records on their political opponents and every other American, then it's clear that we weren't suspicious enough. At this point, I think we have to assume that with these people in charge and having the use of all the new powers of the Patriot Act, there have been no limits at all on the partisan, political use of the government's investigative powers.

I am no longer confused about why Monica Goodling took the fifth. I have little doubt that there are many crimes that took place and she's not taking any chances. This is bigger than the US Attorney scandal."

Clearly, when asked if she would do "anything" for the President, she didn't even have to be asked in person, and - in MY personal opinion - "oppo research" that is intended to be used to smear, defame and denigrate opponents is one HELL of a lot more of a moral compromise than oral sex between consenting adults, a usage I'd consider it immensely more degrading than being used to moisten a cigar, which is, after all, not actually a "Big Ten" no-no.

However, Ms. Goodling seems untroubled by having started her career in government as a professional "bearer of false witness," something the Bible frowns upon rather more harshly than more literal forms of whoredom, professional or amateur.

I mean, being used as a cigar moistener might be somewhat embarrassing (we shall not be so rude as to say "tasteless") but it's not something one needs to plead the fifth about. One pleads the fifth when there is a more than reasonable chance that some portions of one's actions might be seen as being, well, illegal.

From her Law.com Bio: Goodling graduated in 1995 with a degree in communications and a minor in politics, then started law school at American University. But she quickly transferred to Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., a school founded by Pat Robertson. (The motto: "Christian Leadership to Change the World.") There, she enrolled in a joint public policy master's and law degree program. The school, which was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1996, has a standard law school curriculum, but also encourages students to talk and think about how law interacts with their faith and values.

From the public record, I believe that discerning Christians and Lawyers may come to rather damning conclusions about the substance of those discussions and their effect upon faith, values and graduate's respect for the Law.

tag: Monica Goodling, Oppo Research, Regent University, Treason, theocrats, theocons, Impeach the President, Alberto Gonzalez, Fifth Amendment, Justice Department, US Attorney

Drowning the EPA in a bathtub causes toxic blowback.

When Grover Norquist famously said "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." few thought to ask "who's half?"

The Washington Post: Extinct Sense : A troubling report from the Interior Department

According to numerous accounts collected in the inquiry, Ms. MacDonald has terrorized low-level biologists and other employees for years, often yelling and even swearing at them. One official characterized her as an "attack dog." Much of this bullying, the report suggests, was aimed at diluting the scientific conclusions and recommendations of government biologists and at favoring industry and land interests. Ms. MacDonald's subordinates said she has trenchantly resisted both designating new species as endangered and protecting imperiled animals' habitats. She defended her interventions in an interview with the inspector general's staff, saying that she kept Interior's scientists accountable, according to the report. But the evidence available suggests she was at the least too aggressive.

H. Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, recounted a battle he had with Ms. MacDonald over the Southwest willow flycatcher, an endangered bird. Biologists in the field concluded that the bird's nesting range, which determines how much land the government should protect as habitat for the species, was 2.1 miles. Mr. Hall claims that Ms. MacDonald insisted on lowering that to 1.8 miles so that the nesting range would not extend into California, where her husband maintained a family ranch. The inspector general noted that she has no formal training in biology.

Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species - washingtonpost.com

In a few instances, federal judges have overturned decisions that MacDonald had influenced. After she declared that the endangered Santa Barbara and Sonoma salamanders were no longer "distinct populations" entitled to protection, William Alsup, a judge on the U.S. District Court for Northern California, ruled that MacDonald had arbitrarily instructed Fish and Wildlife scientists to downgrade the two species even though an agency scientist concluded that "genetics state otherwise."

"This is not to suggest that the Secretary of Interior has no role in the ultimate decision," Alsup wrote. "If the Secretary wants to re-assess the evidence, he may choose to do so, but, in doing so, he must set forth a discernible rationale."

Discernible and defensible, I would add, as well as being an accurate statement of the genuine rationale. This is all oldish news for those who deal with EPA related concerns, but it parallels similar shenanigans at the FDA, The Justice Department and of course, the Department of Homeland Security.

In the most blunt and obvious ways, it has become clear that no amount of reality, scientific evidence, Constitutional checks or the legitimate concerns of constituents donating less than 50,000 dollars concerns this administration. It is all of a piece - a complete subversion of our government processes to serve the most selfish, vicious and predatory members of the far right - and in that, they have not just betrayed our nation, but the greatest value of Conservatism - prudence.

The widespread ideological dismissal of everything that has been set up to put checks upon greed, rash actions and intrusions upon the privacy and liberty of the people is - aside from unethical with scattered clouds of evil - imprudent.

And I mean, "Imprudent from the perspective of anyone wishing to ever serve at the pleasure of the American people, ever again."

I mean "Imprudent, if you wish to avoid civil liability if not actual criminal prosecution,"

I mean "Imprudent, if you wish to not bear the brunt of the outrage of a bitterly disappointed and betrayed American People.

For in their arrogance and contempt for all arms and aims of government that do not immediately and slavishly conform to their kleptocratic ideology, they have gone so far as to dismiss the idea that they can be held accountable for anything - even things that are not merely wrong, not just evil, not just expressly forbidden by law, treaty and constitution, but things that are explicitly treasonable;

Actual, mindful, deliberate betrayals of National Security Assets in the name of political payback. This is not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of established fact.

The CIA leak case is about the obsession and ideology that disrespects facts, and disrespects truth, and declares Mafia-like vendettas against those who make good faith and professional efforts to ascertain them. The CIA leak case is about using partisan and political pressure to distort and pervert the search for truth, which is what good intelligence is all about, and the CIA leak case is about what goes wrong when these cardinal principles, time honored for every intelligence service on earth, are violated.

I want to be very, very clear here. The American people are impatient. They are not willing to "wait and see" what investigations may bring, when there are already enough damning facts in evidence to warrant decisive action. There are more than enough reasons to impeach the president. Anyone, of any party in the House or Senate that wishes a political future had best adapt to that reality. For, if it becomes yet more clear that there is no circumstance in which the members of the House and Senate feel that Constitution and Law trump political advantage, there is no reason to continue paying their salaries.

For now, more than any time before in American history, the American people have the capacity to judge the issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions. If those conclusions are at substantial variance with their representatives, they WILL seek more faithful representation.

If Congress will not execute it's Constitutional duties in such a manifest crisis of law and confidence, the people have every right to call a Constitutional Convention and establish a new Congress that will. The mechanisms for this are well understood by everyone involved, that "Government exists due to the will of the people."

This government - in particular, this Administration, but the list of offenses goes back at least fifty years - has come perilously close to becoming the "won't" of the people. That is a line that if crossed, cannot be uncrossed, nor is it a battle that the rich and powerful can win.

Never mind violent opposition; I'm speaking of widespread, general lack of co-operation. I'm speaking of entire states rejecting federal mandates. I'm speaking of entire law-enforcement bodies refusing to co-operate in any way with federal authorities, including the refusal to recognize credentials. I'm speaking of large numbers of individuals choosing to hold their savings in gold or offshore currencies, taking whatever means are needed to evade federal regulations and oversight of funds. I'm speaking of large numbers of people choosing to go "off the grid," with no visible credit, energy usage or "legitimate" jobs that require any reporting. I'm talking about a huge, passive refusal to comply with the control-freaks in DC.

In other words, I'm speaking of the internal collapse of The United States, because those in charge of maintaining it's unity cannot be trusted. The first signs of this are already clear. New York City has it's own Foreign Intelligence division, with it's own agents and foreign assets. That is what is known. I'd warrant that there's much in New York City that is unknown to the state or the federal government, and that is at the choice of the Mayor and responsible department heads.

I'd be stunned if California had not taken similar, subtle steps to ensure it's own security, particularly in the energy sector, after the state was nearly bankrupted by the manipulation of it's energy markets by the Bush Cronies at Enron. It's pretty clear that that no Blue states will get any priority in emergency or terrorist attacks when the Red gulf states were denied any real aid post Katrina.

All of this is more expensive than a working central government - but far LESS so than one that charges twice what it's worth, and does less than half of what it concienciously should. So the Federal Government should be on notice - and especially it's political leadership. You CAN be replaced. And if you are, you can fairly much assume that your career of public service is at an end. Indeed, the results might be more comprehensive than that; there was a reason for the large emigration of Tories to Canada after the Revolutionary war.

However, I do note that in this instance, Canada is less likely to welcome such refugees, save perhaps on behalf of The Hague.

tag: Civil Unrest, Civil Resistance, Treason, Impeach the President, Plamegate, CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Politicisation, EPA, FDA, DOE, Department of Education,

Another Bush "longtime friend" in trouble

Every time I hear that phraise now, I cringe.

The White House continued to back Gonzales, a fellow Texan and longtime friend of Bush. "The president supports the attorney general," White House spokeswoman Nicole Guillemard said Sunday. She said the White House does not believe Gonzales' statements were inconsistent with what his calendar showed.

Touchingly, she was wearing a pin featuring the Easter Bunny at the time. No, not actually. It was the Tooth Fairy.

Former prosecutors John McKay in Seattle and David Iglesias in New Mexico both said they were rebuked in private conversations for not pursuing Democrats in their states more aggressively in election-year investigations. "It is troubling, connecting those political dots," Iglesias said.

Bud Cummins, who was replaced as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., by a Karl Rove protegee, acknowledged political appointees can be fired for no reason.

"But in this case it looks like that authority was delegated down through (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Judge Gonzales and all the way down to a bunch of 35-year-old kids who got in a room together and tried to decide who was most loyal to the president," Cummins said.

Just to remind you, this is the second blatant crook that has held the AG slot. For the next Senate confirmation hearing, I think the "friendship" litmus test should be applied. If you have known GWB for years, and are a Bush Loyalist in spite of that, ... don't let the door hit your ass on the way out of the hearing room.

As for the prosecutors who were not fired... hm. Maybe we should look into that. Oh, and the operations of the FBI, to see how much political activity they have gotten into, following up on leads provided by Illegal NSA wiretaps of, well, who knows? Of course, that's the beauty of warrentless wiretapping. No embarrassing paperwork.

So let's just assume that Bush has wiretapped all political enemies, real and imagined and impeach from that point.

tag: alberto gonzolez, Bush Cronies, US attorney, wiretapping, impeach, political prosecutions, High Crimes and Misdemenors