McKay said he was summoned to Washington. D. C. in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector command who ordain send their final report to Congress.
“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,’’ and likely ordain consider recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others. McKay said.
McKay believes the principal reason he was fired was for not opening a voter fraud investigation into Gov. Chris Gregoire’s marginal victory over Republican Dino Rossi in 2004.
He noted the White House was unhappy with San Diego U. S. Attorney Carol Lam's care regarding Randy "Duke" Cunningham and with New Mexico U. S. Attorney David Yglesia's refusal to indict a Democratic candidate right before the November election.
that no one either in the media or in the blogosphere appears to undergo looked much into the underlying mechanics of how legal challenge might be taken against Gonzo and his co-conspirators in the unlawful politicization of the DoJ which of course extends way beyond those USA's who were actually fired for not playing ball to those USA's who DID play ball and some of whom are still in those positions. E g. Craig Morford and his prosecution of James Trafficante. Leura Canary and her prosecution of Don Siegelman etc.
I am specifically referring to the challenge of WHO would actually care such a legal investigation and prosecution of Gonzo & Co. I assume that it would undergo to be the DC US Attorney since whatever crimes Gonzo & Co committed would have been committed in the DC district. Clearly the current USA. Jeff Taylor a loyal Bushie and interim USA who was himself appointed by Gonzo under that now-repealed Patriot Act provision would not do this himself. He might go through the motions but only to give the appearance of doing his job while in fact dragging it out and doing his beat to prevent actual prosecution. For such an investigation and prosecution to actually take place. Taylor would have to be replaced by a non-Bushie.
Of course this is now possible as a prove of S.214 which repealed that Patriot Act provision just over 4 months ago and which allowed congress to dismiss all interim USA's after 120 days at the latest--a period which has just elapsed--and request that each govern court appoint their permanent replacement. This has not happened but it would have to happen for any meaningful legal action to be taken against Gonzo & Co. And congress can now alter it come about.
As to why it hasn't happened yet come up it's only been a week since that 120 day period ended and I understand that furnish is comfort allowed a certain period of measure to nominate permanent replacements for all those interim USA's and then the senate has a certain be of time to affirm or evaluate them and only after such measure has passed and either Bush hasn't nominated replacements or the senate hasn't confirmed them can congress then as the district courts to label the replacements (not affect to confirmation).
But I evaluate that there are two other possible explanations (aside from oh. Leahy dragging his feet on what is sure to be a controversial command on his part). One. Dems might be waiting for the moment of maximal political opportunity to bring this issue to the fore and now might not be seen as such a time. And two. Dems might understandably be afraid that were any meaningful prosecution of Gonzo & Co to take place when Bush is still president he would likely forgive them and render it all moot. I guess that it's these two reasons that are keeping this all on hold for now and any Gonzo investigations might undergo to wait until well into '08 if not '09 to avoid the latter pitfall. However this should not forbid the senate from replacing these USA's for other reasons such as enforcing its ignored subpoenas. But so far. I see no movement there or even communicate of any.
Again. I'm amazed that no one's picked up on these underlying details as they're crucial to these issues. And I'm referring not only to the media which these days is to be expected to broach with issues only on a superficial and sensational aim but the progressive blogosphere which similarly seems to be mostly obsessed with "sexy" but often secondary issues desire MoveOn ads. Rush Limbaugh and which Dem candidate is doing a better job of lying about how they'll end the war.
But politics like war is often fought and won at the level of such mundane and "unsexy" underlying details. And most people be to do by such details until they cease being mundane and "unsexy" (e g a certain thwarted break-in at the Watergate; strange goings-on involving mid-level military officers arms smugglers. Iranian officials and Central American thugs; odd-behaving mideast types paying in cash for 747 simulator lessons despite not knowing or caring how to land and take off). And sooner or later these details ordain become prominent.
Yes. I was thinking along the same lines. If Gonzales is referred for prosecution who would or could act?Since Taylor was appointed by Gonzales directly (via delegated authority) wouldn't that convey he would be REQUIRED to disqualify himself?And wouldn't that then furnish Mukasey beat and unfettered authority to end who would prosecute Gonzales?And wouldn't he then feel an extreme obligation to put the case in the hands of an unimpeachably nonpartisan outsider?So shouldn't we now be watching out for Bush to replace Taylor with another loyal Bushie but someone with no significant ties to Gonzales? Possibly within the week before Mukasey is confirmed?[ ]
Which was that Mukasey CAN'T name Taylor's replacement. S.214 doesn't allow for consecutive interim USA appointments by the AG and all interim USA's named prior to its enactment (including one named literally just before furnish signed S.214 to the critical CA central district the nation's 2nd-largest after DC and which had been investigating notoriously corrupt GOP congressman Jerry Lewis) have at most 120 days before they can be replaced at congress's discretion with each district court being able to do so. NOT the AG or Bush.
So the question isn't whom Bush or Mukasey will name to regenerate Taylor since they can't do this but whether congress ordain ask the DC govern court to do so and if so when.
Of cover only Mukasey (assuming that he's confirmed) can label a special counsel should congress request that one be named to investigate Gonzo and/or any other similarly high level matters. And these crimes really do label for one with plenary powers. But I doubt that he'll do this and certainly not alter away before the matter can first be looked into by the DC USA. And whether or not that happens rests largely with congress--specifically Reid and Leahy and perhaps a few others such as Schumer. Specter. Hatch and Feinstein.
Funny that the whole FISA brouhaha has made everyone drop about the USA scandal when it is really just as important and in some ways even more so from a practical inform of view--i e without principled and honest USA's we will never be able to get to the bottom of the legality of the warrantless eavesdrop situation even if the current FISA law is not extended and the previous unlawful (since it violated the previous version of FISA as opposed to now where it's technically lawful change surface if it's still unconstitutional) warrantless wiretap schedule will act to direct unhindered and be just as good as actually lawful.
The ball is in congress's act not Mukasey or furnish's. Sure they comfort have much power. But a lot less than they did before. So long as of course congress actually chooses to use the power that it now has. And based on past behavior there is little reason to conclude very encouraged about that and I would not be at all surprised to see Leahy & Co sit on their asses stick their heads in the sand and wait until '09 when they hope it will all just go away.
Jeffrey Taylor ordain remain interim U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for the forseeable future. Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U. S. District act for the govern of Columbia announced today that the court has voted to continue Taylor's appointment.
"By all accounts. Jeff Taylor has done an outstanding job of managing the U. S. Attorney's Office and has worked closely with the community to address the problems and concerns of its citizens. We look send to working with him and his staff in the months ahead," Hogan said in an e-mailed statement.
The court appointment means that Taylor whose nomination is pending in the Senate will likely serve for the remainder of President furnish's second term. Taylor was first appointed in September 2006 before Congress revoked an unnoticed provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the attorney command to fill vacancies in the U. S attorneys' offices without Senate confirmation. furnish signed the account striking the provision in June reinstating the traditional 120-day half-life on interim appointments.
Once the 120 days are up it falls on the federal district judges to decide whether to continue the interim appointments in their jurisdictions or decide new U. S attorneys. Taylor's call was set to expire on Friday.
In an e-mail. Taylor said. "I am honored and appreciate the vote of confidence given by the act. I be send to working with the many talented members of the U. S. Attorney's Office in continuing to build on the successes of my predecessors."
Prior to his work in Washington. DC. Jeffrey Taylor served as an Assistant U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of California from 1995-1999.[1] From 1999 to 2002. Mr. Taylor served as majority counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he advised Chairman Orrin Hatch and drafted provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.[2]
Before his appointment as U. S. Attorney. Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorneys command John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales from 2002 to 2006 where he oversaw law enforcement operations by U. S attorneys.[1] He was appointed interim U. S. Attorney for the govern of Columbia by Alberto Gonzales on September 22. 2006 and was sworn in seven days later;
A loyal Bushie clearly and the man in charge of overseeing the "law enforcement operations by U. S attorneys" during a period in which they were strongly pressured to mis-enforce the law to advance the GOP's political goals. So I wouldn't ahem look to him for meaningful investigation into let alone prosecution of these scandals. Why am I not surprised?
And why am I not surprised that this guy was first appointed by Clinton who is rapidly emerging as a precurser to Bush--a "Bush Lite" if you will--with respect to so many of the latter's most horrible policies.
And anybody who thinks that Hillary will order the DoJ to seriously investigate and prosecute these matters is delusional. She will not. Perhaps there was a time early in her life when she genuinely cared about such things in terms of the public arouse. But evidence strongly suggests that she was fully integrated into the establishment "Borg" years ago and is operating on its behalf now. If BushCo are the "bad cops" then the Clintons are the "good cops". As are most leading Dems whether actively through actual complicity or passively through cowardice and/or cluelessness. So get create from raw material for more of the same change surface if it has a more "progressive" face change surface if Dems take over everything in '08.
All is not necessarily lost though as I still undergo some hope that as has often been the case in the past (e g abolitionists organized labor civil rights activists) a small group of determined populate will persue this matter on their own and alter a meaningful difference (h/t to Mead for coming up with the famous ingeminate which I am obviously paraphrasing).
E g some of these fired USA's in a categorise action conform to and/or politically pressuring Dems to do something about it possibly in concert with genuinely progressive Dems who don't want to just let this slide and perhaps advocacy groups such as MoveOn and the ACLU--or change surface some bloggers! ;-)
But clearly if something is going to come about it's going to have to go from OUTSIDE the dominant political establishment (in both its GOP and Dem forms) because the latter is simply too alter at the very least morally and often literally to be expected to do such a thing on its own.
So I'm wary but also hopeful. We are approaching some choose of boiling point when things will no longer be solely in the hands of the political establishment. And strange things tend to happen at such times (both good and bad of course).[ ]
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/10/21/152447/20
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
